Opinion - News Analysis   

Religion and the politics of Hindraf

Does the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) define its ongoing “struggle” as the espousal of the religious “cause” of the ethnic Indian minority in Muslim-majority Malaysia? Alternatively, does religion really dominate the politics of Hindraf?

These questions have come to the fore following Malaysia’s affirmation that it wants to encourage the appointment of its own Indian-origin people as priests at Hindu temples in the country.

The future recruitment of Hindu priests from India will be considered case by case. However, no ban has been imposed on the traditional practice of Malaysian Indians seeking the services of such religious persons from abroad, especially India. Nonetheless, “stringent” assessments will be made, from now on, for renewing the work visas of those already officiating at temples in Malaysia. The number of such priests is over 5,000.

Malaysia’s transparent objectives are to prevent its Hindu temples from becoming a theatre of the Hindraf-style politics and to do so by not affecting relations with India. The reasoning can be traced to the centrality of the Hindu temple in the lives of a large number of Malaysian Indians. The delicacy of ties between India and Malaysia is another factor.

Hinduism is the dominant religion among the two-million Malaysian Indians, who account for about eight per cent of the country’s population. The majority ethnic group of Malays practises Islam.

Hindraf, according to Malaysian authorities, is an unregistered group, which, therefore, has not been formally banned, despite its penchant for religion-based politics and for organising “illegal” rallies. Malaysia remains wary of issue-based street demonstrations, especially anti-government rallies, which, in its opinion, can cause breach of peace.

In this situation, Hindraf has started using temples, more visibly in the past few weeks, for “protesting” against the “prolonged” detention of five of its leaders under Malaysia’s tough Internal Security Act (ISA). Prayers are often offered, complete with the devotees shaving their heads, as a form of political “protest.”

Temples are also being used by Hindraf as safe sanctuaries for delivering short speeches on the need to promote the constitutional rights of Malaysian Indians. And, according to Hindraf coordinator Thanenthiran, the temple priests are coming under “pressure” from the authorities to deny the group such access.

Importantly, the priests are Indian citizens, in most cases. So, the issue bristles with an accidental possibility of a collateral crisis involving India and Malaysia in the basic context of confrontation between Hindraf and the Malaysian government. From the standpoint of the activist group, though, this collateral aspect may well reinforce the utility of temples as sanctuaries for advocating the rights of Malaysian Indians and mobilising their support for anti-government protests.

From the Malaysian government’s perspective, it makes eminent sense, therefore, to adopt a policy of encouraging the local Indian-origin people to take to Hindu priesthood. Add to this Malaysia’s new move of allowing priests from India only on a case-by-case basis and being stringent about renewing the work visas of Indian-citizen priests.

And what emerges is a picture of the Malaysian government’s long-term strategy of avoiding a possible collateral crisis involving India and facing the challenge of neutralising Hindraf’s access to temples as a political theatre. In this scenario, the new policy of appointing Malaysian Indians as priests can be suitably regulated to deny Hindraf, or any other group like it, easy access to temples for political sanctuary. The reason is that efforts can be made to ensure that the Malaysian-Indian priests are government-friendly. And, if the number of Indian-citizen priests dwindles as a result, the chances of their getting caught in possible confrontations between Hindraf and the Malaysian government will diminish. This should be good for India-Malaysia ties. So runs Malaysia’s unstated but discernible reasoning.

According to the Hindraf leaders, their decade-long campaign, which has only now hit the headlines, can be traced to the need to “protect” the rights of Malaysian Indians. In prime focus is the demand for the reversal of their alleged “marginalisation” in many fields, ranging from education to employment.

An emotion-surcharged concern of the Hindraf leadership centres on the archetypal Hindu temple in Malaysia as an icon of the identity of the country’s ethnic Indian community in all fields, including politics. These leaders draw attention to the alleged “insensitivity” of the authorities in having allowed the demolition of temples in recent years.

The government’s general counter-argument, though, is that the demolition of any place of worship, not just Hindu temples, is based in law. A prime consideration is said to be the fact whether land was duly acquired for building the temples.

Significantly, a rallying cry for the Hindraf-organised protest march in Kuala Lumpur on November 25 last was the demolition of a temple a few weeks before Deepavali.

During the bygone British Raj, Hindu temples were built dotting the plantation estates, where indentured workers from South India were forced to work long hours and make a harsh living. Most among today’s Malaysian Indians are descendants of those workers, and the outward mobility of a number of them accounts for today’s larger presence of this ethnic community elsewhere in the country too. Yet, according to Hindraf, about 70 per cent of Malaysian Indians are still in the “poor underclass.”

This aspect of their “plight” is disputed by the Malaysian Indian Congress, a constituent of successive ruling coalitions at the federal level. Significantly, however, the MIC too is now busy drawing up temple protection plans for the government’s consideration.

In recent years, the issue of conversions to Islam has begun to trouble not only Malaysian Indians but also the broadly-affluent ethnic Chinese, who constitute the country’s largest minority. Yet, for the present, the politics of Hindraf centres mainly on temple protection and the “basic rights” of Malaysian Indians. Hindraf leader P. Waytha Moorthy, now camping in London, has called for a protest rally to coincide with Valentine’s Day in February. The stated plan is to present two roses of different colours to Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi — one symbolising the demand for the release of the detained Hindraf leaders and the other to convey the group’s peaceful intentions. It is said to be a plan to woo, not wound, the Malaysian state.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

The global slowdown
Telangana issue to the fore
Discrimination for dummies: V. 2008
The idea of India is under assault statecraft
Religion and the politics of Hindraf
New lyrics to Spain anthem axed after just five days
Bird flu
Bharat Ratna
Court ruling
Ensuring safety

Copyright © 2008, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu