Many column centimetres of media space have been devoted to the issue that has captured the attention of the public in regard to the many rapes and often subsequent murders of young girls in India recently. Some of the headlines that we have seen in Indian newspapers and websites have been as follows:
· Anger, Frustration over rapes In India: ‘Mindset Hasn’t Changed’
· Brutal child rape sparks protests in India
· Delhi swept by protests over child rapes
· India’s Rape Epidemic: No End in Sight
These are matters that are in dire need of careful examination for all the attendant issues that arise. There are also a host of issues related to the prevailing culture of the society that need to be examined in some detail. A culture that permits and proscribes the practice of “Sati” wherein the female partner of a deceased man self immolates on his funeral pyre suggests a subservient status for women generally. But what does this mean for us here in Australia?
The silence by the Australian government on the matter is something that is hard to reconcile. Our Prime Minister has not been backward in advancing the allegation of misogyny against the Opposition leader on more than one occasion in recent times. The issue that arises in India is clearly one of misogyny in its extreme form. Additionally our Foreign Minister, Bob Carr also has been vocal about human rights abuses overseas. Despite this we have not raised a whimper of protest against the Indian government. We continue to do business with successive regimes in India despite these crimes occurring with alarming regularity in that country. As Tom Clarke from the Human Rights Law Centre wrote (emphasis added) in relation to our Foreign Minister, in November 2012:
“To Bob Carr’s credit, he is possibly Australia’s first foreign minister to directly acknowledge the escalating problems in Papua and call on Indonesia to respect human rights.
Disappointingly though, Carr continues to frame his answers to questions about Papua in terms of the budgetary impacts of “upsetting” Indonesia. Taking a principled stance in defence of basic human rights should not be influenced by budget and trade concerns.”
Before advancing a counter to the above by stating that the matter is one for the internal machinations of the administration of that country and therefore not within the domain of our opinion and interest, let us examine two issues that are relevant. Firstly, this government advanced $300 million to the Pacific Island nations for the specific advancement and empowerment of women in that area. This is very much an internal administrative matter and our advancement of the money created a precedent for the government to follow. Secondly, we are a member of the United Nations Security Council. The United Nations sees the status of women as one of its more important areas of assistance. Accordingly our role on that Security Council makes it incumbent on us to raise issues of this nature at appropriate forums for discussion and action.
As indicated above, our Foreign Minister, Senator Bob Carr has had comment to make in respect of various nations around the globe. It is appropriate that this matter be raised at the highest level as a matter of some importance. At the time of the supposed attacks on Indian students in Australia, the Indian Foreign Minister was not backward in advancing criticisms of the Australian government and its apparent lack of protection being offered to Indian students. This matter is not dissimilar and goes to the very heart of a society that abides by human rights principles and in particular that of the status of women.
The status of women is a major issue of concern all around the world. Many years ago, an Immigration Minister was explaining the need for migrants to this country having to commit to certain values as part of their citizenship application. His starting comment was “But, Suresh, you have to acknowledge that the status of women is an issue in a number of societies.” My response was “Yes Minister, it is an issue for a number of societies. Can I ask you how many women Prime Ministers Australia has had?” (At that stage Ms Gillard had not been elected as our first woman Prime Minister). Countries such as Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka, Ukraine, Chile, Jamaica and Pakistan were amongst a number that had elected at least one woman Prime Minister or President. Further, if we looked at the top 100 companies in Australia, very few (around 5%) are governed by women. We have an issue with the status of women in this country just as much as some others around the world have. We also have a status as a global citizen. Every effort must be made to address this issue all around the world. If it is possible for us to advance $300 million to the Pacific nations to advance the cause of women in society, then we have an equal obligation to raise issues anywhere in the world to do the same.
A good starting point for consideration by the Australian government should be the abandonment of the sporting ties that exist between the nations subject to the implementation of decisive actions by the Indian government to redress this issue.
Prime Minister Gillard and Foreign Minister Carr, it is now over to you
A very succinct and cogent argument out forward.
It would be wonderful to see real action..
You raise an interesting issue Suresh -I agree with you this is an isolated misnomer. We are quick to criticise others –notwithstanding that some developing countries are moving on the right direction while major democracies play the game of defining mismatch in certain diplomatic tags.
Welcome to the arena of double standard!
Great Suresh a wonderful consistent approach to issues concerning humanity.
Excellent Suresh,
Trust the Gillard Government will take your suggestion to heart and ACT on it. Then perhaps, just perhaps a few OTHER nations will do the same.
Cheers,
MCD in CNX.
Well done, Suresh, totally incredible situation in a country with so much history and culture, what would it take to change the attitudes to women as commodities?
Hi Suresh,
You ask ‘How long do we turn a blind eye?’, to which I can only say: mostly we don’t! What is done here is look into the blank, not knowing what to do, or how. or shut your ears completely. To turn them takes too much energy, and this doesn’t presently exist here, even though the stronger sex might lie below, down under; the weaker, often tightly joined in number, stays on top, not wanting to admit, how frequently they make a blunder…
And even here some leaders of either sexes can’t ‘get-it-right’, not even being aware of other (in)significances such as skin-colour, names or persons with what forms of disability, of background where? Or requirements, for all. Good to see that you had looked into this previously directly (without turning an eye)!