top of page

By:

Dr. V.L. Dharurkar

12 February 2025 at 2:53:17 pm

Myanmar Matters

If India seeks deeper integration with Southeast Asia, Myanmar is the gateway through which those ambitions must pass. For all the attention lavished on the Indo-Pacific, Myanmar remains curiously underappreciated in India’s strategic imagination. Nestled between South Asia and Southeast Asia, Myanmar occupies a position that geographers would call fortunate and strategists indispensable. If India seeks deeper integration with Southeast Asia, greater influence in the Bay of Bengal and a...

Myanmar Matters

If India seeks deeper integration with Southeast Asia, Myanmar is the gateway through which those ambitions must pass. For all the attention lavished on the Indo-Pacific, Myanmar remains curiously underappreciated in India’s strategic imagination. Nestled between South Asia and Southeast Asia, Myanmar occupies a position that geographers would call fortunate and strategists indispensable. If India seeks deeper integration with Southeast Asia, greater influence in the Bay of Bengal and a credible response to China’s expanding footprint, Myanmar is the gateway through which those ambitions must pass. Long before modern nation-states emerged, the territories that today constitute India and Myanmar were linked through commerce, migration, religion and culture. Buddhist monks, merchants and travellers moved freely across the region, carrying ideas that left an enduring imprint on both societies. The spread of Buddhism from India into Myanmar created a civilisational bond that continues to shape people-to-people ties even today. Strategic Value History, however, is only part of the story. Geography is what makes Myanmar strategically indispensable in the twenty-first century. Positioned between the Indian subcontinent and mainland Southeast Asia, Myanmar forms a natural land bridge connecting India to Thailand and beyond. It is the only Southeast Asian country that shares a land border with India. As New Delhi seeks to transform its ‘Act East’ policy from diplomatic rhetoric into economic reality, Myanmar becomes the crucial link in that chain. Roads, railways, energy corridors and trade routes connecting India to Southeast Asia must inevitably traverse Myanmar's territory. Recognising these realities, India has in recent years sought to deepen engagement with its eastern neighbour. High-level visits, infrastructure projects and expanding economic cooperation reflect an understanding that geography cannot be ignored. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent efforts to strengthen ties with Myanmar represent an attempt to revive historical connections while adapting them to contemporary strategic realities. The question of a country’s geographic advantage has acquired greater significance amid the intensifying competition between India and China. Myanmar occupies a pivotal position in the strategic contest for influence across the Indo-Pacific. For Beijing, the country offers a valuable outlet to the Indian Ocean. Chinese investments in ports, pipelines and transport corridors running through Myanmar help reduce China's dependence on the Strait of Malacca, one of the world's most congested maritime chokepoints. For India, the implications are equally profound. A Myanmar drawn excessively into China’s orbit would complicate New Delhi’s strategic calculations in the Bay of Bengal and India’s northeastern frontier. Conversely, a stable and cooperative Myanmar strengthens India's regional influence and provides greater strategic depth in a rapidly changing geopolitical environment. Myanmar’s importance extends beyond land connectivity. Its extensive coastline along the Bay of Bengal places it at the heart of maritime routes linking the Indian and Pacific Oceans. As the Indo-Pacific emerges as the principal theatre of global economic and strategic competition, countries like Myanmar situated along these maritime crossroads have acquired heightened significance. Natural Resources The country’s strategic value is reinforced by its abundant natural resources and favourable geography. The fertile Ayeyarwady River basin has long served as Myanmar’s economic heartland, while its energy reserves and access to sea lanes enhance its attractiveness to regional powers. These assets make Myanmar not merely a transit corridor but a consequential actor in its own right. Cultural diplomacy has played a notable role in this effort. Shared Buddhist heritage provides a foundation that few other bilateral relationships can claim. Such civilisational links create reservoirs of goodwill that complement economic and strategic cooperation. Yet sentiment alone cannot sustain a partnership of this importance. India’s engagement with Myanmar must be guided by clear strategic objectives. Connectivity projects need to be completed efficiently. Trade and investment must expand. Security cooperation, particularly in border regions, requires continued attention. Above all, India must recognise that influence in Southeast Asia begins not in distant capitals but at its own eastern doorstep. The broader stakes are considerable. Whether through regional connectivity initiatives, maritime cooperation in the Bay of Bengal or the pursuit of a free and open Indo-Pacific, Myanmar occupies a central position in India's regional vision. It is not merely a neighbouring state but a strategic hinge connecting South Asia to Southeast Asia. As great-power competition reshapes Asia, geography is once again asserting its influence over politics. In that geopolitical landscape, Myanmar's significance is unlikely to diminish. For India, the road to Southeast Asia runs through Myanmar, and the success of India’s eastern ambitions may well depend on how effectively it nurtures that relationship. (The writer is a foreign affairs expert. Views personal.)

