Indias 2004 National Elections

CRS Report for Congress
India’s 2004 National Elections
July 12, 2004
K. Alan Kronstadt
Analyst in Asian Affairs
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

India’s 2004 National Elections
U.S. relations with India depend largely on India’s political leadership. India’s
2004 national elections ended governance by the center-right coalition headed by
Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and brought in a new center-left coalition led
by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Following the upset victory for the
historically-dominant Indian National Congress Party led by Sonia Gandhi, Gandhi
declined the post of Prime Minister in the new left-leaning United Progressive
Alliance (UPA) coalition government, instead nominating her party lieutenant,
Oxford-educated economist Manmohan Singh, for the job. As Finance Minister from
1991-1996, Singh was the architect of major Indian economic reform and
liberalization efforts. On May 22, the widely-esteemed Sikh became India’s first-
ever non-Hindu Prime Minister. The defeated Bharatiya Janata Party now sits in
opposition at the national level, led in Parliament by former Deputy Prime Minister
Lal Advani. A coalition of communist parties supports the UPA, but New Delhi’s
economic, foreign, and security policies are not expected to be significantly altered.
The new government has vowed to continue close and positive engagement with the
United States in all areas. This report, which will not be updated, provides an
overview of the elections, key parties, and U.S. policy interests.

Overview ........................................................2
Key Parties.......................................................4
Indian National Congress .......................................4
Bharatiya Janata Party..........................................4
Left Front....................................................6
Regional Parties...............................................6
Economic, Foreign, and Security Policy................................7
India-U.S. Relations................................................8
List of Tables
Selected Election Results............................................6

India’s 2004 National Elections
U.S. relations with India depend largely on India’s political leadership. India’s
2004 national elections ended governance by the center-right coalition headed by
Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and brought in a new center-left coalition led
by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. This report provides an overview of the
elections, key parties, and U.S. policy interests.
The United States views India as a “strategic partner” on the world stage. In
January 2004, the United States and India formalized an initiative to deepen relations
in the so-called “quartet” areas: expanded cooperation on civilian nuclear activities,
civilian space programs, and high technology trade, and expanded dialogue on
missile defense. This Next Steps in Strategic Partnership effort compliments an
ongoing bilateral Defense Policy Group forum, as well as joint military exercises,
counterterrorism cooperation, and a variety of U.S. assistance programs for India.
While U.S.-India economic and commercial ties have grown significantly in recent
years, they still are viewed as being far smaller than is both possible and desirable,
due in large part to what the United States sees as excessive regulatory and
bureaucratic structures in the Indian economy. The United States has lauded India’s
recent efforts to reform its once quasi-socialist economy, although there continues
to be U.S. concern that movement has been slow and inconsistent.1
The sea change in U.S.-India relations after the Cold War accelerated after a
March 2000 visit to India by then-President Clinton, and became even more apparent
in the wake of September 2001 and India’s offer of full cooperation with U.S.-led
counterterrorism efforts. Much of the progress in bilateral relations came through
U.S. engagement with a center-right coalition government in New Delhi led by
former Prime Minister Vajpayee. In May 2004, this coalition was ousted by a
surprise resurgence of the Indian National Congress (hereafter “Congress”), which
now leads a center-left coalition that includes the support of communist parties.
Despite the new government’s appointment of Indian officials associated with India’s
“nonalignment” policies of the past and with sometimes vocal criticism of U.S.
foreign policy, early indications are that the Congress-led coalition will make no
major changes to India’s economic, foreign, and security policies. The United States
likely will closely monitor New Delhi’s future approaches to economic reform,
relations with neighboring Pakistan (including the unresolved Kashmir issue),
defense posture and weapons proliferation, and human rights protection.

1 See Statement of Assistant Secretary of State Christina Rocca Before the House
International Relations Committee, “U.S. Interests and Foreign Policy Priorities in South
Asia,” June 22, 2004; “State Dept’s Larson Urges India to Keep Up Economic Reforms,”
U.S. Department of State Washington File, March 15, 2004.

