A discourse on politics and socioeconomics in Malaysia; perspective of a Malaysian Indian

Vedic Astrology: A scientific exploration into the philosophy of Hinduism

2011-06-12T06:00:00.000-07:00

Part 3 of 3: Addressing scientific scepticism

Allow me to illustrate this with a simplified example of the effects of the sun and the moon on our lives on earth.

Seasonal changes that occur with the earth’s rotation and position around the sun affect the course of lives of organisms on earth. Plants wither, animals hibernate and migrate. It is no coincidence that during winter seasons, the lack of sunshine affects the balance of neurotransmitters in the brain causing seasonal affective disorder in many; a condition which can significantly hamper or affect life.

The gravitational forces of the moon affect tides, making the environment more habitable to some than others, which subsequently affects the lives of fishermen who live by sea and what they eat. The nutrients that are contained within a particular species of fish, varies from another, therefore what you eat is also dictated by the environment you live in, which in turn affects your constitution, physical built, physiological and psychological well being, health and overall quality of life.

Such are examples of only two of the multitude of floating masses within our solar system, not even the universe. Could we have underestimated the effects of the other planets in solar system on our lives?

I draw an analogy to the above by dropping a pebble into the middle of the pond. As the pebble breaks into the surface of the water, it sends ripples in all directions of the pond. A fish in the pond will surely feel the wave of ripples as it passes through, and its subsequent actions will in a way be dictated by the size and nature of the force of the ripple waves; however it chooses to react to the stimulus. The closer it is to the ripple, the larger its direct effect it has on the course of actions to the fish. But you would be wrong to assume that a fish being further away from the source of the ripple would be any less affected by it. Although the energy from direct force of the ripple itself may have dissipated away, the indirect effects of the force still affect its subsequent actions, thus creating a chain of separate but inter connected sequence of actions, not dissimilar to the chaos theory.

Neutrinos are an example of a particular type of particles that are constantly being transmitted from the universe onto earth, amongst the many others that have been identified and not. Initially thought to be massless, these particles travel at light speed and pass through other particles relatively unaltered due to its seemingly neutral properties. With so little understood about neutrinos, would be unfathomable to think the transmission of the immeasurable masses of neutrinos from the constellations could possible have at least some bearing on the courses of an individual’s life? Where would we even start if we were to attempt to conduct an experiment the effect of neutrinos on an individual’s health or mood? Furthermore, how can we with any confidence disregard the effects of the other particles that potentially remain elusive from the limitations of our scientific knowledge and theories?

Ancient vedic texts describe an inner energy within the human body, not dissimilar to chakra flow. Ayurvedic and ancient Chinese medical texts books describe these chakra pathways to great detail, similar to how the course of the neurovascular bundles run through the body. The dissection of human anatomy has not demonstrated these pathways, yet I believe that these pathways exist, even if they remain invisible to the naked eye or electron microscopes. We may be unable to prove they exist, but it does not dismiss the distinct possibility that they might. Ayurvedic texts describe that illnesses stem from the imbalance of these pathways on bodily systems, and that at birth the effect of the constellations determine the dominance of the various different pathways that flow through the body.

Therefore to me, it is not inconceivable that with the changing positions of the planets and the constellations, there are continual changes in the quantities and nature of particles and thus energies being transmitted onto us. The effects of this are of course immeasurable, but could potentially interact and activate or inhibit the flows of the pathways within all objects animate and inanimate in this world, subsequently altering the course of life as we believe it to be.

I remain sceptical towards Vedic astrology, but equally have not grown blind or ignorant to the remote possibility that it could be true. As a scholar of modern sciences, Vedic astrology defies the logics of the set laws of the sciences I have been taught. Yet I am fortunate enough to recognise the limitations of science as we know it, and not to dismiss even the most improbable of likelihoods. There perhaps exist realms beyond our own, which inevitably sparks the famous debate of whether we are alone in this universe. But let us not allow the arrogance of our limited knowledge in science to dismiss the remote possibility of the fact that we could be wrong, and there may be a far greater use and understanding of Vedic astrology and religion that exceeds our own understanding in the matter.

Vedic Astrology: A scientific exploration into the philosophy of Hinduism (Part 2 of 3)

2011-05-30T14:59:00.000-07:00

Part 2 of 3: The principles of vedic astrology

For the sake of simplicity, let us start with exploring horoscopy. Within Vedic astrology, an individual’s horoscope is determined by the constellation which appears at the horizon at the time and place of birth and its relationship to the sun and the other planets (including the moon) within our solar system. The constellation of stars at the horizon channels its energy to the individual and thus is the dominant force in determining the individual’s character and nature, whilst the arrangement of the suns and planets influence the development and evolution of these characteristics and control the element of fortune. As the position of the planets and constellations shift, the nature of the energy that is channelled to the individual subsequently changes and affects the individual’s energy, lustre and even fortune. These changes occur in varying time periods and intervals and alters the nature of the energies projected to the individual and can broadly be categorised as having a positive, negative or neutral effect on the life of the individual at that particular given time.

So for example if an individual decides to act on a particular life decision, such as making a risky career decision; he can prepare meticulously to ensure that he has the best chances of obtaining success, but this will heavily be influenced by the nature of energy channelled onto his career pathway at that particular time period in which he decides to commit his action. If this energy is positive, than combined with his efforts, his actions are likely to be met with success. If the energy is negative, despite his effort his actions may not succeed. If the energy is neutral, the success of his actions will purely depend on his effort alone.

Similarly in marriage, the union of two individuals bring together the energy of both individuals and unites them in a complex relationship. The channelling of the energies from the planets and constellations on both individuals unite, and thus creates numerous and immeasurable probabilities. Still, Vedic astrology predicts the nature of the union of these energies and predicts whether these energies synergise or repel each other, thus creating unions which are favourable, unfavourable or neutral.

Whilst the relationship that the married couple share will depend on the nature of the individuals itself and how much they commit to the relationship, Vedic astrology predicts that a favourable union will generally bring success, fortune, progeny, comfort and good health to the marriage. An unfavourable union will generally cause a marriage to be beset by troubles and grief. This is further compounded by the shift of the planetary positions and constellations with time. So despite a favourable or unfavourable union, the respective energies channelled towards each individual at that particular time will subsequently impact on the relationship and the actions between the two individuals within the marriage at that given time. Therefore even within a favourable union, the relationship of the married couple may undergo a duration of hardship and grief if the unison of energies of the channelled result in a negative energy based on the planetary positions at that given point in time; and thus vice versa.

If not already complicated, allow me to remind you that horoscopy is not the sole factor that influences fate. Vedic literature goes on to explain the effect of previous births, curses, effects of dharma and adharma, karma, birthmarks, and varna on the life of an individual and his fate.

This next brings the argument of what this knowledge achieves; predicting the nature of these forces alone is meaningless if we cannot utilise them to repel the negative forces. One could argue that the knowledge of impeding doom or disaster without the ability to avoid it itself is useless. True to a certain extent, but this knowledge is used by sages, priests and Brahmins to advise and teach their followers on how to avoid them into committing into unfavourable unions or performing significant actions during unfavourable times when negative energies are being projected onto them. If unavoidable, then certain cures and remedies are available through prayer, devotion, offerings and worship of the very Gods that control the energies of these planets and constellations. The cures and remedies vary in strength and potency, but help alleviate or minimise the effects of these negative energies and curses that affect an individual. Equally, the strength of these negative forces and curses vary in some circumstances, some for which there is no available cure or remedy.

Given the importance of astrology and vedic knowledge, Brahmins and priests were naturally revered by all strata of society. Brahmins, respected for their scholarly knowledge and as custodians of dharma were considered the head of the body that encompasses society. The Mahabharata even goes to the extent of explaining how every king needs a household priest learned in these arts if he were to be a successful king, and that the king should be guided by the priest in his actions, and that will allow his kingdom to flourish. Any who disrespects or disregards a true Brahmins advice will only inflict grief onto himself; such was the authority and influence Brahmins held over society in relation to their knowledge in the Vedas and Vedic astronomy and how it was believed to influence the fate of the individuals’ lives.

For scientists and the modern society, this unfortunately means nothing. For all the spirituality and mysticism of the religion, astrology and fate, the lack of evidence or proof to actually connect the dots in a logical sequential manner to demonstrate how these affects the course of life and nature, make it extremely difficult for sceptics to accept this. In an era where the generations of scientists have managed to dissect and unravel some of the mysteries behind the supernatural forces of nature, it has necessitated the need to conduct detailed reproducible experiments to prove any hypotheses or theories. In the case of religion and horoscopy, that may prove impossible, and thus for some easier to reject than to accept.

However the inability to conduct an experiment to prove an idea or hypothesis does not allow us to reject it wholly. Atheists’ arguments centre around the inability of religions to prove the existence of God; instead finding the concepts behind quantum and astrophysics somewhat more believable than God. Nevertheless whilst quantum physics explains the creation and the generation of energy forces within the universe, their theories stands on a balance of series of assumptions, statistical likelihood and unknown variables such as the presence of dark and cold matter, neutrinos and even gauge bosons; most of which has not been discovered or even understood. I am certain the future will provide us with more answers to the many questions behind these great mysteries, but whilst struggling to unveil the nature of some of the minute particles, how convincingly can we actually disprove the existence of God or even dismiss the influence of the rest of the universe onto our lives?

Vedic Astrology: A scientific exploration into the philosophy of Hinduism

2011-05-17T14:19:00.000-07:00

Part 1 of 3: An introduction to vedic astrology

The relationship between Hinduism and elements within it that are intertwined with spirituality, astrology and the supernatural makes it a complex religion. It encapsulates itself within its mystical concepts that have become so complex that they even elude some of its staunchest followers.

During times when the seemly random forces of nature had a more than significant bearing on the lives of individuals within society, the role of religion was somewhat clearer. Lacking control or even the understanding behind the forces of nature and the mechanics behind these forces that dictated their lives, people believed in a concept; a vague appreciation of a larger entity that is constantly providing the forces that moves all that is on the earth. As ones lives depended on these forces, it was only natural that then people believed and worshiped these forces. These supernatural forces were believed to have originated from a high power that is God. But an increasingly secular education system adopted by the west that is dominated by science has undermined the influence of religion and is now threatening the integrity of belief systems that has once been at the core of society for thousands of years.

The relationship between science and Hinduism is of a stormy nature. Scientific theories and advancements have dominated most parts of the modern world over the last few centuries, even more so in the last few decades. Society is no longer merely willing to accept, but instead demand scientific explanations and proof to what previously remained beyond the understanding of the human intellect. It would not be far fetched to suggest that we now stand at crossroad between science and religion, and the latter appears to be a less likely appealing path for future generations.

Vedic astrology is one such example of an ancient belief that is being interrogated by modern society that I intend to explore with this essay. For thousands of years, the influence of constellation of stars and the planetary positions have been central to many Hindu societies, and is an important pivot around which crucial life decisions are made amongst Hindus. In fact, some factions of Hindus believe that the fate of an individual is preordained and set in mould; horoscopy thus explains the path that is set ahead of the individual. Others however challenge the notion of a predetermined fate and use Vedic astrology to predict the course of an individual’s life and offer hope and remedies to change the course of fate. The use of astrology in these circumstances are viewed by some as a gift of knowledge from god to alter fate; but for some, it challenges fate and believes the mastery of astrology grants us the ability to choose and carve our own fate.

In a quick glance at horoscopy and astrology, it is almost inconceivable to an educated and academic society on how the planetary positions and their relationship to the constellation of stars millions of light years away could possibly have any bearing on an individual’s life. To even begin to fathom how our respective actions and decisions, is predetermined or even altered by revolving planets and giant gaseous masses makes a mockery of our free will, and in fact our very existence. Surely the course of an individuals life and the consequences of the choices and decisions one make depends more on the environment the individual is in. Surely genetics, societal influences, the environment in which a child is raised in and the immeasurable variables that revolve the transition of an adolescent to adulthood are amongst the obvious factors that directly affect ones lives; not positions of the sun, moon, planets or the stars. If so, what proof or shred of evidence is there to demonstrate this unlikely link between astrology and our lives?

