By Aparna Pande
This article appeared in Indolink on October 23, 2007
India and Indian foreign policy stand for democracy, secularism and belief in multilateralism. Yet New Delhi has uttered few words in favor of democracy and the non-violent, almost Gandhian, struggle for democracy in neighboring Myanmar. While the United Nations and many Western countries spoke out against the military crackdown, India chose to remain relatively silent.
Burma gained independence from Britain in 1948, one year after Indian independence. Democratic rule in Burma ended in 1962 with the military coup led by Gen U Ne Win. In 1988 unrest over economic mismanagement and political oppression led to pro-democracy protests which were suppressed by another coup led by Gen Saw Maung. The State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC), institutionalizing military rule, was then set up. In 1989 martial law was declared and the country was named the Union of Myanmar.
In 1990 Myanmar held its first free elections in almost 30 years. The National League for Democracy led by Aung San Suu Kyi, daughter of Myanmar’s slain founding father Aung San, won the majority of the seats. However, these elections were annulled by the SLORC and Ms. Suu Kyi was placed under house arrest. Since 1992 Gen Than Shwe has ruled Myanmar.
The recent protests started from August 21, 2007 after the military regime hiked prices. For the next few weeks silent saffron clad Buddhist monks took to the streets of Myanmar’s capital, Yangon on a daily basis. The protests were initially only undertaken by monks but they soon gathered support from students and members of Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi’s pro-democracy party. The protestors marched silently down the streets often protected by cordons of ordinary citizens.
Initially, only a few hundred monks walked down the streets but by end-September the protesting crowds had grown to 100,000 protestors – both monks and democracy activists. The demonstrations also attracted considerable international attention. Hoping to stem the movement, the junta allowed the monks and their supporters to march past Suu Kyi’s house, though neither side was allowed to meet each other.
As predicted by analysts, however, the military junta decided to turn nasty once it realized that the protests were sustained and would not simply die out. Military trucks blocked the protestors’ routes and tried to prevent the marchers from reaching either Suu Kyi’s house or the Sule Pagoda at the heart of Yangon. The protestors were undeterred. As one young student said of the monks, “If they are brave, we must be brave. They risk their lives for us.” Many protestors carried flags emblazoned with the fighting peacock, a key symbol of the democracy movement in Myanmar.
80 to 90 per cent of Myanmar’s population is Buddhist and in a country of around 50 million people there are around half a million professional monks. The monks play a large role in the lives of the ordinary people by giving them religious guidance and also performing duties at weddings and funerals. Due to their highly revered status in society monks are a class with which the military has avoided conflict so far.
The monks have played a key role at historic moments in Myanmar’s history. During Myanmar’s freedom struggle many Buddhist monks suffered imprisonment and death. The historical function of the monks dates back to the days of the Burmese monarchy in the 19th century when the monks acted as intermediaries between the king and the people – often lobbying against any unpopular actions of the monarchy.
During the 1988 military coup, too, the task undertaken by the Buddhist monks was monumental. The 2007 protests are the first such large-scale protests against Myanmar’s military dictatorship in the last 20 years. The junta decided to put down the peaceful protests with an iron hand as a result of fear over their escalation. About 300 monks and activists were arrested across Rangoon after braving Government orders to stay home.
British and American attempts to impose sanctions on the Burmese military regime have been thwarted by Russia and China. The European Union threatened to strengthen existing sanctions in case the regime used violence to put down the demonstrations. The Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) too expressed “concern over the latest developments in Myanmar” and hoped that “the ongoing protests will be resolved in a peaceful manner.”
The United Nations sent a special envoy Mr. Ibrahim Gambari in order to convince the military junta to end its brutal crackdown on anti-government demonstrators. But none of Myanmar’s international interlocutors have been able to dissuade its rulers from their violent course of action.
Many Indian commentators and analysts have commented on the recent events across India’s eastern border. For some it is astonishing that ‘the land of Buddha and Gandhi’ has decided to show no solidarity with the ‘satyagrahis’ of Myanmar. They believe that India owes support to Aung San Suu Kyi, not only because she grew up in India and imbibed our democratic culture, but also because of the Gandhian non-violent path she and other Burmese democracy activists have chosen.
Indian strategic thinkers on the other hand believe that India has to maintain good relations with the military junta in Myanmar, mainly for reasons of realpolitik. Fearful of China’s rising power in South Asia and its growing ties with India’s neighbors as well as considerations relating to the readily available natural resources of Myanmar, India has tried to play its cards rather carefully.
India’s private citizens have been outspoken in condemning the Myanmar dictatorship. A peace march was undertaken in Delhi by members of ‘Solidarity for Democracy in Myanmar.’ They were joined by members from different walks of life who included former Prime Minister I.K. Gujral, former Defense Minister George Fernandes, eminent jurist Fali S. Nariman, environmentalist Vandana Shiva, Bharatiya Janata Party leaders V.K. Malhotra and Vijay Goel and Samata Party leader Jaya Jaitley. The marchers condemned the violent crackdown against protestors by the junta and urged the Indian government to immediately stop Indian military aid to Myanmar’s military junta.
At the same time Indian External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee, met with Myanmar’s Foreign Minister Nyan Win on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session, and said: “I do not subscribe to penal sanctions at all times. We should instead try to engage the country concerned in negotiations, in talks, in dialogue.”
Possibly there are deep calculations behind the Indian government’s relatively silent reaction to the incidents in Myanmar. The point to remember, however, is that these same calculations may hurt India in the long run. One of India’s longstanding assertions in international relations is its pursuit of the moral high ground. Any appearance of opportunism and neglect of fundamental principles can only cause India to lose respect in the comity of nations.
India adopted a two-fold policy in case of another neighbor –Tibet –where human rights were admittedly trampled. India maintained good relations with China and did not bring up the Tibet issue in its talks with China or in international fora. However, India gave refuge and aid to Tibetans and their key leaders like the Dalai Lama. During the nonviolent movement of the African National Congress (ANC) led by Nelson Mandela India directly backed the movement and its leaders.
Maintaining a low profile in relation to Myanmar by adopting a ‘no sanctions yet’ and ‘wait and watch’ policy is far weaker than India’s handling of the Tibet and South African issues. Allowing some sections of the Indian civil society to show solidarity with the people of Myanmar might seem like the correct policy to some analysts but it reflects a digression from India’s traditional stance in similar matters.
If India wants to live upto its Gandhian heritage and would like to be treated as an emerging and potential great power it also needs to be able to shoulder some of the responsibility which is required of great powers. And that includes standing up for your principles and learning to take a stand on one side or the other. In case of Myanmar, that stand should be in favour of Myanmar’s protesting people against an oppressive military regime.