THE COMMUNISTS ARE ON A ROLL AND LOADED FOR BEAR

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 06 NEW DELHI 004062 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/09/2016 TAGS: PGOV PREL KDEM PINR ECON EINV EFIN IN SUBJECT: THE COMMUNISTS ARE ON A ROLL AND LOADED FOR BEAR REF: A. NEW DELHI 3271 ¶B. MUMBAI 1025 ¶C. NEW DELHI 2169 Classified By: Acting PolCouns Atul Keshap for reasons 1.4 (B,D) ¶1. (C) Summary: India's Communist parties were energized by their victories in the recently concluded state elections (Reftel A),and have been more rhetorically aggressive in their criticism of the UPA. While the Communists will be more ambitious in their confrontation, they remain unlikely to "pull the plug" and bring down the UPA. The Left is determined to use its increased clout to compel the GOI to follow a more "independent" (less pro-US) foreign policy and stick to the populist economic prescriptions of the Common Minimum Program (CMP). This will make it more difficult for the UPA to implement its foreign policy and economic programs and could lead to a stalemate that may only be broken by new elections in 2009 or earlier. The Communists are enjoying the fruits of power but they are out of touch with leftist developments outside of Asia (such as Latin America),remain devoted to the Chinese model of Communism and tune out leftists critical of Beijing. Sometimes they sound like Social Democrats and at others like Cold War era Marxists. This makes it difficult to understand where they want to lead the nation. All Indian leftists agree that globalization, as espoused by the US, is harmful for India. The controversy here over globalization, the divide between the growing wealth of the urban middle classes and elites and the stagnant rural poor, and the decline of the appeal of Hindutva (Hindu nationalism) all but ensure that some Left configuration will be a major player in Indian politics for some time to come. End Summary. Hot Off the Campaign Trail -------------- ¶2. (SBU) The May 11 Left Front victories in Kerala and West Bengal energized the Communist leadership which has come out swinging. After being sworn in as West Bengal Chief Minister on May 18, Buddhadeb Bhattacherjee called the poll results "an unequivocal endorsement" of Left policies and assured the party faithful that the victory would inspire Leftists to "intensify their fight against the Indo-US strategic partnership and the increasing pressure of American imperialism on the country's economic sovereignty." Urging Communists to stand fast against the "tide of capitalism," Bhattacherjee called for a protracted fight against economic liberalization and privatization. On May 21, CPI(M) politburo member Sitaram Yechury commented in the party journal "People's Democracy" that "a significant struggle lays ahead to reverse the pro-United States orientation of the UPA Government and to strengthen the independence and autonomy of India's foreign policy and strategic decision-making." Yechury accused the UPA government of "failing to heed the people's verdict," by displaying "callousness to the agrarian crisis," commercializing higher education and privatizing basic services. Critics of the UPA -------------- ¶3. (U) On May 22, the Left parties issued a statement criticizing the performance of the UPA government at the two year mark. It accused the UPA of "pushing through policies which are in the interests of foreign finance capital and big business," without "taking up those pro-people measures in the Common Minimum Program (CMP) which would benefit the working people." The Left accused the UPA of implementing a NEW DELHI 00004062 002 OF 006 "flawed agricultural policy" that has led to farmers' suicides and rural unemployment. The UPA, it claimed, has also reneged on its CMP commitment to pursue "an independent foreign policy." The statement pledged the Left parties to "highlight these issues in the coming days." Opposing Specific Policies -------------- ¶4. (U) Since its election victories, the Left has consistently criticized UPA initiatives. -- A CPI(M) statement called the UPA's decision to join the US-sponsored Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan (TAP) pipeline project and drop consideration of an Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline "disturbing," and asked why "the Manmohan Singh Government is giving priority to US strategic interests." --The CPI(M) called on the UPA to re-introduce a long-term capital gain tax, with Sitaram Yechury stating that "no modern economy can do without it. For instance, in the US the tax stands at 15 percent." --On May 25 the CPI(M) accused the US Embassy of offering US help to the government of Chattisgarh to combat Naxalism. Saying that "the US Embassy