02 July 2012
Three
major historical processes and factors have to be clearly understood
in order that the responsibility of the British/Malaysian Indian
problem of today can be fully grasped. This is necessary to understand
why Hindraf is in the first place pursuing the matter in the British
courts - so far away and on a matter that took place a long time ago.
Without knowing these truths it will be easy to pass off Hindraf’s
initiative as mere political theatre.
N. Ganesan, Hindraf's National Advisor
On the 2nd of July 2012, Hindraf files a civil action on behalf of
the marginalized Indian community in Malaysia against the UK Government
in the High Court of Wales and England calling into account the British
Government for their role in the antecedents leading up to the severe
marginalization of the Indian poor in Malaysia today.
The key questions that Hindraf seeks answers for in this civil action are:
1)
If the British are solely responsible for the presence of most of the
Indian poor in Malaysia today, do they also not share responsibility for
what is happening to the Indian poor in Malaysia today? After all the
Indians were brought into the country by them under their watch for over
150 years. It is now just over 50 years since they left.
2)
Knowing the British deftness and skills in running their Empire can we
accept that they did not recognize this possible turn of events to an
enfeebled community on their departure? Or was it also a part of their
post colonial imperial design to leave these people in this enfeebled
and exploited state to maintain ongoing divisions in the colony?
3)
Is what happened in 1957 so remote from what is happening in 2012 to
render Hindraf’s case academic? Namibia is calling into account the
genocide of several hundred thousands of their people by the German
colonialists today, what happened in the early 1900s. Armenia is still
calling into account the Turks for the Turkish genocide of more than a
million of their people again in the early 1900s. The Jews are still
calling into account all those responsible for the Holocaust of the
1930s and 1940s. In this case the aggrieved Malaysian Indians are
calling into account the devastating effects on several generations of
Indians that has left them without systemic protection as an enfeebled
minority.
4) The UK was instrumental in establishing the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights in 1949 at the United Nations. Are we to
take it that such a declaration which is not even a legally binding one
on nations can be more circumspect in their statement of Human Rights
than one which defines a whole new nation. What they left Malaya with,
was an entrenched two tiered citizenship in perpetuity, defying
relevance to the most fundamental of these Human Rights principles. In
the process they created a politico-legal basis that has led to the
development of an institutionalized racist regime here in our country.
These
are only the key issues and questions that will be raised. There are
other issues and questions that Hindraf seeks answer for as well – and
those will come out in the course of the case. Armed with documentary
evidence collated from archives around the world, it is now making a
claim in the British courts for declarations by the British courts about
the reneged role and responsibility of the colonial British Government
to the Indian marginalized poor in the country that they and only they,
were responsible for creating in Malaysia.
When history came
calling and the British had to pack up and leave Malaya, in 1957 how did
they leave, after having reaped huge profits on the backs of the people
of this country? Did they recognize their full historical obligations
to all the peoples of the country? A significant portion Malayan
population – their creation, had been uprooted from India and brought
here to an alien land. Did they recognize any obligations to these
people? Did they not anticipate or think about what would happen to this
enfeebled community after they left? As long as they were around, the
Indian coolie was still an asset to the Empire. The dynamics would
certainly shift after they left - were they not savvy enough to
recognize this.
Yet even as the British colonialists left in 1957,
they only cared about their strategic and security interests in the
region, so that their wealth in Malaya, Singapore, North Borneo, Sarawak
and Brunei would be protected. They had just lost India, Burma and Sri
Lanka. To achieve this narrow end, they did what they always knew best -
to collude with the local elite of the day. They left a politico-legal
system that took only the convergence of interests of the departing
British and the new elite to whom they would hand over power into
consideration. They saw no reason to see any more. They justified
everything they did to achieve this with their typical imperial
manipulations. But the processes of history cannot be substituted by
these treacherous manipulations. Surely we see the outcome today of that
manipulation, a steadily deteriorated institutionalized racist system –
a subtle, pervasive and increasingly aggressive racist system, that
today denies equal opportunities to a large section of the Malaysian
people and in its worst manifestation basic life opportunities to those
at the tail-end of the whip – the marginalized and poor Indians.
