India-Australia News and Discussion

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 24 Jun 2010 08:16

Gillard to be sworn in as Australia's first woman prime minister

Arihant · Post by **Arihant** » 24 Jun 2010 18:15

NRao wrote:Gillard to be sworn in as Australia's first woman prime minister

The departure of Rudd (who someone on this forum once said was "only half-jokingly described to as the Manchurian candidate") might yet signal happier days for Indo-Aust relations.

Stan_Savljevic · Post by **Stan_Savljevic** » 25 Jun 2010 01:14

Julia Gillard is not too far away from KR's policies. In fact, she was the brain behind quite a few policies that eventually led to KR's downfall. And a very steep one that too. As of now, one should nt expect a swift change in the equations. There is an elections soon enough and the Libs are hoping to use this mayhem in Labor to be back. JG was very recently in India touting the crap edu system that is oz.

rahulm · Post by **rahulm** » 25 Jun 2010 07:31

The Liberal leadership is a 3 way contest between, Abott, Turnbull & Hockey. Turnbull could re-emerge as the leader.Hockey is intelligent, charismatic and a people person.

I suspect Abott will lead unless opinion polls require them to make a change. The liberals have traditionally been more united than labor (look what happened to Beazley-2006, Mark Latham & Kevin Rudd now) but the recent carbon reduction scheme have produced some deep divisions in the Liberal camp.

If Turnbull does not re-emerge, I would watch Hockey. But my hunch is it will be Turnbull leading the Liberals.

Early days for Gillard. She may pull a rabbit (unlikely) out of the hat. Remember, our very own IG? The kingmakers thought she would be a puppet and look what happened!

I think Labor's goose is cooked unless Gillard emerges as the miracle woman, it will be the Liberals in charge after the next election. If that happens, Gillard will be the fall lady. She is in a tough position.

Karan Dixit · Post by **Karan Dixit** » 25 Jun 2010 09:16

Kevin Rudd was clearly responsible for the new low in India – Australia bilateral relations. It is good for both countries that he is gone. Probably Chinese will miss him other than that, good riddance.

My congratulations to Australia for electing its first female Prime Minister. India elected its first female Prime Minister decades ago and I am glad to see Australians are finally displaying more faith towards their female compatriots. Keep in mind, Australian men are known for their derogatory attitude towards women. So, this news truly is a great news for the institution of womanhood in Australia.

I hope Julia Gillard will keep Australia's interest at heart and recognize that good relations with India is in Australia's best interest.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 29 Jun 2010 17:47

Australia's 'Dr Death' found guilty of manslaughter

An India-born surgeon dubbed "Dr Death" was found guilty Tuesday of killing three Australian patients and permanently harming another, after a trial which heard evidence of botched and needless operations.

After about 50 hours of deliberations, a jury found Jayant Patel guilty of three counts of manslaughter committed during his time as director of surgery at Australia's Bundaberg Base Hospital between 2003 and 2005, reports said.

Patel, branded "Dr Death" by the media during initial investigations into his conduct at the hospital in the state of Queensland was also found guilty of causing grievous bodily harm to another patient, Australian Associated Press reported.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 30 Jun 2010 05:40

An interesting article written by Malcom Turnbull....personally I always supported Turnbull who was ousted in a somewhat similar fashion by the Liberals...
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politi ... 00629-zium

Axed and humiliated: someone should give this poor ******** a hug

Rony · Post by **Rony** » 30 Jun 2010 11:12

Watch for rise of India: report

India could become more powerful if it boosted its reliance on the "soft power" of cultural diplomacy, according to a paper issued by an Australian think tank.

John Lee, writing for the Sydney-based Centre for Independent Studies, said India was "well placed to be one of the principal leaders in, and shaper of, the Asian century".

Dr Lee said India had enormous soft power potential, because a rising India was not seen as a challenge to the regional order - unlike China.
But that soft power was not being used to its full potential, partly because of a failure to grasp the significance of cultural diplomacy, and partly because of uncertainty about India's "hard power" - economic and military.

