10-07-2007, 08:13 PM
<span style='color:red'>India needs Burma</span>
Swapan Dasgupta
At the best of times, unless it emanates from the Anglosphere or Pakistan, foreign news interests only a minusculity; at the worst of times, it is ignored altogether. As such, it was hardly surprising that TV images of Buddhist monks marching silently through the streets of Yangon seemed remote, if not unfamiliar.
Had it not been for the halo around Aung San Suu Kyi, the woman who has replaced Nelson Mandela as the living Mahatma, the turmoil in Burma would have been ignored altogether by an India that has too much on its own plate.
History being at a permanent discount in a country on the make, few recall that <b>just 70 years ago Burma was an integral part of India. Nearly 20 lakh people from other provinces lived and worked in Burma; two-thirds of the population of Rangoon (as it was then known) comprised migrants from India; Karen and Kachin contingents added muscle to the Indian army; Burma rice was a staple and the Burma cheroot an indulgence. From the pagoda that once graced Calcutta's Eden Gardens (adjoining the cricket ground) and King Thibaw's palace of exile in Ratnagiri to Sarat Chandra Chatterjee's novels, Burma was etched in the Indian consciousness.</b>
The separation of Burma from India in 1937, the expulsion of nearly four lakh Indians in 1963 and the military regime's self-imposed isolation from the world may have contributed to Burma's receding mindshare in India. Actually, the eclipse was part of a larger process of the physical and mental truncation of India.
It is worth recalling the change in frontiers the past 70 years has brought about. <b>In 1937, India shared land borders with Persia (Iran), Afghanistan and Russia in the west and China, Tibet, Siam (Thailand), French Indo-China (Laos and Vietnam) and Malaya in the east. Ceylon lay just across the Palk Straits and the emirates in the Persian Gulf constituted a sphere of Indian influence, controlled by an India-appointed resident in Bushehr.</b> Successive viceroys exchanged angry notes with London demanding a similar arrangement in Teheran and Baghdad.
The enlarged frontiers were linked to India's security. India, explained Lord Curzon, the most nationalist of the imperialists, "is like a fortress...; but beyond these walls, which... admit of being easily penetrated, extends a glacis...We do not want to occupy it, but also we cannot afford to see it occupied by our foes... That is the secret of the whole position in Arabia, Persia, Afghanistan, Tibet, and as far eastwards as Siam. He would be a short-sighted commander who merely manned his ramparts in India and did not look beyond."
<b>Tragically, in the first flush of Independence, India's socialist leaders dismissed the Great Game as an imperialist fantasy. Already hamstrung by Partition, India vacated the Asian space to China, Russia and the US. A series of disastrous economic turns reduced India to a bit player, scarcely able to look beyond Pakistan. India suffered a reduction of stature, responsibilities and ambition. It is only in the past decade - with the recovery of economic composure - that the recovery of a lost inheritance has begun. </b>
<b>Burma was always regarded as the buffer zone between India and an expansionist China. But India abdicated its responsibilities and allowed Beijing to become the dominant influence in Burma. Today, China lurks over India from Pakistan, Tibet, Nepal and Burma. Its shadow has encroached into the Bay of Bengal and the Andaman islands.</b>
For India, the upsurge in Burma is an opportunity to turn the clock back. But before that happens, Burma must return to our mental map. India needs Burma more than Burma needs it.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Opinion...how/2435736.cms
Swapan Dasgupta
At the best of times, unless it emanates from the Anglosphere or Pakistan, foreign news interests only a minusculity; at the worst of times, it is ignored altogether. As such, it was hardly surprising that TV images of Buddhist monks marching silently through the streets of Yangon seemed remote, if not unfamiliar.
Had it not been for the halo around Aung San Suu Kyi, the woman who has replaced Nelson Mandela as the living Mahatma, the turmoil in Burma would have been ignored altogether by an India that has too much on its own plate.
History being at a permanent discount in a country on the make, few recall that <b>just 70 years ago Burma was an integral part of India. Nearly 20 lakh people from other provinces lived and worked in Burma; two-thirds of the population of Rangoon (as it was then known) comprised migrants from India; Karen and Kachin contingents added muscle to the Indian army; Burma rice was a staple and the Burma cheroot an indulgence. From the pagoda that once graced Calcutta's Eden Gardens (adjoining the cricket ground) and King Thibaw's palace of exile in Ratnagiri to Sarat Chandra Chatterjee's novels, Burma was etched in the Indian consciousness.</b>
The separation of Burma from India in 1937, the expulsion of nearly four lakh Indians in 1963 and the military regime's self-imposed isolation from the world may have contributed to Burma's receding mindshare in India. Actually, the eclipse was part of a larger process of the physical and mental truncation of India.
It is worth recalling the change in frontiers the past 70 years has brought about. <b>In 1937, India shared land borders with Persia (Iran), Afghanistan and Russia in the west and China, Tibet, Siam (Thailand), French Indo-China (Laos and Vietnam) and Malaya in the east. Ceylon lay just across the Palk Straits and the emirates in the Persian Gulf constituted a sphere of Indian influence, controlled by an India-appointed resident in Bushehr.</b> Successive viceroys exchanged angry notes with London demanding a similar arrangement in Teheran and Baghdad.
The enlarged frontiers were linked to India's security. India, explained Lord Curzon, the most nationalist of the imperialists, "is like a fortress...; but beyond these walls, which... admit of being easily penetrated, extends a glacis...We do not want to occupy it, but also we cannot afford to see it occupied by our foes... That is the secret of the whole position in Arabia, Persia, Afghanistan, Tibet, and as far eastwards as Siam. He would be a short-sighted commander who merely manned his ramparts in India and did not look beyond."
<b>Tragically, in the first flush of Independence, India's socialist leaders dismissed the Great Game as an imperialist fantasy. Already hamstrung by Partition, India vacated the Asian space to China, Russia and the US. A series of disastrous economic turns reduced India to a bit player, scarcely able to look beyond Pakistan. India suffered a reduction of stature, responsibilities and ambition. It is only in the past decade - with the recovery of economic composure - that the recovery of a lost inheritance has begun. </b>
<b>Burma was always regarded as the buffer zone between India and an expansionist China. But India abdicated its responsibilities and allowed Beijing to become the dominant influence in Burma. Today, China lurks over India from Pakistan, Tibet, Nepal and Burma. Its shadow has encroached into the Bay of Bengal and the Andaman islands.</b>
For India, the upsurge in Burma is an opportunity to turn the clock back. But before that happens, Burma must return to our mental map. India needs Burma more than Burma needs it.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Opinion...how/2435736.cms