Carr and driver



Bob Carr and I met such a long time ago that the first time he heard me speak, at a conference in Queensland, was also the first time he heard anyone use the term “blogger.” I remember him more for his description of being part of the Chester A. Arthur Club. Who is that you may ask? The very question explains the club: amateur historians who met to discuss obscure people of the past. Arthur was arguably the most unknown of United States presidents. When Carr and I spoke, he had just had a club session where a member had been asked to hold forth on the most obscure of Roman emperors. Obscure he was, I can’t remember the name today. He reigned for less than a day before being murdered by Praetorians.

Now Carr is in the driving set of Australian foreign policy. The new foreign minister, as careful and methodical about his brief as his predecessor Kevin Rudd was flamboyant and incisive just made his first visit to India. He echoed strongly what Australian prime minister Julia Gillard has been pushing for in the bilateral relationship with India.

“India and Australia are moving towards a strategic convergence that will make the more important to each other,” he said. Gillard had done much of the heavy lifting on that, having persuaded her party to allow uranium exports to India. The talks for including the prerequisite safeguard agreement, said Carr, will begin in March.

There was the normal spiel of shared values and so on. But everyone knows there is still a legacy, thankfully disappearing, of bad blood between India and Australia — and it’s not about sledging.

Carr saw three tangible areas on which the bilateral relationship could move forward.

One was migration. In the last Oz financial year, India was the single largest source of permanent immigrant to Australia, about 30,000. Carr reminisced about when he was premier of New South Wales and kept seeing the number of Indian students whom he had to felicitate for achievement rising each year.

Two was energy. Australia wanted to position itself as a “stable and reliable” energy supplier for the rising Inda. Australia already played this role for South Korea, Japan and China. The selling point is reliability. Australia’s labour costs are high, so its natural gas and coal is rarely priced competitively. But with Indonesia and other sources changing their tune every six months, the Australian offer looks better as time passes. As Carr points out, “South Koreans like that we are stable, have the rule of law, and are open to foreign investment.” So they pay the premium. As for the price of Oz coal and gas, Carr says merely, “let the market take care of that. If we Australians charge too much, then the market will correct. In any case, we have legal provisions for foreign labour coming to work in foreign projects in Australia.”

Third, of course, is security. The surprise so far is only how much the two countries till have to do. Carr and his aides stressed that the Malabar Exercises were a bilateral military exercise between the US and India. “They are being hosted by the US this time, so they can choose who to invite,” said Carr. This humility is part appeasement for Australia’s decision to walkout of the exercises some years ago. “But we would like to rejoin,” he said. India’s defence minister AK Anthony will visit Oz in March to see how far things can go.

Carr is suitably optimistic about the two countries and their shared future. “What comes together will come together,” he says.

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (1 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...
  • Anonymous

    Law should encourage free speech rather than inhibit it.Besides,law, specially the archaic ones should not be used to silence critics..

    [Reply]

  • NoDoubleStandard

    Well, I would like to see you make a similar persuasive argument in favour of liberal views when it comes to a particular region. As in when people criticize that religion

    [Reply]

  • pankaj#1

    Zia;
    When you say, minority character of this University, what you mean by it? Please elaborate.

    [Reply]

    Dr Mishra Reply:

    good question Dr Pankaj

    [Reply]

    pankaj#1 Reply:

    Thanks.

    [Reply]

    engricn Reply:

    minority like brhmns of india.hiding among hindus but keeping their identity entact.

  • Anonymous

    AMU was the focal point of Pakistan movement. It should have been closed down in 1947.

    [Reply]

    engrich Reply:

    pakistan was british plan.

    [Reply]

    Akhtar Arif Reply:

    Hey education institution ……….. is not closed. its the symbol of education and root of dessipation of knowledge. Both muslims, hindus and all are imparted education here. The first graduate of AMU was a hindu. Only idiot with biased views will have such opinion.

    [Reply]

    Raghavendra Reply:

    If both hindus and muslims both study then why you people want minority status to that university my dear? let it be an university for all communities and not just muslims

    [Reply]

  • http://twitter.com/rahulgrover88 CArahulgrover88

    what is the minority status , aint amu has majority muslims students?

