Wikileaks Diplomatic Cable Dump - News and Discussion

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 19 Mar 2011 07:56

If she gets formally involved even in denying it will confirm her involvment. Their only concern is to preserve the reputaion of the dynasty - for Congress really has nothing left if that pivot falls.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 19 Mar 2011 07:58

brihaspati wrote:Should we pardon them that unpardonable lapse?

If the lapse is proven - it is UNPARDONABLE ! If it is unpardonable - a box behind the ears will not do, the players have to be 'hanged'.

One can argue that constantly looking at what the 'Anglo Americans' are perceived to be wanting, and doing the exact opposite - is as much a sign of poodledom as doing exactly what the 'Anglo Americans' are perceived to be wanting ! Surely the Americans would have gamed the Indian mindset - and if they want the INC to be entrenched - they would first 'leak out' that they prefer a change of guard !!

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 19 Mar 2011 08:22

Arjun wrote:If cash-for votes is proven true - who is the more culpable party ? Is it MMS or Sonia? Since the INC is in the dock out here for the PARTY's actions, I would presume it is Sonia as party president ? Why is Sonia silent on this and asking the PM to defend ?

Arjun, there was a time when an allegation led to the minister resigning. Times have changed and yet have not changed to an extent where even a dozen scams of gigantic proportions simply elicit only evasive attempts hiding behind technicalities rather than any attempt to fix them. The sole person to take the responsibility for the ongoing situation must be Ms. Sonia Gandhi. However, she has always refused to speak on any issue lest some mud sticks to her. The Congressmen know that the moment some mud sticks to her, their political power is irretrievably gone. So, they see to it that she does not speak. They have erected a huge firewall around her. Ms. Sonia Gandhi enjoys disproportionate power with absolutely zilch responsibility whatsoever because there are willing fall guys.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 19 Mar 2011 09:13

Do not read if you have blood pressure problems:
From PM and p-sec crowd:

Facts of the matter

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/facts ... r/764556/2

People rejected cash-for-vote charge...(cable) speculative: PM

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/peopl ... ../764657/

Not a wealth of information

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Not-a-wea ... 75056.aspx

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 19 Mar 2011 09:16

Advani's Views on various issues

When in power, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) will behave very differently from its days in the opposition. This was the reassuring feeling that United States Embassy Charge d'affaires Peter Burleigh got after a meeting with the BJP's prime ministerial candidate L.K. Advani on May 13, 2009, just days before the results of the Lok Sabha election were out.

In a cable of the same date ( 206814: confidential), Mr. Burleigh told Washington that Mr. Advani played down his party's opposition to the U.S.-India civil nuclear agreement, and assured the U.S. that there would be no imminent move to reopen the deal if the BJP returned to power.

“Looking relaxed and confident, Bharatiya Janata Party's prime ministerial candidate L.K. Advani told Charge that there would be continuity and strength in U.S.-India relations should a BJP-led government emerge after the national parliamentary elections currently underway.”

Mr. Burleigh wrote: “He acknowledged [that] the BJP public position in July 2008 was that the deal constrained the country's ‘strategic autonomy' and the party would ‘re-examine' it if it returned to power but connected that stance to domestic political developments then at play in India.” In Mr. Advani's view, the diplomat said, “government is a continuity,” particularly in matters of foreign policy. International agreements “cannot be taken lightly,” the cable quoted the BJP leader as saying.

In this context, Mr. Advani pointed to the strong objections of his party to the 1972 India-Pakistan Shimla Agreement, noting that the party did not scrap that agreement when it came to power.

Mr. Burleigh reported: “According to Advani, the problem in dealing with Pakistan today is that it is not clear who is in charge — the civilian government, the Army, the ISI or some other entity. In his view, it was easier to deal with Pakistan during General Musharraf's tenure because it was clear who had the last word. Advani expressed great concern over the rising influence of the Taliban in Pakistan. CDA responded that the USG shared this concern, noting that there is increasing congruity between Indian and U.S. interests and perceptions of threats in the region and beyond.”

