Round The World
New Delhi, 5 March 2021
Democracy
Vs Dictatorship
INDIA’S
MYANMAR MOMEMT
By Dr.
D.K. Giri
Prof.
International Relations, JIMMC
The
violence and repression by the military junta in Myanmar continue unabated.
Last Sunday at least 18 people were killed and about 30 injured as police and
military forces confronted peaceful demonstrators across the country, mainly in
Yangon. Once again, the abhorrent military action has drawn reactions from
world over. The question raised and addressed here is reaction against, and the
role of India in the serious political developments in its neighbourhood, which
will determine India’s standing in the current international political
scenario.
Good or
bad, despite the recent momentary setback in US democracy with the storming of
Capitol Hill, it is the leading country in defending democracy. The US National
Security Advisor Jake Sulivan issued a strongly-worded statement on the
military crackdown, “We will continue coordinating closely with allies and
partners in the Indo-Pacific region and around the world to hold those
responsible for violence to account and to reinforce our support for the people
of Myanmar”. He warned further, “to that end, we are preparing additional
actions to impose further costs on those responsible for this latest outbreak
of violence and the recent coup”.
The Indian
reaction, as perhaps expected, came in a subdued tone from its Embassy in
Yangon. It said, “It is deeply saddened by the loss of lives in Yangon and
other cities of Myanmar as the police fired on the protesters”. It urged all
stakeholders, “to exercise restrain and resolve issues through dialogue in a
peaceful manner”.
Is the
Indian reaction adequate? Furthermore, is India taking any initiative, or
should it, to resolve the democratic tangle in Myanmar, which is strategically
as well as politically important for India? To be sure, India has a greater
responsibility as well as concern over the developments there, both two assert
its international persona and to thwart Chinese incursion into Myanmar
politics.
To recall,
on 1 February, the Myanmar military (Tatmadaw) took over the administration in
a coup against the fragile democracy, arrested President Myint and the State
Counsellor Aung Saan Suu Kyi. This was an illegal action taken on the
superficial grounds of non-transparency in the last general elections in which
the military backed Union Solidarity and Development Party lost. This resulted
in protests across the country mutating into a Civil Disobedience Movement
(CDM).
The
‘supreme leader’ of National League for Democracy, the noble peace laureate Suu
Kyi was initially charged with illegally keeping six walky-talky radios, and
for violating natural disaster law by breaching the Covid protocols. On Monday,
she was slapped with two more charges; one, under a section of colonial-era
penal code barring publications of information that may cause fear or harm, and
second, under Telecommunications law for possessing unlicensed equipment. This
shows the brazen attempt of the military to desperately draw some legitimacy
for their action.
On India’s
role and reaction, it has been traditionally straddling two horses at the same
time in Myanmar, supporting democracy movement as well as doing business with
military junta. New Delhi has been explaining it away in terms of a pragmatic
approach to prevent Myanmar from drifting into either a civil war or into Chinese
influence. Both possibilities are neither in the interest of the people of
Myanmar nor that of New Delhi.
The fresh
perspective coming from the diplomatic circles is to adopt a two-track
approach: one, to be pursued by the government and the other taken by the non-State
actors. The government will have to deal with the military as the instability
in Myanmar might trigger support for insurgency in the North-East. Further,
India’s development projects should not be derailed by the internal problems of
the country. On the second track, political parties, civil society, media,
universities and citizens are all free to back the pro-democracy movement. Such
approach might assuage to the democratic world. But will it serve India’s
long-term interest?
Scanning
the international political scenario, one comes to a realisation that the
current politics consists of a conflict between democracy and autocracy or
dictatorship. After the Cold War, which was marked by a contest between
military capabilities of two super powers, came a phase of competition for
economic and technological superiority under globalisation. One super power,
namely the USSR, declined and disintegrated in this competition for
superiority. As the economy became the determining variable, China emerged as a
world power being the second largest economy. Beijing replaced Moscow as the
alternative centre of power to Washington.
With the
rise of China came a new threat of autocracy to the democratic world. China
represents rapid rise in economic growth, technological power and trade
competence. At the same time, it is also infamous for denial of civil
liberties, human rights and defiance of a rule-based order. The emergence of
China has thus thrown the world into a debate on efficacy of democracy and autocracy.
Admittedly,
democracy is slow, could be messy and complicated. In contrast, autocracy could
be more efficient, decisive and fast. In political theory, the authors and
observers are compelled to take note of this current debate as evidenced by the
latest book by Mathew Kroenig, The Return
of Great Power Rivalry: Democracy Vs Autocracy from the Ancient World to the US
and China. This book discusses, from ancient history up to the present
time, the comparative advantages of collective action and wisdom expressed in
democratic terms and those of autocratic and dictatorial forces.
The
conclusion in the book and the universal understanding point out that democracy
is, any day, better than autocracy. The former political format gives
opportunity to the citizens to self correct and to be able to conduct their
lives as they wish. Autocracy may give material security but kills dignity,
self respect and freedom of choice and action.
Secondly,
democracy is led by United States, Europe, India, Japan, South Korea and Israel
etc. The autocracy is led by China and Russia. China also happens to be a
threat and an adversary to India. Therefore, both philosophically and
strategically India is on the side of democracy. Because of its size and
perseverance, India is known to be the largest democracy in the world. In the
long-term interest, and in its current conflict with China, democracy becomes
handy for India. At the cost of temporary dividends, New Delhi needs to defend
democracy anywhere in the world and certainly in its neighbourhood – Nepal,
Afghanistan and Myanmar, which are facing a serious democratic test.
It is high
time that New Delhi sheds its hesitation, speaks from the roof top about its
solid democratic fundamentals and credentials and shouts for preservation of
democracy. It should take a pro-active role in Myanmar in restoration of
democracy either through dialogue or through collective international pressure.
Action on Myanmar is urgent and indispensable. This is indeed a historic moment
for New Delhi to take a call on democracy. A momentous decision taken by New
Delhi now will feed its aspiration for being a world power. The ball is in our
court. ---INFA
(Copyright, India News & Feature
Alliance)
|