Australia, India and Prof Amitabh Mattoo

Professor Amitabh Mattoo arrived in Australia shortly after the violent attacks on Indian students.  It was a time when Australia was accused of being racist, and unsafe, by the Indian community.  In fact Amitabh's friends warned him that he would literally go “Down Under”.

But on completing his posting as one of the inaugural directors of the Australia India Institute, Amitabh says that the relationship is now energised -  not only has Prime Minister Abbott visited the sub-continent, but Narendra Modi was in Australia for the G20 conference last month -  the first time an Indian prime minister has visited Australia in 28 years. The times, as Amitabh puts it “are clearly changing”.

Prof  Mattoo spoke to Geraldine Doogue about the transformation in Australia-India Relations, his personal experiences in Australia and what lies ahead. To listen in to the conversation, go to the following link:

http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2014/12/sea_20141220_0750.mp3

(Courtesy: ABC )

Graduation Ceremony at University of Melbourne

Professor Amitabh Mattoo delivered the convocation address to the graduating class of 2014 at the University of Melbourne. Presented below is the text of his speech.

The Deputy Chancellor of the University of Melbourne, Mr Robert Johanson, Vice Chancellor Professor Glyn Davis, Deputy Vice Chancellor and Deputy Provost Prof Susan Elliott, the graduating class of 2014, Ladies and Gentlemen.

There can be no greater honour for anyone connected to Academia than to be asked to deliver an address at a Graduation Ceremony. I came to Melbourne from India a little more than three years ago, and in all these months I have begun to value, a little more every day, the enormous strengths of this great University and realize how fortunate are those, like you young men and women, who get the opportunity to study here. 

Today, the University of Melbourne is truly, to paraphrase Prof Glyn Davis, a Republic of Learning and comes with the promise of training you to be a citizen of the world.   And as you go through this most sacrosanct of academic rites of passage, it is important also to never forget how privileged you all are and how this knowledge will be a continuous source of power to you, to your families and to all those around you,

 Many of you will move into what some describe as the real world of action in contrast to what may be viewed as the sheltered world of ideas in a university. And some may stay like I did and be  students for quite a while.  But, no matter where you go, you will be more secure and independent and empowered than most people across the world because of this great education. 

But do remember that this knowledge, this power, this passport to the world of ideas and action comes with one obligation. The responsibility, no less than the challenge of working, nay striving, towards a better world.

After all, events of the last few days are just a stark reminder of the need for all of us to work together to build sustainable peace and harmony

The tragedy at Sydney and the cataclysmic events at the Army school in Peshawar in Pakistan are a painful reminder that no one, young or old, rich or poor, can be insulated from violence and rage and conflict in this deeply interconnected world. And there are no quick fixes either. There are those who believe that unless we address the roots causes for this violence we cannot build peace. And there are others who argue that nothing but nothing can ever justify violence.  But far beyond issues of individual and collective grievances and punitive action is the fundamental question:  

How do we build, in today’s world, tolerant, inclusive societies that are at peace with themselves and the outside world?

Melbourne is rightly considered the most livable city in the world, and the last 40 odd months that I have spent here have been some of the most pleasant in my life.  But I grew up in Srinagar, a city nestled in the beautiful valley of Kashmir in the mountains of the Himalayas. When I went to school there, it was idyllic. But all that was idyllic then has now been shattered by nature and men. So peace can be fragile, and needs nurturing and injection of new ideas and, above all good people, with passion and commitment willing to work selflessly. Because, as the great Irish poet  Wiliam Butler  Yeats reminded us in 1919,  during the Great War in The Second Coming , for things to “fall apart” you only  need the best to “lack conviction” and for the worst to be driven by “passionate intensity”.

 When I did my Humanities degree, it was not a  favoured option for the really clever. To be honest, I don’t even know how much Political Science learnt during my years in College. But a Humanities Degree taught me then, as it will have taught you -through much greater rigour and the richness of the Melbourne model - at least four things:

First, that I while may not know have the answers, I learnt what were the important questions to ask.

Second, it taught me not just the value of money, but that there were, to paraphrase the Harvard philosopher, Michael Sandel, things that money cannot buy, such as peace and justice!

Third, that often in the world of problems. Much like in the Japanese auteur Akiri Kurosowa’s Rashoman, there is no one truth, just many interpretations.

And finally, that new ideas to solve old problems can often come when you do not let your schooling come in the way of your education (as Mark Twain is thought to have said). In other words, innovation, creativity and imagination often flourish  when you use the powers of  the critical thinking and problem solving (that were honed in the class rooms)to move beyond the orthodoxies of the past and the belief systems of the present. 

In many ways, therefore a Humanities degree (a degree in the Arts and Social Sciences), equips you, much much better, to  not just face the world,  but to  help change it for the better.

I want to, in conclusion, share parts from my one of my  favourite  poems by  the great Indian poet Rabindra Nath Tagore, who was the first Asian to win a Nobel Prize for Literature. This is from Tagore’s book Gitanjali or Bouquet of Songs, published in 1910, but is as relevant now as it was more a century ago.

Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high

Where knowledge is free

Where the world has not been broken up into fragments

By narrow domestic walls

Where words come out from the depth of truth

Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection

Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake. –

All the best then as you move into an exciting new phase of your lives. And thank you for listening to me patiently.

