Opinion - Leader Page Articles

Malaysian Indians: a disadvantaged community

The unprecedented November 2007 demonstration by Malaysian Indians before the British High Commission in Kuala Lumpur, under the sponsorship of the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf), has brought into sharp focus the pathetic situation in which the Indian community finds itself today. Hindraf, a coalition of 30 non-governmental organisations, is committed to the preservation and promotion of Hindu identity in Malaysia. The coalition had been agitating against what it calls the unofficial policy of temple demolition and the steady introduction of Sharia-based law.

The memorandum submitted to the British High Commission demanded that the United Kingdom should move a resolution in the United Nations condemning the “ethnic cleansing” taking place in Malaysia. It also wanted the issue to be taken to the World Court and the International Criminal Court of Justice. In August 2007, Malaysian Indians moved to approach the British courts demanding a compensation of $4 trillion — which works out to $1 million per Malaysian Indian — for bringing their forefathers as indentured labourers and failing to protect their rights and interests on the eve of Malayan independence.

The Malaysian government, true to its authoritarian traditions, refused permission for holding the rally, arrested the leaders, and used tear gas and water cannon to disperse the demonstrators. The leaders of Hindraf should know that historical wrongs perpetrated during the colonial era like the indenture system cannot be undone. Presumably, their objective is to highlight the increasing marginalisation of the Indian community in the social, economic, political, and cultural life of Malaysia.

At the end of the Second World War, the ‘Indians’ (the term today includes Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Nepalese, and Sri Lankans) constituted about 14 per cent of Malaya’s population. A number of them returned to India during the communist insurgency and the time of troubles that followed the communal riots of May 1969. By 2000, Indians numbered 1.8 million, representing 7.7 per cent of the Malaysian population of 21.89 million. Approximately 80 per cent of them were Tamils. North Indians (mainly Sikhs) constituted 7.7 per cent; Malayalis 4.7 per cent; Telugus 3.4 per cent; Sri Lankan Tamils 2.7 per cent, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis 1.1 per cent; and others 0.4 per cent. Religion-wise, Hindus comprised 81.2 per cent of the Malaysian Indian population; Christians 8.4 per cent; Muslims 6.7 per cent; Sikhs 3.1 per cent; Buddhists 0.5 per cent; and others 0.1 per cent.

We should make a distinction between the Indian middle class (mainly non-Tamils and Sri Lankan Tamils) whose standard of living is fairly high and the working class (mainly Tamil), which is poor and getting marginalised. The working class is drawn from Dalit and other non-privileged sections of society. They continue to be weighed down by low social esteem, a condition made worse by a lack of interaction between the well off and the less well off.

A notable feature of the Indian community is its changing socio-economic profile. In 1970, 47 per cent of the Indians were engaged in agriculture, 74 per cent of them in the plantations. With rapid economic expansion and diversification, plantations have been converted for other purposes, including the construction of luxury homes. The uprooted Indians were only paid a pittance as compensation. They naturally migrated to urban areas and joined the squatter population. A few years ago, Samy Velu, president of the Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC), deplored the plight of thousands of estate workers “living in squalor in slums in dozens of long-houses and squatter settlements all over Selangor.”

A few years ago, Aliran, the journal of the Malaysian reform movement, provided statistical details that made disturbing reading: 40 per cent of serious crimes in Malaysia were committed by Indians; there were 38 Indian-based gangs with 1,500 active members; Indians contributed the highest number of those detained under the Emergency Regulations and banished to Simpang Rengamm prison. In Kuala Lumpur, 14 per cent of the squatters were Indians; they had the highest suicide rates; 41 per cent of vagrants and beggars were Indians; and 20 per cent of child abusers and 14 per cent of juvenile delinquents were Indians.

The Indian-Malay communal clashes that took pace in March 2001, the worst since May 1969, sent shock waves through Malaysia. Ethnic tensions in Malaysia are generated mainly by Sino-Malay rivalry but the heavy Indian involvement in 2001 (five of the six killed were Indians and the other was an Indonesian) was a sad reminder that in Malaysia’s progress towards prosperity Indians were being left behind.

