Days after it joined the rest of the world in asking for the release of jailed Myanmar opposition leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, India is getting ready to sign a final agreement with Myanmar on the Kaladan multi-modal transport project in the next few weeks. The Kaladan project is meant to link Sittwe port in Myanmar (Burma) via Paletwa to Mizoram in India by road and inland water. The Government of India will bear the cost of the entire project and it is scheduled to be completed in three years.
India has to spend US$ 103 million & has already loaned the junta $10 million in Feb 2007 for the Kaladan project. The Indian public sector company, RITES, has been awarded the construction and completion of this project by the Ministry of Exteral Affairs in India.
As part of the bloggers collective where one of the one of the aims of this group is exchanging news and views on free speech and censorship, I was wondering whether anyone else on here sees the GOI's latest move of calling for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, and then funding the Junta Regime's crackdown on the current pro-democracy protesters and freedom of expression as contradictory and outrageous? Or is it just me?
If bloggers and others in India called on RITES and the Ministry of External Affairs, demanding that they either suspend their transport deal with the Junta until Aung San Suu Kyi and the monks/civilians are released or pull their Oil operations (GAIL & ONGC Videsh) out of Burma completely --- do you think this would make a difference?
All I can say is, this is hardly the first time an Indian government has demonstrated hypocrisy in its dealings with other countries: going back to our so-called "nonaligned" days.
I think bloggers and many others should indeed call on our MEA, and the government in general, to cut its links with the Burma regime. Loudly and repeatedly. But will it make a difference? No.
Rights and freedom should, you would think, matter to us, especially given that we fought for those same things before 1947. But some obscure notions of "self-interest" and "realpolitik" seem to matter to us more.
In 1959, the BBS interviewed Bertrand Russell. The discussion turned to nationalism, and Russell spoke about what tends to happen when oppressed people free themselves. "As soon as they get free," he said, "they devote themselves to practising all the vices that previously were practised by their oppressors."
"Is this an inevitable pattern?" his interviewer asked.
"No, no. It's not inevitable, and it doesn't always happen", Russell replied. "I think one must take India as a case of how it doesn't always happen. I think India, since it became free, has been singularly without that sort of vice which so often happens to liberated people."
Nearly 50 years later, I cannot help wondering if Russell would say the same thing. Forgive me for being pessimistic, but times like this -- our collective silence over Burma -- make me feel that way.
Couldn't agree with you more, dilip. It's ironic and very saddening to see not only our government but also our media who are more fixated on celebrities, their birthdays, wedding and mythologies, to completely ignore the humanitarian crisis that is going in Burma.
> All I can say is, this is hardly the first time an Indian government > has demonstrated hypocrisy in its dealings with other countries: > going back to our so-called "nonaligned" days.
> I think bloggers and many others should indeed call on our MEA, and > the government in general, to cut its links with the Burma regime. > Loudly and repeatedly. But will it make a difference? No.
> Rights and freedom should, you would think, matter to us, especially > given that we fought for those same things before 1947. But some > obscure notions of "self-interest" and "realpolitik" seem to matter > to us more.
> In 1959, the BBS interviewed Bertrand Russell. The discussion turned > to nationalism, and Russell spoke about what tends to happen when > oppressed people free themselves. "As soon as they get free," he > said, "they devote themselves to practising all the vices that > previously were practised by their oppressors."
> "Is this an inevitable pattern?" his interviewer asked.
> "No, no. It's not inevitable, and it doesn't always happen", Russell > replied. "I think one must take India as a case of how it doesn't > always happen. I think India, since it became free, has been > singularly without that sort of vice which so often happens to > liberated people."
> Nearly 50 years later, I cannot help wondering if Russell would say > the same thing. Forgive me for being pessimistic, but times like this > -- our collective silence over Burma -- make me feel that way.
Well. I'm not sure its just a question of democratic ideals and championing for the rights of the oppressed here. India needs Myanmar as a partner for the entire cross border insurgency issue, as well as to be able to pump in resources directly to the the furthest tips of the north-east. So any projects on those fronts will obviously receive as much attention as they deserve.
But the question that arises here is - how much does India have to lose in the time it would take for the junta to be replaced by a democratic government, if they were to step down heavily on the transgressions currently happening?
If you consider the scenario in which they DID do this - would a military dictatorship hand over power to its bitterest enemies with a snap? A few of the more civilized dictators in the neighborhood have initiated measures which would keep them in power once (and if) such a handover does happen - isn't it likely that Than Shwe and co would do precisely the same? The likelihood of a bitter civil war - reminiscent of the Khmer Rouge - is pretty high, and would further just destabilize the region. And the only option then would be for India and China to send in military support to counter it. Quite a can of worms, don't you think?
> All I can say is, this is hardly the first time an Indian government > has demonstrated hypocrisy in its dealings with other countries: > going back to our so-called "nonaligned" days.
> I think bloggers and many others should indeed call on our MEA, and > the government in general, to cut its links with the Burma regime. > Loudly and repeatedly. But will it make a difference? No.
> Rights and freedom should, you would think, matter to us, especially > given that we fought for those same things before 1947. But some > obscure notions of "self-interest" and "realpolitik" seem to matter > to us more.
> In 1959, the BBS interviewed Bertrand Russell. The discussion turned > to nationalism, and Russell spoke about what tends to happen when > oppressed people free themselves. "As soon as they get free," he > said, "they devote themselves to practising all the vices that > previously were practised by their oppressors."
> "Is this an inevitable pattern?" his interviewer asked.
> "No, no. It's not inevitable, and it doesn't always happen", Russell > replied. "I think one must take India as a case of how it doesn't > always happen. I think India, since it became free, has been > singularly without that sort of vice which so often happens to > liberated people."
> Nearly 50 years later, I cannot help wondering if Russell would say > the same thing. Forgive me for being pessimistic, but times like this > -- our collective silence over Burma -- make me feel that way.
