Nidae KashmirNew Delhi: During a closed-door meeting on Myanmar in the Security Council, India on Wednesday condemned the violence in the Southeast Asian nation, where pro-democracy protestors have had to face the brunt of the crackdown from security forces since the military coup on February 1.
The United Kingdom had called for an urgent meeting of the Council on Myanmar after over 100 civilians were killed on Saturday – the single highest daily death count during the month-long protests. Till now, around 520 people have lost their lives.
Briefing Council members, UN Special Envoy on Myanmar Christine Schraner Burgener said that “a bloodbath is imminent”.
“We have stood by too long as patterns of human rights violations and most serious international crimes committed by the Myanmar military have reoccurred,” she said, according to a statement issued by the UN. “This Council must consider potentially significant action that can reverse the course of events in Myanmar.”
While the meeting was closed, India’s permanent representative to the UN, T.S. Tirumurti, posted the essence of his remarks on social media. He tweeted that India condemned the violence (though it is not clear if India identified and condemned the perpetrators of that violence during the council’s deliberations), and condoled the loss of lives while urging maximum restraint in Myanmar.
The Indian embassy had in February tweeted “heartfelt condolences to families and loved ones of those deceased”. “We would urge all to exercise restraint and resolve issues through dialogue in a peaceful manner,” it added.
So far, India had not issued a standalone statement on the violence perpetrated by the Tatmadaw or condemned the excessive use of force by the regime. The country is a party to the March 24 resolution of the United Nations Human Rights Council that expressed concern at violent acts by the Myanmar armed forces against peaceful demonstrations.
In New York, Tirumurti reiterated India’s stance of calling for the release of detained leaders. He also emphasised that India was steadfastly committed to “democratic transition”.a
Stating that the “hopes and aspirations” of the people must be met, Tirumurti noted that the situation had to be resolved peacefully, which required “greater engagement” with Myanmar. It was a message to the US-led Western bloc from India, that putting more sanctions on Myanmar will not reverse the current crisis.
The Council has issued two statements on Myanmar so far, both of them adopted with consensus.
However, with the rising death toll from the street protests, there is also clamour for the Security Council to take more decisive action.
After the March 27 violence, UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres said that the military crackdown was “unacceptable” and should be met with a “firm, unified and resolute international response”.
The US’s envoy to the UN, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, indicated that the US was willing to take more punitive actions, but added, “and we need our allies and regional partners to do more, too”. “We need added pressure to stop violence and respect the people’s will, especially from Burma’s neighbours.”
She also pointed out that the military’s economic partners should “take a hard look at those relationships”.
The US has been steadily escalating the level of sanctions on Myanmar, especially on the generals and state firms backed by the military. The UK and EU have followed Washington’s cue on this.
Referencing the secretary-general’s call for a unified international response, the UK’s permanent representative, Barbara Woodward, said in remarks to the media after the closed-door meeting that the “Council should play its part”.
The UK, penholder on Myanmar in the Council, was working with “colleagues in the Council and regional partners to help end this senseless violence, hold those responsible to account and secure a path back to democracy”, she added.
Woodward said that the Council had a “range of measures at our disposal”. She noted that “next steps” were being discussed within UNSC, adding that efforts were being made to “make sure that Council members were speaking in a unified voice”.
According to a senior Indian official, New Delhi considers “genuine engagement” with the Myanmar junta as the first step before considering any severe action. “We had hoped that the UN special envoy would have been in Myanmar by now, but that has not worked out till now.”
Burgener, who is Swiss, had put in some conditions for her visit, but the Myanmar government has not accepted them so far.
“ASEAN is still getting their act together. So we need to first try real engagement to see where this goes,” said the official.
While the Council has till now expressed concern about Myanmar in one voice, it will take more diplomatic manoeuvring if the UK and US are proposing to upgrade the pressure on the Myanmar government.
At the Wednesday UNSC meeting, China’s Zhang Jun stressed that punitive actions against Myanmar would not be fruitful. “One-sided pressure and calling for sanctions or other coercive measures will only aggravate tension and confrontation and further complicate the situation, which is by no means constructive,” said the Chinese envoy.
Russia did not publicly release its remarks, but its position has been clear. At a press briefing on Tuesday, Russia’s deputy permanent representative Dmitry Polyanskiy stated that Security Council should not make the situation “worse” by giving an “ultimatum” to the Myanmar military.