The disadvantaged status is clearly visible in the economic sphere. The Chinese are firmly entrenched in trade, business, and industry. They are apparently reconciled to a subordinate status in political life; at the same time, they have sharpened their entrepreneurial skills and become indispensable. The status of Malays has improved steadily as a result of the energetic drive of the Malaysian government since the days of the New Economic Policy.

The deplorable status of Indian Tamils is directly related to poor educational attainments. Although the Malaysian government has expanded educational facilities in a big way since independence, the fruits of education have not percolated to the most disadvantaged sections of the Indian population. Tamil medium primary schools are in a sorry state. A single teacher handling multiple classes, ill-equipped schools with teachers lacking commitment, and high dropout rates are some of the serious drawbacks. Family life is characterised by alcoholism, violence against women, and addiction to Tamil TV channels. Obviously, all this does not provide a congenial atmosphere for study. As a result, only limited numbers of Tamil children are able to go to university.

Compounding the complex situation is a general perception that the government is not serious about preventing the destruction of Hindu temples. In the midst of fast-changing lifestyles in Malaysia, temples and religious festivals are the only visible attachment to traditions and the Indians cling to them tenaciously.

There is a close nexus between religion and Malay politics and the policies of the Malaysian government have proved to be double-edged. On the one hand, the leaders of the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) are committed to the promotion of Islam in all possible ways. Such a policy is judged to be necessary to mobilise Malays under the UMNO banner. Else the Malays might flock to the Partai Islam (PAS) for leadership and inspiration. At the same time, the realities of Malaysia and the needs of modernisation dictate that the government must encourage a less exclusivist approach towards Islam. When the desecration of Hindu temples began in 1978, the most notable incident being the destruction of the Murugan temple in Kerling, Prime Minister Hussein Onn came down heavily on Islamic extremists. But the situation has been allowed to drift during recent years. According to Hindraf, a Hindu temple is demolished in Malaysia every three weeks, the latest outrage being the demolition of the Mariamman temple in Shah Alam.

The question should be legitimately asked — how effective is the Malaysian Indian Congress, which represents the Indian community in the Malaysian government, in living up to its primary ideal of safeguarding the interests of the Indian community? An Indian observer of the Malaysian scene cannot but come to a downbeat conclusion. Factional struggle and disunity have been the lot of the Indian community for six decades now. The fight for power, petty politicking, and mudslinging have been its major attributes. It is an unrelieved tale of strong man rivalry and factionalism within the MIC: Devaser vs Sambandan; Sambandan vs Manickavasagam; Manickavasagam vs Samy Velu; Samy Velu vs Padmanabhan vs Subramaniam vs Pandithar.

Self-help measures initiated by the MIC with much fanfare, have not led to any worthwhile results. For example, the Maika Holdings Bhd, started in 1982 as an investment vehicle for Malaysian Indians, incurred heavy losses, resulting in the wipe-out of the savings of a large number of indigent Indians.

Recent events in Malaysia have naturally attracted the attention of Indian leaders. Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, and Foreign Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee have all expressed concern over the recent turn of events in Malaysia. They have made it clear that the objective is not to interfere in the internal affairs of a friendly country but only to influence the Malaysian government to initiate immediate steps for the redress of long-pending grievances. The Malaysian official response has been unfortunate. Representatives of the Malaysian government, including the Prime Minister, have demanded that the Government of India and the Government of Tamil Nadu keep off an internal matter of Malaysia.

What is the record of the Malaysian government in this respect? As a leading member of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the Malaysian government has sharply criticised many governments for pursuing policies that have adversely affected the Muslim communities. UMNO and PAS, the two leading Malay parties, have on several occasions since independence criticised the policies of the Thai government, which has led to the alienation of the Malay minority in southern Thailand. Malay leaders have also criticised the government of Singapore for pursuing allegedly discriminatory policies against the Malay minority in the island. Malaysian official criticism of India, for intruding into its internal affairs, certainly sounds strange.

(Dr. V. Suryanarayan is a retired Senior Professor and Director of the Centre for South and Southeast Asian Studies, University of Madras.)

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu