Shifting Alliances: How Myanmar’s Ties With China Shape India’s Strategic Landscape?

In February 2021, the Myanmar military, known as Tatmadaw, seized control from the civilian government after the defeat of its affiliated Union Solidarity and Development Party during the 2020 polls. At that time, the coup leader, Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, accused the then-majority leader, Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy, of conducting rampant election fraud when it secured a landslide victory.

Illustration by The Geostrata

After the putsch, the military detained Suu Kyi on a range of charges and imposed a one-year state of emergency that sent hundreds of thousands into the streets in mass protests that were met with violent crackdowns.

The coup was followed by fierce resistance as thousands joined protests across Myanmar in the face of the military's use of live ammunition in response. The brutality drew strong condemnation from much of the international community.

A more organised and formidable resistance came in the shape of the People's Defence Force (PDF), the armed wing of Myanmar's government-in-exile. In May 2021, the PDF announced a "people's defensive war," which marked an escalation in the nationwide clashes with the military junta.

The conflict in Myanmar has boiled over into a humanitarian crisis, with three million people displaced and over 50,000 lives lost.

That unrest in Myanmar has locked the country into an unstoppable impasse, whereby the Tatmadaw and resistance forces are unable to gain any overriding advantage over one another.

Because civil war is right on its doorstep, India shares a border of 1,643 kilometres with Myanmar, underlining the regional dimensions of spillovers in violence and flows of refugees that might affect not only India but also neighbouring countries.

Instability in Myanmar is rooted in decades of cycles of military rule, poverty, and failed governance since independence in 1948. The influence of the Tatmadaw has always been pervasive, but never as severe as in this current civil conflict. It is considered one of the severest crises in modern history.

MILITARY RULE: DID HISTORY REPEAT ITSELF IN MYANMAR?

The Union of Burma gained independence from British colonial rule in 1948. It established a parliamentary democracy in the post-independence period. The democratic form of governance did not last too long, as the military coup under the leadership of General Ne Win in 1962 razed the democratic edifice to the ground and ushered in decades of authoritarian rule.

It was a constitution with which, in 1974, Ne Win's regime formalised its power; it supported a socialist economic agenda in nationalising industries, promoting an isolationist foreign policy. The effects of such policies were widespread economic instability, corruption, and a thriving black market.

In 1988, food shortages and abrupt changes in economic policy provoked mass protests; the military retaliated with violence, slaughtering thousands and forcing far more to flee. After that bloodbath, Ne Win resigned as party chairman but retained power behind the scenes as a new junta seized control.

In 1989, the regime buried the old colonial name, renaming the country the Union of Myanmar, but many, including its own official documents, continued to refer to it as Burma.

Further disgruntlement began in 2007 during the Saffron Revolution, when mass protests took place. The demonstration was named after the saffron-robed Buddhist monks who took part in it. International pressure forced the junta to allow some reforms, such as a constitution in 2008 that nominally called for a civilian government but reserved significant military powers.

In 2011, this resulted in a military-backed civilian government taking office under ex-general Thein Sein, who implemented modest reforms, such as granting political prisoner amnesties, media liberalisation, and economic changes to attract foreign investment.

In 2015, multiparty elections were held in Myanmar for the first time. Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy emerged with a decisive victory, yet the military retained a great degree of influence due to the terms of the 2008 constitution.

HOW DO THE CIVIL WAR AND MYANMAR’S GROWING TIES WITH CHINA AFFECT INDIA'S INTERESTS?

With a 1,643-kilometre porous border, India is acutely vulnerable to spillover effects of the conflict, like insurgencies, refugee inflows, and transnational criminal activities. It has been very difficult for India to prevent the movement of arms, drugs, and refugees across the border, and this puts additional burdens on local resources and provokes ethnic tensions in states like Manipur and Mizoram.

India's strategic interests in Myanmar are directly interwoven with its security and economic policies.

The Kaladan Multi-Modal Transit Transport Project (KMTTP) is an important component of India's Act East Policy, its policy for greater connectivity to its northeastern states and Southeast Asia.

The association of the project with the recent conflict in Myanmar has cast a shadow over it, as large parts of this area— especially the Rakhine and Chin States-remain outside the control of any state, with the Arakan Army and other insurgent groups holding sway over swathes of areas key to this project. This situation has jeopardised India's investments and long-term economic goals in that region.

Essentially, the idea of India's policy toward Myanmar has reflected a healthy dose of pragmatism, if not alignment, historically premised on security concerns as a hedge against an increasingly influential China in its immediate neighbourhood. The internal strife within Myanmar has sent it into the desperately open arms of China, which is liberally investing in infrastructure through the Belt and Road Initiative.

And that presents a direct threat to the strategic interests of India: China's penetration into Myanmar offers the possibility of access to the Indian Ocean and thus threatens India's maritime security.

This adds another degree of complexity to India's approach. Thousands of Myanmar nationals have sought asylum in India, presenting the country with a humanitarian challenge. The refugees coming into this country present India with a moral dilemma, but it is also a big headache for its northeastern states.

That makes life quite challenging for Indian policymakers in a balancing act between the protection of displaced populations and concerns about border security and local destabilisation.

The dilemma for India remains a tightrope walk between security priorities and an overall diplomatic stance. While it has looked on with caution at condemning the military junta in Myanmar, India should equally consider ways of matching up with the expanding influence of non-state actors in Myanmar.

The rise of insurgent groups such as the Arakan Army makes it even more challenging to engage with. India must decide whether to engage with non-state actors in the interest of safeguarding its investments in such cases or to persist with building relations with the military regime.

LOOKING FORWARD

In a nutshell, India's relations with Myanmar have become a complex challenge because of the continuing civil unrest. It needs to walk a tightrope between stability promoted through engagement with the military regime in Myanmar and the growing humanitarian crisis, coupled with security threats emanating from the conflict.

The delicate balancing act is further encumbered by the increasing clout of China in Myanmar and the emergence of transborder insurgent networks that have a direct bearing on India's strategic interests in the region.

---

BY SUKANYA SENGUPTA

TEAM GEOSTRATA

info@thegeostrata.com