“But there are two sides to this coin. On the one side, by doing so, we would seem to make our position clear. On the other side, we would invite a bit of violence in that country. Because instead of asking everybody to stay calm and hold back to the constitutional norms, some countries, circles, or some media outlets are clearly inciting the protesters to continue their protest,” he said.
While the US and West have been urging sanctions and diplomatic isolation for the Myanmar junta, regional powers are reluctant to go down that road.
Vietnam, which assumes the presidency of the Council for April, stated that it condemned violence against civilians but underlined the “importance of constructive dialogue and reconciliation”.
Before the UNSC presidential statement on Myanmar, Vietnam had actively asked for the insertion of language on ASEAN’s engagement in Myanmar.
While several countries, including China and India, have publicly called on ASEAN to take the lead in diffusing the crisis, the regional body is itself a divided house.
At the March 2 informal ministerial conference, a “concerned” ASEAN called “on all parties to refrain from instigating further violence, and for all sides to exercise utmost restraint as well as flexibility”. There was, however, no joint call for the release of political prisoners.
When the Myanmar military organised the Armed Forces parade on March 27, eight countries attended as observers. India sent its military attaché, while three countries from ASEAN – Laos, Thailand and Vietnam – also marked their attendance.
Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia are at the forefront of an attempt to hold an emergency ASEAN summit on Myanmar, but there has been no agreement so far.
Meanwhile, after the US said that neighbours should step up the pressure, Myanmar’s junta-appointed foreign minister participated in the virtual ministerial conference of the regional association BIMSTEC on Thursday.
India defends participation in military parade
Indian officials, meanwhile, defended the presence of the Indian defence attaché at the military parade, asserting that all of Myanmar’s neighbours had shown up. “Out of 15 foreign military attaches, eight had gone to the parade.”
They pointed out that India had different realities vis-à-vis Myanmar, especially related to a shared border and regional geopolitics.
A senior Indian government official also pointed out that pushing the Myanmar government into a corner has not worked. “When the civilian government was there, NLD leaders had always told us that pressurising Myanmar has never helped, but rather it makes them more stubborn. This is the Bamar mentality,” said the official.
![In the aftermath of the International Women’s Day, March 8, when members of the Akhil Bhartiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) attacked those attending an event called ‘Let the Women Speak’, organised by the Bhagat Singh Chhatra Ekta Manch (BSCEM), the organisers talk about the series of events, the protest that followed and how the police watched silently as students were physically attacked. The March 8 event was organised to draw people’s attention towards the brutal rape cases in Gurhmandi and Butana and to extend solidarity with the families of the victims. The BSCEM had invited the family members, and activist Nodeep Kaur and her sister Rajveer Kaur, to address the crowd on the occasion. However, things took an ugly turn when members of the ABVP ambushed the site of the demonstration and demanded that it be stopped. Women’s day event “The ABVP members barged in and started tearing our posters as ABVP’s secretary Shivangi Kharwal hurled abuses at us. However, the police didn’t take any step to mitigate the situation as the two student groups clashed. It seemed like they were supporting the ABVP,” alleged Sangeeta Geet, BSCEM’s general secretary. Some students also alleged that their clothes were torn and they suffered injuries during the clash. “The police were mere spectators and weren’t doing anything to protect us. A few female students suffered injuries, and their clothes were torn. My leg was also injured,” said Firoz Alam, a DU student. According to ABVP members, “anti-national activities” were being carried out inside the campus. The posters, they say, were objectionable and they also alleged that slogans were raised against the Indian army and the police. The event organisers, however, have denied the allegations. “Some of our posters highlighted the plight of the women of Manipur who have suffered a lot since the imposition of the deadly Armed Forced Special Protection Act (AFSPA). The posters merely carried the slogans raised by the women who took out the famous nude protest. Another poster was about the Kunan Poshpara incident, where four security personnel sexually assaulted 23 women in Kashmir’s twin villages of Kunan and Poshpara,” said Geet. Through these posters, she adds, they wanted to show how certain institutions of the state use rape as a weapon against women. However, the president of Delhi University Student Union Akshita Dahiya wrote a letter to the ministry of human affairs claiming that anti-national activities were carried out on the campus. The letter said that BSCEM’s posters portrayed the armed forces in a bad light, and slogans disrespecting the constitution and defaming the Indian army were raised. “No one raised any slogan against the Indian army, the question that we wish to raise is that can you change the fact? Cases are on the rise, be it the Manipur case or the Bhutana case, many cases are suggesting the same,” said Geet. Dalit activist Rajveer Kaur, who