Pierre Gottschlich: Keywords: India, Myanmar, Burma, Foreign Policy, Bilateral Relations

IQAS Vol. 48 / 2017 3–4, pp.
171–202
The India-Myanmar Relationship: New

Directions after a Change of Governments?
Pierre Gottschlich
Abstract
Despite a promising start after independence, bilateral relations between India and Myanmar
have had a long history of mutual neglect and obliviousness. This paper revisits the develop-
ments since the end of colonial rule and points out crucial historical landmarks. Further, the
most important policy issues between the two nations are discussed. The focal point of the
analysis is the question of whether one can expect new directions in the bilateral relationship
since the election of new governments in India in 2014 and in Myanmar in 2015. While there
have been signs of a new foreign policy approach towards its eastern neighbour on the part of
India under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, it remains to be seen if the government of Aung
San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy will substantially alter Myanmar’s course on an
international level.
Keywords: India, Myanmar, Burma, foreign policy, bilateral relations
1. Introduction
Recent political developments in Myanmar1 have led to hopes for ground-

breaking democratisation and liberalisation processes in the country (Bünte
2014; Kipgen 2016). In particular, the landslide victory of the former opposi-
tional National League for Democracy (NLD) under the leadership of Aung
San Suu Kyi in general elections in 2015, with the subsequent formation of an
NLD government in early 2016, is seen as a turning point in the history of
Myanmar. With a potentially major political and economic transformation,
there might also be room for a reconsideration of Myanmar’s foreign policy,
particularly with regard to its giant neighbours, China and India (Gordon
2014: 193–194). Likewise, international actors may reassess their strategy to-
wards a changing Myanmar (Singh 2012: 26). In such a period of transition,
Pierre Gottschlich, Chair for International Politics and Development Cooperation, University
of Rostock, Germany; pierre.gottschlich@uni-rostock.de. I am indebted to two anonymous re-
viewers for their most helpful comments and suggestions. An earlier version of parts of this
paper was published in 2015: Pierre Gottschlich (2015), New Developments in India-Myanmar
Bilateral Relations? Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs 34(2), pp. 139–163. All previ-
ously published segments have been updated and revised.
© International Quarterly for Asian Studies

172 Pierre Gottschlich
new and unexpected opportunities might open up to either readjust or even

drastically alter foreign policy doctrines and traditions. In some cases, a com-
plete fresh start of bilateral relations might occur, ideally to the benefit of both
parties involved.
This article deals with the bilateral relationship between India and Myan-
mar as an example of a possible new beginning in international diplomacy. It
argues that a reassessment by India and a shift in the relations between New
Delhi and Naypyidaw is not only conceivable but, from an Indian perspective,
absolutely necessary. For India, the current situation might present a unique
opportunity to rectify some foreign policy failures of the past and overhaul an
attitude of obliviousness and neglect towards Myanmar that has marred the
relationship for decades. After a short historical overview, this paper assesses
the state of India–Myanmar relations in six different policy areas. It will look
at India’s role in Myanmar’s process of democratisation and at its interest in
stability in Myanmar. Following that, security in India’s Northeast region and
the issue of illegal migration from Myanmar will be considered. The next three
topics the paper looks at are closely interconnected: trade and infrastructure,
access to energy resources and development cooperation are interdependent
issues that can hardly be addressed in isolation from each other. As a final
policy area, the role of China and its influence on India–Myanmar relations is
scrutinised. The next section deals with the changes of government in India
and Myanmar and asks which new developments have already occurred or
can be expected in the future. Naturally, this chapter focuses primarily on the
two most prominent figures in the bilateral relationship, Prime Minister Nar-
endra Modi and State Counsellor and Minister of Foreign Affairs Aung San
Suu Kyi. Additionally, three specific questions will be looked at more closely:
Can Myanmar be a balancing factor in the India–Myanmar–China triangle? Is
there a future for India–Myanmar–Bangladesh trilateralism? And what are the
prospects for Myanmar to become a full SAARC member? The conclusion
summarises the findings and offers a glimpse at the road ahead.
Apart from a review of scholarly studies, policy papers and journal and
newspaper articles, this paper is based on a number of interviews with Indian
diplomats, including three former ambassadors to Myanmar, and with some
of the leading experts on India–Myanmar relations from Indian think tanks,
research institutions and universities.2 Here, a glaring limitation of this study
becomes obvious. The history, current state of and prospects for the bilateral
relationship between New Delhi and Naypyidaw are analysed from an Indian
1 I am going to use the official name “Myanmar” throughout the study. The English term “Burma” will
only be referred to in a historical context, for events before the renaming in 1988, or in direct quotations,
following academically accepted patterns (e.g. Renshaw 2013: 30). For the purposes of this article, there is
no political connotation in the use of either “Myanmar” or “Burma”.
2 Interviews were conducted in October 2014 and in June/July 2016. Some of the interviewees were
questioned on both occasions.
The India-Myanmar Relationship 173
point of view. This somewhat biased perspective of course invites criticism but
is also an invitation to complementary research shedding more light on the
Myanmar side of the relationship.
2. Historical overview
Today’s Myanmar was formerly part of the British Empire in South and South-
east Asia. After its political separation from British India in April 1937, Bur-
ma was administrated as an independent unit and became a strategic buffer
safeguarding the Indian heartland in World War II (Egreteau 2003: 19–26;
Singh 2012: 27–28). After the war ended, Burma lost this role. Its importance
to the British Empire was further diminished when India and Pakistan were
granted independence in August 1947. Burma itself became independent on
4 January 1948, but in contrast to India, Pakistan and Ceylon did not join the
Commonwealth. In the period immediately following independence, bilateral
relations between India and Burma were strong. The shared cultural and reli-
gious heritage was intensely emphasised by leaders of both nations. The deep
bonds between the countries were reflected in Jawaharlal Nehru’s famous
words on the occasion of Burma’s independence:
As in the past, so in the future, the people of India will stand shoulder to shoulder with
the people of Burma, and whether we have to share good fortune or ill fortune, we shall
share it together. This is a great and solemn day not only for Burma, but for India, and
for the whole of Asia. (Jawaharlal Nehru in Routray 2011: 301)
In 1951, India and Burma signed a Treaty of Friendship, which, according to

Nehru, was to last “for ever thereafter” (Lall 2006: 431). After 1954, New
Delhi’s relations with Burma, as well as India’s rapprochement with China,
were guided by the “Panch Sheel” (the five virtues) of peaceful coexistence:
respect for the other nation’s territorial integrity; respect for the other nation’s
sovereignty; mutual non-aggression; mutual non-interference in domestic af-
fairs; and equality and efforts for mutual benefit (Mitra 2011: 187). Through-
out the 1950s, bilateral relations between India and Burma remained stable,
partly because of common interests within the Non-Aligned Movement and
further bolstered by a strong personal relationship between Nehru and Bur-
ma’s Prime Minister Nu (Myint-U 2012: 268). The Buddhist connection also
played a role in nurturing mutual bonds, for instance in February 1950 when
Nu visited Calcutta to accompany the transfer of a Buddhist relic to Burma.
Furthermore, New Delhi supplied the Nu government with arms and ammu-
nition in the early 1950s. In the form of development cooperation, India
granted Burma a loan of 46 million USD in 1958. The military coup in Burma
in 1962, however, changed the nature of the two nations’ political and eco-
nomic relations. While there was not necessarily an open rift between them in
the following decades, a lasting mutual indifference developed, furthered by
Burma’s self-imposed isolation (Egreteau 2003: 33–36). The stern repression
of the Burmese democracy movement in 1988 led to a further deterioration of
relations, resulting in a short diplomatic ice age between New Delhi and the
newly named Myanmar (Dörffel 2003: 379–380; Singh 2012: 31–32).
The 1990s brought a substantial new orientation in India’s foreign policy
(Mitra 2011: 183–196). Following the severe economic crisis of 1991, which
almost resulted in the total bankruptcy of India, the government of Prime
Minister P. V. Narasimha Rao (1991–1996) recalibrated India’s foreign rela-
tions in order to foster economic development. New Delhi’s so-called “Look
East Policy” focused on Asian markets and an extension of Indian trade rela-
tions towards Southeast Asia. Under this new framework, a fresh start in
India–Myanmar relations was possible (Egreteau 2003: 102). For New Delhi,
economic and strategic interests now trumped democratisation and human
rights considerations that had previously been widely viewed as crucial to any
rapprochement (Haacke 2006: 34). The new policy of “constructive engage-
ment” (Egreteau 2003: 132) led to the Common Border Trade Agreement of
1994 and a gradual improvement of the bilateral relationship. In 1995, India
and Myanmar even conducted a joint military operation against ethnic guer-
rilla groups along the Mizoram border (Myint-U 2012: 71). When Indian
Prime Minister I. K. Gujral (1997–1998) promulgated the “Good Neighbour
Policy”, Myanmar’s prospects were further enhanced. Now, India was aban-
doning the principle of strict reciprocity in its foreign relations within its im-
mediate neighbourhood. Instead, New Delhi announced that it was willing to
invest considerably more while at the same time assuring its respect for the
“Panch Sheel”, particularly with regard to the sovereignty and territorial in-
tegrity of neighbouring countries. Regional economic cooperation became a
cornerstone of India’s foreign policy. For Myanmar, this development resulted
in its integration into the organisation BIMST-EC (Bangladesh, India, Myan-
mar, Sri Lanka, Thailand - Economic Cooperation)3, which aimed to establish
more effective collaboration in the Bay of Bengal region (Wagner 2005: 281).
Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee (1998–2004) and the govern-
ment of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) brought a “real shift in India–Myan-
mar relations” and a much more pragmatic approach to, for instance,
military-to-military contacts and economic ties (Lall 2006: 432). In 2000, both
nations became founding members of the Mekong-Ganga Cooperation (MGC)
group. Two years later, India and Myanmar reopened diplomatic representa-
tions and consular offices. Under the subsequent government of Prime Minis-
ter Manmohan Singh (2004–2014), bilateral economic relations between In-
3 After the integration of Bhutan and Nepal in 2004, the organisation was officially renamed Bay of
Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC).
dia and Myanmar cautiously improved further without, however, resulting in

