Some critics view India's silence over the Myanmar crisis to be part of its 'Look East' economic policy. Other analysts say India is making a terrible mistake by keeping quiet because wooing the Burmese generals will not serve India's economic and national interests in the long run.

In 1988, when university student-led protests in Rangoon turned into a nationwide pro-democracy movement, India was the first to voice its concern and support for the students, to the extent of allowing some student activists to flee to India and escape the rampant crackdown by the junta. However, in the early 1990s, with the launch of the 'Look East policy', India did a U-turn and embarked on a policy of so-called 'constructive engagement' with the generals.

According to Dr. Sean Turnell, senior lecturer of the Economics Department of Australia's Macquarie University, India's silence over the ongoing protests in Burma is directly related to India's economic policy. "I can only imagine it must be a part of the 'Look East' commercial policy," he said. However, he added that India's silence does not mean that it has lost hopes regarding Burma's democratic movement. "I think this is really about commercial hopes and probably a policy of the bureaucracy rather than the politicians."

In contrast to Dr. Turnell's view, BBC's eastern India correspondent, Subir Bhaumik, said India is making a "serious mistake" by distancing itself from the Burmese democratic movement. "[Indo-Burmese relationship] is a one way traffic???the Burmese military junta has not obliged India with a single thing that it wants," Bhaumik said. India's demand that the Burmese generals flush out Indian insurgents from Burmese soil has not been fulfilled and India's hopes to import gas from the off-shore Arakan gas fields has been thwarted with the Burmese generals awarding the rights to China. "India, for some very illustrious reason is living in its own make-believe world and is abandoning its democratic ideals." Bhaumik, who has closely followed Indo-Burma relations, further states that for the Burmese military junta to take India seriously, India needs to open up options of supporting the Burmese democratic movement. "Otherwise the Burmese junta will take India for granted". He condemned the Indian embassy in Rangoon for failing to send even a representative to the birthday celebration of Burmese pro-democracy leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi on 19 July, and said the Indian embassy in Rangoon should do more to support the current spate of protests in Burma.

On the other hand Brahma Chellaney, Professor of Strategic Studies at the New Delhi based Centre for Policy Research, is of the view that in supporting democratic changes in Burma India needs to engage the generals and maintain an influence over them. "India is playing a very active role in telling Burma that it needs to have reconciliation with the democratic forces and therefore, making a public statement decreases the leverage," he said. Chellaney also said India's silence over the ongoing protests in Rangoon and parts of Burma does not mean its support for democratic changes in Burma has decreased. "Sometimes, 'quiet diplomacy' is more effective than making statements for the sake of doing so???India believes it can play a better role by engaging in quiet diplomacy rather then public condemnation," he added. Chellaney reiterated that unlike China, India has always been a supporter of democratic forces in Burma and seeks to play a constructive role.

India needs to develop a long-term perspective on Burma instead of viewing it through a China-tinted lens. New Delhi would do well to trade in its friendship with the regime's generals in return for global goodwill and support for a much-coveted seat on the U.N. Security Council through a policy in tune with global thinking and international values. If the generals are broke, there's no point throwing good money after bad. It'll be better for the Indian government to support a new Burmese regime and secure India's interest early on this time around.