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