<p>Comparisons have been drawn between Afghanistan and Myanmar as two challenging vectors of India’s neighbourhood policy. Crafting policy toward countries in transition is always challenging. Afghanistan is also by far tricky because its future remains uncertain. Myanmar presents a far more complex challenge intellectually for the policymakers in New Delhi.<br /><br /></p>.<p>Do not forget for a moment that over 2 million Indians were summarily told to leave that country by the Rangoon authorities in the 1950s and the ministry of external affairs in South Block kept a unit till the end of seventies tasked with coordinating the rehabilitation of ‘Burmese refugees.’<br /><br />The British who were Burma’s ‘saviours’ in World War II had the experience of being overnight eased out once their job was accomplished. The sudden decision by Nay Pyi Taw last year to suspend work on the country’s biggest hydroelectric project financed by China Power Investment Corporation shows Beijing’s experience is no different, either. This despite China being Myanmar’s biggest investor, with Chinese companies having pledged more than $14 billion investment in Myanmar’s 2010-2011 fiscal year, taking the total investment pledges to $20 billion. <br /><br />Suffice to say, India is dealing with a highly nationalistic country, which has a highly focused mind with a steely resolve. Our pundits naively see Myanmar as a languid turf where Indian and Chinese influences intersect in a classic great game. Beijing comprehends better. A Chinese commentary on prime minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Myanmar summed up: “China is not interested in dictating another country’s foreign relations. It is abnormal, and cannot be sustained. Besides, history has shown us that its cons often outweigh its pros.”<br /><br />Indeed, the political transformation in Myanmar – transition to democracy as well as national reconciliation – is essentially an indigenous effort. Washington or London will be grandstanding if they staked claim they were the catalysts of change.<br /><br /> The dexterity with which Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of the opposition in Myanmar, showed in recent weeks that she is neither a pushover nor a recalcitrant opponent of the regime shows how there is going to be a ‘Myanmarese way’ out of military authoritarianism. By the way, this is also what gives hope that a return to outright dictatorship is unlikely in Myanmar and we are witnessing the dawn of a new variant of democracy in the Asean family, which is home to diverse regimes.<br /><br />Thus, the most important part of Dr Singh’s visit was to gently let the controversial chapter of the two-decades-old Indian apathy toward Myanmar’s democratic aspirations drift away and craft a contemporaneous approach.<br /><br />Fine-tuning policies<br /><br />However, both China and India have also been vindicated in ignoring the western protestations not to deal with the regime in Myanmar until western-style liberal democracy arrived. Both understood the quintessence of Myanmarese nationalism and are fine-tuning their policies, convinced that Myanmar will forever have a continued need for them in terms of geography, shared history and culture, and it simply can’t be otherwise for a country that is clear-headed about where its best interests would lie vis-à-vis two ‘emerging powers.’<br /><br />Myanmar is unlikely to make any major policy shift toward China or India following its reengagement with the west. Its economic reforms could benefit China and India as neighbouring countries, although the competition from western companies would be fierce. The biggest impact will be felt in China’s Yunnan and India’s Northeast. This is where China scores over India. Beijing has a blueprint of development for its southern regions and can co-relate it with Myanmar’s opening up but India is yet to figure out how to dovetail the development of its Northeast with the epochal changes in Myanmar. Some of the agreements signed during the prime minister’s 3-day visit keep this objective in view in sectors such as infrastructure, trade or tourism.<br /><br />The main thing is that there should be no irreconcilable conflict of interests. The joint statement issued after Singh’s visit underscored that the two sides agreed on fighting “the scourge of terrorism and insurgent activity in all its forms and manifestations.” On his return journey, the prime minister told reporters, “I have an assurance that they (Myanmar authorities) will make every effort” to thwart rebel insurgents operating against India. He added meaningfully, “We do recognise (the) problems are similar.”<br /><br />Equally, there is going to be a scramble for Myanmar’s resources. The lifting of western sanctions paves the way for western companies to take an early lead in making investments, be it in Myanmar’s natural gas or minerals. The Chinese companies are actively exploring new business opportunities. Trust Myanmar to leverage its friendly relations with the west, China and India. Myanmar will surely expect massive economic benefits from ‘opening up’ to the west and will be looking for a strong economic-political relationship with it. Can India match these competitors? What is the ‘additionality’ India can bring to the table?<br /><br />Again, the joint statement said the two leaderships agreed to “cooperate in areas such as border area development, transportation, connectivity, agriculture, trade and investment, promotion of friendly exchanges and human resources development.” Will India’s performance match these words? India needs to make good on its promises. The slow-moving Sittwe port project, rail link to Hanoi, highway connecting the Northeast with Mandalay – the projects are in lamentable gestation. These are the key issues as the curtain comes down on Dr Singh’s visit. <br /><em><br />(The writer is a former diplomat)</em></p>