Australia and India have never been closer

When Narendra Modi arrives in Melbourne on November 18, he will be the first Indian Prime Minister to visit the city   for a bilateral visit, since Indira Gandhi was hosted by John Gorton in May 1968. Unlike Gandhi's visit, which is remembered today only for its insignificance, Modi's Australian yatra promises to be the most important ever made by an Indian prime minister for both countries' bilateral relations.

Consider this: In Melbourne alone, he will attend four functions, two at Government House and two at the MCG. The Governor will host a chief executives' round table at which Modi will have the opportunity to interact with a who's who of Australian business, including Anthony Pratt, of Visy Industries, and Gina Rinehart, of Hancock Prospecting. Later, he will address more than 500 business leaders, before leaving for the MCG where Prime Minister Tony Abbott will host a reception for 1000 select guests and a dinner for 500.

Modi's schedule elsewhere in Australia is equally packed. Quite apart from the G20 meeting, he will unveil a bust of Mahatma Gandhi in Brisbane, attend business breakfasts, speak to a crowd of more than 15,000 Australian Indians in Sydney, address both houses of Federal Parliament and hold bilateral talks with Abbott. For each public event, there has been a scramble for seats and invitations.

But Australia is not alone here. India's Prime Minister, once a controversial and even polarising figure, has taken the world by storm. In its recent list of the world's most powerful people, Forbes magazine described Modi as India's newest rock star who doesn't hail from Bollywood. Many expected him for his first year in office at least to look inward, focusing mostly on domestic issues. But in the less than six months that he has been Prime Minister, Modi has visited Brazil, the United States, Bhutan, Nepal and Japan, and hosted leaders from South Asia, China and Vietnam. This outward-looking, activist stance has revived hopes that India may at last achieve its potential as a major economic and strategic player.

No one quite remembers the last time an Indian leader demonstrated this kind of chutzpah – an approach to leadership that is energising citizens in India and wowing audiences internationally. One Australian business leader compared Modi approvingly to Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew: a benevolent, authoritarian, incorruptible leader who could transform his country. Another compared his non-ideological economic pragmatism to that of China's Deng Xiaoping who modernised the communist country. Modi, with his usual fondness for alliteration, sees India's unique selling point as its unbeatable combination of the Three Ds, democracy, demand and  demography – that is, the rule of law, its huge market of nearly 300 million middle-class Indians, and the youth bulge of more 500 million Indians under the age of 25, who could become part of a global workforce in an otherwise ageing world.

Together Prime Ministers Abbott and Modi have the chance to transform the bilateral relationship between their countries from one characterised by missed opportunities into a genuine strategic partnership. The long shadow of the Cold War, India's autarkic economic policies, the White Australia policy, and Canberra's decision not to transfer uranium to India, have kept the two countries apart for several decades. But this is now history.

Today, few countries in the Indo-Pacific region have more in common in both values and interests than India and Australia. Apart from being two English-speaking, multicultural, federal democracies that believe in and respect the rule of law, both have a strategic interest in ensuring a balance in the Indo-Pacific and in ensuring that the region is not dominated by any one hegemonic power. In addition, Indians are today the largest source of skilled migrants in Australia.

The extent of Australia's and India's common interests was reflected in the 36-paragraph joint statement that concluded Abbott's visit to India early in September. From water management to clean energy, from trauma research to skills and higher education, from maritime and cyber security to counterterrorism, a world of opportunities awaits the two countries if they can work in harmony.

Late last year, the Australia India Institute at the University of Melbourne and Sydney's Lowy Institute commissioned a comprehensive survey of Indian public opinion on foreign policy and governance challenges. Indians ranked Australia in the top four nations towards which they feel most warmly. Only the United States, Japan and Singapore ranked higher. Indians feel warmer towards Australia today than towards countries in Europe, including Britain, or India's fellow emerging economies in the so-called BRICS group.

Relations between India and Australia have deepened dramatically over the past decade. India's economic growth and its burgeoning demand for energy, resources and education have made it suddenly one of Australia's largest export markets. Beyond the trade links, there is the shared concern in Canberra and New Delhi about security and stability in the Indo-Pacific region. Both India and Australia have deep economic relations with China, but equally both are concerned about Beijing's aggressive behaviour in the recent past, and would ideally prefer the region not to be dominated by any single hegemonic power. In the past Canberra has shied away from an explicit military partnership with India, Japan and the United States.

This may well change in coming months. Both Modi and Abbott are seen as China sceptics, open to a more candid assessment of China's rise and its consequences for the region. The Australia-India relationship is clearly an idea whose time has come, but it will require political nurturing before it acquires a momentum of its own. Fortunately, Modi and Abbott have bonded well.

In her forthcoming definitive account of bilateral relations, historian Meg Gurry relates how Arthur Tange, high commissioner to India and one of Australia's most formidable diplomats, wrote in 1965 to his foreign minister, Paul Hasluck, that there was fertile ground between the two countries, but "no one seems to know what seeds to plant". Fifty years on, there are not only many seeds waiting to be planted, but much ripe fruit ready to harvest.

