US embassy cable - 05NEWDELHI5354

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 04 NEW DELHI 005354 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/13/2015 
TAGS: PGOV, PREL, MASS, MARR, KSTC, IN, External Political Relations 
SUBJECT: PM AND DEFMIN SCOFF AT LEFTIST CRITICISM OF U.S. 
DEFENSE TIES; WE SHOULD, TOO 
 
REF: NEW DELHI 5108 
 
Classified By: Charge Robert O. Blake, Jr. for Reasons 1.4 (B, D) 
 
1.  (C) Summary: To place Left Parties' continuing attacks on 
the New Framework for US-India Defense in context, Defense 
Minister Pranab Mukherjee and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh 
have reassured critics that the agreement is in India's 
national interest, does not compromise Indian security or 
sovereignty and is consonant with India's regional and global 
aspirations.  Unconvinced, Left parties have threatened to 
organize larger demonstrations against the agreement if the 
UPA government does not make some concessions, and continue 
to issue communiques assailing the UPA for continuing the 
Vajpayee government's pro-US policies.  The Left's 
demonstrated ability to maintain momentum on this issue puts 
added pressure on the PM to manage a tightrope act:  secure 
substantial deliverables during his visit to Washington 
without appearing to have compromised oft-stated Congress 
principles of independence and multipolarity. 
Notwithstanding the left's noisiness, most in India seem to 
support the Agreement.  One senior Indian told us the left is 
fading fast.  Another asserted that the PM is a big boy and 
can handle his internal problems; the U.S. - India defense 
caravan should keep moving forward no matter how many 
(socialist) dogs bark in Delhi. End Summary. 
 
Mukherjee Faces Down Leftist Hysteria 
------------------------------------- 
 
2.  (C) Mukherjee returned from the US determined to defend 
the agreement against Left criticism and was backed by the 
PM, but the unexpected virulence and determination of the 
Left criticism has compelled the UPA to devote considerable 
time and energy to respond to the allegations that the DefMin 
sold out. 
 
3.  (U) In an attempt to head-off the Left's threatened 
demonstration against the Framework Agreement only a few days 
before the PM's visit to the US, the DefMin met with CPM 
General Secretary Prakash Karat and his CPI counterpart A.B. 
Bardhan and others on July 7.  The "Times of India" reported 
that the Left and Defmin made "little headway" in their 
discussion, with "both sides sticking to their guns." 
 
4.  (U) In his first interaction with the Indian media since 
returning from the US, DefMin Mukherjee on July 5 downplayed 
the Left's strong criticism against the agreement, stating, 
"The Left parties have a particular ideological position with 
respect to the U.S.  We have to keep in view that point." 
Going on to address the Left's lengthy list of complaints 
(Reftel), he denied Left allegations that the framework would 
obligate India to participate in US-led operations outside 
the ambit of the United Nations.  "We have a clear perception 
that we will participate in multinational operations under 
the UN.  That position has not changed.  It is not necessary 
that after every mention of multinational, the word "UN" 
should be added."  The Minister also rejected another LF 
accusation, that the framework contradicted the principles of 
independence and multipolarity enshrined in the NDA's Common 
Minimum Program. 
 
5.  (U) On missile defense, the Minister's remarks were 
consistent with Congress' indigenously-focused approach, but 
did not rule out collaboration with the U.S.  Mukherjee was 
categorical that India is not interested in purchasing a 
complete missile defense system, stating, "There is no 
question of accepting a missile shield from anyone.  What we 
are interested in is developing our own missile program and 
we are doing that." The Minister noted that there were gaps 
in India's integrated guided missile defense program but New 
Delhi would only accept critical US inputs that bridged the 
deficiency.  "If we don't get them, fine," he added, 
indicating that India would then explore other avenues 
including indigenous development or via procurement other 
countries.  Mukherjee also underscored what the UPA views as 
the hallmark achievement of his visit: US acceptance of 
India's desire for co-production and technology transfer. 
 
Mukherjee Points Out the Advantages 
----------------------------------- 
 
6.  (U) On July 8, Mukherjee underscored that the Agreement 
paves the way for India to "bridge the critical gap in 
technology we have developed.  He also rejected the Left's 
criticism that Congress was following its predecessor's 
foreign policy, noting that the policy to widen relations 
with the US had been formulated by the Congress Party in 
1995. 
 
7. (U) On July 11, Mukherjee again defended the Agreement, 
talking to Left leaders to explain the government's 
reasoning.  For the first time, Mukherjee also defended the 
Agreement as being in India's national interest because it 
would ensure uninterrupted supplies of material in times of 
need and would ensure needed technology transfer. 
 
And the PM Also Tries to Hose Them Down 
--------------------------------------- 
 
8.  (U) Buttressing Mukherjee's defense of the Framework 
Agreement, the PM dismissed the Left's criticism in an 
interview with "The Hindu" en route from the Gleneagles 
summit on July 6.  Describing the agreement as "an innocuous 
framework agreement," he added, "It doesn't say anything that 
is against our national interest.  It lists areas where the 
two countries can cooperate if they want to work together, so 
that does not mean any surrender of our sovereignty." 
 
But the Comrades Stick to their Kalashnikovs 
-------------------------------------------- 
 
9.  (U) Convinced that DefMin Mukherjee and the UPA are not 
responding to their criticism of the agreement, Left leaders 
held a public meeting on July 8 that the "Asian Age" called a 
"precursor meeting to country-wide agitation."  During the 
meeting, CPM General Secretary Karat reiterated the Left's 
opposition to provisions of the Agreement, i.e., 
collaboration in multinational operations outside the ambit 
of the UN; missile defense; shared security interest to 
protect the free flow of commerce; and defense co-production. 
 Karat warned the PM not to use his first official visit as 
PM to the US to "please the US at the expense of an 
independent foreign policy," and called for the agreement to 
be "disposed in the dustbin."  CPI General Secretary Bardhan, 
in turn, cautioned New Delhi not do Washington's bidding in 
the hope of securing a permanent berth in the Security 
Council.  Asked what the Left's next move would be, Bardhan 
said in an interview with "The Indian Express," "we shall not 
resort to a loud country -wide campaign just now, but shall 
see if the UPA 
government listens to us." 
 
10.  (U) Karat, who is now visiting China, expanded his 
criticism in a July 10 "Asian Age" editorial, in which he 
voiced strong disapproval of "the recent tendency to make a 
holy cow of strategic and security issues" by not consulting 
the Left on foreign policy.  Accusing the former NDA 
government of entering into a "strategic alliance" with the 
US, Karat characterized the agreement as an extension of the 
BJP agenda and "a major step to harness India to serve the US 
strategic goals in Asia," by going beyond the previous 
government's commitments.  Karat also reiterated the CPI(M) 
Politburo's July 2 denunciation of the Proliferation Security 
Initiative, stating that the US was bent on using the Defense 
Framework Agreement and the PSI to "get the Indian Navy to 
patrol the Malacca Straits and other international seas." 
Taking credit for keeping Indian troops out of Iraq, Karat 
reminded the nation that it was the Left that  "rallied the 
Opposition against sending troops to Iraq at a time when the 
Vajpayee government was on the verge of deciding to do so." 
He also implied that UPA treatment of the Left mirrored that 
of the BJP, noting that opposition leader LK Advani had 
advised the NDA government to avoid consulting with the Left 
on security and international affairs. 
 
The Majority Supports the Agreement Anyway 
------------------------------------------ 
 
11.  (U) Despite the Left's vitriol, Indian media and 
strategic commentators have generally been supportive of the 
Agreement and dismissive of the Left's complaints. 
Well-known defense analyst Commodore Uday Bhaskar told 
PolMilOff on July 6 that the agreement had "the potential to 
recast a rapidly changing bilateral relationship as well as 
highlight India's relevance in the evolving global strategic 
scenario," adding that the agreement only consolidated 
various initiatives undertaken by both countries in recent 
years.  In a July 11 editorial entitled "Foreign Non-Policy," 
"The Indian Express" stated that while Left opposition to the 
Agreement was to be expected, their fury was not.  "In its 
ideological opposition to any engagement with the US, the 
Left was not going to let facts come in the way.  If a 
similar agreement were to be signed with Russia or China, the 
Left would have hailed it as a triumph for anti-imperialist 
forces." 
 