a significant political rapprochement. A rare foreign visit of General Than
Shwe to New Delhi in July 2010 led to the signing of many economic agree-
ments, yet fell short of truly bringing relations to a new level (Myint-U 2012:
221, 270–271). When Myanmar’s new president, Thein Sein, hosted Prime
Minister Singh for a state visit in Naypyidaw in May 2012, it marked the first
visit of an Indian prime minister to Myanmar in 25 years and was widely
regarded “a historic milestone” (Singh 2012: 26). While once again many
memorandums and agreements were signed, it seems that the visit was just a
hint of the greater shifts to come.
Given the change of government in India in 2014, there is an opportunity
for a much more fundamental transformation or even a completely fresh start
in relations between New Delhi and Naypyidaw. Particularly the proclama-
tion of India’s new “Act East Policy” signals a major shift from its former
“Look East” approach, towards a more proactive stance. According to critical
voices in India, such a reorientation is much needed since India’s rather pas-
sive and self-sufficient foreign policy towards Myanmar has been marred by
ineffectiveness, especially in the economic realm. Former Indian ambassador
to Myanmar Gopalapuram Parthasarathy writes, “We would be less than
honest if we did not admit that in project and investment cooperation, our
record has been tardy” (Parthasarathy 2014). Oftentimes, however, it is not
the basic intention but the protracted and incomplete realisation of arduously
agreed-upon plans and projects that is widely criticised, as the following ex-
cerpt from an interview with Khriezo Yhome, Myanmar expert and research
fellow at the Observer Research Foundation Delhi, shows:
It wouldn’t be wrong to say that India has the best of plans, policies and mechanisms
in place to promote and protect its interests in Myanmar. […] The problem is in imple-
menting these plans and projects. New Delhi need not reinvent new policies; if the ex-
isting policies and plans are implemented effectively half of the battle is won. […] There
is no doubt that the Burmese want close ties with India […]. If we, however, ask if the
Burmese are happy with India’s role in Myanmar, there is a sense of frustration at the
pace at which India has been moving. […] The lack of proper and effective implemen-
tation of policies and projects has been a major source of damage to India’s image.
(Yhome, interviewed by author 4 October 2014)
Hence, there is not only much room for improvement but severe need for action
if India does not want to squander the opportunities for better and mutually
beneficial relations between India and Myanmar that might be opening up.
3. Issues and policy areas of the India–Myanmar relationship
When asked about the single most important issue for India with regard to
Myanmar, the diplomats, experts, researchers and policy advisors interviewed
for this study variously named several different topics as the top priority. Se-
curity in India’s Northeast and bilateral trade relations were named most of-
ten. Related to trade and economic issues, the question of connectivity – mean-
ing the improvement of the exchange mechanism between the two nations and
a better connection from India to Southeast Asia through Myanmar as a tran-
sit country – was also seen as crucial to India. Other subjects mentioned in-
clude energy, illegal migration and democracy. Interestingly, one topic which
usually receives much attention in the Western world was not mentioned at
all: the supposed great power competition between India and China in a “new
Great Game” of influence in Asia, in which Myanmar is usually seen as crucial
to both sides, was not named as a top priority for India. Apparently, there is
a much different assessment of the “China factor” within the foreign policy
community in India than some Western observers assume.
Probably the most remarkable point about the answers to the question
“What would you regard as the single most important issue for India?”, how-
ever, is the diversity of the issues named. There does not seem to be much
consensus among the relevant policy institutes and think tanks with regard to
the order of India’s interests in its bilateral relations towards Myanmar. Of
course, this reflects the generally incoherent and in some cases erratic foreign
policy India has conducted towards its eastern neighbour in the past. After 70
years, there is still no tangible foreign policy statement, let alone a grand strat-
egy regarding Myanmar from the Indian side. Considering the generally feeble
nature of the Indian foreign policy service (Chatterjee Miller 2013), this is
part of an overarching problem and hardly surprising. It may, nevertheless,
cast serious doubts on one of the basic assumptions of international relations
analyses – namely, that actors are aware of their own interests and are able to
convert these interests into a list of ranked preferences. As long as a concerted
official Indian foreign policy strategy is missing, it is an important task for
researchers and advisors to organise the different policy areas and point out
interdependencies among them.
3.1. Democratisation and stability

The promotion of democracy abroad has never been one of the main pillars of
India’s foreign policy and plays a rather marginal role. Instead, the principle
of non-interference has dominated foreign policy debates and choices in India
since the 1950s (Wagner 2009: 9–11). The advancement of democratic ideals
is usually weighed against national interests and only occasionally supersedes

economy or security concerns. With bilateral relations already at a low point
and not much leverage to lose, India did openly side with the Burmese democ-
racy movement in 1988, welcoming political refugees and exiles from the
country (Egreteau 2003: 121–124; Haacke 2006: 34). Apart from granting
asylum and supporting exile radio broadcasts, however, tangible activities on
the part of India to foster democratic developments in Myanmar have re-
mained scarce. In the early 1990s, India’s assessment of the situation changed.
With Myanmar’s military rulers firmly established and issues such as the ques-
tion of energy security or the violent rebellions in India’s Northeast becoming
more pressing, New Delhi began its policy of “constructive engagement” and
largely refrained from explicit calls for a transition towards democracy (Wag-
ner 2009: 17–19; Egreteau 2011: 468–470). This “triumph of pragmatism”
(Routray 2011) in India’s foreign policy brought a modest improvement in
bilateral relations, but disappointed the Burmese democracy movement and
many observers. Alana,4 an activist from the Burma Centre Delhi, notes:
Although India allowed Burmese refugees to take shelter in India especially during
[the] 1988 nationwide uprising,5 India didn’t do much or influence much in the process
of democratisation in Burma. It’s not a matter of being underestimated or overempha-
sised, but having worked for democracy and human rights in Burma along with Bur-
mese democratic forces in India [over] the past many years, I don’t really see India in-
fluencing that country for democracy. (Alana, interviewed by author 7 October 2014)
This sentiment of disappointment was also reflected when, during her visit to
India in 2012, then-opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi voiced sadness about
the lack of support for democratic change in Myanmar and openly criticised
New Delhi for straying from the ideals of Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal
Nehru (Miglani 2012; The Hindu 2012). Despite its underwhelming efforts so
far and going well beyond a mere return to Nehruvian idealism, India has
practical incentives for greater engagement on behalf of a sustained democra-
tisation in Myanmar. While in the past the question of stability has often been
linked to supporting or at least tolerating military rule in Myanmar, this rea-
soning has partially been reversed. Now, only a thorough democratisation is
seen as a safeguard for lasting stability. Democracy would also offer an oppor-
tunity for Indian foreign policy to engage with several different actors in My-
anmar rather than continuing to depend on the mood swings of one single
decision maker:
Stability and strengthening reform processes in Myanmar […] have a direct bearing
[on] India’s strategic interests in the region. Instability provides room for other major
powers to play a role in its periphery and as Myanmar’s reform progresses, it not only
addresses [the concern over external influences] but also opens up more domestic ac-
4 For reasons of privacy, only Alana’s first name is used.

5 Many student activists and political leaders fled Burma and took shelter in India.
tors in a democratic setup, thereby presenting multiple domestic actors [that] India can
engage with, thus keeping a check on the possibility of a single-actor dominance whose
domestic and foreign policy orientations could adversely affect India’s interests there –
the junta in the past is a case in point. (Yhome, interviewed by author 4 October 2014)
Of course, whether the nascent democratisation in Myanmar will have short-

term positive effects on Indian foreign policy remains to be seen. There are
reasons to be sceptical about the ability of the NLD government to remove
some of the obstacles to better bilateral relations and brighter prospects for
future cooperation, particularly regarding security concerns in the Northeast
(Lee 2014: 311). In any case, having a reliable and predictable partner in Nay-
pyidaw has to be considered as one of India’s essential interests.
3.2. Security in India’s Northeast and illegal migration

India and Myanmar share a land border 1,643 kilometres long, of which only
10 kilometres are in the process of being fenced (Lee 2014: 299–300). Unsur-
prisingly, this porous border has been exploited by guerrilla organisations on
both sides. The Northeast region of India’s “seven sisters” (the states of A
ssam,
Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Manipur, Mizoram and Tripura)
have represented “a policy headache for New Delhi” and have been ravaged by
violence for decades (Myint-U 2012: 235–236, 272–293). Outside of Assam,
three states directly bordering on Myanmar have been hit hardest by guerrilla
warfare: Nagaland, Manipur and Mizoram. Particularly during the 1980s and
the 1990s, armed groups from India such as the United Liberation Front of Assam
(ULFA) and the National Socialist Council of N agaland-Khaplang (NSCN-K)
used the inaccessible and hardly controllable border region as a safe haven.
With the open and covert support of the Burmese military junta, they set up
bases and supply structures on Burmese territory (Hazarika 2014). Likewise,
the Indian government has been accused of lending financial and technical
assistance to rebel organisations from Myanmar such as the Kachin Independ-
ence Organisation (KIO) and the Karen National Union (KNU) since 1988
(Ganesan 2010: 11). The gradual improvement of bilateral relations between
India and Myanmar has led to progress on both sides of the border and has
resulted in more coordinated efforts to contain insurgencies (Pardesi 2012:
122–123).
An additional problem has been and continues to be the increasing undocu
mented migration from Myanmar. Again and again, thousands of Muslim Ro-
hingya have fled the spreading ethnic violence in Myanmar and come to India
illegally (Mishra 2014). According to Aparupa Bhattacherjee of the Institute
of Peace and Conflict Studies in New Delhi, the Indian government underesti-
mated the issue for a long time and did not tackle the problem seriously (Bhat-
tacherjee, interviewed by author 30 October 2014). But even if pursued more
rigorously from the Indian side, there will be no solution without close cooper
ation between the border security forces of India and Myanmar. Here, New
Delhi faces the problem that the government in Naypyidaw has conflicting
priorities and engages rather reluctantly in the relevant border areas. Rahul K.
Bhonsle, Director of Security Risks Asia, who served for a decade as an army
officer in India’s Northeast region, points out:
For the Myanmar government, priority of borders is dictated by the security challenges
that are faced by it on multiple fronts. Thus it is more concerned about the borders
inhabited by Kachin, Karen and Wa and the Rakhine State with Bangladesh, while [the]
Indian border is seen as more of a concern for Delhi. (Bhonsle, interviewed by author
4 October 2014)
Still under the government of Manmohan Singh, India and Myanmar signed a
Memorandum of Understanding on Border Cooperation on 8 May 2014. This
agreement is set to provide a framework for an extended collaboration on se-
curity issues, for information and intelligence exchange, and for jointly coor-
dinated border patrols. The goal of the memorandum is the further weakening
of transnationally operating guerrilla groups and the more effective preven-
tion of other illegal activities such as contraband trade or human trafficking
(Hazarika 2014).
3.3. Trade and infrastructure

Bilateral trade between Indian and Myanmar accounted for well over 2 billion
USD in the fiscal year 2016–2017,6 a noteworthy increase compared to former
years. In 2001–2002, the trade volume was just a little over 300 million USD,
and in 2007–2008 the number was still below 1 billion USD (Ganesan 2010:
12). Despite the progress, however, trade with Myanmar still accounts for
only 0.33 per cent of India’s overall trade (see Table 1). The gains in absolute
money volume have not led to a significant increase of the relative share of
bilateral trade relations compared to other partner countries. Trade with My-
anmar largely remains an afterthought for much of the Indian economy.
There is much room for a further extension in bilateral trade on both sides.
India ranks only fifth in the list of Myanmar’s most important trading part-
ners, trailing Myanmar’s other economically important neighbour countries
China and Thailand by substantial margins (see Table 2). As stated by former
government official C. S. Kuppuswamy of the South Asia Analysis Group, it
was an important immediate target for New Delhi to raise the volume of bilat-
eral trade to 3 billion USD by the end of the fiscal year 2015–2016 (Kuppu
swamy, interviewed by author 6 October 2014).
6 The Indian fiscal year runs from 1 April to 31 March.

Table 1: India’s bilateral trade with Myanmar
Fiscal India’s exports India’s imports Total bilateral

year to Myanmar from Myanmar trade
Amount Overall Amount Overall Amount Overall

in million share in million share in million share in
USD in % USD in % USD %
2008–2009 221.64 0.12 928.97 0.31 1,150.60 0.24

2009–2010 207.97 0.12 1,289.80 0.45 1,497.77 0.32
2010–2011 320.62 0.13 1,017.67 0.28 1,338.29 0.22
2011–2012 545.38 0.18 1,381.15 0.28 1,926.52 0.24
2012–2013 544.66 0.18 1,412.69 0.29 1,957.35 0.25
2013–2014 787.01 0.25 1,395.67 0.31 2,182.68 0.29
2014–2015 773.24 0.25 1,231.54 0.27 2,004.78 0.26
2015–2016 1,070.65 0.41 984.27 0.26 2,054.92 0.32
2016–2017 1,107.89 0.40 1,067.25 0.28 2,175.14 0.33
Source: Government of India 2018a (Department of Commerce)
This goal has not been achieved, as bilateral trade stagnated at roughly 2 bil-
lion USD both in 2014–2015 and in 2015–2016 after reaching a high point at
almost 2.2 billion USD in the fiscal year of 2013–2014 (and coming close to
this mark again in 2016–2017). Overall, “bilateral trade still remains below
potential” (Kuppuswamy, interviewed by author 1 July 2016).
Table 2: Myanmar’s top trading partners 2016
Total trade Share Imports Share Exports Share

in million in % in million in % in million in %
EUR EUR EUR
China 4,323 22.3 2,434 25.9 1,890 18.9

Thailand 3,240 16.7 856 9.1 2,384 23.9
Singapore 2,245 11.6 2,007 21.4 238 2.4
Hong Kong 1,913 9.9 26 0.2 1,897 19.0
Total trade Share Imports Share Exports Share

in million in % in million in % in million in %
EUR EUR EUR
India 1,465 7.6 626 6.7 839 8.4

Japan 1,241 6.4 774 8.2 468 4.7
World 19,371 100.0 9,393 100.0 9,978 100.0
Source: European Commission 2017
Not only does India want to increase bilateral trade with Myanmar, it also
strives to enhance the exchange of goods with other countries of the Associa-
tion of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). For a long time, Southeast Asia
played a rather marginal role in India’s foreign trade even after the ASEAN–
India Free Trade Area (AIFTA) came into effect in 2010. According to statis-
tics from the Indian Department of Commerce, there were only three coun-
tries from the ASEAN region among India’s 25 most important trading
partners in 2013–2014: Indonesia ranked 8th, Singapore came in 10th and
Malaysia was 21st. Thailand, Vietnam and Myanmar were, at that point, well
outside the group of India’s top trading partners. Three years later, the picture
has changed. For the fiscal year of 2016–2017, both Vietnam and Thailand
have entered the list of India’s most important trading partners at positions 19
and 24, respectively, in addition to Indonesia (8), Singapore (10), and Malay-
sia (11). Myanmar, however, is still not found on that list.
In order to further extend Indian trade with Southeast Asia, interregional
connectivity needs to be improved. After taking power, the government of Prime
Minister Narendra Modi immediately declared the issue of connectivity a prior-
ity of its foreign policy (Jacob 2014). Of course, Myanmar as a hub and transit
country plays a crucial role in this endeavour. The improvement of transpor-
tation facilities in Myanmar has been a major focus of Indian bilateral devel-
opment cooperation for years. Since 2008, the Indian government has spent
20 million USD on the construction of a trilateral highway linking the Indian
state of Manipur with Thailand through Myanmar. The road is co-financed by
Thailand and the Asian Development Bank (Yhome 2015: 1230). After con-
tinuous delays, it is scheduled to be opened in 2020 (Ramya 2018). Such pro-
jects, if completed in time, can also be seen as small steps within the larger
framework of establishing a new “Southern Silk Road”. An important part of
these considerations is the initiative to create a Bangladesh–China–India–My-
anmar (BCIM) corridor (Aneja 2014). All these processes form preconditions
for the intended establishment of the world’s largest free trade area, ASEAN+6.
The negotiations about the creation of a Regional Comprehensive Economic
Partnership (RCEP) consisting of the ASEAN member states plus six partner
countries (India, China, South Korea, Japan, Australia and New Zealand)
started in November 2012 and could hugely benefit from an enhancement of
transportation facilities and trade routes between India and Southeast Asia
(Hoepfner 2013). For India, the short-term costs of the infrastructure invest-
ments in Myanmar and elsewhere are likely to be outweighed by the long-term
benefits from the RCEP (Pande 2018: 3).
Another ambitious infrastructure project in Myanmar combines economic
aspects with security politics for India. The Kaladan Multi-Modal Transit
Project is designed to create a direct trade connection from Kolkata to Mizo-
ram over the Bay of Bengal into the port of Sittwe and through the states of
Rakhine and Chin in Myanmar. Here, the water transportation routes on the
Kaladan River will be improved while many roads will be modernised or new-
ly constructed. The long-term goal for New Delhi is a significantly improved
linkage of its Northeast region to the Indian heartland (Hackmann 2014: 14–
15). Since 2007, India has invested 50 million USD in this project. Enhanced
trade could bring not only a spark to the economy but also a noticeable im-
provement of the living conditions in Mizoram and the other states in the
Northeast that have suffered from violent rebellions for decades. It is hoped
that the intended socio-economic development will weaken secessionist move-
ments and reduce the activities of guerrilla groups, thereby easing security
problems. Also, the establishment of an alternative connection between the
Indian centre and the Northeast would at least partially compensate for the
strategic disadvantage of the narrow Siliguri Corridor (Mullen et al. 2014:
17–18). In the long run, building closer connections between India’s North-
east and Myanmar could be beneficial to both sides, mutually reinforcing so-
cio-economic development, particularly considering that the Northeast region
is completely insignificant in the overall India–Myanmar trade volume (Panda
2017: 43–44):
Northeast India and Burma combined make up a market of over 100 million people,
poor now, but not necessarily forever. It has not helped Northeast India to have an in-
ternationally isolated, economically mismanaged, military dictatorship next door. But
neither has it helped Burma to be adjacent to one of the most conflict-ridden and ne-
glected parts of India. […] In a way, Northeast India and Burma have long reinforced
one another’s problems. As borders begin to open, the question is whether they can
now support each other’s progress instead. (Myint-U 2012: 307)
3.4. Energy
Myanmar’s vast oil and gas resources are intriguing to many countries. Com-
petition for exploration and exploitation rights began long ago. In fact, it was
Myanmar’s potential role as a supplier of natural gas that was crucial for im-
proving bilateral relations with ever energy-hungry India in the 1990s and
early 2000s through a new “pipeline diplomacy” (Lall 2006: 425–430, 2009:
34–35). New Delhi, however, has damaged its prospects for years because of
protracted decision-making and uncoordinated policies. Government-owned
companies from India were not well prepared to succeed in the competitive
environment of international bidding in Myanmar (Narayan 2009: 25). Addi-
tionally, New Delhi manoeuvred itself into a difficult situation regarding a
tripartite gas pipeline project from Myanmar to India through Bangladesh in
2005. When India–Bangladesh relations worsened and the prospects for the
pipeline became uncertain, India did not have a strategy for an alternative
transportation route (Islam 2009: 140–142). Former Indian ambassador to
Myanmar Gopalapuram Parthasarathy recounts the consequences of this dis-
appointing endeavour and another telling example of Indian failure:
After having secured exploration rights for gas in the Bay of Bengal, we conducted our
project-planning and diplomacy so clumsily that we did not have a strategy ready for tak-
ing the gas to India through a pipeline across Myanmar and our Northeast, or for trans-
porting it as LNG. China deftly stepped in and took away all this gas by expeditiously
building a pipeline to Yunnan Province. In the mid-1990s, Myanmar offered us hydroelec-
tric projects with a potential of over 1,000 MW across rivers near our borders. We took
years to scrutinise these projects […]. After nearly two decades, we backed off. (Parthasar-
athy 2014)
India’s more or less self-inflicted defeats have given China a much better posi-
tion in the Myanmar gas market (Lall 2014: 213). What is more, virtually all
current and future hydropower joint ventures in Myanmar are being conduct-
ed with the help of Chinese firms (Eleven 2014). India’s reputation in the en-
ergy sector and beyond has been severely damaged (Jha 2013: 233). There is a
widespread feeling in Myanmar that the “Indian government promises much
but delivers little” (Bhonsle, interviewed by author 4 October 2014). Many
auspicious projects have never been implemented: “Things didn’t materialise
much except […] [on paper]” (Alana, interviewed by author 7 October 2014).
There is an urgent need for a different approach from the Indian side. The new
government in New Delhi seems to have realised the problem and has started
to tackle it with fresh rhetoric. Minister of External Affairs Sushma Swaraj, as
well as Prime Minister Modi, have announced the transformation of the more
than twenty-year-old “Look East Policy” into an “Act East Policy”, thereby
raising hopes that India is going to speed up its decision-making and conduct
future projects with much stronger commitment (Jacob 2014; PTI 2014a).
3.5. Development cooperation

