More Pragmatic Less Moral : Myanmar's human rights crisis

" Diplomacy is an art to tell people to go to hell in such a way that they ask for directions"

 Utkarsh Agarwal (Student at Faculty of Law, JMI)

In recent times, the biggest human rights crisis faced in India's backyard i.e. Myanmar. The death toll has crossed the mark of 100 due to military firing. And it appears to be yesterday when Myanmar restored partial democracy and things seemed to have taken the right direction. Myanmar security forces open-fired on the crowd that was attending the funeral of the student that was killed by the military firing. And in that event alone, at least nine people are believed to be killed by the Junta army. 

Twelve countries have openly condemned the gross violation of human rights in Myanmar. However, the bigger question on the Indian side happens to be what should be the solid stand on Myanmar's political crisis. 

At various international platforms, India representatives have reiterated themselves as the champion of democracy and the fact that India is the largest functional democracy. However, while deciding its policy over Myanmar, one should not only be humanitarian but also pragmatic in approach. 

On 29th March 2021, India has become one of the few nations that have attended the Myanmar Armed Forces day parade. Signs are visible that India has decided to separate itself from the west ( https://cutt.ly/Bx9U7ea ). 

History of Myanmar after Independence:

On Jan 4, 1948, the nation of Myanmar attained independence from the British crown. And unlike most of the other former British colonies, Myanmar declined to become a part of the Commonwealth. From 1948 to 1962 Myanmar remained a democracy with a bicameral legislature and multi-party elections. 

The First military coup was staged in 1962 when the non-Burmese ethnic groups demanded federalism with a weak center. Although the concept of federalism was incorporated in the 1947 constitution, the notion was seen as anti-national by the Burmese army. 

1962-1974, Myanmar (then Burma) was ruled by the Revolutionary Council, and businesses were nationalized. 

In 1974, a new constitution of the Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma was adopted and until 1988, Myanmar was ruled by a one-party system.

In 1990, for the first time, multi-party elections were held by the Junta Army. National League for Democracy, headed by Aung San Suu Kyi, emerged victorious in the elections but the Army refused to cede the power.

India's Interest in Myanmar:

When it comes to foreign policy and diplomacy, interest should be considered first of all. And only after weighing such interest can one conclude. 

The first and foremost interest is the economic one. India is the 4th largest trading partner for Myanmar and the 7th largest export market. The volume of trade between the two countries reached the mark of $I.3 billion in 2017. India-Myanmar-Thailand friendship highway, which is a 3200 km highway connecting India, Myanmar, and Thailand was completed in 2016. 

Secondly, India has strategic interests in Myanmar. For countering the Chinese influence in Southeast Asia, Myanmar can be instrumental. India's engagement in Myanmar has helped the Military Junta to reduce its dependence on China. Both the nations are also the leading members of the BIMSTEC. In 2013, India provided a loan of $500 million and a pact to modernize the Burmese army. 

Thirdly, India has security interests in Myanmar. For countering the ULFA and NSCN insurgents in northeast India, intelligence provided by the Burmese Army proved to be instrumental. Armies of both countries carried out operation Sunrise and operation Sunrise 2 in 2019 on their respective sides to destroy the insurgent camps. 

Actions of the part:

It won't be new that India's foreign policy won't deter the grave humanitarian crisis in Burma. India has many times adopted the policy of non-intervention with Myanmar's Military Junta. In 2007. Indian government abstained from reacting to the Burmese anti-govt protests. In past, the Indian government has also declined to criticize the Rohingya crisis of Myanmar. Many times, the government has referred to the refugees as illegal immigrants which in turn, indirectly supports the position of Myanmar's government.

Conclusion:

Foreign policy, many times, becomes a hard pill to swallow. Especially, when supporting one's interest means indirectly supporting the anti-humanitarian act. Nonetheless, the governments are supposed to defend the interests of their citizens which is considered a primary objective. 

Considering the foreign policy from the side of Myanmar, the stand of the Myanmar Military Junta has been pro-India. While at the same time, much of the discretion of Aung San Suu Kyi has given weight to China. 

Even if supporting the Military Junta is not humanitarian but at the same time, supporting the NDL leader Aung San Suu Kyi doesn't make it moral at all. Because Aung San Suu Kyi is blotted with the issue of the Rohingya crisis. Hence, the issue demands to be dealt with with a pragmatic approach. Because, if India won't defend its interests, China would seize the opportunity.