Hindraf’s objectives remain the same
Hindraf’s national advisor N Ganesan answers frequently asked questions on the latest developments involving the movement.
Indian rights movement Hindraf has come under the spotlight after signing a memorandum of understanding with its ‘enemy’ Barisan Nasional last week to uplift the plight of the Indian community in this country.
Hindraf chairman P Waythamoorthy is now calling for the Indian community to back BN in the polls, and this has come under severe criticism.
Here Hindraf’s national advisor N Ganesan gives answers to questions being asked about Hindraf’s new alignment with BN and Najib Tun Razak.
About Hindraf’s new relationship with Umno/BN
1. Is it not a betrayal of the Indian cause to team up with Umno/BN?
What is the Indian cause if it is not an expression of the yearning of the average Indian for a shot at an equal and dignified life? Inequality and indignity are systemic outcomes caused by the skewed distribution of the national resource of this country. The Indian cause is not served by political alliances per se, but by what the alliance will deliver. There is no religion to this, as some armchair progressives will have us believe. The negotiations around the blueprint over the last several months are really all about that. The Indian cause in Malaysia is best served by a political alliance that delivers the Indians the means for a better life. If BN/Umno can deliver that and when Pakatan has plainly refused to, what would be a betrayal to the Indian cause not to take it up or to have gone with Pakatan in spite of their known negative policies towards the Indian poor.
2. Has Hindraf given up its principles in partnering BN and gone with hat in hand to them, in spite of the bashing Hindraf supporters took on Nov 25, 2007?
Hindraf’s primary objective is to bring the Indian poor into the national mainstream of development. This objective is based on the principles of social justice, equality and dignity. In 2007 the bashing that the Indians received on the streets was the beginning. It was a major emotional event for the Indians. From that painful start Hindraf has been through many challenges to get to where it is today – with potential and credible solutions in hand, though and with an unexpected partner. When these plans get implemented in the next 5 years there will be tangible changes to the lives of the marginalised Indians. We have been absolutely guided by our principles in this journey. We have gone to BN not with hat in hand, but with wisdom in our minds and integrity in our hearts.
3. Is this a sellout of Hindraf by its leaders?
What has not been possible for 56 years is being accomplished right under our noses now by some very skilful leadership within the span of a few months. A new relationship with a past enemy for mutual benefit cannot be a sellout. Was there a sellout when rapprochement occurred between France and England who were at war with each other for a hundred years or between Russia and the US the cold war foes, or between Germany and Japan on the one hand and the US on the other, the second world war foes. Purveyors of the sellout theme must have some very personal reasons that they cannot see these developments in a positive light.
4. Has there been a secret pact between the leaders of Hindraf and leaders of BN?
The entire process of these negotiations has been transparent from when we began in August last year with the return of Waythamoorthy. The calls to both sides Pakatan Rakyat and BN have always been transparent. If there had been any secret pact with Umno/BN, then that tack taken would have been inappropriate. For, if Pakatan had come through with the endorsement earlier it would have screwed up any secret arrangements that may have existed. Pakatan did have the first shot, after all. They did not come through. Serious discussion started with Umno only on March 25, barely a month ago and they came through on April 18. Up till the April 15 we were ready for discussion with Pakatan, but they totally failed. Secret pact, hmm….
The conspiracy theorists from Pakatan have been working overtime on this theme of a secret pact. This way they want to confuse the people on this historic deal. We will see the result of all this on May 5.
5. Hindraf has been extremely critical of Umno’s past policies, what happens to all that criticism now? Has Hindraf forgotten the 56 years of Umno’s policies that have resulted in the marginalisation of Indians?
The past will not go away. Our views of the past will also remain. What will change will be the way those views will determine our future actions. We will continue with our push for change. Hindraf will continue as a human rights NGO regardless of any involvement in government. Our current priority is the economic program for the upliftment of the Indian poor with this blueprint. We will continue our human rights work, only we believe we will now have more leverage over national policy in these areas, given our experience. We will continue to be change agents. Our detractors will shoot this down as highly improbable, that is their preroragative.
6. Will BN honour their part of the agreement?
No Malaysian prime minister has ever apologised publicly to the Indians for past lapses. No Malaysian government had ever signed anything like this in full public view. 1.8% of the annual budget of the government for the next five years to solve a longstanding and nagging problem is a very small price. The opportunity to hold Hindraf responsible for the delivery of the blueprint plans is a gift.
All the BN government needs to do is to provide the funds, the authority and supervise for consistency with all the rest of what they do.
Why will they now want to play around, especially with Hindraf who is known to be able to kick up storms quite readily, unless they mean what they are signing up to?
Besides, in a recent risk analysis that we performed, BN came out 2 to 1 better in the risk rating compared to Pakatan in the risks of implementation. Yes there is risk, but we have assessed the risk and think it is worth taking, considering the potential benefit.
