Guest contributor
Shalini Perumal
India’s Act East Policy, presented as a “progressive” framework for regional cooperation and economic integration, continues to showcase Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government complicity with Myanmar’s military junta.
This policy, with its focus on “improving connectivity” and trade, disregards the complex political realities and historical grievances of these communities, perpetuating a colonial logic that prioritises the interests of the central state over the rights of marginalised populations.
It exhibits a disturbing continuity with colonial practices. As mentioned in a recent newsletter by Beyond Ah Na (formerly a podcast of the same name), the language of “engagement” employed by the current Indian government, despite its claims of a more nuanced approach, often serves as a strategic tool to legitimize its complicity with the junta and further its own geopolitical interests.
The focus on connectivity projects, such as the Kaladan Multi-Modal Transit Transport Project (KMTTP) and the India-Myanmar-Thailand (IMT) Trilateral Highway, is central to its vision of “improving regional integration” and facilitating trade.
However, these projects often involve significant social and environmental costs, particularly for ethnic communities living in the project areas. Land acquisition, displacement, and the disruption of traditional livelihoods are common consequences, often carried out with little regard for the rights and concerns of the affected populations.
Moreover, the engagement with the junta, even after the 2021 military coup, reveals a willingness to prioritise strategic interests over democratic values and human rights. This engagement, often justified in the name of maintaining stability and promoting economic development, lends legitimacy to a brutal and repressive junta that has committed widespread atrocities against the Myanmar people.
In this context, the rhetoric of “win-win” cooperation and mutual benefit rings hollow, masking a reality where the interests of powerful states and corporations are prioritised over the rights and well-being of marginalised communities.
The Act East Policy’s underlying assumption that economic growth will automatically translate into progress and prosperity for all ignores the complex political and social dynamics at play in Myanmar, where historical grievances, ethnic tensions, and unequal power relations continue to fuel conflict and instability.
The emphasis on “connectivity” as a key driver of development and regional integration is a central feature of the Act East Policy. However, this focus on infrastructure development, particularly in the context of Myanmar, bears a striking resemblance to the colonial practices of the past.
During the colonial era, infrastructure projects such as railways, roads, and ports were primarily built to facilitate the extraction of resources and the control of territory.
These projects often disregarded the needs and rights of communities, disrupting traditional trade routes, displacing peoples, and undermining indigenous economies. The benefits of these projects accrued primarily to the colonial powers and their allies, while the costs were borne disproportionately by the colonised.
The emphasis on connectivity, while driven by different motivations, shares a similar logic. The focus is on creating efficient transportation corridors and trade routes that serve the interests of India and other regional powers, often with little regard for the social and environmental consequences for indigenous and ethnic communities.
The language of “development” and “progress” is used to justify these projects, masking the power imbalances and inequalities that they perpetuate.
The KMTTP, for example, aims to provide India with an alternative route to access its northeastern states, bypassing the narrow Siliguri Corridor.
While this project is undoubtedly of strategic importance to India, its implementation has been fraught with challenges, including land acquisition issues, displacement of communities, and concerns about environmental impact.
Communities have raised concerns about the lack of consultation and the failure to adequately address their grievances.
Similarly, the IMT Trilateral Highway, which seeks to connect India with Thailand via Myanmar, has faced numerous obstacles, including security concerns, funding shortfalls, and opposition from ethnic armed organisations (EAOs).
The project has also been criticized for its potential negative impacts on local livelihoods and the environment.
In both cases, the pursuit of connectivity has taken precedence over the rights and concerns of the affected communities. The projects are often implemented in a top-down manner, with little meaningful participation or consultation with residents.
This approach not only disregards the principles of democratic governance and self-determination but also undermines the long-term sustainability and effectiveness of these projects.
The Indian government’s use of the term “engagement” to describe its interactions with various actors in Myanmar, including the junta and EAOs, is another area of concern.
While “engagement” may sound neutral and even constructive, in the context of Myanmar, it often serves as a euphemism for a more complex and morally ambiguous reality.
The use of the term “engagement” to describe India’s policy towards Myanmar is reiterated in an International Crisis Group Report titled “A Rebel Border: India’s Evolving Ties with Myanmar after the Coup.”
As pointed out in the Beyond Ah Nah newsletter, International Crisis Group places emphasis on “engagement” which masks the underlying logic of India’s policy, which is driven primarily by strategic considerations.
Beyond Ah Nah states: “The International Crisis Group has rebranded its framing of India–Myanmar relations. Disquiet on the Western Front is now A Rebel Border. The titles change. The priorities do not. We’re told that India’s policy is ‘evolving.’
That India is ‘fine-tuning’ its approach. That it now ‘engages’ with armed groups while maintaining ties to the regime. But beneath the careful balance-of-power narrative lies something far more dangerous: the continued treatment of Myanmar’s resistance not as a political force, but as a logistical necessity. This is not solidarity. This is supply chain management.”
India’s engagement with EAOs, for example, is not a reflection of its support for their political aspirations, but rather a pragmatic calculation of their ability to facilitate India’s connectivity projects and secure its borders.
The Indian government has often stated its commitment to supporting a peaceful and democratic transition in Myanmar. However, its continued engagement with the junta, which seized power in a coup and has committed widespread human rights abuses, casts serious doubt on its sincerity.
Mind you, India continues to fund the junta. This engagement lends legitimacy to a regime that has lost all credibility in the eyes of the Myanmar people and undermines the efforts of the pro-democracy movement.