India is a federal republic of more than one billion inhabitants. The bulk of
executive power rests with the prime minister and his or her cabinet (the Indian
president is a ceremonial chief of state with limited executive powers). Most of
India’s prime ministers have come from the country’s Hindi-speaking northern
regions and, until 2004, all but one had been upper-caste Hindus.2 The 543-seat Lok
Sabha (People’s House) is the locus of national power, with directly-elected
representatives from each of the country’s 28 states and seven union territories. A
smaller upper house, the Rajya Sabha (Council of States), may review, but not veto,
most legislation, and has no power over the prime minister or the cabinet. National
and state legislators are elected to five-year terms. The previous national election
was held in October 1999. Although India’s political stage is crowded with
numerous regional and caste-based parties, recent years have seen an increasingly
dyadic battle between two major parties that vie for smaller allies in a system that
now requires coalitional politics (no party has won a national election outright since
1984). Since 1998, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) had led a ruling National
Democratic Alliance (NDA) coalition of more than 20 parties working under the
leadership of Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. The October 1999 Lok Sabha
elections solidified the BJP’s standing. The key opposition party during this time
was the Congress Party.3
During April and May 2004, India held a four-phase national election to seat a
new Lok Sabha. The NDA called elections six months early in an apparent effort
to capitalize on perceived momentum from positive economic news and from three
convincing state-level victories over Congress in December 2003. Some 380 million
Indians cast ballots at nearly 700,000 polling stations. When results were announced
on May 13, nearly all observers and participants — including Prime Minister Atal
Vajpayee — were surprised by the upset defeat of the NDA, and by a simultaneous
resurgence of the Congress Party led by Sonia Gandhi, the Italian-born widow of
former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, which had forged strategic and unprecedented
alliances with powerful regional parties. On May 18, Gandhi stunned her supporters
by declining the position of prime minister in a new United Progressive Alliance
(UPA) coalition government, instead nominating her party lieutenant, Oxford-
educated economist Manmohan Singh, for the job. As Finance Minister from 1991-
1996, Singh was the architect of major Indian economic reform and liberalization
efforts. On May 22, the widely-esteemed Sikh became India’s first-ever non-Hindu
Prime Minister.
Poll results also were notable for the best-ever showing of a leftist alliance led
by the Communist Party of India (Marxist), which won a total of 62 seats, nearly all

2 Hindus account for about 82% of India’s population, but a Muslim minority of some 145
million (about 13%) gives the country a Muslim population second only to Indonesia’s.
Sikhs and Christians each account for about 2% of the population.
3 In 1999, the BJP and its allies won 296 Lok Sabha seats, while Congress and its allies took
134. Key NDA members — mostly ethno-linguistic regional parties — include the
AIADMK of Tamil Nadu, the Telugu Desam Party of Andhra Pradesh, the Akali Dal of
Punjab, the Shiv Sena of Maharashtra, and the Trinmool Congress of West Bengal.

of them from West Bengal and Kerala. Although this Left Front is not part of the
new UPA government, it is supporting the UPA from outside. Investor fears that a
new coalition government including communists might curtail or halt India’s
economic reform and liberalization process apparently led to huge losses in the
country’s stock markets: Bombay’s benchmark Sensex index lost 11% of its value
on May 17, the second-largest daily loss ever, and the value of India’s largest
companies reportedly declined by some $40 billion over seven days, with state-
owned businesses slated for public sale taking the greatest hits. Market recovery
began after Congress Party leaders offered assurances that the new government
would be “pro-growth, pro-savings, and pro-investment.”4
Numerous analysts weighed in on the meaning of the complex electoral results.
A long tradition of anti-incumbency was only partly apparent in 2004, as many states
re-elected sitting parliamentarians. It also is notable that the BJP-led coalition
received slightly more total votes than did the Congress-led alliance. However, huge
reversals for the incumbent NDA-allied Telugu Desam Party of the Andhra Pradesh
state — as well as for the BJP, which fell from 181 seats in parliament to only 138
— were seen by many as evidence that India’s rural poor were not persuaded by the
NDA’s “India Shining” campaign that sought to highlight the country’s economic
gains (Andhra Pradesh’s capital, Hyderabad, has been touted as an information
technology boom-town5). It may be that voters found the NDA insufficiently
attentive to the core issues of “bijli, sadak, pani” (power, roads, water) and voiced
a rejection of neo-liberal economic reforms that were seen to benefit India’s middle-
and upper-classes only.6
Other analysts saw in the results a rejection of the Hindu nationalism associated
with the BJP (just days after a December 2002 state election victory in Gujarat, the
BJP’s president declared that his party would “duplicate the Gujarat experience
everywhere” as it represented a “mandate for the [Hindutva] ideology”7). Sonia
Gandhi’s foreign origin had become a key point of criticism for these groups and it
is likely that her decision to pass on the prime ministership was in part a result of her
not wanting to become a subject of controversy, as Hindu nationalist groups had
threatened to launch a nationwide protest campaign if she took the prime
ministership. It also is widely held that Gandhi’s action was driven by a perceived
interest in establishing circumstances in which her son Rahul, who ran for and won
a parliamentary seat for the first time this year, can assume the family “dynasty”
mantle later in the decade.8