Mr. Advani also cautioned about the tendency of the global community to view the India-Pakistan ties through the Kashmir lens. “He said that having grown up and lived in Karachi for the first 20 years of his life, he has a certain understanding of the India-Pakistan dynamic. In his view Kashmir is only one of the problems in the bilateral relations but it is not the core issue nor one on which the entire relationship hinges. He thinks the main conflict arises from the fact that one country is a flourishing democracy and the other is not.” {God save us if LKA thinks that lack of democracy is at the core of the problem. That is a completely incorrect reading}

Mr. Advani, Mr. Burleigh recalled, recounted a discussion he had with former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto a few years ago in which they identified two factors that had allowed democracy to take hold in India while Pakistan struggled with it: an apolitical Army and an independent Election Commission in India. “Advani said he has since added a third reason for the difficult path of democracy in Pakistan: the country remains feudal in its structure while India has swept aside its feudal systems for the most part.”

On Sri Lanka

On Sri Lanka, Mr. Advani emphasised that the primary Indian concern was for the well-being of the Tamil population. He told the Charge he understood the Sri Lankan government's desire to defeat the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, but it should have been more mindful of the suffering of the Tamils caught in the crossfire. “Advani observed that the Sri Lankan government would make a big mistake if it was not clear and generous in its approach to the devolution of power to the Tamils once the fighting had stopped,” Mr. Burleigh added.

Samay · Post by **Samay** » 19 Mar 2011 09:40

There could be coup within upa this time, maybe they will figure out that this is a right time to retire mms and bring in Rahul gandhi, if they dont do it then rahul's chances in the next elections also diminishes.

Also, by such changes they will try to wash away images of all the scams in the minds of Indian people (who always foregt, and of course a big role played by the sold out media groups) while these scams remain as a reality, they will be forgotten, diminished, and from advani's viewpoint above and what we have seen in last 2 elections, they wont bother either,, so 'all is well' again for up(s)a,..

chiragAS · Post by **chiragAS** » 19 Mar 2011 16:00

its only scoring points. everyone is on same page BJP and Cong. it benefits both the countries. no need to read in too much

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 20 Mar 2011 05:52

Time for Manmohan & UPA to go?

Now, it's getting to be sickening. The response of the UPA and our Prime Minister to the various scams tumbling out of the cupboard is going from the predictable, to the ridiculous; and now to the unbearable.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 20 Mar 2011 06:27

UPA cannot be allowed to fail. Think of the various factors. Where will the allies go? Who will take them? They need each other. What about the various possible investments made - in financial and political terms - internally and externally - all the mutual dependence based on dirt on each other.

The last ditch effort is to bring up the "youth brigade" and ask desh-vasyon to wait aptiently and give the bacchelog chance to prove themselves even with some "initial" blunders. But that is the last mahastra. What if that fails? Would it not be better to delay that a bit?...hmmm...which of the white haired with kalap can fit the interim bill?...hmmm..

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 20 Mar 2011 06:34

[quote="SwamyG"]Time for Manmohan & UPA to go?[quote]

After knowing what happened to Narasimha Rao for a similar allegation (buying MPs), why would Manmohan go? Better to die in office than in jail!

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 20 Mar 2011 07:08

All the sins and internal squabbles within UPA will be out in the open. MMS and some other uncomfortable players will be made to feel the heat-as the family gets affected.
once the war is done(may go till next elections)- prince(ss) will wield the proverbial golden broom to cleanse the system of corruption.
Actually the picture looks more rosy for the princess which will be a breath of fresh air for the stink in the cong stable.
hail the 'dy(ing) nasty' scion.
alz well.

reverse of egypt.- perpetuation of family over party.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 20 Mar 2011 10:11

Indian envoy was told to seek ‘convergence' with U.S.

http://www.hindu.com/2011/03/20/stories ... 160100.htm

India sent diplomat to UN to undercut its own envoy

http://www.hindu.com/2011/03/20/stories ... 891300.htm

Reforms talk at UN just ‘sound and fury'

http://www.hindu.com/2011/03/20/stories ... 911300.htm

When India nearly crossed the Rubicon on Sri Lanka

http://www.hindu.com/2011/03/20/stories ... 931300.htm

Did the Vatican have a better appreciation of the post-9/11 world than the United States?

http://www.hindu.com/2011/03/20/stories ... 901300.htm

India found EU ‘intrusive and preachy'

http://www.hindu.com/2011/03/20/stories ... 921300.htm

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 20 Mar 2011 10:39

abhishek_sharma wrote:India found EU ‘intrusive and preachy'

What a change countrymen from those days when the Westerners accused India of 'moral high-stand and preachiness'

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 21 Mar 2011 06:48

Rahul Gandhi, a lackluster leader

Raghavendra · Post by **Raghavendra** » 21 Mar 2011 08:48

shravan wrote:Rahul Gandhi, a lackluster leader

Naqvi claimed that it is increasingly common knowledge that Rahul suffers from ""personality problems"" of an emotional or psychological nature that are severe enough to prevent him from functioning as PM.

