09-17-2003, 09:44 AM
I didnt want to start another thread just for Myanmar, so i changed the title of the existing thread.Note the word realism can mean both the dictionary meaning or the more pregnant version prevalent among the practitioners of 'realist strategy' in America.
[url="http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=42065"]Realism in India-Myanmar Relations[/url]
N Chandra Mohan
Signs of Indiaâs more ârealisticâ diplomatic engagement with the rest of the world are in evidence not just with reference to Israel but also with neighbouring Myanmar. The latterâs military regime has come under global criticism for its treatment of Nobel laureate Aung Sang Suu Kyi, but Indiaâs relationship has been burgeoning with its Yangon, especially since the early 1990s. What is responsible for this shift in Indiaâs stance?
Renaud Egreteau, re-search fellow at the Centre de Sciences Humaines, IEP, Paris, has his own take on this relationship which he sees as evolving from Nehruvian idealism to realism. The idealist phase lasted for three decades since General Ne Win came to power in 1962, during which India had very little to do with the military dictatorship. Myan-mar then existed under a self-imposed isolationism.
Indiaâs rethink on its relationship with Myanmar (then Burma) dates from the uprising and coup dâetat in 1988 and the influx of refugees into North-east Indian camps. Between 1988 to 1992, the idealist phase lingered on as our policy vacillated between support for the democracy movement and continuing with diplomatic isolation. Egreteau argues that 1993 indeed was the year when the ârealist U turnâ took place in Indiaâs policy towards Myanmar.
Several factors were responsible for this, including the China factor. The fact that the dragon had filled the diplomatic vacuum by intensifying its relationship with Myanmar since the late 1980s was not lost on India. But it was Prime Minister PV Narasimha Raoâs new Look East policy that made our diplomats really wonder whether ignoring a strategic neighbour like Myanmar was a good thing or not.
An overhaul of Indiaâs policy towards greater engagement with Myanmar thus began, starting with the visit of Indiaâs foreign secretary in March 1993. Since then, India took a decision not to interfere in the internal affairs of that country and engage its military regime. 1994-96 saw enhancement of economic cooperation between the two countries. But the decisive shift towards realism came with the formation of a NDA-led government since 1998.we have remarked on the significant shift in foreign policy towards 'realism' in the past
Jaswant Singh, the then foreign minister, was the architect of realism in seeing Myanmar as a land and sea bridge towards the Asian region. During this phase (which continues to date), there have been military to military dialogues and political rapprochement. The stakes have also included management of the security situation in the North-east. Initiatives like BIMSTEC also took off during this phase. For these reasons, both India and China have avoided isolating its neighbour although international pressure is mounting on Myanmarâs military regime to return to the path of democracy.
[url="http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=42065"]Realism in India-Myanmar Relations[/url]
N Chandra Mohan
Signs of Indiaâs more ârealisticâ diplomatic engagement with the rest of the world are in evidence not just with reference to Israel but also with neighbouring Myanmar. The latterâs military regime has come under global criticism for its treatment of Nobel laureate Aung Sang Suu Kyi, but Indiaâs relationship has been burgeoning with its Yangon, especially since the early 1990s. What is responsible for this shift in Indiaâs stance?
Renaud Egreteau, re-search fellow at the Centre de Sciences Humaines, IEP, Paris, has his own take on this relationship which he sees as evolving from Nehruvian idealism to realism. The idealist phase lasted for three decades since General Ne Win came to power in 1962, during which India had very little to do with the military dictatorship. Myan-mar then existed under a self-imposed isolationism.
Indiaâs rethink on its relationship with Myanmar (then Burma) dates from the uprising and coup dâetat in 1988 and the influx of refugees into North-east Indian camps. Between 1988 to 1992, the idealist phase lingered on as our policy vacillated between support for the democracy movement and continuing with diplomatic isolation. Egreteau argues that 1993 indeed was the year when the ârealist U turnâ took place in Indiaâs policy towards Myanmar.
Several factors were responsible for this, including the China factor. The fact that the dragon had filled the diplomatic vacuum by intensifying its relationship with Myanmar since the late 1980s was not lost on India. But it was Prime Minister PV Narasimha Raoâs new Look East policy that made our diplomats really wonder whether ignoring a strategic neighbour like Myanmar was a good thing or not.
An overhaul of Indiaâs policy towards greater engagement with Myanmar thus began, starting with the visit of Indiaâs foreign secretary in March 1993. Since then, India took a decision not to interfere in the internal affairs of that country and engage its military regime. 1994-96 saw enhancement of economic cooperation between the two countries. But the decisive shift towards realism came with the formation of a NDA-led government since 1998.we have remarked on the significant shift in foreign policy towards 'realism' in the past
Jaswant Singh, the then foreign minister, was the architect of realism in seeing Myanmar as a land and sea bridge towards the Asian region. During this phase (which continues to date), there have been military to military dialogues and political rapprochement. The stakes have also included management of the security situation in the North-east. Initiatives like BIMSTEC also took off during this phase. For these reasons, both India and China have avoided isolating its neighbour although international pressure is mounting on Myanmarâs military regime to return to the path of democracy.