4 Myles Neligan, “India Election Takes Economic Toll,” BBC News, May 17, 2004; “No
More Bear Hugs, Warns Congress,” Business Standard (Bombay), May 18, 2004.
5 Savitri Choudhary, “See You, CEO,” Outlook India (Delhi), May 24, 2004.
6 Jayati Ghosh, “Whose India is Shining?” Frontline (Madras), February 27, 2004; C.P.
Chandrasekhar, “The Verdict and the Way Ahead,” Frontline (Madras), June 18, 2004.
7 “India’s BJP Sets Hardline Agenda,” BBC News, December 23, 2002. “Hindutva,” or
“Hindu-ness,” is a political philosophy that seeks to revitalize awareness of India’s Hindu
roots and the fundamentally Hindu nature of the country.
8 Rasheed Kidwai, “Crashing Welcome to Sonia,” Telegraph (Calcutta), May 18, 2004;

Key Parties
Indian National Congress
The dynastic Congress Party of Jawaharlal Nehru, his daughter, Indira Gandhi,
and her son, Rajiv, had dominated India’s political stage for 45 of its first 56 years
of independence, but did not hold the prime ministership after May 1996. Never
before had Congress been out of power in New Delhi for such a long period
(although it continued to hold power in 11 states). After 1998, Congress’s national
leader was Rajiv’s widow, the Italian-born Catholic Sonia Gandhi, who took to
politics only with reluctance. Factors in the decline of support for Congress included
neglect of its grassroots political organizations by the leadership, a perceived lack of
responsiveness to such major constituent groups as Muslims and lower castes, the
rise of regional and issue-based parties, and allegations of widespread corruption
involving party leaders. Gandhi herself, while enjoying the loyalty of most party
leaders, came under fire for allegedly poor campaign skills and for her foreign
In the wake of three surprise state-level losses in December 2003, Gandhi called
on India’s secular forces to close ranks in resisting the BJP’s “development”
emphasis, insisting that it was merely a cover for the BJP’s ongoing “agenda of
hatred and divisiveness.” Motivated by a belief that secular forces would hang
together or be hanged separately, Congress began actively seeking alliance partners.9
Many analysts had argued that Gandhi represented a net liability for the party,10 a
long-running and contentious debate that likely was settled by the outpouring of
affection for her in May 2004. Still, some analysts are concerned that Gandhi’s
significant and “extra-constitutional” influence bodes poorly for the future stability
both of the UPA and of the Congress Party, itself.11 The new Prime Minister’s top
four cabinet ministries (Home, External Affairs, Defense, and Finance) are being
headed by Congress stalwarts.
Bharatiya Janata Party
The BJP, associated with Hindu nationalist groups, had enjoyed rapid success
in national politics. Riding a crest of rising Hindu nationalism, it increased its
strength in Parliament from only two seats in 1984 to 181 seats 1999. Some

8 (...continued)
“Foreign Issue of Non-Issue?” Times of India (Delhi), May 19, 2004. Gandhi’s decision was
widely praised by commentators (“Indian Media Hails Sonia Gandhi’s Renunciation of
Premier’s Post,” Agence France Presse, May 19, 2004). Paul Watson, “Indian Dynasty
Grooms Its Next Political Star,” Los Angeles Times, June 22, 2004.
9 “Sonia Calls On Secular Forces to Join Hands,” Hindu (Madras), December 14, 2003;
Bhavdeep Kang, “Perestroika!,” Outlook India (Delhi), December 22, 2003.
10 See “Sinking Sonia,” India Today (Delhi), December 22, 2003.
11 See Arun Swamy, “Back to the Future” (Occasional Paper), Asia-Pacific Center for
Security Studies, June 2004; “India: New Government on an Unsteady Path?” Stratfor, May

