US embassy cable - 05NEWDELHI1426

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 NEW DELHI 001426 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/23/2015 
TAGS: PREL, ECIN, KDEM, NP, BG, PK, CE, IN, SAARC 
SUBJECT: FOREIGN SECRETARY EMPHASIZES NEIGHBORS' IMPACT ON 
INDIA 
 
 
Classified By: Acting DCM Geoff Pyatt.  Reasons 1.4 (B, D) 
 
1.  (C) Summary: In a carefully considered February 14 speech 
on New Delhi's South Asia policy, Foreign Secretary Shyam 
Saran unveiled a more muscular approach toward India's 
neighborhood that reflects the GOI's shifting view of its 
role in the world.  Departing from the standard GOI line on 
the primacy of national sovereignty, the address made a clear 
link between bad behavior next door and the consequences for 
India.  As did then-Foreign Minister Sinha's September 2003 
remarks on neighborhood relations, Saran laid heavy emphasis 
on economic integration in South Asia.  The Foreign 
Secretary, however, went further making democracy a 
 
SIPDIS 
prerequisite for regional cooperation.  Although he declared 
his intention not to single out particular countries, Sri 
Lanka was the only neighbor to escape unscathed.  End Summary. 
 
Democracy's the Word 
-------------------- 
 
2.  (U) In a departure from traditional Indian rhetoric, 
Saran's deliberately hyped February 14 speech highlighted the 
"drift away from democratic freedoms in some countries of our 
neighborhood."  Arguing that a more democratic environment in 
South Asia would lead to greater regional cooperation, Saran 
said that although the GOI will engage with any ruling 
government, "our sympathy will always be with democratic and 
secular forces."  Although India would like to see more 
democratic regimes in bordering countries, "it is not 
something we can impose upon others," and is not something 
for New Delhi to decide.  Saran also made an explicit 
connection between the neighbors' internal affairs and the 
impact on India.  The Foreign Secretary said his country's 
"destiny is inseparable from what happens in its 
neighborhood." 
 
3.  (C) Interpreting Saran's message, MEA Joint Secretary V 
Ashok (SAARC) explained to PolCouns and Poloff two days after 
the speech on February 16, that New Delhi needs to see 
democracy in South Asia in "deed, not only word."  India had 
to be clear in conveying this, because pro-democracy groups 
in the neighboring countries "look to India as an example." 
Echoing Saran, Ashok concluded that there was a point beyond 
which "democracy ceases to be a purely internal matter, and 
neighbors' problems become India's problems."  Drawing a 
real-politic explanation for Saran's Wilsonian rhetoric, 
Ashok argued that that lack of democracy among the neighbors 
would inevitably breed instability that could spill across 
India's borders. 
 
Economic Cure-All 
----------------- 
 
4.  (C) A prominent theme in the Foreign Secretary's remarks 
was that South Asia should see India as an opportunity, not 
as a threat, and that it was India's diplomatic challenge to 
convey that message.  Praising "some neighbors" for having 
developed economic cooperation with India, Saran scolded 
others for "seeking to isolate themselves from India." 
Rather than see India as "besieging" them, they should 
recognize that regional economies will benefit from 
integration.  He pledged New Delhi's willingness to open its 
markets and invest in cross-border infrastructure, noting 
that with Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bhutan India has accepted a 
non-reciprocal relationship.  But, he said during the 
question period, "the hand we extend must be grasped by the 
neighbors."  The MEA's Ashok put it more bluntly, cautioning 
that if the rest of South Asia does not recognize the 
economic benefits in cooperating with India, "India has other 
options such as ASEAN and the Bay of Bengal Initiative" 
(BIMSTEC). 
 
No More Mr. Nice Guy 
-------------------- 
 
5.  (C) Saran's presentation of India's policy towards its 
neighbors contrasted with the approach then-Foreign Minister 
Yashwant Sinha laid out in a September 2003 address "We 
Approach our Neighbors in a Spirit of Fraternity" (as opposed 
to Saran's "India and its Neighbors").  Like Saran, Sinha 
compared South Asia unfavorably to ASEAN and the EU, 
emphasized the potential "mutual economic benefit" the region 
could experience, and asserted that India's commitment to 
SAARC was "undiluted and undiminished." 
 
6.  (C) Where the two departed was in Saran's connection of 
economic integration to democracy.  While Sinha never once 
uttered the word, Saran's speech was littered with references 
to democracy.  The Foreign Secretary also coupled democracy 
and economic development in a recipe for improved regional 
security, observing that South Asia does not have a shared 
security perception.  A year and one half earlier, Foreign 
Minister Sinha also requested the region's respect for 
India's security, asking that they "be sensitive to our 
security concerns."  Saran made the same point more starkly, 
commenting that "India cannot and will not ignore such 
conduct and will take whatever steps are necessary to 
safeguard its interests." 
 
Equal Opportunity Offender 
-------------------------- 
 
7.  (C) Despite his declared intention not to focus on 
individual countries, Saran slipped in references to India's 
neighbors in the context of New Delhi's concerns about them. 
Among the Foreign Secretary's barbs were: "India would 
certainly welcome more democracy in our neighborhood" (Nepal, 
Bhutan); "transit routes, which would have created...mutual 
benefit, have fallen prey to narrow political calculations" 
(Pakistan); and "hostile propaganda and intemperate 
statements" (Bangladesh).  The only neighbor Saran praised 
was Sri Lanka, as a country that has "taken advantage of 
India's strengths," and has reaped not only economic, but 
political benefits as well. 
 
Comment 
------- 
 
8.  (C) Clearly disturbed at recent events in Nepal and 
trends in Bangladesh, the Foreign Secretary was much more 
assertive in expressing specific displeasure with India's 
neighbors and in making an explicit connection between the 
internal developments in the region, and the impact on India 
than Sinha did in 2003.  Delivered to a standing-room only 
crowd eager to hear where India's South Asia policy was going 
following King Gyanendra's coup in Nepal and the cancellation 
of the SAARC Summit, Saran's speech fueled the criticism that 
New Delhi is trying to throw its weight around in the region. 
 India's next steps with Nepal will be the first test of a 
policy that simultaneously acknowledges the need to work with 
whichever regimes are present next door, while insisting on 
democracy.  This new missionary current reflects an important 
departure from an Indian political consensus that 
traditionally has been strong on democracy at home, but 
completely agnostic about the character of governance among 
India's relationships abroad.  How seriously this new 
doctrine is applied, will tell us much about India's changing 
view of its international role and New Delhi's willingness to 
jettison the third-world view that guided past GOI foreign 
policy. 
MULFORD