<p>Comparisons have been drawn between Afghanistan and Myanmar as two challenging vectors of India’s neighbourhood policy. Crafting policy toward countries in transition is always challenging. Afghanistan is also by far tricky because its future remains uncertain. Myanmar presents a far more complex challenge intellectually for the policymakers in New Delhi.<br /><br /></p>.<p>Do not forget for a moment that over 2 million Indians were summarily told to leave that country by the Rangoon authorities in the 1950s and the ministry of external affairs in South Block kept a unit till the end of seventies tasked with coordinating the rehabilitation of ‘Burmese refugees.’<br /><br />The British who were Burma’s ‘saviours’ in World War II had the experience of being overnight eased out once their job was accomplished. The sudden decision by Nay Pyi Taw last year to suspend work on the country’s biggest hydroelectric project financed by China Power Investment Corporation shows Beijing’s experience is no different, either. This despite China being Myanmar’s biggest investor, with Chinese companies having pledged more than $14 billion investment in Myanmar’s 2010-2011 fiscal year, taking the total investment pledges to $20 billion. <br /><br />Suffice to say, India is dealing with a highly nationalistic country, which has a highly focused mind with a steely resolve. Our pundits naively see Myanmar as a languid turf where Indian and Chinese influences intersect in a classic great game. Beijing comprehends better. A Chinese commentary on prime minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Myanmar summed up: “China is not interested in dictating another country’s foreign relations. It is abnormal, and cannot be sustained. Besides, history has shown us that its cons often outweigh its pros.”<br /><br />Indeed, the political transformation in Myanmar – transition to democracy as well as national reconciliation – is essentially an indigenous effort. Washington or London will be grandstanding if they staked claim they were the catalysts of change.<br /><br /> The dexterity with which Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of the opposition in Myanmar, showed in recent weeks that she is neither a pushover nor a recalcitrant opponent of the regime shows how there is going to be a ‘Myanmarese way’ out of military authoritarianism. By the way, this is also what gives hope that a return to outright dictatorship is unlikely in Myanmar and we are witnessing the dawn of a new variant of democracy in the Asean family, which is home to diverse regimes.<br /><br />Thus, the most important part of Dr Singh’s visit was to gently let the controversial chapter of the two-decades-old Indian apathy toward Myanmar’s democratic aspirations drift away and craft a contemporaneous approach.<br /><br />Fine-tuning policies<br /><br />However, both China and India have also been vindicated in ignoring the western protestations not to deal with the regime in Myanmar until western-style liberal democracy arrived. Both understood the quintessence of Myanmarese nationalism and are fine-tuning their policies, convinced that Myanmar will forever have a continued need for them in terms of geography, shared history and culture, and it simply can’t be otherwise for a country that is clear-headed about where its best interests would lie vis-à-vis two ‘emerging powers.’<br /><br />Myanmar is unlikely to make any major policy shift toward China or India following its reengagement with the west. Its economic reforms could benefit China and India as neighbouring countries, although the competition from western companies would be fierce. The biggest impact will be felt in China’s Yunnan and India’s Northeast. This is where China scores over India. Beijing has a blueprint of development for its southern regions and can co-relate it with Myanmar’s opening up but India is yet to figure out how to dovetail the development of its Northeast with the epochal changes in Myanmar. Some of the agreements signed during the prime minister’s 3-day visit keep this objective in view in sectors such as infrastructure, trade or tourism.<br /><br />The main thing is that there should be no irreconcilable conflict of interests. The joint statement issued after Singh’s visit underscored that the two sides agreed on fighting “the scourge of terrorism and insurgent activity in all its forms and manifestations.” On his return journey, the prime minister told reporters, “I have an assurance that they (Myanmar authorities) will make every effort” to thwart rebel insurgents operating against India. He added meaningfully, “We do recognise (the) problems are similar.”<br /><br />Equally, there is going to be a scramble for Myanmar’s resources. The lifting of western sanctions paves the way for western companies to take an early lead in making investments, be it in Myanmar’s natural gas or minerals. The Chinese companies are actively exploring new business opportunities. Trust Myanmar to leverage its friendly relations with the west, China and India. Myanmar will surely expect massive economic benefits from ‘opening up’ to the west and will be looking for a strong economic-political relationship with it. Can India match these competitors? What is the ‘additionality’ India can bring to the table?<br /><br />Again, the joint statement said the two leaderships agreed to “cooperate in areas such as border area development, transportation, connectivity, agriculture, trade and investment, promotion of friendly exchanges and human resources development.” Will India’s performance match these words? India needs to make good on its promises. The slow-moving Sittwe port project, rail link to Hanoi, highway connecting the Northeast with Mandalay – the projects are in lamentable gestation. These are the key issues as the curtain comes down on Dr Singh’s visit. <br /><em><br />(The writer is a former diplomat)</em></p>