Dr Lee said soft power had to have hard power behind it to be meaningful.

He said if India did manage to become a key shaper of the Asian century, it would be "a remarkable feat for a country that was very recently mocked, ignored or dismissed as a geographical expression by the then great powers of the world".

Australia's Asia policy has tended to focus on China, the country's largest trading partner.

But India is of importance too because it is Australia's fourth largest export market, and its economy is seen to have the potential to grow quickly.

The rise of India is seen as less of a strategic challenge to Australia than the rise of China, partly because of historical ties with the fellow commonwealth country.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 30 Jun 2010 14:37

^^^Just wait and watch, my dear freind...just wait and watch........the rise of Bharat is but a matter of 'when' than 'if'....The writing is on the wall.......it would be good for the white-pakis if they mend the fence in time and start bringing in "gifts" to Court in Delhi.,,they have been punching way above their weight..way-way above......It is time to set the world order correctly

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 01 Jul 2010 05:30

I think one thing that I am certain is going to happen is in the next round of elections the Greens in aus will be getting more votes than their usual share because people will be fed up with labour and there is not anyone with enough clout in liberal to cash in....

Rony · Post by **Rony** » 01 Jul 2010 06:05

Oh Vinayaka, Not again ! The Kangaroos started their whining ..... yet again !

Howard snub 'an insult to Australia'

Former International Cricket Council boss Malcolm Speed says world cricket's governing body has insulted Australia and New Zealand by blocking former prime minister John Howard's vice-presidential bid.

This morning Opposition frontbencher Peter Dutton, a former junior minister under Mr Howard, described the decision as "completely unacceptable"."If the international cricket community wants to restore its integrity then they need to reconsider this decision. This is now, I think, a significant diplomatic and international issue."

Mr Howard would not be drawn on speculation that cricket's superpower India played a leading role in blocking his path to the ICC.

Neither would Cricket Australia's spokesman Peter Young.

"We're aware of a whole range of speculation but we're not going to speculate publicly on what might be," he said.

"We'd prefer people to actually say straight to our face what their concern is."

But others, including cricket commentator Gideon Haigh, are not being so circumspect.

"The fact is that India controls about 80 per cent of the game's global revenues, when it says, 'jump,' other countries say, 'how high?'" he said.

"And basically they've decided that they can't even be bothered with the ICC, they might as well run it all themselves."

amdavadi · Post by **amdavadi** » 01 Jul 2010 06:29

^^^ I like it.... CA got the memo regarding new world order where CA-queenstan doesnt hold a veto over ICC.

HC is big time India hater.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 01 Jul 2010 06:35

who is HC ?

in all fairness it was Zim, SA and SL who were opposed to JH, there was little possibility that BCCI would go against the wishes of friendly boards and in support of CA, who would stab them in the back in the first chance anyway.

amdavadi · Post by **amdavadi** » 01 Jul 2010 06:39

sorry JH

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 01 Jul 2010 09:31

This is Hilarious!!! Cant wait to see who else is snubbed next

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 01 Jul 2010 14:06

Australia and NZ should not feel snubbed, as it is ICC's considered decision conveying sentiments of majority of Board's member. It is a democratic process and myou have keep interests of all board's in mind/ JH had no experience in criket admin. Pawar has already done his in BCCI so most suitable as such. Terming a fair process as insult is an insult to ICC and other Board members.

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 01 Jul 2010 15:41

Rony wrote:Oh Vinayaka, Not again ! The Kangaroos started their whining ..... yet again !
Howard snub 'an insult to Australia'

Keeping track of the scores:
Howard:ICC
0:0
-----------------------
Howard calling Murali chucker.
-1:0
Howard not acting against SA and banning tours of Zimbabwe
-2:0
Voting in Singapore
2 for, 6 against.
-3:0

Still don't get it?
Well, apparently they dont!