should be warned that this blatant interference in the internal affairs of our country will not be tolerated," the CPI leadership issued a statement urging the GOI not to accept any such offers and to demand a USG clarification. --On June 7, the Left parties announced that they will observe June 13 as an "all-India protest day," against the recent increase in petrol and diesel prices. A Left statement claimed that the GOI had "rejected all suggestions and alternative proposals of the Left," demonstrating that it was "adamant in implementing its own agenda," and "will have to pay for it." --The Central Committee of the CPI(M) will meet from June 8-10 in Hyderabad. Politburo member BV Raghavulu stated that the meeting will discuss the petroleum price hike, the cut in the food subsidy, disinvestment and foreign policy, and "decide the course of action to be adopted in the immediate future as well as in the long-term." But All is Not Well in the Left Camp -------------- ¶5. (C) In a May 18 meeting with Poloff, Revolutionary Socialist Party (RSP) General Secretary Abani Roy did not share the upbeat pronouncements of his LF partners, stating that he was "unhappy with the election outcome." Roy's unhappiness centered on West Bengal Chief Minister Buddhadeb and his earlier assertion that he was "not a Marxist." Contending that Capitalism and Marxism are diametrically opposed, and one cannot practice both, Roy accused the CPI(M) of maintaining a "double standard," with one policy in New Delhi and another in Calcutta. In Roy's view, Buddhadeb was not really running West Bengal according to Marxist principals and would not correct his deviation anytime soon. He regretted that the CPI(M) has overpowered the other Left parties leaving them no choice but to acquiesce. Roy took heart, however, with what he called the sad state of affairs in Congress, asserting that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh faces opposition from his own left wing on every issue. He pointed out that this was most apparent on the reservation issue, where Arjun Singh and the PM were clearly at loggerheads. NEW DELHI 00004062 003 OF 006 While the Bengalis are Upbeat -------------- ¶6. (C) CPI(M) MP and Deputy Leader Mohammad Salim was, by contrast, upbeat. Adamantly asserting to Poloff on May 19 that the Left parties would stick to a basic two point plank, he said the Left would never cease to remind the UPA that it has pledged to pursue an "independent foreign policy," and would assert that the UPA must adhere to its economic policy commitments under the Common Minimum Program (CMP),which he called a "program aimed at benefiting the working class." Salim denied that the CPI(M) had deviated from its Marxist principles, maintaining that it was merely using "different vocabularies for different audiences." A close associate of CM Buddhadeb, Salim strongly supported a "jargon free" approach to Marxism that made it more appealing to more divergent audiences. He clarified that Marxism defined the CPI(M)'s long-term goal of a classless society, but, for now, the party was determined to demonstrate to the world that it can perform better at basic development than the "bourgeois parties." According to Salim, the capitalists have "overplayed their hand" and gone too far in their pursuit of economic liberalization. They will have no choice but to backtrack and pay closer attention to the CPI(M) and other Left parties or face a "growing insurgency from the Maoists," he asserted. The Indian Left is Too Parochial -------------- ¶7. (C) "Hindu" Editor and ideologue Harish Khare was dismissive of the Left's grandiose claims, asserting to Poloff on May 24 that much of its leadership was out of touch with current thinking. Latin American thinkers have begun to praise the emergence of a "soft left," which they assert will provide a viable alternative to the "hard left" of cold war days and the "aggressive neoliberalism" propounded by the US. Khare maintained that the Indian Communists were largely clueless of these developments and not interested in constructing a viable Left alternative. In India, he asserted, it is a contest not between the "hard and soft Left," but between the "stakeholders and non-stakeholders in power." In Khare's estimation, none of the current crop of Indian Communist leaders is strongly ideological. For example, he characterized CPI(M) star Sitaram Yechury as a "practical manager" willing to bend his views to get results. Too Close to China -------------- ¶8. (C) Calling the CPI(M) leadership "too provincial," Khare accused them of taking "too many free trips to China." They are, he claimed, infatuated with the Chinese model of Communism, which embraces a "hard left" totalitarianism and a "soft Left" commitment