INDIA SHARES OUR CONCERNS ABOUT DECLARATION ON

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 NEW DELHI 004206

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/25/2016
TAGS: PHUM KDEM AORC PREL IN
SUBJECT: INDIA SHARES OUR CONCERNS ABOUT DECLARATION ON
RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES

REF: A. STATE 78740

B. STATE 78829

Classified By: A/PolCouns Atul Keshap for Reasons 1.4 (B, D)


1. SUMMARY: A senior Indian official said India shared U.S.
views on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,
found the self-determination clauses unacceptable, and was
not comfortable with the process by which the declaration had
been framed, but would not be averse to an extension of the
Chair's mandate in order to lower the issue's profile. India
does not want to play a leading role on this. END SUMMARY.

WE ARE ALL INDIGENOUS TO INDIA
--------------


2. (C) Acting on ref A instructions, A/PolCouns, accompanied
by resident Australian and New Zealand Deputy Chiefs of
Mission, delivered ref A points June 15 to Ministry of
External Affairs Joint Secretary for UN Economic and Social
Issues Manjeev Puri and left behind non-papers as stipulated
in refs A and B. Puri claimed that all of India's people
were indigenous, therefore there was no particular concern
for India regarding the matters raised in the demarche.
Tribals in India were listed by the Constitution as
under-privileged, but were not, he insisted, indigenous in
any way other than that of other Indians. There might be the
odd recent immigrant who was not native to India, but the
vast majority of people in India were, he firmly stated,
indigenous. The entire Asian group shared that view, added
Puri. It was the Europeans and Latin Americans who were
pushing for the declaration, not Asia, he stressed.

INDIA SHARES OUR CONCERNS
--------------


3. (C) Nonetheless, Puri promised to make contact with the
Indian mission in Geneva and instruct them to work with
like-minded missions to see what could be accomplished. Puri
said he appreciated the message he had received, and said
India would be "not at all distanced" from the US/AUS/NZ
position. After eleven years of inconclusive debate, it was
odd to see that a draft declaration had been "plucked" from
thin air, he complained, and India did not support this way
of doing things. India was not in favor of a vote, could not
see itself casting an affirmative vote, and was not in favor
of the declaration, Puri added. However, India also did not
want to "slam" the rights of indigenous peoples, which he
said was an issue that was "tough to shove off the agenda."

ESPECIALLY ON TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY
--------------


4. (C) There were issues of definition, especially related to
rights of self-determination, regarding which India expressed
reservations. Such issues related to territorial integrity
rose to a level "well above" this declaration, and were at
best left to individual states to consider as matters of
autonomy. Clauses on self-determination should leave no
methodology that would allow conclusions that would be at
odds with the nation-state concept that had been
well-established. Such tinkering should not appear in the
declaration, affirmed Puri.

NEW DELHI 00004206 002 OF 002



KEEP TALKING?
--------------


5. (C) Another round of talks might be better, thought Puri,
but if pushed, India's "fall back" position would be similar
to that of the US/AUS/NZ. Puri added that Russia's position
was similar to ours, but more clear-cut in opposition. The
Mexican Chair was a "pro-active champion" of human rights,
and it was unlikely this issue would fade away, mentioned
Puri. Moreover, with the issue likely to drift into the
Human Rights Council, India would find it hard to be seen to
be blocking a rights issue in that venue. India felt much
more "foot slogging" needed to be done in Geneva over this
"extremely charged affair." India could envision extending
the mandate, but worried about being outvoted by those who
wanted to endorse the declaration as-is. The proponents'
numbers have surged lately, he worried.
HIDE IN PLAIN SIGHT
--------------


6. (C) Puri admitted that it was too much to expect Indian
leadership on the declaration. India would not contest an
extension of the mandate, and would not try to make waves
because it did not want people in India to pay too much
attention to the issue. India, affirmed Puri, will not be
pro-active, but it would lend support to the US/AUS/NZ "to
the extent that we can."

COMMENT: INDIA HAS A LOT AT STAKE
--------------


7. (C) Notwithstanding Puri's affirmations, the GOI likely
worries a good deal about Dravidian sensitivities, tribal
concerns, and the aspirations of any of a number of
separatist movements that would likely find much in the
declaration that they could wield against the Indian state.
Given India's existing insurgencies, the clauses on
self-determination are particularly unacceptable to Delhi,
which believes regular democratic elections fulfill such
aspirations already. For these reasons, India does not want
to call attention domestically to deliberations in Geneva.
END COMMENT.
MULFORD