NEPAL: INDIA BIASED AGAINST MAOISTS, FAVORS STATUS

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 KATHMANDU 000974 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/21/2019 TAGS: PREL PGOV KDEM NP SUBJECT: NEPAL: INDIA BIASED AGAINST MAOISTS, FAVORS STATUS QUO Classified By: Charge d' Affaires, a.i., Jeffrey A. Moon. Reasons 1.4 ( b/d). ¶1. (C) Summary. Two senior Nepali civil society leaders, who just completed extensive political discussions with Indian leaders, concluded that India's policy toward Nepal is "simplistic" and biased against the Maoists. India supports the current M.K. Nepal-led government and wants to keep the Maoists out of power. Indian leaders also expressed concern about Chinese influence in Nepal, the Pashupati priest saga, and possible links between Nepal's Maoists and India's Maoists. End Summary. ¶2. (SBU) Nepali civil society leaders Daman Nath Dhungana and Padma Ratna Tuladhar, who are widely respected for mediating Nepal's peace process negotiations, visited New Delhi October 8-13 to meet with senior leaders regarding India's Nepal policy. During their visit to New Delhi, Dhungana and Tuladhar met with more than twenty Indian leaders and policy analysts, including Dr. Karan Singh, senior leader of the Indian Congress Party; Mr. Sitaram Yechuri, senior Politburo member, Communist Party of India (CPI); D.P. Tipathy, General Secretary, Nationalist Congress Party; General Ashok Mehta, retired General, Indian Army; Anand Swarup Verma, leftist intellectual and journalist; Arvinda Gupta, Institute of Defense Studies; Professor Kamal Mitra Chenoy, Jawaharlal Nehru University and senior CPI-Marxist member; and Satish Mehta, Joint Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs. India Distrusts Maoists -------------- ¶3. (C) In an October 22 meeting with PolEconChief and USAID DG Officer, Dhungana and Tuladhar sharply criticized Government of India (GOI) policy toward Nepal, calling it "simplistic" and ineffective. According to Dhungana and Tuladhar, New Delhi adamantly supports the current M.K. Nepal-led government and wants to keep the Maoists out of power. The most that India could accept is the Maoists joining the M.K. Nepal-led government as a junior partner. Indian leaders distrust the Maoists and doubt their commitment both to democracy and -- perhaps more importantly -- to protecting Indian interests. And Maoists Distrust India -------------- ¶4. (C) The Maoists similarly distrust the Indians, according to Tuladhar. The Maoists blame New Delhi for interfering in the April 2009 dispute between the Maoists, the Nepali President, and Chief of the Army Staff Katawal, which led to resignation of Maoist Prime Minister Dahal (Prachanda). The Maoists are trying to pressure India to accept their return to power by demonstrating that the current government cannot function -- and the constitution cannot be drafted -- without Maoist leadership. Maoist leader Dahal's recent trip to China was meant to send a signal to New Delhi that there is more than one regional superpower with influence in Nepal. Yet Maoists Role Necessary -------------- ¶5. (C) Tuladhar and Dhungana told the Indian leaders they believe the Maoists must play a key role in Nepal's government; if not, the peace process will not move forward. While the Maoists' commitment to multiparty democracy remains ambiguous, they noted that more Nepali people voted for the Maoists in the April 2008 elections than any other party. China, Pashupati and Indian Maoists -------------- ¶6. (C) Beside the peace process, Indian leaders repeatedly raised with Dhungana and Tuladhar three issues: -- China: Indian leaders expressed concern about the (perceived) expansion of Chinese influence in Nepal. Dhungana and Tuladhar attempted to reassure them that Chinese interests in Nepal, besides the Tibetan refugees, were not significant, and not a major factor in Nepali politics. Former Prime Minister Dahal's October 11-19 trip to Beijing KATHMANDU 00000974 002 OF 002 only fed New Delhi's concerns about Nepali Maoist ties to China. -- Priests: On the Pashupati priest issue, the Nepali civil society leaders were surprised by the continuing strong interest among Indians, official and private, in the attempted appointment of Nepali priests at Kathmandu's Pashupati temple, one of the Hindu religion's holiest sites. (Note: In December 2008, the Maoist-led government attempted to replace the Indian priests with two Nepali priests. Following protests, the Nepali Supreme Court issued a stay order, and the case remains before the Court. End Note.) -- Maoist Links: Dhungana and Tuladhar also tried to address Indian suspicions about possible links between Nepal's Maoists and Indian Maoists. Tuladhar, a leftist with particularly close ties with Nepal's Maoist leadership, repeatedly told Indian leaders that the two Maoist organizations have no/no relations at this time. In fact, India's Maoists have sharply criticized Nepal's Maoists for "selling out." Uninformed Generalizations -------------- ¶7. (C) Dhungana and Tuladhar said they were surprised about the lack of even the most basic information about political developments in Nepal in New Delhi. They noted that the close personal connections that existed between former Indian and Nepali leaders have largely faded, citing Prime Minister Singh's and Congress Party leader Gandhi's relative lack of experience and interest in Nepal. The only senior leader in government with a nuanced understanding about Nepal is GOI Finance Minister (and former Minister for External Affairs) Pranab Mukherjee, but he has other priorities at this time. Given the lack of solid intelligence about Nepal's political situation, Indian leaders resort to broad generalizations. ¶8. (C) Comment: Dhungana and Tuladhar are the lead "facilitators" for USAID's Nepal Transition to Peace project and are widely respected across the Nepali political spectrum. Their evaluation of India's policy toward Nepal is consistent with the assessment of many analysts in Kathmandu. Viewed as the invisible hand behind nearly every political development in Nepal, New Delhi is thus blamed (fairly or unfairly) for the lack of progress on the peace process and constitution drafting. India's refusal to articulate openly its Nepal policy or coordinate strategies with other diplomatic missions only feeds anti-Indian sentiments and deepens the mystery about its real goals and intentions in Nepal. MOON