Bharat Rakshak

Ms Branson has found that Prashant Cherkupalli, 31, should be paid compensation of $597,000 for the 509 days he was illegally detained between November 2004 and April 2006.

Mr Cherkupalli, who kept his detention secret from his family, is now suing the Commonwealth in the NSW Supreme Court for damages.

The ANZAC class frigate was docked in the Indian city of Mumbai after finishing a six-month tour in the waters of North Africa and the Middle East when the sailor died.

Defence and embassy officials are investigating the death.

Staff from the defence force's internal investigation service are expected to arrive in Mumbai on Monday night to find an explanation of the unnamed sailor's death.

perhaps Keating sir has good faith in the dynamism of the UK financial industry.

Rudd firm on India uranium ban

October 28, 2011

"There is no problem in terms of a global supply" ... Kevin Rudd. Photo: Glenn Hunt

THE Foreign Minister, Kevin Rudd, and the Resources Minister, Martin Ferguson, say the ALP is free to debate a policy change to allow uranium exports to India but Mr Rudd remains opposed, saying India does not need any more of the mineral.

Indian officials and business are lobbying behind the scenes at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Perth for the government to change its policy and allow uranium exports.

The Coalition supports exporting uranium to India and it is believed the topic was raised when the Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, also in Perth, met yesterday with the Indian Vice-President, Hamid Ansari.

But Labor opposes selling uranium to any nation such as India, which is not a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

Speaking after a mining industry breakfast yesterday, Mr Rudd said India did not even need Australian uranium.

''Work out where India currently sources its uranium from around the world,'' he said.

''There is no problem in terms of global supply, let's just be very, very blunt about this.

''If you hear an argument from an Indian businessperson that the future of the nuclear industry in India depends exclusively on access to uranium, that is simply not sustainable as a proposition. Have a look at the data.''

Mr Ferguson, who does support selling uranium to India, said he was not proposing himself to move at the national conference for a policy change but he would eagerly join a debate if someone else did.

He stressed that, regardless of the policy, ''we've got a very strong relationship with India''.

Mr Ferguson revealed there were discussions in progress for a large investment in the Galilee coal basin in Queensland.

''Indian investors will be the key to the huge export opportunity for Australia,'' he said.

''The relationship with Australia is exceptionally good.''

Rudd targeted in push to sell uranium to India
Michelle Grattan
October 28, 2011

PRESSURE is mounting on Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd to join the strong push to change ALP policy to allow uranium sales to India.

The uranium debate is shaping up as a major issue for the December ALP national conference, with Resources Minister Martin Ferguson urging a change of policy.

Some Labor sources say Mr Rudd is sympathetic to change, although he has publicly stuck by the present policy which bans sales to countries that are not parties to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
Advertisement: Story continues below

Last night, Australian Workers Union chief Paul Howes backed change, saying if there was a debate at the national conference, he would argue for sales to India. ''To oppose [exports to India] on the basis of a dead letter treaty that doesn't do anything is nonsense,'' he said.

Mr Ferguson and Mr Rudd yesterday appeared together at a mining breakfast in Perth.

Mr Ferguson said whether the policy would change was up to the conference but emphasised that Australia had a ''very, very strong relationship with India''. He said he was presently engaged in discussions about facilitating major Indian investments in a new coal base in Queensland.

''Indian investors will be key to that huge export opportunity to Australia,'' he said.

Mr Rudd said the uranium policy would be discussed at the national conference. He pointed out that India had no problem in terms of getting uranium supplies.

''If you hear an argument from an Indian businessperson that the future of the civil nuclear industry in India depends exclusively on access to Australian uranium, that is simply not sustainable as a proposition. Have a look at the data,'' Mr Rudd said.

Mr Rudd is in a difficult position on the issue because of his strong support for the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. On the other hand, Mr Rudd had previously acknowledged the long-standing credentials that India has on non-proliferation.

In an article published last month, former ALP national president Stephen Loosley argued for changing the policy, writing that Mr Rudd was among the senior ministers who appreciated the importance of the issue in Australian-Indian relations.

Mr Loosley said that no one should imagine that all would be splendid in links between Canberra and Delhi once Australian uranium began powering Indian industry.

''But it will serve to place our bilateral relationship on a footing that will encourage greater political and diplomatic co-operation; more frankness and transparency in our dealings, including military to military contacts; deeper economic ties and broader collaboration in strategic challenges particularly in the Indian Ocean,'' Mr Loosley wrote. ''This is clearly appreciated in Canberra by senior ministers Martin Ferguson, Kevin Rudd and Stephen Smith. The Prime Minister is alert to the challenge.''

Mr Howes said that Australia sold uranium to China which was a closed dictatorship, but not to India, which was an open democracy that gave Australia more ability to supervise how the uranium was used.

He said the non-proliferation treaty was a ''rubbish treaty'' that did not stop the manufacture of nuclear weapons. If it did, he would take a different view on the issue, he said.

India against new rights group at Commonwealth

New Delhi says the 54-member group should focus more on development challenges instead of human rights

Iftikhar Gilani
New Delhi

As India seems set to block an attempt by some countries to constitute a human rights monitoring group at the 54th Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM), international human rights groups have taken a strong exception to New Delhi’s stance.

The summit begins in the Australian city of Perth o Friday. Vice-President Hamid Ansari left for Perth on Thursday to lead the official delegation at the summit, which includes an executive session where leaders would make formal statements and a retreat during which they would interact informally without the presence of aides.

Australia and Canada are in the forefront of supporting recommendations of an eminent persons’ panel set up by the CHOGM. The 106 recommendations by the panel include creation of the post of Commissioner for Democracy, Rule of Law and Human Rights to monitor human rights situations in the member nations.

India has said that the group should focus on development challenges rather human rights. Foreign Secretary Ranjan Mathai has said that India’s reservations stem from the fact that the new office of Human Rights Commissioner would undermine the role of both the Secretary General and the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group. Secondly, he believes that the proposal is a duplication of what the UN is already doing through its rapporteurs.

“CHOGM’s real focus should be once again on the development challenges which are uppermost in the minds of vast majority of the members. So, while we support the important values of democracy, rule of law and human rights, we believe the Commonwealth should focus on strengthening existing institutions rather than trying to create new ones,” he added.

However, Director of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiatives Maja Daruwala believes that if the summit dismisses the eminent persons’ report, the Commonwealth will hits its very own stance on human rights. “Those who insist that the introduction of a Commissioner for Democracy, Human Rights and Rule of Law is too ‘punitive’ oppose the Commonwealth’s stated values are distorting the intent and importance of such a position. But values-based scrutiny must be a Commonwealth feature if the association is to claim that it lives up to its stated aims and principles,” she said.

Mathai said that the proposal to inspect human rights violations in Sri Lanka or elsewhere was ill-timed given that the Commonwealth was also facing funding problems noting that India was the fourth-largest contributor to the coffers of the 54-member group and also the largest member in terms of population to assert itself in the association. Mathai said that there was a “need for a more careful review” of the recommendations adding that he brought up the issue at a meeting of Commonwealth officials in New York on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly last month. “A decision was taken in 2009 for the next two CHOGM meetings. That matter has been decided and does not need to be reopened.”

On Australia’s initial objections to the Vice-President standing in for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Mathai said: “In our system, the Vice-President holds a position of great importance. He is second in the warrant of precedence.” Canberra had conveyed to New Delhi that Ansari wouldn’t be treated as a head of a state or government as Australia had no Vice-President. Ansari, it said, would be accorded privileges reserved for the Speaker of Australian Parliament.

The theme of CHOGM this year, chosen by Australia, is 'Building National Resilience, Building Global Resilience'. Australia has circulated a concept paper on the theme, which focuses on strengthening the Commonwealth, to enable it to more effectively assist member nations in dealing with current challenges as individual states, as members of the Commonwealth, and as members of the global community. The paper focuses on issues related to economic and social development, food and energy security, and the adverse effects of climate change.

Iftikhar Gilani is Special Correspondent with Tehelka.com
iftikhar@tehelka.com

What is the EPG?