Duffer gandhi

Despite signs of growing unhappiness from Congress insiders regarding Rahul, however, he continues to be the subject of press reports that rave about his participation in the early January Congress Youth training camp

Wonders of PAID NEWS, duffer ne apne media chamchon ko khush kar diya paison se

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 21 Mar 2011 09:06

What MEA was up to ahead of Ahmadinejad visit

http://www.hindu.com/2011/03/21/stories ... 740100.htm

Americans see relationship with India going nowhere, blame ‘Brezhnev-era' bureaucracy

http://www.hindu.com/2011/03/21/stories ... 431100.htm

U.S. feared terror hits in India on Saeed's release

http://www.hindu.com/2011/03/21/stories ... 451100.htm

‘Manipur more a colony of India'

http://www.hindu.com/2011/03/21/stories ... 401100.htm

Indian leaders, through the eyes of others

http://www.hindu.com/2011/03/21/stories ... 421100.htm

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 21 Mar 2011 09:33

From the fifth link

In a cable dated March 3, 2005 ( 28056: secret) Mr. Mulford quoted journalist Saeed Naqvi as calling him “lacklustre” and one who suffered from “personality problems'' and who “will never become prime minister.'' However, Mr. Mulford was more cautious in giving his own assessment. He stated: “Despite signs of growing unhappiness from Congress insiders regarding Rahul, however, he continues to be the subject of press reports that rave about his participation in the early January Congress Youth training camp and suggest that he is preparing to take the mantle of the ‘leader of young India' and ‘blossoming into a leader with mass acceptability.' During the two-day youth training session, Rahul engaged in interactive discussions ranging from pesticides in Cola products — he was against closing the plants — to defending the GOI's globalization policy and economic reforms. Given this publicity machine that Rahul enjoys, we, unlike Naqvi, are not yet prepared to write him off just yet.”

Ouch that would hurt our rahul baba's fan brigade

From the first link

A senior Ministry of External Affairs official notified the Political Counselor in the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi that Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would visit India on April 29, 2008, saying “she was providing the Embassy with this information prior to the MEA informing even other agencies within the Indian government, and before the information was to become public.”

Who is this senior she official in MEA?

sum · Post by **sum** » 21 Mar 2011 09:46

The most telling blow of all ( the quoted are words of the Amb, Mulford himself) :

Given this publicity machine that Rahul enjoys, we, unlike Naqvi, are not yet prepared to write him off just yet.”

So its just the paid DDM which has ensured that RG remains even moderately relevant else he would have disappeared by now...

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Mar 2011 14:55

I suppose nobody who grows up in a stifling sandbox env that is the gandhi family residence pre and post IG/RG could have a normal childhood even if they were so inclined. layers of security, tons of psychophants, unaccountable power, unaccountable sources of income, 24x7 politics politics politics rather than contact with normal human values, italian as lingua franca than hindi.

most would go insane in such a mahaul.

yes I am sure yuvraj has many issues.

Chinmayanand · Post by **Chinmayanand** » 21 Mar 2011 15:10

What is the motive behind this sudden barrage of wikileaks directed again Congress ? Is GoI not guboing to amirkhan on something?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Mar 2011 15:14

Chinmayanand wrote:What is the motive behind this sudden barrage of wikileaks directed again Congress ? Is GoI not guboing to amirkhan on something?

Its left's pay back for Congress backstab in 2008-9. Nothing overtly complicated.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 21 Mar 2011 16:16

abhishek_sharma wrote:Americans see relationship with India going nowhere, blame ‘Brezhnev-era' bureaucracy

From the above, a heartening diplomatic response:

Several communications referred to a “trust deficit'' in India-U.S. relations because of the “perception'' in India that America was not doing enough to prevent Pakistan-inspired terror attacks on India.

According to a cable from the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi dated December 15, 2006 ( 89649: secret), S. Jai Shankar, Joint Secretary (Americas) “complained” during a meeting that the U.S. alliance with Pakistan should not make it “ignore Pakistan-origin terrorism in India.”

“He argued that working with Pakistan and helping India fight terror are not mutually exclusive and requested that the U.S. ‘figure out your relationship' with Pakistan and then determine how you can help India,'' the cable said.

Dr. Jai Shankar is reported as having said that the Indian public scepticism over America's role on security issues was not “entirely unrelated to government perceptions” and that “we need to address this.”

“He lamented that the chronic inability to talk frankly about terrorism dragged down other areas of collaboration,” the cable said.

Bravo. Like father, like son. I am sure that one of the positive effects of the leaks would be that skeptic Indians would realize that diplomats/bureaucrats do not mince words.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 21 Mar 2011 17:50

Leaked Cables are Exchanges Culled Out from Diplomatic Bag: SM Krishna
So, all doubts are laid to rest about the veracity of the cables.

“We have always said that we are not going to comment upon WikiLeaks you know. They are culled out from the diplomatic bag as set of exchanges and then they are getting wide publicity. Government of India doesn’t believe in commenting upon them,” External Affairs Minister S. M. Krishna told reporters in New Delhi.

Venkarl · Post by **Venkarl** » 21 Mar 2011 17:54

S. Jai Shankar

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 21 Mar 2011 18:05

Sridhar K wrote:ramana & s sridhar garus
On why sudden animosity of chindu towards the congress, just connect the dots between the following
1.naxal mar's rumoured association with the tn princess
2. The current state of the princess.
A fracticidal war between the two allies pretending to fight over the number of seats for the assembly election, dr, artiste striking back at the grand old party for harassing the princess.

Sridhar K Saar,

Don't forget to factor in the china angle!

chindu's daughter is married to dayanidhi.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 21 Mar 2011 19:57

Everything on the Bro but nothing on the sis?!!! Hope they have listened to our "suggestions" about bringing her out into sunshine! And then that will be the last one in line, from which India can take a new path. Bro will simply delay the process and confuse more and make the transition and retirement of his family more painful.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 21 Mar 2011 20:32

PM Manmohan Singh misleading public: Julian Assange

The comment I have been hearing from Prime Minister (Manmohan) Singh, these, to me, seem like a deliberate attempt to mislead the public by suggesting that governments around the world do not accept the material and it is not verified... absolutely false!

"There is no doubt these are bonafide reports sent by American ambassador to Washington and these should be seen in that context. That does not mean every fact in them are correct," he said.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 21 Mar 2011 20:58

As expected no mention on the RG related leaks in unditv or cnn-ibn

Muppalla · Post by **Muppalla** » 21 Mar 2011 21:11

Most probably India has decided to buy rafale fighter and the chapter got closed on F-16/FA-18. US wants to teach MMS a lesson and hence its stooge Assnage leaked the India specific tank.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 21 Mar 2011 21:30

The reaction to the leak is pretty revealing though. The rulers just came out with straight faced lies as a counter, and this time around there is no attempt at even the charade of a CBI investigation or a defamation suit against Assange. Probably means that the devolution into an oligarchy is much more advanced than thought.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 22 Mar 2011 00:44

X posting Sushupti ji's post from 2g thread

Why no one in the Congress wants to touch Nachiketa Kapur

The adverse intelligence report on him was reportedly based on a case of hacking computers registered at the Parliament Street Police Station in New Delhi. Kapur was also suspected to be involved in getting US visas to ‘questionable persons’, using his contacts in the US Embassy.

Kapur is from Uttarakhand and can be seen hanging around Congress General Secretary Rahul Gandhi's residence. He is a public relations man, making friends of journalists. With the help of a few journalists, Kapur also became an associate member of the Foreign Correspondents' Club in New Delhi.

Sources say the US embassy got interested in Kapur after he gave primary inputs to an embassy staffer at the residence of then Congress MP Satish Sharma, a family friend of the Nehru-Gandhis, that a political counsellor had dropped by for some information.

The US Government was concerned at that time in 2008 about the fate of the civilian nuclear deal it was negotiating with the Manmohan Singh government since it had suddenly come into a minority after the Left parties withdrew support.

http://www.tehelka.com/story_main49.asp ... hiketa.asp

Reminds me of the one in IG's office leaking plans to Unkil on the impending west invasion during 1971

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 22 Mar 2011 07:38

US Envoy to Mexico resigns after Wikileaks expose and Mexican President throws a fit.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 22 Mar 2011 08:37

Engaging Modi the U.S. way

http://www.hindu.com/2011/03/22/stories ... 040100.htm

2002 riots an ‘internal Gujarati matter': Modi told American diplomat

http://www.hindu.com/2011/03/22/stories ... 971100.htm

When Modi was denied the visa

http://www.hindu.com/2011/03/22/stories ... 981100.htm

Caste politics at work in Gujarat

http://www.hindu.com/2011/03/22/stories ... 991100.htm

sum · Post by **sum** » 22 Mar 2011 08:41

Evidently, the Embassy's only interest in sending the ‘action request' cable to the State Department was the diplomatic and political necessity of responding to Mr. Saran on March 19, 2005, the day Mr. Modi was to travel to the United States.

During the meeting with Mr. Blake, Mr. Saran characterised the U.S. decision on Mr. Modi's visa as “uncalled for” and as a display of a “lack of courtesy and sensitivity.” The Foreign Secretary conveyed that the refusal had already “incited a controversy and threatened to spark just the kind of divisiveness the US alleges Modi himself facilitated.”

Reporting on the meeting, the confidential cable said: “Saran argued to the DCM that the USG [United States Government] had made a decision based on opinion, an opinion that even some in India hold. That opinion, however, is a separate issue from the fact that Modi is a constitutionally-mandated office holder whose position derives from the people. Saran argued that the US as a democracy would appreciate this, and argued that the dignity of the office of Chief Minister cannot be overridden. Calling the USG determination that Modi had failed to act in Gujarat during the 2002 riots a ‘subjective judgment,' Saran suggested that perhaps Washington had not considered that this was a separate issue in the Indian mind.”

While appreciating the importance that the United States government attached to religious freedom, Mr. Saran cautioned that this determination could have an effect opposite from that intended: “a strong emotional reaction which had the potential to polarise the Indian people.” This, he noted, would not be in the interest of religious harmony, or shared U.S. and Indian objectives.

Highlighting the political ramifications, Mr. Saran said the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was “up in arms.” The incident, he added, might “open up an odd type of standard to give or not give visas.”

Thank heavens that atleast Shri. Saran atleast found time to register a token protest for the insult shown to a democratically elected leader.

One former Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation, the cable said, told DCM that “Ninety five percent of India stands with you.”

Sigh, is there nothing called national pride and need to defend a public figure in front of foreigners, however opposed we might be internally?

kmkraoind · Post by **kmkraoind** » 22 Mar 2011 09:06

Engaging Modi the U.S. way

IMO its better to post Wikileaks in full, rather than a link from "The Hindu," because they are all about India and its worth to archive them.

Confidential 2006 cable reveals complex calculations in the event of the Gujarat Chief Minister ‘making it to the national stage'; wants a clear message delivered on U.S. concerns over 'human rights and religious freedom'

Having declined to engage with him at the ambassadorial level because of his role in the 2002 Gujarat communal violence and anti-Muslim pogrom, U.S. diplomats found themselves, in 2006, facing the possibility of Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi assuming a leadership role at the national level. Conscious that the United States would have to deal with him at a later stage if he rose in stature on the national stage, the State Department evidently sanctioned meetings at the level of the Mumbai Consul General on the understanding that such interactions would also enable the U.S. to deliver a “clear message on human rights and religious freedom in Gujarat.”

In a cable dated November 2, 2006 (84043: confidential), the Consul General in Mumbai, Michael S. Owen, underscored the importance of interacting with Mr. Modi “whose B1/B2 visa we revoked in 2005, at the level of the Consul General” over the Chief Minister's role in the 2002 communal violence. Such interaction, Mr. Owen said, “will also shield us from accusations of opportunism from the BJP that would invariably arise if we ignored Modi now but sought a dialogue with him in the likely event that he makes it to the national stage.”

On the basis of discussions with leaders of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and the Bharatiya Janata Party, the Mumbai Consulate concluded that Mr. Modi had set his sights on national politics. Interestingly, many in the BJP leadership believed that the Gujarat Chief Minister was the “only person of the BJP's many aspiring leaders who can reinvigorate the party and stop its further slide into oblivion.”

While there was no consensus on Mr. Modi's chances for success at the national level, some in Delhi and Gujarat strongly felt that his rise was inevitable, Mr. Owen added.

The Mumbai Consulate's 2,850-word assessment, which was cleared by the New Delhi Embassy before being cabled to the State Department, was carefully considered, nuanced, and telling. The disquisition could well form the core of an M.A. thesis in politics:

“If Modi does eventually get a national leadership role in the BJP in the foreseeable future, the USG [United States Government] will be obliged to decide how it wants to deal with a figure of national prominence whose B1/B2 we revoked. We believe it would dilute our influence to avoid Modi completely. If we waited to engage Modi after he attains national stature within India's largest and most important opposition party, many in the BJP would likely view this as an opportunistic move and only deepen the suspicions cultivated by some BJP leaders in western India since the visa revocation.

“Since the riots of 2002, we have declined to engage Modi at the Ambassadorial level, but Mumbai Consul Generals have routinely sought meetings with Modi whenever they visited Ahmedabad. We will continue to seek such meetings at the level of the CG to emphasize that the USG does not have a formal no-contact policy… and to demonstrate to the BJP that we are interested in cultivating relationships with the party while it is in the opposition. Direct encounters with Modi will also enable us to deliver a clear message regarding USG concerns for the state of human rights and religious freedom in Gujarat.”

On Mr. Modi's strengths as Chief Minister that could aid his national leadership ambitions, Mr. Owen's analysis was: “Modi has successfully branded himself as a non-corrupt, effective administrator, as a facilitator of business in a state with a deep commercial culture, and as a no-nonsense, law-and-order politician who looks after the interests of the Hindu majority. Modi's backers in the BJP now hope to convince the party leadership that he can use these positive traits to attract voters throughout India. Some BJP leaders believe, or hope, that voters will forget or forgive Modi's role in the 2002 bloodshed, once they learn to appreciate his other qualities.”

Not ‘if' but ‘when’

The Consul General quoted Harin Pathak, a BJP Member of Parliament from Gujarat, as saying that the BJP national leadership, and particularly former Deputy Prime Minister L.K. Advani, were convinced that only Mr. Modi could rejuvenate the party. Ram Madhav of the RSS also voiced similar views, “going so far as to say that Modi's ascendancy is not a question of if but when, and the USG must start considering now how it will deal with Modi when he becomes head of the BJP and leads the party's electoral campaign in the national elections scheduled for 2009.”

Mr. Owen also drew attention to what he saw as divergence between Mr. Modi's public image and his private actions. “In public appearances, Modi can be charming and likeable. By all accounts, however, he is an insular, distrustful person who rules with a small group of advisors. This inner circle acts as a buffer between the Chief Minister and his cabinet and party. He reigns more by fear and intimidation than by inclusiveness and consensus, and is rude, condescending and often derogatory to even high level party officials. He hoards power and often leaves his ministers in the cold when making decisions that affect their portfolios.”

(This article is a part of the series "The India Cables" based on the US diplomatic cables accessed by The Hindu via Wikileaks.)

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 22 Mar 2011 10:18

How US can Preach Human Rights Violations when US itself is Guilty

http://www.thehindu.com/news/the-india- ... 559532.ece

U.S. itself is guilty of “horrific human rights violations” says Gujarat Chief Minister; Consul-General Owen stands his ground on “human rights and religious freedom” in a “chilly” 2006 meeting in Gandhinagar

When an American diplomat raised the horrific Gujarat communal violence of 2002 with Chief Minister Narendra Modi in November 2006, he got more than what he had bargained for: a lecture on the “horrific human rights violations” by the United States.

Michael S. Owen, Consul General in Mumbai, was the diplomat at the receiving end of Mr. Modi's tirade during a November 16, 2006 meeting in Gandhinagar. This was the first such meeting since the March 2005 revocation of Mr. Modi's U.S. visa on account of his role in the 2002 communal violence in Gujarat — in which (according to an official ministerial statement made in Parliament in 2005) 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus were killed, and 223 more people were reported as missing. The genocidal attack on Muslims by mobs of Hindu extremists and fanatics followed the burning of a coach of the Sabarmati Express by a local mob of Muslim extremists and fanatics at Godhra on February 27, 2002. The coach was carrying kar sevaks returning from Ayodhya. The police failed to quell the post-Godhra anti-Muslim pogrom that went on for several weeks, which lent credence to reports of state complicity in the violence. Mr. Modi was questioned on March 27, 2010 by the Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team headed by R.K. Raghavan, former Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation, in connection with the Gujarat riots.