Hindraf
is calling into question the role of the British Colonial Government in
creating a politico-legal system in Malaya on their departure, when
they knew full well they had all the political and military muscle they
needed, to do much otherwise. The British obsession of the day was
however only narrowly circumscribed around securing of their wealth
after their departure. They chose to play the ethnicity variable to this
advantage – created two tiered citizenry in their usual ambiguous
imperial style to please an elite and to protect their interests post
1957. If you look at the departure of the British throughout their
former dominions, it is striven with the results of this kind of
imperial manipulations – large ethnic, sectarian, religious and
linguistic divisions persist in this so-called British Commonwealth.
Three
major historical processes and factors have to be clearly understood in
order that the responsibility of the British/Malaysian Indian problem
of today can be fully grasped. This is necessary to understand why
Hindraf is in the first place pursuing the matter in the British courts -
so far away and on a matter that took place a long time ago. Without
knowing these truths it will be easy to pass off Hindraf’s initiative as
mere political theatre.
The First factor and the most significant
factor was the growth of capitalism in Great and Greater Britain,
fuelled by the Industrial revolution in the 18 th and 19th Centuries.
Significant accumulation of capital and expansion of demand and
consumption occurred in this period even after the loss of their
American British colonies in the late 18th century. The Industrial
revolution produced many significant innovations that accelerated these
developments. Great Britain produced the largest ships of the time,
produced the most lethal of guns, created increasingly powerful
machinery for industry, connected up the British Empire with telegraphic
connectivity and produced a finance industry that both grew on and fed
these innovations while creating new enabling opportunities for these
developments. These together created the conditions necessary for the
acquisition of a large Empire by a geographically small nation.
The
demand for the raw produces of far eastern colonies of tin, coffee,
sugar, tea, pepper, spices and rubber increased substantially with
profits skyrocketing in this trade. The trade in these commodities was
originally carried out by the East India Company – a monopoly joint
stock company established in the 1600s who effectively governed slices
of the globe on behalf of the British Crown. Only after the Indian Sepoy
Mutiny in 1857 was the power formally transferred to the Crown directly
- to Queen Victoria and her representative Governor – General as the
head of the British possessions in India. With the demise of the
Monopoly of the East India Company trade began to accelerate between the
colonies and the Great Britain. India then became the centre piece for
the growth of the British Empire post Americana. This is the second of
the factors that must be understood.
India served as the bulwark
for the Empire in providing a multifaceted second base for the control
and growth of the Empire. India was the second administrative centre, a
second military base; a second base for labor after Africa was lost on
the abolishment of slavery, a second huge market for the expanding
production at home. India besides providing a steady feed of revenues to
Great Britain effectively paid for all these services to the burgeoning
Empire all by herself – what a deal!
The Imperial need for
profits found synergistic opportunities in the factors prevailing in the
colonies - land, climate, labor and political control. The British
Government created new policies in the colonies facilitating British
investments - one of key ones of which was the labor policy. The
abolition of slavery created a shortage of labor in the colonies. The
local labor force in most of the colonies resisted moving out from their
traditional vocations in large enough numbers to serve the growing
British appetite. Britain decided to emigrate a very large amount of
laborers from their second base in India initially to the sugar
producing colonies – Mauritius, Fiji Island, Caribbean islands of
Jamaica, British Guiana, and Trinidad, Grenada, St. Lucia, Natal in
South Africa, Ceylon, Burma and Malaya – most of these colonies having
neither strong local political and administrative organizations nor an
economic base beyond their rivers, coasts and fields and herds. And very
conveniently, British India successfully satisfied the needs of the
voracious British appetite for labor in the Plantation enterprises and
for the infrastructure works needed to facilitate the exploitation of
the colonial opportunities.
