The dilemma was well caught in its engagement with eastern neighbour, Myanmar (formerly Burma). In other words, there was no long term Indian perspective on Myanmar as is often alleged.

When the face of democracy in two-decade old military ruled Myanmar, Aung San Suu Kyi arrived in New Delhi on her first trip to India in 40 years, wags had reasons to believe that the Indian government was trying to “repair” a damaged relation with the Nobel laureate. Suu Kyi is still believed to have the same mesmerizing influence over her people that had helped her National League for Democracy sweep the elections in 1990, a result the military ignored and had instead put Suu kyi under house arrest.

“New Delhi is keen to revive friendship with her (Suu Kyi) while strengthening its ties with Myanmar’s government. They both need not be seen in isolation or in competition to each other,” says a Congress leader and party’s nominee in the parliamentary standing committee on External Affairs.

Significantly ahead of her visit, Aung San had told The Hindu newspaper that she was ‘saddened’, although not surprised, at India’s relationship with Myanmar’s military rulers.

The Myanmar opposition in her public speech and interactions with Indian leaders urged India to support and encourage her country’s transition towards democracy.

During a week-long trip, her first visit to the country in decades, the Nobel laureate has met with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and aimed to re-establish ties with Indian civil society.

“We have not yet achieved the goal of democracy. We are still trying and we hope that in this last and most difficult phase, the people of India will stand by us and walk by us,” she said at a memorial lecture in New Delhi for Jawaharlal Nehru.

During his meeting with Suu Kyi, Singh told the Myanmar opposition leader that “our good wishes are with you as indeed with your struggle for democracy.” Suu Kyi and Singh discussed a variety of issues including the national reconciliation process in Myanmar and the need for people-to-people relations and cooperation between the parliaments and judiciaries of the two countries.

Myanmar’s opposition leader studied politics and international relations in New Delhi’s famous Lady Shri Ram College for Women when her mother, Khin Kyi, was Burma’s ambassador to India in 1960.

In fact, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha Meira Kumar told Suu Kyi that the Indian Parliament would continue to share its experience in parliamentary practices and procedures with the Myanmarese Parliament.

Now, how far that rekindles the good old relation between Suu Kyi and India, her former home for long years when her mother was ambassador here, remains to be seen.

‘Turbulent’ democracy:

The high point of her meeting with the Speaker in parliament premises was rather from an informal remark. She had said that she would prefer a “turbulent parliament” over a quiet one. Addressing a gathering in parliament premises, she made the remarks as she saw media persons jostling.

Dwelling on the importance of parliamentary democracy, Suu Kyi maintained that a ‘turbulent’ media reminded her of a ‘turbulent Indian parliament’ but it showcased the “power” of the people.

Suu Kyi however, refused to speak in Hindi when requested by the press to do so. “I would not like to risk that.... My Hindi was never the best, you know. So I think I better be safe then sorry and stick to English. Unless you want me to speak Burmese, which I shall be quite willing to,” she said. Suu Kyi also planted a sapling of Magnolia Grandiflora (commonly known in India as Champa) in Parliament premises. She was heard requesting photographers not to step on the plant while taking her pictures. “I hope you are not stomping on my poor plant... Be careful of the poor plant,” she said repeatedly. (See photograph)

Mild Turmoil:  

But in all fairness it ought to be admitted that Aung San’s remarks disapproving Indian engagement with Myanmar’s military regime has not gone too well with the government. Such remarks from a foreigner to a country cherishing the ideals of peace and democratic apostle Mahatma Gandhi’s principles that India was straying away from its own legacy has left India upset a little.

The officials in the Home Ministry and security apparatus – of course on the condition of anonymity – have defended strongly New Delhi’s recognition to the military rulers.  “The establishment of diplomatic and strategic ties by New Delhi with the eastern neighbour’s military rulers were justified and were guided by pragmatism,” said one official. In the 1990s and in later years, New Delhi had established “better working relations” with Myanmar’s military junta primarily aiming to “counter militancy and also fight the growing Chinese influence” on its eastern neighbourhood.

“The rise in Chinese capabilities and its influence on India’s immediate neighbour especially Bhutan and Myanmar could not be neglected and thus establishing a working diplomatic relation even with military junta was only a pragmatic approach,” endorses R.N Kumar, a strategic expert. This is not for the first time India’s Myanmar policy has come in under attack. The U.S.President Barack Obama during his 2010 visit had told Indian parliament that as an emerging power India had the responsibilities to speak up against human rights violation in Myanmar.

Observers, however, claim that Indian government has yielded certain gains from the engagement with the military rulers, like in 2008 Myanmar army conducted operations against Indian militants – like the Naga group - NSCN (Khaplang) in early 2008. “The two-decade long international isolation especially by the likes of the US and Britain have not quite helped the cause of the long-suffering common people of Myanmar. Instead, the world is witness that the isolation of Myanmar, which any day has much strategic significance due to geo-political positioning, has only dragged itself into the lap of China,” says a senior military official, who has served in the northeast.

Officials also point out that in pursuance of Look East Policy, India has able to nearly double the bilateral trade with Myanmar between 2005 and 2010, from $555 million to $1.21 billion.

From the government of India and also media’s views, there was much ‘euphoria’ about Suu Kyi’s visit.  The visit will definitely go a long way in rekindling the relation between the Indian government and the opposition leader in that country. However, that would not mean New Delhi will stay away from Myanmar’s government — military or otherwise. Experts view Suu Kyi’s remarks and statements as ‘free and frank’ but not hurting the sentiments.

After all, Su Kyi had anchored her political ideology mostly while studying in India. Her stress on Gandhian ideals is actually seen as a tribute to Indian legacy and her faith in Indian values and ideology for democratic values.
As her visit ended, New Delhi feels the likelihood of Suu Kyi taking over the reins of her country by 2015 has increased and thus New Delhi will ‘continue’ with its Myanmar policy in the best interests of the country and in pursuance of newly crafted mission to look east wards.