(Source: The Sydney Morning Herald)

Cry, my beloved Srinagar!

My beloved Srinagar, the only city I have ever called home, has gone. 

The city of wealth and prosperity drowned by the worst floods in its history. I was there when our home was violated by what we held most precious: water. What wrong had we done collectively to deserve this fate? 

In 2010, there was a chilling forecast in the Srinagar-based daily, Greater Kashmir, based on interviews with officials of the state flood control ministry that a catastrophic flood awaits Kashmir. A plan was drawn up, but like much else in the state: nothing happened. Four years later, Kashmir lies devastated, and Srinagar destroyed. 

The history of Srinagar, of the last three decades or more, is the story of an urban disaster. But it was not always like this. 

Growing up in Srinagar in the 1960s and 1970s was to live a life so idyllic that in hindsight it seems unreal. Every season was special. Rivers, water, ice and snow were part of life and brought its challenges, but never overwhelmed. 

The spring, from March to May, was when school began after the long winter break. The ice melted and the fragrance of the Yemburzal and the blossoms of the almond trees enveloped the valley.We had our first excursion of the year to the almond orchards or Badam Vari, with hundreds of others, carrying portable stoves, rice and mutton. 

School was a five-km cycle ride away , passing the river Jhelum on the left, and crossing the Zero Bridge and finally arriving at Burn Hall School, in Sonwar with the wonderful chinars of the Amar Singh garden just across the road. The Jhelum was a lifeline: when we stayed at 'mata mal' (maternal grandparents' house) we took the shikara to cross the Jhelum to our first school, the Presentation Convent. 

The summer, from June to September, was when life was at its most robust. The swimming boats of the Dal lake and Nageen lake was where one learnt swimming, unless you were at the tough Biscoe School, which taught you that in "All things be men" while Burn Hall relied on "Industria Floremus" (In Toil we will flourish). But the Biscoe boys' encounter was not without tragedy. Several Biscoe boys had drowned in the great Wullar lake in the early 20th century. This was a time for night excursions in the floating houseboats: the doongas. This was the only season when it rained heavily, other than in March-April. But while in the spring the mountains were full of ice, in August-September the glaciers would melt feeding the river and threatening floods. In autumn, one prepared for winter. As the valley turned gold and rust, we dried vegetables, stored firewood, and prepared for the final exams in November. 

Winter was the time for snow and stories. We ventured for a few hours to play snow games, but the rest of the day was spent reading and finishing homework during the three-month vacation. There was no central heating, but just fireplaces, bhukharis and kangris. 

Never ever in all these years did water enter our house. There were warnings in earlier years, and my hyper-sensitive grandmother would walk several times a day to the flood channel to take a look at the water level. The flood channel was where the water was sent when the level of the Jhelum rose, and if it went alarmingly high the gates of the Dal were opened and the lake was flooded. 

But after the great flood of 1902 and then of the early 1950s, there was no flood that severely impacted on the city . As a consequence of the great flood of 1902, the flood channel behind our house was created and there were nallahs and wetlands that absorbed excess water. But by the 1980s and 1990s, every rule of urban planning had been violated. 

The Nallah Mar, an important flood channel, was filled up and made into a road. The wetlands became residential colonies, and there was encroachment on most embankments of the river Jhelum. 

Srinagar will now have to be rebuilt brick by brick, but before that thousands will have to be rescued and rehabilitated and provided the space where they can mourn in dignity. 

But after a tragedy of this enormity (corpses of babies and women are still floating in the river), will we allow the same crop of corrupt bureaucrats and inept political leaders to take charge? Or will we build Srinagar, the valley of Nund Rishi and Lal Ded, again as it once was: the abode of fresh air and pure springs, and the land of peace, compassion and prosperity? 

(Source: The Times of India)

Harrowing flight from flooded Valley

We stayed up, maintaining a vigil, while the night echoed to cries of ‘bachao’

I have returned from the hell that Srinagar and much of the Kashmir Valley is today. I have returned with my parents only because of the Indian Army and the kindness of strangers. Everything else has collapsed in most of Srinagar.

I went to Srinagar on Saturday alarmed by reports of floods in the Kashmir Valley to reassure my parents who lived there, but not very concerned about their safety. Four generations of Mattoos had lived in our family home, in one of the most pleasant neighbourhoods of Srinagar: Gogji Bagh. My grandfather liked to tell his grandchildren that they should ensure that their spine was as strong as the foundations of our house! It had survived every vicissitude in the ups and downs of the Mattoo family and Kashmir: earthquakes, militancy (a bullet in my great grandfather’s portrait is a reminder of the violent 1990s), deaths and personal grief.

On Saturday evening, there was the first ominous sign: there was a power outage. We slept, however, comforted by the prediction of the local meteorology chief, Sonam Lotus, who has become a popular icon for the accuracy of his forecasts, that Sunday would be sunny. And indeed I woke to a radiant blue sky with not a cloud in sight. But the power outage had continued through the night, and I got a frightened phone call from a neighbour at about 9.30 a.m. that the bund on the bank of the Jhelum (near Lal Ded hospital, about a kilometre from our house) had been breached!

Within minutes the water was streaming ferociously into our garden. I calculated we had about an hour before our ground floor was submerged; actually we had just about 30 minutes.

