Context

• Five years after the February 2021 coup, Myanmar’s military organised elections between December 2025 and January 2026 to project political normalcy.
• The military-backed USDP emerged victorious in a tightly managed political environment marked by restricted participation, suppression of opposition, and ongoing armed conflict.
• Rather than restoring civilian rule, the process sought to institutionalise military authority.
• The elections hold wider regional importance, particularly for India, which shares borders, security concerns, and economic ambitions tied to Myanmar.

Manufactured Legitimacy and Controlled Participation

• The electoral exercise functioned primarily as a mechanism to produce legitimacy. Voting occurred in only 265 of 330 townships, excluding large populations.
• Polling remained concentrated in urban wards, while rural areas under resistance influence were effectively absent from the process.
• Political competition was systematically eliminated. The Election Commission dissolved major parties including the NLD, the Arakan National Party, and the Shan Nationalities League for Democracy, while senior leaders were imprisoned.
• At the same time, numerous serving and retired military officers contested under the USDP banner.
• Turnout figures reinforced the credibility crisis. The regime reported roughly 55% participation, a sharp fall from earlier elections.
• Under conditions of fear and surveillance, reduced participation signified silent political rejection rather than apathy.
• The elections thus represented controlled participation rather than democratic choice.

Elections Amid Civil War

• The polls took place amid widespread conflict. Since 2021, thousands of civilians, activists, and journalists have been killed, tens of thousands arrested, and more than 113,000 structures destroyed, especially in Sagaing and Magway.
• Repression strengthened armed opposition. The People’s Defence Forces, working alongside long-standing ethnic armed organisations, now control significant territory, including dozens of towns.
• The state therefore lacks full sovereignty over its territory.
• Under such conditions, elections cannot stabilise governance. Instead, they deepen political division: participation would validate military rule, while opposition groups view armed struggle as the only viable option.
• The electoral process therefore risks intensifying violence rather than resolving it.

India’s Diplomatic Balancing Act

• For India, Myanmar is a strategic neighbour and a gateway central to the Act East Policy.
• Official statements support democracy and call for free and inclusive elections while avoiding direct recognition of the junta’s authority.
• High-level engagement continues. Diplomatic contacts, including leadership meetings, demonstrate ongoing engagement while carefully avoiding endorsement.
• India simultaneously maintains distance by clarifying non-official involvement during the election period.
• Humanitarian outreach strengthens this calibrated approach. Relief operations and medical assistance following the 2025 earthquake allowed India to maintain a constructive role without conferring political approval.
• The strategy effectively amounts to engagement without full diplomatic validation.

Security and Economic Implications for India

• Refugee Flows
  • Violence has driven significant refugees into India, particularly into Mizoram and Manipur.
  • The absence of a national refugee policy places heavy administrative burdens on state governments and exposes governance gaps.
  • Continued instability is likely to sustain these movements.
• Infrastructure and Connectivity
  • Major connectivity initiatives, the Kaladan Multi-Modal Transit Transport Project and the Trilateral Highway, have experienced repeated delays due to insecurity.
  • Claims of post-election normalisation are unlikely to improve ground conditions, forcing reassessment of timelines and investment risks.
• Non-Traditional Security Threats
  • State fragility has accelerated trafficking, narcotics trade, and organised crime.
  • A major concern is the growth of cyber-scam centres and cyber slavery networks operating in conflict zones.
  • Thousands of Indians have already been rescued, yet many remain trapped. These emerging threats demand coordinated domestic and regional responses.

The Limits of International Pressure

• Western governments and ASEAN have declined to recognise the election results. However, external pressure alone cannot resolve Myanmar’s political crisis.
• The military remains entrenched, while opposition forces remain fragmented.
• India therefore pursues a dual policy: maintaining communication with the authorities while also sustaining contact with local stakeholders.
• This approach acknowledges uncertainty regarding Myanmar’s future political order and prioritises stability along the frontier.

Conclusion

• Myanmar’s 2025–26 elections did not signal democratic restoration but an effort to formalise military rule under institutional cover.
• Conducted under repression and territorial fragmentation, the process failed to address the underlying political crisis and may prolong instability.
• For India, the situation presents a lasting dilemma; disengagement risks border instability and economic disruption, while recognition would compromise democratic commitments.
• New Delhi therefore follows a careful middle path, balancing ideals with national interest.