However, I would not hastily dismiss this unlikeliest of connections.

Firstly, allow me to dispel some common myths around Vedic astrology. Indian horoscopy which is so often used interchangeably with the term Vedic astrology implies that it draws its reference from the Vedas. . A consistent theme within the corpus of many Hindu literature imply the importance of astrology and one would repeatedly find reference to a higher source of power originating from beyond the realms of our planet in texts such as the Vedas, Upanishads and even the Mahabharata. However, despite the fact that Vedas themselves although on numerous occasions draws reference and acknowledges the importance of planetary positions, they do not directly prescribe nor state the laws and rules of astrology in any great detail.

So although the Vedas acknowledge the importance of astrology, it was actually ancient vedic texts such as the ‘Vasistha Samhita’ and the ‘Brihat Parashara Hora Sastra’ that explored and prescribed astrology; as ascribed to Sage Vasistha and Sage Parashara respectively. Sage Vasistha, one of the Sapta Rihsis (seven sages) is considered one of the mind born sons of the Lord Bhrama who brought down to earth divine knowledge, and Sage Parashara is his grandson, born of Shakti Muni. Sage Parashara is in turn father to the great Sage Vyasa, the scribe credited to the Vedas, the author of the Mahabharata and grandfather to the Pandavas. The teachings of these revered figures are central to corpus of the vedic literature and hence Hindu religion and vedic astrology.

The ‘Vasistha Samhita’ and ‘Brihat Parashara Hora Sastra’ are often considered to be the bibles of Vedic astrology and within these ancient texts, the rules of astrology are described with great attention to detail, explaining how ones horoscope is determined and how it subsequently affects his or her nature, character, constitution, fortune and even health. It even advises on how to prepare for significant life events such as marriages, approaching war, migrating and other events, as it argues on how the arrangement of the constellations and the positions of the planets channel their positive or negative energies subsequently affecting the outcome these events.

For example for an individual to perform a particular action successfully, it requires a balance of constitution, strength of character and resolve, and finally a fine execution of the action itself. Nevertheless, even if all above were meticulous performed, it does not necessarily guarantee the successfulness of the action itself. For vedic astrology argues that beyond what the individual is capable of controlling in this realm, there remains a superior force that influences the successfulness of his actions. Whilst recognising the importance factors that an individual need to control to increase the chances of obtaining success through his action, the channelling of energy forces from the arrangement of the constellations and planets will affect the chances of success of failure of a particular action performed.

When East meets West; Misguided Eurasian Ethnocentricity

2010-09-14T17:14:00.000-07:00

Part 3 of 3: The White Way

The reality is that the American and European domination of the world has taught most of us to think in one similar way; their own way. Heralding their perceived superiority, they have infiltrated existing local societal systems all across the world and condemned any other way apart from their own. At their own folly and perhaps our own, their belief in the infallibility of democracy and a legal framework in the form of the constitution have condemned all other forms of societal structures.

Hindu laws, Hudud Laws, the customs and practices of certain African tribes, native Indians the ideology of the Chinese and Japanese, communism, facism and socialism have all fell victim under the scrutiny of the western judgement. Numerous literature and documentaries in western media have described in great detail the flaws of these ‘brutal’, ‘primitive’, ‘barbaric’ and unfair and inhumane cultures. These exposés are widely circulated portraying these cultures, ideologies and concepts in a negative light compared to western thought.

The arrogance that reeks from western ethnocentricity perhaps justifiably stems from their greatest strengths; their ability to organize and structure, to impose and convince and finally faith and utmost confidence in their own ability. With a strong sense of self-belief in their methods, their overwhelming faith in their laws, cultures and beliefs compelled them to convince all others, that their ways were superior. Their ability to structure and organize all their thoughts served as a testament to their superiority. And finally when they imposed, most often than not, they succeeded.

Unfortunately, where lay the strengths that I have described in western cultures, therein lay the weaknesses of the non-western cultures. Their lack in structure, authority and self-belief allowed them to succumb to the imposing nature of western cultures.

I have no personal agenda against democracy, western culture or Christianity. Democracy may not be flawless, but perhaps it represents the most widely acceptable political structure we have now. Western culture has introduced many good values to the rest of the world too; speaking out against injustice and liberating those who have been discriminated. Christianity has brought hope and faith to many who in their darkest days were left floundering. Western colonisation of the world has indeed its benefits. But indeed it made the world sway to its tune; and if any is to stray from it, it would be near impossible to escape the prejudice and judgement from all else.

We are decades into the post-colonialism era. But why are we still judged based on western standards? Worse still, not only by the westerners, but by ourselves too.

Values like chastity are forsaken in the name of liberation. Traditional masculine and feminine roles are increasingly challenged by feminism, blurring the divide between male and female; unfortunately portraying the modern women as one not limited by culture or traditions and ultimately less feminine. Duties, responsibilities and roles are forgotten as western youth revolutions challenge the traditional eastern parent-child relationships. Sacred ties and relationships such as marriages now are no more than legislative and civil partnership that last only whilst it works. Prayer and devotion are met with scepticism and western scientific hypotheses, theories and statistics are increasingly used to explain the ways of the world.

Perhaps there is no right or wrong. But this discourse is not about which is right or better, eastern cultures versus western cultures. It merely is about remembering who we are and why we are, instead of aspiring to be someone else we are not.

Cultures and traditions evolve with time, and I am not naïve or ignorant to that. We cannot expect to still live by the traditions of our predecessors from the Vedic era. But nothing should stop us from holding onto the good and positive principles of these cultures and traditions that define us. The evolution of cultures and traditions is not about forgetting older practices, but instead is about learning from other cultures and ingraining their positives into our own lifestyle whilst accepting the technology and modernisation of the world. Unfortunately, the converse is the reality. We see more people adopting this modern foreign culture and trying to implement an eastern flavour to this. At risk of hypocrisy, I admit that even I may perhaps be guilty of this.

So hence the paradox within my discourse; will globalisation blur the lines that divide us culturally until we accept an increasingly popular western culture, or will the remaining few who have resisted westernisation so far continue to resist this new hybrid culture and allow the clashing of cultures to continue?

I warmly embrace globalisation, as the bringing together of people, I believe, helps you understand other cultures, allowing you to dispel myths, prejudices and stereotypes. Or even if it confirms them, it at least affords one the chance of experiencing a different culture and learning how to respect and live with it. However, I for one am not ready to discard religious teachings and traditions that have been passed onto me for centuries, for these are the very things that have defined who I am and provide an explanation to my identity.

Perhaps the world would be a more peaceful place if we all discarded our respective culture and religion and adopted a hybrid one. But I suppose I still would prefer a little more flavour and colour that the various cultures, religion and traditions bring to the world, even if it means a little more drama.

When East meets West; Misguided Eurasian Ethnocentricity

2010-09-09T13:05:00.000-07:00

Part 2 of 3: Post-colonialism sentiments of superiority
The residual effects of post-colonialism still linger on as many former colonies have suffered from westernisation in the form of European ethnocentricity that has quenched previously held traditions, religious beliefs and ultimately culture. Heralded as the harbinger of civilisation, European imperialism gradually built an aura of superiority around European culture by condemning our very own traditional Asian cultures, hence teaching the world to measure and judge against a European based standards; a western yardstick.

This is commonality I find especially amongst the upper class or the upper middle class of our very own Asian cultures. By no fault of their own, their exposure to ‘stylish’ western cultures allows them to indulge in an air of self belief that embracing the values of ‘civilised’ cultures is form of self betterment. After all, the faculty of self improvement comes naturally even to the most primitive men. When combined with curiosity and the faculty of thought, the theory of survival of the fittest subconsciously forces upon men the natural inclination to attempt to distinguish themselves from the pack, to portray themselves as better, improved, attractive or even for simpler reasons such as a testament to their fitness or fertility.

By discarding traditionalistic cultures, many Indians have separated themselves from the traditionalist hordes that make up the majority of the society. By embracing western cultures, they edge closer towards belonging to a group perceived as being elite and superior; unfortunately and unwittingly failing to see that they have just allowed themselves to enter into the submission of foreign influence. Consequently the very features that define the Indian society and culture dissipate away and Indian identity is gradually lost.

The sense of identity is important to all because it explains what we are. It explains why we act or behave in a certain manner. It provides a fresh source of variety in an increasingly monotonous culture that has been emphasised by western education and science; inhibiting the birth of unique individuals from the various cultures. By infiltrating local legal, administrative and religious setups, western colonisers have imposed their own practices upon their colonies.

Bearing western gifts, a coy smile and the promise of a structured civil society for the benefits of the people in lands stricken with civil wars, in exchange for a mere share in administrative powers in local affairs may appear to be a fair trade at first glance. But the manner by which colonisers wrest control of the administrative powers from local leaders were by no means honourable. Many forget the circumstances under which the locals had to agree to the terms set by the western colonisers. With a vast army with far superior array of arsenal looming not far behind, the options were simple; a peaceful transition of power under which locals retain a small portion of position and power, or a transition by force under which locals will be forced to accept whatever scraps are available after the aftermath.

The strategy was brilliant, as although western colonisers gained entry through the threat of force, it provided the illusion that the entry was sanctioned by the local leaders, hence making the so-called joint administration more acceptable to the locals. As the colonisers’ voice grew louder and more frequent, it quenched the voice of the local leaders who became increasingly isolated from their own positions and people. By implementing hybrid laws, the colonisers modified local structures into a system that slowly resembled their own western society.

However, as the locals who held such high regard for their local leaders, they accepted this unfamiliar change purely because the believed that all this change was sanctioned by their own beloved and respected leaders. Unfortunately, many of the local leaders had only the own personal interest at heart, accepting the conditions imposed onto them to purely to safeguard their position The locals believed that their leaders would only have their best interest in heart when accepting these unfamiliar changes; that perhaps they could learn from another culture for their own benefit.. What they did not realise at the time was that western education and law, in many areas contradicted their own views. But instead of offering a moderated platform where these clashing of ideas could be weighed against each other, western ideas were pressed ahead and heralded as better or true at the cost of dispelling and disproving previous culturally dictated thoughts ideas. The more the locals learnt about the west, the more they forgot or unlearnt their own prior knowledge.

Christianity and science condemned religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism and our beliefs; labelling them as delusions, misguided or false. Missionaries targeted areas where the population were most severely affected by suffering often most those living in severe deprivation, lacking structure in society and uneducated. The relief of their physical suffering came hand in hand with spiritual rescue.

After all it is not difficult to dissuade a man to part from beliefs that he has held on to, at a time when all around him is failing. Missionaries could very easily convince these select populations that any other form of worship apart from Christianity is false and blasphemous, hence incurring the wrath of God who has brought upon them this very suffering that they are currently experiencing.

At a time when in places like India, education and religious teaching were exclusive to mostly the higher echelons of society, the lack of faith, belief and structure of religion amongst the poor is not the least surprising. Choosing salvation of a new religion and culture over tradition and a religion one know very little about, is a straightforward choice that any man would make at times of desperation.

Thus in Asia, where tradition, culture and religion closely resembles a meshwork that has been intertwined over the centuries, separating tradition from culture, from religion is quite nearly impossible. Hence the consequence of adopting a new religion as per guided by the missionaries is the abandonment of tradition and culture.