About the relationship with Pakatan
7. Pakatan stands for change, why are you not embracing change?
Pakatan say they stand for change. The change they talk about at best will only serve the business community, not the poor, not the Indian poor for sure. From the squirming we have experienced with Anwar Ibrahim, we are convinced that all talk of change is no more than mollifying rhetoric. And look at how Lim Guan Eng promotes mega projects in Penang despite noisy protests from the people. Opinions of the people do not seem important in their worldview. So, what change are we talking about?
We are for change. But Pakatan is not the change that we need. Pakatan is not the change the country needs. We need changes in policies, not in names and faces only. We have no problems embracing true change. However Pakatan does not represent true change to us.
8. Pakatan stands for multiracialism, that is why they could not accept Hindraf’s Blueprint?
Pakatan says they stand for multiracialism. If that were really the case they should dissolve their individual parties and merge into one large truly multiracial party, why do they not? So, are they really all that multiracial as they say, or is it just some more rhetoric? The way they handled the recent Pakatan manifesto, shows the big gap between what they say and what they do. They said it transcends racial boundaries when it clearly did not and then go and eat humble pie when they have to run and add a few more pledges to the Indians, making the manifesto no more race blind contradicting their earlier protestations. Then DAP plagiarises our blueprint, which in the first place they said was a racially orientated document and call it a grand declaration violating their policy of transcending race. They do not mean any of what they say when it comes to the affairs of the poor Indians.
9. Has Hindraf been inept in dealing with Pakatan?
We had 24 meetings with Pakatan, all at our behest. We saw how they were bungling in the way they went about the meetings. The words did not match their thoughts. Left hand did not know what right hand was doing. We had to deal with three different paradigms. There either was no understanding of the Indian problem or there was only a slanted understanding, at best. In spite of all these setbacks we did not give up. If calling out impostors as Mandores amounts to ineptness and that is the reason for the failure, all I can say is this is a very convenient way of passing off something fundamental as a minor aberration.
About the Memorandum of Understanding between BN and Hindraf
10. The MOU is an understanding it is not an agreement. So what is the worth of the MOU signed between Hindraf and BN?
The MOU clearly states that it is a binding agreement between BN and Hindraf. Further we consider it binding when the document is signed in full view of the whole country. All the naysayers, say there is no honor in BN. Afterwards they say BN will just leave you high and dry, despite the agreement statements and the high profile signing.
However our recent experiences and analysis brings us to other conclusions. In Umno’s world view they do not see the Indians in the country as a threat to their hold on long term power. Their fears come from elsewhere. We have just been party to collateral damage in the past, and the Blueprint now helps to address that collateral damage.
This MOU document, further serves as a record our understanding of the changes what we have agreed upon. When it comes to implementation this document will be the reference. Will there be differences later on in the interpretation? I am sure there will be. But we do not consider that a major risk. The major risk is whether there is honour behind the words. From what we see now, there does seem to be.
11. Why did the prime minister not sign the MOU, why Tengku Adnan Mansor? And who is Tengku Adnan?
The agreement is between Hindraf and Barisan Nasional. Tengku Adnan is the secretary general and the administrative head of Barisan Nasional. It is well within legal norms for him to be the signatory. The prime minister was the witness to the event.
12. Is the MOU valid as it is signed only by the caretaker government?
The MOU is not signed by the caretaker government. It is signed by Tengku Adnan on behalf of the Barisan Nasional.
13. What if there is a change in the leadership of Umno/BN – will the MOU still be valid?
The MOU is between two organisations and their successors in titles and P Waythamoorthy and Tengku Adnan signed respectively for their organisations.
14. Why did we give up on items 5 and 6 of the original Hindraf Blueprint?
Though it looks like we have given up on those two items, the IPCMC and police brutality and the UN covenants, we have just postponed those issues for later so it will help move on the other more urgent economic issues that affect the Indian poor now. Besides the way we see the world moving it is inevitable that these changes are going to happen, BN or Pakatan. It is the times. And we will continue to be agents of change.
15. Is the MOU a mockery of the Hindraf Blueprint?
The MOU is no mockery of the Blueprint. It is a document that takes into account the reality of today’s situation. The moral issues underlying the Blueprint are important and we have taken the tack to address them obliquely, for the immediate.
When the poverty situation is addressed effectively, social development will occur as a direct consequence. This will see a reduction of the involvement of Indian youth in crime. Today many of the killings in custody can be traced to a complex web between these youths, crime syndicates, their bosses, the police and even some who are well placed in society. But when we reduce the input into that web, the problem will reduce significantly. This is the oblique opportunity we have today with the current plan.
As for the UN covenants on human rights, the proposals when completely implemented will reduce the racial discrimination in the system that the Indian poor will face. We have established a clear quota based regime for all benefits deriving from the government on the basis of the participation in numbers in the population. As for bringing the laws of the country to be consistent with theseinternational norms of human rights we believe social values will have to first change. And we plan be involved in that effort too.