Moreover, the language of “engagement” often obscures the power imbalances and inequalities that characterise India’s relationship with Myanmar.
India, as a much larger and more powerful state, is able to exert significant influence over its smaller neighbor. This influence is often used to advance India’s own strategic and economic interests, even when those interests conflict with the rights and aspirations of the Myanmar people.
In this context, “engagement” becomes a tool for managing a complex and volatile situation, rather than a genuine effort to promote dialogue, reconciliation, and democratic change.
It is a language that prioritises stability and control over justice and human rights, perpetuating a colonial logic that views the region as a theater for great power competition, rather than a collection of sovereign nations with their own unique histories and aspirations.
The disregard for the sovereignty of ethnic communities in Myanmar is one of its most troubling aspects. Myanmar is a multi-ethnic state with a long history of conflict and tension between the central government and various EAOs.
These organizations represent the interests of diverse ethnic groups, including the Chin, Kachin, Karen, Rakhine, and Shan, who have long sought greater autonomy and self-determination.
The focus on central government-led development projects, often implemented in areas inhabited by ethnic communities, threatens to further marginalise these groups and undermine their already precarious sovereignty.
Land acquisition for infrastructure projects, for example, often disregards traditional land tenure systems and customary rights, displacing communities and disrupting their livelihoods.
Moreover, the influx of workers and businesses from other parts of Myanmar, facilitated by increased connectivity, can lead to further marginalisation of ethnic communities, who may find themselves competing for resources and opportunities with newcomers.
This can exacerbate existing tensions and fuel resentment from ethnic and indigenous communities in Myanmar against the central government in India.
The emphasis on border security and management also poses a threat to the sovereignty of ethnic communities. India’s concerns about cross-border insurgency and illegal immigration have led to increased militarisation of the border areas, often with negative consequences for the local populations.
Security forces have been accused of human rights abuses, including arbitrary arrests, torture, and extrajudicial killings, further alienating ethnic communities and undermining their trust in the state.
In addition, India’s efforts to fence and demarcate the border, often without adequate consultation with affected communities, can disrupt traditional cross-border trade and social networks, further fragmenting ethnic groups and undermining their cultural and economic ties.
The failure to adequately address the concerns and aspirations of ethnic communities not only violates their fundamental rights but also undermines the prospects for a lasting and sustainable peace in Myanmar.
By prioritising the interests of New Delhi and external actors, India’s Act East Policy perpetuates a colonial logic that views ethnic communities in Myanmar as obstacles to development, rather than as legitimate stakeholders with a right to self-determination.
Modi’s BJP government has been a strong proponent of the Act East Policy, viewing it as a key component of its foreign policy and a crucial tool for advancing India’s strategic interests in the region.
India’s strategic economic interests have led it to adopt a policy of “calibrated engagement” with the junta, which involves maintaining diplomatic ties, providing limited humanitarian assistance, and pursuing economic cooperation in areas of mutual interest.
This approach, while presented as a pragmatic response to a complex situation, effectively legitimises the junta and undermines the efforts of the pro-democracy movement.
The BJP government’s rhetoric of “engagement” and “dialogue” often serves to mask its complicity with the junta. While paying lip service to the importance of democracy and human rights, the government’s actions on the ground suggest a willingness to prioritise its own strategic interests, even at the cost of supporting a brutal and repressive regime.
This approach is not only morally questionable but also strategically short-sighted. By aligning itself with the junta, the BJP government risks alienating itself from the Myanmar people and undermining its long-term credibility and influence in the region.
It is time for India to undertake a decolonial turn in its approach to Myanmar. This requires a fundamental rethinking of the Act East Policy, moving beyond the narrow confines of strategic calculation and embracing a vision of regional cooperation that is grounded in the principles of justice, human rights, and respect for self-determination.
A decolonial approach would involve centring the voices of ethnic communities. The Indian government must recognise the legitimacy of ethnic communities and their right to self-determination.
This requires engaging with EAOs as genuine political actors and incorporating their perspectives into the design and implementation of development projects.
India must also prioritise the promotion of human rights and democracy in Myanmar. This requires holding the junta accountable for its crimes, supporting the pro-democracy movement, and advocating for a genuine and inclusive political transition.
Additionally, India must move beyond a narrow focus on infrastructure development and embrace a more holistic vision of connectivity that prioritises the needs and well-being of local communities.
This requires ensuring that development projects are implemented (if at all) in a transparent and participatory manner, with full respect for environmental sustainability and social justice.
India must critically examine and challenge the colonial crimes that continue to shape its foreign policy. This requires acknowledging the historical injustices inflicted upon marginalised communities, both within India and in neighboring countries, and working to redress those injustices.
Implementing a decolonial approach will not be easy but is necessary for the future of Myanmar. It will require a willingness and action to challenge deeply entrenched assumptions, to confront uncomfortable truths, and to prioritise moral considerations over short-term gains.
By embracing a decolonial approach, India can move beyond the colonial logic of the Act East Policy and begin to build a new paradigm of regional cooperation based on mutual respect, solidarity, and a shared commitment to justice, human rights and the sovereignty of indigenous and ethnic communities.
Shalini Perumal is a creative international development professional who has worked previously in Mae Sot, Thailand at Mae Tao Clinic. She is currently a freelance journalist as well as consultant at Finnish Refugee Council Myanmar.
DVB publishes a diversity of opinions that does not reflect DVB editorial policy. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our stories: [email protected]