Unfortunately the lack of consistency and structure in many cultures has led to its’ notwithstanding nature in the face of imperialism. Faith and beliefs are only held on to as long as a follower has a reason to adhere to them. The diversity and failing teachings of Hinduism due to the lack of a structured religious authority has left many followers lost or misguided. When Hinduism fails them, or fails to provide followers with answers or reason, it is no surprise when these followers look elsewhere. Similarly with traditions and culture; when we do not invest to preserve our culture and traditions, there is no doubt they will dissipate away and become diluted in the wave of globalisation. When the upper class discard and even worse despise our own culture, and openly embrace a perceived superior culture, it eventually becomes exclusive and draws the lower strata of the society towards it. It is then inevitable that the middle and lower class masses aspire to follow similarly to match and achieve the heights of the upper class to resemble or duplicate their lifestyle.

When East meets West; Misguided Eurasian Ethnocentricity

2010-08-18T16:56:00.000-07:00

Part 1 of 3: Is Hollywood really better than Bollywood?

For a long time I have believed that the blurring of cultural lines and barriers is an inevitable consequence of the giant wave of globalisation that is sweeping across the world. This phenomenon was one that an idealist like me warmly embraced, as I believe the breaking down of borders would bring cultures together hence allowing firsthand encounter which could dispel the myths and prejudices that one might hold against another of a different kind.

Perhaps it was my naivety that I did not account for the possibility that the opposite could happen too, if not even more likely than the former. The coming together of various cultures instead of blending together, I find as history suggests, is more likely to clash and create more barriers between cultures.

Allow me to digress to explore this thought. My friends have long known me for my loud spoken criticisms of the Indian film industries. I have never hid my contempt for what I saw as a lack of quality in the direction, a lack of depth in the plot and above all the dismal portrayal of the majority population of Indians as simpletons, rude and uncivilised, and sometimes best described as brute in the manner the films thrive themselves on glorifying retaliation against wrong with pure physical violence. The loud and crude dialogue and the exaggerated acting, I find especially difficult to endure. And even on the rare occasion you find yourself immersed in the storyline with a thin plot best described in Tolkien’s words, “butter spread over too much bread”, you are suddenly rudely interrupted with a random choreographed dance sequence or an utterly irrelevant comedy scene.

How do I even to begin to compare these productions that barely qualify to be called films to great classics such as ‘The Godfather’, ‘The City of God’, ‘Usual Suspects’ or even next to adventurous epics like ‘Star Wars’ or ‘Lord of the Rings’? Never mind the plots, even adrenaline and pure testosterone driven films crammed with violence and action were extremely ‘watch-able’; ‘Rambo’, ‘Predator’ and ‘Die Hard’ spring to mind. Likewise even soppy romantic, slapstick comedy and musicals were amusing and if not entertaining. I must reluctantly admit that I truly was mesmerised by the beautiful production of ‘Moulin Rogue’, an unusual film which I thought its genre appeared to be contemporary art more than mainstream cinema.

Although I never may have admitted it, I perhaps may have been silently embarrassed how the culture and traditions of Indians have been portrayed so crudely and so shamelessly in these movies, especially when viewed in the same light or beside the stylish American, European, and even those of oriental origin namely the Chinese and Japanese productions, such as ‘Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon’ or the flawless ‘Seven Samurai’.

That is until a particular scene from a largely obscure Tamil film left me pondering and questioning my judgements of culture. The scene, from a movie titled, “Vilai Thirai”, a struggling wannabe director has elaborate ideas of producing a movie to match the ranks of European classics epitomised by a solid and strong characters with tasteful subtlety by performance actors who are able to effortlessly draw viewers into the plot. He stars opposite a struggling wannabe actor who is a direct contrast to director; an actor who believes in not-so-subtle acting, exaggerating every scene to emphasize every emotion to allow his audience to grasp each innate emotion in its raw audacity, and immerse themselves in the fantasy providing them with escapism from reality.

In one particular scene, the director bursts out at the actor questioning his acting abilities, drawing contrast between him and greats such as Marlon Brando and Al Pacino. The actor retorts in reply, questioning the director on why was he so preoccupied with European superiority. He asked the director to stop judging him on European standards and reflect on the culture and traditions of the Indians.

He asks, “How can a European (referring to Ben Kingsley) play Gandhi, and not an Indian like me? I have no doubt I could play him better, not only because I understand better what it means to be an Indian but I know what its like. He portrayed Gandhi based on a western interpretation of how Gandhi was like. Can you ever see or even imagine an Indian actor cast to play Winston Churchill? Does it not sound ridiculous? But similarly a European plays Gandhi, and so poorly too, yet the world applauds his acting? It’s ridiculous. Stop judging us on European standards. This is India and its culture, and Indians know what we want in Indian films. If the Indian people want overacting, we give them overacting. Do you think your great European actors could deliver what we do in our films?”

Those may not be the exact words, but basically a summary of the message it carries. Nevertheless his words stung me, because I understood precisely why I have failed to appreciate Bollywood and Kollywood. I thought Ben Kingsley’s portrayal of Ghandi was superb. But the yardstick that I used to measure his performance was one that was ingrained into me over the years from popular mainstream media; European media. I learnt to believe what I read, heard or watched from the mass media. Retrospectively, it is only now I realise that I never really had the chance to judge Marlon Brando’s portrayal of the Godfather impartially. Everything I had heard or read about the movie and Brando lead me to believe that it could not get any better, as though films should be modelled after this fine example.

The Decline of Hinduism amongst Hindus

2008-07-31T06:02:00.000-07:00

The Decline of Hinduism amongst Hindus

Many Hindus believe that we now enter a period in the age of this world that is called ‘Kali Yuga’ or the ‘age of vice’ characterised by the decline of morality amongst men, the inability to separate right from wrong, corruption between relationships between the strata of the society, between friends and family; just to mention a few. Even a sceptic or a non-Hindu would be pressed hard to disagree given the self destructive nature that men have demonstrated in recent times.

For a long time, I struggled to understand this particular concept which I felt somewhat seemed like it represented the hypocrisy of Hinduism. I failed to understand how Hinduism, a religion that is meant to save and guide mankind predicts its own inability to save man from sin. That surely a religion so pure and true, would be able to save its believers from being condemned into a realm of impurities and sin, and through its teachings help them achieve self realisation.

But upon embarking my slow and steady religious journey, I have stumbled across a series of remarkable observations and realisations, and maybe even possibly am beginning to comprehend some of the very core concepts of Hinduism (and other religions). Stark obvious to many, but a fundamental concept that had previously eluded me; for I have learnt, that God and religion may never save every soul that exists, but instead, every soul has the opportunity through God and religion to save itself from self damnation; that bad and evil is not the failure of God or religion, but purely the absence of it.

I risk incurring the wrath of many sceptics and atheist, who will simply point towards the numerous wars, crimes, pain and suffering that has been inflicted by one man onto another in the name of God and religion. However, I can only assure you, that these very men, who used God’s name and religion in vain, have never really understood either, and were purely driven by themselves or others like themselves, who were victims of the failings and misconceptions of religious teachings. It is only lately that I have realised that although I have been born a Hindu, and practised Hinduism all my life, it is only over the last few years I have began to live as a Hindu. This draws me towards the compulsion to explain the decline of Hinduism or more accurately, the lost principles of Hinduism amongst Hindus.

I recently attended a temple function, during which a priest delivered a sermon, teaching the temple crowd about some of the aspects of Hinduism. Thirty minutes into his sermon, I left, slightly disappointed by the narrow teachings of the priest. Alternating between Hindi and English, the priest explained parts of text quoted from the Ramayana, teaching the temple crowd about the value devotion as opposed to temptation, warning against seduced by superficial beauty and encouraged the crowd to learn and acquire knowledge; advising his audience to live proudly and true to the values of an Indian, and rejecting the corruption of the west. Everything the priest delivered, was direct, relevant and most importantly gave good guidance and direction to all those who listened. But his single shortcoming was his failure to understand, that the concepts of Hinduism extended beyond the cultural and traditionalistic limitations of the Indian subcontinent. Simply put, the priest implied that one ought to live the life of a traditional Indian. In fact, implicating western civilisations as the reason of corruption amongst Hindus may even be perceived as a denial of their own inability to withstand the test of globalisation.

Hinduism was born by the side of the Ganges River in the ancient Indian civilisation, and naturally many Indians would have lived and practiced Hinduism to an extent, the terms ‘Indian lifestyle’ or ‘Indian culture’ could perhaps possibly be used interchangeably or perhaps synonymously as Hinduism, at that point in time in history. But the evolution of society, culture and tradition has changed all this. The traditional Indian culture that was largely shaped and influenced by Hinduism may no longer reflect the true teachings of the very religion that shaped it.

Therefore, although the Indian culture and the teachings of Hinduism may be have interchangeably influenced each other to the point the teachings of Hinduism is immersed in the traditional Indian culture and vice versa, a Hindu must learn to demarcate these two areas to be able to appreciate Hinduism in its purest form. This however, may appear to be a task equivalent to seeking the ‘Holy Grail’, purely because unlike other religions, Hinduism, does not draw its religious authority from a single source, but instead relies heavily on the numerous ancient Sanskrit texts that exists in the form of the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Puranas, the ‘smritis’, and even from the epic poems Ramayana and the Mahabharata of which the Bhagavad Gita is a part of. And it is of utmost importance that these texts and scriptures are interpreted in the context in which they were written, hence heavily influenced by the Indian culture and traditions.

Therefore, I understand, and perhaps am able to forgive Hindus who are under the misconception that the traditional Indian culture and lifestyle epitomises the principles of Hinduism. What irks me however is the failure of Hindus to evolve and adapt these very principles to the modern day and ultimately the failure to develop and live by the principles of Hinduism.

As simple example is as follows:
“...Hindus may pray to God in the various forms He has chose to reveal Himself to man. Whether it be through the reincarnation of Lord Vishnu in the form of Rama, or through Lord Krishna the charioteer to Prince Arjuna in the battle of Kurushetra.

…As a Hindu, a child would often be taught to clasp their hands together, in front of these idols, and pray; with prayer being in the form of offering thanks to God for all He has provided us with, apologies for our numerous shortcomings or sins we have committed and finally submitting to God our needs, so He would bless us in all our future endeavours and help us achieve them. We were taught to prepare myself for the rituals, on how to participate and conduct ourselves during these rituals. But very often that was the extent of how much an average Hindu child is taught about the religion…”

Temples, parents or religious classes that teach Hinduism is a rarity, and may be limited to selected religious texts or pure mythology. Hence, when the priests would chant prayers and mantras in Sanskrit and calmly conduct each step of the meticulous and complex rituals, very little of the procedure itself is understood by the Hindus participating in the ritual, but eventually simply learn to accept it. Enduring ignorance in silence, the core teachings are simply lost and masked by our ignorant diligence in performing prayer without understanding it, hence rendering prayer, worship and devotion meaningless. Worse still, is the blatant ignorance that has beset many Hindus, who are dominated by prayer, worship and rituals, forgetting or in some cases never learning about the facets of Hinduism that deal with complex but important concepts such as dharma, karma and conduct.

Outside prayer, worship and devotion, ‘Hinduism’ as it is practiced now fails to prepare Hindus to face the realities of life, due to the neglect of the principles of Hinduism. Adopting a broad generalised view, merely comparing Hinduism to other religions such as Islam and Christianity, it appears to me that Muslims and Christians generally understand and grasp the principles of their respective religions better than Hindus with Hinduism. This in turn allows Muslims and Christians to be better prepared to face the realities in life, such as dealing with significant stressful life events, such as birth and separation, dealing with fortune and misfortune, conduct of relationships between family, relatives and friends, roles and responsibilities and ultimately death.

Hindus, generally less knowledgeable in Hinduism, are often left confused and lost in the face of reality. Thus Hinduism becomes superficial in meaning, as the valuable teachings of the ancient Sanskrit teachings such as the Vedas and the Bhagavad Gita are gradually being replaced by ritualism and symbolism. Ask any Hindu about his or her purpose in life, and do not be surprised if your question is met with hesitancy or a long winded philosophical answer; clear evidence of the stark lack of knowledge of the religion by its followers.