In that frenzy, we could only really clear the kitchen: food and water to feed a staff of 12 — and moved to the upper storeys. The water had risen one- and-a-half storeys by the afternoon and we stayed up that night maintaining a vigil, not entirely sure what we would do if the water rose to the upper floors: we had no power, no phones (mobile or landline), no contact with anyone, and just a couple of messages that we were not sure had been delivered. The night echoed with cries of ‘bachao bachao’ from the nearby Gujjar and Bakerwal hostel in Amar Singh college and other places!

On Monday morning, we were finally rescued by the brave jawans of the Indian Army in a paddle boat and taken to a safer point at the bund – with just one small bag each.

There was no sign of relief or help.

The only option was to rush to the airport. We did so with the kindness of good Samaritans, and after walking kilometres in waist-deep water. Many who helped had never met us, some were friends from Facebook, including Ashraf Bhat – a distinguished lawyer, who walked with us and dropped us near the airport, young Suhail who helped us find a short cut and helped my parents traverse the wall that led us to a dryer route. And Dr. Khan and Sherwani Sahib for finally dropping us to the airport!

We are back in Delhi’s safety, but deeply concerned about those in the valley who are still marooned. Today, Prime Minister, rescue Kashmir, and Kashmiris will respect you forever!

 (Source: The Hindu)

The discovery of Australia

With PM Tony Abbott’s visit to India, the bilateral relationship is starting to mature

After six decades characterized by misperception, lack of trust, neglect, missed opportunities and even hostility, a new chapter in India’s relations with Australia has well and truly begun.

Consider this: in 1955, Prime Minister Robert Menzies decided that Australia should not take part in the Bandung Afro-Asian conference. By distancing Australia from the ‘new world’, Menzies (who would later confess that Occidentals did not understand India) alienated Indians, offended Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and left Australia unsure, for decades, about its Asian identity.

Sixty years later the visit of another Liberal Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, to India — also the first stand-alone state visit to be hosted by the Narendra Modi government — has well and truly brought the past to a closure. When asked why Australia had agreed to export uranium to India (a non-NPT signatory country), Abbott was unequivocal in his statement: “We trust you!”

No other declaration could reflect the new Australian belief in the promise and potential of this relationship, for it was this deficit of understanding and faith that severely undermined the relationship in the past. Abbott was not alone: he had brought with him some of the most influential Australian businessmen, including Anthony Pratt, who runs the world’s largest paper and paper packaging company, Rio Tinto chief executive Sam Walsh and Lindsey Fox who has one of the most extensive logistics and transport companies in Asia.

Unfortunately, for most of the 20th century, India and Australia rarely had a meaningful conversation. The reasons are not difficult to identify: the white Australia policy, the Cold War, the Nehru-Menzies discord, India’s autarkic economic policies, Canberra’s strident res-ponse to New Delhi’s nuclear tests and attacks on Indian students in Victoria.

Indeed, even after the white Australia policy became history and Australia became one of the most multicultural of nations, opinion surveys reveal most Indians are unaware of this fundamental change. At the popu-lar level the only real exposure most Indians had to Australia was to the Australian cricket team — the least multicultural of institutions.

Even three years ago when — disgusted with the politics of the higher education sector in India — i decided to be the inaugural director of the Australia India Institute at Melbourne, it was seen as a giant leap of faith. I had not visited Australia before and had little knowledge of the country.

My friends warned me that i was literally going “Down Under”, soon to become irrelevant and marginal to all policy issues in India. At school, my teenage daughters were told they risked being bashed up in school and college and my extended family was astounded.

But today i have no doubt that it was one of the best decisions of my life. With not one unpleasant experience in the country, as a family we have found Australians open, friendly, fair, accepting and generous, and the country a model of good governance.

Today there are few countries in the Indo-Pacific which share so much in common in both values and interest than India and Australia, and this is reflected in the 36-para joint statement. From water management to clean energy, to trauma research, to skills and higher education, to maritime and cyber security and counter terrorism, there is a world of opportunities that awaits the two countries if they work in close coordination with each other.

Take just one example: The Economist Intelligence Unit recently voted Australia, after Switzerland, the best country to be born, based on a variety of factors that include access to quality health and education, level of crime, gender equality, resources and political freedom.

Melbourne has been consistently selected as the most livable city and most other Australian cities (including Sydney, Adelaide, Brisbane and Perth) are in the top 20 in the world. Even given the differences in scale, there are huge lessons in urban planning and living that Australia can offer India.

In November Prime Minister Modi will visit Australia for the G-20 summit. This will be the first bilateral visit by an Indian prime minister in 28 years. It is critical that the political leadership remain in charge of the relationship until it acquires real momentum.

The success of Abbott’s visit was because of the triumvirate in his office — chief of staff Petra Aldrin, senior adviser Andrew Shearer and Joshua Frydenbirg, rising star of the Liberal Party. They helped translate Abbott’s vision into reality. Sections of the Canberra bureaucracy can be niggardly transactional when strong bilateral relations are cemented as much by the world of ideas as they are by the world of commerce.

Similarly, India’s ministry of external affairs, despite the presence of an incisive and thoughtful secretary (East) — Anil Wadhwa — lacks the capacity to give the relationship the attention it deserves. It is critical that the PM creates an Australia Plus cell similarly to the one on Japan in his office.