In a revealing Mumbai Consulate cable, which was sent on November 27, 2006 to the State Department and copied to an interesting selection of U.S. embassies, consulates, and other destinations (87085: confidential), Mr. Owen recounted what followed after “a relaxed” Chief Minister had given him “a glowing overview of his Government's achievements in building infrastructure and promoting economic growth in Gujarat” and he had responded appropriately. The Consul General then moved on to a taboo subject, an issue that Mr. Modi evidently considered to be none of his business: “while we are very pleased with our business and people to people relations with Gujarat, we remain concerned about communal relations within the state. In particular, we remain concerned that nobody has yet been held accountable for the horrific communal violence of 2002, and are further concerned that an atmosphere of impunity could lead to a further deterioration of communal relations. What is the Government of Gujarat's view on this, he asked.”

‘Modi visibly annoyed’
“A visibly annoyed Modi,” the Consul General reported to the State Department, “responded at considerable length.” The Chief Minister, he said, made three essential points: “the events of 2002 were an internal Gujarati matter and the U.S. had no right to interfere; the U.S. is itself guilty of horrific human rights violations (he specified Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and attacks on Sikhs in the U.S. after September 11) and thus has no moral basis to speak on such matters, and; Muslims are demonstrably better off in Gujarat than in any other state in India, so what is everybody griping about?”

Mr. Owen correctly pointed out that it was not only the U.S. that was concerned with this issue. “The Indian National Human Rights Commission report itself cited ‘a comprehensive failure on the part of the state Government' to prevent the violence of 2002. We are reflecting a broad cross section of opinion that no one has been held accountable for the violence and that consequently a climate of impunity is developing. Secondly, Abu Ghraib is precisely the point: Americans can also commit human rights violations but when they do we have a clear procedure to investigate, prosecute, and punish those guilty of wrongdoing. This is what we and others would like to see in Gujarat.”

To this, “Modi grumbled that the Indian National Human Rights Commission was biased and its reports wildly inaccurate. More broadly, he claimed, the U.S. relied far too much on ‘a few fringe NGOs' that don't know the real picture and have an axe to grind. In any event, if officials are guilty of wrongdoing, then it is up to the courts to prosecute and punish them, and the Chief Minister could not interfere with the judicial process.”

The Consul General reacted that it had been well over four years since the violence occurred and nobody had been sanctioned; this gave little confidence that anyone would ultimately be held accountable. “Modi noted (accurately, alas) that the culprits in the 1993 Mumbai bombings are only now being sentenced, so we should not have ‘unrealistic expectations'.”

‘Evasive, backtracked’
When the diplomat asked if there was in fact an active investigation of the Gujarat violence still under way, “Modi was evasive and backtracked to his claim that Muslims in Gujarat are better off than in any other state in India. He noted that the BJP had won big victories in recent local bodies elections in Muslim districts, and that a recent study had found literacy among Muslims was higher in Gujarat than in any other state. The 2002 violence had involved a ‘few miscreants' and had been blown out of proportion by ‘fringe elements,' he said. Communal relations in Gujarat are now excellent, he claimed.”

Mr. Owen responded that the U.S. acknowledged the many positive accomplishments of the Modi government, including economic growth and education: “These are to be applauded, but do not diminish in any way the importance of holding accountable those persons who are guilty of inciting or carrying out communal violence…failure to do so will create an atmosphere of impunity in which radical elements would feel emboldened in the future. He concluded by underlining that the U.S. Government considers human rights and religious freedom to be extremely important, and we will continue to monitor developments and engage his Government in these areas.” Mr. Modi, switching to an apparently more conciliatory note, allowed that he understood human rights and religious freedom to be important to the U.S. because “you people keep raising these issues all the time.” The meeting concluded with the Chief Minister saying” with a touch of irony that he hoped Consul General would return to Gujarat on a regular basis. ‘All Americans are always welcome in my state,' he said.”

Consul General Owen's concluding comment in the cable is: “Modi is clearly not going to apologize or back down on the violence of 2002, but we think it is vital for him to hear that we are not going to let the passage of time erase the memory of these events. Despite the chilly atmosphere of the meeting, Modi did take on board the message that human rights and religious freedom are important issues that we will continue to monitor carefully. We believe Sinhji's comments on Modi are indeed accurate: ironically the man most hold accountable for the communal violence of 2002 may now be the most ardent defender of communal harmony, at least on the surface. It remains to be seen to what extent Gujarat's economic boom will lead to genuinely improved communal relations over time.”