Religion is meant to guide and lead. It is meant to provide direction, a source to derive strength, faith and hope. Therefore if Hinduism is to serve its purpose as a religion, it needs to be accessible to its believers. It needs to be practical and practicable in this age in time. Instead of clinging on to the ritualism, symbolism, traditionalist mindset that defined Hinduism in the culture of the bygone ages of ancient India, present day Hindus need to understand that globalisation has changed the face of this world.

The culture of ancient India may not necessarily be practicable now, but Hindus must learn that that does not imply Hinduism is impractical. Hinduism should not be confined to India or the Indian lifestyle. It purely means that Hindus must reach back into the depths of the religion to acquire knowledge and learn the principles of Hinduism, to understand how Hinduism can be practised in the present and the future. Although the outlook of future Hindu practise may appear different from ancient practise, the core must remain the same. This evolutionary process which dictates change in practise of Hinduism may be criticised by many traditionalist who may claim that changes in traditional Hindu practice equates to deviance. But I view this evolutionary change as not deviance, but instead an expansion of our knowledge and understanding of the religion and hence brings us closer to God.

My belief is simple, “A man who calls himself a Muslim, who attends the mosque and prays like a Muslim, and acts like a Muslim but who himself does not understand nor live by the principles of Islam is not truly a Muslim. A man who calls himself a Catholic, who attends the church and prays like a Catholic, and acts like a Catholic but who himself does not understand nor live by the principles of Christianity is not a truly a Catholic. Likewise, a man who calls himself a Hindu, who attends the temple and prays like a Hindu, and acts like a Hindu, but who himself does not understand nor live by the principles of Hinduism is not a truly a Hindu.”

I do not pretend to be the epitome of knowledge with regards to Hinduism, nor am I a learned scholar in the religion. Instead, I am a purist, who by chance stumbled across the principles of Hinduism and am currently in pursuit of the knowledge that has gradually been dissipating away from Hindus. From what I have learnt, I believe that the way forward to reverse the decline in the Hindu religion is to pluck the principles of Hinduism from its traditional and cultural landscape, to learn it in its purest form, to subsequently allow it to be re-taught correctly to present day Hindus who wish live by the principles of Hinduism. Perhaps then, even Hindus will understand Hinduism better.

The Voice of Malaysia: A loud whisper

2008-04-06T17:26:00.000-07:00

Part II: Malaysian Indian loyalists and a conclusion

I now extend my discussion into the relevance of the elections to minority of the three major ethnic groups in Malaysia: the Malaysian Indians. Consisting of ‘only’ 8% of the Malaysian population, this ethnic minority group have previously largely been discarded as politically insignificant. But recent events have dismissed such claims.

Loyalists to the former ruling coalition, Malaysian Indians have always retained hopeful faith in the governing body and the former ruling coalition could almost certainly rest assured that by large they secured the Malaysian Indian votes. However, this loyalty was taken granted for; and so often in the past has been perceived as passivity or even viewed by some as incapacity.

But the recent handling of a number of issues that remain close to the hearts of the majority of Malaysian Indians provoked an overwhelming emotive response that unearthed dissatisfaction and distrust towards the former administrative body. When their loyalty was met with betrayal involving matters closest to their hearts, a strong sense of injustice swept the Malaysian Indian community. As Malaysian Indians largely felt that their plight went unheeded and their voices muted; in perhaps the largest ever show of unity amongst the Malaysian Indians, they made a bold statement by doing the unimaginable, voting in the opposite direction.

But soon afterwards realising that they now faced the possibility that there may not be any Malaysian Indian holding office in the cabinet, there was a lingering doubt amongst Malaysian Indian voters’ post-elections whether they shot themselves in the foot by voting against the former regime, which at least guaranteed representation of Malaysian Indians in the governing body’s highest administrative task force.

The presence of Malaysian Indian representation within the cabinet was important to them, because it served as an assurance that there will be a voice from the Malaysian Indian population to the cabinet and vice-versa; that these representatives will moderate the decisions and policies formed by the cabinet, taking in consideration their views and interests which otherwise might pass over.

But history has taught us otherwise and more importantly not to repeat our folly. I only need to point the Malaysian Indians towards their increasing political and socio-economic marginalisation to help them realise that apart from ethnicity, these ‘representatives’ only served as an illusion of representation. These representatives who have time and again claimed that they will champion the cause of Malaysian Indians have undeniable failed; not only in terms of addressing the marginalisation of Malaysian Indians, but also in their respective portfolios, thus ultimately failing all Malaysians.

The lack of dedicated leaders who possesses integrity, moral principles and key leadership skills amongst the Malaysian Indian ranks is not surprising given the conservatism and traditionalist mindset of this population. Refraining from commenting on the individual make-up of our administrative body, I fail to see any Malaysian Indian in this point in time, who is truly capable as a leader for not only for the Malaysian Indians, but for a the multi-ethnic population of Malaysia.

Most definitely there will be quarters that disagree, pointing out the fact that there are many successful Malaysian Indians that surely are capable. To refute such claims, I merely have to ask of simplest questions, “Who?” I have no doubts that there are many Malaysian Indians who have achieved remarkable success in their respective fields, to the extent they command huge respect from the masses, and their achievements will remain as a yardstick against all aspiring Malaysian Indians who enter the field, will be measured against. In areas such as medicine, business, law and education, there is an undeniable pool of talent amongst Malaysian Indians. However, the majority of them are pure academics with little else to offer apart from the expertise in their respective fields and therefore, they will continue to ‘serve’ and not ‘lead’.

I have always believed that academic achievement alone is not a sensitive measure of intelligence or ability. If only such academic talent were combined with charisma, dynamism, a sense of duty towards society, management skills, principles and integrity, then perhaps the Malaysian Indians may have a capable leader. So although there are numerous Malaysian Indian academicians who have been earmarked as potential candidates for leadership, I fear this potential will remain untapped and the Malaysian Indian population will fail to have a true leader that they can look up to, and they will remain largely remain a ‘serving class’.

In light of that view, I firmly believe that the cause, interest and views of Malaysian Indians will be better represented by a capable Malaysian non-Indian leader, compared to an incapable Malaysian Indian leader. If the Malaysian Indians can see past the racial barrier, they too will see the importance of a good leader regardless of ethnicity, enabling them to aspire for greater heights which would be impossible under incompetent leadership.

However, indelible mistakes have been made in the past by previous leaders purely stemming from their cultural sensitivity towards the various ethnic groups. A good leader can only address the needs and concerns of a population if he/she can first understand their nature, more so with Malaysian Indians who are conservative and traditionalist. Merely taking a stand and implementing policies with disregard to race, culture and religion is not plausible mainly for two reasons:- 1) the multiethnic population of Malaysia still remains close to her roots, and 2) prolonged subjugation of the population under racial politics has heightened racial tensions and persecutory feelings amongst ethnic groups.

Therefore, all leaders should attempt to be accustomed or if not, at least be sensitive towards the cultural and historical aspects associated with the all major and minor, ethnic and religious groups. Lest they fail, I fear that the ethnic groups will continue to grow unnecessarily suspicious and racial tensions will only worsen, sending the society back to a time where people only thought that only ‘our kind’ will every truly understand ‘our needs and concerns’.

Nevertheless, the Prime Minister has named four Malaysian Indians in his cabinet, which should at least alleviate some of the concerns of the Malaysian Indians; temporarily at least. Given the poor performance of MIC and Gerakan within the Barisan Nasional in the elections, these appointments signify diplomacy within the coalition and perhaps the greatest testament to Barisan Nasional power-sharing concept. I certainly hope that these appointees will embrace the huge responsibility trusted onto them and quickly realise that their duty lies not solely to the Malaysian Indian population but to all Malaysians alike, and serve the Malaysian people by leading by example, instead of being preoccupied with racial politics as their predecessors were. I commend their appointments (although not necessarily in agreement), as it has given them a chance to step out of the shadows of previous premierships, and hope they will be able to re-educate their peers and help them achieve political maturity from within the party. More importantly, they also need to convey these messages across to the people that actually matter – the public of Malaysia.

The results of the election have been described by many as a political tsunami. Whilst I acknowledge the momentous outcome of the elections in terms of history and evolution of Malaysian politics, its impact and the consequences that follow, I dare not go as far as to describing it as a tsunami. This is purely because more crucially it is this next five years which will truly paint a more accurate picture of the effects of the outcome of the elections. This is a test for both Barisan Nasional and Barisan Rakyat.

Will Barisan Nasional change their tried and tested methods which have they have relied on for decades, to meet the changing needs of the people that are gradually rejecting Barisan Nasional’s ideologies; or will they persevere and continue employing detrimental racial politics under the guise of power-sharing to ensure racial harmony.

Can Barisan Rakyat deliver the changes that they promised to bring to the people, and perhaps more importantly can three parties with vastly divergent view points and a host of inexperienced staff settle on a level platform which will allow the formation of an effective people’s government?

A slip from Barisan Nasional if they choose to remain stubborn will result in a true political tsunami in the next general election and we may perhaps see a new government consisting of the current opposition. However, on equally dangerous footing, a slip from the Barisan Rakyat if they fail to live up to the high standards they preached pre-elections will leave voters utterly frustrated – prompting voters to revert back to the safer option. Expect to then see a landslide victory for Barisan Nasional leaving Barisan Rakyat to rue on the glorious chance that they failed to capitalise on; a chance that may not come by for a long time.

Therefore in my opinion, I believe it will be the next general elections that will tell us who truly emerged victorious in the 2008 Malaysian general elections.

(Disclaimer: This essay purely conveys my reactions, thoughts and opinions on the outcome of the recent elections as an impartial individual with no political affiliation. The focused discussion on the Malaysian Indian population is an attempt to calm their fears and reassure them that they remain relevant to the Malaysian society if they can accept their limitations and bridge the gap between racial barriers. I also believe that my arguments are not exclusive to just the Malaysian Indians but are relevant across all ethnic groups if Malaysia intends to truly achieve the racial equality and harmony she craves for.)

The Voice of Malaysia: A loud whisper

2008-03-29T06:14:00.000-07:00

Part I of II: The evolution of public will

As the wave of initial euphoria of the recent elections passes on, I believe many are left with a residual feeling of doubt and guilt, as the people of Malaysia who finally have managed to muster enough courage to push for a change now stand on very unfamiliar territory.

Whilst Barisan Nasional will work arduously to dissect the cause of their defeat in post-mortem, unless they dig really deep, they will fail to see that the ethnic groups in Malaysia are finally ready to break racial barriers. Likewise Barisan Rakyat too faces a stiff challenge in working around the stark differences around individual party policies to form a coalition that serves the public that voted for them.

I personally am in disbelief at the results of the elections, a clear testament to how I had underestimated the public masses of Malaysia.

Racial politics has been the bread and butter of Malaysian politics since pre-independent Malaya, and the power-sharing policy of Barisan Nasional to ensure representation of each ethnic group in the government has been their magnet to secure the support of the public. This policy served Malaysia and the public sufficiently in early post-independence, when racial barriers set up by the British as part of their cleverly schemed divide-and-rule policy were impregnable; a time when people believed that their interest could only be conveyed and represented to others, by someone belonging to their own respective ethnicity.

But times have changed. Globalisation and perhaps to an extent overpopulation has brought us all much closer to not only our neighbours, but also to the rest of the world. And in many ways, too close for comfort for a proportion of the population who have failed to embrace this phenomenon. Ethnic and cultural divides are now even less well defined than the borders or even the laws of the land and surely ethnic and cultural barriers are slowly fading. We must accept that the longer we continue to dwell on our differences, the longer and harder it will take to accept the inevitable change. Instead we should choose to focus on the similarities we share and cherish our differences that are unique to us as a precious keepsake.

