Respect and unity? Not with Interlok

Nantha Kumar

Interlok offers a warped perspective and will only create a deeper wedge between the races in Malaysia.

Since “Interlok” became a buzzword, many scholars and politicians have come forward to give their views – some in defence of the book, others opposing its inclusion as a Form Five literature text for the Bahasa Malaysia subject.

The question now is whether such a controversial book, which has touched the raw nerve of a community in multiracial Malaysia, is relevant as a school textbook.

Before we examine Interlok, the novel, we first need to understand the issue in this book.

For those who have still not read or heard about the book, allow me a brief introduction.

Interlok was first written by a Malay author, Abdullah Hussein, in the mid-1960s. The novel tells the story of Malaysia’s three major races, namely Malays, Chinese and Indians.

The story is set during the era before and after the Japanese occupation.

In the novel, the author has introduced the Indians to the Malays as the “pariah” caste. Herein lies the problem in modern Malaysia.

The term “pariah” has angered Indians in this country much like the derogatory word “keling” did years ago when Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka bulldozed the community’s views and sanctioned it as “an acceptable” word.

What is in the term – ‘pariah’?

At the outset, allow me to establish that Interlok is not a record of history. There are factual errors in the novel.

The author himself has admitted Interlok to be merely a work of fiction and not meant to be a footnote on history.

Having said this, let’s look at the term “pariah” as used in the novel.

The term is derived from the Tamil rootword “Parai”, which literally means “tell something or spread the word”.

There are two different theories on how the word came into being.

Hundreds of years ago during the era of kings and sultans in India, the royal court appointed messengers across the land to carry the king’s decree or message. Over a period of time, these messengers also came to be used by various lower ranking officials and feudal lords in the land.

In South India, these messengers drew the attention of audiences by beating away at a portable drum-like instrument called “parai”.

Once they garnered a crowd with these drumbeats, the messengers would then convey their public announcements, much like in many other civilisations. (In fact, even old Malay movies here have scenes of such messengers who spread the word and policies of the sultans. There were no radio, televisions or postmen then.)

These messengers who travelled far and wide were paid workers and were mostly drawn from the lowest strata of society. These “parai” drum-beaters were eventually called “paraiyar”.

Second theory

Now that’s one definition. The second theory is a little more sensitive.

First, let me establish the geographical region of South India.

According to Wikipedia, South India encompasses the states of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu as well as the union territories of Lakshadweep and Puducherry (formerly known as Pondicherry). Together, they occupy 19.31% of India’s landmass.

To the predominantly Hindu region of South India, the cow is considered a sacred animal because its virtues in the temporal world is said to be equivalent to that of a nurturing and all-giving “mother”.

In the olden days in the northern region of South India, the community which consumed beef was known as “pariah”.

This is because at that time, the word “pariah” was a general word to denote a person who was not very civilised.

Thus was born the man-made label “pariah” which was derived from an occupational and behavioural pattern.

Since then Hindu Indians have been sensitive to being refered to “pariahs”.

Interlock is fiction

Back to the Interlok novel. Firstly, we should not be berating the author because maybe he was not aware at the time of producing his creative masterpiece that the novel will eventually be used in schools.

The author himself has admitted that the original version of Interlock is a work of fiction with no historical facts.

He had no clue what “type” of re-editing would be done by the Education Ministry to include it as an authorised text for the Bahasa Malaysia Literature for SPM students.

Despite the controversy raging over the use of Interlok as school text, the Education Ministry has not come forward to explain its decision as to why it chose to make the book compulsory reading for Form Five students.

My hope is that the ministry will justify to the parents and explain the benefits of reading Interlok to the students.

Whether these students, who incidentally will become future leaders in multiracial Malaysia, will be united after reading this book is subjective.

My opinion is that Interlok offers a warped perspective and will only create a deeper wedge between the races in Malaysia.

The book and its running theme does nothing to encourage unity and respect between communities.

Is the Education Ministry prejudiced?

The Indian community’s simmering anger and outbursts over Interlock is, to me, akin to the reactions stirred by Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s “The Social Contract” and the subsequent French Revolution and Harriet Beecher Stowe’s “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” which helped lay the groundwork for the civil war in the US.

Both books inspired a radical revolt and the overall development of modern political ideologies and sociological thinking.

In view of such historical fact, the government should be careful when choosing books to use in schools.

The Education Ministry must also explain why a united Malaysian education system does not have a uniformed text for compulsory reading in schools.

Why are there different literature books (Bahasa Malaysia and English) for schools in different regions within Malaysia?

Is the Education Ministry prejudiced against Indians, considering that Selangor, the Federal Territory and Negri Sembilan have a sizeable percentage of Indian voters who had allegedly voted against them (the government) in the 2008 general election?

How did the ministry come to the conclusion that Interlok will “unite” the three races, when words derogatory in nature are used to describe and deride another community?

The ministry’s stony silence over Interlok and another contentious issue involving “fictitious and edited” accounts of Malaysia’s past in history textbooks in schools merely raise speculations and questions about Barisan Nasional’s real agenda and the genuineness of Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak’s 1Malaysia spirit.