India's Rohingya policy: Not ideal, but best strategy to ensure geopolitical and security interests

It is always problematic to base foreign policy and homeland security on social justice, ethics and morality. In an ideal world, Pakistan would have stopped sponsoring cross-border terror, dismantled all jihadi infrastructure and handed over the bad guys to us. Imagine the number of lives that may still be saved, or the goodwill it would generate between New Delhi and Islamabad if Masood Azhar, Hafiz Saeed or Dawood Ibrahim (just to name a few) were deported to India. We could put the animus behind us, live in peace and rewrite history.[caption id=“attachment_4026459” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  Prime Minister Narendra Modi with the State Counsellor of Myanmar, Aung San Suu Kyi, at Bogyoke Aung San Museum, in Yangon, Myanmar on 7 September, 2017. Image courtesy PIB[/caption] It would have been great had China stopped the tendency to salami-slice its way into sovereign spaces to satiate territorial hunger, not to speak of abandoning its habit of bullying neighbours. And nothing would please the world more to see Xi Jinping implement strictly the sanctions against North Korea and bring Kim Jong-un to the dialogue table. Unfortunately, none of these are likely to happen. We live in a world where nation-states decide their policies based on narrow narcissism. Woolly-headed idealism cannot guide geopolitical moves and strategic interests. India’s position on the Rohingya Muslims — as revealed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Myanmar, refusal to back the Bali Declaration at the World Parliamentary Forum or attempt to deport refugees from Indian soil — is based on a rational assessment of realpolitik and security interests. The Rohingya issue has many dimensions — legal, cultural, ethnic, territorial, religious, democratic, terroristic, humanitarian. It is easy to apply reductionist logic and whittle down the crisis into any one of these dimensions. But in formulating policies, national interest must override all other considerations. This isn’t an immoral position to take. As the prime minister, it is Modi’s moral and primary responsibility to ensure the well-being and safety of Indian citizens who have voted him to power. Any other considerations must follow after. In this context, the Indian Parliamentary delegation’s decision to object to the reference to Myanmar’s human rights violations in the Bali statement is commensurate with its policy. It was a political move anyway on Turkey’s part to introduce a comment on the “ongoing violence” in Myanmar’s Rakhine state at a forum to reach a global consensus on “sustainable development goals”. India may have appeared isolated at the forum, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. By showing solidarity with the Myanmar government, India has chosen the best among a basket case of difficult diplomatic options. It follows from Modi’s recent visit to Naypyidaw and places India on the cusp of a much-needed policy reversal. At a time when Aung San Suu Kyi is under tremendous pressure from the West, India’s backing will be well appreciated. How does this help India in the long run? The implications are several. The immediate one was witnessed in the way Myanmar lent total support to India’s fight against terror and also reinforced India’s territorial sovereignty. In the joint statement after Modi’s bilateral with Suu Kyi, Myanmar “reaffirmed its respect of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India and steadfastly upheld the policy of not allowing any insurgent group to utilise Myanmar’s soil to undertake hostile acts against the Indian Government. Myanmar also appreciated Government of India for upholding the same principle.” The importance of this declaration from a country which shares a 1,600-km border with India’s landlocked northeastern states and is the recipient of massive capacity and policy investments from China can hardly be overstated. Even more so coming right after Doka La. India has, at various times, sought Myanmar’s help in flushing out terrorists who operate in the restive border areas. As Kanti Bajpai writes in The Times of India, “Indian criticism of Myanmar could cause it to become unhelpful on dealing with Indian insurgents sheltering in its territory. In 2015, Indian troops went into Myanmar to flush out a group of insurgents who had ambushed an Indian patrol. The operation had the tacit cooperation of Naypyidaw. Criticising Myanmar for its handling of the Rohingya could badly damage Indian border management efforts in the northeast.” In terms of capacity-building, India needs to play catch-up with China which has turned Myanmar into almost its client state. This holds grave security problems for India and threatens to reverse its maritime advantages in Indian Ocean Region. Modi already faces an uphill task in implementing Act East Policy after decades of insularity have made India an unreliable and even insignificant partner for ASEAN states. Making BIMSTEC work is also incumbent on good relationship with Myanmar. To quote from Harsh V Pant’s piece in The Diplomat, “As China’s profile continues to rise in India’s vicinity, New Delhi would like to enhance India’s presence by developing infrastructure and connectivity projects in the country. India has found it difficult to counter Chinese influence in Myanmar, with China selling everything from weapons to food grains there, and projecting power in the Indian Ocean will become an even greater challenge if China increases its naval presence in Myanmar. No wonder, Myanmar is at the heart of Modi government’s Act East policy with the India-Myanmar-Thailand Asian Trilateral Highway, the Kaladan multimodal project, a road-river-port cargo transport project, and of course BIMSTEC, the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation.” Not to forget that Rohingya’s well-documented ties with Pro-Pakistan terrorist outfits present an enormous security challenge. For the likes of Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Muhammad, both of whom have courted members of the community, the communal violence and resultant turmoil present an opportunity to scout for ’talents’ and not only muddy the waters more in Jammu and Kashmir but also introduce discord in areas that are peaceful. Zakir Musa, who is said to be heading an Al Qaeda splinter cell in India, has reportedly threatened Centre against deporting Rohingya Muslims. A similar statement has come from LeT chief Hafiz Saeed. Rohingya insurgents are also receiving assistance from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, according to the International Crisis Group (ICG). “In supporting the Suu Kyi government, India has also sent a message of consistency in fight against terror. There cannot be any distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ terrorism. Modi was successful in working out a deal to provide development assistance in the troubled Rakhine state. As Bajpai says, under the circumstances, this was probably the best that could have been done.”