to a more liberalized economy. This unflagging commitment has, he claimed, rendered them too "inflexible" and prevented them from following what is going on outside of Asia. Because of their loyalty to the Chinese model, the CPI(M) leaders lack credibility when it comes to concern for human rights and the environment (both of which are low priorities for the Chinese). These leaders have tuned-out critiques of China's performance by leftists around the world and refused to look at other Left models of social and economic development. The CPI(M) and the US -------------- NEW DELHI 00004062 004 OF 006 ¶9. (C) Khare, who is well-connected to the CPI(M) leadership, was adamant that despite their sometimes harsh rhetoric, India/US ties were not a serious issue for the Communists. While they may criticize PM Manmohan Singh for being too close to Washington, they realize that these are "just good talking points, and will not win them elections in India." For Indians, he asserted, globalization and the US role in its spread and domination, will remain principal issues that will outlive George Bush and Manmohan Singh. He claimed that Bush Administration "ineptitude" has made Manmohan Singh an easy target. He confirmed that the Communists (and their friends and allies in the Left wing of Congress),were enthusiastic about reservations and saw it as a viable way of expanding their influence. This, said Khare, was a "backward step," as it took Marxists away from their principal concern with social class and got them enmeshed in India's regressive caste politics. Comment: Three Strands of the Left -------------- ¶10. (C) India's Left movement consists of three highly-divergent strands, which are often at loggerheads. They make-up a continuum from the "hard left" to the "soft left." India's violent and doctrinaire Maoists/Naxalites are the most extreme. They advocate a "class war" against the Indian state, and their goal is the establishment of an old-style totalitarian one-party state, which would totally control "the means of production," outlaw "private capital," and sever ties with the US. There are several above-ground Maoist parties, such as the CPI(Marxist-Leninist) that overlap between the Maoists and their less-rigid cousins who are participating in India's democratic system. The Maoists condemn the other Communist parties as "bourgeois" collaborators for their participation in Indian democracy and support of the UPA, and routinely attack and kill CPI(M) functionaries in West Bengal. ¶11. (C) The four parties of the Left Front (CPI, CPI(M),RSP and Forward Bloc) represent the Parliamentary branch of Indian Marxism. They claim to have renounced their previous adherence to Communist totalitarianism, but confusingly continue to praise Joseph Stalin and other Communist dictators and retain all of the symbolism of the Communist movement from the hammer and sickle to red flags. The CPI, India's original Communist party, was slavishly devoted to the USSR and historically received instructions and financial support from Moscow. The CPI(M) broke away during the Sino-Soviet split and renounced Moscow in favor of Beijing. With the end of the cold war and the disappearance of the USSR, these ideological issues become moot. The CPI is viewed as increasingly irrelevant and shrinks in size and influence by the day. The CPI(M) is now the flagship of Indian Communism and dictates policy to its smaller allies. Its commitment to parliamentary democracy and a multiparty state makes it resemble a European Communist or Social Democratic party, but its devotion to the Chinese economic model is unflagging. India's Communist parties no longer renounce globalization and economic liberalization, but claim that it must be kept within limits and not be allowed to destroy India's mixed economy. The LF parties denounce the Maoists as "adventurists" whose violence is pointless and risks bringing down the wrath of the state on India's leftists. ¶12. (C) The third strand consists of "activists" such as Arundhati Roy, Shabana Azmi and, Ashish Khan, and other intellectuals and "Mercedes Marxist" celebrities. These activists are very loosely organized into ad hoc groups that NEW DELHI 00004062 005 OF 006 concentrate on specific issues, mostly related to relieving the suffering inflicted on the poorest in India by an often harsh, corrupt, and unfeeling state apparatus. They are the least parochial and most international of India's leftists and regularly participate in Left confabs in Latin America and elsewhere, where they interact freely with a wide variety of "activists" from native rights groups, to women's rights groups, to radical environmentalists. Unlike the Communists, these left activists are committed to democracy, loathe