For the Australia-India bilateral relationship could, handled well, become the most formidable Asian partnership of the 21st century.

(Source: The Times of India)

The new promise of India-Australia relations

As the Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott visits India for the first standalone bilateral visit (on September 4 and 5), hosted by the new Bharatiya Janata Party-led Narendra Modi government, it is becoming obvious that the relationship between the two countries is poised to transform itself.

In an Asia marked by instability and uncertainty, the new India-Australia concord - rooted in both geo-strategy as well as economics - will have wider consequences for stability and balance in the region. In November, Prime Minister Modi will visit Australia for a bilateral visit and for the G20 summit - the first time an Indian prime minister has visited Australia in 28 years. The times, as they say, are clearly changing.

Consider this. During Prime Minister Abbott's visit, the two countries are expected to sign a path-breaking agreement that will allow for the transfer of Australian uranium to India, making India the first non-Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty signatory country to get Australian uranium.

The Australian prime minister is travelling to India with a delegation of top businessmen, who are expected to - with their Indian counterparts - chalk out a road map for collaboration in sectors as diverse as mining, agriculture and clean energy. In addition, on the table are agreements that will provide for much greater collaboration in the education sector.

Historically, the relationship between Canberra and New Delhi has been characterised by missed opportunities. The long shadow of the Cold War, India's autarkic economic policies, the white Australia policy, and Canberra's decision not to transfer uranium to India, have kept the two countries apart for several decades. 

But this is now history. Today, there are few countries in the region with which Australia has as much in common, both in values and interests, as India. Apart from being two English-speaking, multicultural, federal democracies that believe in and respect the rule of law, both have a strategic interest in ensuring a balance in the Indo-Pacific and in ensuring that the region is not dominated by any one hegemonic power. In addition, Indians are today the largest source of skilled migrants in Australia.

Late last year, the Australia-India Institute at the University of Melbourne, in partnership with the Sydney-based Lowy Institute, commissioned one of the most comprehensive surveys of Indian public opinion on key foreign policy issues and critical challenges of governance. Indians ranked Australia in the top four nations towards which they feel most warmly. Only the United States, Japan and Singapore ranked more highly. Today, Indians feel warmer towards Australia than towards countries in Europe, including Britain or India's fellow so-called BRICS.

No less importantly, Australia is seen as a country that functions well and is worth emulating. Sixty percent of Indians think it would be better if India's government and society worked more like Australia's. Japan and Singapore rank roughly equal to Australia. Only the United States ranks better at 78 percent. Other countries, including Britain, China and Germany, do not fare as well as governance models for India.

A majority of Indians also see many good qualities in Australia and appreciate Australian values. 

Relations between India and Australia have deepened dramatically over the past decade. India's economic growth and its burgeoning demand for energy, resources and education have propelled India to become one of Australia's largest export markets.

It is, however, the economic opportunities that the Modi government promises to bring that could provide the real cement to bind Australia and India closer together. Two sectors stand out: mining and higher education, including vocation educational and skills development. Both are at the centre of Modi's policy radar.

For decades, the mining sector in India has been poorly governed and badly regulated. According to a 2012 McKinsey report, India's mining sector has the potential to contribute $40bn annually to government revenue and create, directly or indirectly, an additional 2.3 million jobs. As the report points out, despite having the top five or six reserves globally in many commodities such as iron ore and thermal coal, the mining industry is small and contributes only 1.2 percent of gross domestic product. Modi has emphasised that he wants urgently to reform the mining sector.

In Australia, the end of the mining boom presents challenges in particular for the mining services sector, and it could benefit from the opening up of India's mining sector. With investment in mining falling in Australia as India's need for investment, technology and skills is growing more pressing, we could soon see Australian mining services companies replacing local demand by working in India, and India using Australian skills to unlock its mineral resources.

Similarly, reform in higher education, particularly vocational education, is vital for the Modi government as it attempts to realise the country's so-called demographic dividend from its 500 million young people aged fewer than 25. The state of the higher education sector in particular is an abiding reminder of the deadening effect of India's planned economy up until 1990, the so-called license-permit Raj, which stunted India's global ambitions.

The previous government introduced several bills to reform the sector but, with insufficient support and political will, all were stalled in parliament. The Modi government will make sure these reforms are carried out. This will present an opportunity for Australian universities, which are faced domestically with several challenges, to take advantage of the biggest market in the world.

Beyond economics, is the mutual concern in Canberra and New Delhi about security and stability in the Indo-Pacific region. Both India and Australia have deep economic relations with China, but are equally concerned about Beijing's aggressive behaviour, in the recent past, and would ideally want a region that is not dominated by any one hegemonic power. In the past Canberra has shied away from an explicit military partnership with India, Japan and the US.

This could well change in the months to come with both Modi and Abbott seen as being China sceptics , and willing to take a more candid assessment about China's rise and its consequences for the region. The Australia-India relationship is clearly an idea whose time has come, but it will require political nurturing before it acquires a momentum of its own.

