PRIME MINISTER
FOR PRESS 25 JANUARY 1979
BANQUET SPEECH AT NEW DELHI
I address you tonight on the eve of the 26th January, the date
of the deepest significance for both our countries.
For India, the 26th January represents the culmination of
your struggle for independence as a republic. That struggle
constitutes one of the epics of modern history.
I am very conscious that for many of you it is more than that,
that it is biography rather than histroy, something you lived
through and participated in, and which has been a part of you
ever since.
For-Australia, too, this is the day on which we commemorate our
acflevement of nationhood and reflect upon our aspirations as
a nation.
Both our countries achieved independence after a long periodof
colonial rule. I think that we are both free enough of any
inferiority complex and sure enough of our identity to reflect
on that period dispassionately.
It brought us many things which were good and which even today
contribute greatly to our welfare including, notably, modern
science and technology..
I mention those aspects in particular because both our countries
have subsequently been conspicuously successful in building on
those foundations and creating scientific and technological
establishments which are impressive by world standards.
Despite the very great differences in our colonial experiences,
the fact that we were both British colonies means that we share
many things: Common heritage of parliamentary government,
the principle of common law, the independent role of the
judiciary and the rights and privileges of our citizens. It
is a heritage to value.
But when all this is acknowledged, and it amounts to a great
deal, it is still true that colonialism was colonialism, not
to be endured, not to be continued.
Apart from the balance sheet of costs and advantages for
individual countries, the extent to which the world we live in
has been shaped by the colonial experience is striking.
It is very evident in the way states are grouped and labelled
today, and we are living in a world which is obsessed with labelling.
Our countries have had contrasting tags attached to them over
the years. Thus India is a " developing" country, member of
the " Third World", part of the " South" in the North-South
dialogue.
Australia is " developed", " Western" and part of the " North".
How inadequate, and, in some ways, positively misleading these
labels are.
As far as India is concerned, they work to obscure the fact
that, while still a developing nation, you are in many important
respects, industrially, scientifically, culturally, amongst the
most developed countries of the world.
The term " Third World" applied as it is to cover both yourselves
and many countries which are not a hundredth of your size in.-
terms of either population or area, serves to disguise rather
than to illuminate the distinctive character of India.
Similarly, in the case of A stralia, simply calling us " North"
when we are situated deep in the Southern Hemisphere, or " West"
when we are thousands of miles from the centres of western power,
is to miss much of what is distinctive and individual in our
character as a country.
One can understand the appeal of this type-casting. It represents
an attempt to make an increasingly complex world more comprehensible
and manageable.
But insofar as it tends to obscure the living reality with an
abstract concept the unique character of the particular case with
a stereo-type it has its dangers.
Both India and Australia are in important respects atypical
countries whose experiences cut across accepted patterns, which
have a very pronounced characters and voices of their own.
It is precisely in terms of that individuality that, it seems
to me, they can make their most valuable contribution to the
world today.
That world is one characterised to an increasing extent by
bloc diplomacy and bloc thinking. Unless the central
problems which confront it, prob0lems such as: Racialism, with
its unique capacity to poison human relations, the need to redefine
relationships between rich and poor countries inflation which
has the capacity to destoy the international system, and to harm
all people: Unless these problems are solved, we are faced with
the prospect that those blocs will harden, and that rigid
confrontation will result. 3
The problems we face are not isolated, discrete ones. If the
colonial experince taught us anything it taught us that what
start as economic matters quickly assume political and strategic
implications. In the interdependent world in which we live, one in which issues,
as well as countries, are interdependent, that is a lesson which
it is essential we remember.
Famine, energy shortages, frustrated aspirations for a better
life can lead directly to political crises. And, as recent
events in the Middle East have illustrated, political turmoil
can quickly render ecomonic projections meaningless.
There is a real danger that extremism will prevail, extremism
that takes the form of a refusal to understand the perspectives
and problems of others, the lack of respect for the legitimacy
of different approaches. Let our passion be in pursuit of
tolerance. I believe that, both by example and by acting as voices of
moderation, our two countries can contribute significantly to
averting that danger.
We have it within our capacity to strengthen the cause of reason
and co-operation both within the groups to which we respectively
belong, and by acting as moderators between those groups.
The very fact that we are not typical, that we have distinctive
perspectives of our own and are not inclined simply to run with
any other, make it easier for us to do so.
India already has a distinguished record in this regard. At
the risk of drawing criticisms from all sides, you have been
militant in upholding the cause of moderation.
In your practice, the stress you place on self-reliance,
on solving your own problems and creating the right domestic
conditions for growth and development has provided a healthy
and salutory example.
For while there is most certainly an urgent need for some changes
in the international economic order, this can never be a substitute
for responsible and determined domestic programmes.
In this regard, India's performance over the years stand high.
As India has disassociated itself from the extreme position
sometimes found in the Third World, which depicts relations
between it and the West in terms of irreconcilable antagonism:
So has Australia firmly disassociated itself from the extreme
position in the First World which claims that the Third World's
troubles are all of its own making, that there is nothing that
can be improved inthe international ecomonic system.
In recent years we have increasingly taken initiatives, over the
Common Fund, in the Commonwealth context, in our own region,
to develop and sustain a constructive dialogue between developed
and developing countries. / 4
Within the councils of the OECD countries we have taken a lead
to ensure that the case of the developing countries is considered
at its strongest and in a sympathetic and positive spirit.
We have done so, and we shall continue to do so, because we believe
very strongly that much is at stake.
The international system will be placed under increasingly severe
strain if the voice of moderation, of plain ordinary commonsense
fails. I hope that our two countries can find ways of collaborating to
diminish the chance of that happening, both by consulting and
co-operating at the diplomatic level, and by developing_ a
mutually beneficial bilateral relationship which will stand as
an instance of what is possible.
I feel very honoured to be your guest on this occasion, My family
and I look forward immensely to the coming week and to the richness
of experience it promises.