Episode #263: Passage to India
“I strongly believe that between India and Myanmar there can be a lot of conversations taking place,” says Sanjay Valentine Gathia. “The real challenge is to find quality people, and that's where my own initiative is focused on … finding quality people who can make an impact, not just for holding the sake of holding discussion … The idea of engagement is to bring about certain changes.”
Gathia spearheads the innovative program, Borders in Broader Conversations. This initiative is “a curated ‘third space’ for Indian, Myanmar, and Thai people” that has the goal of helping forge more knowledgeable and understanding relationships between them, in particular by helping close the information gaps that exist.
This episode addresses India-Myanmar relations in particular. Gathia points out that it is somewhat strange that the two countries would not be more closely aligned, given the long period of colonial rule that had bound them so closely together.He explains that the genesis of their divergent paths began with their independence from Britain. Then, following Burma’s 1962 military coup, generally speaking, the predominant foreign policy attitude towards Burma remained one of disinterest. “Once the [Burmese] military took control, Indian policymakers felt that, ‘Ok, this is a country that is now left to its own destiny, and therefore, there is not much we can do,” he says. “So we should just focus more on our own [self-interests].’ Therefore, India was more concentrated on its own nation-building processes.” But a bit of suspicion also crept in, as the Burmese military acted aggressively against Indians then living in Burma.
By the same token, Gathia surmises that the Burmese military began to view Indians with equal suspicion around that time as well, regarding them as the instrument that the British had used to subjugate Burma during the long period of colonial rule. Then a notable shift has occurred as India attempted rapprochement with Myanmar during its transition to pseudo-democracy. However, that was short-circuited by the 2021 coup, which unfortunately, India responded to by becoming more closely aligned with the current military regime than with pro-democracy forces, in spite of the military’s brutal crackdown—perhaps an ironic turn of events, given the suspicion with which the Indian government had viewed the Burmese military since 1962. And the irony deepens, with many countries now recognizing the inevitable untenability of the military's position … while New Delhi doubles down on that relationship.
In Gathia’s view, India is practically choosing to be on the wrong side of history by continuing to back an entity that is so overwhelmingly unpopular. “We have to keep in mind that the people of Burma have actually spoken out through their actions, especially when the military took the coup in 2021,” he says. “They don't want [to] go back into a military rule, where the military is again subjugating the people and violating their rights! They had a taste of freedom, they had a taste of what they could become or aspire to be.” He continues,“The [Indian] military has developed a strong military-to-military relationship, and that is what has become dominant, because it has got linked with India's security parameters.”
Gathia elaborates on this latter issue, explaining that India’s north-east border is teeming with armed groups hostile to the Indian central authority. They move back and forth over the Myanmar-India border with impunity, and in Myanmar are not only shielded from Indian retribution, but, he says, even have “patronage or support by Myanmar's military, [so] they are still able to operate against India. And so India is still looking at the whole situation from that particular aspect.” Because India so desperately wants the Burmese military’s support in fighting against the insurgents, Gathia believes that security concerns are blinding it to the growing, new reality in Myanmar: “The dilemma is that [the Indian military] has not been able to properly read the changed landscape of Myanmar right now, and that landscape is completely a new one, not just for the Bamar people, but also for a lot of different ethnic groups,” he says. “We in India still have to read the room properly, and there is a huge need for Myanmar, which is moving towards a more federal, democratic structure. Why is there a demand for this? We still haven't understood it properly, because we still look at Myanmar from a security lens.”
To some, India’s steadfast backing of a brutal, military dictatorship may seem out of character, given India's much lauded and cherished moniker of “the world’s largest democracy.” But Gathia is not surprised. “India has changed significantly, and its structures have also changed internally,” he says. “The way we envision India is very different from when the ’88 revolution took place, and right now, the internal landscape of India has changed so much that democracy and democratic principles are also being questioned, as to what extent that they are actually catering to the aspirations of Indian people. And if they are, in what manner they are being utilized?” And even if India was still holding to those admirable values, it would not be interested in spreading them beyond its borders. “I think what we are looking at is an India that has changed a lot over the last decade, and that India has put a lot of policies in place, which it's trying to look at it from its own pragmatic purposes. And that pragmatism is more about putting its security interests first, its national interests first. And from that lens, it is looking at the region as well.”
Moreover, Sanjay believes that even if India has gained some advantages through its strategic partnership with the Burmese military, on balance, the reality is negative and becoming ever more so. The unfolding crisis has brought a major conflict to India’s doorstep, along with an influx of refugees who, as is often the case in times of crisis, are being painted by many in India as a threat to the nation. So why does the Indian government fail to acknowledge the significant security threat posed by the Burmese military and its destabilizing violence? Gathia says bluntly, “It boggles my mind, and I have no words to explain that right now.”
Gathia turns next to the role of the broader media establishment as contributing to the problem. “We are unable to have open discussions about Myanmar in India,” he says simply. “We are not able to look at it from a proper lens of where these different layers are taking place; what are the contours, what are the different stakeholders at present moment that have come on the scene.” He notes that only in the last few years has more substantial coverage of Myanmar emerged within India, but overall, interest is still not great. Gathia explains that language also compounds the challenge.“The information that is coming out is kind of locked into the English [speaking] readers,” he says, adding that media in Hindi and other languages do not usually include robust discussions about Myanmar. Gathia feels that there is a pressing need to change this dynamic. “Unless we understand these different aspects that are emerging out of the country, and where there is intersectionality of these aspects with India’s security policy, with India's own national interests, with India's economic interests, and specifically with India's Act East Policy, and Neighborhood First Policy, we in India will be still groping in the dark. We will still continue to use a narrative that is dominated by the Myanmar military.”
Reflecting on the geopolitical dimension of Myanmar-India relations, Gathia expands on the role of global powers, particularly China, in shaping Myanmar’s political landscape. While he is clear-eyed about China's strategic maneuvering in southeast Asia, he believes India needs to adopt a comprehensive policy that is not centered in simply countering Chinese influence. “I don't think that's the right approach. How can India improve its game of engagement with different stakeholders in Myanmar across the board?” Instead of just using them to stay on top of China's activities in Myanmar, he thinks that India should instead focus on engaging in a more comprehensive relationship, with the goal of working together in building a better Myanmar.
Gathia also highlights the present urgent humanitarian needs, pointing out the challenges faced by refugees from Myanmar in India, particularly in states like Mizoram and Manipur, neither of which are equipped to deal with the influx. He says that not only are these resource-poor states, but the federal government has not stepped forward to support them in providing humanitarian support. “So the people, themselves, are coming forward and trying to take care of the refugee communities or the Burmese community that is crossing over into its side.” It is a huge strain on all involved, and the Indian government is also missing out on opportunities to build political bridges for the future with these refugee communities, who will be returning to Myanmar once the junta is overthrown.
In sum, Gathia advocates for a comprehensive reevaluation of India's role and strategy in Myanmar, urging a move towards a more engaged, informed, and compassionate approach. By doing so, he believes India can contribute positively to Myanmar’s journey towards democracy and stability, while also safeguarding its own strategic interests. However, the question remains of how best to effect this policy change. He recommends a multi-layered approach, one that includes lobbying at both state and central government levels, and engaging with think tanks and other influential groups. He believes that a concerted effort to improve understanding and foster dialogue can only lead to better policies that support both India's and Myanmar's interests.
“The lobbying can be done at different levels,” he says in closing. “It can be done directly with the Indian government, it can be done with different agencies that are there, it can also be done with different Indian think tanks who are also influential. If their understanding and their knowledge is improved, I think that's what would lead to a better understanding and analysis and thereby a better policy implementation.”