Despite the fact that an overall foreign policy strategy regarding the bilateral
relationship between India and Myanmar is still lacking, the country has been
a major recipient of Indian foreign aid, mainly through the Indian Technical
and Economic Cooperation (ITEC) and similar schemes. Additionally, Myan-
mar is one of just three countries for which New Delhi has laid out a compre-
hensively planned aid and development assistance programme (Bhonsle, inter-
viewed by author 4 October 2014). The other two nations with such a special
status are Bhutan and Afghanistan. The prominent standing of these three
countries is also reflected in the volume of Indian loans and grants over the
last decade (see Tables 3 and 4). From 2000 to 2014, Bhutan alone received
almost half (48.85 per cent) of India’s total loans and grants to all partner
countries, while Afghanistan accounted for 8.38 per cent. With a share of 3.49
per cent, Myanmar came in sixth overall, behind Nepal (5.86 per cent), Sri Lan-
ka (5.35 per cent) and Bangladesh (3.83 per cent) (Mullen et al. 2014: 3).
There is still much room for an expansion of financial development assis-
tance from India to Myanmar, especially considering the fact that India’s an-
nual contributions fall well short of the amount that the United Kingdom, the
European Union and leading donor country Japan give per year.
Table 3: Major recipients of Indian loans and grants (in million INR)
2001–2004 2004–2007 2007–2010 2010–2013
Bhutan 7,265 12,130 28,021 72,450

Afghanistan NA NA 8,959 11,675
Nepal 1,203 3,422 3,611 6,290
Sri Lanka 2,033 2,389 2,001 5,627
Maldives 118 224 5,271 3,488
Bangladesh 904 1,003 737 3,079
Myanmar 823 1,922 1,008 2,664
All African countries 873 1,878 2,708 4,487
All other countries 9,869 18,797 9,335 11,228
Source: Mullen 2013: 14
Table 4: Indian foreign aid to Myanmar (in million INR)
Fiscal year Budget Revised Actual
2011–2012 1,900.0 1,118.2 674.0

2012–2013 3,022.1 1,350.0 1,218.7
2013–2014 4,500.0 2,550.0 1,648.6
2014–2015 3,300.0 1,300.0 1,043.4
2015–2016 2,700.0 1,540.0 1,170.7
2016–2017 4,000.0 1,200.0 1,236.2
2017–2018 2,250.0 2,250.0 NA
2018–2019 2,800.0 NA NA
Source: Government of India 2017 and 2018b (Ministry of Finance)
The United Kingdom doubled its bilateral aid to Myanmar to 95 million USD
in 2014. Since 2015, the European Union has quadrupled its annual develop-
ment assistance to Myanmar to 123 million USD. In 2013, Japan announced
it would deliver an aid and investment package to Myanmar to the tune of
394 million USD (Patteran 2014). Compared to these numbers, India’s finan-
cial commitments appear meagre and underwhelming. In the current “feeding
frenzy” (Patteran 2014), New Delhi runs the risk of being left behind and
once again frittering away future opportunities. Additionally, willing donors
such as Japan or Germany provide alternatives for the Myanmar government
to counter the Chinese presence in the country without having to rely on In-
dia. Thus, they may give New Delhi tough competition in Myanmar (Ramya
2018).
Most of India’s loans and grants in bilateral development cooperation are
being used for infrastructure projects. Another focus is the modernisation of
Myanmar’s agricultural sector, which is being advanced by hundreds of mil-
lions in INR and further supported by knowledge transfer. Apart from that,
India funds numerous education and training facilities in Myanmar. The es-
tablishment of the Myanmar Institute of Information Technology (MIIT) was
financed by New Delhi with the sum of 326.8 million INR. Almost 50 million
INR went into the founding and subsequent expansion of the India–Myanmar
Centre for Enhancement of Information Technology Skills (IMCEITS) in Yan-
gon, which so far has produced approximately 1,500 IT specialists. India and
Myanmar also cooperate in the area of effective and efficient governance.
Through the ITEC programme, India is training 525 government officials from
Myanmar. Additionally, public servants are being educated in all forms of digi-
tal services and e-governance (Mullen et al. 2014: 17–18). In the entire field of
IT-related training, India has been remarkably successful and even enjoys a
distinct advantage over China in Myanmar (Ramya 2018).
3.6. China
Naturally, China plays an important role in all of New Delhi’s foreign policy
considerations. Hence, the relations between India and Myanmar cannot escape
the shadow of the giant neighbour to the North. With the Beijing-financed con-
struction of a new harbour in Kyaukpyu, Myanmar has become part of the
so-called “String of Pearls” of Chinese deep-water ports around the Indian
Ocean. This alleged encirclement with harbour facilities in Pakistan, Sri Lan-
ka, Bangladesh and Myanmar is viewed with much scrutiny and suspicion in
India. It is feared that these ports might someday be used not only economi-
cally but also for military purposes (Vasan 2012: 415–416). Also, the huge
Chinese influence in everyday life in many parts of Northern and Northeast
Myanmar is cause for concern among some Indian observers (Myint-U 2012:
30–31, 266–268). In particular, the growing interdependence of the econo-
mies of China and Myanmar in the border region and the close trade relations
between Myanmar and Yunnan Province serve as a painful reminder of In-
dia’s own shortcomings in this respect (Lall 2014: 211; Parthasarathy 2014).
In general, India and China compete for influence in Myanmar in every
policy area. Among parts of the Indian foreign policy establishment, there is
“a shared sense of the two countries as rivals”, particularly regarding the
“crossroads” nation Myanmar (Myint-U 2012: 238). This also includes the
vital question of energy security. For a time, “China and India both regarded
competition in the energy sector as a purely zero-sum game” (Li 2009: 154).
Some observers, however, question whether New Delhi really has to follow
the rules of such an “anachronistic” game. As, for instance, Obja Borah Haz-
arika, a political scientist from Dibrugarh University in Assam, points out:
In the twenty-first century, treating a country like a pawn in a country’s strategic calcu-
lation is anachronistic. India can, at most, make itself seem like a more feasible partner
in security, economic and cultural issues to Myanmar, and let the latter take its pick
between China and India. (Hazarika, interviewed by author 25 October 2014)
There is a chorus of very critical voices regarding the apparent obsession of

Indian foreign policy with China in general, which has allegedly been evident
for decades, particularly as it relates to Myanmar. A truly independent Indian
foreign policy should not simply react to Chinese decisions and initiatives,
especially considering the different strategic positions and resource capabilities
of New Delhi and Beijing. According to proponents of this view, the coexist-
ence of India and China in Myanmar is definitely possible as long as New
Delhi is able to avoid direct competition and a power struggle with Beijing
that it almost certainly cannot win (Wagner / Cafiero 2014: 2). India has to
realise that China’s lead is probably too large to be overcome in a short period
of time. Right now, “India is not there to compete with China” (Kuppuswamy,
interviewed by author 6 October 2014). However, the constellation might
change more rapidly than anticipated, since China’s influence in Myanmar
seems to be declining. Increasingly, Naypyidaw appears to regard its depend-
ency on China as a strategic problem and as a loss of sovereignty it is no
longer willing to concede (Lee 2014: 294–295). Strengthening national sover-
eignty thus requires a diversification of Myanmar’s foreign policy. The visit of
General Than Shwe to New Delhi in 2010 has been interpreted as an early
demonstration that Myanmar “would seek to balance China with India”
(Myint-U 2012: 221). New Delhi could profit from this situation if it over-
comes its own fixation on China. The Modi government has taken steps in this
direction, as Wasbir Hussain, executive director of the Centre for Develop-
ment and Peace Studies in Guwahati and a former member of India’s National
Security Advisory Board, notes:
India’s policy towards Myanmar [so far] has basically been nothing but a response to
what China was doing there. India has now realised that it has to look beyond China
and is, therefore, fine-tuning a proactive policy towards Myanmar. (Hussain, inter-
viewed by author 21 October 2014)
Part of this new strategy is an emphasis on the cultural and religious heritage
that India and Myanmar share. There is a “natural” familiarity China cannot
offer, particularly regarding a common Buddhist tradition (Myint-U 2012: 31).
Therefore, it is not surprising that Minister Swaraj, during her visit to Myan-
mar in August 2014, pointed to Buddhism as an important link between the
countries that may foster people-to-people contacts and serve as a foundation
for generally improved relations. Accordingly, Swaraj suggested the establish-
ment of direct flights between Yangon and the Buddhist pilgrimage site Bodh-
gaya in India (Roy 2014).
3.7. Summary: India’s view of Myanmar

