Bharat Rakshak

Murugan wrote:How US can Preach Human Rights Violations when US itself is Guilty

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

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has said the Indian PM is wrong to have doubted the veracity of a cable which has caused an uproar in India.

The diplomatic cable released by Wikileaks suggested that India's ruling Congress party bribed MPs to survive a crucial vote of confidence in 2008.

"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!

Assange argued that if this was true, then US diplomats in India can be accused of lying.

"If this cable on bribery is incorrect, then the US ambassador in India has a lot to answer for because he has been sending back very serious reports to Washington about senior politicians and (their) behaviour in Indian parliament, which casts it in very negative light.

"It would affect the relationship between India and the US," he said. "So he has committed a grave error."

"This is actually the behaviour of guilty men. Man who is innocent doesn't tend to behave like that.

"That doesn't mean people making those statements like Prime Minister Singh are guilty of this particular crime.

"It suggests something that how Indian parliamentarians and politicians respond to very serious allegations.

"They respond through indirection and attempting to cover up the issue for the public, rather than address it fully and frankly."

saket wrote:What is most surprising to me is that the BJP is not demanding a criminal probe on the wikileaks cable about the bribe MPs for votes scam.

Instead they have moved a privilege motion against MMS - which IMO is a diversionary tactic.

I am afraid there is some underhand dealing or compulsion which is preventing the BJP to ask for a criminal probe into the scam.

With Modi's political fortunes fading, the BJP leadership may decide at the appropriate time to quietly cast him aside.

29231 3/21/2005 13:19 05 NEWDELHI 2140 Embassy New Delhi CONFIDENTIAL 05 NEWDELHI 2081 | 05 NEWDELHI 2090 | 05 NEWDELHI 2094 | 05 NEWDELHI 2095 "This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available." "C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 NEW DELHI 002140

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/21/2015 TAGS: CVIS, PREL, PHUM, PGOV, KIRF, IN, Indian Domestic Politics


SUBJECT: MODI CASE REFLECTS DOMESTIC POLITICAL DIVIDE

REF: A. NEW DELHI 2095 B. NEW DELHI 2094 C. NEW DELHI 2090 D. NEW DELHI 2081


Classified By: DCM Robert O. Blake, Jr. for Reasons 1.4 (B, D)


1. (C) Summary: Aside from limited and localized protests in Gujarat and scattered nationalist editorial comment, BJP efforts to build a domestic political issue out of the Modi visa revocation seem to be dissipating. Few outside the Sangh Parivar have risen to the bait and responded to BJP calls to make this into an India/USA confrontation. In private conversations with us, Indians have expressed overwhelming support for the US decision. Initial shock at the denial is now turning to embarrassment. Modi harmed himself by making vitriolic anti-American statements that are not resonating well. With Modi's political fortunes fading, the BJP leadership may decide at the appropriate time to quietly cast him aside. The big loser could be Party President LK Advani, who may have been too quick and too outspoken in his support of Modi. We will address BJP internal politics septel. End Summary.


Deep Divide in Gujarat

----------------------

2. (C) Gujarat CM Narendra Modi has been teetering on the edge of political ignominy for at least a year. In 2004, then Prime Minister Vajpayee, with the concurrence of many within his party, pushed for Modi's dismissal, but lacked sufficient determination to deliver the final blow. Just prior to the flap over Modi's visa denial, 60 members of the BJP parliamentary party in Gujarat called on him to step down, and the numbers were growing daily (Mumbai Septel). The BJP dissidents argued that Modi's dictatorial and arbitrary style of functioning was hurting the BJP in Gujarat, which could lose the next election there if Modi were not dismissed.

3. (U) Initial press reports had claimed that the visa incident bought Modi a reprieve from his opponents in Gujarat. The ""Hindustan Times"" argued that, ""the dissidents' campaign against Modi is bound to be weakened, at least for some time."" One dissident noted that, ""Modi has proven to be lucky one again,"" as we ""will have to lie low."" Another maintained that, ""Now that Mr. Modi has been denied a US visa, he has again become a hero in Gujarat...this has come as a reprieve for him.""

4. (U) Even though the visa controversy is only days old, the dissidents are already coming back in strength. Dissident leader Vallabh Kathiria indicated on March 19, that Modi's reprieve would prove short-lived, as the dissidents were in no mood to give up their agitation, noting that, ""People will not remember this forever. There's no pro-Modi tempo in Delhi. Our campaign is slow and steady. It may just take a little longer.""

BJP Turns to America Baiting

----------------------------

5. (U) Among the BJP's national leadership, no figure is more closely connected with Modi than Party President and former DPM LK Advani, who quickly came to Modi's defense. At a Modi rally in Ahmedabad on March 20, Advani was the most outspoken, charging the USG with treating India as a ""pushover,"" and warning that ""this is not the end, but just the beginning of the battle for vindicating the self respect of the country."" Advani urged Indians to hold similar pro-Modi rallies across the country to ""awaken the nation, so that one ever dares to treat it as a pushover.""

6. (U) At the rally, Modi launched new anti-American attacks on the USG in Advani's presence, claiming that the USG revoked his visa at the behest of an anti-Hindu lobby in the US upset over Gujarat's passage of an anti-conversion law. Modi further claimed the USG denied him a visa to prevent Gujarat from working with Iran to bring a gas pipeline to India, as ""the US was afraid this would lead to Gujarat and in turn India, becoming an economic power."" Although not as outspoken as Advani, other BJP/NDA leaders also pledged support to Modi, including George Fernandes, BJP General Secretary Arun Jaitley, and Manohar Joshi.

SIPDIS

Deep Divides Between the BJP and Congress

-----------------------------------------

7. (U) The United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government was largely silent after presenting a formal protest on March 18 (Ref . The BJP was quick to thank the GOI for its ""support"" of Modi, with Advani expressing gratitude to PM Manmohan Singh for his ""bold stand"" against a ""powerful country like the US against hurting India's pride."" Congress Spokesman Anand Sharma quickly pointed out that the GOI protested the treatment of ""a duly elected chief minister who holds a constitutional post,"" but this ""does not dilute its opposition against the BJP leader."" Sharma also declined to ""condemn"" the US action or characterize it as an ""insult"" to India. Separately, a senior party strategist close to Sonia Gandhi contacted PolCouns on March 20 to make sure we understood the UPA was just ""doing what it had to"" in demonstrating support for Modi, and to ensure this would not detract from Secretary Rice's successful visit. The Congress agenda, our contact added, is to make this issue disappear from public view as quickly as possible.

8. (C) The Modi incident comes at a time when the political divide between Congress and the BJP is deep and growing. The two parties are fiercely contesting state governments in Goa, Bihar, and Jharkhand, and Parliament has almost ceased to function due to BJP obstructionism. The BJP has refused to cooperate with Congress on economic measures even when they are endorsed by both parties, including the new Patent Law (Ref D), and a BJP threat not to execute the Value Added Tax system scheduled for implementation on April 1.

The Secular/Communal Divide

---------------------------

9. (C) Modi and his followers within the BJP have been attempting to use nationalism to rally mass support around Modi, painting his visa revocation as, ""against all principles of democracy and human rights,"" ""an ""insult to the Constitution of India, which infringes on India's sovereignty,"" and an ""audacious step that has been taken specifically for deriding and insulting India."" Media reports indicate, however, that these arguments are having little impact outside Modi's core supporters within the BJP and Sangh Parivar.

10. (C) A broad spectrum of ""secular"" groups, including political parties, NGOs and newspapers, have failed to take the bait, condemning Modi and applauding the USG move, despite the risk of being blamed ""unpatriotic."" The Rashtriya Janata Dal, for example, stated that, ""Mr. Modi is an Indian, so we have no choice but to tolerate his presence here, but other sovereign nations do not have to allow religious bigots to enter."" The leader of the Congress delegation in the Gujarat State Assembly suggested that his Chief Minister, ""refrain from going abroad,"" as he ""remained constantly surrounded by controversy.""

11. (C) The GOI has also come under criticism for its rush to support visa issuance to Modi. Press reports indicate that ""at least 35"" groups representing overseas Indians appealed to the PM ""to look at this not through a nationalistic lens or as a violation of protocol, but to consider the larger issues involved."" Most editorials pointed out that sovereign nations have the right to deny visas to human rights abusers, and that India should have resolved this issue, the Indian legal system should have prosecuted Modi, the BJP leadership should have dismissed him, and the UPA failed to push for quick prosecution of riot related cases after coming to power in New Delhi.

