Myanmar’s ongoing civil war, characterised by escalating ethnic resistance to the military junta, has far-reaching consequences for regional geopolitics, particularly for India and China. The recent surrender of 168 regime soldiers and police during the Chin Brotherhood’s Operation CB, combined with the Arakan Army’s capture of the junta’s Rakhine headquarters, demonstrates the growing strength of ethnic armed groups and the junta’s waning control over key regions. These developments highlight Myanmar’s internal instability and the broader geopolitical contest between India and China in Southeast Asia.
The situation presents challenges and opportunities for India as it seeks to manage internal conflicts, such as those in Manipur while pursuing strategic objectives under the Act East Policy to expand its regional influence. As Myanmar’s fractures deepen, the stakes for India and China in shaping the country’s future become increasingly important.
Myanmar’s Fractured Political Landscape
Myanmar’s political and territorial landscape has become deeply fragmented since the military coup in 2021, which plunged the country into civil war. The junta’s grip on power has weakened, and its control is now estimated to be less than half of Myanmar’s territory. Rebel groups, particularly the Brotherhood Alliance, have successfully captured key military installations, including the regional headquarters in Rakhine state, dealing a significant blow to the junta’s authority.
The recent surrender of 168 regime soldiers and police officers, along with their families, to the Chin Brotherhood during Operation CB demonstrates the growing strength of resistance forces. Since November, the Chin Brotherhood has made significant gains, seizing Mindat and Falam townships and continuing its assault on junta bases in the region.
The Arakan Army (AA) captured the Rakhine military headquarters after the Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army (MNDAA) seized the Northeastern Command in Shan State earlier in August. These victories highlight the growing strength and resilience of ethnic armed organisations (EAOs), which are becoming more united in their demand for greater autonomy. Simultaneously, the Chin National Army (CNA), a Chinland Council (CC) alliance member, launched Operation Jericho, capturing significant territory and effectively cutting off the junta’s supply routes, exacerbating the military’s loss of control.
Despite these military victories, Myanmar’s transition to democracy remains a distant dream. The National Unity Government (NUG), which exiled elected officials formed, continues to struggle for international recognition and legitimacy. While various ethnic groups have banded together to oppose the junta, their efforts have yet to yield a coherent and effective political framework for a democratic future.
India, at the forefront of regional diplomacy, has called for an end to violence and a peaceful resolution by establishing a true federal democracy involving all stakeholders. Myanmar’s neighbours, including China, Bangladesh, and Laos, expressed support for peace during informal consultations in Bangkok in December 2024 but did not take decisive action. There is widespread scepticism about the junta’s plans for a general election in 2025, as many ethnic groups see them as a ploy to legitimise the military regime rather than a step towards a more inclusive and democratic process.
China’s Multi-Stakeholder Strategy
China’s involvement in Myanmar reflects a sophisticated balancing act designed to protect its strategic and economic interests while navigating the complexities of a troubled nation. Beijing hopes to maintain the stability required for its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) projects, including the Kyaukpyu Special Economic Zone and the critical Rakhine-Yunnan gas pipeline, by supporting the military junta on the one hand and engaging Ethnic Armed Organisations (EAOs) on the other.
China’s role as a significant arms supplier to the junta demonstrates its commitment to the regime. Delivering advanced fighter jets and substantial financial and logistical support demonstrates Beijing’s determination to strengthen the military government. Recognising the junta’s weakening grip—as evidenced by recent territorial losses to groups such as the Arakan Army and the Brotherhood Alliance—China has also attempted to hedge its bets by engaging EAOs. Beijing has positioned itself as a mediator by providing discreet support and diplomatic overtures, brokering temporary ceasefires and maintaining open channels with both sides of the conflict.
Recent events, such as Beijing’s hosting of peace talks and its call for regional cooperation on border security, highlight its efforts to position itself as a stabilising force. However, China’s strategy is not without risk. The rising strength of Myanmar’s resistance forces directly challenges Beijing’s investments and influence. Furthermore, China’s reliance on EAOs to protect its interests jeopardises its relationship with the junta, which may see such actions as opportunistic.
Beijing’s ultimate goal—stability to protect its economic corridors and political foothold—faces significant challenges as Myanmar’s internal dynamics change unexpectedly. While China has successfully asserted regional dominance, its dual engagement strategy reveals the fragility of its influence in a country increasingly defined by resistance movements and shifting alliances.
India’s Strategic Challenges and Opportunities
India’s approach to Myanmar is based on its Act East Policy, which seeks closer economic and strategic integration with Southeast Asia. The Kaladan Multi-Modal Transit Transport Project exemplifies this ambition by connecting India’s Northeast to Myanmar’s Sittwe port and then to Southeast Asia. However, persistent delays, exacerbated by Myanmar’s instability, have stifled development.