India-Myanmar bilateral relations seem to be at a crossroads. The political
changes in Myanmar, coupled with an apparent desire to diversify its foreign
policy, might open up new opportunities for New Delhi to pursue its interests
and avoid the risks and pitfalls that have plagued its policy towards Myanmar
for many years. Before assessing recent developments under the current gov-
ernments, this article will briefly summarise India’s general view of Myanmar
with respect to different policy issues.
As far as democratisation in Myanmar is concerned, India’s main interest re-

mains having a stable and reliable partner across its eastern border. While
continued or increased support for democratisation could bring long-term sta-
bility and secure friendship with future governments, there is also the risk of
a backlash under a renewed military regime, possibly resulting in a new diplo-
matic ice age.
The interconnected issues of security in India’s Northeast and illegal migra-
tion bear significant interests for New Delhi. Above all, India needs sustained
peace in the Northeast, which seems impossible if there is a haven for guerril-
la groups in Myanmar. Thus, effective border control is mandatory, also to
prevent contraband trade and illegal migration. A functional border control
regime could weaken secessionist movements in the Northeast if there is a
committed partner in Myanmar.
In the policy areas of trade and infrastructure, India is looking for an ex-
pansion of bilateral trade and a reduction of its trade deficit. Further interests
include increasing trade with Southeast Asia via Myanmar and improving the
connection and economic development of the Northeast. New Delhi sees an
opportunity for economic recovery in the area, not least through new trading
partners in Southeast Asia. This has the potential to weaken secessionist
movements in the Northeast as well. There is, however, a substantial risk of
economic stagnation. India’s trade deficit could remain the same or even in-
crease. Also, the infrastructure projects financed by New Delhi could be used
by other actors without benefiting India.
In the energy sector, India has a strong interest in diversifying its energy
imports. Better bilateral relations with Myanmar include the prospect of a
reliable energy supply at reasonable prices. However, there is a risk of new
dependencies for India. On the other hand, a complete loss of access to Myan-
mar’s energy resources is also thinkable.
New Delhi has shown a willingness to use development cooperation to fos-
ter its own interests. In doing so, India attempts to create win-win situations.
If successful, development cooperation could enhance trade infrastructure and
thereby benefit India. Additionally, it might produce a grateful Myanmar gov-
ernment. Conversely, falling too far behind other donors could damage India’s
standing. Another risk is that India may not benefit from its investments.
Finally, China is a factor that cannot be ignored. India’s paramount con-
cern is to keep from losing Myanmar to China. However, there can be no ze-
ro-sum game mentality and no competition with China. It must be New Del-
hi’s interest to facilitate cooperation with China in Myanmar and to increase
its influence in Myanmar without negative implications for the India–China
relationship. Yet, there is a risk that a possible zero-sum logic in Chinese for-
eign policy may eventually lead to a complete expulsion of India from Myan-
mar.
4. New directions after a change of governments?
4.1. Narendra Modi: “Act East”?

After being elected in a landslide victory in 2014, India’s Prime Minister Nar-
endra Modi announced a pragmatic and undogmatic foreign policy doctrine
based on “enlightened national interest” (Haidar 2014). Modi’s doctrine has
put its focus clearly on India’s immediate neighbourhood, including Myan-
mar. However, the Modi government did not have the best of starts with re-
gard to its Eastern neighbour. India’s political influence in Myanmar can be
improved only if New Delhi shows substantial public appreciation of the im-
portance of the bilateral relationship. In this respect, some observers were
heavily critical of the fact that Myanmar’s then-President Thein Sein was not
invited to the swearing-in ceremony of Narendra Modi on 26 May 2014, es-
pecially in light of the fact that the heads of state of all other neighbouring
countries were invited (Sailo 2014: 3). Myanmar, critics argue, obviously was
and maybe still is not seen as a real neighbour of India:
Although Myanmar shares a long, sensitive border with India, many in New Delhi
don’t seem to regard it as a neighbour, a fact reflected in the failure to invite President
Thein Sein to Modi’s swearing-in event. Distant Mauritius was invited to the event but
not Myanmar. (Chellaney 2014)
It should have been particularly alarming to everyone aspiring to better rela-

tions between New Delhi and Naypyidaw that the non-invitation was not
widely seen as a mistake or an affront but was, in fact, generally interpreted as
fitting, given the nature of India–Myanmar relations:
In all likelihood, the lack of an invite for Myanmar’s President Thein Sein was not a
mistake or a deliberate omission, but simply something that was on nobody’s mind.
Politicians and the media in both countries did not seem to expect that Myanmar would
even be invited, as evidenced by the fact that the media in neither country made an is-
sue out of Myanmar’s non-invite. (Pillalamarri 2014)
Under these circumstances, Modi’s visit to Myanmar in November 2014 was

a welcome step in a new direction. Although Modi’s primary reason for com-
ing to Myanmar was to attend the ASEAN meeting and the East Asia Summit
(EAS), there were also bilateral talks with then-President Thein Sein. Arguably
even more important were the signs of respect shown through one of Modi’s
preferred channels of communication, Twitter. On 6 November 2014, Modi
tweeted: “I will have bilateral meetings with leaders of Myanmar, a valued
friend. Having stronger relations with Myanmar is a priority area for us.”
Particularly the description of Myanmar as “a valued friend” carries a signifi-
cance not to be underestimated. India signalled rhetorically that it was serious
about a new definition of its relations towards its smaller neighbours that
have been neglected in the past, particularly Myanmar, but also Bhutan and
Nepal.
However, this promising start has not led to substantial improvement in the
bilateral relationship. One interviewee even noted: “In the Modi phase, India
seems to have downgraded her relations with Myanmar” (Hazarika, inter-
viewed by author 15 July 2016). Initially, high-level visits from the Indian side
remained rather scarce. After Modi’s 2014 stay, it took almost three years
before he travelled to Myanmar again in September 2017. Given the political
changes in Naypyidaw in 2015, a high-level visit from India came rather late,
especially considering that China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi wasted no time
and came to Myanmar as the very first overseas dignitary in early April 2016,
shortly after the new NLD government took over (Maini 2016). In a very un-
fortunate circumstance for India, Minister of External Affairs Sushma Swaraj
had to postpone a planned visit that same month, for reasons of health. Swa-
raj’s Myanmar visit finally took place in August 2016. However, the fact that
there had been no immediate efforts to make up for the lost opportunity in
April further reinforced the view voiced rather mildly by retired senior gov-
ernment official Bashkar Roy, who said in an interview that “the engagement
from India’s side has been less then optimum” (Roy, interviewed by author 25
June 2016). Former Indian ambassador to Myanmar Preet Malik stated:
[T]he present Indian leadership has not shown the kind of involvement with Myanmar
on the direct bilateral level that the facts on the ground merit. Prime Minister Modi has
visited all of India’s neighbouring countries but has only made a visit to Myanmar to
meet his regional multilateral commitments. This contrasts unfavourably with the pa-
nache that he has shown in the area of foreign policy. (Malik, interviewed by author 19
July 2016)
On the other hand, some observers note that it may have actually been wise
not to push the bilateral relationship too strongly from India’s side and to give
Aung San Suu Kyi some room to manoeuvre, particularly with regard to My-
anmar’s delicate relations with China. From this point of view, rushing in and
putting too much pressure on Suu Kyi to show a strong commitment towards
India would have been counterproductive. It might as well be argued, how
ever, that India’s “failure to deal with [Suu Kyi] […] after a reasonable time
had lapsed does not bode well for the evolving of a closer relationship with
Myanmar” (Malik, interviewed by author 19 July 2016).
On the other hand, there has also been little effort for immediate high-level
visits from Myanmar to India. Although Prime Minister Modi invited Aung
San Suu Kyi to India immediately after the election victory of her NLD in No-
vember 2015, it took almost one year before the visit actually took place in
October 2016. What is more, Suu Kyi made her first major state visit in her
position as State Counsellor of Myanmar and Minister of Foreign Affairs to
China well before coming to India. While there was some mild disappoint-
ment in India, there is certainly an understanding of the delicate balancing act

Suu Kyi has to perform to keep both New Delhi and Beijing happy (Bhatia
2016a; Firstpost 2016). On a positive note, Myanmar’s then-new President Htin
Kyaw made India his choice for his very first bilateral state visit in August
2016 (PTI 2016). The last high-ranking diplomat to come to India before that
had been then-Foreign Minister Wunna Maung Lwin, who came to New Delhi
in July 2015 in order to take part in the first meeting of the India–Myanmar
Joint Consultative Commission (JCC). The establishment of the JCC has been
one pillar of Modi’s “Act East Policy” with regard to Myanmar. It is designed
to provide a forum to discuss a wide range of bilateral issues and also to func-
tion as a form of regulatory body. Periodic JCC meetings should help over-
come the implementation problems that have plagued India’s foreign policy
towards Myanmar for decades. This pertains particularly to two of the most
important connectivity projects that have run behind schedule for years. The
first is a trilateral highway linking India, Myanmar and Thailand, now to be
opened in 2020. The second is the Kaladan Multi Modal Transit Facility –
connecting Kolkata and the Indian heartland, via the Bay of Bengal and the
Kaladan River in Myanmar, to the northeastern state of Mizoram – which is
finally making progress after years of delay and is planned to be completed by
2019 (Feng 2017; Borah 2018). Better connectivity is of course vital for en-
hancing bilateral trade, where there is much room for further expansion on
both sides.
Recent years have seen mixed signals regarding Indian development assis-
tance towards Myanmar. Myanmar has long been an important target country
for Indian loans and grants, though nowhere near the extent of the major re-
cipient, Bhutan. However, Indian foreign aid allocations to Myanmar de-
creased substantially in both 2014–2015 and 2015–2016. While the national
budget for 2016–2017 initially increased the amount distributed to 4,000 mil-
lion INR, the revised estimates were much lower, at only 1,200 million INR.
The budget for 2017–2018 once again reduced the allocations, to 2,250 mil-
lion INR, thereby making Myanmar only number five on the list of major
foreign aid beneficiaries in that financial year – trailing not only Bhutan, Nepal
and Afghanistan but also the Maldives. On a positive note, the revised esti-
mates for Myanmar were the same as the initial numbers, which was not the
case for Bhutan and the Maldives. The 2018–2019 budget slightly raised the
foreign aid target for Myanmar to 2,800 million INR (see Table 5). However,
India could certainly do more.
Table 5: Budget allocations of Indian foreign aid (in million INR)
Recipient 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

–2015 –2016 –2017 –2018 –2019
Bhutan 60,074 61,602 54,900 37,141 26,500

Nepal 4,500 4,200 3,000 3,750 6,500
Afghanistan 6,760 6,760 5,200 3,500 3,250
Myanmar 3,300 2,700 4,000 2,250 2,800
Bangladesh 3,500 2,500 1,500 1,250 1,750
Sri Lanka 5,000 5,000 2,300 1,250 1,500
Maldives 1,830 1,830 400 2,450 1,250
Source: Government of India 2017 and 2018b (Ministry of Finance)
One policy area where India has acted swiftly concerns the fight against guer-
rilla organisations in the Northeast. In June 2015, Indian security forces uni-
laterally entered Myanmar territory to fight against the NSCN (Khaplang)
insurgency group, which is active on both sides of the border. Although not
officially confirmed, it is believed that this cross-border raid triggered develop-
ments in bilateral security relations. There has been a series of consultations
among high-level security officials, which has led to improved coordination
between India and Myanmar (Bhonsle, interviewed by author 25 June 2016).
However, one area where there has been no progress is in the conclusion of an
India–Myanmar extradition treaty. Analyst Obja Borah Hazarika of Dibru-
garh University in Assam is not very optimistic:
If Myanmar–India relations are prioritised by both countries, the extradition treaty
will soon see light of day; however, given the present pace of their interaction, it does
not seem to be in the cards. (Hazarika, interviewed by author 15 July 2016)
Overall, the record of India’s foreign policy towards Myanmar under Modi is
mixed. While there have been areas of progress such as development coopera-
tion and security coordination, there have been disappointments regarding a
strong political commitment from New Delhi and concerning the enhancement
of bilateral trade. Also, many promising initiatives such as the establishment
of the Joint Consultative Commission or the unveiling of a new 1 billion USD
fund to improve connectivity between India and ASEAN (Yhome, interviewed
by author 22 July 2016) have yet to prove their true value to the bilateral re-
lationship. With regard to Myanmar, Modi’s “Act East Policy” still seems to
require an upgrade.
4.2. Aung San Suu Kyi: “India’s friend”?