But unfortunately in the multiethnic Malaysia, a handful of our politicians have tactlessly continued to employ racial politics to remind us of our differences to reinstall these barriers; in what I can only perceive as a hapless attempt for personal political gain at the cost of suppressing the natural evolution of social development of the Malaysian public. Consequently, in the last decade, racial tensions appeared only to be escalating, and it seemed that the racial harmony within the multiethnic society that Malaysia paraded internationally only served as masquerade; a mask underneath which racial tensions were carefully concealed threatening to erupt at any time, a façade or perhaps even better described as the conspiracy of silence of the Malaysian public.

The numerous rallies before the elections were early symptoms of a depressed society, that our executive committee failed to diagnose and address adequately. Furthermore, the situation was not helped by leading authorities, who failed to attend to the needs of these groups sensitively. On numerous occasions, their claims were often dismissed as trivial or worse still went unheeded purely because it was deemed that they were those belonging of the minority.

It is inevitable that the administrative body in a democratic organization will lean towards meeting and satisfying the needs of the majority. It most basic terms, majority rule is amongst the core principles of the governance of a democracy which often can result in the tyranny of the majority; where in the interest of the majority, the interest of the minority can be overlooked and disregarded.

Rousseau wrote in the ‘Discourse on Political Economy’, that a popular government has at its object the good of the people and follows the general will (majority) of the public. However, he immediately recognized that the decree of the general will, will inevitably impinge on the individual rights of the public; majority or minority regardless and hence acknowledged the necessity of a uniform set of laws that apply equally to each individual according to the general will and a good leader who is able to govern according to the public will, without completely overlooking the rights of the minority population.

But above it all, Rousseau underlined with utmost importance that the government should not directly control these laws but instead be adherent to these laws that are administered by legislators, and this lawful government should be lead by a leader who is not blinded by ambition, but one who has integrity and adheres to the principles of moral values. Only then can a leader run the government according to the general will of the public, whilst ensuring that the rights of the minority remain protected – “…let their country therefore be a common mother to all the citizens; let the advantages which they enjoy there make them cherish it; let the government allow them a share in public administration sufficient to make them feel that they are in their home county, and let the laws, in their eyes, be nothing less than the guarantee of liberty for all..” (Rousseau)

The election results are reflective of the paradigm shift of the public will. The only question that remains is whether Malaysia has a leader within her ranks who possesses the integrity and principles that are guided by moral values that will allow him/her to form a popular government that appeases both the majority and the minority.

Caste in Hinduism: A 300-year Old Myth.

2007-05-30T09:47:00.000-07:00

Caste in Hinduism: A 300-year Old Myth.
Part VI of VII: The Failings of ‘Manusmriti’ and the ‘Hindu Law’

The Code of Gentoo Laws thus remained largely imperfect and created numerous problems and conflicting opinions. British officials soon increasingly mistrusted the Pandits (Brahmins) and were frustrated at the way they thought they [Pandits] were misleading the courts primarily by favouring the interests if their own, and dealing with a spectrum of customs that were not certified by any apparent ‘holy scripture [25]. This consequently prompted Sir William Jones (an English philologist) to write in a letter to Hastings on the 20th October 1791, “…for I can no longer bear to be at the mercy of our pundits [Pandits], who deal out Hindu law, as they please.” [21] Jones then proceeded to learn Sanskrit and in attempt to rectify the problems associated with the Anglo-Brahminal hybrid legislative system, translated the ‘Manusmriti’ of the ‘Dharmasastra’ in 1794.

Jones was determined that the British should administer the best ‘shastric’ law possible. His translation of the ‘Manusmriti’ gradually received wide publicity amongst the British (and eventually Europe – a German translation of the ‘Manusmriti appeared in 1797) [21], and eventually a policy decision by the India Office (the government spearheading British India) kept this document in circulation to project it as an example of the Hindu Law or the Anglo-Brahmanical hybrid law is merely an enforcement of Hindu ‘shastric’ instructions under which Hindus were governed anyway, by the British who had inherited the authority to administer this law [25].

Sir William Jones himself in a series of letters with Charles Wilkins (a printer/writer under the service of East India Company who first translated the Bhagavad Gita) had initially proclaimed that he had no intention to learn Sanskrit. In a letter to Wilkins in 1784, Jones wrote, “…happy should I be to follow you in the same track (in reference to learning about the untrodden paths of Hindu [Sanskrit] learning), but life is too short.” [21] Remarkably, he changed his mind in 1785, when he received a copy of the ‘Manusmriti’ of the ‘Dharmasastra’ as a present, and found the temptation too great to resist and started learning Sanskrit. However, what authority does this give to the ‘Manusmriti’, a scripture that was only translated by Jones after by chance receiving it as a present? I do not wish to impart any blame onto Jones for translating this document or for the widespread attention it received. But, these sequalae of events resulted in the ‘Manusmriti’ being eventually widely accepted as evidence (and wrongly so) of the ‘Hindu Law’ as ordered by ‘shastric’ instructions, that the British were administrating.

The contents of the ‘Manusmriti’ itself are not hugely dissimilar to the Vishnusmriti, and likewise advocate caste based discrimination, and therefore was not significantly different from existing Anglo-Brahmanical Law that was already in place in terms of dealing with the treatment received by each respective caste. What changed was the fact that the Pandits eventually had less room to manoeuvre around and manipulate the law to their interests as previously done, allowing a more standardized and consistent legislative and judiciary system to take shape in India, albeit not formally addressing or even effectively dealing with the issues revolving around caste discrimination. Below, I have inserted a few excerpts from the ‘Manusmriti’ [26] for your viewing:

Manusmriti, Chapter III
It is declared that a Sudra woman alone (can be) the wife of a Sudra, she and one of his own caste (the wives) of a Vaisya, those two and one of his own caste (the wives) of a Kshatriya, those three and one of his own caste (the wives) of a Brahmana.

Twice-born men who, in their folly, wed wives of the low (Sudra) caste, soon degrade their families and their children to the state of Sudras.

A Brahmana who takes a Sudra wife to his bed, will (after death) sink into hell; if he begets a child by her, he will lose the rank of a Brahmana.

Manusmriti, Chapter VIII
A once-born man (a Sudra), who insults a twice-born man with gross invective, shall have his tongue cut out; for he is of low origin.

If he mentions the names and castes (gati) of the (twice-born) with contumely, an iron nail, ten fingers long, shall be thrust red-hot into his mouth.

With whatever limb a man of a low caste does hurt to (a man of the three) highest (castes), even that limb shall be cut off; that is the teaching of Manu.

Manusmriti, Chapter X
No collection of wealth must be made by a Sudra, even though he be able (to do it); for a Sudra who has acquired wealth, gives pain to Brahmanas.

Here, I find it worthy of mention, that although this text has prescribed specific and severe punishment for what seemingly appears to be trivial ‘offences’, mostly committed by a person belonging to a ‘lower caste’ against another belonging to a ‘higher caste’, I naturally assumed that following this pattern of caste based discrimination, the punishment dealt to the person would depend on the his/her caste as such: a person belonging to a ‘lower caste’ would be dealt a more severe punishment, compared to another belonging to a ‘higher caste’ committing the same crime. However, I found myself pleasantly surprised that I was wrong in my assumptions. There was a strange oddity amongst this scripture that seemed to contradict the relative bias of this text towards the ‘upper caste’. Apparently, a person belonging to a ‘upper caste’ such as a Brahmin or a king is considered to be more knowledgeable and learned in the ‘shastric’ laws, and thereby possess a greater ability and understanding to distinguish between what is lawful and what is otherwise; and therefore if he knowingly commits an offence will thereby be subjected to a more severe punishment compared to a Sudra, for example, who is assumed to be lacking in this knowledge, and is given the benefit of doubt.

Manusmriti, Chapter VII
Neither a father, nor a teacher, nor a friend, nor a mother, nor a wife, nor a son, nor a domestic priest must be left unpunished by a king, if they do not keep within their duty.

Where another common man would be fined one karshapana, the king shall be fined one thousand; that is the settled rule.

In (a case of) theft the guilt of a Sudra shall be eightfold, that of a Vaisya sixteenfold, that of a Kshatriya two-and-thirtyfold,

That of a Brahmana sixty-fourfold, or quite a hundredfold, or (even) twice four-and-sixtyfold; (each of them) knowing the nature of the offence [26].

Nevertheless, ultimately neither the ‘Hindu Law’ as prescribed by the Gentoo Code nor the Manusmriti did any favours for the discrimination against persons occupying the lower strata of social order. One must understand the Hinduism and Brahmanical Law (‘Hindu Law’ as administered by the Brahmins) although closely related are not synonymous. Whilst Hinduism explains the characters of a Brahmins or a Sudra in terms of his ‘varna’ and ‘guna’, Brahmanical Law defines caste by birth, marriage and occupation. Whilst Hinduism explains the role of each particular ‘varna’, Brahmanical Law instructs and orders each particular ‘caste’. Hinduism contains the teachings of God. Brahmanical Laws contains the teachings of Brahmins. Unfortunately the Brahmins, who were entrusted to distribute the teachings of Hinduism and educate the society, have failed miserably. These Brahmins, succumbing to corruption can only be Brahmins by birth, marriage, occupation or name, but can never be true Brahmins as defined by Hinduism. They may live and remain as priests and leaders amongst men, but will stand in front of God as condemned men for twisting His words and teachings. Brahmanical Law which advocates the caste system is not a logical derivative of Hinduism, but instead, the Brahmanical Law is the corruption of the teachings of Hinduism.

Eventually in 1787, Hastings was impeached for corruption. The failings of the early period of the Anglo-Brahmanical hybrid law was due to its unconventional origins, lacking a clear structure, outline or guideline leading to a confusion amongst the British judges, with no clear understanding of the legislative system could only attempt to satisfy the litigating public, whilst military forces were used to maintain peace and enforce the compliance with the decrees [20]. It was the role of the subordinate native officials to produce a decision to settle a dispute, which previously would have been settled at leisure amongst local leaders, or might have even never have arisen in the form of litigation at all; a system vulnerable to corruption [20] under Hastings rule. Eventually, local leaders, Pandits and other Brahmins dealt out law as they pleased, under the conditions that the government retained all the advantages of authority and jurisdiction which the Company had inherited with regard to Hindu caste matters [20]. Hastings, upon his return to England was subjected to a series of charges by Edmund Burke (Hastings was only impeached for seven of the twenty two charges brought forth by Burke) including benefiting from lucrative contracts by using his position in power, extortion, torture and waging unjust wars; for both personal gains and British colonial interest.

In one of the most powerful orations in history, Edmund Burke delivered his opening speech at the trial of Warren Hastings on February 13, 1788 at the William Rufus Hall at the Westminster; excerpts of his speech which I have included below.

Edmund Burke: At the Trial of Warren Hastings
My lords, I do not mean now to go farther than just to remind your lordships of this—that Mr. Hastings’ government was one whole system of oppression, of robbery of individuals, of spoliation of the public, and of supersession of the whole system of the English government, in order to vest in the worst of the natives all the power that could possibly exist in any government; in order to defeat the ends which all governments ought, in common, to have in view. In the name of the Commons of England, I charge all this villainy upon Warren Hastings, in this last moment of my application to you.

…My lords, what is it that we want here, to a great act of national justice? Do we want a cause, my lords? You have the cause of oppressed princes, of undone women of the first rank, of desolated provinces, and of wasted kingdoms.

…Do you want a criminal, my lords? When was there so much iniquity ever laid to the charge of any one? No, my lords, you must not look to punish any other such delinquent from India. Warren Hastings has not left substance enough in India to nourish such another delinquent

…I impeach him in the name of the people of India, whose laws, rights and liberties he has subverted; whose properties he has destroyed; whose country he has laid waste and desolate

…I impeach him in the name of human nature itself, which he has cruelly outraged, injured and oppressed, in both sexes, in every age, rank, situation, and condition of life [27].