Gideon Haigh goes ballistic. Popcorn please...........
http://www.cricinfo.com/magazine/conten ... 65571.html

Ultimately, however, responsibility lies with the chaotic, fratricidal, law-unto-itself Board of Control for Cricket in India, for had it chosen to back Howard, the decision would have gone through on the nod.

Wha..? Whe..? How...? We are SDREs we are demakracy onlee Saar Bhy phor you throw **** on us.

The BCCI likes to think of itself as cricket's leader - as, indeed, it is, by any economic measure. But where was it when actual leadership was required? Sunk in its own macchiavellian intrigues, busy trying to claw back a facilitation fee from World Sports Group, and poring over Lalit Modi's hotel and limousine expenses. Suggestions in the Indian media are that the rejection stems from internal upheavals at the BCCI, where ICC president Sharad Pawar, who supported Howard's nomination, is on the nose with his former colleagues for being too close to Modi. Who knows? And who, ultimately, cares?

Saar...relax saar. You are saying BCCI ekanamic pawar..wokay...Lalit modi..wokay..BCCI internal prablem..wokay...then you say "Who knows"? Naat wokay Saar. Take chai!
But aphter reading more...even Jimbabwe joo are not sparing. You have gone mental Saar!

Read and ensoi folks!

bart · Post by **bart** » 01 Jul 2010 15:49

^Add to that Howard accusing Tendulkar of ball-tampering when it was not his business and he could have just kept quiet. That was highly inflammatory as he was neither a person with any connection to cricket nor a layperson, he made those statements when he was head of state.

amit · Post by **amit** » 01 Jul 2010 16:03

Australia should get its TFTA kriketers to boycott IPL. That will teach the upitty BCCI a lesson!

Go Aussie, Go!

amit · Post by **amit** » 01 Jul 2010 16:06

But have you guys noticed ever since the famous "Maa ki..." incident it's been downhill skiing for that TFTA nation's kriket?

That was truly an inflection point. Three cheers for our brave Sardar, may his tribe multiply in the Indian team.

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 01 Jul 2010 16:21

bart wrote:^Add to that Howard accusing Tendulkar of ball-tampering when it was not his business and he could have just kept quiet. That was highly inflammatory as he was neither a person with any connection to cricket nor a layperson, he made those statements when he was head of state.

Sirji,

Dont forget the Atherton ball tampering VS Rahul Dravid ball tampering issue and the different verdicts for each!

Gaurav_S · Post by **Gaurav_S** » 01 Jul 2010 16:49

Haneef sues for defamation

Mohamed Haneef, the Indian doctor arrested after the London and Glasgow terror attacks three years ago, is suing former immigration minister Kevin Andrews for defamation and wrongful detention.

The bungled terrorism case saw him charged with providing assistance to terrorists involved in the London bomb plots.

The case collapsed soon after, but then-immigration minister Kevin Andrews proceeded to withdraw his visa.

Karan Dixit · Post by **Karan Dixit** » 03 Jul 2010 09:24

Amit,

When it comes to gaali, no language can compete with Punjabi. LOL.

---

On a separate note, I think Haneef should also sue the government of Australia for his human rights violation. That country is going down the hill in terms of civilization.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 03 Jul 2010 10:00

Karan Dixit wrote:Amit,

When it comes to gaali, no language can compete with Punjabi. LOL.

Beg to differ saar,

Telugu is equally mellifluous and more satisfaction giving.

Punajbi is creative as the flow can be adeptly modified on the fly to suit rapidly and dynamically changing situations.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 03 Jul 2010 10:28

amit wrote:But have you guys noticed ever since the famous "Maa ki..." incident it's been downhill skiing for that TFTA nation's kriket?

That was truly an inflection point. Three cheers for our brave Sardar, may his tribe multiply in the Indian team.