totalitarianism and are critical of China. There is little love between the activists and the Communists (Arundhati Roy told Poloff that she would be the first person the Communists would string from the lampposts if they ever came to power). Divergent - But United on One Point -------------- ¶13. (C) While the three strands of Indian leftists agree on practically nothing, they have a consensus when it comes to defining the US government as the villain in world politics. The Maoists are cacooned into their own limited rural world by their embrace of violence and their need to escape capture, death and imprisonment. They view the capitalist system as the "class enemy" of India's vast numbers of poor and the US as the epitome of the evils of capitalism. There is no room for compromise, either with the Indian state or the US in their world view. The mainstream Communists are far more pragmatic. They are willing to work with the US, while expressing opposition to specific policies and waiting for the day when Marxism will "inevitably" triumph. These Indian Communists are, however, themselves falling deeper into parochialism and are no longer clear as to what they want or what they represent. Rhetorically they often sound closer to Social Democrats rather than Communists, but continue to call themselves Marxists. This vagueness and lack of clarity will only grow more predominant as they occupy more positions of power. The activists represent the "cutting edge" of leftist thought, as they are often tied in with academic left circles around the world. Unlike the Communists, they are following closely events in Latin America and are quite familiar with American political dynamics. Outside the Indian power structure, they are free to practice social and political criticism and their critiques of US economic and foreign policy are often more biting than those of the Communists. Where Are They Headed? -------------- ¶14. (C) India's main Communist parties have never enjoyed the access to power that they have today. They solidly control two states and are expanding their influence elsewhere. They know, however, that their marriage with the Congress-dominated UPA is a marriage of convenience. While they could ultimately join a "third front" government and enjoy the fruits of power, they would not have the same advantages they enjoy today, i.e. power without accountability. We therefore expect the Communists to keep up the current political drama, and keep sniping at the UPA on specific policies, while not seriously entertaining a departure. This could leave their conflict with Congress unresolved until the next Parliamentary elections scheduled for 2009 (or earlier),resulting in a protracted stalemate in which India would only move sporadically towards liberalization. ¶15. (C) Over the long term, as Hindutva (Hindu nationalist) ideology declines in relevance (Reftel C),globalization and its political impact is likely to replace it as the principal NEW DELHI 00004062 006 OF 006 political issue in India. This debate and its outcome will determine the direction and pace of economic reform in India. This is necessitated by India's role as the home of the largest number of poor people of any country in the world. With such pervasive and grinding poverty at all levels, India's political leaders must craft and launch economic reforms that will have a real impact on improving the economic livelihood of the poor or face potential violent upheaval. The Maoists are unlikely to be exterminated through military means and will continue to wait for their moment to mobilize the masses. India's Communists, like their Leftist cousins in Latin America, have an opportunity to increase their influence by becoming the voice of the poor and downtrodden who have not benefited from economic reforms to day that have largely bypassed the rural sector where 700 million Indians live, most in extreme poverty. ¶16. (C) The question remains whether India's Communists with their parochial world view and contradictory and confused ideological stance, are capable of convincing India's poor that they are their champions. With the overwhelming economic concerns inherent in India, it is likely that if economic reform continues to lag, especially with respect to the rural sector, future political contests will be dominated by increasing conflict between the urban middle class and rich elites and the rural poor and that if the current crop of Communists don't rise to the challenge, another, more sophisticated and cosmopolitan Left group could do so. Missing thus far in the Indian policy arena is the Thatcherite message. ¶17. (U) Visit New Delhi's Classified Website: (http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/sa/newdelhi/) MULFORD