3 February 2010
Transcript of interview with NDTV Senior Foreign Editor Maya Mirchandani
Question: Senior Australian politicians have accused the Indian media of fuelling controversy over the attacks- do you agree?
High Commissioner: The remarks of various political leaders in Australia have addressed more to the question of balance in the Indian media reporting and I think the point they are making is that it is important not to jump to conclusions about these attacks. The most recent arrests that we have had in Australia reinforces the point that it is in everybody’s interest to make sure that we allow investigations to proceed, and the courts to deal with these issues before we jump to any conclusion about what may or may not be behind these attacks.
Question: The sense here is that Australian authorities have not been forthcoming on investigations ....?.
High Commissioner: I think that would be a misplaced sense. We accord these investigations very high priority. We have had over 50 arrests already in relation to attacks on Indian nationals. Those cases are working their way through the Australian court system. The courts have shown that they are prepared to hand out appropriately tough penalties in these cases, particularly where hate or race is involved as a motivation. So I do not think that it is accurate to suggest that we are unconcerned about this or not doing anything about it.
Question: The fact that this case turned out to be fake is unfortunate… but it should not take away from other investigations ..... What do you feel?
High Commissioner: The point about this most recent arrest and the charge of making a false report .... is letting the system of justice work its way through. Let us not presume guilt or innocence in this case. I think the point is that it is important not to jump to conclusions. This was an incident that attracted worldwide publicity; it was presented in India and other countries as a racist attack on an Indian student. We now know from the police investigation that the conclusion was something quite different. I am not suggesting that this one case proves or disproves anything about the other cases but it proves one very clear thing which is that jumping to conclusions on the basis of initial reports is not advisable.