I am not so sure boss. Recall Michael Huseey's brilliance in the last T-20 against TSP. Plus, I would hate to see the Aussies go downhill in kirket. For all their faults, I would rather watch an India Vs Aus close cricket match than and India Vs TSP terrorists cricket match. Man, I'll give anything to watch a Laxman staright drive aginst an Aussie quickie. I think cricket does enhance India Aus relations. It would be a pity of Aussies loose interest in cricket.

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 03 Jul 2010 10:47

chetak wrote: Punajbi is creative as the flow can be adeptly modified on the fly to suit rapidly and dynamically changing situations.

When in the flow, many Punjabi speakers can replace salutations and punctuation marks with very appropriate choices.
I do not understand Telugu, but can you speak in the same flow when you replace a purna-viram with the M pre-fix, an ardh-viram with the B pre-fix. The suffix can also evolve based on the context and flow. The integration is native, there is no emulation.

Stan_Savljevic · Post by **Stan_Savljevic** » 03 Jul 2010 12:14

Australia strikes compromise tax deal with miners
http://biz.bdnews24.com/details.php?id= ... q3jnjt1dm2

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 04 Jul 2010 23:41

Rony wrote:Oh Vinayaka, Not again ! The Kangaroos started their whining ..... yet again !

Howard snub 'an insult to Australia'

Why is India not forthcoming on its reasons for blocking John Howard?
You prefer China-loving Kevin Rudd, maybe?

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/107956 ... ohn-howard

The ICC still refuses to publicly outline the reasons for Mr Howard's rejection, and chief executive Haroon Lorgat stated flatly at the conclusion of the ICC conference on Thursday that none needed to be given.

"The ICC board does not have to give a reason," Lorgat told reporters while flanked by new president Sharad Pawar.

Unbelievable!

However, this I can believe:

However, Indian board sources have indicated that the most powerful cricketing nation was worried by the thought of an "outsider" in such an influential position.

"Frankly, we did not want an outsider to meddle with the ICC," an official from the Indian cricket board told AFP.

When Indians engage in such race-baiting on a whim, it shows what their ethics are. It shows what the credibility of the country is, when it can countenance such crookery.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 04 Jul 2010 23:51

Sanjay M wrote: When Indians engage in such race-baiting on a whim, it shows what their ethics are. It shows what the credibility of the country is, when it can countenance such crookery.

This is totally uncalled for. What ICC decision has to do with India or Indian, BCCI is not India. Decision is understood to have been taken by Majority. Howard has no credential in cricket whatsoever. They can put up better choice. And what makes you think where Howard failed Rudd would pass muster?

Australians or anybody has no right to teach Indians what Racism is , being at the receiving end of it for most of the time.

Karan Dixit · Post by **Karan Dixit** » 04 Jul 2010 23:54

Sanjay M wrote:
"Frankly, we did not want an outsider to meddle with the ICC," an official from the Indian cricket board told AFP.
When Indians engage in such race-baiting on a whim, it shows what their ethics are. It shows what the credibility of the country is, when it can countenance such crookery.

I do not see any mention of race in there. It seems like you are making a mountain out of molehill.

Karan Dixit · Post by **Karan Dixit** » 04 Jul 2010 23:57

chaanakya wrote:
Sanjay M wrote: When Indians engage in such race-baiting on a whim, it shows what their ethics are. It shows what the credibility of the country is, when it can countenance such crookery.
This is totally uncalled for. What ICC decision has to do with India or Indian, BCCI is not India. Decision is understood to have been taken by Majority. Howard has no credential in cricket whatsoever. They can put up better choice. And what makes you think where Howard failed Rudd would pass muster?

Australians or anybody has no right to teach Indians what Racism is , being at the receiving end of it for most of the time.

I agree with you Chaanakay. It was yet another absurd post from this guy.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 05 Jul 2010 00:45

Clearly, the sekoolar media is trying to manufacture a racism label against Howard, in order to justify the cryptic decision taken by the ICC:

In India — which is the most powerful nation blocking Mr Howard's bid — high-profile media commentators accused the former Australian prime minister of being a symbol of the past.

