Joan Smith: It's time India spoke up for Suu Kyi

If it were left to the court of public opinion, Aung San Suu Kyi would not be incarcerated in one of Burma's most notorious prisons this weekend. The Burmese opposition leader is hugely admired in Western democracies and her own country, where her party won a landslide general election in 1990. She has spent 13 of the past 19 years under house arrest on Lake Inya in Rangoon, and her sudden transfer to prison follows a bizarre incident in which an American Mormon swam the lake and stayed a night at her house.

Suu Kyi now faces being put on trial for violating the terms of her house arrest less than a fortnight before her latest period of detention is due to expire. Gordon Brown is not the only Western leader who regards the charges as a pretext to avoid the prospect of her being released in advance of next year's elections, which her party would win if she were able to campaign openly.

Related articles

• Suu Kyi's lawyer is banned from her trial
• Search the news archive for more stories

Prison conditions in Burma are dreadful, and released detainees have described being held in containers no larger than a dog kennel. In the autumn of 2007, democracy protests were ruthlessly crushed amid TV pictures of monks defying heavily armed soldiers. The number of political prisoners rose sharply, with demonstrators sentenced at secret tribunals and dispersed to prisons in remote areas. Amnesty International says a monk, the Venerable U Thilavantha, was beaten to death in detention, and a political activist, Ko Win Shwe, died in a police station near Mandalay. An unusual number of bodies were burnt at night at a municipal crematorium, and reports stated that some of the corpses showed signs of fresh injuries.

The British government says Burmese citizens continue to be denied almost all fundamental rights, and last week ministers joined other Western governments in condemning Suu Kyi's transfer to prison. The EU special envoy to Burma said there was no justification for her arrest, while the US described it as "troubling".

US embassy officials in Rangoon have been allowed access to John Yettaw, the American who swam to her house, and say he had "a very strong religious reason" for his actions. This has not dispelled suspicions about the incident, after it emerged that Yettaw swam to her house last year too, carrying a Bible. On that occasion, Suu Kyi asked her doctor to inform the authorities that Yettaw had turned up uninvited at her house, but they took no action. Now they say she has violated the Stalinist-sounding law Safeguarding the State from the Dangers of the Subversive Elements, even though she begged him to leave as soon as he swam ashore.

It looks as though a frustrating cycle of human-rights violations, international condemnation and Burmese governmental indifference is set to be repeated. We have been here before, and the unpleasant truth is that the West has limited influence with the Burmese generals, having done its worst (short of military invasion) quite some time ago. Economic boycotts are in place and many Western companies have already withdrawn from Burma. China protects the junta at the UN, and its interests in the country are so extensive that Burma is well on the way to becoming a Chinese client state.

While Burma is a pariah state in the West, it is the centre of a fiercely fought contest for influence among Asian countries. Rich in natural resources, its human-rights record

comes a very poor second when energy-hungry Asian economies are thinking about the gas and oil they desperately need. China is foremost among them, and Burma-China bilateral trade exceeds $1.5bn (£990m); two years ago, an NGO reported that 26 Chinese multinationals had been allowed to get involved in 62 hydro, oil, gas and mining projects in Burma. In return, China has poured resources into the country, providing easy loans – the Burmese junta is strapped for cash, perhaps even heading for bankruptcy because of its mismanagement of the economy – along with political support and weapons.

This is bad news for Suu Kyi's supporters, who know that the Chinese leadership cares as little about human rights as the junta's generals. Pro-democracy campaigners have watched Western leaders turn a blind eye to China's dreadful education-through-labour camps, and no one seriously expects China to get tough with its useful trading partner. But Burma has another neighbour which is in a very different position.

This weekend, as the people of India reflect on a long-drawn-out general election campaign, which ended yesterday, the fate of Suu Kyi might not be at the front of their minds. But India's cosy relationship with the Burmese junta is starting to symbolise the contradictions that threaten to undermine the country's moral status as the world's largest democracy. In theory, Indian governments support Suu Kyi's pro-democracy campaign, conscious of her longstanding personal ties with the country; Suu Kyi lived in New Delhi when her mother was posted to India as a diplomat. In the 1990s she was awarded the Jawaharlal Nehru Award for International Understanding, despite being under house arrest and unable to travel to receive it.

Such considerations have not dissuaded Indian governments from investing heavily in Burma. Bilateral trade between the two countries grew to $650m by 2006 and India's sights are firmly fixed on a share of Burma's abundant energy resources. It was beaten by China in the race for a contract to build a pipeline to Burma's gas fields, but the Indian army has done most of the work on the so-called Indo-Myanmar Friendship Road, which is a major commercial transport route. All of this should be borne in mind when Indian politicians make feeble statements in support of pro-democracy campaigners in Burma.

Look, for example, at the response of the then Indian external affairs minister Pranab Mukherjee to the brutal repression of protests in Burma: "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." It's not immediately obvious how unarmed monks and political activists can initiate a "dialogue" with the Burmese army; no wonder the outspoken former defence minister, George Fernandez, has described the Indian government's stance on Burma as "disgusting".

The UK has little influence on China, but it does have leverage with India. Last year, the Government announced a generous aid programme to India worth £825m over three years, a decision which is not universally popular; critics have already asked why the UK is spending so much to alleviate poverty in India when the country's government is squandering its own money on nuclear weapons and a space mission. Crucially, India wants a seat on a reformed UN Security Council, and needs the support of Western democracies such as the US and the UK if it is ever to achieve it.

This week, Burma's most famous political prisoner faces yet more trumped-up charges. I can't think of a better opportunity for India's politicians to speak out and demonstrate their commitment to human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

More from Joan Smith