The Eminent Persons Group was established by Commonwealth Heads of Government at their summit in November 2009.

In the 'Affirmation of Commonwealth Principles' agreed at their 2009 meeting in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, Commonwealth leaders called for the “creation of an Eminent Persons Group to undertake an examination of options for reform in order to bring the Commonwealth’s many institutions into a stronger and more effective framework of co-operation and partnership".

Who's in the EPG?

At present, the members are as follows:
Dr. Emmanuel O. Akwetey (Ghana)
Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi (Malaysia, Chairperson)
Ms Patricia Francis (Jamaica)
Dr Asma Jahangir (Pakistan)
Mr Samuel Kavuma (Uganda) – (Commonwealth Youth Caucus)
The Hon Michael Kirby (Australia)
Dr Graca Machel (Mozambique)
Rt Hon Sir Malcolm Rifkind (UK)
Sir Ronald Sanders (Guyana)
Senator Hugh Segal (Canada)
Sir Ieremia Tabai (Kiribati)

INDIA appears set for a comeback as a top Australian education market, with a new Immigration Department report putting the subcontinent neck and neck with China in student visa applications.

The September quarter report shows that applications from the south Asian giant increased by over 4000 compared to the same period last year.

The total of 14,600 applications left India just 700 shy of Australia’s biggest market, China, and miles ahead of any other. The third market, Korea, yielded just 3000 applications.

And while 80 per cent of the Indian applications were lodged by people already in Australia – mainly students wanting to begin new courses – a 150 per cent surge in offshore applications suggested institutions could look forward to fresh arrivals from the subcontinent.

WITH Julia Gillard's foreign policy in the spotlight the issue cannot be ignored: how long will the obsolete and discredited ALP policy be allowed to prejudice Australia's ties with India, the emerging third biggest economy in the world?

Gillard's theme these days is Australia's ability to adapt to the new Asian century, yet such claims are mocked by her government's incapacity to conduct foreign policy on merit.

That the ALP national conference should continue to impair Australia's economic and strategic interests is intolerable. If this situation continues uncorrected at the December national conference then the Gillard government must be held to account for allowing Labor's antiquated obsessions about uranium and nuclear power to prevent Australia from following an India policy that its ministers know to be desirable and inevitable.

The issue is that the ALP platform stops Labor selling uranium to India. The greater issue, however, transcends uranium. It is whether the Labor Party in its structure and culture is competent to run a national interest foreign policy for the Asian century. The jury remains out.

The director of the international security program at the Lowy Institute, Rory Medcalf, says a Labor failure to change policy in December will not constitute "absolute disaster" in relations with India. "But a decision to stick with the old policy will convince India's political elites that Labor is never going to be a natural partner for a rising India," Medcalf tells Inquirer. "It will be a signal that Labor simply does not trust India. This is a real shame."

It is funny how Australians are themselves so worked up about the sale of uranium to India, or India is good at lobbying. It can also be that the conservatives have found a good club to pound the Labor with!

Anyway, Mugambo khush hua!

LABOR plans to lift its ban on uranium sales to India as Julia Gillard puts her stamp on foreign policy in the "Asian century" and imposes her authority on the ALP conference next month.

The Prime Minister will move to dump the anachronistic ban on uranium sales to India for nuclear power generation because it has been hurting Australia-India relations and stalling trade and security development.

Senior ministers today backed the Prime Minister's bid to end the party's ban on uranium sales to India, arguing the sub-continental super-power was not a "rogue nuclear nation".

Senator Cameron rejected as "a silly argument" suggestions Australia was missing out on economic benefits because of its ban on uranium sales to India.

Any policy shift could add up to $1.7 billion in annual exports, with BHP Billiton one of the biggest beneficiaries.

RORY MEDCALF: Well essentially you've got almost 200 countries that are party to a treaty. If you reopen negotiations on a treaty on the scale of the NPT, you're going to have you know a decade's worth of the most difficult diplomacy that could end up with a worse outcome than the one we have.

Reopening the NPT is not really a viable option and instead, the best we can hope for is really carving out these exceptional parallel arrangements for countries that are in every other sense good non-proliferation actors.

