On 15 August 2007, the military-ruled Myanmar government hiked the prices of diesel and petrol by 100 per cent and of compressed natural gas used by buses by 500 per cent. The resultant sharp price rise brought further economic hardships to an already impoverished people. This led to intensified protests across the country; in fact, it is the latest in a series of bold demonstrations against the military that has ruled the country for 45 years. Known for its ruthless use of force, Myanmar's military regime immediately stepped up its repression against the democratic forces and ethnic groups and at the time of writing seemed to have quelled the anti-government demonstrations at least temporarily through harsh repressive measures.

India shares a long boundary with Myanmar making it an important neighbouring country. So far India has been 'playing safe' despite some international criticism. The Indian government is defensive over the junta's crackdown maintaining 'non-interference' as the cardinal principle of its foreign policy. During his visit to Thailand in mid-September, Indian Foreign Minister, Pranab Mukherjee stated India's position as not interfering with the internal developments inside another country. "…It is for them (Myanmar's people) to decide what kind of government they want." India's blatant pursuit of national interests became even more evident when the Indian Petroleum Minister Murli Deora visited Myanmar on 23 September to enhance cooperation in hydrocarbon sector thereby disregarding the democratic protests engulfing the country.

As the situation in Myanmar worsened with the government forces opening fire on the peaceful protesters, the Indian government shed off its silence. In a later statement, Mukherjee said, "We are concerned at the situation in Myanmar and are monitoring it closely. It is our hope that all sides will resolve their issues peacefully through dialogue." This statement seemed too little and too late. When millions of people in a neighbouring country were being denied their basic rights of livelihood and democratic aspirations, a responsible state like the Indian government needs to be more forthcoming.

Why should India concern itself about Myanmar's internal turmoil particularly when its pragmatic policy of engaging the Myanmarese generals is supposed to be serving its national interests? There are at least four reasons. First, India has huge stakes in Myanmar and any instability there would be detrimental to New Delhi's long term interests. With the Iran oil pipeline deal not going anywhere, India has to rely on possible supplies from elsewhere. Myanmar is significant for geostrategic reasons as well. China's close proximity and its wide penetration into the country is extremely precarious for India's security. Besides, India has been facing insurgencies in its northeast where Myanmar's support is crucial to limit cross border terrorist activities.

Second, India aspires to become a global power and this demands vocal participation in any international and regional issue affecting the lives of millions of people. Therefore, India cannot be a silent spectator particularly when its neighbouring country is facing grave human rights violations.

Third, India's passive attitude is greatly resented by the Myanmarese people. On 3 September, calling for India's support on the ongoing peoples' movement in Myanmar twelve Myanmar activists in New Delhi marched to Sonia Gandhi. One of the protester said, "It is unacceptable to us that India is silent over what is happening in Burma now." Any possibility of transition in Myanmar although bleak in the near future, cannot be ruled out completely.

Finally, India's ignoring the events in Myanmar in the name of non-interference seems incongruent with the fact that it is the largest democracy in the world. Supporting the cause of democratic aspirations of the people falls within the basic foreign policy ethos which India has cherished since independence.

Then, what possible role can India play? Indeed, India needs a pragmatic policy in Myanmar to further its own long term legitimate interests. An attempt to criticize the ruling regime may not in itself achieve the desired objectives. India may have three distinct options. First, it should initiate a discussion with the Myanmar's junta to persuade it to begin a process of genuine national reconciliation. Even if it were not to achieve any immediate results, it would be a firm indication of where India's position lies and would also impact favourably on the international community.

Second, India can begin a discussion with the ASEAN countries for developing a joint course of action. ASEAN has so far failed to impress upon the Myanmarese junta the need for change. However, several ASEAN members like Thailand and Singapore have close economic relations with Myanmar and if Indian and ASEAN leaders can steadily and constantly work on the generals using the ASEAN platform, there could be some positive results in the long run.

Finally, possible joint India-China 'pressure tactics' can be explored given the common position the two countries hold. India and China are the two most important and influential neighbours of Myanmar. Keeping their interests in a stable Myanmar in mind, India and China can jointly initiate dialogue with the junta thereby moving forward towards national consolidation in Myanmar.