Aung San Suu Kyi’s
Long Road to Democracy
(THe New Indian Express Nov 19, 2012)
By T.P.Sreenivasan
Aung San Suu Kyi’s
long journey to democracy brought her to the country that shaped her
personality and inspired her to fight for freedom for her people. Rising to
deliver the Nehru Memorial Lecture in New Delhi was one of the finest moments
of her life perhaps next only to receiving the Nobel Prize for Peace. It was
also a poignant moment, as she had to come to terms with India’s policy of
befriending the very military junta, which kept her in a cage for more than
twenty years.
“I was saddened”,
she said, “by the fact that India had drawn away in our most difficult days but
always had faith in our lasting relationship. Even more significantly, she
observed, “Friendship should be based between people and not governments:
governments come and go.” This was a masterstroke on her part. In a way she
justified the Indian action by attributing it to compulsions of governments, or
realpolitik, from time to time. If there were to be an opinion poll in India
during the period of her incarceration, she would have been voted more popular
than any of the military leaders in Myanmar. The people of India were with her
throughout, while the government had to deal with the people in power. India’s
position has always been that it recognizes states, not governments and that it
deals with every government that has control over territory.
At no time in
history has an authoritarian regime permitted a democratic leader to campaign
for democracy abroad even before democracy becomes a reality in that country.
Nor has an American President ever visited a country in which the US has
sought, but not accomplished a regime change. The military leadership, Suu Kyi
and Barack Obama are taking calculated risks with implicit and explicit
motives, which are not mutually complementary. The military, which has penetrated
every sector of the society of Myanmar has much to lose if full democracy is
restored and it will struggle hard before conceding any ground to democracy. At
the same time, the army needs to get the sanctions lifted and foreign
investments facilitated. Suu Kyi has to watch her steps and words carefully to
ensure that the army is not offended and the pro-democracy movements in Myanmar
and outside are not disillusioned. Obama must have satisfied himself that the
democratic reforms in progress will not be reversed, even while enjoying the
hospitality of the junta. All the three have a stake in the future course of
Myanmarese history.
Suu Kyi has been
impeccable in her pronouncements on democracy abroad. In Delhi, she said: “We
have not achieved the goal of democracy. We are still trying and we hope that
in this last, I hope, and most difficult phase the people of India will stand
by us and walk by us as we proceed along the path that they were able to
proceed many years before us.” She is not unaware that he path ahead is
different from the path India took, but she clearly hinted that the path ahead
was hard and unpredictable.
In 1971, Suu Kyi
arrived in Bhutan as the young bride of Michael Aris and was mistaken initially
in the social circles as one of the Bhutanese princesses. She was friendly with
us in the Indian Embassy in Bhutan because of her long association with India,
which she narrated with exquisite charm and nostalgia, this time in Delhi. She
gave a subtle hint of her father’s path being different from that of Gandhiji
and that Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose was a greater hero than Pandit Nehru in
the eyes of the Burmese. The generosity that Pandit Nehru showed to Aung San’s
family after the latter’s death was particularly significant against that
backdrop.
India’s policy
towards Burma under the long reign of Ne Win and his successors took several
twists and turns. Ne Win, who once took over power by invitation and later by a
military coup, had an ambivalent attitude to India. While he was ruthless in
depriving the fleeing Indians of their wealth, he maintained good relations
with the Nehru family and the Indian leadership. His isolationist policy kept
us away from Burma, except for cultural contacts, though we tried to open up
trade contacts by importing rice from Burma. But among all our neighbours, Burma
made the least demands of us and caused us no embarrassment internationally.
When Indira Gandhi was assassinated, Ne Win flew to an unnamed destination to
meditate in grief. I accompanied him to Delhi when he went on a condolence
visit and saw for myself the love he showered on Rajiv Gandhi as the “uncle”,
who came calling at the time of grief.
India was a sentimental link even for Ne Win, but it never translated
into a meaningful relationship.
Right through the
elections, the bloodshed and the consolidation of the junta, India remained
committed to Democracy and showed our attachment to Suu Kyi. We blocked the
return of Myanmar to the Nonaligned Movement at a Ministerial Meeting in Bali.
The subsequent decision to do business with the military regime in Yangon was
an effort by India to wean Myanmar away from China and to seek some economic
benefits for us at a time when western sanctions were in effect. Myanmarese saw
in our overtures an opportunity to diversify their external relationships and
to gain respectability. As for the benefits, which accrued to us, these have not
been significant, essentially because we ourselves have been negligent of
follow-up action to many proposals for cooperation.
One welcome
indication out of the visit of Suu Kyi even before the advent of democracy is
that she carries no grudge against India for its proximity to the military
government. But how soon she will become the leader of a democratic government
and pursue policies friendly to India is a matter of speculation. In fact, she
would be beholden, first and foremost, to those who stood by her and brought
her back to the reckoning and that is the signal that she is giving to China by
not going there before her trips to the US and India. We too will have to take
our turn to benefit from the opening up of Myanmar.
The limited agenda
of seeking cooperation in dealing with the insurgents on the India-Myanmar
border, sharing some of the energy resources of Myanmar and establishing the
base for a beneficial trade relationship can be pursued even during the
transition to democracy. But whether democracy will eventually give us immense
benefits is a matter to be seen. China and the United States are likely to call
the shots even in a democratic structure.
Suu Kyi’s pursuit of
democracy could be long and arduous, but she has shown remarkable skills in
managing the military so far. She has the potential to get on with governance,
whatever role she assumes in the years to come. She has refused to take sides
in the conflict between the Buddhists and the Muslim Rohingyas on the plea that
her role would be to bring about reconciliation rather than to take sides. The
same spirit may prevail in Myanmar if she succeeds in sending the military back
to the barracks.