The landslide reelection of Narendra Modi’s Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is dreadful news for religious minorities in the India.
This is particularly true of the country’s 200 million Muslims (the most of any non-Muslim majority country) and 28 million Christians, especially those in ethnic minority areas. But you would not know that from Scott Morrison’s reaction.
“Congratulations @narendramodi on your historic re-election as Prime Minister of India. Australia and India enjoy a strong, vibrant and strategic partnership, and our India Economic Strategy will take our ties to a new level. I look forward to meeting again soon,” Morrison gushed on Twitter.
Turning a blind eye
What Morrison ignores is that the Modi administration is one of a string of religious-nationalist governments across the region — from Pakistan to Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines — that persecutes religious minorities. This is also true of China where religion is now a clear target of the officially atheist Communist Party which has locked up at least 1 million ethnic Uyghur Muslims (and perhaps even double that number) in gulags in their home state of Xinjiang that Beijing calls “re-education camps”.
Yet the Australian government remains mum on this extremely troubling regional trend, where people are being arrested and murdered, and places of worship are being desecrated and destroyed.
Indeed, no Australian government has spoken out about it. There has been no inclination to publicly recognise and discuss the trend, much less make any real efforts to deal with it. The only discernible strategy from Canberra, based on the evidence, is to ignore increasingly regular state-sponsored or sanctioned violence, violations of religious freedom and other human rights abuses.
Ironically, the Morrison government has vowed to put a religious freedom bill before the parliament. It is worth questioning just why this is needed when freedom of religion is enshrined in the constitution. Federal anti-discrimination laws and various human rights acts exist across all Australia’s states and territories. But apparently Australia is not interested in speaking up for the hundreds of millions of people in our neighbouring countries under very real threat of physical religious persecution — far too often ending in death or serious injury.
Trade considerations
The conversation about human rights is barely given lip service in the apparently mighty free trade agreements that have been the singular focus of the department of trade and its ministers Andrew Robb, Steve Ciobo and the recently reappointed Simon Birmingham.
The reality is most of these deals have been marginal and are misnamed as “free”. To get them signed Australia must hand concessions to protectionist countries in return for lesser benefits. Increasingly these deals are being broadened to include strategic goals, such as more recent ones with Singapore, Vietnam and Indonesia.
The term economic diplomacy, which has no room for human rights, has driven Australia’ foreign policy since 2013. Yet it is arguably oxymoronic as economic and diplomatic goals often diverge; look no further than Australia’s increasingly tortured relationship with China. It is a term pinched by Julie Bishop and Tony Abbott from Hillary Clinton. Heaven forfend that Canberra could be found guilty of original thought.
Australia has a fast growing trade relationship with India in terms of trade (number seven for two-way trade, number four for exports), immigration (India pushed China from the top spot some years back), students (number two behind China) and an ever-growing numbers of tourists.
Counting the cost
Australia is working towards a long desired trade and security deal with India. Unsurprisingly, it is proving extremely difficult to finalise, given India’s protectionist economy.
When DFAT’s India Economic Strategy to 2035 landed with a thump on former foreign minister Julie Bishop’s desk in April 2018, there was barely a mention of the serious risks of trading with and investing in India. The report is pretty much upside, with a half-arsed warning here or there. There is one page devoted to India’s notorious, systemic corruption, but no mention of religious persecution. Of course, such things don’t affect business, do they? As far as they’re concerned, worries that India’s liberal democratic and secular character are “under strain” are “exaggerated … at this time.”
The report concedes that “anything which materially weakens India’s democratic credentials or its commitment to a secular liberal society would not only be a tragedy for India but also call into question the very basis of our strategic partnership”.
A year later, can DFAT still say that fears are exaggerated? Modi’s victory and escalating nationalism is, as it was then, the “anything” weakening India’s democratic credentials.
The question should now be: is it worth it? At what point do we stand up, show some leadership to our developing world neighbours and explain that becoming a wealthy and successful nation is as much about freedom from persecution as it is about the bottom line?
But one still gets the feeling that the answer from the Morrison cabinet room will be a resounding “how good is India!”
Hmmm. Quite a dilemma here for Scomo. On the one hand, they’re persecuting Muslims so that’s a definite plus; yet on the other, they do have very dark skin. Have to discuss that one at the next barbie, or maybe wait for divine inspiration.