12. (C) BJP and Sangh Parivar calls for Indians to rally around Modi have not cowed his opponents, who continue to demand his dismissal. The generally anti-America ""Hindu"" characterized the visa episode as ""an additional setback"" for Modi, predicting that he is ""in for a long hot summer."" While the ""Times of India"" urged the BJP to ""realize that it can't shield its poster boy of hate under the pretext of electoral mandate,"" and leading Indian columnist Pankaj Vohra urged the party to ""seize the opportunity and replace Modi before he causes any further embarrassment.""

13. (U) Private comments by a wide range of Indians to Embassy officers show there has been strong support by most Indians for the USG's decision. One former director of the Central Bureau of Investigation, for example, told DCM that ""Nine five percent of India stands with you.""

Comment

-------

14. (C) Modi's political problems continue to grow, and his options narrow. The BJP initially hoped to use Modi's visa problems to overcome deep internal divisions and rally public support. Any gains are likely to be short-lived, as Modi's continued presence as a BJP leader exacerbates party divisions. Rather than silencing his critics, the visa case is providing them with ammunition, sullying the BJP's reputation and keeping it on the defensive at a time when it hoped to make political gains against Congress. Within Gujarat, emotions are currently running high, and Modi has won a reprieve, but it is likely to be short-lived. As attention shifts from the visa issue, his opponents will re-emerge.

15. (C) The UPA government having ""gone through the motions"" by protesting the USG decision, is unlikely to ratchet up the pressure further. Congress has long viewed Modi as a vulnerable target and will, at the appropriate time, use the visa incident as further ammunition against him. Both Congress and the BJP particularly value the US-India relationship and Modi's America bashing has made many nervous. Both parties will likely move to ensure that the negative impact on the relationship from this incident is minimal. With Modi's position deteriorating, the BJP leadership could decide to quietly push him aside at the appropriate time. This could become a further liability for Advani, who the senior party leader most visibly supporting Modi.

MULFORD

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.

Narendra Modi reacts on Wikileaks cable on him

Modi didn’t miss opportunity to compare his ‘uncorruptable(incorruptible)’ image with present central regime’s ‘highly corrupt’ image. He said, “and these days, there is one face of the country about which Wikileaks and others say that there’s nothing but only corruption here, and there is another face which is Gujarat according to what has been revealed in latest cable which also openly says that this country has a leader uncorruptable(incorruptible). I feel nice that America has lately started understanding this.”

http://deshgujarat.com/2011/03/22/naren ... -himvideo/

devesh wrote:A country like Germany having all Europe under its thumb: that's the worst nightmare for the British.

The thing about the cables is that secular TV can cherry pick data, but the cherries need to be picked with mouth from a bed of feces.

http://twitter.com/barbarindian

“This America should not give us advice on human rights. I am son of India and I know what human rights violations you have done. Good that dialogue is faithfully reproduced,” he told reporters on Tuesday.

President Asif Ali Zardari told US Senator John Kerry last year that he believed the Indian government was involved in the 2008 terror attacks on Mumbai, according to WikiLeaks cables partly published by The Hindu on Monday.

“Zardari agreed dialogue is the only way forward. However, he justified continued suspicion of India, citing recent ‘confirmation’ that there was Indian involvement in the Mumbai attacks,” a part of the original cable not published by The Hindu said, quoting Ms Patterson’s privileged communication about the president’s talks with Mr Kerry and his delegation.

Singha wrote: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.

Muppalla wrote:Caution - This news may be wrong as it is from the Land of Pure.
India helped Mumbai attacks

President Asif Ali Zardari told US Senator John Kerry last year that he believed the Indian government was involved in the 2008 terror attacks on Mumbai, according to WikiLeaks cables partly published by The Hindu on Monday.

disha wrote:

Murugan wrote:How US can Preach Human Rights Violations when US itself is Guilty

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

If Indian neta and babooze have some pair of testimonials, they would ensure that Mr. Owen ends up as consul general in timbuktoo...

Sadly, in internal upmanship, CONgress has forgotten that India is a sovereign country ... Is India the 52nd state of US?

ramana wrote:And his Brother informs the US diplomats as shown in the wikipees!

Mr. Modi was happy about U.S. Consul-General in Mumbai Michael S. Owen describing him as an “incorruptible” leader. “It is one thing to describe someone as non-corrupt and quite another to be told that he or she is incorruptible. It feels great to be described as incorruptible,” Mr. Modi told journalists

CHENNAI: The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) did not respond to Indian requests for assistance in the investigation into the IC-814 hijacking as it did not want to cooperate in what it internally described as “fishing expeditions.”

