India and Myanmar both suffer depredations inflicted by militant groups operating from camps on both sides of the border. The border itself is hard to police or indeed to map since it runs across heavily forested hills. Myanmar's army has generally been cooperative in enabling operations against militants. The raid on the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (Khaplang) camps was not the first time India struck across the border.
But the song-and-dance about the cross-border aspects of this op made Myanmar seem like a weak state, whose territorial rights could be disregarded. Understandably, Myanmar does not relish this. It has denied that any operations took place on its soil and it may jib at cooperation in future since it would not want such ops discussed at open forums.
India has carried out many cross-border operations in the East in the last decade or so. The largest in scope was the uprooting of 20-odd militant camps in Bhutan with the cooperation of the Royal Bhutanese Army. There have also been "flushing" operations done in tandem with Bangladesh. Terrorists have also been picked up in Nepal.
An important enabling factor is India's reasonable relationships with its Eastern neighbours. Prior to this raid, such cross-border ops have always proceeded with diplomatic courtesies being observed. In this instance, those courtesies were not observed because India insisted on talking about it.
Kiss-and-tell (K&T) is rude and, more importantly, counter-productive behaviour. People in an ongoing relationship generally prefer not to have intimate details put into public domain. If a partner insists on doing this, the relationship is likely to break-up.
In addition, K&T negatively impacts perceptions of other potential partners and, thus, impedes the blabbermouth's ability to pair up with somebody else. The analogy should be clear. Myanmar was embarrassed. Nepal, Bhutan and Bangladesh will also be more wary about cooperating in cross-border operations in future, for fear of being similarly embarrassed.
In many ways, diplomatic relations are indeed akin to personal relationships between individuals. Individuals have hard preferences in that there are things they will do or will not do. They also have areas where they are willing to negotiate and indulge in give-and-take. The most enduring and deep-rooted personal relationships are built on private, bilateral negotiations of such details, with partners giving due regard to each other's sensibilities. Diplomacy works best on similar lines.
"Diplomacy" has been a popular strategic board game since the 1960s. It is played in multiple variations on the net. The basic game has seven players. Each "manages" a European nation circa 1901. Each nation has an army and navy. The map is divided up into regions with "supply centres" controlled by different players.
The players try to grab land and resources, by negotiation and/or occupation. They negotiate alliances, which could be private or public. They may make private arrangements and lie about those in public. They may stab each other in the back, while pretending to be allies. The game models real life diplomacy reasonably well. One key factor is that all the military moves are secret. Each player writes down the moves. All the moves are opened up and executed simultaneously.
The subcontinent is a similar multiplayer environment and it has seen many such fluid alliances and betrayals. Perhaps the Indian diplomatic establishment should practice playing an adapted version of this game, with its emphasis on discretion.
The former US president, Teddy Roosevelt, was a decorated war veteran, cowboy and gunfighter. He defined the art of diplomacy well when he said: "Speak softly and carry a big stick." The need for secrecy and for courtesy - speaking softly - cannot be over-emphasised. It is just as important as the big stick.
Twitter: @devangshudatta