19, 2004.

observers hold elements of the BJP, as the political arm of the extremist Hindu
nationalist organization Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS or National Volunteer
Force), responsible for the outbreaks of serious communal violence in which a
mosque was destroyed at Ayodhya and some 3,000 people were killed in anti-Muslim
rioting in Bombay and elsewhere. While in power, the BJP worked — with limited
success — to change its image from right-wing Hindu nationalist to conservative and
moderate, although anti-Muslim riots in BJP-run Gujarat in early 2002 again
damaged the party’s national and international credentials.
In general terms, the BJP has comprised a moderate wing focused on
governance and development, and a hardline wing more concerned with “emotive”
issues related to Hindu nationalism. Former PM Atal Vajpayee is viewed as the
leading moderate, while former Deputy PM and current BJP parliamentary leader Lal
Advani fronts the hardline faction. Advani, who steered the BJP’s 2004 electoral
strategy, has widely been viewed as heir-apparent to Vajpayee, but Advani’s close
ties to the RSS and Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP or World Hindu Council), and past
involvement in communal conflict (especially the 1992 destruction of the Babri
Mosque and ensuing violence), have denied him the widespread popularity enjoyed
by Vajpayee.12 Because the BJP did not play the “Hindutva card” in recent state
elections, its impressive December 2003 victories in three of four contested states
were viewed as a triumph of the politics of development associated with Vajpayee.
Still, national election results were widely viewed as a serious blow to the Hindu
nationalist project.13
BJP leaders attributed their setback to complacency and overconfidence. Hindu
nationalists blamed the NDA’s defeat on an alleged betrayal of the Hindutva cause
by the BJP; one top leader called for the creation of a new party to “look after the
interest of Hindus” (BJP leaders such as Advani equate Hindutva with nationalism).14
The long-standing rift between moderates and hardliners came to the fore in a June
debate over the possible removal from power of the controversial Chief Minister of
Gujarat, BJP notable Narendra Modi. Vajpayee himself suggested that Modi should
go, but he was swiftly rebuked by the RSS chief in a sign that the BJP is likely to
maintain a more hardline position while in opposition.15

12 In June 2003, India’s Central Bureau of Investigation filed conspiracy charges against
Advani and seven others for their role in the mosque’s destruction and rioting that killed
more than 3,000, but, in September, a court ruled that Advani would not stand trial.
13 Harish Kare, “BJP Sweeps Hindi Heartland,” Hindu (Madras), December 5, 2003; “BJP
Dilutes Nationalist Agenda,” Jane’s Intelligence Digest, December 12, 2003; John
Lancaster, “Hindu Nationalists Regroup After Loss,” Washington Post, June 6, 2004.
14 John Lancaster, “Hindu Nationalists Regroup After Loss,” Washington Post, June 6, 2004;
“Complacency Did Us In: Vajpayee,” Times of India (Delhi), June 1, 2004; “India Shining
Backfired: Advani,” Times of India (Delhi), May 28, 2004; Nirmalya Banerjee, “VHP Wants
New Party for Hindus,” Times of India (Delhi), June 29, 2004. For an overview of the
Hindutva idea, see K.N. Panikkar, “In the Name of Nationalism,” Frontline (Madras),
March 26, 2004.
15 Shekhar Iyer, “RSS Raps Vajpayee, Says Modi Must Stay,” Hindustan Times (Delhi),
June 15, 2004.