The subsequent trial lasted for six years, and eventually in 1975, Hastings was acquitted of all charges. However, the damage that Hastings administration of the British India has caused the society was already severe. Hastings hand in implementing a flawed legislative and judiciary system provided the Brahmins and Pandits the licence to formally exercise their power, and allow the continuous oppression and discrimination against persons belonging to lower social groups or castes, under the false pretences that these laws were as dictated by Hinduism and they were merely holding to authority to implement these laws as they were originally meant to be. One may argue that following Hastings discharge from his position as Governor-General, there were many opportunities to put this wrong to right, either by the efforts of colonial administrators or the Brahmins and Pandits themselves. But with both groups equally benefiting from this Anglo-Brahmanical hybrid Law, neither group were willing to commit themselves to rectify these flaws as it would mean the letting go of the benefits and perks that they have been privileged to, that they have grown to take for granted as their right.

(A complete list of references will be published at the end of the final part (Part VII) of this article)

Caste in Hinduism: A 300-year Old Myth

2007-05-20T18:57:00.000-07:00

Caste in Hinduism: A 300-year Old Myth.
Part V of VII: Western hypocrisy – The Introduction of the ‘Hindu Law’

Unfortunately none of my previous discussions offer an explanation to why caste based discrimination is so strongly prevalent amongst Hindus, to a point where it even became incorporated in societal laws and constitutions. Herein lay the biggest hypocrisy of Western colonizers who have repeatedly condemned Hinduism’s caste system, yet were the main culprits who allowed the incorporation of ‘caste based discrimination’ and therefore paved way for its formal introduction into societal laws and constitutions.

The British colonization of India which effectively began as early as in 1670, when King Charles II granted the British East India Company the rights to autonomous territorial acquisitions, to mint money, to command fortresses and troops, to form alliances, to make war and peace, and to exercise both civil and criminal jurisdiction over the acquired areas in India [19]. However, it was not until 1773, when the British Parliament granted the British government regulatory control over the East India Company via the election of Warren Hastings as the first governor-general of British India.

Amongst the first tasks that Hastings set to achieve were to reinforce British rule in India via imposing the Parliament’s sovereignty and control over the Company and establishing a judiciary and legislative system in India. Appreciating the conservatism of India, Hastings was sensitive to both religion and tradition of its occupants and paid great respect to the Hindu scriptures, which at the time remained unprecedented as a guide on code of conduct in society. Hastings (acting on a proposition put up by the Committee of Circuit at Cossimbazar, 15 Aug. 1772) secured that indigenous systems should be applied, and that the judges of law should be specialists in those systems; the responsibility of judgement should be shared between the official and the native jurists, both signing the final document [20].

However, not even Hastings let alone any other English man was able to overcome the language barrier into understanding these codes and Hindu scriptures as they were almost exclusively available only in Sanskrit. Therefore, Nathaniel Halhed, a British grammarian working with the East India Company was chosen to translate and compile the ‘Hindu Law’ for the legislative purposes. Halhed himself was not familiar with Sanskrit and had to resort to selecting eleven Brahmin pandits to aid him in his task, none of whom were willing to instruct him in the language itself; and ultimately these eleven Brahmin pandits were appointed to make extracts from representative works and to arrange them as a code [21]: ‘The Code of Gentoo Laws’ or also known as ‘The Ordinations of the Pundits’.

Here itself we can spot fundamental errors in the process of compiling a societal law. The hierarchy itself dictates that these laws compiled by the select Brahmin pandits are subject to approval of both Halhed and Hastings, both whom are previously illiterate to Hindu scriptures and ultimately oblivious to the teachings of Hinduism itself, thus leading to a birth of an unorthodox Anglo-Brahmanical hybrid law. Furthermore, as explained previously, the inequality that has existed amongst men would predict that a man in a position of power could necessarily exploit his position to further strengthen his position in society, as it is possible with the Brahmin pandits who could have selected excerpts which only contributed towards the gain of the upper ‘caste’. Thirdly, the translation itself was an indirect process – these scriptures which were in Sanskrit were first translated into Persian before it was subsequently translated into English by Halhed. Although Halhed claims that there is nothing slipshod about the translation process, we must acknowledge that the circumstances under which the translation process took place were not exactly ideal.

And finally, and perhaps most importantly, the compilation of the ‘Hindu Law’ itself is arbitrary. What exactly is ‘Hindu Law’? Classical Hindu law, brings the realm of legal practice together with the scholastic tradition of ‘Dharmasastra’ by defining Hindu law as a usable label for myriad localized legal systems of classical and medieval India that were influenced by and in turn influenced the ‘Dharmasastra’ tradition [22]. The relationship between custom and the ‘Dharmasastra’ was taken for granted, and instead of using the native referees as sources of customary law, Hastings directed that reference should be made only as to what the ‘Dharmasastra’ provided [20]. Hastings exact words which acquired the force of legislation and became law under s.27 of the Regulation of 11 April 1790 were, “In all suits regarding inheritance, marriage, caste and other religious usages or institutions, the laws of the Koran with respect to Mohamedans (Muslims) and those of the Shaster with respect to the Gentoos shall invariably be adhered to.” [20].

The ‘Dharmasastra’ on which Gentoo Laws were largely based upon itself is purely a genre of Sanskrit text which contain ‘smritis’ that is compiled by Brahmin scholars explaining ‘dharma’ or literally the code of conduct; a guide for individuals within a society as perceived by Brahmins based on their understanding and interpretation of the Hindu scriptures, which in turn rest heavily on assumption that these learned scholars thoroughly appreciate and understand the teachings of Hinduism in its purest form.

Here I find it necessary to explain the distinctions between the various types of Hindu scriptures that exist. For simplistic reasons, I will classify Hindu scriptures into two categories: the ‘shruti’ texts, and the ‘smriti’ texts.

The original teachings of Hinduism in its purest form itself is contained in ‘shruti’ Hindu texts, which are considered a “divine recording of the cosmic sounds of truth”, heard by ‘rishis’ or sages, or simply put recordings or documentation of divine teachings received directly from a higher power. These teachings are contained in the Vedas, scriptures such as the Aranyakas, Brahmanas and Upanishads which are a part of, derived from and/or explain the Vedic scriptures and the Bhagavad Gita from the Mahabharata; recording dialogues, instructions and explanations derived directly from a higher power without any input from the transcribers themselves.

The other group of Hindu scriptures are collectively known as the ‘smriti’; translates into “that which is remembered”. Although these scriptures are also written by sages or Brahmins, they are only next in authority to the ‘shruti’ texts, simply because the ‘smriti’ is purely an individual interpretation by the author explaining his understanding of existing Hindu scriptures. Therefore ‘smriti’ scriptures although remain hugely significant in Hinduism, may or may not contain the teachings of Hinduism in its purest form as it contains large amounts of input from the author himself.

Therefore, it is utterly inexcusable to use and quote the Dharmasastra to form the foundations of the ‘Hindu Law’. To attach the words ‘Hindu Law’ itself to a ‘smriti’ text implies that Hinduism instructs an individual as dictated by the Dharmasastra, which is not only misleading, but utterly false; a misnomer that has wrongfully cited the works of men, Brahmins and sages as belonging to those of higher power.

Brahmins scholars alike any other men occupying top most positions in any given social order and are not exempt from corruption, and possess the ability and opportunity to use their position as leverage for personal gains and ensure a secure future for themselves. This becomes apparent when one examines the incongruities between ‘shruti’ and ‘smriti’ Hindu scriptures. Whilst ‘shruti’ texts only explain the ‘varna’ system, social order and the duties and responsibilities of an individual of a particular ‘varna’ in society and life, it nevertheless treats each individual as equal. However, certain ‘smriti’ texts have attempted to segregate the various strata of society by creating separate niches for each ‘varna’ respectively; instructing how each individual is treated differently according to his ‘varna’.

This is exemplified by these following excerpts from the Vishnusmriti (sacred laws as remembered of the teachings of Lord Vishnu), one of the ‘smritis’ of the Dharmasastra:

Vishnusmriti, Chapter V: Law of Debt
…If a (low-born) man through pride give instruction (to a member of the highest caste) concerning his duty, let the king order hot oil to be dropped into his mouth

…If a (low-born man) mentions the name or caste of a superior revilingly, an iron pin, ten inches long, shall be thrust into his mouth (red hot).

…If one who (being a member of the Kandâla or some other low caste) must not be touched, intentionally defiles by his touch one who (as a member of a twice-born caste) may be touched (by other twice-born persons only), he shall be put to death

…If a woman in her courses (touches such a person), she shall be lashed with a whip [23].

It is easy to understand from these translated excerpts of the Vishnusmriti why caste based discrimination is attached to Hinduism, as it explicitly discriminates against a person of a lower caste. However, one can immediately spot the glaring contradictions between the ‘shruti’ texts and the ‘smriti’ texts; that the ‘shruti’ texts which contain the original and purest forms of Hindu teachings have not in any way instructed the discrimination or the ill-treatment against an individual of a lower social order, nor did it in most ways passed absolute law or judgement against a particular behaviour.

This is as opposed to the ‘Vishnusmriti’ which although believed to have derived is authority from the Vedas, is marred by an obvious slight towards the higher castes which is uncharacteristic of the original Hindu teachings. Perhaps not surprising considering that the Dharmasastra was composed by Brahmin scholars, for the convenience and the benefit of the Brahmins themselves. The pristine, pure and simple religious tenets that were protected and taught by the Brahmins who were supposed to preserve these messages have made it increasingly obscure and forced the nation [India] into sacerdotal slavery [24].

(A complete list of references will be published at the end of the final part (Part VII) of this article)

Caste in Hinduism: A 300-year Old Myth

2007-05-14T16:57:00.000-07:00

Caste in Hinduism: A 300-year Old Myth.
Part IV of VII: ‘Jati’ and Caste Systems outside Hinduism

I admit that up to now, I have touched very little on the term ‘jati’ itself purely because it is difficult to explain due to the fact that in a number of translations of Hindu Scriptures, the term ‘caste’ had replaced ‘varna’ and ‘jati’ without distinguishing the both. Whilst ‘varna’ is considered to be ‘caste’ or ‘social order’, ‘jati’ has always been considered to be the ‘sub-castes’ or even ‘true caste’. However, in actuality, ‘jati’ which depended on birth truly represented an individual’s heritage, in a similar manner as ethnicity. Distinction between individuals within a particular ‘varna’ was made based on the specific occupations of each individual; forming guild-like division amongst a particular ‘varna’. For example due to the wide range of nature and abilities of the Vaisyas, they held various occupations such as farmers, merchants, and blacksmiths. Therefore the intra-group variation that existed further stratified each individual into smaller guilds within the Vaisya group and an individual would be recognized by the community he occupies by his pedigree.

Identifying one as a ‘son of a farmer’ or a ‘son of a blacksmith’ would offer a picture to represent the environment that particular individual was/is exposed to or even describes an individual’s social status. It marks the ancestry and the heritage of an individual, and is not intended for discrimination purposes. Unfortunately, the wide intra-group variation that exists within the ‘varna’ extended beyond occupation and nature into socio-economic inequalities. The nature of each particular occupation and also its monetary returns not only fluctuate but also vary hugely, creating socio-economic barriers between ‘jatis’.

Some occupations which are ‘clean’, requiring higher levels of training/technical ability/skill and yields greater monetary returns are more favourable and command greater respect within the society as opposed to occupations that are ‘dirty’, requires less skill/training and yields lower monetary returns. This consequently led to prejudices and stereotypes attached to each ‘jati’ or guild, and eventually ‘in-group favourability bias’ exists and a particular ‘jati’ is viewed either positively or negatively. Combined with a lack of social mobility, this eventually became a fixed and rigid system that is perceived by many (and wrongly so) as the ‘caste system’ in Hinduism.