(Source: Al Jazeera)

Abe + Abbott + Modi: The AAM trilateral that could stop China's rise

It's an interesting coincidence that Prime Minister Narendra Modi's visit to Japan - his first bilateral trip outside the subcontinent - is being followed so quickly by the arrival in India of Australia's Prime Minister Tony Abbott.

Like Modi and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan, Abbott represents a right-wing political constituency, has a spare, no-frills style and has made economic diplomacy and a clear-headed approach to China's ascendancy central to his foreign policy. Few countries in the region have more in common today, both in values and interests, than India, Australia and Japan.

Abbott is building on a bipartisan legacy. India and Australia have had a growing relationship since John Howard and Atal Bihari Vajpayee took the initiative a decade ago.

More recently, the UPA government sent a series of ministers Down Under. It was a Labour Party PM, Julia Gillard, who made the effort to change party and national policy and called for selling uranium to India. An agreement on nuclear commerce will probably be finalised by Abbott and Modi. 

It is not as if the relationship has been without hiccups.

Australian over-reaction to India's Pokhran II tests in 1998; Kevin Rudd's swashbuckling but ill-fated swerve to China as PM, and his initial snubbing of India; the violence against Indian students in Melbourne in 2009; India's economic decline in the past few years: all of these led to the India-Australia partnership delivering below potential.

Yet, this is an opportune moment. In November,Modi travels to Brisbane for the G-20 summit and could follow it up with a bilateral visit, the first by an Indian PM since 1986.

The tensions of 2009 are a thing of the past and India constitutes the largest source of skilled migrants to Australia, having supplanted China in 2012. The scope for business is enormous. Energy security is a key thrust of Modi's international engagements and Australia has coal and gas to offer, as well as uranium as and when India's nuclear plans firm up.

Mining, as finance minister Arun Jaitley has pointed out, is critical to the government as a driver of growth and employment. Here again, there is place for Australian expertise.

With the hope of legislation to end Coal India's monopoly and permit merchant mining, there will be room for Australian mining conglomerates. Of course, this may require a shift in orientation. Some Australian resources giants, such as BHP Billiton, have been keener to export to India, rather than get their hands dirty in actual mining operations.

In the Modi era of 'Come, Make in India', this may not go down well. To be fair, others like Rio Tinto and Hancock have demonstrated interest in collaborating with Indian partners.

Education and skill development is another vast sea waiting to be explored. The University of Melbourne, for instance, rated consistently in the top 40 in the world, got no more than 17 undergraduate students from India at the beginning of this academic year.

This should change. When it comes to skilling and vocational education, Australian institutional advantages can fit well with New Delhi's ambitions of equipping a young population for jobs, as evident from the setting up of a separate department of skill development.

Beyond economics, there is politics. Two decades ago, India's 'Look East' policy was constructed around an outreach to the Asean bloc, with Japan and Australia viewed as a second tier, to be met using Asean-centric frameworks such as the East Asia Summit.

Today, Asean is a weaker collective. The ability (and willingness) of many of its members to say 'no' to China has declined. Vietnam, the Philippines and, to a degree, Indonesia remain among the last holdouts.

Given this, India's quest for achieving regional balance - a polite, bland euphemism for addressing the China question - will inevitably see it seeking arrangements beyond the Asean combine, with individual South-east Asian countries, as well as with Japan and Australia.

In time, Abe, Abbott and Modi could emerge as the Indo-Pacific's AAM trilateral.

Co-authored with Ashok Malik

(Source: The Economic Times)

Prof Mattoo in conversation with Greater Kashmir

Your predictions about the forthcoming elections to the Jammu and Kashmir assembly on your Facebook page, have attracted huge attention for your analysis as well as your understanding of history. How do you manage to do this micro analysis sitting in Melbourne?
Kashmir is my home, will always be part of my being, no matter where I am physically located. Kashmir’s history, its politics, its social trends are my passion. Each time I visit Kashmir there is a mystical thrill that I experience, which can only be reflective of a deep atavistic connection. I probably have one of the largest private collections of books on Kashmir. But, more important, in today’s digital age it is possible to conduct real time rigorous analysis sitting anywhere on the globe. The forthcoming elections are probably the most important since 1987 and every resident of the state must take them seriously. They could seriously impact on the future of the state for the next generation. I think a communally polarized state would be the very antithesis of the idea of Jammu and Kashmir, which has always celebrated diversity and valued plurality.

Recently, the former media advisor to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, disclosed in his book, The Accidental Prime Minister, that you were a key advisor to PM on Kashmir and Indo-Pakistan issues and drafted his speeches on Kashmir. Is this true?
It is true that I did informally advise PM Manmohan Singh, and Dr Manmohan Singh was someone who was personally committed to establishing peace in the sub-continent through a process of grand reconciliation. As Dr Baru points out in his book, I drafted PM Manmohan Singh’s first speech on Kashmir where he stated that his vision was to build a Naya Jammu and Kashmir which would be symbolized by peace, prosperity and people’s power. I have to admit that I helped to conceive the idea of Round Tables and creating working groups on various dimensions of the conflict. Unfortunately, while Dr Manmohan Singh had the vision, he lacked the authority to translate his vision into reality. For instance, in 2005 Dr Singh wanted Mufti Sahib to continue as Chief Minister because he saw how well both the peace and development processes were going on. Although Azad Sahib did a great a job at putting a real development agenda for the state, I believe it was a historic mistake asking Mufti Sahib to step down.

