Dr. Om Prakash Das, Research Fellow, made a presentation on “Post- Electoral Dynamics in Myanmar: Civil War Trajectories and Borderland Geopolitics” at the Monday Morning Meeting held on 09 March 2026. Dr. Anand Kumar, Associate Fellow, moderated the meeting. Amb. Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA and the scholars of the Institute participated in the discussion.

Executive Summary

The presentation offered a detailed analysis of the 2025-26 General Elections held in Myanmar. It also discussed the impact of internal security in Myanmar on the broader regional security. The main focus of the presentation was on issues in bordering areas of India and Myanmar and measures to mitigate the same.  

Detailed Report

In his opening remarks, Dr. Anand Kumar identified three key trends shaping contemporary geopolitics: the “Trump-triggered crises,” challenges arising from Artificial Intelligence (AI), and the growing prevalence of civil wars and civil unrest in developing countries. He cited Myanmar as a clear example of the third trend. Following the 2021 military coup that ousted the elected government, the country experienced widespread protests and a prolonged civil war involving resistance groups and ethnic militias, many operating in border regions.

Dr. Kumar noted that the military junta conducted General Elections in 2025, resulting in a landslide victory for the military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) in early 2026. However, the elections were widely criticised as neither free nor fair, with several political parties banned and nearly 30% of Myanmar’s territory still affected by conflict. He emphasised that borderlands remain central to the conflict and have significant implications for regional stability, particularly for India, given their shared border and strategic interests.

With this backdrop, Dr. Om Prakash Das analysed the 2026 General Elections in Myanmar, noting that after the 2021 military coup, the junta used the elections to restore constitutional continuity and seek political legitimacy. Conducted in three phases between January 2025 and January 2026, the elections aimed to institutionalise post-coup governance within the framework of the 2008 Constitution. Results showed the dominance of the military-backed USDP, which won 232 of the 263 contested seats in the 440-seat Lower House, where 25% are reserved for the military. Dr. Das also highlighted contested regions controlled by ethnic armed groups, particularly in border areas, and described the USDP as rooted in military-bureaucratic networks.

Dr. Om Prakash Das examined Myanmar’s electoral trajectory from 2010 to 2026, highlighting shifts in political dominance. In the 2010 General Elections, held after the 2008 Constitution, the National League for Democracy (NLD) did not participate, enabling the military-backed USDP to win 76% of the seats. In the 2012 by-elections, the NLD secured 96% of the contested seats. The 2015 General Elections, which included all major parties, resulted in a decisive NLD victory with 79% of the seats, while the USDP won only 10%. A similar pattern appeared in the 2022 elections, where the NLD won 82% and the USDP 7%. However, in the 2026 elections, pro-democratic parties were barred, allowing the USDP to secure 88% of the seats. Voter turnout declined to 55%, compared to about 77% earlier. Dr. Das noted that the 2023 Political Party Registration Law imposed strict requirements that reduced the number of registered parties from 92 to 52, excluding the NLD.

Dr. Om Prakash Das noted that while Myanmar’s military continues to control key state institutions and major economic and administrative centres, it lacked the capacity to fully eliminate resistance groups. At the same time, resistance forces had captured territories in several regions but did not possess sufficient military strength to overthrow the regime. This balance had resulted in a prolonged civil war and sustained instability. Rural areas such as Thandwe and Magwe remained centres of resistance, while borderlands were largely controlled by ethnic armed organisations. The resistance movement was highly decentralised, with local militias coordinating with experienced ethnic armed groups and relying on asymmetric tactics such as ambushes, sabotage, and attacks on supply routes. Dr. Das argued that the elections sought to transform a wartime situation into political normalisation by installing a nominal civilian government to reduce diplomatic pressure. However, divisions among ethnic armed groups and pro-democratic actors, driven by demands for economic federalism and ethnic self-determination, complicate prospects for a comprehensive peace settlement.

Dr. Om Prakash Das further explained that the National Unity Government (NUG) operated alongside networks of armed resistance groups known as the People’s Defence Force (PDF). Several ethnic armed organisations had also established parallel governance structures outside direct military control. In many areas, these groups collected taxes, administered local justice mechanisms, and coordinated humanitarian assistance, resulting in overlapping political systems within Myanmar. For many citizens, the NUG represented the continuation of democratic governance, while the military leadership viewed it as a direct challenge to its authority.

