Thursday, September 24, 2009

The Indian dilemma and Hindraf

Many moons have passed since the Hindraf mass gathering in Kuala Lumpur in 2007 which led to a sea change in Indian voting pattern from predominantly Barisan Nasional to the opposition in 2008.

The increased perception among Indian voters of their economic marginalization helped to energize a political tsunami although it would be wrong to say that Hindraf created the tsunami.

The tsunami was actually created by Malaysians of all races - not just Indians - who sought change.

Much water has flowed under the bridge since then. Since their release from ISA, the five Hindraf leaders had a falling out and only two have remained to lay claim as inheritors of the Hindraf movement. They are the self-proclaimed Chairman, Waythamoorty and his brother Uthayakumar.

Two political offshoots of Hindraf have bloomed – the Malaysian Makkal Sakthi Party led by Hindraf’s ex-chief co-ordinator and the Human Rights Party led by Uthayakumar.

The MMSP appears to be a non-starter as widespread suspicion that the party made a deal with Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak to expedite its registration proved to be toxic.

For HRP, whose registration has not been approved, it is still early days yet but Uthayakumar’s leadership will assure that it and not MMSP will inherit the fame and reputation associated with Hindraf.

From ally to enemy
The intervening months after the 12th general election has seen more than just organizational changes and political offshoots from Hindraf, it has also seen a stark reversal of the movement’s relationship with Pakatan Rakyat. It is said that in politics there are no permanent friends or enemies but the breakdown of Hindraf’s relationship with PR has been particularly swift and complete. From a staunch ally it has turned into a fierce attacker of PR.

The root of the problem could be Uthayakumar’s genuine concern that PR has not done enough for Indians or his latent political ambition or both. But the fertile ground from which sprang the shoots of hostility is certainly Hindraf’s inability to widen its scope from a strictly mono-ethnic agenda to a more multi-racial one.

But charges that the young PR state governments had failed to look after Indians or had even marginalized them are unfair. The powers of state governments are extremely limited with all powers to form policies and almost all institutions for social advancement under Federal control. They do not even have any reasonable tax base and only have autonomy over land matters. The state governments certainly have no power to marginalize any race.

Despite this handicap, progress has been made in Indian representation in the state legislature and protection of minority rights to places of worship among other things.

But to Hindraf, PR can never do enough for Indians as their philosophy of special affirmative action for Indian is at odds with PR’s philosophy of uplifting the poor and marginalized of all races equally.

Fishing in the same pond
This dissatisfaction with PR led Uthayakumar to form his Human Rights Party to champion Indians as a supposedly “third force”. From the beginning it is clear that HRM will have a strictly mono-ethnic Indian agenda although its name does not reflect this.

Uthayakumar has no voice for the human rights of non-Indians like Teoh Beng Hock or any stateless persons of non-Indian origin.

Once the Hindraf based political party was launched, its alienation with PR was complete. It is clear that HRM has to fish for Indian votes in the same pond as PR, namely the anti-BN crowd. This competition for the same vote bank leads naturally to an acrimonious relationship fueled by a realization that Hindraf is losing its hold on the Indian community.

The final break came on the heels of the Kg. Buah Pala affair, which proved to be a godsend for Hindraf. Although there was nothing racial about a group of villagers fighting with a developer for the rights to stay on their traditional land, the whole affair was turned into an ugly racial issue by Hindraf.

It was portrayed as injustice inflicted on Indians by a Chinese-based DAP government although the Penang government was neither wholly DAP nor Chinese and the race of the villagers was irrelevant to the outcome.

The use of racial politics to gain votes by manipulating the ethnic emotion of the Indians is the same divide and rule tactic employed by BN. It can be effective but comes with disastrous side effects of creating a polarized society from which BN benefits.

Indian problem and solution
Hindraf’s response to the Indian problem lacks vision as a holistic long term solution is required, not piecemeal action demanded in an emotional way.

The key to bringing poor and marginalized Indians into the mainstream of development lies in uplifting all marginalized people by affirmative action based on need, not race.

Multi-racial politics to solve economic deprivation issues in a colour-blind way is the only viable solution as each race fighting for itself leads to the predictable outcome of the weakest race being marginalized as has been proven for the past 52 years of BN rule.

This can only be achieved through political change at the Federal level. As Umno’s political power hinges on leveraging a polarized society based on Malay supremacy this means its economic treatment of all races can never be equal.

Instead of helping PR effect a political change, Hindraf is now at odds with PR and attempts to draw away Indian votes will benefit BN.

Due to unfavourable demography, HRM can never expect to succeed as a third force based on Indian votes. At best it will just be a spoiler which benefits BN but more likely it is on the path to irrelevance.

The way forward is not more racial jingoism which leads directly to BN’s racial trap but multi-racial politics to blunt BN’s political stranglehold.

Unless Hindraf and HRM can drop its mono-ethnic politics and embrace multi-culturalism, it will become a footnote in history or an unintended ally of BN to help it maintain political power.

Kevin Gan- Malaysian Mirror

No comments: