US embassy cable - 05NEWDELHI5815

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 NEW DELHI 005815 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/27/2015 
TAGS: PGOV, PREL, PARM, KNNP, ECON, IN, CH, IR, Indian Domestic Politics 
SUBJECT: INDIAN LEFT OPPOSES "PRO-US SHIFT" BUT WILL 
CONTINUE TO SUPPORT UPA FOR ITS OWN PURPOSES 
 
REF: A. NEW DELHI 5685 
     B. NEW DELHI 5616 
 
Classified By: PolCouns Geoff Pyatt for Reasons 1.4 (B, D) 
 
1. Summary: The Left Front heavily criticized agreements 
reached during the PM's visit to Washington, claiming that 
the UPA has abandoned its pledge in the Common Minimum 
Program (CMP) to pursue "multipolarity," in favor of a 
"pro-US shift" initiated by the previous NDA government.  The 
CPI and CPI(M) also denounced the allegedly secretive nature 
of India/US negotiations and questioned what it characterized 
as the unilateral nature of the civilian nuclear cooperation 
agreement.  Freshly returned from China, CPI(M) General 
Secretary Prakash Karat is leading the Left charge, as he 
 
SIPDIS 
positions his party for upcoming elections in West Bengal and 
Kerala and establishes himself as a strong new leader of the 
Left Front (LF).  While the gulf between the UPA and the Left 
continues to grow, we do not believe the LF will withdraw 
support from this government as long as the NDA/BJP is still 
viable and there is no alternative to the UPA. End Summary. 
 
Left Calls "Secret" Negotiations With US "Undemocratic" 
--------------------------------------------- ---------- 
 
2.(U)  Both the CPI and CPI(M) derided the UPA government for 
not consulting other parties while negotiating the agreements 
announced in the US-India joint statement (Ref A).  The 
CPI(M) characterized the "secret" negotiations on foreign and 
defense policy as a continuation of the "undemocratic 
practices" of the previous NDA government.  Zeroing in on the 
US-India democracy initiative, the parties asserted that 
since the US cannot rightfully claim to be spreading 
democracy and combating terrorism, it "does not serve India's 
interest," to sign on to a deceptive American agenda.  The LF 
bemoaned the July 18 joint statement as a further 
demonstration of the pro-US shift in India's foreign policy 
and a UPA betrayal of the "independent" foreign policy it 
promised to follow in the CMP.  (Note: The PM met the Left 
parties July 26 to discuss their critique of the Washington 
visit.  End Note.) 
 
Nuclear Deal Not Good Enough, Should Be Multilateral 
--------------------------------------------- ------- 
 
3. (U)  Although CPI General Secretary AB Bardhan had 
initially called the civilian nuclear agreement a "welcome 
step" (Ref B), both the CPI and CPI(M) subsequently 
criticized it for delivering nothing more than "intangible US 
promises" for India.  The CPI secretariat claimed the 
agreement reversed "India's earlier nuclear policy," and 
should have been multilateral through the IAEA or similar 
international organizations rather than bilateral.  The 
CPI(M) questioned whether Indian concessions would limit 
independent research, noted the statement's "silence" 
regarding what India promised to provide the US in return for 
civilian technology, and questioned whether India has arrived 
at an "understanding" to buy "billions of dollars" of US 
defense equipment. 
 
Iran-Pakistan-India Pipeline is a Test for UPA 
--------------------------------------------- - 
 
4. (U)  In the run-up to the PM's visit and prior to his own 
visit to Beijing, CPI(M) General Secretary Prakash Karat 
asserted that India should make it clear to the US that it 
had no right to dissuade India from the proposed 
Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline.  Karat and Bardhan 
characterized the PM's cautious remarks in Washington 
regarding the project as an attack of "cold feet," and 
demanded a GOI explanation.  Describing the pipeline project 
as an "acid test" that would indicate whether the UPA 
government intended to pursue an independent foreign policy 
or "submit" to the US, Bardhan reminded the PM of his 
previous statements that the GOI would not countenance 
interference from other countries in the pipeline project. 
 
