The Burmese have 10 Mig-29s and use almost the same jets that we use.They have the edge in numbers.Their army size is way more than Bangladesh army.You already looked at how much they spend on defence.At least 5 billion more than Bangladesh according to the facts posted by Pmukherjee.
Dear Sir,
I saw your introduction of this subject with surprise. It has been traditional for Bangladesh to suspect India of every harmful thought and action, and it was difficult to understand why you were not conscious of the far more aggressive neighbour on your other side.
Very briefly, during a defence related seminar's workshop sessions for a particular organisation, participants were required to map the military disposition of countries in India's neighbourhood, as far as Vietnam on the east, as far as Iran on the west. On the conclusion of the workshop, every group came to various conclusions; there was a lot of variety in these.
The one common conclusion was that there was a potentially difficult situation for Bangladesh on her eastern frontier.
You are requested to map the locations of the Burmese/Myanmarese military for yourself to come to the conclusions that the participants did (it was a mixed group of serving military personnel and civilians involved in supporting activities; I hasten to add that there was no clandestine organisation represented, and that it was part of an academic programme. My involvement is with production and design of equipment or connected artefacts). I regret to inform you that the conclusions were startling, and if we had been Bangladeshi, unsettling.
During the discussion that ensued, several interesting suggestions were made, but they were all rejected by the participants on the grounds that these would not be practical and realistic until a greater degree of trust existed between Bangladesh and India. This was seen to be a weakening factor for both nations' defence needs, and as a failure to take advantage of the synergy of a common frontier with a threatening third country, as well as a complementarity of equipment and organisation.
There was seen to be significant scope for mutual cooperation. There was also a consensus that any initiative by India would create too much suspicion and resistance for any hope of success. Ulterior motives would be attributed. It was considered better to remain prepared to help, and to let it be known very discreetly, so that in case of need, there should be no doubt that help would be forthcoming, with no strings attached.
There was also general agreement that Indian foreign policy was completely mistaken, and that a sycophantic attitude to the dictatorship was alien to our own democratic approach, and this would lead to nothing but bitter resentment among Burmese democrats and the democratic resistance to the generals, and that this resentment would be expressed in violent terms when the military regime inevitably crumbles and a popular government comes to power. It was felt that our foreign policy should display a more ethical and morally correct approach, and not seek to outdo the Chinese in courting favour from the military.
On a different and entirely personal level of evaluation, it would seem that in this connection, a completely different mission profile for the Bangladesh military may be addressed gainfully, and that this profile is capable of being serviced with very cost-effective organisation structures and military equipment. As it may not be of general interest, I am refraining from any further detailed discussion on those aspects.
Military action must always be the last resort, but it is not going to be easy to deal with a dictatorial regime focussed on the personal aggrandisement of a handful of military dictators without effective counters in support. In Teddy Roosevelt's words, it behoves you to "speak softly and carry a big stick."
May I sincerely compliment you and your Bangladeshi colleagues on taking up an issue overdue for consideration?
'Joe S.'