Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is presently on a visit to India where she grew up and studied as a teen-ager. Her widowed mother was posted as the Myanmar Ambassador to India. She delivered the Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Lecture at New Delhi on November 14, 2012. She was interviewed on November 15 by Barkha Dutt of NDTV and Karan Thapar of CNN-IBN. Before her arrival, she gave a detailed interview to Nirupama Subramanian of The Hindu .
Her lecture and three interviews have made a positive impact on public mind and highlighted her affection for India and her understated regret that during the long years she was under house arrest, India avoided taking up vigorously the cause of the human rights of the Myanmar people. India’s security and power considerations and not our concerns over the rights of her people influenced our policy priorities and options. In her reply to one of the questions, she stated that she understood that Indian interests influenced Indian decisions towards her country and its military government.
There is no need for us to have a guilt complex for having allowed realpolitik considerations to influence our priorities and decisions when she was under house arrest. Suu Kyi herself is a practitioner par excellence of realpolitik.
After she was released following an agreement with President Thein Sein and got elected to Parliament, her priorities in respect of foreign visits have been Thailand, European Union, the USA and India. She intends going to China last. As between India and China, her priority is to India. As between the West and India, her priority has been to the West. Recent reports from Myanmar speak of a certain disillusionment in sections of the Myanmar political class over her perceived preferences for the West as against Myanmar’s Asian neighbours.
Since she became politically active, she has been focussing on two issues— keeping up the pressure on President Thein Sein and his government to keep moving on the road to internal democratisation and external opening-up and keeping up the pressure on the West to remove the remaining economic sanctions and the curbs on Western investments in Myanmar.
One can’t help forming an impression that in the matter of investments, she prefers investment flows from the West. She has no objection to investment flows from India but is concerned that this could lead to pressure from China for more Chinese investments.
In matters of interest and concern to India, her policies and pronouncements have been marked more by discreet silence than clear articulation. She has avoided a clear articulation of her views regarding the human rights of the Rohingya Muslims. This is an issue that in the medium and long term could have an impact on our Muslim community in the North-East. She has not uttered a word on the question of compensation for Indian businessmen who were driven out of Myanmar in the late 1950s and 1960s after seizing their property.
What I have enumerated above would show how she has had no qualms over taking decisions and advocating policies on the basis of her perceptions of Myanmar’s national interests and the interests of herself and her party.
If we had taken realpolitik decisions in the past on the basis of our perceptions of our national interests, there is no reason to let a gnawing feeling of guilt affect our future policies. Myanmar is an important buffer state between India and the Yunnan Province of China. If there is another military conflict with China due to the pending border dispute, the policies and attitudes of the Myanmar government will have an impact on our ability to counter the Chinese designs.
We have two important national interests in Myanmar— the security-related interests arising from the counter-insurgency situation in the Northeast and our border dispute with China and our economic interests arising from the need for connectivity with Bangladesh and the ASEAN countries.
We have to identify those sections of the Myanmar society and administration which will be favourably inclined towards paying attention to these interests and strengthen our links with them. At present, only the Myanmar armed forces and the government dominated by them have a positive comprehension of our interests and have been inclined to take notice of them.
Suu Kyi and her National League For Democracy have not shown such comprehension and such inclination. It will be unwise on our part to dilute the links that we had built up with the armed forces and the government dominated by them just because of our affection for Suu Kyi and our tendency to romanticise her.
We must strengthen our relations with her and her party and build on the emotional links of the past without allowing the realpolitik links with the armed forces to rust.
B. Raman is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: email@example.com Twitter @SORBONNE75
"She has no objection to investment flows from India but is concerned that this could lead to pressure from China for more Chinese investments."
This is a puzzling statement. Particularly in view of many people, including Indians, maintaining that China does not really care what India does, since China sees the US as its main competitor. This sentence seems to indicate that India is its principal rival or competitor in Myanmar. Is that really the case? So China does not have much of an issue with increased US/Japanese/European investments, but it is concerned with more Indian ones? How so, and what would be the 'concern' from the Chinese standpoint?
Santhosh John Samuel, why does India have to follow either hard boiled realpolitik, or ultra idealism? Why should the choice be between those two? There is also something called ethical self interest. India should do things that are in its interests, but at the same time, not be unethical, like China, Pakistan or North Korea. These countries have that awful mixture of venality, cunning, insecurity and often, ruthlessness. There's certainly no need for India to imbibe those qualities.
India can generally be counted on to play a progressive role globally. That's largely because India does not believe in, or pursue, domination, control and empire. To this day, India advocates, and strives for, multi-polarity, pluralism, consensus and inter-dependence. So don't worry too much about India doing a U-Turn, and becoming another China or Pakistan. Even on the specific issue of the Palestinians and Israel, India has not abandoned the idea of a just settlement for the Palestinians. India is just not anywhere near as vocal about at, as in previous decades. And India openly has fruitful ties with Israel, because India rightly perceives there are areas of technology where Israel can assist India. And because being mindlessly hostile to Israel doesn't make sense.
Rakhal (9/D-91), you would do well to read this Guha piece: http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/the-commanding-heights-of-nehru/article4094195.ece.
And no issue if your comment is also an obtuse critique of Nehru, but it would be nice if you could place it in a context, and argue it out accordingly.
To come to the crux of your comment, which is saying that foreign affairs should be guided by realpolitik and not based on principled politics, also implies that we should cease being agitated by any actions (by us or by others), because most nations would be guided only by the logic of realpolitik. The destruction in Iraq or Afghanistan or terrorism based out of Pakistan is all guided by this logic. Okay with that? Or are you talking only about 'us' being guided by this logic? Or are you suggesting that all our foreign policy pre-1990s (that incidentally was greatly influenced by our freedom struggle) was hogwash?
And why not extend this logic of realpolitik to the manner in which we govern ourselves and our politics? Why then should we get so agitated about our scams, our leaders and all the rest? Is not everyone practicing realpolitik?
The counterpoint to the header is, if the military leader in Burma had been assassinated, for any reason, there would have been great grief. Imagine if a leader like the lady made people feel that a non violent lady, who felt the armed forces is very integral to the nation is not happy, and hence is in prison. It seems unfair, towards the military. It seems, the lady is very important, perhaps her family is associated with certain establishments. Why isn't the lady pro military, and govt. also, and if she cannot be, people inside and outside the nation, could feel, that she is not happy with particular Burmese, when they might not disagree with her. She might be making herself seem more unreasonable to many, than they might appear to her supporters. Why exactly is the govt. in Burma, against her ideas and ideals, if they are, and I don't think they are? I mean, what does the U. S. A. have in common with Burma, and why should the U. S. A. find her reasonable, while others do not?
"From being an inspiration for anti-colonial struggles throughout the world, the leading voice against apartheid, lending moral support for the people of Palestine, raising a voice against nuclear weapons to where we are now represents a saddening low."
That is it? I thought the world did not move without orders from Nehru. Eisenhower, Khruschev and a host of others were waiting for daily instructions from Nehru.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT