India’s Balancing Act

By Subir Bhaumik

April 2006

Irrawaddy

Business interests compete with human rights concerns in forging Burma policies

Burma has shot back to the top of India’s foreign policy agenda following Indian President APJ Abdul Kalam’s visit last month, and battle lines are now being drawn in New Delhi over the contentious question of how to deal with the military junta.

The military establishment in India and its business community have started fresh lobbying in New Delhi to keep the country’s Burma policy of dealing with the generals on course. But human rights groups in the country and many smaller political parties want the government to come out in direct support of Burma’s pro-democracy movement.

In recent weeks, New Delhi has come under substantial US pressure to join the international community in urging the Burmese junta to restore democracy.

During his visit to New Delhi in early March, US President George W Bush discussed the issue of Burma’s “increased human rights violations” with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, and both leaders called for the release of opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi from house detention without any further delay. But Singh assiduously refrained from issuing a call for the return of democracy to Burma—unlike his late predecessor, Rajiv Gandhi in 1988.

Instead, the Indian president only “offered help” to Burmese military strongman Snr-Gen Than Shwe with “political and administrative training for restoring democratic institutions”—a roundabout way of suggesting India would like Burma to return to democratic ways. But he said he would not press the generals to do it.

In the 13 years since India gave up its commitment to the cause of democracy in Burma and started dealing with the generals, powerful lobbies in New Delhi have emerged favoring the progressive improvement of relations with the junta for the “promotion of India’s national interest.”

“We want our relations with the Burmese military government to improve further,” said former Indian army chief Gen Sankar Roychoudhury, now a member of the upper house of the Indian parliament. “The Burmese army is attacking some of our northeastern rebels based in that country and we are happy about it.”

India has not only obliged the Burmese junta in driving out and even killing Kachin, Chin and Arakanese rebels from its territory. It intends to compete with China in becoming an important supplier of military hardware to the Burmese army—from high-velocity rifles to aircraft produced on license from other countries. New Delhi is prepared to sell all that Burma’s generals want to buy from them in an effort to reduce dependence on China.

Indian president Kalam said on his return from Burma that trade between India and Burma should increase sharply in the next three years. The volume of bilateral trade in the financial year 2003-2004 amounted to US $470 million.

“We need to work out a method by which we can aspire to increase this volume to around $2 billion within the next three years,” Kalam said.

The Indian president promised development of a hydro-electric power project at Htamanthi, Sagaing Division, which has a 1,000 megawatt potential, and work on the India-Burma-Thailand trilateral highway, which is likely to start soon. The president also suggested the development of port facilities in Burma for the benefit of the two countries.

“Burma-India relations have an important bearing on the peace, stability and development of the region and the Asian continent,” said President Kalam.

India is desperate to get as much natural gas as it can from the blocks in Arakan State. Prime Minister Singh, an economist with ambitions to make India an economic power, is keen to ensure energy security to keep the country’s 7-8 percent annual economic growth on course.

“He wants all possible trans-border energy sources tapped, and Burma is important in his schemes. He would rather settle for Burma’s gas than back its movement for democracy,” said Paula Banerjee of the Southeast Asian Studies Department of Kolkatta University.

Even West Bengal’s ruling leftists, normally supportive of Burma’s pro-democracy movement, see an opportunity for regional economic growth if enough natural gas starts flowing from Burma. “Gas from anywhere will transform our economy,” said Bengal’s industry minister Nirupam Sen.

Only some of the smaller parties of the left, like Forward Bloc or the Revolutionary Socialist Party, support Burma’s pro-democracy movement.

“They are the driving force behind the new parliamentary caucus on Burma, but we don’t think these people can effectively influence India’s Burma policy,” says Burma-watcher B B Nandy. Nandy worked on the Burma desk of India’s external intelligence agency, Research and Analysis Wing, for several years.

Nandy describes India’s policy on Burma over the past 10 years as “bankrupt” and maintains that the generals in Rangoon have taken New Delhi “for a huge ride.”

“We may end up getting very little gas from Arakan State,” he warns. “Much of it may go to China.” And he questions official Indian approval of Burmese military action against border rebels: “The Tatmadaw (armed forces) are attacking only Naga rebels who aspire for a united Naga homeland encompassing territories in Burma. They don’t attack the powerful Manipuri or Assamese guerrillas who pay off the generals.”

Nandy says India should unambiguously back the democracy movement in Burma and play a major role in pressuring the generals to accept the proposal by the National League for Democracy for a phased political transition.

Nandy’s views are echoed by many of India’s top human rights groups and respected old school Gandhians like Nirmala Deshpande. But they don’t count for very much in Indian realpolitik.

“How can we flaunt ourselves as the world’s largest democracy and then look the other way when the Burmese fight for democracy?” asks Ranabir Sammadar, director of the Calcutta Research Group. “This is criminal and unethical and no politics is acceptable without ethics.”

Unethical it may be, but there’s no indication that India intends to do anything else but continue to talk business with Burma—perhaps holding the democracy card in reserve, to be played if Burma is seen to be leaning too much towards China.