Aung San Suu Kyi has strong biographical ties to India. She spent part of her
youth in the country accompanying her mother Khin Kyi, who had been ap-
pointed as Burma’s ambassador to India in 1960. Suu Kyi graduated from
Lady Sri Ram College in New Delhi and has many personal friends in India
(Parthasarathy 2016). Famously, she has referred to India as her “second
home” (PTI 2014b). Without a doubt, Suu Kyi has “a natural propensity to-
wards closer relations with India” (Malik, interviewed by author 19 July
2016). Former ambassador Rajiv K. Bhatia described her as “India’s friend”,
which should be a benefit for India, as analyst Khriezo Yhome of the Observer
Research Foundation notes:
Suu Kyi has strong ties with India and knows India and its peoples. This is surely an
advantage for both countries. […] As foreign minister, India will be dealing with a per-
son who understands India, but when it comes to bilateral ties between the two neigh-
bours, she will work for her country’s national interests and Delhi would understand.
(Yhome, interviewed by author 22 July 2016)
While the preconditions for a closer bilateral relationship are very good, the
NLD government will probably have to deal first with problems at home,
such as ethnic, religious and economic issues, before turning to major foreign
policy initiatives (Hazarika, interviewed by author 15 July 2016). Regarding
India–Myanmar relations, continuity can be expected. Former ambassador
Gopalaswami Parthasarathy said in an interview:
There is no reason for us to believe that there will be any change in Myanmar’s foreign
policy of not doing anything that could have an adverse bearing on India’s national
security interests. (Parthasarathy, interviewed by author 30 June 2016)
This and Suu Kyi’s personal bond with India, however, do not mean that My-
anmar’s foreign policy will automatically favour New Delhi or that the rela-
tionship cannot be damaged, as Parthasarathy notes:
Like her father, Suu Kyi is first and foremost a Burmese nationalist […]. She will deal
with India as a friendly neighbour and base the relationship on what it does to fulfil the
aspirations of Myanmar’s people. Like most of her fellow citizens, she was unhappy at
the crude chest-thumping that accompanied the cross-border raid India carried out last
year [2015] on Myanmar’s soil. We would do well to remember this while dealing with
Myanmar […]. (Parthasarathy 2016)
While the assumption that Aung San Suu Kyi is “India’s friend” is certainly
true, New Delhi has to be aware that she will be guided by pragmatism (Bhon-
sle, interviewed by author 25 June 2016) and will never let emotions influence
her politics (Roy, interviewed by author 25 June 2016).
4.3. Myanmar as a balancing factor in the

India–Myanmar–China triangle?
The potential prospect of Myanmar playing a role in improving the relation-
ship between India and China has intrigued many observers, particularly after
Aung San Suu Kyi herself articulated that idea in an interview with an Indian
TV journalist. Certainly, one could envision Myanmar as a field of collabora-
tion between New Delhi and Beijing, for example in the areas of development
cooperation or energy. However, this would not only require a complete aban-
donment of any remnants of a zero-sum logic but above all mutual interest
from both sides. Since there are important areas of conflicting views, for in-
stance regarding transnationally operating insurgency groups or virtually all
matters pertaining to the Myanmar armed forces, it is difficult to envision
such a wide-ranging Indian–Chinese rapprochement in Myanmar. In an inter-
view, former Indian ambassador to Myanmar Rajiv Bhatia called the idea “an
impractical suggestion” for which “there are no takers […] in India” (Bhatia,
interviewed by author 12 July 2016). From today’s point of view, it has to be
regarded as a mere fantasy.
4.4. India–Myanmar–Bangladesh trilateralism?

The economic and strategic importance of the Bay of Bengal has led to repeat-
ed calls for closer cooperation among bordering countries. In particular, the
prospect of trilateral approaches among India, Myanmar and Bangladesh has
been raising interest. The basic idea is to transform already existing bilateral
dialogues between India and Myanmar and between India and Bangladesh
into trilateral talks, thereby fostering closer economic cooperation and, ulti-
mately, closer political bonds among the three countries. Such a trilateralism
could help address issues such as maritime security, illegal migration, develop-
ment of borderlands, cross-border connectivity and transnational energy sup-
plies (Yhome 2014: 9-12). However, the divide between Dhaka and Naypyi
daw could be too much to overcome in the near future. According to Khriezo
Yhome, there are emotive issues, such as the Rohingya question, that are ex-
ceedingly difficult to resolve and that are going to hinder any closer coopera-
tion between the two countries, be it bilaterally or trilaterally. Consequently,
there “is no sign of any movement towards [a] trilateral approach in the cap-
itals as of today” (Yhome, interviewed by author 22 July 2016). Given the
current situation, the idea of India–Myanmar–Bangladesh trilateralism has to
be seen as unrealistic.
4.5. Myanmar as a future SAARC member?

A final interesting point to examine is the prospect of Myanmar’s possibly
joining the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC). Thus
far, Naypyidaw only has observer status within the organisation. A full SAARC
membership for Myanmar would represent a historic precedent, since Myan-
mar would be the only permanent member of both SAARC and ASEAN,
thereby bridging the border between the regions of South and Southeast Asia.
This “overlapping regionalism” could bring interesting new perspectives not
only for issues of connectivity and trade but also and maybe even more impor-
tantly for the establishment of a comprehensive regional security environment.
The idea of Myanmar joining SAARC was first voiced by India’s Prime Minis-
ter Rajiv Gandhi in the 1980s (Malik 2016: 75–76; Haacke 2006: 33–34).
Having rejected Rajiv Gandhi’s earlier invitation, Myanmar officially applied
for SAARC membership in March 2008 (Yhome 2008). The bid was support-
ed by India, yet failed nevertheless (Saez 2011: 40). According to some ana-
lysts, India should encourage Myanmar to apply once again for membership
and support such a bid even more emphatically, just as it had successfully
done when Afghanistan became a full SAARC member in 2007 (Rahman
2009; Singh 2012: 33).
Is a SAARC membership for Myanmar really a conceivable option? Ac-
cording to Rahul K. Bhonsle, there are only limited prospects for this to occur.
The first SAARC membership bid in 2008 was probably never meant to suc-
ceed but was intended to put pressure on ASEAN not to suspend Myanmar
under the military junta (Bhonsle, interviewed by author 25 June 2016). As
early as 2003 there had been warnings that an expulsion of Myanmar from
ASEAN could become a viable option (Dosch 2016: 54). With Myanmar again
firmly established in ASEAN today, there are fewer incentives to reach out to
SAARC. ASEAN is widely seen as the “logical regional arrangement” for My-
anmar (Malik 2016: xvi). Additionally, Myanmar’s ASEAN membership has had
and continues to have China’s support, which is of no small significance to any
government in Naypyidaw (Malik, interviewed by author 19 July 2016). Further-
more, China would probably also play an important role in SAARC expansion. It
has shown interest in joining the organisation, and countries such as Pakistan
and Nepal might push hard for Chinese membership if Myanmar were to be
invited (Yhome, interviewed by author 22 July 2016).
Hence, joining SAARC is for Myanmar at best “a hypothetical question” at
present (Roy, interviewed by author 25 June 2016). Former ambassador Bha-
tia stated accordingly: “I do not foresee Myanmar as a member in SAARC”
(Bhatia, interviewed by author 12 July 2016). What is more, recent develop-
ments point to a new approach by New Delhi towards its neighbourhood,
which would further abandon SAARC and instead strengthen BIMSTEC, in
which Myanmar is already an important member state (Bhatia 2016a). Not-

withstanding possible significant improvements in bilateral relations between
Myanmar and India, Myanmar as a future SAARC member remains a highly
improbable outcome.
5. Conclusion
Although dramatic shifts in the broader diplomatic and security dimension of

