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 02 NEW DELHI 001426 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/23/2015 
TAGS: PREL ECIN KDEM NP BG PK CE IN SAARC

SUBJECT: FOREIGN SECRETARY EMPHASIZES NEIGHBORS' IMPACT ON  INDIA 
 
  Classified By: Acting DCM Geoff Pyatt.  Reasons 1.4 (B, D) 
 
¶1.  (C) Summary: In a carefully considered February 14 speech  on New Delhi's South Asia policy, Foreign Secretary Shyam  Saran unveiled a more muscular approach toward India's  neighborhood that reflects the GOI's shifting view of its  role in the world.  Departing from the standard GOI line on  the primacy of national sovereignty, the address made a clear  link between bad behavior next door and the consequences for  India.  As did then-Foreign Minister Sinha's September 2003  remarks on neighborhood relations, Saran laid heavy emphasis  on economic integration in South Asia.  The Foreign  Secretary, however, went further making democracy a 
  SIPDIS  prerequisite for regional cooperation.  Although he declared  his intention not to single out particular countries, Sri  Lanka was the only neighbor to escape unscathed.  End Summary. 
  Democracy's the Word 
-------------------- 
 
¶2.  (U) In a departure from traditional Indian rhetoric,  Saran's deliberately hyped February 14 speech highlighted the  ""drift away from democratic freedoms in some countries of our  neighborhood.""  Arguing that a more democratic environment in  South Asia would lead to greater regional cooperation, Saran  said that although the GOI will engage with any ruling  government, ""our sympathy will always be with democratic and  secular forces.""  Although India would like to see more  democratic regimes in bordering countries, ""it is not  something we can impose upon others,"" and is not something  for New Delhi to decide.  Saran also made an explicit  connection between the neighbors' internal affairs and the  impact on India.  The Foreign Secretary said his country's  ""destiny is inseparable from what happens in its  neighborhood."" 
 
¶3.  (C) Interpreting Saran's message, MEA Joint Secretary V  Ashok (SAARC) explained to PolCouns and Poloff two days after  the speech on February 16, that New Delhi needs to see  democracy in South Asia in ""deed, not only word.""  India had  to be clear in conveying this, because pro-democracy groups  in the neighboring countries ""look to India as an example.""  Echoing Saran, Ashok concluded that there was a point beyond  which ""democracy ceases to be a purely internal matter, and  neighbors' problems become India's problems.""  Drawing a  real-politic explanation for Saran's Wilsonian rhetoric,  Ashok argued that that lack of democracy among the neighbors  would inevitably breed instability that could spill across  India's borders. 
  Economic Cure-All 
----------------- 
 
¶4.  (C) A prominent theme in the Foreign Secretary's remarks  was that South Asia should see India as an opportunity, not  as a threat, and that it was India's diplomatic challenge to  convey that message.  Praising ""some neighbors"" for having  developed economic cooperation with India, Saran scolded  others for ""seeking to isolate themselves from India.""  Rather than see India as ""besieging"" them, they should  recognize that regional economies will benefit from  integration.  He pledged New Delhi's willingness to open its  markets and invest in cross-border infrastructure, noting  that with Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bhutan India has accepted a  non-reciprocal relationship.  But, he said during the  question period, ""the hand we extend must be grasped by the  neighbors.""  The MEA's Ashok put it more bluntly, cautioning  that if the rest of South Asia does not recognize the  economic benefits in cooperating with India, ""India has other  options such as ASEAN and the Bay of Bengal Initiative""  (BIMSTEC). 
  No More Mr. Nice Guy 
-------------------- 
 
¶5.  (C) Saran's presentation of India's policy towards its  neighbors contrasted with the approach then-Foreign Minister  Yashwant Sinha laid out in a September 2003 address ""We  Approach our Neighbors in a Spirit of Fraternity"" (as opposed  to Saran's ""India and its Neighbors"").  Like Saran, Sinha  compared South Asia unfavorably to ASEAN and the EU,  emphasized the potential ""mutual economic benefit"" the region  could experience, and asserted that India's commitment to  SAARC was ""undiluted and undiminished."" 
 
¶6.  (C) Where the two departed was in Saran's connection of  economic integration to democracy.  While Sinha never once  uttered the word, Saran's speech was littered with references  to democracy.  The Foreign Secretary also coupled democracy  and economic development in a recipe for improved regional  security, observing that South Asia does not have a shared  security perception.  A year and one half earlier, Foreign  Minister Sinha also requested the region's respect for  India's security, asking that they ""be sensitive to our  security concerns.""  Saran made the same point more starkly,  commenting that ""India cannot and will not ignore such  conduct and will take whatever steps are necessary to  safeguard its interests."" 
  Equal Opportunity Offender 
-------------------------- 
 
¶7.  (C) Despite his declared intention not to focus on  individual countries, Saran slipped in references to India's  neighbors in the context of New Delhi's concerns about them. 
Among the Foreign Secretary's barbs were: ""India would  certainly welcome more democracy in our neighborhood"" (Nepal,  Bhutan); ""transit routes, which would have created...mutual  benefit, have fallen prey to narrow political calculations""  (Pakistan); and ""hostile propaganda and intemperate  statements"" (Bangladesh).  The only neighbor Saran praised  was Sri Lanka, as a country that has ""taken advantage of  India's strengths,"" and has reaped not only economic, but  political benefits as well. 
  Comment 
------- 
 
¶8.  (C) Clearly disturbed at recent events in Nepal and  trends in Bangladesh, the Foreign Secretary was much more  assertive in expressing specific displeasure with India's  neighbors and in making an explicit connection between the  internal developments in the region, and the impact on India  than Sinha did in 2003.  Delivered to a standing-room only  crowd eager to hear where India's South Asia policy was going  following King Gyanendra's coup in Nepal and the cancellation  of the SAARC Summit, Saran's speech fueled the criticism that  New Delhi is trying to throw its weight around in the region. 
 India's next steps with Nepal will be the first test of a  policy that simultaneously acknowledges the need to work with  whichever regimes are present next door, while insisting on  democracy.  This new missionary current reflects an important  departure from an Indian political consensus that  traditionally has been strong on democracy at home, but  completely agnostic about the character of governance among  India's relationships abroad.  How seriously this new  doctrine is applied, will tell us much about India's changing  view of its international role and New Delhi's willingness to  jettison the third-world view that guided past GOI foreign  policy. 
MULFORD