"Why should a museum piece, a symbol of the black-white divide, dare or dream of entering world cricket," said Times Now presenter Arnab Goswani.

"By doing so, we seem to have upset other closet racists."

Newspaper columnist Suhel Seth chimed into the debate, labelling Australia a racist country.

"There is nothing secular or non-racial about them," he said.

So basically, we have a bunch of Old Boys trying to preserve their exclusive country club by blocking the outsider from entering. And for this, they're having their media cronies manufacture the racism label to tag Howard with.

I think that the Country Club should explicitly give the reasons why they're barring John Howard from entry.
You just can't do whatever you want, and expect to have credibility.
If ICC is becoming an Indian Country Club, then it will only lead to others forming their own league.

It's the Indians on ICC looking like the corrupt fat cats here, and not like anti-racism activists.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 05 Jul 2010 01:09

sanjay, it would help immensely if you tried to find out even a little about cricket and its administration rather than go on a tangent about what you imagine is the case here. without this basic info one runs the risk of sounding like a paki talking of the IWT.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 05 Jul 2010 01:21

I have yet to hear any facts on why Howard is being denied entry. If there are rules against it, they should be re-stated for clarity. Otherwise, I don't see any credibility in the ICC decision. It's Indian media-men who seem to be injecting race-baiting into the debate.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 05 Jul 2010 01:32

Where exactly have they injected "race-baiting"? Be precise please.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 05 Jul 2010 01:40

have a look at the cricket thread, howard behaved obnoxiously when he was PM commenting on issues any person with an iota of grace would avoid making comments on, let alone disparaging ones. a PM is expected to be above such things as calling murali a chucker when his team is expected to tour his country in a few days.

it was SL, zim and SA that were the chief opponents to his nomination as soon as it was announced jointly by CA and NZC. BCCI came on board only very recently on the eve of the vote when it was clear that the white block of NZC,CA and ECB was trying to ride roughshod over any opposition. the alignments of ICC mean that BCCI will tend to vote on the side of zim, SL and SA(especially the last two) and vice versa unless it completely disagrees with their POV. BCCI itself had little problem with howard but it did need to support SL and SA. inspite of aussia propaganda this move was NOT initiated by the BCCI.
lastly coming to your extremely ill-informed point
>> If ICC is becoming an Indian Country Club, then it will only lead to others forming their own league.

are you aware that howard's nomination was rejected 6 to 3 out of 10 with zim abstaining only because they were sure of the outcome ? does it look like India is going alone there ?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Jul 2010 01:48

chucker

In Mandarin it means that he is a fantastic bowler!!!!

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 05 Jul 2010 15:26

Sanjay M wrote:I have yet to hear any facts on why Howard is being denied entry. If there are rules against it, they should be re-stated for clarity. Otherwise, I don't see any credibility in the ICC decision. It's Indian media-men who seem to be injecting race-baiting into the debate.

Sanjay, I think you should first read up the events leading to the rejection before closing your eyes and labelling people/organisations. A vote took place in Singapore and Howard was rejected.
Every country looks after its own interests. A overwhelming vote against Howard only means one thing: many countries feel that their interests could be jeopardized by him. Demakracy onlee Saar!

And Stan has posted an excellent excerpt from history - Cricket thread.
I am glad that the race issue has come up now...that is when we learn what they did to us when they were in power!

And finally, Eng/Aus have tried to sully the name the Rahul Dravid many times - those wounds are yet to heal!

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 05 Jul 2010 17:03

Sanjay M wrote:I have yet to hear any facts on why Howard is being denied entry. If there are rules against it, they should be re-stated for clarity. Otherwise, I don't see any credibility in the ICC decision. It's Indian media-men who seem to be injecting race-baiting into the debate.

chaanakya wrote:
Sanjay M wrote: When Indians engage in such race-baiting on a whim, it shows what their ethics are. It shows what the credibility of the country is, when it can countenance such crookery.
This is totally uncalled for. What ICC decision has to do with India or Indian, BCCI is not India. Decision is understood to have been taken by Majority. Howard has no credential in cricket whatsoever. They can put up better choice. And what makes you think where Howard failed Rudd would pass muster?

Australians or anybody has no right to teach Indians what Racism is , being at the receiving end of it for most of the time.

Howard may be a very good PM for Australia, but he is not good enough for Cricket Administration. He has not even led his Country's Board. Neither he is a batsman or bowler of even minuscule stature nor was he umpire or part of ICC board on earlier occasions.

Besides he has talked nonsense , has a habit of shooting off his mouth first and regretting later. I don't know if he is racist. The decision is based on a majority decision and ICC is not obliged to tell the reason since each member votes as per their Board's decisions.

To be fair to ICC , they have asked both the Boards to send another name by August.

And without thinking rationally , you have used words such as Crookery, race-baiting, whim,credibility and phrases like "shows what their ethics are" lightly and you blame ICC/ BCCI/other bodies/individual for TV anchors' rants. They don't represent views of India or majority of Indian or even Boards.

And forming their own Council etc. Who stops them from doing that. GO Ahead, most welcome. Period.

Stan_Savljevic · Post by **Stan_Savljevic** » 05 Jul 2010 17:19

chaanakya wrote: Neither he is a batsman or bowler of even minuscule stature

Gerald Tooth: Can we talk a little bit about your cricket playing days though? You're an off-spin bowler and former Australian cricketer Kerry O'Keefe said you had one of the best off-spin actions going around.

John Howard: Well I was hugely flattered by that description. I started playing it at school, once again I was in the second 11s at Canterbury Boys High School, played cricket at those various inner suburban ovals in Sydney which were, well people still play at, at Pratten Park, Marrickville Oval, Petersham Oval, Belmore Oval, these are the sorts of places where I used to play. And then after I left school I once again played with a cricket with a local church team, I kept playing cricket until I went into parliament in the early 1970s, I was already playing cricket on a regular basis till I was about 33 or 34.

Gerald Tooth: Well as an off-spin bowler can you tell us about your technique? What's your particular grip?

John Howard: Well it's just an orthodox off-spin grip.

Gerald Tooth: You're a finger spinner?

John Howard: You know with the fourth finger on the seam.

Gerald Tooth: Can you get the ball to turn much? Or are you the sort of spin bowler that concentrates on flight and placement?

John Howard: It varies a bit. If I get a fairly rough patch I can get it to nip a bit, but more normally flight and pace.

Gerald tooth: Right, now you mentioned that you played after school and if I'm right you played for a church side in Earlwood.

John Howard: Yeah, Earlwood Methodist Church.

Gerald Tooth: Where you I understand got your best bowling figures. Now in our research we've turned up two lots - there was 5 for 38 or 6 for 42, there's two different versions. Can you set us straight about what your best bowling figures are?

John Howard: No it was six for.

Gerald Tooth: How did that happen? Can you run as through it quickly?

John Howard: We were at a place called Tempy Reserve in Sydney, which is near the airport, and we used to play on, originally on old malthoid wickets.

Gerald Tooth: What's that?

John Howard: Well it was just concrete with a sort of a rather tar like substance laid on top and then later on we played on coir matting, which is laid on top of the malthoid. And the ball would bounce a bit more on the matting, it could be quite tricky if you had a really fast bowler. Glen McGrath would have played absolute havoc on the coir matting I can tell you.

Gerald Tooth: Now apparently there was one glaring weakness in your cricket game though. One of your older brothers, the eldest Wal is reporting as saying of your cricket days that "he dropped a lot of catches John did".

John Howard: Yes I did.

Gerald Tooth: So you were a bit of a butter fingers were you?

John Howard: Yes I was yes, so that's something to do with my eyesight I think. Well that's what I used to tell people.

Gerald Tooth: And they believed you?

John Howard: Well they were kind enough to say they did yes.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/sportsfactor/s ... 401143.htm