    [Reply]

  • kanishka

    Here is the standard response to all your rantings:

    “We would have listened to your sob-stories if Muslims were facing
    problems only in India. But your folks seem to be having problems throughout
    the world including in your own Muslim Ummah where the Shias and Sunnis have
    been at each other’s throats for the last 1400 years now! There is not a single point of
    time in the Islamic History when the religion of PEACE was ever at peace either
    with the non-muslims or even with fellow Muslims (from rival sects)! Your
    death-cult has proven to be a thorn in everyone’s rear. Will Aligarh Univ ever work for peace? No Never.

    Ever heard of this
    saying:

    “When in
    minority, blow up the KAFIRS; when in majority, blow up the FAKIRS”
    or

    “When in minority, blow up the infidels; when in majority, blow up each
    other”?”

    [Reply]

    momn doter Reply:

    good one dude. My thoughts exactly

    [Reply]

    Akhtar Arif Reply:

    Muslims are facing problems in iraq…… after fake charges of WMDs and subsequent war…………killing 8 million iraqis by sanctions on essential items and wars of colonisation for oil. Its shameful demoncratic world barking…….. on mind control media as the war in iraq as war of terror but they are creating terrror. Shame on imperialistic alliance craving for OIL and energy dependency killing innocents. Saddam was a ruthless dictator but he was killed to be replaced by puppet regime and divide sectarian division of muslims. Afghanistan had banned OPIUM smuggling in 1996 so by 2001 after false flag 9/11 the supply of illegal opium drugs were not in market so the US attacked them in the name of extremist ideology. About 100,000 people die avoidably from opiate drug-related causes each year. The US Alliance restored the Taliban-destroyed Afghan opium industry from 6% of world market share in 2001 to over 90% today. It can accordingly be estimated that about 0.1 million people per year x 0.9 x 9 years = 0.8 million people have died globally due to US Alliance restoration of the Taliban-destroyed Afghan opium industry, this including about 100,000 Americans and 3,000 Australians. Shame on people following blindly the western news and media without intellectual analysation.

    [Reply]

    Akhtar Arif Reply:

    `Hinduism’, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU said in

    his “THE DISCOVERY OF INDIA” (Page 37):

    “HINDUISM as a faith is vague, amorphous, many sided, all things

    to all men. It is hardly possible to define it, or indeed to say

    definitely whether it is a religion or not, in the usual sense of the

    word. In its present form, and even in the past, it embraces many

    beliefs and practices, from the highest to the lowest, often

    opposed to or contradicting each other.”

    [Reply]

    Akhtar Arif Reply:

    `Hinduism’ is merely a legalised form of slavery to the Brahmin race. It is not a religion, but a cancer and a disease that must be fought at all costs if this world is to survive. The plagues of Nazism and Totalitarianism, which have claimed more than 200 million lives this century alone, have their roots in Brahmanism, the former having been originated by Pandit Manu, and the latter by Pandit Kautilya. The death and destruction, the sheer human misery caused by Huinduism has already exceeded that which would be caused by a full-scale nuclear holocaust. The Ramayana and the Mahabharat are no doubt GREAT stories, but they are also stories that belong to India’s ancient past. We
    cannot scientifically or factually prove the authenticity of these tales, and as such, we cannot accept Hinduism as a religion. Religion is a “man to God” relationship and not a “man to man” relationship. To reach God, treating fellow human beings with love, justice and equal rights is a duty upon the believer. Most religions preach these ideals. Unfortunately Hinduism, which originated from the Brahmins, preaches that to reach your God you should not treat them with justice or give them equal rights. On the other hand Hinduism teaches a man how to cheat and enslave people in the name of “Religion”. With this technique, 5% (Brahmins) of India’s population have control over 95% of its people.

    [Reply]

  • Nirode Mohanty

    That University should be named as Aligarh University. It was created just to have Muslim Identity and to create Pakistan. It is serving the hard core radicals. Indian tax payers money should not support it.No place for communalism please. Ms. Gandhi be a true national, do not buy their votes

    [Reply]

  • Rana

    How about a blog that critiques radicalism in Islam written from the perspective of a free-thinking, liberal muslim. There aren’t too many of the latter and so your blog could be a good starting point for it. Then you are self-reflexive about the flaws within your own religion as you are about the majority’s so called “oppressive” rule.