UN Security Council Seat 
------------------------ 
 
5. (U)  Before the PM's trip, Karat had criticized the UPA 
for seeking US support for its bid for a permanent UNSC seat. 
 According to Karat, such efforts were needlessly humiliating 
for New Delhi, as Washington has no intention of backing 
India.  Karat characterized the USG's stated position that it 
will support one or two more Asian countries in addition to 
Japan, as manipulation meant to gain more Indian concessions 
and reduce India to a US "junior partner" in Asia. 
 
Global Democracy Initiative is Hypocritical 
------------------------------------------- 
 
6. (C)  The CPI(M) has also denounced the US-India Global 
Democracy Initiative.  Stating that the US is "hardly the 
exemplar of upholding democracy around the world," the party 
demanded that any democracy initiative be through the UN 
rather than on a bilateral level.  CPI General Secretary D 
Raja maintained to Poloffs on July 26 that the Initiative was 
fundamentally flawed, as India and the US subscribe to 
conflicting definitions of "democratic values."  Raja also 
questioned how the US or any country could claim the right to 
"export" democracy, when all countries have a fundamental 
right to define democracy on their own terms. 
 
Karat Asserts Himself as New CPI(M) Leader 
------------------------------------------ 
 
7. (C)  In his first foreign visit since taking over 
leadership of the party in April, CPI(M) General Secretary 
Prakash Karat was in China July 11-20, meeting with Chinese 
Communist Party officials and scholars at the Chinese Academy 
of Social Sciences.  In meetings with Chinese officials, 
Karat reportedly stressed the close ties between the CPI(M) 
and the Communist Party of China (CPC) and their importance 
to the Sino-Indian relationship, while urging China and India 
to work together to promote peace and development in Asia and 
accelerate the return of multi-polarity.  "Hindu" Journalist 
Harish Khare told Poloffs on July 26 that Karat's China trip 
was of little consequence.  Noting the historical friendship 
between the CPC and CPI(M), he characterized the visit as 
"routine." 
 
8. (C)  Khare pointed out that Karat's increasingly frequent 
and strident criticism of the UPA is a political necessity if 
he hopes to establish himself as a strong LF leader.  Khare 
anticipated further "friendly confrontation" between the UPA 
and the Left in the current Parliament session and the run-up 
to elections in the CPI(M) strongholds of West Bengal and 
Kerala, but emphasized that its significance should not be 
overblown.  Khare remained confident that despite the heated 
rhetoric, the Left would support the UPA government and not 
try to bring it down.  In his estimation, the LF criticism 
would actually benefit the PM, as he could use it to extract 
greater concessions from the US and win popular support for 
the UPA. 
 
Comment: Salad Days for the Left 
-------------------------------- 
 
9.  (C) The BJP is inwardly absorbed and increasingly unable 
to fill its role as the country's leading opposition party 
(septel).  The Left is moving to fill the resulting political 
vacuum by raising its voice and demanding to be heard on both 
domestic and foreign policy issues.  Having successfully 
delayed or frustrated some elements of the UPA's economic 
reform package, the LF is now looking to exert its influence 
on foreign policy.  While the Left claims not to mind 
"friendly ties" with the US, it adamantly opposes what it 
deems to be an emerging relationship in which India abandons 
non-alignment and appears increasingly subservient to US 
interests.  Despite its growing opposition to many UPA 
policies, the Left has determined that now is not the time to 
bring down the government.  Instead, it will continue vocal 
opposition, build its strength, and campaign hard to win 
early 2006 elections in West Bengal and Kerala.  These are 
the Left's salad days: they get to criticize the government 
yet retain influence, they use the bully pulpit to complain 
but do not offer their own solutions, and they get to use 
their moment in the sun to strut and preen before elections 
in states where they continue to enjoy political relevance. 
BLAKE