Selected Election Results
Indian National Congress + allies (UPA)- 217 seats (35.8% of total vote)
Bharatiya Janata Party + allies (NDA)- 185 seats (35.9% of total vote)
Left Front (UPA supporters)- 62 seats (8.3% of total vote)
Top PartiesSeatsWon% of Seats% ofVote
Indian National Congress (UPA leader)14527%26.7%
Bharatiya Janata Party (NDA leader)13825%22.2%
Communist Party of India - Marxist (UPA supporter;438%5.7%
mainly West Bengal and Kerala states)
Samajwadi Party (independent; Uttar Pradesh state)367%4.3%
Rashtriya Janata Dal (UPA member; mainly Bihar state)244%2.2%
Bahujan Samaj Party (independent; Uttar Pradesh State)193%5.4%
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (UPA member; Tamil Nadu163%1.8%
Source: Election Commission of India; “The Big Picture,” Hindu (Madras), May 20, 2004.
Left Front
Although the Communist Party of India (Marxist) seated the third largest
number of parliamentarians in 2004, its vote bank is almost wholly limited to West
Bengal and Kerala (the Left Front coalition holds about 11% of all Lok Sabha seats).
Communist parties have in the past been bitter rivals of the Congress in these states,
but a mutual commitment to secularism appears to have motivated their cooperation
against the BJP in 2004. Early alarm was sounded that the influence of communists
in New Delhi might derail India’s economic reform efforts, however, Indian
industrial leaders have sought to assure foreign investors that Left Front members are
not “Cuba-style communists,” but can be expected to support the UPA reform
agenda. The communist Chief Minister of West Bengal has himself actively sought
corporate investment in his state.16
Regional Parties
The power of regional and caste-based parties has become an increasingly
important variable in Indian politics; the most recent poll saw such parties receiving
nearly half of all votes cast. Never before had the Congress Party entered into pre-
poll alliances at the national level, and numerous analysts attributed Congress’s

16 Jay Solomon and Eric Bellman, “India’s Gandhi to Seek Support From Left,” Wall Street
Journal, May 17, 2004; Edward Luce, “Communists Set to Back Delhi’s Reformist Budget,”
Financial Times (London), June 17, 2004; “India Inc Homes in on Red Citadel,” Indian
Express (Delhi), May 21, 2004.

success to precisely this new tack, especially thorough arrangements with the Bihar-
based Rashtriya Janata Dal and Tamil Nadu’s Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam.17 The
influence of large and smaller regional parties, alike, is seen to be reflected in the
UPA’s ministerial appointments, and in its professed attention to rural issues and
center-state relations.18
Economic, Foreign, and Security Policy
Prime Minister Singh has insisted that development will be a central priority of
the UPA government, with reforms aimed at reducing poverty and increasing
employment. He also emphasizes that privatization is not part of UPA ideology and
that major public sector concerns will not be sold off. The appointment of Harvard-
educated lawyer and economic reformer Palaniappan Chidambaram to head the
Finance Ministry, and a UPA Common Minimum Program (CMP) emphasizing
economic growth and increased investment, have been welcomed by most business
interests, even if the pace of privatization and labor reform efforts may slower. The
UPA’s first budget, released on July 8, generally was lauded by Indian industrial
groups as “progressive and forward-looking.”19 The budget calls for a major increase
in defense expenditures, up 27 percent over the previous year.
Both Prime Minister Singh and his new External Affairs Minister, career
diplomat Natwar Singh, have given indications that their initial foreign policy focus
will be on India’s immediate neighbors. This may mean a deeper diplomatic
engagement in the Sri Lankan conflict, along with more energetic efforts to assist the
Nepali government in its struggle with communist rebels. Perhaps most significantly,
the India-Pakistan peace initiative begun in April 2003 suffered no apparent damage
from the change of government in New Delhi, with both sides insisting that the
process will continue. The UPA has indicated that it will make the 1972 Simla
Agreement between India and Pakistan the basis of its relationship with Islamabad,
even as it will abide by all subsequent accords.20 Since the new government was

17 See comments by Walter Anderson in “Briefing on the 2004 Indian General Elections,”
Center for Strategic and International Studies, June 7, 2004, available at
[]; Alistar McMillan, “Alliances Did the Trick for
Congress,” Hindu (Madras), May 20, 2004; Sukumar Muralidharan, “Challenges Ahead,”
Frontline (Madras), June 18, 2004. Two powerful Uttar Pradesh parties, the Bahujan Samaj
Party and the Samajwadi Party, accounted for nearly 10% of all votes cast nationwide in
2004. Though rivals, both are seen to tacitly support the UPA government (“Prime Minister
Hosts Dinner,” Hindu (Madras), June 8, 2004).
18 Amy Waldman, “India Swears In 13th Prime Minister and First Sikh in Job,” New York
Times, May 23, 2004; C.L. Manoj, “A Thought Spared for Faceless Millions,” Economic
Times (Delhi), May 22, 2004.
19 “‘This Government Will Last Five Years,’” Outlook India (Delhi), May 20, 2004; Joanna
Slater, “Reformers Take Control,” Far Eastern Economic Review (Hong Kong), June 3,
2004; “CII Applauds UPA’s Maiden Budget,” Confederation of Indian Industry Press
Release, New Delhi, July 8, 2004.
20 “Text of Foreign Secretary Shashank’s Statement,” Hindustan Times (Delhi), June 1,

