Clean chit to Myanmar military: another Modi faux pas

As was only to be expected, Narendra Modi continues to commit one faux pas after another on foreign policy. The latest being identifying India with the Myanmar military’s malicious attitude towards Rohingyas in the country’s Rakhine state bordering Bangladesh.

The Rohingya story is heart-rending. A people derecognised as citizens by Naypyidaw in 1982 and unwanted by Bangladesh. The dialect the Rohingyas speak is not dissimilar to the language in and around Cox’s Bazar. At the same time, their settlement in Myanmar dates back to the 19th century; and any attempt to drive them out of its territory is criminal.

In such circumstances, India has studiously steered clear of condoning the Myanmar military, indeed expressed concern at times of bloody attacks by Buddhist extremists and army personnel perpetrated on Rohingyas. Now, in one stroke Modi has undone India’s high moral ground. Indeed, quick to seize on it, Aung San Suu Kyi has equated the situation in Rakhine to the problem faced by India in Kashmir.

Counter terrorism and security are admittedly important, given the history of Myanmar soil being used as a staging post by separatists in north-eastern India. But despite a section of fissiparous elements still using Myanmar as a safe haven, infiltrations these days are sporadic as compared to the sustained interference when the military in collusion with China fully turned the tap on in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Indo-Myanmar ties gradually went downhill after Myanmar’s independence in 1948. Prior to that Suu Kyi’s assassinated father and leader of the freedom movement, General Aung San, stopped in Delhi to consult with Jawaharlal Nehru before going to London in January 1947 for talks to thrash out the transfer of power.

Referring to a photo of her father outside 10 Downing Street, she said in an address to a joint session of the British parliament at the 900-year-old Westminster Hall in 2012: “He (her father) was pictured wearing a British military issue great coat given to him by Jawaharlal Nehru en route to the UK to protect him from the cold.” The coat hangs prominently as an exhibit at Aung San’s former home now converted into a museum in Yangon.

The military coup in 1962 intensified hostility towards Indians in Myanmar – most of whom were forced to flee to India – and the relationship went from bad to worse. After Rajiv Gandhi as prime minister decided to support Suu Kyi’s call for democracy, Myanmar’s policy diversified into collaborating with China to lend all out assistance to militants in Indian states bordering Myanmar.

With the cost becoming prohibitive, Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao abandoned active aid to Suu Kyi, without surrendering endorsement of her objective. This to a certain extent reined in the militancy; but it needed protracted diplomatic engagement over more than two decades and $2 billion worth of grants to consolidate the cooperation from Naypyidaw, which is not complete in practice yet. It has, of course, coincided with Myanmar’s decision to reduce its dependence on China.

The Rao doctrine emboldened Myanmar to try and rope in India on the Rohingya issue. Its diplomatic push unashamedly harped on Muslims being Myanmar and India’s common enemy.

No Indian government, not even Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s administration, rose to the bait. But Modi predictably has. His and the Myanmar military’s communal mind-set are unfortunately identical. The joint statement released at the end of his trip says: “India condemned the recent terrorist attacks in northern Rakhine State, wherein several members of the Myanmar security forces lost their lives.” No mention of the retaliation and resultant 150,000 refugees spilling over into Bangladesh.

It could be argued, standing by Myanmar’s side at a time when the international community has been ballistic in its criticism of Suu Kyi’s stance on the Rohingya situation will pay dividends. The bottom line is: counter terrorism and security objectives could have been achieved conditionally; in other words, coupled with a proviso that Myanmar needs to get its act together.

There is no doubt Islamists fuelled by Saudi Arabia-based bodies have been engaged in provoking violence from Myanmar authorities. The latter have not just fallen for the trap, but responded disproportionately. In effect, to lay the blame on Suu Kyi is a misunderstanding of realities.

The fact is Suu Kyi has been in government a mere 18 months. She may be de jure state counsellor or roughly prime minister; but de facto she has limited powers on the Rohingya matter. The military is still constitutionally in-charge of the ministries of home, border areas and defence.

It is absurd to suggest she should rebel against the military and her people – who are overwhelmingly Buddhist and sadly hateful towards Rohingyas – and thereby sacrifice her political career and with it whatever little democracy has been achieved in Myanmar.

She took the step of inviting the former UN secretary-general, Kofi Annan, to make recommendations to ease the problem. Implementation of such suggestions would be a step in the right direction. At the same time, there is no time frame within which she will succeed in convincing her military to adopt a more humane attitude. Of course, speaking out rather than remaining silent would be a good idea.

As for Modi, he hasn’t borne in mind that standing shoulder to shoulder with Suu Kyi is one thing, doing the same with the Myanmar military is another. He has, tragically for India, chosen the latter. And in so doing has unwisely drawn a parallel between the Rohingya and Kashmir imbroglios in the eyes of the world. Besides, Bangladesh has been one of India's closet allies in recent years. It is unlikely to be best pleased by Modi's Rohingya policy.