US embassy cable - 05NEWDELHI5108

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 NEW DELHI 005108 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/05/2015 
TAGS: MARR, MASS, PGOV, PINR, PINS, PREL, IN, Indo-US 
SUBJECT: SEEKING ELECTORAL GAINS LEFT PARTIES COME DOWN 
HARD ON US/INDIA DEFENSE AGREEMENT, RAISE STAKES FOR PM'S 
JULY 18 VISIT 
 
Classified By: Charge Bob Blake, for Reasons 1.4 (B, D) 
 
1. (C) Summary: India's Left parties have severely criticized 
the "New Framework for the US-India Defense Relationship" 
signed by SecDef Rumsfeld and DefMin Mukherjee on June 28, 
despite initial positive reviews from most Indian media and 
strategic commentators, and will hold street demonstrations 
against it on July 8.  The CPI(M) politburo's July 2 
statement criticizes the agreement for tying the GOI too 
closely to the US and the UPA for ignoring previous promises 
to pursue an independent foreign policy and "multipolarity." 
The Communist stance is ideologically consistent and is tied 
to their opposition to UPA domestic and economic initiatives. 
 The Communists expect to do very well in upcoming 
Legislative Assembly elections in West Bengal and Kerala and 
want to demonstrate to their party faithful that their 
support for the UPA does not mean that they have sacrificed 
their independence.  That being said, their public attack on 
the Defense Minister's US visit raises the stakes for Prime 
Minister Singh to secure substantial deliverables from his 
Washington visit that he can cite to critics of the 
transformed US-India relationship.  End Summary 
 
Virulent Criticism 
------------------ 
 
2.  (U) The Communist Party of India - Marxist (CPI-M), 
India's largest and most powerful Communist party, issued a 
scathing denunciation of the recently-concluded US-India 
defense agreement on July 2, and called for nationwide 
demonstrations against the agreement on July 8.  Describing 
the agreement as a "major step," the CPI-M criticized the 
United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government for placing 
India in the same category as Japan, South Korea and the 
Philippines, "all traditional military allies of the US." 
 
3.  (U) The CPI(M)'s specific objections included: 
 
--The agreement did not mention the Common Minimum Program 
(CMP), the GOI's ambitious social welfare agenda. 
 
--The UPA did not first determine whether such an agreement 
was in line with its earlier commitment to "pursue an 
independent foreign policy and promote multipolarity in 
international relations." 
 
--The agreement commits the GOI and the USG to "collaborate 
in multinational operations when it is in their common 
interest," without mentioning whether "it would be under the 
auspices of the United Nations." 
 
--This allows Indian forces to be used in US-led military 
operations under US command. 
 
--According to the CPI(M), the agreement demonstrates that 
the UPA does not "view security issues in Asia as those which 
can be discussed and resolved among the Asian countries, but 
seeks to advance US interests in the region." 
 
--The party claimed that the real object of the agreement was 
"containment of China, using India as a counterweight." 
 
4.  (U) The CPI(M) also expressed "surprise" that "the UPA 
government has continued with the Vajpayee government's 
policy with regard to missile defense," arguing that the US 
is trying to draw India into its missile defense shield 
"under the cover of the US providing the Patriot missile 
system."  The party denounced plans for co-production of 
defense equipment as a ploy to "lure India to buy F-16 
fighter planes and open the market for US weaponry. 
 
5.  (U)  In a separate statement the much smaller Communist 
Party of India (Marxist-Leninist), which has a Maoist 
orientation, decried the agreement as an attempt by the US to 
"impose its unipolar hegemony," pointing out that "the move 
initiated by Russia and China to invite India into an Asian 
grouping to challenge US hegemony was quite disturbing to the 
US." 
 
Left Objectives 
--------------- 
 
6.  (C) The CPI(M) and its communist partners likely objected 
to the defense agreement for these reasons: 
 
--Defense Minister Pranab Mukherjee is, like much of the 
CPI(M) leadership, a Bengali, and both come from the same 
Bengali leftist political tradition.  As the UPA liaison with 
the all-important left parties, Mukherjee's job is to keep 
the Left happy and ensure that they continue to support the 
UPA coalition.  With its criticism of the defense agreement, 
the CPI(M) has put Mukherjee on notice that it is not happy 
with his performance and he must demonstrate more sympathy 
towards the left agenda. 
--The CPI(M) faces legislative elections in its two key 
strong-holds of West Bengal and Kerala this year and expects 
to win big victories in both contests.  As part of its 
preparation for the elections and to rally the party cadre, 
it is emphasizing its ideological roots and demonstrating 
that it is not subservient to Congress. 
 
--Communist popularity is growing and the Left parties have 
ambitious plans to expand into other states, notably Bihar 
and Andhra Pradesh.  The BJP/NDA tailspin and the increase in 
Communist popularity has fueled increasing speculation that 
the Left may eventually replace the BJP as the principal 
opposition to Congress.  The Communist leadership is eager to 
carve out a space well to the left of Congress and 
demonstrate their independence. 
 
The BJP Line 
------------ 
 
7.  (U) In contrast to the Left, the BJP endorsed the defense 
agreement.  Jaswant Singh, the BJP leader in the Rajya Sabha 
described it as a "strategic watershed," noting that, "as far 
as defense preparedness goes, it is welcome from the point of 
view of diversification of weapons systems."  Singh also 
expressed a note of caution, pointing out that it will be "a 
complex process," as the current environment was "not 
conducive to new and bold initiatives." 
 
Domestic and Foreign 
-------------------- 
 
8.  (C) Communist objection to the defense pact and many 
elements of the US-India relationship reiterates Left 
objections to the pro-American foreign policy and complements 
Communist stances on domestic and economic issues.  The 
Communists have refused to back down on their objection to 
alleged UPA "privatization" of the profit-making public 
sector Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL), and have 
sponsored demonstrations and work stoppages to protest 
petroleum price hikes.  It now plans similar protests against 
the defense agreement. 
 
Comment 
------- 
 
9.  (C) The Left's demonstrated disdain for Mukherjee's visit 
is a sharp departure from the overwhelmingly positive 
reaction of strategic analysts and most media.  However, the 
virulent criticism heaped by the Left on Mukherjee's visit to 
the US in general, and on the defense agreement specifically, 
may be a harbinger of the domestic criticism that the Prime 
Minister may face during his July 18-21 visit to the US. 
Such vitriol raises the stakes for the PM's visit in terms of 
what Congress will need to do to allay the Left's concerns 
that the party has effectively abandoned India's principles 
of independence and multipolarity.  The Communists' public 
attack on the Defense Minister's US visit will increase 
pressure on Prime Minister Singh to secure substantial 
deliverables from his Washington visit. 
BLAKE