India–Myanmar relations are rather unlikely, there are certain steps New Delhi
could and should take to show its willingness to do more for Myanmar. Rupa-
jyoti Borah of the Institute of South Asian Studies at the National University
of Singapore has suggested five measures India should consider (Borah 2017: 5).
First, there should be a generous extension of development aid and additional
lines of credit to Myanmar. As the findings of this paper have shown, there is
much room for improvement in this regard. Second, India could expand its
successful bilateral development assistance in the IT sector by providing more
technical support and manpower. Third, New Delhi should think about relax-
ing visa rules for Myanmar nationals in order to foster people-to-people con-
tacts. Additionally, specific exchange and scholarship programmes for students
from Myanmar could be helpful. Fourth, unilateral concessions in the field of
trade would give India, as the bigger partner, substantial credibility in the re-
lationship. In a new form of “Good Neighbour Policy”, India could allow
certain products from Myanmar to be imported with few or no tariffs attached.
Fifth and finally, a stronger involvement of the Indian private sector in the
infrastructure segment and beyond might help alleviate problems of imple-
mentation. As argued in this paper, India’s difficulties in meeting scheduled
dates for the completion of key bilateral projects have severely damaged New
Delhi’s reputation in Myanmar. Any assistance in order to avoid such compli-
cations in the future should be seriously considered.
There is a long way to go in order to make a truly fresh start in India–
Myanmar relations. While the window of opportunity is certainly wide open,
New Delhi has to avoid the failures of the past, particularly by ensuring the
successful execution of foreign policy initiatives under the “Act East” para-
digm. There should be no more “gaps between promise and implementation”
(Malik, interviewed by author 19 July 2016). All too often, India has dam-
aged its own interests with erroneous decisions, thus becoming a “would-be”
instead of a real great power (Chatterjee Miller 2013; Wagner 2005). India
has been regarded as an “anti-Machiavelli”, committing virtually all the mis-
takes that an actor striving for power should avoid (Rösel / Gottschlich 2008:
139). Considering India’s foreign policy towards Myanmar, one might conclude
that New Delhi has “never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity”, to

quote Israeli diplomat Abba Eban’s famous assessment. For India, it is time to
change this perception through a different policy approach and closer collabo-
ration with Myanmar’s NLD government.
References
Aneja, Atul (2014): China Amplifies Pitch on “Silk Road” ahead of Xi Visit. The Hindu, 13 Septem-
ber 2014. http://www.thehindu.com/news/china-amplifies-pitch-on-maritime-silk-road-ahead-
of-xi-visit/article6407359.ece (accessed 17 September 2014).
Bhatia, Rajiv (2016a): As India Meets China at BRICS, Myanmar’s Suu Kyi Has Much to Achieve
in Goa. Hindustan Times, 15 October 2016. http://www.hindustantimes.com/analysis/as-in-
dia-meets-china-at-brics-myanmar-s-suu-kyi-has-much-to-achieve-in-goa/story-VXkZd5LU-
5Wt8uZyQr07RmI.html (accessed 17 July 2017).
Bhatia, Rajiv (2016b): India–Myanmar Relations: Changing Contours. New Delhi: Routledge.
Borah, Rupakjyoti (2018): What Next for ASEAN–India Ties? (ISAS Brief, 561/7 March 2018).
Singapore: Institute of South Asian Studies.
Borah, Rupakjyoti (2017): Northeast India in India’s “Act-East” Policy: Exploring Connectivity
with Southeast Asia. (ISAS Insights, 471/11 October 2017). Singapore: Institute of South
Asian Studies.
Bünte, Marco (2014): On the Road to Democracy? Political Liberalisation in Myanmar. (Asia
Policy Brief 01/2014). Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung.
Chatterjee Miller, Manjari (2013): India’s Feeble Foreign Policy: A Would-be Great Power Resists
its Own Rise. Foreign Affairs 92(3), pp. 14–19.
Chellaney, Brahma (2014): A World to Woo: Modi Must Set the Bar Higher on Foreign Policy.
Hindustan Times, 6 August 2014. www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/allaboutmodisarkar/a-
world-to-woo-modi-must-set-the-bar-higher-on-foreign-policy/article1-1249053.aspx (accessed
20 August 2014).
Dörffel, Alexander (2003): Myanmar im Spannungsfeld indisch-chinesischer Rivalität. Südostasien
aktuell 22(4), pp. 370–383.
Dosch, Jörn (2016): Die ASEAN Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft: Überblick für Wissenschaft und Praxis.
Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Egreteau, Renaud (2011): A Passage to Burma? India, Development, and Democratisation in
Myanmar. Contemporary Politics 17(4), pp. 467–486.
Egreteau, Renaud (2003): Wooing the Generals: India’s New Burma Policy. New Delhi: Authors
Press.
Eleven (2014): Govt Plans 32 Dams, Most JVs with Chinese Firms. Eleven Myanmar, 22 September
2014. www.elevenmyanmar.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7633:govt-
plans-32-dams-most-jvs-with-chinese-firms&catid=44&Itemid=384 (accessed 30 Septem�-
ber 2014).
European Commission (2017): European Union, Trade in Goods with Myanmar. Directorate-
General for Trade, European Commission, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs///2006/sep-
tember/tradoc_113423.pdf (accessed 30 June 2017).
Feng Yingqiu (2017): India–Myanmar Kaladan Multimodal Transportation Project in Progress.
Xinhua Net, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-07/01/c_136409635.htm (accessed 10
July 2017).
Firstpost (2016): PM Modi and Aung San Suu Kyi Discuss India–Myanmar Ties. Talk on Border
Security, Development. Firstpost, 19 October 2016. http://www.firstpost.com/india/narendra-
modi-meets-aung-san-suu-kyi-hold-talks-on-border-security-and-development-3059936.html
(accessed 10 July 2017).
Ganesan, N. (2010): Myanmar’s Foreign Policy towards Its Near Neighbours. International Stud-
ies Review 11(1), pp. 1–24.
Gordon, Sandy (2014): India’s Rise as an Asian Power: Nation, Neighborhood, and Region.
Washington: Georgetown University Press.
Gottschlich, Pierre (2015): New Developments in India–Myanmar Bilateral Relations? Journal of
Current Southeast Asian Affairs 34(2), pp. 139–163.
Government of India (2018a): Export Import Data Bank. Government of India, Department of
Commerce, http://commerce-app.gov.in/eidb/iecnt.asp (accessed 5 May 2018).
Government of India (2018b): Grants and Loans to Foreign Governments. Government of India,
Ministry of Finance, http://indiabudget.gov.in/ub2018-19/eb/stat20.pdf (accessed 8 May 2018).
Government of India (2017): Union Budget. Government of India, Ministry of Finance, http://
www.unionbudget.nic.in/vol1.asp (accessed 10 July 2017).
Haacke, Jürgen (2006): Myanmar’s Foreign Policy: Domestic Influences and International Impli-
cations. (Adelphi Paper 381). Abingdon: Routledge.
Hackmann, Michael (2014): Myanmars Wandel – Chancen für Indien? Südostasien 30(2), pp. 14–16.
Haidar, Suhasini (2014): “Enlightened National Interest” is at Core of Modi’s Foreign Policy
Mantra. The Hindu, 15 June 2014. www.thehindu.com/sunday-anchor/enlightened-nation-
al-interest-is-at-core-of-modis-foreign-policy-mantra/article6115254.ece?homepage=true (ac-
cessed 15 June 2014).
Hazarika, Obja Borah (2014): India, Myanmar Border Cooperation Gets a Fillip. South Asia
Monitor, 18 May 2014. http://southasiamonitor.org/detail.php?type=sl&nid=8024 (accessed
26 September 2014).
Hoepfner, Maren (2013): ASEAN+6: Größte Freihandelszone der Welt in Planung. (GIGA Focus
Asien 4/2013). Hamburg: German Institute of Global and Area Studies. www.giga-hamburg.
de/de/system/files/publications/gf_asien_1304.pdf (accessed 15 June 2015).
Islam, M. Shahidul (2009): Energy Cooperation between India and Bangladesh: Economics and
Geopolitics. In: Marie Lall (ed.): The Geopolitics of Energy in South Asia. Singapore: Institute
of Southeast Asian Studies, pp. 123–151.
Jacob, Jayanth (2014): “Look East” Policy Is Now “Act East”. Hindustan Times, 4 October 2014.
www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/nda-aims-at-deeper-engagement-with-asian-countries/arti-
cle1-1271765.aspx (accessed 4 November 2014).
Jha, Pankaj K. (2013): India and China in Southeast Asia: Competition or Cooperation? New
Delhi: Manas Publications.
Kipgen, Nehginpao (2016): Democratisation of Myanmar. New Delhi: Routledge.
Lall, Marie (2014): An der Seite von Riesen: Myanmars Außenpolitik. In: Ute Köster / Phuong Le
Trong / Christina Grein (eds): Handbuch Myanmar: Gesellschaft, Politik, Wirtschaft, Kultur,
Entwicklung. Berlin: Horlemann Verlag, pp. 208–216.
Lall, Marie (2009): India’s New Foreign Policy: The Journey from Moral Non-Alignment to the
Nuclear Deal. In: Marie Lall (ed.): The Geopolitics of Energy in South Asia. Singapore: Insti-
tute of Southeast Asian Studies, pp. 27–50.
Lall, Marie (2006): Indo-Myanmar Relations in the Era of Pipeline Diplomacy. Contemporary
Southeast Asia 28(3), pp. 424–446.
Lee, Lavina (2014): Myanmar’s Transition to Democracy: New Opportunities or Obstacles for
India? Contemporary Southeast Asia 36(2), pp. 290–316.
Li, Mingjiang (2009): Sino-Indian Energy Politics. In: Marie Lall (ed.): The Geopolitics of Energy
in South Asia. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, pp. 152–161.
Maini, Tridivesh Singh (2016): Why India’s Engagement with a New Myanmar Should Not Be
Dictated by the China Factor Alone. Scroll.in, http://scroll.in/article/807370/why-indias-en-
gagement-with-a-new-myanmar-should-not-be-dictated-by-the-china-factor-alone (accessed 20
July 2016).
Malik, Preet (2016): My Myanmar Years: A Diplomat’s Account of India’s Relations with the
Region. New Delhi: Sage.
Miglani, Sanjeev (2012): Aung San Suu Kyi’s India Visit: Killing Softly with Her Words. India
Insight, 19 November 2012. http://blogs.reuters.com/india/2012/11/19/aung-san-suu-kyi-in-
india-killing-softly-with-her-words/ (accessed 16 June 2015).
Mishra, Rahul (2014): Myanmar: Priority for the New Indian Government. IPCS Article 4545,
4 July 2014, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, New Delhi.
Mitra, Subrata Kumar (2011): Politics in India: Structure, Process and Policy. London: Routledge.
Mullen, Rani D. (2013): India’s Development Assistance: Will It Change the Global Development
Finance Paradigm? Paper prepared for the Workshop on “Innovation in Governance of Devel-
opment Finance: Causes, Consequences and the Role of Law”, Gießen and New York Univer-
sity School of Law, 8–9 April 2013. www.iilj.org/newsandevents/documents/mullen.pdf (ac-
cessed 9 November 2014).
Mullen, Rani D. / Shivakumar, Hemant / Prasad, Kailash / Haribhakti, Sanjana / Sanskriti, Jain
(2014): The State of Indian Development Cooperation. A Report. (IDCR Report, Spring
2014). New Delhi: Centre for Policy Research / Indian Development Cooperation Research.
Myint-U, Thant (2012): Where China Meets India: Burma and the New Crossroads of Asia. Lon-
don: Faber and Faber.
Narayan, S. (2009): Oil and Gas Pricing Policies in India. In: Marie Lall (ed.): The Geopolitics of
Energy in South Asia. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, pp. 14–26.
Panda, Bhagirathi (2017): Act East Policy, Transaction Costs and Development of the North-
East. In: C. Joshua Thomas / Konthonjam Sarda (eds): Act East and India’s North-East. New
Delhi: Pentagon Press, pp. 37–56.
Pande, Girija (2018): The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership: India Should Join the
Asian Trade Block. ISAS Brief 551, 7 February 2018, Institute of South Asian Studies, Singa-
pore.
Pardesi, Manjeet S. (2012): Southeast Asia in Indian Foreign Policy: Positioning India as a Major
Power in Asia. In: Sumit Ganguly (ed.): India’s Foreign Policy: Retrospect and Prospect.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 106–131.
Parthasarathy, Gopalapuram (2016): In Suu Kyi We Must Trust. The Hindu Business Line,
6 April 2016. https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/columns/g-parthasarathy/in-suu-
kyi-we-must-trust/article8442299.ece (accessed 29 June 2016).
Parthasarathy, Gopalapuram (2014): India’s Gateway to the East. The Hindu Business Line,
24 September 2014. https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/columns/g-parthasarathy/
indias-gateway-to-the-east/article6442474.ece (accessed 2 October 2014).
Patteran, Dani (2014): Foreign Aid in Myanmar: A Precarious Balance. Devex, 3 June 2014.
www.devex.com/news/foreign-aid-in-myanmar-a-precarious-balance-83521 (accessed 26 Janu
ary 2015).
Piccio, Lorenzo (2014): In Latest Indian Budget, Aid Spending Dwarfs Aid Receipts. Devex,
24 February 2014. https://devex.com/news/in-latest-indian-budget-aid-spending-dwarfs-aid-
receipts-82915 (accessed 18 July 2016).
Pillalamarri, Akhilesh (2014): Why Was Myanmar’s President Not Invited to Modi’s Swearing-In
Ceremony? The Diplomat, 3 June 2014. http://thediplomat.com/2014/06/why-was-myan-
mars-president-not-invited-to-modis-swearing-in-ceremony/ (accessed 6 November 2014).
PTI (2016): PM Modi Holds Talks with Myanmar President to Improve Bilateral Ties. The Indian
Express, 29 August 2016. http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/pm-narendra-
modi-holds-talks-with-myanmarese-president-to-improve-bilateral-ties-3001920/ (accessed 10
July 2017).
PTI (2014a): Sushma Swaraj Tells Indian Envoys to Act East and Not Just Look East. The Eco-
nomic Times, 26 August 2014. http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-08-26/
news/53243802_1_india-and-asean-countries-east-asia-strategically-important-region (ac�-
cessed 4 November 2014).
PTI (2014b): “India My Second Home”. Myanmar’s Suu Kyi Tells PM Modi. The Indian Ex-
press, 12 November 2014. http://www.indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/india-my-
second-home-myanmars-suu-kyi-tells-pm-modi/ (accessed 21 July 2016).
Rahman, Mirza Zulfiqur (2009): Myanmar’s Bid for SAARC Membership. IPCS Article 2797,
3 February 2009, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, New Delhi.
Ramya, P. S. (2018): Myanmar’s Approach to India. The Diplomat, 29 March 2018. https://the-
diplomat.com/2018/03/myanmars-approach-to-india/ (accessed 1 May 2018).
Renshaw, Catherine Shanahan (2013): Democratic Transformation and Regional Institutions:
The Case of Myanmar and ASEAN. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs 32(1), pp.
29–54.
Rösel, Jakob / Gottschlich, Pierre (2008): Indien im Neuen Jahrhundert: Demokratischer Wandel,
Ökonomischer Aufstieg und Außenpolitische Chancen. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Routray, Bibhu Prasad (2011): India–Myanmar Relations: Triumph of Pragmatism. Jindal Jour-
nal of International Affairs 1(1), pp. 299–321.
Roy, Esha (2014): Sushma Swaraj Discusses Trade, Insurgency with Myanmar. The Indian Ex-
press, 12 August 2014. http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/swaraj-discusses-
trade-insurgency-with-myanmar/ (accessed 3 February 2015).
Saez, Lawrence (2011): The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC): An
Emerging Collaboration Architecture. London: Routledge.
Sailo, Laldinkima (2014): India–Myanmar Ties: New Hope, Old Despair. ISAS Brief 351, 1 Decem
ber 2014, Institute of South Asian Studies, Singapore.
Singh, Amit (2012): Emerging Trends in India–Myanmar Relations. Maritime Affairs 8(2), pp.
25–47.
The Hindu (2012): Let’s Not Be Over-optimistic about Burma. The Hindu, 13 November 2012.
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/interview/lets-not-be-overoptimistic-about-burma/arti-
cle4091223.ece (accessed 16 June 2015).
Vasan, R. S. (2012): India’s Maritime Core Interests. Strategic Analysis 36(3), pp. 413–423.
Wagner, Christian (2009): Promotion of Democracy and Foreign Policy in India. SWP Research
Paper 13, October 2009, Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, Berlin.
Wagner, Christian (2005): Die „verhinderte“ Großmacht? Die Außenpolitik der Indischen Union,
1947–1998. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Wagner, Daniel / Cafiero, Giorgio (2014): Can China and India Coexist in Myanmar? Asia Pacific
Bulletin 250, 20 February 2014, East-West Center, Washington.
Yhome, Khriezo (2016a): Why Aung San Suu Kyi Will Not Abandon China for the US. The Wire,
12 April 2016. http://thewire.in/27629/myanmars-new-government-foreign-policy-challenges-
and-options/ (accessed 20 June 2016).
Yhome, Khriezo (2016b): Modi’s “Act East” Begins in Myanmar. In: Aryaman Bhatnagar / Ritika
Passi (eds): Neighbourhood First: Navigating Ties Under Modi. Delhi: Observer Research
Foundation, pp. 76–84.
Yhome, Khriezo (2015a): The Burma Roads: India’s Search for Connectivity through Myanmar.
Asian Survey 55(6), pp. 1217–1240.
Yhome, Khriezo (2015b): Securing India’s Northeast: Factors Driving New Delhi’s Myanmar
Policy. Global Asia 10(4), pp. 116–121.
Yhome, Khriezo (2014): The Bay of Bengal at the Crossroads: Potential for Cooperation among
Bangladesh, India and Myanmar. New Delhi: FES India.
Yhome, Khriezo (2008): SAARC and Myanmar. Observer Research Foundation Analysis, 28 July
2008. http://orfonline.org/cms/sites/orfonline/modules/analysis/AnalysisDetail.html?cmaid=
14854&mmacmaid=14855 (accessed 13 November 2014).