seated, India and Pakistan have agreed to increase bilateral counternarcotics
cooperation; to establish a hotline to reduce the threat of accidental nuclear war; to
continue mutual notifications of missile launches; to return their respective embassies
to full strength; and to re-establish consulates in Bombay and Karachi. New National
Security Advisor J.N. Dixit has been assigned to take the lead role in relations with
China, replacing his predecessor, Brajesh Mishra, and the world’s two most populous
countries have vowed to bolster defense and trade ties while moving forward on
efforts to resolve outstanding territorial disputes.21 India also agreed to increase
bilateral defense ties with Japan through periodic ministerial-level interaction.
The new Prime Minister has vowed to repeal the controversial 2002 Prevention
of Terrorism Act that some have called a tool for discrimination against religious
minorities and opposition political figures. Statements about the necessity of
preventing a repeat of the communal violence seen in Gujarat in 2002 have
encouraged those who hope that a secularist, left-leaning government will do more
to both oppose such divisiveness and bring to justice those who encourage it through
lawless means.22 It remains unclear how the UPA intends to address roiling
separatist violence in several of India’s northeastern states. On military issues, the
UPA states an intent to hasten India’s modernization efforts and to maintain a
“credible nuclear weapons program” while pursuing confidence-building measures
with its “nuclear neighbors.”23
India-U.S. Relations
It is as yet unclear how, if at all, the Congress-led government might differ from
its predecessor in terms of relations with the United States. Many of Prime Minister
Singh’s top lieutenants were steeped in the non-alignment policies of the Congress
Party during the Cold War. External Affairs Minister Natwar Singh and National
Security Advisor J.N. Dixit have in the past been highly critical of such issues as U.S.
involvement in Iraq, U.S. nonproliferation policy, and U.S. designation of Pakistan
as a “major non-NATO ally.” Their criticisms often went far beyond similar
concerns raised by the outgoing BJP-led alliance.24 The Congress-led government
continues to state that it has no plans to contribute Indian troops for service in Iraq,

20 (...continued)


21 “India, China to Strengthen Military Ties, Push Trade,” Associated Press Newswires, June

21, 2004.

22 “India to Scrap 9/11 Anti-Terror Law,” Agence France Presse, July 5, 2004
23 “UPA Government to Adhere to Six Basic Principles of Governance,” Hindu (Madras),
May 28, 2004, available at
[ 05/28/stories/2004052807371200.htm] .
24 Siddharth Varadarajan, “Dixit Choice Cong’s Anti-US Line,” Times of India (Delhi), May

26, 2004.

although U.S. officials are reportedly seeking to “overcome” Indian reservations.25
The possible influences of communist parties have added to concerns that New Delhi
may become at least somewhat more critical of and less cooperative with the United
States on bilateral and global issues. However, early statements from the UPA,
including sections of its Common Minimum Program, indicate that the Congress-led
government will seek “closer engagements and relations” with the United States,
even as it will “oppose all attempts at unilateralism” in world affairs. A June
meeting of the U.S.-India Defense Policy Group — the first between high-level U.S.
officials and the UPA government — and a five-day India-United States conference
on space science and commerce in Bangalore brought joint statements that
cooperative bilateral relations will continue.26

25 “Manmohan Rules Out Troops to Iraq,” Hindustan Times (Delhi), July 8, 2004; Rahul
Bedi, “India in Talks on Sending Troops to Iraq,” Jane’s Defense Weekly, June 16, 2004.
26 “UPA Government to Adhere to Six Basic Principles of Governance,” Hindu (Madras),
May 28, 2004, available at
[]; Sanjeev Miglani,
“New Indian Govt Sees Closer Defense Ties with US,” Reuters News, June 1, 2004; “India,
US Open Up Space Partnership,” Business Line (Madras), June 26, 2004.