From Manipur to Chinland: Decoding India's Strategic Play in Myanmar

In the complex tapestry of international relations, the recent surge of the pro-democratic force in Myanmar seems to be weaving a new chapter, one that not only alters the dynamics of the region but also unveils a strategic game plan by India. The military junta’s grip on Myanmar, established three years ago, is now facing an unprecedented challenge, with major towns and cities falling under the control of the pro-democratic forces, sparking speculation about the birth of a potential new nation – Chinland.

For India, nestled in the immediate vicinity of this unfolding drama, the geopolitical implications are profound. The question arises: has India played a role in the rise of the pro-democratic forces? And if so, what are the potential benefits for India in this tumultuous landscape?

India’s historical relationship with Myanmar has often been one of cautious observation. The porous border shared between Myanmar and India’s northeastern states, such as Mizoram, Manipur, Nagaland, and Arunachal Pradesh, has seen a Free Movement Regime in place, fostering familial ties between Kukis, Mizos, Nagas, living on both sides. However, India’s interest remained subdued until the recent surge of pro-democratic forces.

The silence of New Delhi during Myanmar’s democratic crisis began to unravel when the pro-democratic forces gained momentum in the midst of the Manipur Violence. Speculation arose about the involvement of India’s external intelligence agency, RAW, in orchestrating this sudden rise. Initially unorganized and fighting in isolated pockets, the pro-democratic forces began to unify, providing India with a timely strategic advantage.

India’s gains from this strategic play are twofold. Firstly, it serves as a counter to China’s influence in Myanmar. The military junta’s alignment with China had left India on the sidelines. By supporting the pro-democratic forces, India not only challenges China’s dominance but also creates a potential buffer state with which it can foster stronger ties.

Secondly, the idea of a greater India comes into play. The tribes of Chinland, if brought under the Indian umbrella, could contribute to a broader regional strategy. This, however, requires substantial efforts to improve the lives of the cognate tribes in India, ensuring an attractive proposition for the newly formed country.
Amidst these geopolitical considerations, a significant strategic achievement for India is the neutralization of separatist Meitei extremists who found sanctuary in Myanmar. With no casualties on the Indian side, the backbone of these separatist organizations has been broken. This has put the Chief Minister of Manipur, N. Biren Singh, in a position where brokering peace with the Indian government becomes imperative.

A faction of UNLF has already signed a peace truce with Biren himself claiming that talks are on with at least two more groups. If successful, it would mark a considerable victory for New Delhi, bringing extremist groups into the mainstream and diminishing the aspirations of Meitei separatists for a sovereign state.

In essence, if India indeed played a role in the rise of pro-democratic forces in Myanmar, RAW seems to have executed a masterstroke, achieving multiple objectives without resorting to overt military intervention. The inroads into Chinland, the pacification of Meitei extremists, and the potential extension of the northeastern border all represent strategic gains for India. As the geopolitical chessboard evolves, the cards played by New Delhi appear to be positioning India as a key player in shaping the future of the region. The symphony of geopolitics orchestrated by India may well set the stage for a new era in regional stability.