INDIA'S COMMUNIST PARTIES DEBATE HOW TO USE THEIR

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 08 NEW DELHI 008003 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/28/2016 TAGS: PGOV PREL PINR ECON IN CH NP SUBJECT: INDIA'S COMMUNIST PARTIES DEBATE HOW TO USE THEIR INCREASED POWER EVEN AS THEY FACE LOSING IT REF: A. NEW DELHI 7762 ¶B. NEW DELHI 7796 NEW DELHI 00008003 001.2 OF 008 Classified By: Acting Political Counselor Joel Ehrendreich for reasons 1.4 (B,D) ¶1. (C) Summary: India's Left parties have a guaranteed niche in Indian politics and enjoy some advantages. India has the largest number of poor people of any country on earth, including many of the most exploited and oppressed populations found anywhere. These make a natural constituency for a class-based, socialist block of parties that espouse the interests of the poor. Although Communism has a long history in India, it peaked at 20 percent of the votes in 1962, and has since declined to around 10 percent, with Communists unable to form state governments outside of the "red forts" of West Bengal, Kerala and Tripura. With a solid block of 60 MPs, the Left currently wields considerable power by keeping the UPA in place. Slavish devotion to ideological orthodoxy may prevent the Communists from taking advantage of political opportunities, however. The dominant Communist Party of India (Marxist) carefully cultivates strong ties to China and has the reputation of a China apologist. While harshly criticizing every aspect of US economic and foreign policy, the party has been typically silent on Chinese failings. Faced with a rapidly changing political and economic environment, the Left has been unable to craft a new Left ideology free of remaining Communist orthodoxy. If it is not more quick on its feet, it will remain relegated to just the three states it presently controls and in West Bengal, may see erosion of its base with the rise of more radical Maoist groups. In other states, its constituency could drift into the caste-based, regional parties, who do not rely on ideology but simple caste/regional appeals quickly understood by the common man. End Summary. Communism Has a History -------------- ¶2. (SBU) Communism was imported to India in the 1920's by the nascent Soviet Union, but the Communist Party of India (CPI) was not recognized by the ruling British until it supported the British war effort during World War Two. In 1962, when the CPI condemned the Chinese attack on India as aggression, a pro-Chinese faction argued that Communist states do not "invade" they only "liberate." The pro-Chinese group split to form the Communist Party of India (Marxist). The two competing parties mirrored the Sino-Soviet split until 1977, when they worked together to oppose Indira Gandhi's declaration of emergency. Although the CPI/CPI(M) split has largely healed, the CPI(M) has resisted repeated calls for a formal reunification. With the CPI in a decades long decline and seemingly headed for oblivion, the CPI(M) is determined to be the flagship of a four party Left coalition called the Left Front (LF),which has come to play a crucial role in the current UPA government. In addition to the CPI and the CPI(M),other LF members are the Revolutionary Socialist Party (RSP) and the All India Forward Bloc (AIFB). Culminating in Current Power -------------- NEW DELHI 00008003 002 OF 008 ¶3. (SBU) The Communists have had several brief flirtations with power in New Delhi, but have largely confined themselves to their "Red forts" of West Bengal (where they have been in power for three decades),Kerala (where they have been in power intermittently -- heading a left coalition that switches with a Congress-dominated coalition almost every election) and the small Northeastern state of Tripura. Alarmed by the ascension of a "rightist" government headed by the Hindu Nationalist BJP to power in New Delhi, the Communists vowed to support any coalition that could displace the NDA. After the historic 2004 elections, the Communists elected to support the UPA government in Parliament from "outside," agreeing to use its 60 MPs to keep the UPA in power, but without access to Cabinet Minister appointments. But Unable to Spread -------------- ¶4. (C) The Communist leadership is well aware that it is no longer a national party, with influence largely confined to three states. Having now captured an unprecedented amount of power, the CPI(M) is committed to an expansion program aimed at establishing powerful local parties in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa, Assam, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh. However, having enjoyed power in its "red forts" for the past three decades, the dedicated party cadre are largely confined to some South Indians and Bengalis without the language skills, dedication or cultural acumen to recruit caste-ridden, traditional, Hindi speakers from across the "cow belt." The Communists hope to attract new converts among India's most oppressed classes, the Dalits (formerly untouchables),tribals and Muslims. Although the CPI(M) has attracted some following in tribal areas, its expansion efforts have largely been stillborn, as Dalits have gravitated to their own regional parties and Muslims remain suspicious. Muslim reticence will only be increased by the upcoming release of the Sachar report, which documents that despite 30 years in power, the Communists have done little or nothing to