was also present at the event, said, “If there’s violence against women and the police are covering for it and are also directly involved in it, raising questions against them is not an anti-national activity. If we can’t even raise such questions on women’s day when should we?” Also read: Why Have Police and Armed Forces Become a Constant Fixture at College Campuses? She said that the police asked them to vacate the stage, but they resisted because they weren’t doing anything anti-national. “To celebrate Women’s Day is our democratic right, but the members of the ABVP were constantly asking for our IDs. The police even targeted Nodeep, and tried arresting her.” FIRs and joint protest The next day when Rajveer went to the police station to file an official complaint, she said that they shrugged off the urgency of the matter, and asked them to come the next day. Kharwal’s complaint, on the other hand, was registered immediately, said Rajveer. “We were the ones who were attacked yet they were making us go round and about for a complaint,” she added. On March 10, the members of the BSCEM filed an official complaint via an email detailing the incident and injuries they suffered. Later, on March 16, BSCEM organised a joint protest condemning the attack with other student groups such as DISHA, DSU, MSF, SIO, Fraternity Movement DU AISA and so on. The legal cell member of the Kisan Morch Vasu Kukreja, who suffered a swollen eye on the day of the attack, was also present at the protest. The Delhi police, however, issued a notice asking the organisers to withhold the protest as no prior permission was taken from the proctor office of the university. A copy of the letter issued by Maurice Nagar police station. Photo: special arrangement. “When we reached the protest site, they handed us the letter which stated that the authorities were not informed about the same and therefore they told us to not hold any protest,” said Geet. The BSCEM members admitted that the police weren’t intimated of the protest, but they had their own reasons for not doing so. “We did not notify the police this time because when we actually did [on March 8], the police weren’t able to ensure our safety,” said Geet. “We are also against informing the proctor, this is our university and we have the right to protest.” The members had informed the proctor as well as the police the last time because there was a possibility of Bilkis dadi joining the event. Since she is a famous personality, it was pertinent to notify them for security reasons, said Geet. “However, after facing an attack in the presence of police, the purpose of intimation seems pointless,” she adds. FIRs, police enquiry Further, informing the police doesn’t mean that students are asking for permission, the students say. “Whenever we organise a protest, we submit an application at the Maurice police station a day prior to the said protest mentioning the time, the expected number of people who’d be present at the protest and the topic of the event. However, this doesn’t mean we need permission to hold a protest from the police,” said Alam, a DU student. The authorities, too, took a rigid stance against the BSCEM members and others who were part of the March 8 event. According to Geet, the authorities had warned Rajveer that they would file an FIR against her if the protest continued. “Other organisations were also present there, yet they only targeted me, the letter issued by the police was also addressed to me,” said Rajveer. Student protesting outside DU’s Arts Faculty. Photo: special arrangement. Students ask that if the event was organised by a group of students, why would they file an FIR only against Rajveer? “It is our right to protest and we will claim it, if you [police] want to file an FIR, go ahead, we are doing our duty and we will continue doing it,” said Geet. “The names of the organisers were then noted including the name of the president of BSCEM Ravinder Singh,” said Sangeeta. However, no action has been taken against the organisers up until now. Sense of fear The demonstrators thereafter proceeded with their scheduled event at gate number four, within a barricaded premise provided by the police. “They let us protest within a lot of barricades, a cage was created and we were asked to protest from within it,” said Alam. He spoke about the norm of deploying police force in huge numbers and a sense of fear among students as a result. “If the protest is scheduled for noon, police will reach the venue early in the morning, and the venue then almost looks like a cantonment,” said Alam. “Students, who aren’t part of any political outfit, will probably not take part if they create such an environment.” The members further alleged that the police not only asked for the total number of those organising the joint protest but also of those who had joined the protest. “The police kept intervening throughout the programme – they were asking for the names of the demonstrators and were noting them down, they also asked us to give attendance, which we questioned. Why do we need to give attendance for holding a protest? And if you want to file a complaint, file it against us – the organisers,” said Rajveer. Hence, they provided only the names of the organisers. More so, Geet said that the police already had the names of those organising the event, and therefore it didn’t make sense to ask for their names yet again. “This is their way to inculcate fear among the students, so that they be wary of taking part in such events in the future,” said Geet.](https://en.nidaekashmir.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/PROTEST-800x600.jpeg)
