VZCZCXRO4991
OO RUEHBI RUEHCI
DE RUEHNE #1318/01 0531253
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
O 221253Z FEB 06
FM AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 0393
INFO RUEHCI/AMCONSUL CALCUTTA 1858
RUEHCG/AMCONSUL CHENNAI 1667
RUEHBI/AMCONSUL MUMBAI 0909
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC
RUEAWJA/DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHDC
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC
RUEIDN/DNI WASHINGTON DC
RHHMUNA/CDR USPACOM HONOLULU HI
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 9266
RHMFISS/HQ USCENTCOM MACDILL AFB FL
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 1433
RHHMUNA/HQ USPACOM HONOLULU HI
RHMFISS/HQ USSOCOM MACDILL AFB FL
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 NEW DELHI 001318 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE/PM FOR MMARKOFF AND ERUSSELL 
STATE/INL FOR JVIGIL 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/21/2016 
TAGS: PGOV PINR PREL KCIP KCRM ECPS EFIN TINT IN
SUBJECT: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR PROPOSED DELIVERABLE ON 
INDO-US CYBER SECURITY COOPERATION 
 
REF: STATE 25966 
 
Classified By: DCM obert Blake for reasons 1.4 (B,D) 
 
¶1.  (U) This is an Action Request for PM -- see Para 5. 
 
¶2.  (SBU) National Security Council Secretariat (NSCS) Joint 
Secretary Arvind Gupta and NSCS Deputy Director Cdr. Mukesh 
 
SIPDIS 
Saini on February 21 discussed with Poloff Reftel questions 
relating to Articles 1.2 (the joint Cybersecurity Fund (CF)) 
and 1.3 (the Cybersecurity Training Institute) of the 
US-India Cybersecurity Protocol of Agreement.  Regarding the 
CF, the GOI seeks an initial investment of 100,000 USD from 
each side, with a commitment to future, equal contributions 
that would be mutually determined.  The GOI wants to keep the 
language vague to prevent limiting the CF as our cyber 
cooperation evolves, Gupta told us.  For example, restricting 
the fund's use to the current five cybersecurity working 
groups would force the parties to amend the document if 
additional working groups are approved; Gupta also noted that 
some mutually beneficial cybersecurity activities might not 
neatly fit into a working group's mandate.  New Delhi is open 
to USG amended language that allows for fund expenditure for 
any cybersecurity capacity building activity which falls 
under the umbrella of the Cybersecurity Forum; the details of 
fund management and accountability would be worked out 
bilaterally after the Protocol is signed.  We understand the 
hunt is on in Washington to identify USG funding sources, 
including possibly through INL.  Gupta and Saini have 
indicated that the GOI may reach out to the Indian private 
sector to secure their share of future infusions of funds but 
they believe they can obtain the initial contribution from 
government coffers. 
 
¶3.  (SBU) Gupta clarified that the "facility" the GOI seeks 
is not to be a physical structure, but would be more 
accurately described as a program to foster cooperative 
academic research education and R&D initiatives between US 
and Indian universities, which would include common curricula 
and text books, augmented by student exchanges.  The GOI 
wishes to promote R&D collaboration in areas such as 
forensics and cryptology, for example, and to develop mirror 
programs in an Indian Institute of Science (IISc) and a US 
institution.  Gupta and Saini indicated that IISc/Bangalore 
would be their choice for the Indian institution; Saini said 
IISc/Bangalore is already engaging with Carnegie Mellon along 
these lines. 
 
¶4.  (SBU) Gupta suggested that CF funds could be used to 
promote the academic relationship with scholarships for 
students. Gupta also raised with Poloff the prospect of 
helping Indian (and presumably US) universities develop 
post-graduate degree programs on cybersecurity.  (NOTE: 
Currently, some Indian IT programs include courses on 
information security, but none have a full curriculum 
dedicated to cybersecurity.  End Note.)  Gupta 
was confident that the CF and academic programs could be 
managed concurrently. 
 
¶5.  (C) Action Request for PM: As adept as Gupta and Saini 
are at working the Indian bureaucracy, they are turning to us 
(read: Washington) to provide the amended language for the 
Cybersecurity Protocol of Agreement.  They would not say so 
directly, but our impression is that they believe they can 
clear USG-approved language within the GOI more easily than 
they can craft language that will pass Washington's muster. 
 
Comment: Time is of the Essence 
------------------------------- 
 
¶6.  (C) Gupta recognizes that many operational details remain 
to be worked out; the focus here is on producing a mutually 
acceptable document that charts the path for cybersecurity 
cooperation forward and produces something tangible along the 
 
NEW DELHI 00001318  002 OF 002 
 
 
way, and to do so in time for the POTUS visit.  Mission 
believes that the USG will be able to structure the CF's 
management and retain sufficient control to ensure 
accountability.  Post is unsure how much the USG would need 
the CF to finance our own training or capacity building, but 
it would ease the budgetary shock of trying to arrange USG 
travel to cybersecurity events in India, which has bedeviled 
many past cyber events.  Gupta and Saini look forward to 
working out the details once the commitment to moving forward 
has been cemented and the agreement has been signed. 
 
¶7.  (C) Saini is clearly the driving force behind the GOI's 
focus on cybersecurity, as well as one of the most dynamic 
GOI bureaucrats we know.  Saini will retire from government 
service in April, and will be out of the NSCS as of early or 
mid-March; his replacement has not yet been identified.  In 
addition to the deadline posed by including a cybersecurity 
deliverable for the POTUS visit, our best chance of forward 
movement on cybersecurity cooperation is during the remainder 
of Saini's tenure. 
 
¶8.  (U) Visit New Delhi's Classified Website: 
(http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/sa/newdelhi/) 
MULFORD