raise the social and economic status of West Bengal's 24 percent Muslim minority. Opposed to "Neo-liberalism" -------------- ¶5. (C) The Communists have always denigrated Congress as a "dynastic party" that espouses socialist principles while encouraging monopoly capitalism. The Communists have roundly condemned the moves of Congress (under the tutelage of then Finance Minister and now Prime Minister Manmohan Singh) to liberalize the economy and bring India closer to the US. Their stance has not been clearly defined, but they have espoused the retention of a "mixed economy" that would retain much of India's public sector. They have also opposed or hampered efforts to increase Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), liberalize banking laws, reform the public pension system, establish Special Economic Zones (SEZs) and other efforts to liberalize the economy. These disagreements are regularly aired in periodic "coordination meetings" between the LF and Congress and repeated LF reminders that they prop up the government has caused the Congress-dominated UPA to move slowly and cautiously. CPI leader AB Bardhan recently NEW DELHI 00008003 003 OF 008 criticized the proposal of Finance Minister P. Chidambaram to reduce tax rates as a response to increased revenue collection. Bardhan stated that despite over ten years of economic growth rates of over six percent, the Indian poverty level has only been reduced by 0.74 percent. (Note: Bardhan was probably referring to a report just released by the public sector National Sample Survey Organization, stating that between 1994 and 2005, poverty decreased by 0.74 percent per year, with modest acceleration in poverty reduction in recent years.) He also noted that "It was really strange that here is a Finance Minister, who wants to pass on the benefit of higher revenue collection to corporations rather than spending more on education and health to alleviate poverty." And Wary of the US -------------- ¶6. (C) The ideologues of the CPI(M) have justified their anti-US stance by decrying the spread of globalization, which they define as a means of increasing US "hegemony" over the developing world and its resources. CPI(M) leader Sitaram Yechury recently defined globalization as the "removal of restrictions on the movement of capital" that resulted in a "direct attack on the economic sovereignty of any country, which is followed by a direct attack on its political freedom." Yechury expressed Communist opposition to the US/India Nuclear Agreement in similar terms, stating that "this will mean that we will have to live at the mercy of the US for our nuclear requirements." Recently, the Communists have opposed the death sentence imposed on Saddam Hussain, as a way of mobilizing opposition to US Middle East policy, organizing large protest demonstrations in West Bengal. At the protests, an LF leader, Biman Bose condemned the "US imperialist designs, its invasion of Iraq and abetment to Israel in the recent bombings in Lebanon and the Gaza strip." Countering a Negative Trend -------------- ¶7. (SBU) The Communist view of the US was articulated by CPI(M) General Secretary Prakash Karat (As India's most powerful Communist, Karat would become Prime Minister if the LF ever formed the government.) in the party organ "People's Democracy." He stated that: --The UPA is committed by the Common Minimum Program (CMP) to "pursue an independent foreign policy and promote multi-polarity in international relations." --"The UPA's foreign policy faces serious distortions because of the obsessive drive to somehow harmonize positions on regional and global issues with the US's global strategies. This runs counter to the commitments made in the CMP." --The US is in decline because of its "arrogant, unilateralist drive of the Bush administration to extend and consolidate US hegemony." ¶8. (SBU) Karat then elaborated US foreign policies that India should oppose. NEW DELHI 00008003 004 OF 008 --India should not "acquiesce in the charade enacted in occupied Iraq." --Calling the global democracy initiative a "disgraceful enterprise," Karat called on India to "dissociate" from it. --Calling Israel "the front-line state in the US global strategy to reorder the oil-rich Middle-East," Karat opined that "India's identification with the 'war on terror' and the strategic alliance with the US and Israel will have unfortunate consequences." --Karat also criticized the UPA for seeking "the help of pro-Israeli neo-conservative and Jewish lobbies in the US to canvass support in the US Congress for the Indo-US nuclear deal." --Accusing the UPA of gross naivet regarding the US, Karat pointed out that the UPA "uncritically accepted the US declaration in March 2005 that the US aims to help India become a world class power in the 21st Century," without looking "deeper to see what the US motives are." --Karat intoned that it was a serious mistake for the UPA to hitch "India's fortunes to a presidency and an administration which has the worst record in trampling on international laws." --He also assessed that it would be "extremely unlikely" that the US House and Senate will be able to reconcile their competing bills regarding the Indo-US Nuclear Cooperation Agreement in the lame duck session. --Karat claimed that the Agreement was part of an overarching US strategy meant to "bind India to its side" on energy security, pointing to US hostility to