×
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

India's balancing act

India's cautious approach has grown out of the dangers to our interests by the ingress of Islamist forces in the sensitive region.
Last Updated 17 September 2017, 18:57 IST

The exodus of over three lakh Rohingyas from Myanmar’s Rakhine state to Bangladesh since August 26 has thrown the global spotlight on a people who are unwanted everywhere. It has lead to widespread criticism of the iconic Daw Aung San Suu Kyi who is, given the complexities of Myanmar’s political system, effectively only the leader of the civilian component of the Myanmar government.

The UN Security Council discussed the issue in a closed-door meeting on September 13 and agreed to issue a press statement calling for an end to the violence and a resolution of the refugee problem. These developments also pose a challenge for Indian diplomacy.

The trigger to this massive refugee flow was an attack on August 25 by the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) on around 30 Myanmar police posts, killing 12 people, and the situation that has ensued since then in Rakhine. Rohingya spokesmen and international human rights groups are claiming, though, that the Myanmar security forces are deliberately targeting innocent Rohingyas, including women, and setting fire to their villages, which has led to lakhs of them abandoning their homes.

In fact, United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Raad Al Hussein has said, “The situation seems a text book example of ethnic cleansing”. The same view has been expressed, though not as strongly, by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. Is this criticism of Myanmar justified?

There is no doubt that the Rohingyas, who speak a language akin to Bengali, are discriminated against in Myanmar. They are not recognised as Myanmar nationals although they have lived in Rakhine for a long time. The earliest Rohingya settlers reached Rakhine many centuries ago, although a large number of them went there when the British ruled Myanmar from India.

The Myanmar people deeply resent all migration that took place from the Indian sub-continent into their country during the British period and have denied all such migrants, of which Rohingyas are a part, Myanmar nationality. Many Indian-origin people, apart from the Rohingyas, were virtually compelled to leave in the 1960s and those who remain continue to be non-citizens.

Ethnicity is a complex and divisive matter in Myanmar. The ethnic Burmans form a plurality and, broadly speaking, control the army and the government. The other traditional ethnic groups rose up in armed revolt, and while an uneasy calm prevails in the country a balance is still to be worked out on the ethnic issue.

Suu Kyi’s father Aung San, an ethnic Burman who married, to his followers’ great disappointment, a Karen nurse who was Suu Kyi’s mother, was the tallest leader of the country before independence in 1948 and the founder of the Myanmar army. He tried to settle the ethnic issue but was assassinated. Suu Kyi married a British academic and thus, for the army, went beyond the pale.

The army simply does not trust her and this is relevant today even in a consideration of the Rohingya question. It should not be forgotten that her struggle against the army was first and foremost an intra-Burman issue and then a national one.

True democracy has not come to Myanmar as yet, for the army has a major bloc of seats in Parliament and controls almost exclusively the coercive apparatus of state. The formation of armed Rohingya groups plausibly connected with international jihadist forces has made the matter a security one and has reduced Suu Kyi’s space for manoeuvre.

She is aware that the army hardliners are xenophobic and aggressively Buddhist; they would be willing to turn the clock back on all the political progress that has been made and take the country towards isolation once again. Suu Kyi is now expected to address the Myanmar nation on September 19, the day the UN General Assembly begins a new session. She will no doubt try to chart a middle course.

Harsh truth

Violence against the Rohingyas offends, and rightly so, the global conscience. The Myanmar army needs to be restrained so that while fighting the insurgents, the innocent are not harmed. However, there is so much of global hypocrisy and the pursuit of selective approaches on humanitarian issues by all countries.

Those powers who wax eloquently on humanitarian concerns become strangely muted when their strategic or economic interests get involved. This is the harsh, even if it is sad, reality of international politics.

Self-interest trumps altruism every time. This is demonstrated by the pitiful conditions of Rohingya communities who have been living in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan for decades. While the latter is in the forefront in condemning Myanmar these days and Pakistani jihadi groups are calling for Islamic solidarity against Myanmar, it has allowed the Rohingyas to be treated in a sub-human fashion in Karachi.

On his recent visit to Myanmar, Prime Minister Narendra Modi refused to join the international chorus, or Indian voices, against Suu Kyi and the actions of the Myanmar security forces. He only said that the concerns of all stakeholders in the Rakhine need to be addressed. This cautious approach has grown out of India’s own experience in dealing with the country and the dangers to its interests by the ingress of Islamist forces in a sensitive region almost abutting India.

The essential difficulty for India now lies in finding the right diplomatic balance. For Bangladesh is facing the brunt of the refugee flow and Sheikh Hasina has come under great pressure from domestic critics on the issue. She has severely criticised Myanmar and looks to India to compel it to exercise restraint so that the refugee flow can be reversed. To assuage her concerns, India came out with a statement, upon Modi’s return from Myanmar, in which its call for the return of peace to Rakhine became stronger.

India has about 40,000 Rohingya refugees. Recently, government ministers have emphasised that as they are illegal, they will be deported. While this is not an unreasonable position in principle or as a medium-term objective, the fact is that in the present circumstances it would be impossible to achieve. Hence, such statements will only add to India’s diplomatic difficulties and are best avoided.

(The writer is retired Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs)

ADVERTISEMENT
(Published 17 September 2017, 18:57 IST)

Follow us on

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT