Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Mizoram and Nagaland share 1,624 km of India’s border with Myanmar, which is “open” in the sense that the inhabitants of the border areas — mostly hill tribes — are allowed to travel up to 16 km on either side, without documents, for the simple reason that national boundaries cannot divide tribal societies. Standing close to such a border post, one may get a feeling that the man-made frontiers make little social and economic sense. Thus the reported move by the Myanmar government to fence the border between border pillars Nos 145 and 146 has caused some concern in India. 
However, the scenario has chan-ged after the  June 2015 ambush by the NSCN (Khaplang) faction in Manipur’s Chandel district in which 18 jawans were killed. The Army swiftly responded and destroyed the militant  hideouts inside Myanmar. Before that the restoration of democracy after the 2015 election in Myanmar— though somewhat limited as the 2008 constitution, which allowed the Army a strong say in governance, is still in force — has made it necessary  to see the Indo-Myanmar relationship from a long term perspective. And, this may as well begin with a look at the history and culture that the region shares with Myanmar.
To cut a long story short, around 12th century, the evolution of the ethno-cultural identity of the Burman was complete with the fusion of races like the Mon, Shan, and Pyus, a Tibeto Burman group with the Burman,who came from different regions of  South-east Asia and Tibet and settled down in the Irawaddy valley.
 Interestingly, in the 13th century the Ahoms, also a Shan tribe from the ancient kingdom of Mung Man in the upper Irawaddy valley, entered the Brahmaputra valley and established the Ahom empire and a dynasty that, according to historians, survived for the longest period  ever in the world and was overthrown by the Burmese in 1821-22. The devastation and the atrocities the Burmese invaders committed on the people of Assam are still recounted in Assamese folklore. 
The Burmese conquest of Assam posed a threat to the “ill- defined” British frontiers in the east under the Bengal Presidency, the military-trade-administrative power structure of the East India company. The British responded by sending an expedition to Burma that led to the annexation of Arakan, presently Rakhine, Tenassarim and Pegu provinces, in 1824; and later Assam, following the Treaty of  Yandabo (1826)  after  the Burmese defeat. Two more wars, in 1852 and1886, led to the annexation of the rest of Mandalay and upper Burma, primarily to stop French influence and to protect the commercial interests of the British companies engaged in the exploitation of timber and 
minerals.
Initially placed under the Bengal Presidency, Burma became a province of British India. It got separated in 1935 and attained freedom in 1948.
The Burmese experience of colonial rule was strikingly similar to that of Assam, as while it was tea, forest-based resources, coal in Assam, it was exploitation of  teak wood, hydrocarbons, gold, and strategic minerals like copper, zinc and later uranium.The colonial- capitalistic mode of production entailed only extraction of natural resources for the enrichment of the imperial power and, therefore, the colonial state developed infrastructure solely to meet the demands of the “extractive” economy.
However, this very process integrated the Burmese economy into that of the  Indian provinces along the east and west coast, North-east and and South East Asia and thereby exposed its people to the modern world and systems of education, trade, markets and banking.
 There is yet another historical parallel — the British used Burma as the base to counter the French power in Indo-China and, therefore secure its Burmese assets. The British advanced further north to the region inhibited by tribes like the Karen and the Kachin, bordering China and the French-held territories, which were not under the Burman-led government before. 
The inclusion of these  areas in Burma that followed also led to the spread of Christianity among these tribes and sowed the seeds of ethnic identity politics and insurgency, much like the way it developed in the North-east. Some of these trade links were active till the Army take-over of Burma in 1962 and later renamed it Myanmar and closed its door to the world but unorganised trade along its borders with the North-east continued on a modest scale.  
The rise of Aung San Suu Kyi to power in 2015 has raised hopes for a paradigm shift in Indo-Myanmar relationship and it appears  efforts under the Look East Policy — now Act  East Policy — have achieved some results as India’s exports to Myanmar are up from $ 3,799 million in 2011 to $4,892 million in 2015,  while imports have marginally increased from $ 9,106 in 2011 to$ 9560 million in 2015. 
Myanmar’s share of India’s trade with Association of South East Asian Nations is close to 10 per cent, indicating a substantial rise,  as in 2009 our import from Myanmar was worth $1,196 million while exports were only worth $209.75 million. However, the region’s contribution to this trade was meagre then and  now is just about one per cent. This is entirely due to the components of merchandise trade as Indian exports mainly consist of high-value products like electrical, machinery parts, vehicles, pharmaceuticals, iron and steel and  machine tools, which are not manufactured in the North-east, and also sugar and mineral oils. 
And imports from Myanmar are mainly primary products like vegetables,  oilseeds, coffee, fruits and wood and wood products for, which there is limited demand in the North-east. This is also true of  the region’s trade with other  Asean members, which suggests that more than the  lack of connectivity with Myanmar and Asean,  it is the  tardy growth of manufacturing that stands in the way of trade expansion with Myanmar and the Asean.
 The hard reality is that manufacturing of the standard required to reach the Asean is unlikely to come up in the near future, mainly due to adverse economies of scale for the technology and investment needed to manufacture a product competitively.  Thus, the only option for the North-east is to go  in  for a service sector- led trade development strategy to enter Myanmar for the following reasons.
With a population of 53 million, a low population density of 81 per sq km, as compared to 416 in India and 1,188 in Bangladesh, and richly endowed with natural resources, the present GDP of Myanmar of $ 26.3 billions (estimated at 2005 prices) and a per capita GDP of $490 indicate that Myanmar is a resource-rich yet income-poor country with a huge potential for fast growth. It will need, first of all, a skilled work force for which a base exists already with 91 per cent adult literacy and its government has accorded high priority to education. 
The North-east, with its network of 17 universities and scores of engineering, medical and management institutions,  can step in to offer higher education to Myanmar by taking advantage of the fact that English continues to be the medium of university education in the region.
 Second, quality health care as some hospitals of the North-east do have  the potential to attain global standard with necessary support backed by the region’s reputation as a major source of trained nurses and para-medical staff. Tourism could be another. Last,  science and technology collaboration has vast possibilities in areas of common concerns like flood moderation, earthquake risk evaluation and preparedness for natural calamities. Myanmar is a disaster-prone country. During  2003-2012,  more than 1,39,000 people died due to calamities  while the damage to properties was estimated at $ 4,564 million, according to the World Development Report of the world Bank, 2014 . As  these calamities are related to climate change ,there is much scope in scientific collaboration in a project mode and prospects of putting up joint manufacturing and service facilities to combat climate change.
 A related area is  agriculture, horticulture, fruit processing, livestock and dairy development in which Myanmar has vast potential. In these fields, scientific institutions of the  North-east  have established competence in areas like the deepwater rice cultivation, which could be used in Myanmar given the similarly of agro- climatic conditions.
Myanmar is the natural entry point for the  North-east to the Asean and  to promote this each North-east state must prepare a Myanmar-centric trade -investment and technology plan under a regional framework, which the North Eastern Council could help develop .
 This is the standard practice in all regional groupings because without it the completion of  “connectivity” projects may not expand trade,  and  only impose a huge maintenance cost to the Centre.  

(THE WRITER IS A RETIRED IAS OFFICER OF THE ASSAM-MEGHALAYA CADRE AND HAS SERVED AS A SCIENTIFIC CONSULTANT IN THE OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL SCIENTIFIC ADVISOR TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.)