    [Reply]

    Faulitics Reply:

    Zia is not a liberal or a free thinker. He sounds pretty communal to me.

    [Reply]

  • Rahul chodo

    Please this Zeehadi jurnalist Zia always pick and choose the subject which would lies about the Muslim status in India in the light of paid justice Sacchar report. I think Hindu majority India certain pockets Hindus are the most sufferers economically and financially and it has been kept that way because Congress party headed by Sonia Maino is a avid Hindu hater and she spent all the dole out social scheme targeting only the upliftment of the Muslim with Saccahr report which Con party already made it by paying handsome amount to justice scahhar. Now some shoul ask this Zeehadi journalist Mr.Zia to describe the minority status of the Hindus in Paksitan or may be the whole 53 Islamic nation. What the status of the non_Muslim? Hindus? Please tell the truth. If you can’t then majority Hindus have every right to kick your ugly face back to Pakistan. That is the only reason these corrupt Muslim alwsyas prefer Congress in power even at the cost of the present scams and the loot. Because these selfish Muslim knew about their barbaric genocide of the Hindus and they did not want to take any chance in supporting any other party rather than Congress.

    [Reply]

  • momn doter

    You are a muslim, what’s with Sir Sayyed Ahmed Khan and Gandhi.

    [Reply]

  • Faulitics

    Another boring article on a boring topic when there are so many interesting “Muslim” topics for this “Muslim affairs” writer.

    [Reply]

  • Faulitics

    Seconding Rajeev’s point, here is one fact about this wonderful place which Zia left out. Maybe he “forgot”. From Wikipedia

    -Before 1939, faculty and students supported an all-India nationalist movement. After 1939, political sentiment shifted toward support for a Muslim separatist movement. Students and faculty mobilised behind Mohammed Ali Jinnah and the Muslim League hence became an epicentre of Pakistan Movement

    So it was a hub of anti India and communal Islamist forces even back in 1947. Zia didn’t say if things changed in 2013 or its still the same.

    [Reply]

    engricn Reply:

    all because of high caste hindu support to british robbers and occupiers.

    [Reply]

  • indian

    shaala shuorer baccha

    [Reply]

  • Debasish

    Why should we have a Aligarh Muslim University or a Banaras Hindu University is a secular nation? Why should we talk about “minority” status for a university in a secular nation? Why can’t we rise above religion? Zia – you were seeking the answer to the question “Am I a Muslim first or an Indian first?”. From your posts, the readers definitely know the answer.

    [Reply]

    Anonymous Reply:

    AMU divided the nation whereas BHU has not. There is the difference. Don’t try to get certificate of secularism from communal muslims.

    [Reply]

    engrich Reply:

    both have divided india and sodiety.pakistan was result of british plan.generally muslims were against it.

    [Reply]

  • Ravi

    This is NA Pak hafees on the line.

    I Na- Pak hafees hereby declare that we should not keep crying discrimination discrimination discrimination….

    After all we are backward becasue idiots like me make youngsters into violent suicide bombers and get them to hate humanity.

    Muslims will only progress if they stuff me up…. and the thought process of alienation I represent….

    [Reply]

  • PS!

    India is secular only because India has a Hindu majority. In those pockets where Muslims are in majority, we know exactly the kind of ‘tehzeeb’ that is being heaped on non-muslim populations. The same Indian people, if converted to the Muslim faith, will behave like Pakistanis, Bangladeshis etc. Articles 29 & 30 are NOT required in a Hindu country AND, they will be erased in letter & spirit in a Muslim country/ dominated area within India. Look at Kashmir, parts of Kerala, UP, West Bengal, Bihar, Hyderabad and one can realize the truth for oneself.

    [Reply]

    engricn Reply:

    India is secular only because India has a Hindu majority

    hinduism is not religion

    [Reply]

  • Abhi

    “Gandhi, speaking in some chaste Urdu, seemed to back a “minority status”
    for the university, a key Muslim demand, caught in a long legal
    dispute.”
    The idea of a university, devoted solely to this community or that, is what is keeping the country backward in the field of education in the world; so much so, that there is NO university in India which counts in the top one hundred in the world. A university, by the very name, should imply something devoted to universal good, and not for the good of any particular community.

    [Reply]