Wearying of playing the go-between, the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi urged Washington to bring to an end “this ongoing cycle of requests” by giving the Indian government a “clear negative response” rather than “perpetuating a fruitless dialogue.”

But on a later occasion, it urged greater cooperation with Indian investigators in the interests of the developing bilateral strategic relationship.

U.S diplomatic cables of 2005, accessed by The Hindu through WikiLeaks, reveal how wary Washington was just a few years before the Mumbai 2008 attacks about sharing information with India, especially where it concerned Pakistan.

The Indian Airlines flight from Kathmandu to New Delhi was hijacked and taken to Kandahar in Afghanistan in 1999.

India surrendered to the hijackers' demand for the release of three militants including Masood Azhar, who went on to form the Jaish-e-Mohammed.

In exchange, the government secured the freedom of all but one — the hijackers killed him — of the 178 passengers and 15 crew on board the aircraft. The Taliban government in Afghanistan provided safe passage to the five hijackers and the three released militants.

India registered a case and began investigations into the hijacking. The U.S. too registered a case as there was one American citizen among the passengers.

When U.S. forces invaded Afghanistan in 2001 after the 9/11 attacks, ousted the Taliban government and detained many of its leaders, India asked the Americans for access to those linked to the hijacking. New Delhi also wanted access to records the U.S. may have seized in Afghanistan that could help India's case.

Two non-papers

More than three years later, India was still pushing for its “pending requests”. In March 2005 and again in May that year ( Cable 29497: confidential, March 24, 2005; 32567: confidential, May 13, 2005 ) the Ministry of External Affairs handed over identical “non-papers” — diplomatic jargon for an informal memorandum — to U.S. Embassy officials in New Delhi, reiterating the requests.

Both times, Deputy Chief of Mission Robert O. Blake transmitted the non-papers to Washington, along with the response from the Embassy Legal Attache, an FBI position in U.S. diplomatic missions.

In both instances, the Legal Attache had the same response: “Legatt noted that the FBI has shared all its information relevant to the hijacking of IC-814 with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), India's lead federal law enforcement agency, but has not acquiesced on requests it deems ‘fishing expeditions'.”

Later that year, Mr. Blake sent another cable on the subject ( 45536: secret, November 18, 2005), this time urging Washington to take the Indian request seriously: cooperate more.

Reason: MEA Joint Secretary (Americas) S. Jaishankar had told him and the Embassy Political Counselor at a meeting on November 18 that “a USG failure to respond to earlier information requests […] regarding the hijacking of IC-814 could infringe on the broader US-India law enforcement/intelligence relationship.”

The trial of the 10 persons who were accused in the hijacking — seven of them in absentia — was winding down. Dr. Jaishankar conveyed “that the GOI, in absence of a US reply, will be forced to state in court that they are unable to proceed further due to US inaction.”

Immediate action now, the MEA official said, “would forestall such an embarrassing event.”

While some influential Pakistanis believed that “south Indian” men had carried out the Mumbai attacks and lashed out at India for blaming Pakistan, former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif seemed to have no doubts right at the beginning that the attackers were Pakistani.

A cable ( 181951: confidential) sent by Acting Principal Officer Clinton Taylor of the U.S. Consulate in Lahore on December 9, 2008, describes how the Pakistan Muslim League (N) leader told a visiting delegation of U.S. Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham that he had listened to the phone call made by one of the attackers to an Indian TV channel, and even though the individual claimed he was Indian, he had heard a Pakistani accent.

At that December 6 meeting, Mr. Sharif showed none of the ambivalence about the origin of the attackers that he later resorted to in keeping with the mood of denial in Pakistan.

“The people involved were from this country — I am convinced,” Mr. Sharif is quoted as saying. “We must take strictest action against those elements.” Once India produced concrete evidence, “we should proceed whole hog,” he declared.

In doing so, Mr. Sharif was perhaps also trying to clear the U.S. perception of him as a politician with links to Islamists, and therefore not a trustworthy partner in the “war on terror.”

The Federal Bureau of Investigation thought Indian requests for information on the IC-814 hijacking were “fishing expeditions,” but it was concerned India was withholding information that could affect its own prosecution of the case in the United States.

Three cables from the U.S Embassy in New Delhi tell the story of deep mistrust between the two countries on the IC-814 issue.

The information the Indian government wanted was listed in two non-papers given to the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi in March and May that year ( Cable 29497: confidential, March 24, 2005; 32567: confidential, May 13, 2005).

