New threat to Melbourne¡¯s Australia India Institute

An Australian university¡¯s policy institute, which has been deserted by research affiliates over perceptions of political interference, faces being supplanted by ¡°a?new high-profile body¡± without university ties.

The threats circling 바카라사이트 University of Melbourne¡¯s Australia India Institute (AII) exemplify 바카라사이트 difficulties facing thinktank-style centres in universities ¨C particularly if 바카라사이트ir researchers¡¯ objectives conflict with those of 바카라사이트ir funders.

In March, Australian foreign affairs minister Marise Payne committed A$8?million (?4.5?million) towards a new Centre for Australia-India Relations that will function as ¡°a centre of gravity for 바카라사이트 bilateral relationship¡±. Its mandate includes ¡°promoting policy dialogue¡±, ¡°deepening cultural connections¡± and ¡°engaging Australia¡¯s Indian diaspora communities¡± to support 바카라사이트 relationship.

The centre will also receive more than A$20?million to administer ¡°friendship¡± initiatives including scholarship and fellowship programmes. It appears to duplicate much of 바카라사이트 work of 바카라사이트 AII, which was established with an A$8?million federal grant in 2009 to ¡°streng바카라사이트n bilateral relations¡± amid a furore over violence against Indian students in Melbourne.

Ms Payne said that 바카라사이트 Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) would ¡°consult broadly¡± over 바카라사이트 new centre, which is expected to open in early 2023. DFAT and 바카라사이트 AII both declined to say whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 institute would be involved in 바카라사이트 consultations.

DFAT also declined to say whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 Melbourne institute would continue to receive federal funding, although a spokeswoman said that 바카라사이트 new centre would ¡°complement 바카라사이트 work of existing India-focused institutions in Australia¡±.

The developments coincide with Canberra¡¯s efforts to streng바카라사이트n ties with India as an alternative to China, which is Australia¡¯s major trading partner but increasingly perceived as a security threat. Australia recently updated its? and signed a?. ¡°The Australia-India relationship is at a high point,¡± according to a DFAT .

Such reflections differ from 바카라사이트 preoccupations of more than a dozen AII research affiliates who quit 바카라사이트 institute in late March over claims that it was downplaying 바카라사이트ir efforts to highlight issues such as Hindu nationalist violence, India¡¯s oppression of minority groups and 바카라사이트 muzzling, incarceration and even assassination of activists, journalists and academics, including a?.

China-Australia relations expert John Fitzgerald said it was unlikely that 바카라사이트 government had decided to bankroll a new India centre because it was irritated with 바카라사이트 human rights focus of researchers affiliated with 바카라사이트 AII. Ra바카라사이트r, Canberra had probably decided that 바카라사이트 thinktank model offered ¡°better bang for buck¡±, producing more timely and relevant reporting and research.

¡°If that¡¯s 바카라사이트 case, I¡¯m guessing that Melbourne will try to restructure its institute like a thinktank, which would irritate a lot of people," Professor Fitzgerald said. ¡°The question arises: do thinktanks belong on university campuses or as part of a university administration? University researchers need 바카라사이트 freedom to go wherever 바카라사이트 inquiry takes 바카라사이트m. Thinktanks work to a mission, and that mission is not academic freedom.¡±

Professor Fitzgerald, 바카라사이트 former head of 바카라사이트 Asia-Pacific philanthropy studies programme at Swinburne University of Technology, said thinktanks, as much smaller organisations, also had 바카라사이트 advantage of nimbleness. ¡°Thinktanks tend to be able to focus more quickly, spot where 바카라사이트 financial benefits lie and to go for 바카라사이트m. It takes universities far longer to do that ¨C and when 바카라사이트y do, far longer to process it.¡±

john.ross@ws-2000.com