Dr. Das noted that recent military developments, such as the recapture of key positions in northern Shan State and the consolidation of ethnic armed group control in parts of Rakhine State, carried strategic implications, particularly for infrastructure initiatives such as India’s Kaladan Multimodal Project. Despite these developments, the military continued to retain significant strategic advantages.

The Speaker also highlighted the importance of external partnerships in sustaining the military’s capacity. Russia had emerged as a key military partner, while China maintained complex relations with the regime, combining economic engagement with cautious political guidance and continued involvement in infrastructure projects.

Dr. Das stated that more than 20 ethnic armed groups had opposed the junta since 2021. Although the possibility of negotiations could not be ruled out, deep political divisions between the junta and the broader population made meaningful dialogue unlikely. Earlier peace initiatives, including ceasefire frameworks linked to the 2008 Constitution and talks in 2015 had largely strengthened the military’s leverage, rather than empowering ethnic groups seeking autonomy.

Dr. Om Prakash Das stated that the civil war had significantly reshaped the strategic environment along the Indo–Myanmar border. The collapse of state authority in regions such as Sagaing, Chin, and parts of Kachin had created governance vacuums and fragmented sovereignty. Multiple actors, including the military, ethnic armed organisations, and local militias, controlled different territories, complicating border management and counter-insurgency efforts. The spread of cross-border insurgent networks had further affected security, while issues such as narcotics smuggling, illegal trafficking, and timber extraction had intensified, creating long-term challenges.

Dr. Das noted that India’s foreign policy had increasingly shifted towards securitisation, reflected in the suspension of the Free Movement Regime (FMR) and plans to fence the border. However, only about 60 km of the border had been fenced so far, due to local opposition, security constraints, and rising costs. He concluded that Myanmar’s conflict remained complex, as the military sought to institutionalise its authority through elections while deeper issues of legitimacy, military dominance, and territorial fragmentation persisted. Consequently, the evolving situation would continue to pose security challenges for India and require a pragmatic border management strategy.

Q&A Session and Discussion

Amb. Sujan Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA, emphasised that developments in Myanmar had important implications for India, particularly regarding regional stability and border security. He noted that instability in Myanmar was not in India’s interest given the shared border and long-standing strategic and developmental ties between the two countries. Highlighting the importance of sovereignty and territorial integrity, he stressed that clearly defined borders were essential for maintaining stability in frontier regions. In this context, he referred to India’s efforts to strengthen border management, including the fencing of segments of the Indo–Myanmar border.

Amb. Chinoy further observed that as India expanded its engagement with Southeast Asia through its Act East policy, Myanmar continued to present both opportunities and challenges. He highlighted the strategic importance of connectivity initiatives such as the Kaladan Multimodal Transit Transport Project, noting that its successful implementation depended on sustained peace and political stability. Drawing comparisons with developments related to Chabahar Port and the proposed India–Middle East–Europe Economic Corridor, he remarked that infrastructure initiatives in politically sensitive regions often faced delays due to instability or lack of consensus.

Amb. Chinoy concluded by stressing the need for a pragmatic and balanced approach towards Myanmar, while remaining mindful of evolving geopolitical dynamics, including the growing regional role of China.

The discussion that followed explored several related issues. Participants raised questions regarding governance arrangements in areas beyond the control of Myanmar’s central authorities and the prospects for engagement with local actors in border regions. It was noted that informal dialogues at the think-tank level had occasionally facilitated limited engagement with various groups operating along the border, many of which maintained strong community linkages.

In the course of the discussion, Dr. Om Prakash Das highlighted the importance of effective border management from India’s perspective. He noted that security forces, including the Assam Rifles, had increasingly relied on technological measures such as smart surveillance systems to monitor the border and track cross-border movements. Efforts to record biometric data of refugees entering through the border areas of Mizoram were also mentioned, although several operational and logistical challenges remained. Participants also discussed the implications of divisions among ethnic armed groups and the role of external actors in the ongoing conflict. Overall, the discussion underscored the complexity of the evolving situation and the need for carefully calibrated policy responses.

The Report has been prepared by Ms. Sharvari Devendra Patil, Intern, ALACUN Centre, MP-IDSA.