Lingua Pragmatica

Updated: Mar 20, 2025

As Southern leaders like M.K. Stalin rage against Hindi, Andhra Pradesh’s Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu offers a model of pragmatism over parochialism.

Chandrababu Naidu
Andhra Pradesh

Amid the cacophony of opposition in southern states to Hindi, Andhra Pradesh CM N. Chandrababu Naidu has taken a markedly pragmatic stance by remarking recently in the state Assembly that there was no harm in learning other languages. Hindi, Naidu noted, was useful for communication across India, particularly in political and commercial hubs like Delhi. His remarks, though avoiding explicit mention of the NEP, were widely seen as an endorsement of multilingualism and a rebuke to the linguistic chauvinism that has gripped parts of the South.


Few issues in India stir political passions quite like language. It is not merely a means of communication but a marker of identity, a relic of colonial resistance, and a source of political mobilization. In the southern states, where anti-Hindi sentiment has long been entrenched, the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and its three-language formula have reignited old tensions. No state embodies this defiance more than Tamil Nadu, where the ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) led by M.K. Stalin has framed the policy as an assault on its linguistic autonomy.


Naidu’s words, welcomed by his ally and Deputy Chief Minister Pawan Kalyan, mark a sharp contrast with the DMK’s position. Tamil Nadu’s hostility towards Hindi dates back to the 1930s, when C. Rajagopalachari’s attempt to introduce it in schools met with fierce resistance. The anti-Hindi agitations of the 1960s cemented the DMK’s ideological stance, with its first Chief Minister, C.N. Annadurai, famously warning that Hindi imposition could push Tamil Nadu towards secession.


The question, however, is whether this rigid opposition serves Tamil Nadu’s interests. While Stalin, with an eye to the upcoming Tamil Nadu Assembly polls, has been relentlessly portraying Hindi as a threat to his state’s regional identity, Naidu, a partner of the BJP-led Centre, is framing it as a tool for economic mobility. His argument is not that Hindi should replace Telugu or English but that it offers a competitive advantage.


The economic case for multilingualism is compelling. Indians who speak multiple languages tend to have better job prospects, higher earnings and greater geographic mobility. Andhra Pradesh’s Telugu-speaking diaspora is a case in point. Telugus make up a significant proportion of Indian-origin professionals in the United States, the Gulf, and Southeast Asia as Naidu pointed out, hinting that this success story was built not on linguistic rigidity but on adaptability.


In a country where inter-state migration is rising and where Hindi remains the most widely spoken language, refusing to learn it amounts to self-imposed isolation. Tamil Nadu’s approach, by contrast, risks limiting its youth. The DMK government has refused to implement the three-language policy, keeping schools strictly bilingual with Tamil and English. Its justification that Hindi is not necessary for global success could be true in a narrow sense but ignores the domestic context. If Tamil filmmakers can dub their movies into Hindi to expand their audience, why should Tamil students be denied access to the language that could open more doors for them within India?


The DMK has accused successive central governments, particularly under the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), of pushing Hindi at the expense of regional languages. Yet, rejecting Hindi outright is an overcorrection. The reality is that Hindi is an important language in India’s economic and political landscape. Naidu’s position, one of accommodation rather than confrontation, offers a middle ground that other Southern leaders would do well to consider.


Some states already recognize this. Karnataka, despite its own history of linguistic pride, has allowed Hindi to be taught as an optional language. Kerala, whose migrants work in Hindi-speaking regions and the Gulf, has been less hostile to Hindi education. Naidu’s model, balancing regional identity with practical necessity, offers a way forward. Languages should be embraced, not politicized. Southern leaders would do well to listen to him.

Comments

bottom of page