the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline. --The earlier votes against Iran in the IAEA meetings were inimical to India's interests and energy security." --The US "exercised its veto power" to shoot down Shashi Tharoor's candidacy for UN Secretary General. With an Alternative -------------- ¶9. (SBU) Karat's vision of the ideal foreign policy would contain the following: --India should "play an important and constructive role in advancing...the defense of national sovereignty against hegemonic trends, strengthen multilateral relations and forge South/South ties." --India took the "correct stand in supporting Venezuela's candidature for the UNSC." --India should encourage multipolarity through "trilateral cooperation between Russia, China and India. Insider Views of the US Relationship NEW DELHI 00008003 005 OF 008 -------------- ¶10. (C) Poloff met with LF leaders between November 13-22, who spoke candidly about their views on the US/India relationship. Debrabrat Biswas, the AIFB General Secretary, intoned that there is a basic difference in outlook between the Left and the USG that cannot be bridged over the short term. Stating that the US positions on Palestine, Iraq and the "war on terror" were wrong and deep-seated, he expressed no confidence that US midterm elections would result in improvement, predicting no "broad shift" in US foreign policy. Biswas pointed out that the Left's objections were not confined only to the Bush Administration, as the Left had also boycotted President Clinton's address to the Indian Parliament. Mohammad Salim, the Deputy Leader of the CPI(M)'s Parliamentary delegation, emphasized that his party wants "better ties, better relations" between India and the US, as long as they ensure India's national interests. Salim pointed out that the "new economic world order" was "creating problems for the poor of all nations," and as "uplift of the poor is a top priority" for the CPI(M),there was cause for "apprehension." The CPI(M),being "pragmatic and nationalist," wants to prevent US infringement of Indian interests, especially since India is a "weak player" and can be dominated by a "strong player" like the US. Salim emphasized that he is not angry only at the Bush Administration, but opposed to long-term US policies carried out by both Republicans and Democrats. He specifically mentioned CPI(M) objections to the "expansion of NATO into Afghanistan," US Middle East policy and a "selective approach to terrorism," which gives Pakistan a "free hand to support terrorism directed against India." Salim also claimed that for the USG, human rights is a "weapon to be used selectively against opponents," and that the US maintains a "double standard" on disarmament, calling for other countries to eliminate nuclear weapons while expanding its own. Privately Skeptical of Increased Power -------------- ¶11. (C) Revolutionary Socialist Party (RSP) General S ecretary Abani Roy was very skeptical that Communist influence would increase in India, predicting that the Left would lose seats in the 2009 Parliamentary elections. He pointed out that the Left's big victories in 2004 were a "backlash" against the BJP. Emphasizing that 2009 would be a different story, Roy said that after supporting the UPA for five years the Communists would have to explain to the electorate why they had not produced. Roy emphasized that decades of power had corrupted the Left, and that the CPI(M) was no longer responsive to the poor in the states that it ruled. Roy claimed that it would be good for the Communists to experience defeat, otherwise it would lose the confidence of India's most exploited and weakest sections. Biswas predicted a torturously slow growth for the Left parties in the years ahead, noting that they only captured 10 percent of the popular vote in recent elections. Biswas believed that many voters remain suspicious of Communists for their "historic mistake" of not supporting the independence movement. He noted that the Left was gaining support in "tribal pockets," most particularly in Bihar and Jharkhand, where it is increasingly viewed as a viable alternative to NEW DELHI 00008003 006 OF 008 the anti-tribal established parties. The CPI(M)'s Salim was adamant that popular acceptance of the Left is growing, and predicted that by "concentrating on targets of opportunity" the Left parties would increase their seats from 60 to 100 in the 2009 election. Some of these seats, he maintained, would come from the eventual merger of Indian Maoists into the CPI(M). Salim (himself from West Bengal) predicted that Indian Maoists would respond to developments in Nepal and that their overground political party the Communist Party of India (Marxist Leninist),could merge with the CPI(M) before the next election. Scenarios for Entering the Government -------------- ¶12. (C) Over the long term, the Left leaders were guardedly optimistic that they could eventually enter the government, but only as part of a coalition that may or may not include Congress. The RSP's Roy was adamant that the Left parties could not succeed unless they demonstrated that they could "build the nation and ensure development that benefits the poor rather than the wealthy." He was critical of current trends, stating that the UPA had failed to tackle corruption, while West Bengal Chief Minister Buddadeb was "neither left nor right" but was "manipulating democracy to benefit the wealthy, while accepting the votes of the poor." Roy