Should India liberate Myanmar?

[Brainfade]

I had this thought when I was listening to NPR on my way to work this morning. The gut-wrenching stories of the cyclone, the aftermath, and the cruelty of the military there made me wonder if India has any role in trying to liberate the Burmese. The Western world will not dare go in there (after the Vietnam debacle), especially considering that there is no economic incentive. The other possibility is China, but their government couldn't care less about anything humanitarian, and may even be in cohorts with the Burmese military. That leaves India - should we consider a move to do something about the humanitarian crisis there? Do we have the economic and military wherewithal to pull off something like this? Recent history, of course, is against us (IPKF in Sri Lanka), but we succeeded in the past (Bangladesh). Is the humanitarian crisis close enough to our borders that such an undertaking may enter the conversations of our leaders? I am torn. I feel that there is a moral imperative to do something there with the blessings and aid of the other nations. OTOH, such an effort will compromise our progress towards our own economic well-being and long-term security. Your thoughts?

[The Outsider]

That leaves India - should we consider a move to do something about the humanitarian crisis there? Do we have the economic and military wherewithal to pull off something like this? Recent history, of course, is against us (IPKF in Sri Lanka), but we succeeded in the past (Bangladesh).

I am nowhere close to being an expert on military warfare etc. but an operation in Burma will likely involve a lot of guerilla warfare in tropical rainforests. I doubt our military is equipped to handle that kind of a challenge. Terrains like tropical rainforests, trecherous mountains have proved to almost impossible to capture in history even for some very strong militaries. Moreover, the global economy is not very stable and as developing nation, India needs to perhaps focus on strategizing it's economy to limit the losses in the market rather than wage an expensive war. What I am in favour of is if India can get together a covert operation to remove the dictatorship there and have some friendly and humane government installed. It won't bring India into the limelight and will be a much less costly affair. And yes, one thing I agree with on you is that China is undoubtedly hand in glove with the Burmese dictatorship.

[Lurker]

The day of liberating countries(or conquering them) is long gone. Today no country is as strong so as to liberate any country nor is any country so as powerless so as not to defend itself. Case in point World Superpower that is getting its ar$e handed over to it in two countries where its writ runs in small pockets of influences. This after 5 years in one country and close to 7 in the other. I am also not too keen on China being painted the villain here. The Chinese are often given more credit than they deserve. Sure one needs to take them seriously but anytime any country goes against Western interest it is automatically deemed as China being behind it. In case of Burma I do think Chinese support them but not quite to the extent that it is being argued. So what should India do? Well first of all be clear about your policy. India's foreign policy has never been quite clear, or consistent. Burma is a good example. On one hand India wants to keep Burma in its good books, not surprisingly since Burmese support to NE insurgents can give India quite an headache, on the other hand we also keep arguing about Human rights, specially against Buddhist monks and students. It would be in the interest of the region that India spells out its policies clearly. Dont try to keep happy both the sides. Personally I say come out supporting the democracy and build a world coalition. If a far flung country like UK can lead the effort why not the largest democracy that happens to be a neighbour?

[coffee_rules]

No, they should concentrate on liberating Kashmir.

[suraj]

Its a tough situation but one thing is for sure- things are really bad in Burma; may God help those folks there. The problem is Cricaddict that whether it is India or US there are simply too many cruel regimes and suffering ppl that you can never solve the problems- if Burma has it bad, African nations like Rwanda and Somalia have had horrible genocides too; where do you stop then specially if a nation like India has so many problems within.

[Desi Cartman]

India has a lot of issues from Kashmir to Assam to resolve first. It was a failure in SL when we last attempted to help a neighboring country. As for Burma, it sounds pretty bad and the regime is so ruthless that its stopping aid flowing to its own people. They have a full backing/support from china so it wont be an easy task for any country to get into a direct conflict with Burma. This issue along with Iraq & Zimbabwe once again proves what kind of joke UN has become.

[Aditi]

What for? We helped out Bangladesh and look at the thanks we get....

[CC1981]

In case of Burma I do think Chinese support them but not quite to the extent that it is being argued.

You could not be more wrong. Approx. 90% of Burmese weapons and ammunitions comes from China and China has,over the past 20 yrs, consistently vetoed ANY UN resolution condemning Burma. China has also given Burma over 10 billion dollars in soft loans,with over 5 billion already written off. Thats as involved as a country can get with propping up another short of outright invasion. I don't think you are going to see the same issues with Burma as you see with Iraq and Afghanistan wrt america. One of the biggest reason for resistence to the American will in these two countries is of religious nature...it is seen as a clash of civilizations and religious ethos and thus providing the core impetus to the recruitment of insurgents. In Burma, there is no such issue, as India is not of different socio-cultural background as BUrma is- most of Burmese culture is heavily influenced by indo-buddhist culture and in the british raj days, the bamars(main ethnic group of Burma), Arakanese(2nd largest ethnic group IIRC) and Bengalis got along famously. But no,problem with liberating Burma is the red menace sitting north of us- India cannot be the aggressor,because India will be decimated if China retaliates and also 'activates' their poodle Pakistan into war with us. However, in a scenario where China is the aggressor,liberation of Burma is very much in the cards- not only can Indian army do a fairly good job in beating up the Burmese military(which enjoys no support amongst the populace,especially the burmese clergy- there will be no religious rants to come kick out the 'invaders'), India can thrust east and threaten Kunming.

[gs]

Ideally India should go in, but I dont think we have the wherewithal to deal with the situation if China covertly or overtly enters the conflict. Its hard enough dealing with the ultras in the jungles of the NE, it would be madness to fight a well oiled military machine in the jungles in their own backyard. India wouldnt be able to use its heavy weaponry in such a terrain and airforce despite its might has its limitations. It will finally boil down to jungle fighting like in Vietnam which will probably end up being a stalemate with India paying a heavy price with blood and cash. Tough luck, Burma :(