The non-papers asked for information relating to the reported seizure of documents about the hijacking by U.S. forces operating in Afghanistan; data from the Kandahar airport about the flight's landing; information about the roles played by Afghan Taliban authorities during the hijack crisis.

Taliban functionaries

In particular, India sought “the responses of two senior members of the Taliban government who were reportedly in U.S. custody” and for the Americans “to examine the possibility of getting statements from other Taliban functionaries also reportedly in the custody of U.S. forces.”

The two senior Taliban government functionaries were ex-civil aviation minister Mansoor Akhtar, and the Taliban corps commander, Akhtar Usmani.

The non-papers asked for “any additional information” about the whereabouts of the seven “Pakistani nationals” involved in the hijacking; their conduct “prior to, during and after” the hijacking; and about “the landing of the hijacked aircraft at Lahore Airport, its subsequent refueling, take-off, etc.”

India witholds?

While conveying the Indian request in March, Deputy Chief of Mission Robert Blake wrote also that the CBI had given a visiting FBI team access to “hundreds of documents” to enable U.S. prosecution of the IC-814 case.

He added that the CBI had told the team “they were only sharing ‘what we think you need to know'.”

Mr. Blake worried that such a formulation “might raise US prosecutorial concerns” that India had withheld “some exculpatory information.”

Later that year, the Embassy once again conveyed that India was withholding information ( 45536: secret, November 18, 2005).

The Ministry of External Affairs may have inadvertently caused some of the confusion over a hoax call to Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari that escalated tensions between India and Pakistan during the Mumbai attacks in 2008.

Pretending to be India's External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee, the caller conveyed threats of an imminent military response to the attacks.

Pakistani officials said then that the call forced the Pakistan Air Force to go on high alert and scramble its fighter jets. Rattled, Pakistan began a frantic diplomatic effort in western capitals to restrain India.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice telephoned Mr. Mukherjee in the middle of the night to find out why he had made the call, only to be told by the Minister that he had not made any phone call to the Pakistan President.

But still nervous about the possibility of war breaking out between the two countries, Dr. Rice cut short a visit to Europe to fly to South Asia on December 3, visiting both capitals in an effort to calm the tensions.

Exactly a year later, Pakistan's Dawn newspaper revealed that the culprit behind the hoax call was none other than Omar Saeed Shaikh – the militant released by India in 1999 in exchange for the passengers on the Indian Airlines flight IC-814, that was hijacked to Kandahar. He is reported to have made the call from a mobile phone sitting in his Karachi prison cell, where he is being held for the 2002 killing of American journalist Daniel Pearl.

A U.S. Embassy cable from New Delhi, sent on December 4, 2008 ( 181351: confidential) – which was accessed by The Hindu through WikiLeaks – revealed that Ministry of External Affairs Joint Secretary (Americas) Gaitri Kumar had told the Americans on December 1 that Mr. Mukherjee had made a phone call to Mr. Zardari.

Ambassador David Mulford said in the cable that later, on December 1, National Security Adviser M.K. Narayanan had informed him that no such call was made and he would have known if it had been otherwise.

In order to clear the confusion, Ms. Kumar met the American Political Counselor again on December 3 and offered a version that squared with Mr. Narayanan's. She said the Minister had last spoken directly with Mr. Zardari in an informal setting during his May 2008 visit to Islamabad, before he was elected President, and that he had never spoken to him on the phone.

Since then, Mr. Mukherjee had only spoken to his counterpart Shah Mahmood Qureshi, the envoy reported Ms. Kumar as telling the Embassy official. On the evening of November 28, Mr. Mukherjee phoned Mr. Qureshi. He did not convey any threats, and Mr. Qureshi confirmed this at a press conference in Islamabad.

Though Ms. Kumar gave the Americans no explanation for the discrepancy between this report and the one she gave on December 1, Ambassador Mulford wrote that he “suspects she incorrectly inferred that a Mukherjee-Zardari call took place from the fact that Mukherjee's office had, as a precaution, prepared points for him to use if Zardari were to phone Prime Minister Singh when he was unavailable, leaving Mukherjee to receive the call.”

The Foreign Secretary asked whether the U.S. “had traced the phone numbers and requested that we share any phone numbers originating from India with the Indian authorities for investigation.”

The Foreign Secretary also denied reports that India was mobilising its Army.

The Ambassador wrote that “Menon wanted the U.S. to be clear that India was not deliberately raising tensions, stating that ‘no one is mobilising' and ‘we are sitting mum'.”