India has emphasised the grant-based nature of its development projects, distinguishing it from China’s more transactional approach. Nonetheless, the slow pace of infrastructure development raises concerns about India’s ability to use its regional influence effectively.
At the December consultations, India reiterated its support for Myanmar’s democratic transition. However, New Delhi’s limited engagement with Myanmar’s ethnic dynamics contrasts with China’s proactive approach, highlighting a flaw in India’s strategic thinking. China initially supported Myanmar’s ethnic armed groups, such as the Three Brotherhood Alliance, in their successful operations against the Tatmadaw but later changed its position.
The growing proximity of these groups to the West-backed National Unity Government (NUG) and growing insecurity surrounding its investments—such as the Kyaukpyu port and oil and gas pipelines—have prompted China to reconsider its position. Despite this, China’s shifting tactics reflect its concern about Myanmar’s instability, posing challenges to India’s regional strategy. New Delhi must reconsider its approach to Myanmar’s ethnic dynamics and address the growing complexities in its relations with both Myanmar and China.
Manipur: A Microcosm of Borderland Challenges
The ethnic conflict in India’s Manipur state exemplifies the complexities of borderland regions. The tensions between the Meitei and Kuki-Zomi communities, exacerbated by New Delhi’s majoritarian policies, reflect the broader challenges of navigating cross-border identities and affiliations. The unrest in Manipur is all the more significant because of its proximity to Myanmar. The Chin-Kuki-Zomi people, whose ancestral ties span the India-Myanmar border, control a large portion of the border, making the region strategically important.
The violence in Manipur, which includes brutal ethnic clashes and forced displacements, weakens India’s border security, especially in an area already sensitive due to its proximity to Myanmar and China. The ongoing instability jeopardises the security of India’s northeastern states and undermines India’s role as a stabilising force in Southeast Asia, particularly under its “Act East” policy.
Manipur’s unrest has spillover effects in neighbouring Mizoram and Bangladesh. Tensions are easily transferred between these areas, which could destabilise the region. India’s first reaction was to strengthen borders and cancel the Free Movement Regime, which has harmed cross-border trade and people-to-people exchanges previously viewed as a means of fostering cooperation.
To mitigate these risks, India must address the underlying causes of the Manipur conflict, focusing on the Kuki-Zomi community’s grievances, ensuring greater political inclusivity, and promoting peaceful coexistence. Without resolving this internal conflict, India’s rhetoric on regional stability in Myanmar and the broader Southeast Asian region will be hollow, undermining its credibility on the international stage.
Regional Implications and ASEAN’s Role
ASEAN’s response to Myanmar’s crisis has been sluggish, with its five-point agreement failing to gain traction, especially in light of recent developments. In December, informal consultations in Bangkok emphasised the importance of inclusive elections, which many ethnic groups oppose under the junta’s supervision. While ASEAN has prioritised dialogue, it has hesitated to impose sanctions or apply significant pressure on the military junta. This reluctance limits the bloc’s ability to resolve the crisis.
India’s participation in these discussions demonstrates its growing influence in regional diplomacy, particularly in light of Myanmar’s escalating civil war. India reiterated that its development projects in Myanmar, such as the Kaladan Multi-Modal Transit Transport Project, are “grant-based” in response to the Arakan Army’s capture of the military junta’s headquarters in Rakhine province. It aimed to serve the interests of Myanmar’s people. Despite the ongoing instability, India’s emphasis on development cooperation demonstrates its commitment to regional stability and cross-border connectivity. However, the slow progress of these projects, including the delay in connecting Mizoram to the Sittwe seaport, reflects the difficulties posed by the unstable situation.
While India’s diplomatic rhetoric supports ASEAN’s calls for peace and inclusivity, China’s assertiveness in Myanmar continues to overshadow its influence. To demonstrate its leadership, India must translate its diplomatic efforts into more tangible contributions to regional stability. This includes collaborating with ASEAN to strengthen its approach to Myanmar, balancing humanitarian and strategic concerns, and ensuring its role goes beyond aid to promote long-term peace and security in the region.
Navigating a Complex Geopolitical Landscape
As Myanmar struggles with internal conflict and regional actors compete for influence, India’s foreign policy is at a crossroads. By addressing the ethnic conflict in Manipur, accelerating infrastructure development, and taking a more proactive approach to regional diplomacy, India can position itself as a stabilising force in Southeast Asia.
India’s dual challenge—managing domestic unrest while navigating external complexities—requires a cohesive strategy that integrates internal governance with foreign policy goals. Myanmar’s democratic transition, China’s strategic manoeuvres, and ASEAN’s inaction allow India to assert its leadership.
Through a balanced approach that prioritises connectivity, regional security, and democratic values, India can chart a course that aligns its national interests with its vision for a stable, prosperous Southeast Asia.
Views expressed are that of the author and do not reflect EastMojo’s opinion on this or any other issue,
Also Read: Manipur’s struggle with historical infrastructure and modern policies