Pierre Gottschlich: Keywords: India, Myanmar, Burma, Foreign Policy, Bilateral Relations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pierre Gottschlich: Keywords: India, Myanmar, Burma, Foreign Policy, Bilateral Relations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pierre Gottschlich: Keywords: India, Myanmar, Burma, Foreign Policy, Bilateral Relations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IQAS Vol. 48 / 2017 3–4, pp.

The India-Myanmar Relationship: New

Recent political developments in Myanmar1 have led to hopes for ground-

© International Quarterly for Asian Studies

new and unexpected opportunities might open up to either readjust or even

In 1951, India and Burma signed a Treaty of Friendship, which, according to

dia and Myanmar cautiously improved further without, however, resulting in

3. Issues and policy areas of the India–Myanmar relationship

3.1. Democratisation and stability

is usually weighed against national interests and only occasionally supersedes

4 For reasons of privacy, only Alana’s first name is used.

Of course, whether the nascent democratisation in Myanmar will have short-

3.2. Security in India’s Northeast and illegal migration

3.3. Trade and infrastructure

6 The Indian fiscal year runs from 1 April to 31 March.

Table 1: India’s bilateral trade with Myanmar

Fiscal India’s exports­ India’s imports Total bilateral

Amount Overall Amount Overall Amount Overall

2008–2009 221.64 0.12 928.97 0.31 1,150.60 0.24

Source: Government of India 2018a (Department of Commerce)

Table 2: Myanmar’s top trading partners 2016

Total trade Share Imports Share Exports Share

China 4,323 22.3 2,434 25.9 1,890 18.9

Total trade Share Imports Share Exports Share

India 1,465 7.6 626 6.7 839 8.4

3.5. Development cooperation

2001–2004 2004–2007 2007–2010 2010–2013

Bhutan 7,265 12,130 28,021 72,450

Table 4: Indian foreign aid to Myanmar (in million INR)

Fiscal year Budget Revised Actual

2011–2012 1,900.0 1,118.2 674.0

There is a chorus of very critical voices regarding the apparent obsession of

3.7. Summary: India’s view of Myanmar

As far as democratisation in Myanmar is concerned, India’s main interest re-

4. New directions after a change of governments?

4.1. Narendra Modi: “Act East”?

It should have been particularly alarming to everyone aspiring to better rela-

Under these circumstances, Modi’s visit to Myanmar in November 2014 was

ment in India, there is certainly an understanding of the delicate balancing act

Table 5: Budget allocations of Indian foreign aid (in million INR)

Recipient 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Bhutan 60,074 61,602 54,900 37,141 26,500

4.2. Aung San Suu Kyi: “India’s friend”?

4.3. Myanmar as a balancing factor in the

4.4. India–Myanmar–Bangladesh trilateralism?

4.5. Myanmar as a future SAARC member?

which Myanmar is already an important member state (Bhatia 2016a). Not-

Although dramatic shifts in the broader diplomatic and security dimension of

that New Delhi has “never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity”, to

You might also like

Fiscal India’s exports India’s imports Total bilateral