[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index ][Thread Index ]

Reasons of state



--------------C10C9AA3B41A44870B8228DD
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Reasons of state

EDITORIAL
The Asian Age (New Delhi)

November 16, 2000:

The somewhat piquant situation that has arisen because of New Delhi?s
decision to invite one of the senior most generals of the Burmese
military junta, must be seen in a perspective, which is not overly
emotive in content. Without meaning any disregard for the yearning for
freedom and democracy in that country, a distinction ought to be made
between government-to-government contact as distinct from those that
exist people-to-people. Ideally, there should be no contradiction
between the two, but it is not an ideal world. And much as the Indian
people, the Indian government has to deal with those who are in
effective control of the reins of government. An element of sentiment
and concern is inbuilt into a situation where the majority of people in
India?s Southeast Asian neighborhood are at loggerheads with the
powers-that-be; but still, diplomacy and national interest demand that
India but must, in fact but has to, do business with Burma. There are
several good reasons for doing so ? the easy access to arms and refuge
available in that country for insurgents active in India?s Northeast
require the two governments to grapple with a much greater resolve then
indicated by the only moderately successful joint military operation
launched in the summer of 1995. From drug-trafficking to free dealing of
arms, the Indo-Burmese border has been both too active and porous for
the issue to be ignored at the government level. That by no means should
imply, however, that the Indian people are not one with the democratic
aspirations of the people of Burma. First Lady Usha Narayanan is
justified in her individual capacity to stay away from all functions
slated fort he visiting delegation; being of Burmese origin, she of
course is doing so to express solidarity with the people and rejecting
the military junta. However, being part of the government that he is,
defence minister George Fernandes may not be entirely justified in
boycotting the visit; it is quite another thing that officially, it has
been clarified that Mr Fernandes will not be required during the
interface because considerations of defence are not on the agenda set up
for the visit. New Delhi form time to time has interacted with regimes
inimical to its perceptions of form and nature of governance prevailing
under them. That is an elementary and quite unavoidable aspect of
statecraft. In the context, if something tangible does come out of the
New Delhi talks between the visiting delegation and the Indian
government, let the gains not be obfuscated or undermined by other
considerations, howsoever control and close to the heart they may be.
Given geopolitical and strategic concerns, India cannot afford to stay
clear of the present arrangement in Burma just because it is presided
over by a non-democratic, military hue. For reasons of state, such
contacts have an inevitability about them. The message should certainly
not be interpreted to mean that the cause of democratic advance and the
need for ensuring civil and human rights in Burma becomes any-the-less
paramount for India as a whole.



--------------C10C9AA3B41A44870B8228DD
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<b><font size=+2>Reasons of state</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>EDITORIAL</font></b>
<br>The Asian Age (New Delhi)
<p>November 16, 2000:
<p>The somewhat piquant situation that has arisen because of New Delhi?s
decision to invite one of the senior most generals of the Burmese military
junta, must be seen in a perspective, which is not overly emotive in content.
Without meaning any disregard for the yearning for freedom and democracy
in that country, a distinction ought to be made between government-to-government
contact as distinct from those that exist people-to-people. Ideally, there
should be no contradiction between the two, but it is not an ideal world.
And much as the Indian people, the Indian government has to deal with those
who are in effective control of the reins of government. An element of
sentiment and concern is inbuilt into a situation where the majority of
people in India?s Southeast Asian neighborhood are at loggerheads with
the powers-that-be; but still, diplomacy and national interest demand that
India but must, in fact but has to, do business with Burma. There are several
good reasons for doing so ? the easy access to arms and refuge available
in that country for insurgents active in India?s Northeast require the
two governments to grapple with a much greater resolve then indicated by
the only moderately successful joint military operation launched in the
summer of 1995. From drug-trafficking to free dealing of arms, the Indo-Burmese
border has been both too active and porous for the issue to be ignored
at the government level. That by no means should imply, however, that the
Indian people are not one with the democratic aspirations of the people
of Burma. First Lady Usha Narayanan is justified in her individual capacity
to stay away from all functions slated fort he visiting delegation; being
of Burmese origin, she of course is doing so to express solidarity with
the people and rejecting the military junta. However, being part of the
government that he is, defence minister George Fernandes may not be entirely
justified in boycotting the visit; it is quite another thing that officially,
it has been clarified that Mr Fernandes will not be required during the
interface because considerations of defence are not on the agenda set up
for the visit. New Delhi form time to time has interacted with regimes
inimical to its perceptions of form and nature of governance prevailing
under them. That is an elementary and quite unavoidable aspect of statecraft.
In the context, if something tangible does come out of the New Delhi talks
between the visiting delegation and the Indian government, let the gains
not be obfuscated or undermined by other considerations, howsoever control
and close to the heart they may be. Given geopolitical and strategic concerns,
India cannot afford to stay clear of the present arrangement in Burma just
because it is presided over by a non-democratic, military hue. For reasons
of state, such contacts have an inevitability about them. The message should
certainly not be interpreted to mean that the cause of democratic advance
and the need for ensuring civil and human rights in Burma becomes any-the-less
paramount for India as a whole.
<br>&nbsp;
<br>&nbsp;</html>

--------------C10C9AA3B41A44870B8228DD--