He is not so dumb. India is bigger than us, stronger than us, and meaner than us,
India is looking for somewhere to put some of it’s overpopulation. That large tract of Terra Nullis we call The Kimberleys and Parts of NT look really attractive to India. They would love us to start some sort of blue that they could take advantage of. A couple of million of their citizens could really make a go of that patch of almost empty land.
They weren’t shy to stick their noses in when they claimed we were being unkind to some of their students.
Their military has all the assets needed for long range intervention and outnumber ours greatly. They also have a large number of their citizens here, some of whom could be checking out the “lay of the land”.
The Seppos would see no benefit to themselves in getting involved so we could bawl our eyes out to them without getting any help. Other than a few platitudes. A few concessions to Pres. Chump an addition would ensure that.
“That large tract of Terra Nullis we call The Kimberleys and Parts of NT look really attractive to India. ”
It was equally attractive to the adherents of Mr Herzl whose political movement (and not a religious movement)
attracts embargoes on the Crikey pages.
Lucky, for us, that the PRC has complete control of the Indian ocean (as well as the South China Sea) so our anxieties are unfounded.
See John Marsden’s “Tomorrow, When the War began”.
Do you recall an utter charlatan by the name of Dibb (mid 80s) who scribbled a “feel-good” report for the ALP as a curtain-raiser to reduce military spending? The principal theme was that Australia would have a decade to rearm if a threat presented itself.
The question “what military threat could have been foreseen (and not after the fact) a decade in advance” was never asked or, for that matter, ever invited.
Interesting to observe that the ratio of officers to personnel, in all services, has exploded since the mid 80s. Yep, they sit about in meetings and on committees. Would knowledgeable and technically qualified NCOs be able to contribute more? Yes : absolutely. But the resistance resides with the civilian side wishing to slop coffee with officers. ho hum!
As an aside, take a look at “Fifty Shades of Grey: Officer Culture in the Australian Army” by the Lowy Institute.
Are you seriously calling parts of the Kimberleys ‘Terra Nullius’? And large parts of the NT? These areas are all populated. To describe them as Terra Nullius is offensive, ignorant or just silly. Not sure what your excuse is.
The idea that India wants to invade northern Australia is absurd. Other than your imagination, do you have any facts that show this is a possibility?
Taking the role of devil’s advocate Penny, the term “Terra Nullius” is a formal (legal) term. Secondly, given the excesses of wealth (in the broad sense) the inclination of the impoveraged to move into Europe (from Africa), South America into North America and Asia – broadly (into Australia) are not to be dismissed.
Taking a step back, about 1.8 billion people in the world have 1st world life styles. From (roughly) 7.4 billion people that is not a lot of people. You can see that the difference is about 5.6 billion people and about half of those do not have access to clean water on a daily basis but they no have smart phones (there is a huge market in 2nd hand phones in 3rd world contries) and are “waiting” to become politicised.
The matter amounts to a very large topic that does get some exposure on Crikey from time to time. The State Department and the NSA have a good deal of material (of varying quality and analytics) but there it is. Its a large project.
A tad severe?
After all this is Scumbo Morrison and :-
a) Modri does head a country that is not just a growing market place, but is also
b) Adani’s “base(? just joking – taxes and all)”;
isn’t that a “religion”?
[Remember that Tamil refugee trade-off struck between Morrison-Bishop with Mahinda Rajapaksa?]
Besides, the practitioners of which other “religions” are in jeopardy?
Michael, I’m no fan of Morrison but I don’t see why you’d expect him or any other Australian politician to conduct “Twitter diplomacy” and engage in unprompted public attacks on another country in response to the results of a free and fair democratic election.
Donald Trump does that sort of thing.
Got to be careful of being the white man trying to tell 1.2 billion Indians how to run their country and live their lives. Modi is not Hitler or Mussolini.
The fellow’s assessment has less to do with being white than being grossly ignorant of Asian (in the wider sense) politics and culture Arky. A survey of the Congress Party would serve just as will in the current context. On this topic the fellow is less informed than some of the contributors but gets to scribble a piece for Crikey nonetheless
Moreover, (for good or ill) Modi has just over 50% of the raw vote; quite an achievement an, in comparison, is a very popular PM (not by all but by most). The fellow’s article is devoid of one constructive statement in respect to Indian-Australian relations. Bizarre!
However, the major player is the PRC. The OPPO market = India and there will be much more to come.
