Re: India-Australia News and Discussion
Posted: 24 Jun 2010 08:16
Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
https://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/
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.
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.
Axed and humiliated: someone should give this poor ******** a hug
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.
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."
Rony wrote:Oh Vinayaka, Not again ! The Kangaroos started their whining ..... yet again !
Howard snub 'an insult to Australia'
Wha..? Whe..? How...? We are SDREs we are demakracy onlee Saar Bhy phor you throw **** on us.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.
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?
Sirji,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.
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 wrote:Amit,
When it comes to gaali, no language can compete with Punjabi. LOL.
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.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.
When in the flow, many Punjabi speakers can replace salutations and punctuation marks with very appropriate choices.chetak wrote: Punajbi is creative as the flow can be adeptly modified on the fly to suit rapidly and dynamically changing situations.
Why is India not forthcoming on its reasons for blocking John Howard?Rony wrote:Oh Vinayaka, Not again ! The Kangaroos started their whining ..... yet again !
Howard snub 'an insult to Australia'
Unbelievable!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.
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.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.
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?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.
I do not see any mention of race in there. It seems like you are making a mountain out of molehill.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."Frankly, we did not want an outsider to meddle with the ICC," an official from the Indian cricket board told AFP.
I agree with you Chaanakay. It was yet another absurd post from this guy.chaanakya wrote: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?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.
Australians or anybody has no right to teach Indians what Racism is , being at the receiving end of it for most of the time.
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.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.
In Mandarin it means that he is a fantastic bowler!!!!chucker
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.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 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.
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.chaanakya wrote: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?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.
Australians or anybody has no right to teach Indians what Racism is , being at the receiving end of it for most of the time.
chaanakya wrote: Neither he is a batsman or bowler of even minuscule stature
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/sportsfactor/s ... 401143.htmGerald 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.