predicted that this would hurt the Left in upcoming elections, as it would be "held responsible." Biswas was pleased that the LF had taken on the role of the "constructive opposition," as the BJP was no longer playing that role. He was hopeful that if the Left parties learned to cooperate, they could construct a "peoples' alternative," providing leadership to a coalition of regional parties capable of forming the next government. Asserting that Congress was in decline around the country, the Left now has an opportunity to "fill that vacuum." If we fail, he noted, "regional, feudal and castist parties" will come to the fore. Predicting that the UPA would grow weak, Biswas warned that the BJP still posed a "real threat" and the best way to counter it was to compel the UPA to concentrate on "poverty alleviation," which would nullify the appeal of Hindu nationalism. Emphasizing that the CPI(M) must remain "engaged" to sustain growth, Salim said his party was learning to play the game of coalition politics and would always be open to joining the government under the right circumstances. Comment - Beset by Inherent Weaknesses -------------- ¶13. (C) The Indian Left has carved out a strong role for itself in Indian coalition politics and parliamentary democracy, but has yet to derive a formula for taking power in New Delhi (even as part of a coalition of like-minded parties) or substantially increasing its portion of the vote share. In a political landscape increasingly dominated by petty-minded regional parties, the Left is one of the few groups with a national scope and an underlying ideology. However, this very ideology is also an inherent weakness. This was crucially demonstrated during the recent visit of Chinese President Hu Jintao. The slavish devotion of the Communist leaders to China during the visit hurt them badly NEW DELHI 00008003 007 OF 008 with the public. The Indian public writ large has demonstrated time and again its basic commitment to democracy, embraced a free press and championed the rights of the Tibetans and organized labor. The Communists' embrace of China puts them on the wrong side of all of these issues. Most Indians also favor closer ties with the US, viewing it as another democratic state, which shares similar values and with which there are extensive and growing personal ties. By contrast, Indians are inherently distrustful of China, which they view as a dangerous nuclear armed state that has gone to war with India once already, has been a strong supporter of Islamist military dictatorships in Pakistan and is a powerful future economic rival. Many Indians fail to understand why the Communists condemn the US so vociferously while remaining silent on China. ¶14. (C) The Communists and their Left party supporters are also divided amongst themselves as to what shape their ideology should take. The moderates would like to refashion the Left into a democratic socialist alternative similar to the Social Democrats of Western Europe. While they would like to retain some of Marx's critique of the capitalist economic order and champion the rights of the poor and the oppressed, who they view as victims of that order, they want to distance themselves from the totalitarian baggage of Communism. There is also an inherent resentment amongst Leftists regarding the domination of the CPI(M). While there are divisions between the CPI(M) and the other parties, there are also deep divisions within the CPI(M) itself. These gaps could become increasingly apparent in the years ahead, as all of India's political parties are forced to adjust to a rapidly changing world. In such an environment, those who cling to orthodoxies and are not flexible are bound to be overtaken. ¶15. (C) There is a niche for leftist parties in Indian politics. The country has the world's largest population of poor people, many of whom face exploitation and discrimination and have been routinely deprived of the benefits of India's growing economy. This pervasive poverty is fueling a growing Maoist insurgency throughout Eastern India, which the CPI(M) views as a growing challenge that could siphon off support and undermine CPI(M) dominance. With this in mind, the CPI(M) has taken a lead role in negotiating a settlement of the Maoist insurgency in Nepal in hopes of eventually co-opting the Maoist movement into its parliamentary path. Any party or group of parties that takes up the cause of India's most downtrodden, is guaranteed support, but the CPI(M) wants to ensure that it gains this support and not the more radical Maoists. Likewise, India has a long history of Left politics and three states which have been ruled off and on by Communists for decades. However, for the Communists to expand into other states, they must face up to the serious challenge posed by the regional and caste-based parties who are competing for the same electorate. The regional parties are ideologyless. They blindly emphasize caste or regional identity and take no pains to relate to the world at large. Such parties are easy for less-educated Indian voters to understand and appreciate. If the Indian Left does not shake itself out and put together a pragmatic and progressive alternative to these narrowly-based parties, it may lose its chance to share power NEW DELHI 00008003 008 OF 008 in New Delhi. ¶15. (U) Visit New Delhi's Classified Website: (http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/sa/newdelhi/) MULFORD