The Indian 'coolies' (indentured
laborers) sent into Mauritius from 1834 came to be regarded as the most
important early immigrants of this type. In 1844, emigration was
increased to include Jamaica, British Guiana, and Trinidad. Emigration
was legalized to Grenada in 1856 and St. Lucia in 1858. In Natal, one of
the early South African republics, the system of indentured labor began
in 1860.
Indentured labor migration to Malaya actually began in
the 1830s but only accelerated after 1874, when the British expanded
their control to the Federated Malay States of Perak, Selangor, and
Negri Sembilan. It was after the effective takeover do we see an
exponential rise in investments from the UK and the migration of Indian
coolies into Malaya. This is the third factor to be understood – the
creeping colonial control of Malaya.
By 1913 British capital
investments in Malaysia amounted to 40 million Straits Dollars, by 1923
it had risen to more than a 100 million. The area under rubber
cultivation grew rapidly from 20,200 Hectares in 1900 to 219,000 in 1919
and 1,320,000 hectares in 1938. Correspondingly the population of
Indian coolies brought in by the British Colonial Administration and
settled in Malaysia rose from 268,269 in 1911 and 470,180 in 1921 and
612,487 in 1931. By 1918, exports of rubber from Malaya amounted to
about 50 per cent of the world’s total rubber consumption.
What
better explains the presence of a large impoverished population of
Indians in the country than this correlation between the needs of the
plantation enterprises in Malaya and the growth of the Indian coolie
workforce?
However it must be said that there were two streams of
migrants that came in from India. One was the indentured stream or
assisted migration which brought the workers in as ‘coolies’ which
accounted for the largest portion. The other was the unassisted stream
that came in, both driven by the opportunities afforded by the presence
of a large pool of Indian laborers already in the country and by the
need the British had in the other sectors and services in the country.
India again provided the base for such labor to run the colonies. The
Britishers used to boast that they ran their colonies with only a few
thousand of their own kind.
Therefore what happened in Malaya was
the Malayan play of the imperative of the British Empire for profits.
All entirely and only for the profit of British Enterprises. All other
explanations proffered are just to obscure this one fundamental
historical fact to absolve the Empire of any ongoing responsibility.
This was without any doubt a British design.
In summary Hindraf is
really alluding to the basis of our nation through this case. These are
large issues of international significance, of international law, of
historical threads, of moral and historical obligations and it surely
takes a sweeping breadth of the mind to even conceptualize this, let
alone to take it to the courts. Only a weak mind will pass this off as
trivial. Hindraf is really doing a great service to the Nation.
Do
we want a nation based on racist principles or do we all want a nation
that is truly free and truly democratic and just to all its citizens
regardless of color of skin or the custom at home. It is our opinion
that there is not enough political will across the political spectrum
today to address this question within the country. Change cannot
therefore be expected to happen from within any time soon. The issue has
to come to a fore; Malaysia has to be seen to be what it is becoming,
in the international fora, as a racist state, if only for the interest
of Malaysia and Malaysians.
This change is sorely needed today,
because institutionalized racism is a socially sanctioned value in
Malaysia. Unless there is a change in this social value across the
entire Malaysian polity where racism will be seen as a scourge rather
than as a protective mechanism against the other, will there emerge a
truly modern Malaysia. The alternative scenario is a continuation of the
status quo. We are doomed to see a further deterioration of our
performance as a nation if status quo prevails for much longer. But the
subjective conditions have to align with this objective need. The social
values have to first change.
The articulation of the issues
during the case will bring these developing tendencies out in full view
and we are hopeful that this will provide impetus we all require to
reopen the discourse for a more robust basis for our nation on a bolder,
more futuristic and a substantially inclusive platform. We hope these
openings that Hindraf provides will catalyze this change.
This is
Hindraf’s case in its essence – if you care to understand it in its
depth and with an open mind. We are Human Rights Defenders of a
different order and we use the little resources we have the best we can,
for the interest of all Malaysia and all Malaysians – myopia which is
so abundant just does not help this understanding.
This case
against the UK government is for real. Win or lose in the courts, the
Malaysian people will win with this case just coming to the fore.
No comments:
Post a Comment