12. (C) In a July 11 meeting with the Charge, MEA Joint 
Secretary (Americas) S. Jaishankar warned that the Left 
 
SIPDIS 
attack on Mukherjee had been more furious than expected, and 
cautioned us not to underestimate the challenge the UPA will 
face in accelerating defense ties. 
 
EVEN LEFT-LEANING COMMENTATOR SAYS LEFT IS A SPENT FORCE 
--------------------------------------------- ----------- 
 
13.  (C) Respected left-leaning gray-beard security analyst 
and Manmohan Singh confidant Prem Shankar Jha explained to us 
that the squawks of the left are mere symptoms; the root 
cause is their fear of the U.S. national security strategy 
that permits pre-emptive "war without end" against perceived 
threats.  The left worries that the defense agreement is a 
way to drag India into our "war without end" just as we, in 
our perceived perfidy, already tried with the Vajpayee 
government in sending troops to Iraq.  However, Jha said that 
he personally supported the defense agreement and had written 
to that effect in a column soon to be published in the 
Hindustan Times.  Jha said the agreement was good for both 
countries, and that the PM would not have taken such a 
decision lightly.  The PM, said Jha, is a serious and careful 
thinker who clearly saw the benefits of the defense agreement 
and decided that he would take the flack from the left and 
could defend the agreement well if pressed.  In the final 
analysis, said Jha, the left is comprised of extreme 
reactionaries who have been frozen into utter and irrelevent 
rigidity.  Their resistance to change is matched only by 
their fear that their iron rice bowls are being broken. 
They say no to everything the government proposes, but offer 
no alternatives.  They refuse to join the coalition 
government, but sit on the sidelines and critique everything. 
 Now that the Congress is feeling more confident, and the BJP 
is engaged in fratricidal warfare, the left parties risk 
being completely marginalized if Congress holds a snap 
election.  The left will never do as well electorally again, 
predicted Jha, and their terror is reflected in their 
hysterical rhetoric.  The Manmohan Singh administration will 
proceed with ties with the United States, Jha affirmed, no 
matter what the left says. 
 
They're a Bunch of Self-Serving Bums, Anyway 
-------------------------------------------- 
 
14. (C) Respected senior diplomat Naresh Chandra told us July 
12 that the left parties have nothing to offer except 
hysteria.  Their electoral chances will never be so good 
again.  They survive outside the coalition, giving them 
freedom to attack at will, while retaining political 
influence that allows them to reap financial benefit by 
fixing appointments, diverting patronage, and skimming 
percentages off of deals made through their rolodexes.  The 
prospect of electoral victory in Kerala encourages them, but 
Manmohan and Sonia know how to handle them, and the United 
States, Chandra stressed, should not pull back or slow down 
because of winging from the left.  On the contrary, he 
insisted, the U.S. should keep putting proposals on the 
table.  Manmohan and Sonia will then decide what the system 
can bear.  He did caution, however, that the U.S. can help 
the PM politically at home by carefully weighing how, where, 
and in what tone it announces new initiatives.  Announcements 
made in Washington give the left an opening to accuse the 
Center of being stooges; announcements made by the GOI in 
Delhi yield less readily usable material for nay-sayers. 
Chandra said Congress' big problem is that, even though the 
left are "Stalinists of the worst sort," it cannot attack 
them head-on because they ostensibly are on the same 
political side. 
 
Comment: We'll Meet Them on the Hustings, Comrade 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
 
15.  (C) The soft-spoken economist-turned DefMin may have 
earned some combat clout this week both for his efforts to 
allay the concerns of the Left, as well as for his 
willingness to fend off the Left's unrelenting attacks.  The 
Left's ability and determination to maintain momentum on this 
issue, however, clearly caught the UPA by surprise.  It 
should not have done so, as Communist opposition to the 
agreement is ideologically consistent.  No Communist party 
can safely acquiesce to such an agreement, and the 
Communists, facing elections in their strongholds of Kerala 
and Went Bengal, are in no mood to compromise.  The LF will 
not relent on its demand that the PM not renege on the 
traditional Congress commitment to national independence and 
the re-emergence of a multipolar world order to secure 
substantial deliverables from the US.   While in the final 
analysis, we should ignore the left and proceed ahead at full 
steam, we should recognize that the UPA may require an 
occasional pause to let Indian public opinion catch up with 
the rapid pace of transformation in our bilateral 
relationship. 
BLAKE