What about Prime Minister Vajpayee?
I believe that Prime Minister Vajpayee was the only visionary statesman we have had since Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru as far as India Pakistan relations and Jammu and Kashmir are concerned. Both Nehru and Vajpayee were visionaries, but also had unfettered political authority. We have to return to the vision of Vajpayee of solving the state’s problems within the framework of : Insaniyat, Jamhuriyat and Kashmiriyat. Prime Minister Modi echoed this in one of his first speeches: the challenge now is to carry forward Vajpayee’s unfinished tasks. Prime Minister Modi’s National Security Advisor, Ajit Doval (who is former chief of IB) understands Kashmir very well!

There has been a move to rehabilitate Kashmir Pandits in the valley? Will these policies work?
The tragedy of the Kashmiri Pandits is huge, but it is not a mere economic problem. The challenge is of creating trust and reconciliation between the Kashmiri Pandits and Kashmiri Muslims. For this to happen each Kashmiri Muslim has to learn to empathise with the Kashmir Pandit who lives in sub-human conditions in the sweltering heat of the camps of Jammu yearning to return to the valley. And the Kashmiri Pandits must learn to empathise with the pain and suffering that the Kashmiri Muslims have experienced during the years of violent conflict. We have to move beyond blaming each other, and learn to place ourselves in each other’s shoes. Only then can Kashmir return to being the jannat that it once was: the Kashmir of my childhood.

What is the future of India-Pakistan relations and Track II?
Prime Minster Vajpayee once said that you can choose your friends but you can never choose your neighbours. Today Pakistan is deeply fractured, but this is by no means in our interest. Only the short-sighted can believe that a nuclear-armed , unstable Pakistan is in India’s interests. A Pakistan at peace with itself and at peace with India is in the best interests of the region. The only objective of Track II is to help create the environment for peace and real reconciliation.

What personal role do you see for yourself in the years to come?
I have no personal material ambition any more. I have been Professor, Vice Chancellor, Advisor, and Director at a relatively young age. When I refused to take up the VCship of Central University, Jammu, Prime Minister Mammohan Singh offered me any Vice Chancellorship of choice. But I said I wanted to now see if I have the skills to build an institution overseas. I have helped to build the Australia India Institute into a centre of excellence; we are completely autonomous and do not get a penny from the Government of India. My only real goal is to work in the field of school education after seeing the quality of schools in Australia. In the next five years, I want to set up 2-3 world class boarding and day schools in Kashmir, which will serve as models not just for the state but also the rest of India. Build strong institutions, outside the government, is the biggest service that we can perform as residents of this state.

(Source: Greater Kashmir)

A doctrine of economic levers, soft power

Those who had expected the Modi foreign policy doctrine to be defined by a new muscularity will probably be disappointed. Instead, it suggests a thoughtful understanding of smart power, an integrated approach that will best serve India in a complex, interdependent world

Power is the ability to influence the behaviour of others. In international relations, as the Harvard academic, Joseph Nye, reminds us, power can be exercised in three ways: by threatening or actually using military force, by offering economic incentives or imposing economic sanctions, or by building what Nye famously dubbed “soft power.” That is, the “soft power” of nations to persuade others based on the attractiveness of their technology, politics, culture, ideas or ideals.

Modi doctrine’s five elements

If President Pranab Mukherjee’s opening address to Parliament is anything to go by, the foreign policy of the new government under Prime Minister Narendra Modi will likely employ a nuanced combination of all three of Nye’s instruments of international influence. All those who had expected the Modi foreign policy doctrine to be defined by a new muscularity or even machtpolitik — the wielding of the conventional stick — will probably be disappointed. Instead, there will be a renewed emphasis on using the carrots of economic levers and soft power. This suggests a thoughtful understanding of the importance of what Nye terms “smart power”: a clever combination of the tools of conventional hard, or military and economic, power and soft power. It is this integrated approach that will best serve India in a complex, interdependent world, which is defined as much by conflict and competition as it is by cooperation and the need for greater coordination in confronting common global threats.

The incipient Modi doctrine has five key elements. First, and most important, is the idea that a strong, self-reliant and self-confident India will pursue a foreign policy of “enlightened national interest.” National interest is a contested term; enlightened national interest even more so. Often national interest is defined as raison d'état, or “reason of state,” and can be viewed as the selfish pursuit of national ambitions, mostly as defined by the government of the day. Enlightened national interest adds a moral prism to the policy. When Alexis de Tocqueville wrote his masterly, Democracy in America, in the early 19th century, he described enlightened self-interest as that which made the United States unique: the ability of its citizens to work for the common good because the pursuit of a better life for everyone serves the self-interest of all.

In international diplomacy, enlightened national interest is arguably the recognition that the narrow pursuit of self-interest in an interdependent world can lead to suboptimal policy outcomes. In Asia, Japan — a nation Mr. Modi clearly admires — has used the term enlightened national-interest to define many of its policies, including those steering its overseas development assistance. Through supporting other nations via giving and via attractive development funding and loans, Japan has greatly increased its regional influence. The concept opens up the possibilities of creating cooperative outcomes for many issues, even those traditionally seen as difficult, zero-sum conflicts by realists in the establishment.

An interlinked neighbourhood

Within the Indian tradition, this sense of enlightened national-interest is captured in this verse from the Mahopanishad, “... Ayam˙ bandhurayam˙ ne¯ti ganana¯ laghuce¯tasa¯m uda¯racharita¯nam˙ tu vasudhaiva kutumbakam” or “Only small men discriminate by saying ‘one is a relative, the other is a stranger. For those who live magnanimously the entire world constitutes but a family’.” Its essence, it may be recalled, can be found in the Bharatiya Janata Party’s manifesto as well. And, while Mr. Modi may not be comfortable with this notion, his idea of enlightened national interest sits at ease with Nehruvian thinking. After all, it was Jawaharlal Nehru who believed that while foreign policy must be rooted in a spirit of realism, it should not be stymied by the narrow realism that lets you look only at the tip of the nose and little beyond.

Second is the idea that India will help to build and strengthen a democratic, peaceful, stable and economically interlinked neighbourhood. This, of course, is not particularly new thinking. In the past, the Gujral Doctrine was perhaps the strongest articulation of a policy of reaching out to the neighbourhood, even through gestures that did not demand reciprocity. What was both novel and encouraging, however, was the presence of heads of government or senior representatives from all the South Asian countries at the swearing-in of Mr. Modi and his cabinet, effectively turning the ceremony into a regional celebration of democracy. In the recent past, India has not been explicitly seen as a champion of democracy in the region. Whether or not the strong links in other parts of the world between mature democracies — and absence of conflict — are mirrored in South Asia, it is clear that the strengthening of democracy in the region is the first step toward building what the political scientist, Karl Deutsch, described as a security community. That is, a region in which the large-scale use of violence has become unthinkable!

That said, it must be recognised that only a strong and economically resurgent India can lead the process of South Asia integration and so much will now depend on how quickly India’s economy can be revived. Meanwhile, enlightened national interest will demand that India considers making unilateral gestures to serve longer-term self-interest. For instance, arriving at an accord on the sharing of the Teesta river with a stridently India-friendly regime in Bangladesh would clearly be an important step that should not be undermined by the capricious behaviour of one leader from West Bengal.

Third is Mr. Modi’s emphasis on soft power explained though yet another Modi alliteration of 5Ts: trade, tourism, talent, technology and tradition. For this to translate into reality will require real effort. For a start, the Ministry of External Affairs will need to be restructured and every major mission abroad would need to include a trade, scientific and cultural counsellor knowledgeable in the relevant domains. In addition, the role of the diaspora in the future development of India has been emphasised. One clear step that would ensure deeper engagement between India and the diaspora would be to allow non-resident Indians (NRI) to carry dual passports. For many Indians, continuing to hold an Indian passport is a badge of honour which they will not give up for any convenience, glory or money. Allowing dual citizenship for NRIs carries virtually no additional risk; and indeed most countries in the world allow their citizens this privilege.

A ‘multi-alignment’ policy

Fourth, the incipient Modi doctrine moves beyond the former delineation between “non-alignment,” “non-alignment 2.0,” and “alignment” to suggest that India could follow a policy of what Mr. Shashi Tharoor may describe as “multi-alignment” with all the great powers. This was emphasised in the President’s address that explicitly stated that the government will work with China to develop a strategic and cooperative partnership, work with Japan to build modern infrastructure, build on the firm foundations of the relations with Russia, pursue the relationship with the United States with renewed vigour and make concerted efforts to achieve progress in key areas with the European Union.

Finally, there were only about 50 words of the address devoted to what may have been seen, pre-election, as the most vital part of a future Modi government’s foreign policy: the willingness to raise issues of concern at a bilateral level (read Pakistan) and the uncontroversial claim that stability can be built in the region only if there is an end to the export of terrorism. Clearly, concerns about Pakistan have deliberately not been emphasised as this may still be a work in progress. Or perhaps the Modi government recognises that there is much merit in the adage: carry a big stick, but speak with a soft voice. For, in the past, as my colleague Ashok Guha once remarked, “India has carried a toothpick, and shouted from the roof top and from television studios.”

If the government can deliver on the promises within the President’s speech, Mr. Modi will make history. If he lets himself be distracted by divisive social issues or is provoked into adopting zealous nationalism, he will prove his critics right. As the election results were announced, I was interviewed by a Chinese Radio station. The first question they asked me was whether Mr. Modi would be India’s Deng Xiaoping. I replied tentatively that it was too early to tell and that, in any case, India was a messy democracy and not an authoritarian state. However, if Mr. Modi does want to be like an Indian Deng, it is well worth recalling the great Chinese leader’s “24-Character Strategy”: “Observe calmly; secure our position; cope with affairs calmly; hide our capacities and bide our time; be good at maintaining a low profile; and never claim leadership.” In other words, India requires stability within and peace in our neighbourhood and beyond for at least the next decade to emerge as a great power of some standing. During that period it is best not to get dragged into external conflicts, assume leadership or prominence on the international stage, or attract too much attention. That is Mr. Modi’s biggest challenge.

 (Source: The Hindu)