In contrast to many of the commentators here, I think this article is quite instructive and useful for two reasons:
(a) it highlights the disgusting hypocrisy of Morrison when speaking about religious ‘freedom’
(b) it reminds us that we are in an extremely volatile neighborhood with many potential conflicts that we need to be aware of.
I doubt that Michael thought for a second that Scomo and the geniuses around him would even be aware of these tensions let alone bother doing anything about them.
Also, I see nothing wrong with an honest expression of concern about the terrible treatment that Muslims have been and will continue to experience for the foreseeable future. It could even increase the minuscule amount of soft power we have with our Muslim neighbors in Indonesia and Malaysia.
Oldie, Alistair Cooke described Adlai Stevenson as the “failed saint”. While I don’t consider that you have failed at anything the impression, nevertheless, remains in my head. Its a very great blunder to go “silly in the knees” on this issue or that.
Canada, for example, is undergoing a fair amount of hand-wringing over the accolades directed to Aung San Suu Kyi prior to her displaying her colours. Asians, (in the widest sense) harbour considerable racial and religious prejudice. To describe them as racist is to miss-use the term.
In broad terms I agree with you but do you see clean water being provided so something like 3.5 billion people (in the word) any time soon? This aspect is co-ordinated via the control of the ‘T’ word rather than physical assistance – which is about as close as its ever going to get.
I, for one, would vote for better world but mendacity knows no (or rather all) colours and creeds.
Of all the reasons to think Morrison is not fair dinkum about the “religious freedom” bill, his reaction to the Indian election is not one of them. Again, even if he would like to see more religious freedom around the world including in India, a Twitter reaction to the election is not the place to sound off about it. Public megaphoning in general is not the place- just counterproductive.
Have to disagree with you on this Arky. No one is suggesting megaphone diplomacy, which as you say, is at best counter-productive and at worst, arrogant and patronizing. The issue here as I see it is that somewhere we need to decide what we stand for in the world, apart from sheer greed. I like to think we stand for a democratic society and system of government. I think that recent history shows us that there is more to democratic government than just free and fair elections, some form of representative government and majority rule, all of which are essential and which India has. There also needs to other conditions like the rule of law, separation of powers, freedom of the press and toleration of minorities, especially religious ones. If you don’t have these latter ones, chances are high that the former ones will disappear.
While this doesn’t mean we can only deal with those countries that share our values, if we don’t acknowledge and express these values regularly and embrace those that do not accept them purely for commercial reasons, we run the risk of eventually accepting those countries’ non- or even anti-democratic values.
I have a suggestion for Crikey : rename the publication to The Sentimentalist”
No one was more surprised than Jinnah, a product of the virtues of the Raj in India, (see the many biographies) when Pakistan was created as a country and not as a Muslim State. It is a very great pity for history that Jinnah died soon after the partition (of which the Corporal’s mess and the Senior Officers Mess were agreed on as to the gravity of the initiative; as indeed was Gandhi).
The “best” of India was later-day Pakistan with Abbottsford taking the top spot. By 1960 the difference between India and Pakistan was only too obvious.
Point two amounts to the observation that Hindu fundamentalists are as qualified as any other group at abusing human rights; and similarly for any other group.
Point three, for the reporter, is that China has any number of minority groups and does not persecute minorities. China has laws and the country is not big on evangelism in any form. This matter was presented less than a week ago for the edification of the reporters at Crikey. Proselytism is a big deal for Islam and hence the rapid spread from the 7th century. Open conflict with laws and persecution are quite different entities.
Point four is for the reporter to identify a systematic trend in persecution of Muslims (or Christians) within India. The reporter assumes such to be the case and that, somehow, it is the current Liberal party’s fault. Then, why not address analogous events within the world.
Tim Robertson’s, recent piece (29 May) “World In India, the Modi juggernaut shows no signs of slowing”, if not more informative, was considerably less hysterical than the bilge offered today for consumption regarding India. One might have anticipated a review of India’s major sectors (Primary, Secondary & Tertiary) vis a vis Australian diplomatic initiatives AND the Silk & Belt. THAT OUGHT to have amounted to the “starting blocks” and for an informed reporter such would have been the case.
Does the reporter deem it a big deal that both India and Pakistan have nuclear warfare capability?
As for your 2nd to last paragraph, why not join Sco Mo on Sundays and save the world? If I am to pay a subscription I insist in reading material that am am obliged (1) not to correct on a regular basis and (2) pertinent to the “Real World” as well as being edifying.
Does not persecute minorities –Muslims etc might not agree with you