The reference is to an “interesting point” that former Congress party MP and former Minister of Environment Yuraj Digvijay Sinhji made to Mr. Owen: “The fact that Modi clearly has aspirations for national leadership makes him, ironically, one of the greatest protectors of communal harmony at this stage. Modi knows that another outbreak like 2002 would doom his chances, so he is going to be particularly zealous to ensure there are no further problems on his watch.”

But that was not all that Mr. Sinhji said in his lengthy meeting with the Consul General. “Asked whether Modi could become a national leader,” the Mumbai consulate-general cable relays to the State Department,” Sinhji (himself the scion of the princely Wankaner family and a Cambridge grad) sniffed that Modi ‘lacks the polish and refinement' to become a national leader. But Sinhji raised another reason why Modi could face challenges in becoming a national leader: Modi's reputation for being completely incorruptible is accurate, and if he were to become a national leader he would crack down on corruption throughout the BJP. There are too many BJP rank and file waiting to line their pockets once the BJP returns to power, Sinhji said, and the prospect of Modi cracking the whip on corruption is entirely unappealing to this crowd. Modi would have a hard time clearing this hurdle, according to Sinhji.”

(This article is a part of the series "The India Cables" based on the US diplomatic cables accessed by The Hindu via Wikileaks.)

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 22 Mar 2011 10:27

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/wikileaks-na ... 703-3.html

WikiLeaks: Narendra Modi's rise worried US

If we look at the time line, is it that the US worried about BJP/Modi becoming stronger and put all their weight behind Sonia G are her puppet(s) to ensure that India stays "manageable?"

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 22 Mar 2011 11:09

sum wrote:Sigh, is there nothing called national pride and need to defend a public figure in front of foreigners, however opposed we might be internally?

No. And particularly not amongst our bureaucratic and political classes. Having cornered power, they then want to fritter away our national sovereignity to gain petty advantages for themselves, like a green card for their LSE educated son, or an assured admission to Harvard for their daughter. Modern day Mir Jaffers.

Lilo · Post by **Lilo** » 22 Mar 2011 11:20

chindu is throwing up lot of relatively unknown faces to write opinionated "news commentary" on the wikipees.
Sarah Hiddleston
Suresh Nambath

I guess those commentaries wont be too credible if all are penned on the name of usual suspects like siddharth varadarajan et al.

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 22 Mar 2011 11:24

2002 riots an ‘internal Gujarati matter': Modi told American diplomat
Suresh Nambath

The Consul General reacted that it had been well over four years since the violence occurred and nobody had been sanctioned; this gave little confidence that anyone would ultimately be held accountable. “Modi noted (accurately, alas) that the culprits in the 1993 Mumbai bombings are only now being sentenced, so we should not have ‘unrealistic expectations'.”

But that was not all that Mr. Yuvraj Digvijay Sinhji said in his lengthy meeting with the Consul General. “Asked whether Modi could become a national leader,” the Mumbai consulate-general cable relays to the State Department,” Sinhji (himself the scion of the princely Wankaner family and a Cambridge grad) sniffed that Modi ‘lacks the polish and refinement' to become a national leader. But Sinhji raised another reason why Modi could face challenges in becoming a national leader: Modi's reputation for being completely incorruptible is accurate, and if he were to become a national leader he would crack down on corruption throughout the BJP. There are too many BJP rank and file waiting to line their pockets once the BJP returns to power, Sinhji said, and the prospect of Modi cracking the whip on corruption is entirely unappealing to this crowd. Modi would have a hard time clearing this hurdle, according to Sinhji.”

1) The US and NGOs believe in Kangaroo justice, when it comes to others.

2) This Yuvraj Digvijay Singhji is keeping up with a long line of his ancestors, toadying up to the foreign masters. He seems to be enjoying his role in doing so. Nevertheless, the point about Modi's incorruptibility is telling.

Heres the sort of stock that Mr Singhji comes from. The sort that sat at the feet of the King Emperor at the Delhi Durbar.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_pCG_c3Rq788/S ... r_1911.jpg