Message from Burma (The Indian Expr

[aungsan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Subject: Message from Burma (The Indian Express July 3, 1996)


 
INDIA HAS TO DO AN IDEOLOGICAL BALANCING ACT IN 
YANGON 
India should learn from ASEAN's policy of constructively engaging  
Myanmar, argues K P Nayar 
 
EVENTS in Yangon in the last fortnight have once again brought into 
focus India's inability to reconcile its security interests in Myanmar 
with its professed commitment to democracy in the neighbouring 
country. Western reports, lapped up by the Indian media in recent 
week, have concentrated on the crowd - averaging about 5,000 - 
which regular gather at Aung San Suu Kyi's residence to listen to her. 
It is an indication of the confidence of Myanmar's ruling State Law 
and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) that, un-mindful of the stir 
that Suu Kyi is creating in the western media. It is concentrating its 
energies on an event that will soon make the dissident's leader crowds 
insignificant and, perhaps, irrelevant. 
 
The event that the military government in Yangon is carefully 
preparing for is a tour of Buddhist relics from China which are due to 
arrive in Myanmar in December. This will be the second such 
exposition of Buddhist relics from China in Myanmar. 
 
The first such exhibition about three years ago caused a major 
sensation across the country. Millions of people came out to pay their 
respects to the relics, many of them parting with precious possessions 
as their tribute to the exposition. 
 
For many Myanmarese it was an event of a lifetime. There is a lesson 
in this for India as scenes of wild jubilation and religious fervour seen 
across Myanmar three years ago are set to be repeated. 
 
It was during Rajiv Gandhis prime minister-ship that India promised 
Yangon that Buddhist relics from this country would be sent to 
Myanmar. But nothing came of it in several years and after many 
reminders. 
 
In 1992, the Chinese stepped into the vacuum created by the 
unfulfilled Indian promise and offered to send to Myanmar the sacred 
relics in their possession. The government in Yangon was delighted 
and the Chinese made full use of what they saw as an opportunity to 
endear themselves to the deeply religious people of Myanmar. 
 
By the time India realised that it had lost a good opportunity and 
offered to send the relics last year, the government in Yangon had 
made up its mind. It turned down the offer which was communicated 
through P. Chindambaram, then Commerce Minister in the 
Narasimha Rao government, during his visit to Yangon. 
 
For several years now, India's Myanmar policy has flip-flopped 
wildly, alternating between a realisation of the security dimensions of 
Indo-Myanmarnese ties and the interests of a powerful lobby in New 
Delhi which would like to see Suu Kyi in power. 
 
The Rao government gave in to the demands of India's security 
interests and turned around a relationship which was stagnating and 
rapidly yielding ground to the Chinese. 
 
As a result, in 1992, joint operations were initiated to ensure border 
management and tackle drug trafficking and arms smuggling. A year 
later, through a landmark agreement, trade along the 1,700 km, Indo-
Myanmarese border was legalised. 
 
The thread of what the Rao government set in motion needs to be 
urgently picked up by the United Front government. As External 
Affairs Minister I. K. Gujral prepares to go for the ASEAN's post-
ministerial meeting in Indonesia next month, he could consider taking 
a leaf out of the South-East Asian grouping's policy of engaging 
Myanmar to shape India's own ties with Yangon. 
 
The ASEAN sees the army as a stabilising influence in Myanmar and 
believes that sanctions and pressure can have no effect on the military 
government. In support of this argument it points out that America 
has  imposed sanctions against Myanmar for six years now, to little 
avail. 
 
Indeed, ASEAN leaders believe that their policy of constructive 
engagement has produced more political liberalisation in Myanmar 
than have treats of sanctions from elsewhere. 
 
As the Gowda government reviews its options on Myanmar, one 
proposal which ought to engage its attention is the idea of a " lower 
silk route" from India to China and beyond via Myanmar. 
 
The proposal, still in an embryonic stage, has potential for creating 
enduring links among India, Myanmar and China to tap the 
opportunities which are opening up in all three countries. 
 
For India the proposal is also crucial because of its implications for 
the security situation in the North-East. Viable and meaningful 
exchanges across the Indo-Myanmarnese border can lead not only to 
better border management but also reduce the incentive in that part of 
the country to militancy. 
 
If the arrangement works well Myanmar could, in the long run, 
become India's gateway to South-East Asia. The possibilities are 
tantalising, but they can be realised only through a show of political 
will which upholds the national interest above all else. 
 
To begin with, such a policy would have to eliminate from the action 
the bleeding hearts who cry out for democracy in Myanmar, and 
ensure a readiness to deal with the legal and effective government in 
charge in Yangon. 
 
= = = = = = = = = = =  
 
Editor 
Indian Express 
 
June 24, 1996 
 
Re:     "India has to do ideological balancing act in Yangon" 
by K. P. Nayar Jun. 24. 
 
Sir, 
        It can not be taken as an indication of confidence of the 
SLORC that thousands of people assembled to listen to Aung San 
Suu Kyi for which military rulers did not prevent yet. Because being 
the disciplined regular weekend gatherings speaking on importance of 
rule of law and interpretation of democracy and etc. do not tender 
any reason to restrict by the power mongers.  
         
The argued point of tactics of a show of Buddha relics from China in 
December, if it is true, is not the right choice to counter Suu Kyi's 
media popularity. That was why SLORC hurriedly ordered the 
involuntary state-sponsored rallies through out Burma 
instantaneously after the NLD conference marking the 6th 
anniversary of the election. Not six months later. 
 
Nor is the western media which covers such events either. 
Considerable coverage appeared in the Asiaweek, the Bangkok Post, 
the Nation, the Asian Age and all of Indian papers. Not only the USA 
and UK but Japan, Thailand and Australia expressed their different 
austerity of concern on the fresh crack-down against the arrest of 262 
elected members. While the Sri Lankan politicians correctly 
pronounced to support democracy in Burma, I. K. Gujral wanted to 
bring SLORC closer to the SAARC and a senior journalist, K. P. 
Nayar advocated for a constructive engagement.  
 
The word, constructive is beautiful itself. But the people of Burma 
would be happy of constructive relation with neighbors providing 
that the relation is productive to the good of the people. What the 
people long for is clearly a popular democratic administration. Which 
is, in a democracy, more meaningful of respecting the men-in-power 
or the people-under-suppression. India is the best country to give out 
the accurate answer, isn't it? 
 
Many governments think about the interests of their respective 
countries. All businessmen look for the profit. The basic is alike then. 
I wonder if India which has been admired for Gauttma Buddha and 
Gandhiji would be bound to such a silly idea of self-supporting 
policy.  
 
Does anybody think a military government can last long in this 
civilized era? Does any government want to sit precariously on such a 
policy of so-called constructive engagement with de facto fickle 
government in Burma? 
 
At the moment ASEAN may consider the army as a stabilizing 
structure in Burma. But ASEAN could not and would not hesitate to 
deal with a new popular government when the mandate of the people 
is honored in a near future. How was the pervious military dominated 
BSPP regime before the SLORC? 
 
I don't think the NE question can be solved just by a better  
cooperation with military junta because the root of NE cause does 
not lie on whether or not presence of a democratic government in 
Burma. Meanwhile I do agree that relation with Burma is significant 
for India. That does not necessarily mean affaire d'amour with the 
SLORC. 
 
Aung San Suu Kyi and the Burmese democrats anticipate India to 
play a major role in the struggle. So may I hope the new coalition 
democratic government will reverse some miscalculated, incorrect, 
immoral convictions? 
 
Tint Swe 
 
Member of Parliament (Burma), Tel/Fax: 550-6715 
D-11, Gujranwala Apt., J-Block, Vikas Puri, New Delhi. 18 
 
= = = = = = = = = END OF TEXT = = = = = = = 
 
Message from Myanmar 
from: The Indian Express (New Delhi) July 3, 1996 
Letter to the Editor

 
Sir: It cannot be taken as an indication of confidence of the  
SLORC that thousands of people assembled to listen to Aung  
San Suu Kyi. The military rulers have not prevented it yet.  
Because disciplined regular weekend gatherings, speaking on  
the importance of rule of law and interpretation of democracy  
etc. do not offer any reason for such a step. 
 
A show of Buddha relics from China in December, if it is true,  
is not right choice to counter Suu Kyis media popularity. That  
was why SLORC hurriedly ordered the state-sponsored rallies  
throughout Burma instantaneously after NLD conference  
marking the sixth anniversary of the election. Not six months  
later. 
 
The western media do not cover such events. Considerable  
coverage appeared in The Asiaweek, The Bangkok Post, The  
Nation, The Asian Age and all India papers. While the Sri  
Lankan politicians supported democracy in Burma, I. K. Gujral  
wanted to being SLORC closer to the SAARC and a senior  
journalist, K. P. Nayar, advocated a constructive engagement. 
 
The word constructive is beautiful. But the people of Burma  
would be happy of constructive relations with neighbours  
provided the relation are productive and for the good of the  
people. What the people long for is clearly a popular  
democratic administration. 
 
Many governments think about the interests of their respective  
countries. All businessmen look for profit. I wonder if India,  
which has been admire for Gautan Buddha and Gandhiji, would  
be bond to such a silly idea of self- supporting policy. 
 
Does anybody think a military government can last long in this  
civilised era? Does any government want to sit precariously on  
such a policy of so- called constructive engagement with a de  
facto fickle government in Burma? 
 
At the moment ASEAN may consider the Army as a stabilising  
structure in Burma. But ASEAN could not and would not  
hesitate to deal with a new popular government when the  
mandate of the people is honoured in the near future. How was  
the previous military- dominated BSPP regime before the  
SLORC? 
 
I dont think the problem can be solved just by better co- 
operation with the military junta. I do agree that good relations  
with Burma are significant for India. That does not necessarily  
mean affaire d amour with the SLORC. 
 
Aung San Suu Kyi and the Burmese democrats anticipate India  
to play a major role in the struggle. So many I hope the new  
coalition democratic government will reverse some  
miscalculated, incorrect, immoral convictions? 
 
TINT SWE 
Member of Parliament (Burma) 
NEW DELHI 
 
******END******