ELEANOR HALL: Every time you do that though, don't you weaken the Non-Proliferation Treaty?

RORY MEDCALF: Well in a sense the weakness in the Non-Proliferation Treaty came at its inception. There was a flaw in the treaty from the beginning and India was the most glaring, notable example of that - a major country essentially locked out, refused the right to possess nuclear weapons for defence and refused the right to have, to civilian nuclear commerce with the world.

ELEANOR HALL: You're sort of pointing out all these holes in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and yet still saying that we shouldn't as an international community junk it. What is the current benefit of the NPT?

RORY MEDCALF: Look the Non-Proliferation Treaty has certainly slowed the rate of proliferation. Many countries, including Australia, I would add that contemplated building nuclear weapons back in the 1960s ended up deciding not to partly as a result of the NPT.

It is an imperfect arrangement. I certainly support the NPT but it needs to adapt and one way it can adapt without some sort of complete reopening of the treaty which could end up with a worse outcome, is to carve out detailed parallel arrangements and obligations for key countries outside the NPT.

And the only one of those countries I think at the moment that really warrants special treatment is India.

All this showing the cold shoulder to the white pakis down under seems to be paying off


End India uranium ban: Julia Gillard urges Labor

One of our nearest neighbours is India. Long a close partner. The world's biggest democracy. Growing at 8 per cent a year. Yet despite the links of language, heritage and democratic values, in one important regard we treat India differently. We will not sell India uranium for peaceful purposes - though Canada is preparing to - while policy allows us to export it to countries such as China, Japan and the United States.

It is time for Labor to modernise our platform and enable us to strengthen our connection with dynamic, democratic India. As in other areas, broadening our markets will increase jobs. We must, of course, expect of India the same standards we do of all countries for uranium export - strict adherence to International Atomic Energy Agency arrangements and strong bilateral undertakings and transparency measures that will provide assurances our uranium will be used only for peaceful purposes.

hat's where the debating lines should be. one can also not leave a landmass 9 million odd sq kms big south of us to the Chinese alone. It's lousy strategy long term really

Frankly , I really don't have any good feelings for these White Pakis and trust them as much as the "Paki" Pakis. Those White Pakis had no hesitation in selling off their Mirage IIIs and Vs to the Paki- Pakis, which incidentally are the nuclear delivery weapons of the PAF with the ROSE update and had no compunction whatsoever in selling weapons for illicit nuclear arsenals which were in clear violation of NPT treaty guidelines and spirit, yet persisted with some self serving hypocrisy in selling yellow cake to India.

Racist to the core, no history of inventing anything, can invent nothing,zero entrepreneurial instincts, really a white Saudi Arabia.. digging stuff from under the earth and shipping it out , the best way to treat them is to let the Chinese do it to them.

Let ALP do what it wants and pass it's law. When it comes to buying, we are better off going to others like Kazakhstan, other producers in Africa with large deposits. We really should tell the White Pakis "Take Ur-Anium and stuff it up Ur-A**s" .

And oh, India should definitely stay out of that US-Australia "containment" of China rubbish. We have far greater flexibility by staying out side and can actually talk to China on this with more cards on the table and address the key interests we have with China (namely the India-China boundary issue and the China - Pakiland link). And oh, if you really want cards to play against China, playing arms transfer cards Vietnam etc is a far better bet than playing hired gun/ deputy Sheriff to USA .

a fall back place if India ever has to endure Islamic hordes running amock over our lands.

harbans ji: what does the above mean?

"The data collected on the voyage could significantly change our understanding of the way in which India, Australia and Antarctica broke off from Gondwana," University of Sydney geologist Joanne Whittaker, a team member, said.

harbans ji: what does the above mean?

Our edit on oz yellow cake to India

Australia offers Yellow Cakes

For past 60 odd years of modern India existence, the British left overs have been of no great significance. Except cricket, the Australia offered nothing but tiny headaches. It threatened India when INS Vikrant passed near Fiji and frequently shadowed Indian warships.

