This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 CALCUTTA 000176 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
STATE FOR S/CT AND SA/INS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PTER PREL PGOV IN GOI
SUBJECT: INDIAN REACTION TO ULFA TERROR DESIGNATION 
 
¶1. (SBU) SUMMARY. The addition of the United Liberation Front of 
Assam (ULFA) to the Other Selected Terrorist Organizations list 
in the 2004 Country Reports on Terrorism has been widely 
remarked by the press in India.  A large majority of public 
comments, as well as reactions from our private contacts, have 
been positive, although some have suggested it was the right 
move but long overdue.  Others have seen it as part of a 
geopolitical strategy to exert pressure on Bangladesh, where 
some of the ULFA leaders are known to reside.  A few have 
denounced it as counterproductive to proposed peace talks 
between the GOI and the ULFA, while a few others shrugged it off 
as mere rhetoric with no implications at all.  END SUMMARY. 
 
¶2. (U)  Most responses to the ULFA being added to the Other 
Selected Terrorist Organizations (OSTO) list were positive, with 
speculation revolving mainly around the possible reasons that 
prompted the move and the expected fallout.  Most press reports 
claimed that the main intention is to pressure Bangladesh 
(usually without naming the country).  A few reports pointed out 
that the label was a result of the ULFA attacking civilians. 
The influential Northeast India analyst Sanjoy Hazarika 
commented in The Statesman that this would be seen by New Delhi 
as a major gain in its campaign against violent insurgency in 
the region and an acknowledgment for the first time by 
Washington of India's security concerns in the Northeast.  He 
raised the question whether this happened "because the Americans 
are now bringing Bangladesh surely but relentlessly into their 
war on terror."  He concluded that this could help the ULFA to 
recognize that it has to come for talks, because "the time for 
the drums of war is over." 
 
¶3. (U)  Anandabazar Patrika, a Bengali daily, reported that New 
Delhi will be more cautious in its approach to the talks 
proposal with the ULFA (conveyed via the Assamese author Indira 
Goswami) after Washington has labeled the outfit "terrorist." 
They claimed this is because New Delhi and Washington have an 
agreement to work jointly against any kind of terrorist 
activity.  The television channel NDTV reported analysts' views 
that incorporating ULFA (and others) on the terror list may have 
a negative impact by raising the prestige of the organization 
and giving it more status and bargaining power.  Also, NDTV 
suggested the move would have little or no direct impact on 
those groups.  The Sentinel, a daily from Assam, claimed that 
ULFA Chairman A. Rajkhowa said the initiative for peace talks is 
the Center's ploy prior to polls and that the U.S. tag is a move 
by vested interests. 
 
¶4. (SBU)  The New Delhi-based Executive Editor of the South Asia 
Terrorism Portal, www.satp.org , Dr. Ajai 
Sahni, said he wholeheartedly supports including ULFA as an OSTO 
as a means to keep the pressure on during political engagement; 
when asked, he agreed that the listing helped demonstrate that 
the U.S. does care about terrorism even when Americans are not 
directly threatened.  Sahni, an outspoken critic of last year's 
Patterns of Global Terrorism report, indicated that his review 
was likely to be more positive this year, in large measure 
thanks to the inclusion of the ULFA. 
 
¶5. (SBU)  Assam Police's Intelligence Chief Khagen Sharma told 
Post that this "good thing" was expected, since the ULFA had 
clearly switched over from the insurgent to the terrorist mode 
in 2004.  He emphasized that there would be no adverse reaction 
in India to the U.S. move - the ULFA is already a banned group 
and its inclusion in the terror list will not have any major 
impact in India.  However he thought it could make a real 
difference internationally by making it difficult for the ULFA 
to garner support outside the country.  Sharma said that ULFA 
Chief Paresh Barua had once claimed that he had support from the 
U.S.  Another security official in Assam said that Barua may 
feel the pressure and even have to leave Bangladesh.  However, 
he suggested most Assamese people were confused about the U.S. 
step and a segment of Assamese society was unhappy about it. 
 
¶6. (SBU)  Assam's Congress Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi ruled out 
the possibility of the inclusion affecting the process of 
negotiation for initiating talks with the ULFA.  He said that 
the GOI has already established contact with the group and that 
the U.S. declaration is nothing major.  Assam Congress 
spokesperson Bobeeta Sharma told Post that the timing of the tag 
is puzzling since it comes at a time the peace talks may be 
initiated.  She also wondered what prompted the U.S. to take 
this step, since it had not paid heed to the problem earlier 
when the ULFA was more violent. 
 
¶7. (SBU)  Retired Lt. Gen. S.K. Sinha, currently the Governor of 
Kashmir and until recently Governor of Assam, said the U.S. 
decision was overdue and "should have come ten years before;" he 
also criticized Bangladesh for supporting militancy in Northeast 
India.  West Bengal BJP President Tathagata Roy told Post that 
the move is perfectly justified and should have been adopted 
earlier.  He claimed the ULFA has acted against the public 
interest, jeopardized innocent lives, maintained contact with 
militant Islamic groups, and is provided sanctuary by 
Bangladesh.  Roy mentioned the arms haul at Chittagong port 
about a year ago as clearly indicating ULFA's involvement in the 
arms trade.  (Note:  The consignee of these arms remains 
uncertain, and is an ongoing subject of speculation in the 
region.) 
 
¶8. (SBU) COMMENT:  While security officials and critics of 
Bangladesh seem happy with the ULFA's inclusion in the list, the 
Congress Party in Assam sees the announcement and its timing as 
slightly inopportune.  With state elections in Assam scheduled 
for 2006, the Congress has to tread very cautiously on sensitive 
issues, particularly militancy, where a residue of sympathy for 
the ULFA's aims remains, even if there is little support for the 
means it has employed.  While the ULFA is undoubtedly the 
biggest and best known terror group in the Northeast, the region 
is riven by ethnic insurgencies, several of which use violence 
against civilians as a tactic.  The OSTO list will undoubtedly 
be scrutinized in future years to see which other groups may or 
may not be added and with what justification.  END COMMENT. 
 
SIBLEY