MEDIA REACTION: SECSTATE VISIT TO INDIA, INDO-

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 NEW DELHI 001547 SIPDIS STATE FOR NP, AC, PM STATE FOR INR/MR STATE FOR SCA/INS, PM/CBM, PM/PRO STATE FOR SCA/PPD, PA/RRU STATE FOR AID/APRE-A USDOC FOR 4530/IEP/ANESA/OSA FOR BILL MURPHY E.O. 12958:N/A TAGS: KMDR KPAO PGOV PREL IN SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: SECSTATE VISIT TO INDIA, INDO- PAK RELATIONS; NEW DELHI. This countrywide cable reports on relevant media reaction/opinion from India's large non-English press. The Mission reports on English-language media via email through the daily "Early Edition" summary. -------------- SECSTATE VISIT TO INDIA -------------- ¶1. "U.S.-INDIA RELATIONSHIP: IS IT A REAL FRIENDSHIP?" article in centrist Marathi daily, LOKMAT: "The U.S. Secretary of State received an extraordinarily warm welcome in India. However, the overwhelming media coverage is not an indication of the nature of bilateral bonds between India and the U.S. The truth is that the U.S. continues to play the Big Brother, especially in two specific contexts. At one point, India had decided to discontinue diplomatic talks with Pakistan, since the latter was not showing any willingness to charge the offenders in the 26/11 Mumbai attacks. Pakistan continues its obstinate ways, but India has started the round of peace talks, as if Pakistani terrorism is just an inconsequential clause that can be sorted out later. Why has India changed its stance? Obviously because of U.S. pressure. Secondly, there is apparent pressure on India to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. India is not a signatory yet, but it is more than obvious that India cannot conduct a nuclear test if it wants nuclear energy and technology from the two American companies which have recently entered into a contract with India." ¶2. "UNNECESSARY CONTROVERSY ON U.S. SURVEILLANCE," op- ed in July 26 right-of-center Hindi daily, DAINIK JAGRAN: "There is no precedence of any U.S. Secretary of State spending three full days in India, during which only half a day was devoted to official meetings and the rest in engaging primarily with the Indian civil society. Hillary Clinton's India visit shows U.S.-India relations have moved to a special category - - people to people contact. This is the difference between US ties with India and its ties with China. The opposition parties have strongly condemned the end-use monitoring pact, but they are overlooking that this kind of obligation has always been a part of the U.S. law. The U.S. sells much higher technology and more advanced equipments than any other country. Thus, it puts conditions for surveillance. There is no compulsion that India has to purchase defense equipment only from the U.S. In fact, the present government has succeeded in striking a better deal because, unlike in the past, now the U.S. cannot unilaterally decide the time and place for assessments." -------------- INDO-PAK RELATIONS -------------- ¶3. "INDO-PAK JOINT DECLARATION: MIGHT COST INDIA DEARLY," editorial in July 26 centrist Gujarati daily, GUJARATMITRA: "The India-Pakistan joint declaration in NEW DELHI 00001547 002 OF 002 Egypt has created a political ruckus in India. References on two crucial issues in the declaration might prove inimical to India's interests in the long term. First, it has been agreed that terrorism will not be allowed to derail the India- Pakistan dialogue process. Second, the inclusion of the Baluchistan issue gives Pakistan an opportunity to level the bizarre charge that Indian agencies also use terror. This ill-conceived joint statement between the two countries has "reversed" India's long-standing policy on terror [i.e., no dialogue until Pakistan dismantles all anti-India terrorist infrastructure from its soil]. This also proves that India has the capability of combating enemies in the battlefield but lacks the acumen to conduct successful diplomacy." ROEMER