For past 60 odd years of modern India existence, the British left overs have been of no great significance. Except cricket, the Australia offered nothing but tiny headaches. It threatened India when INS Vikrant passed near Fiji and frequently shadowed Indian warships.

Australia maintains close relationship with the military intelligence of Pakistan. To keep up its relationship it has to show overt hostility to India and Indian military and gain the confidence of the counterparts of Pakistan. They may need to pass the information about Indian Navy and its military maneuvers to PA to keep its close relationship.

There has been much ado in the media and from the Obama administration about a great strategic shift from the Middle East and South Asia to East Asia. Obama and senior administration officials are making the case for this shift by claiming that we have accomplished our Iraq and Afghanistan goals, and that the time has come to focus on the "real problem": China. This week, the president announced the basing of 2,500 marines in Australia and a pushed for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a regional free trade agreement that excludes China. The U.S. military has also released some details on its new AirSea battle concept -- an answer to the dense network of submarines, mines, anti-aircraft capabilities, and missiles that China has created to keep the United States out of China's periphery. All of these moves are to be commended. However, they do not and should not add up to a new "pivot." Here are some reasons why:

1) There is no way for the U.S. to project the necessary influence into East Asia if Aghanistan and Pakistan are on fire. One major reason is that if India is tied down in a competition with Pakistan, China, and Iran in Afghanistan, it cannot become the kind of East Asian power we wish it to be. The Bush administration's India strategy was designed to help India break out of its squabbles in South Asia and exert influence in East Asia. A hasty pull-out of Aghanistan will reverse that sensible strategy.

2) China is exercising more influence in the Middle East in ways harmful to our larger goals (e.g., support of Iran). To compete with China in East Asia, we must retain our influence in the Middle East and South Asia and check destabilizing Chinese diplomacy.

3) The deployment of U.S. Marines to Australia and the highlighting of a military concept to respond to China's military build-up are necessary but insufficient first steps. These developments cannot make up for the fact that our military has faced deep cuts in its budget and will face more. No matter what administration officials say, these cuts will affect our posture in Asia profoundly. We need more ships, more aircraft, more missile defense. To be a bit flippant, we are putting Marines in Australia without sufficient equipment to get out of Australia. Our allies and China need to see and feel our presence. That can only be accomplished with more sea patrols, surges in exercises that promote freedom of navigation, and so on.

4) The AirSea battle concept is a serious effort to meet the China challenge. But based on information released about it, the concept suffers from two flaws. First, the resource question -- how would we shut down Chinese military operations without sufficient platforms and munitions? Second, AirSea battle fails to take into account China's nuclear ambitions. China is already a nuclear-armed country with every incentive to continue its build-up of nuclear forces. That is because we have agreed on a bilateral (with Russia) rather than multilateral basis to cap our nuclear forces. Since China is bound by no important arms control treaties, and because we are openly talking about major conventional strikes on the Mainland, China has every reason to seek nuclear parity with us over time.

5) The TPP is a great idea. In particular, securing Japanese agreement to an FTA would be a great success . The question is, are we serious? It took the better part of Obama's term to ratify the FTA with South Korea. Are we really to believe that he will take on his base and sign more major FTAs?

Sort of strategic depth as mentioned. This is the biggest landmass nearest to us (it actually was a part of our land mass per info in Murugan ji's post) that we may influence in a demographic way. 9 million sq km with a population less than NCR! Loads of natural resources, maritime boundary all around. With energy becoming cheaper in the decades to come, massive scale desalination plants will make Australia a very livable continent capable of sustaining much larger levels of population. The Indian subcontinent has already close to 45% folks from the ROP. Check the growth of Islam in the last 60 years itself. With free liberal visa regimes, be mentally prepared to see a sustained growth in Islamic population within India. In a 100 to 130 years, non ROP'ers will be a minority. A country like India desperately needs strategic depth of some sort. A big friendly landmass close by. Australia fits the bill. In the interim too we need resources to sustain the economy. Shipping costs are minimal from Australia too. To abandon the promise of Australia is fool hardy. Aussies have a choice, to maintain their value systems of plurality and democracy, tolerance by netting India or making way for downright Chinese domination in the future. Lets not abandon Australia to China.