One may argue that there is no need to acquaint an individual by his background or his heritage, but instead allow his or her qualities and natures speak for themselves. I cannot agree any less. The key to understand the role of ‘jati’ within Hinduism, is that Hinduism merely accounts for the existence of ‘jati’ in human society and explains how human relations are/can be affected by ‘jati’, but Hinduism itself does not in way condemn an individual to the occupation that his/her parents possessed. Hinduism does not require a person to be identified by his/her ‘jati’ nor allows discrimination towards any particular ‘jati’.

The caste based discrimination that has so often been attached with Hinduism, is nothing more that an unfortunate consequence of inequality of men in the evolution of human society where the rich and powerful discriminate the poor and weak using whatever weapon or front to support their case; as in with Hinduism – the religion itself was wrongly exploited and misinterpreted to the benefits of certain particular groups to remain both rich and powerful, thus respected in society.

I believe I have sufficiently discussed ‘varna’ and ‘jati’ from the perspectives of Hinduism and sociology to elicit that Hinduism does not advocate the caste system. As demonstrated, the caste system can be explained from a purely sociological model not exclusive to Hinduism; the result of natural evolution (or lack of evolution) of human society.

As it would be fair to comment that not many other cultures, religious and secular societies observe this evolutionary pattern in human society, the logical question that follows is why is the hereditary, discriminatory ‘caste’ system so strongly prevalent and embedded in certain Hindu societies if Hinduism is opposed to it?

Unfortunately, there are similar ‘caste’ systems existing in non-Hindu societies as well for example amongst Indian Muslims, Indian Christians and outside India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, there is evidence of ‘caste’ systems in practice in certain African tribes and even in Japan, Korea and Yemen.

However to illustrate my point, I will only further expand on the case of Indian Muslims, because in many aspects Islam is considered to be the antithesis of Hinduism yet in India many Muslims retained a ‘castes’ systems characteristics to Hinduism [17]. Whilst some may argue that this could possibly be explained as a residual effect or remnants following the conversion of Hindu followers into Islam, I believe that this argument is weak and will not hold considering Islam is opposed to the hierarchy of ‘caste’* as it is explained by Hinduism, and was amongst the chief reasons cited by Muslims to encourage this conversion of faith of Hindu devotees into Islam.

*the usage of the word ‘caste’ in Hinduism does not imply that I am in agreement of it, but instead am offering an explanation from the perspective of Islam regarding the concept for ‘jati’ and ‘varna’

However, the reality of the situation is exemplified by the ‘Report on the Census of India, 1901’:

Report of the Census of India, 1901
According to Mr. Gait the Bengal Muhammadans "recognize two main social divisions, (1) Ashrāf or Sharīf and (2) Ajlāf, which in Bengali has been corrupted to Ātrāp. The first, which means 'noble' or 'persons of high extrac- tion,' includes all undoubted descendants of foreigners and converts from the higher castes of Hindus. All other Muhammadans, including the functional groups to be presently mentioned and all converts of lower rank, are collectively known by the contemptuous term Ajlāf, 'wretches' or 'mean people;' they are also called Kamīna or Itar, 'base' or Razīl, a corruption of Rizāl, 'worthless.'

This category includes the various classes of converts who are known as Nao Muslim in Bihar and Nasya in North Bengal, but who in East Bengal, where their numbers are greatest, have usually succeeded in establishing their claim to be called Shekh. It also includes various functional groups such as that of the Jolāhā or weaver, Dhuniā or cotton-carder, Kulu or oil-presser, Kunjra or vegetable-seller, Hajjām or barber, Darzi or tailor, and the like.

Like the higher Hindu castes, the Ashrāf consider it degrading to accept menial service or to handle the plough. The traditional occupation of the Saiads is the priesthood, while the Moghals and Pathāns correspond to the Kshatriyas of the Hindu règime.

In some places a third class, called Arzāl or 'lowest of all,' is added. It consists of the very lowest castes, such as the Halālkhor, Lālbegi, Abdāl, and Bediya, with whom no other Muhammadan would associate, and who are for- bidden to enter the mosque or to use the public burial ground." [17]

The similarities between the ‘Muhammadans’ or Muslims and Hindus in India is undeniable. The various functional groups correspond nicely with the ‘jatis’ of Hindu societies, and similarly these Muslims societies have an almost similar structure of social order: Saiads traditionally being priests corresponding to Brahmins, and Moghals and Pathans corresponding to Kshatriyas.

Here I deem it necessary to clarify (albeit repeatedly) that the ‘caste’ system is not advocated by either religion, although it does not necessarily mean it is detached from it. There are elements in Hinduism that potentially has been misinterpreted with regards to the complex relationship between ‘varna’ and ‘jati’; and subsequently has resulted in the confusion that Hinduism supports ‘caste’ based discrimination.

Similarly, Islam societies, which is (supposedly) free from slavery and caste where everyone is treated as equal [17] also suffer from the inevitable consequences of socioeconomic inequalities between various functional groups and likewise experience ‘caste’ based discrimination; parallel to an observation by Dr BR Ambedkar (an socio-politic reformist and a political leader who was amongst the chief architect of the Indian Constitution) that, “caste amongst ‘Musalmans’ (Muslims) has remained.” [18].

Therefore we can conclude that this ‘caste’ system is not exclusive to Hinduism (or Muslims), and likewise ‘caste’ discrimination cannot be solely attributed to Hindu communities and can almost wholly be explained from a sociological point of view as I have discussed above.

(A complete list of references will be published at the end of the final part (Part VII) of this article)

Caste in Hinduism: A 300-year Old Myth

2007-05-08T14:25:00.000-07:00

Caste in Hinduism: A 300-year Old Myth.
Part III of VII: Applying a Sociological Model and Determining ‘Varna’

More importantly, none of the discussions in Part I and II provide an adequate explanation as to how an individual is placed within the society; as a Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaisya or a Sudra. What makes one a Brahmin or a Sudra; birth, occupation or nature?

The current and common misconception amongst many Hindu and non-Hindus alike regarding social order, is that caste, ‘jati’ or ‘varna’ is determined by birth; a hereditary system where a child takes after the status of his/her parents (often being the father). There is both truth and fiction in this claim.

In many ancient civilisations (and to a certain extent, present day societies) there was a lack of social mobility amongst individuals. Taking for example the feudal system in Europe during the medieval times where at the time of the decline of the Roman Empire, churches were amongst the only institutions that had managed to remain intact and served as central political and cultural institutions due to the high literacy levels amongst bishops and other religious figures. Consequently they become significantly influential in forming governments and other political institution, which eventually paved the way for feudalism.

Central governments were either under direct control by churches, or if otherwise still had maintained close ties with religious figures, delegated authority to local Lords in areas which the central government had less power. The local Lords in return (having sworn allegiances with the central government) supported themselves by authority of military organization, law and order and taxation; and through a commendation ceremony would elect a vassal to whom the Lord would provide a fief. And finally at the bottom of the social order lay the serfs who would serve the vassal by providing labour and service.

Thus the sequential social order as it stood during the medieval times which placed the Bishops at the top of the order followed by Dukes and Local Lords who were granted territorial authority, followed by vassals and finally the serfs. Under this stratification, not only a social order was put in place, but it was characterized by a lack of social mobility from one group to another.

A child born to serf is likely to learn to the trades of his parents, and therefore is equipped with the skills to become a serf. Likewise a child born to a Lord is likely to become familiar with the trades of his parents, and therefore will be better equipped with the knowledge and abilities to become a Lord himself. This by no means condemns any individual to a certain social group, but simply states the likelihood of a child to learn the trades of his parents and likewise occupy the position his parents did within the same social order. These conditions that prevailed in ancient civilisations prevented much social mobility and therefore individuals were often confined to within the social group they were born into – not hugely dissimilar to the ‘hereditary caste system’.

Karl Marx often explained feudalism from almost a purely capitalist economic model, but his astute observations remains valid in explaining that the structure of these societies was inevitable at the times they existed:

Wage Labour and Capital
The relations of production in their totality constitute what is called the social relations, society, and, moreover, a society at a definite stage of historical development, a society with peculiar, distinctive characteristics. Ancient society, feudal society, bourgeois (or capitalist) society, are such totalities of relations of production, each of which denotes a particular stage of development in the history of mankind [14].

The Poverty of Philosophy
The hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill society with the industrial capitalist [15].

Similarly human society in India and amongst Hindus could not possibly escape the birth of inequality amongst men and the lack of social mobility. Thereby a person’s place in the society became almost pre-determined by birth itself, taking after his/her parents. However I am quick to alert readers that social order is Hinduism is not determined by birth, and therefore ‘hereditary caste system’ is not a concept advocated by Hinduism. I drew an analogy (perhaps imperfect) between the social mobility in India and medieval Europe to simply illustrate the point that the lack of social mobility in ancient human civilisations was an unfortunate but unavoidable occurrence in the evolution of human society, simply due to inevitable inequality amongst men in any given society. A son of a Sudra is ‘likely’ to be raised in the nature of a Sudra and trained in the trades of a Sudra. Likewise a son of a Brahmin is ‘likely’ to be raised in the nature of a Brahmin and trained in the knowledge and abilities of a Brahmin.

Nevertheless, birth and upbringing alone does not determine the nature, qualities and abilities of an individual. Whilst the lack of social mobility in ancient civilisations predicts the likelihood of a child to follow onto the footsteps of his parents, by no means is his future predetermined or even absolute. This is clearly illustrated by an excerpt from the Mahabharata; a conversation between King Nahusha (in the form of a celestial serpent) and Prince Yudhishthira (the eldest son of King Pandu):

Mahabharata, Book III: Varna Parva, Chapter CLXXIX
The serpent said, 'O Yudhishthira, say--Who is a Brahmana and what should be known? By thy speech I infer thee to be highly intelligent.'

"Yudhishthira said, 'O foremost of serpents, he, it is asserted by the wise, in whom are seen truth, charity, forgiveness, good conduct, benevolence, observance of the rites of his order and mercy is a Brahmana. And, O serpent, that which should be known is even the supreme Brahma, in which is neither happiness nor misery--and attaining which beings are not affected with misery; what is thy opinion?'

"The serpent said, 'O Yudhishthira, truth, charity, forgiveness, benevolence, benignity, kindness and the Veda which worketh the benefit of the four orders, which is the authority in matters of religion and which is true, are seen even in the Sudra. As regards the object to be known and which thou allegest is without both happiness and misery, I do not see any such that is devoid of these.'

"Yudhishthira said, Those characteristics that are present in a Sudra, do not exist in a Brahmana; nor do those that are in a Brahmana exist in a Sudra. And a Sudra is not a Sudra by birth alone--nor a Brahmana is Brahmana by birth alone. He, it is said by the wise, in whom are seen those virtues is a Brahmana. And people term him a Sudra in whom those qualities do not exist, even though he be a Brahmana by birth. And again, as for thy assertion that the object to be known (as asserted by me) doth not exist, because nothing exists that is devoid of both (happiness and misery), such indeed is the opinion, O serpent, that nothing exists that is without (them) both. But as in cold, heat doth not exist, nor in heat, cold, so there cannot exist an object in which both (happiness and misery) cannot exist?"

"The serpent said, 'O king, if thou recognise him as a Brahmana by characteristics, then, O long-lived one, the distinction of caste* becometh futile as long as conduct doth not come into play.'

"Yudhishthira said, 'In human society, O mighty and highly intelligent serpent, it is difficult to ascertain one's caste*, because of promiscuous intercourse among the four orders. This is my opinion. Men belonging to all orders (promiscuously) beget offspring upon women of all the orders. And of men, speech, sexual intercourse, birth and death are common. And to this the Rishis have borne testimony by using as the beginning of a sacrifice such expressions as--of what caste* so ever we may be, we celebrate the sacrifice. Therefore, those that are wise have asserted that character is the chief essential requisite… [16]

*I am unable to ascertain the original Sanskrit word that ‘caste’ has replaced in the translation above, therefore I advice readers to be aware that the word ‘caste’ here itself is used to describe one of the four groups of men as explained by the Rig Veda.

The excerpt above explicitly states that that ‘varna’ is not pre-determined, by birth, and as has been repeatedly mentioned is determined by nature or character that an individual has been attributed with to perform his duty. As further demonstrated by the following excerpts from the Bhagavad Gita; Lord Krishna explaining to Prince Arjuna, his duties as a Kshatriya and the character he needs to possess to fulfil his duties:

Bhagavad Gita, Chapter II
O son of Prithâ! it is not worthy of you. Cast off this base weakness of heart, and arise, O terror of (your) foes!...

… Therefore you ought not to grieve for any being. Having regard to your own duty also, you ought not to falter, for there is nothing better for a Kshatriya than a righteous battle. Happy those Kshatriyas, O son of Prithâ! who can find such a battle (to fight)--come of itself--an open door to heaven! But if you will not fight this righteous battle, then you will have abandoned your own duty and your fame, and you will incur sin. All beings, too, will tell of your everlasting infamy; and to one who has been honoured, infamy is (a) greater (evil) than death. (Warriors who are) masters of great cars will think that you abstained from the battle through fear, and having been highly thought of by them, you will fall down to littleness…

… Killed, you will obtain heaven; victorious, you will enjoy the earth. Therefore arise, O son of Kuntî! resolved to (engage in) battle [11].

(A complete list of references will be published at the end of the final part (Part VII) of this article)

Caste in Hinduism: A 300-year Old Myth

2007-04-30T10:47:00.000-07:00

Caste in Hinduism: A 300-year Old Myth.
Part II of VII: Inequality amongst Men

Inequality amongst men is not a concept that is unique or exclusive to Hinduism, and regardless of how we wish and attempt to abolish these inequalities, they exist nevertheless. Jean-Jacques Rousseau described that inequality amongst men is present from the moment an individual is born, “natural [inequality]…is established by nature and consists of differences in age, health, strength of body and qualities of the mind or soul [12].” These social stratifications that exists in Hindu Holy Scriptures are not intended to discriminate or create social division, or even to create inequality. Instead, they exist to demonstrate and explain that inequality amongst men is inevitable, from the moment one is born. Each individual possesses features, characteristics and abilities that vary in nature and strength that is unique to him or her self; and one should use these skills that they possess to perform their duties within the society for a number of reasons (two reasons of which I will explain); firstly to fulfil their purpose of life by performing their duties and not defecting from their responsibilities to themselves, their families, to society and God, and secondly fulfilling their roles within the society which in turn enables society to function smoothly.

Revisiting the original verse from the Rig Veda itself (as quoted in Part I) describing the origin of the various ‘varnas’ from the ‘Purusa’ explained that the world was formed by the various body parts of the ‘Purusa’ and consists of the society that inhabits the world, as described by each ‘varna’ group; instilling a social order in society. However, this by no means condemns any particular group to being less important than another. I agree that Hindu scriptures have consistently attributed positive characteristics to Brahmin and Kshatriyas, and less positive characteristics to describe Vaisyas and Sudras. But as social theory dictates, social order is often determined by the nature of each group: an individual who possesses greater knowledge abilities will inevitably be promoted to the top of the social order, whereas an individual who is lacking in knowledge and ability is rooted to the bottom. Hinduism does not force, impose or advocate the creation of this social order, but accounts for its existence. It does not preach idealism, but explains the realism of human society.

For a society to exist and function in an organized and civilized manner, social order is a necessity. All layers of the society are crucial to its functioning. A whole body can only function at its fullest potential if all its organs function accordingly; a society can only function if the various social groups perform its duties accordingly. The various body parts of the ‘Purusa’ that make up the various ‘varnas’ are each in itself vital organs of which the world is built from; and for it to function as it was meant to, it requires each organ or body part to perform its duty as it was designed for. The failure of any one organ (group) to function as intended, can only lead to an imperfect body (world/society).

Does this effectively mean that Hinduism advocates inequality amongst men? No; instead Hinduism stands for the exact opposite of that and in fact preaches equality amongst all men. Nevertheless how is it possible that Hinduism, which acknowledges inequality amongst men, preach equality instead?

Bhagavad Gita, Chapter IX
I am alike to all beings; to me none is hateful, none dear. But those who worship me with devotion (dwell) in me, and I too in them.

Even if a very ill-conducted man worships me, not worshipping any one else, he must certainly be deemed to be good, for he has well resolved. He soon becomes devout of heart, and obtains lasting tranquillity.

(You may) affirm, O son of Kuntî! that my devotee is never ruined. For, O son of Prithâ! even those who are of sinful birth , women, Vaisyas; and Sûdras likewise, resorting to me, attain the supreme goal.

What then (need be said of) holy Brâhmanas and royal saints who are (my) devotees? Coming to this transient unhappy world, worship me [11].

Inequality and equality amongst men in Hinduism are two concepts that are co-dependant yet antagonize each other; a paradox that explains the complexity of human society. Man and woman are not equal in build, emotions and abilities, as a priest and a king are not equal in knowledge, character, qualities and abilities, as with a king and a labourer. These inequalities exist as a consequence of nature and nurture of each individual, which eventually leads to their role and place within the order of society, as further demonstrated by another selected excerpt from the Bhagavad Gita:

Bhagavad Gita, Chapter IV
According to the aptitudes resulting from the dispositions of Nature (Gunas) and from works, the social order of fourfold division has been created by Me. Though I am their originator, know Me to be not an agent but the Spirit unchanging [13].

The key to understanding this complex relationship between inequality and equality is to appreciate that each individual regardless of caste, gender, ability, ‘karma/dharma’ has his/her role to play in this world to maintain its order, and therefore is required to perform his/her duty as prescribed by God; and by doing so are perceived equally in attaining the supreme goal. The various body parts of the ‘Purusa’; the ‘mouth’, ‘arms’, ‘thighs’ and ‘feet’, all of which have different physical characteristics, abilities and functions, yet are equally as important in forming a perfect ‘body’.

(A complete list of references will be published at the end of the final part (Part VII) of this article)

Caste in Hinduism: A 300-year Old Myth

2007-04-22T16:44:00.000-07:00

Caste in Hinduism: A 300-year Old Myth

Part I of VII: An Introduction to the Origin of Caste and ‘varna’

Caste is sociologically defined as an endogamous and hereditary social group limited to persons of the same rank, occupation, economic position, etc., and having customs distinguishing it from other such groups. As such, many may already be familiar with the ‘caste system’ that is attached to Hinduism: in a way that the Hindu society is traditionally divided into social divisions by which a particular caste has its own privileges and limitations; a rigid hereditary system that is transferred from one generation to the next. These definitions of caste are widely accepted, and Hinduism have constantly been at the receiving end of the brunt imposed by human rights activists, sociologists, and both political and religious leaders from all quarters, for the ‘caste based discrimination’ that is allegedly advocated by Hinduism.

However, are these allegations actually true? During my research for this article, I discovered many shocking truths and myths about ‘caste’ in Hinduism; a concept taken for granted and condemned by many in line with the definitions that I have provided above. Here I wish to unearth some of the facts and myths on ‘caste’ and Hinduism that many have previously been unaware of, from theological, sociological and historical perspectives. The purpose of my article is to display my findings, facts, expert opinions and arguments on this hugely disputed controversy in attempt to prove to you that ‘caste’ in Hinduism is nothing more than a 300 year old myth originating from flawed Western interpretations of concepts within Hinduism.

The word ‘caste’ itself is a Latin/Roman derivative of castus/casto/chaste [1,2] from the 15^th century; defined as ‘a race of men, pure, or lineage’. Its application to Hindu social groups only picked up in India in the 17^th century [2] and has since replaced the word ‘jati’ and ‘varna’ in existing literature and text almost synonymously, yet by large inaccurately.

‘Jati’ coming from the root word ‘jat’ by definition is ‘birth’, comprises of the various ‘sub-castes’ of ‘varna’ (a Sanskrit word derived from ‘vrn’ meaning ‘colour, cover or veil’. Simply put, in western interpretation of Hindu texts, ‘varna’ is considered to be the ‘caste system’ or ‘social class’, consisting of various ‘jatis’ which makeup the individual castes or sub-castes within this system. Whilst this is not hugely inaccurate, it hardly explains the complex relationship of ‘jati’ and ‘varna’ in the context of Hinduism.

‘Jati’ and ‘varna’ themselves, are concepts within Hinduism, which simply cannot be replaced by singular Western words, especially with a word like ‘caste’ which is not only inaccurate but etymologically carries an entire different meaning from the Sanskrit words that it has replaced in interpretations of Hindu texts. These concepts are hugely difficult to explain in it selves, simply due to the metaphorical and poetic nature of which Hinduism literature is construed upon and also the vast amount of literature, rendering its texts open to various interpretations.

One of the most obvious examples of such difficulties in interpreting Hindu texts is explaining what ‘varna’ truly stands for. In the Rig Veda (which is the oldest and considered to be one of the most important Hindu scriptures, consisting of 1028 hymns), the word ‘varna’ appears a number of times, yet it represents a broad and vague description of colour and cover. To be more exact, of the 22 times that ‘varna’ was mentioned in the Rig Veda, on 17 occasions it referred to the lustre of specific gods, twice to describe the colour of the sky, twice to describe the lustre of the Dasas/Dasyus and once more ambiguously to satisfy the ‘varna’ of a married couple by consummating their marriage by trying for a child [3].

However before that, interpreting the Rig Veda requires one to be aware of the historical significance of the Aryans vs. Dasas/Dasyus, a subject thoroughly discussed the in the Holy Scriptures. It explains in very simplistic terms how the Aryans battled the Dasas/Dasyus (described as brahma-dvisah; people who were opposed to devotion/prayers, although they were broadly accepted as worshippers of Lord Shiva), and upon victory, the Aryans bestowed the land with prosperity:

Rig Veda 5.14.4
Agni born shone out slaying the Dasyus, the darkness by the light, he found the Cows, the Waters, Swar [4,5]

Aurobindo in The Secret of the Veda explains that, in the struggle between light and darkness; truth and falsehood, divine and undivine is described [5], and Agni by defeating the Dasyus, allowed the creation of a heavenly world.

Whilst, the Aryan Invasion Theory vs. Indigenous Aryan Theory still remains an unresolved controversial discussion, in general, Aryans have consistently been associated with lighter, brighter colours as opposed to the Dasa/Dasyus who have been ascribed with darkness in numerous Hindu texts. However, although it is generally accepted that the Aryans had a fairer skin complexion compared to the Dasyus, nowhere does any of the Hindu texts explicitly state or even imply that references to colours associated to each group was applied to the skin colour of either group.

In fact, the ‘varna’ of these distinct groups merely attributes symbolic colours to a certain cosmological quality (guna)/energy/aura associated with each particular group; white corresponds to clarity (sattya), red to energy (rajas) and black to darkness (tamas), and this in turn as described by Koenraad Elst is projected into the social spectrum to represent the qualities of the various classes in society: Brahmins are white, Kshatriyas are red, Sudras are black and Vaisyas who have mixed qualities are represented as yellow [3].

Hans Hock, an expert linguist commenting of Hindu literature states that the racial interpretation of the Indian texts “must be considered dubious” and “early Sanskrit literature offers no conclusive evidence of pre-occupation with skin colour”; whilst the world or Aryans is often described with words such as “light, white, broad and wide” and the Dasus/Dasyus were described with words such as “darkness or fog”, in most instances racial interpretation can safely be ruled out [6].

And this is demonstrated by how even epic characters such as Lord Krishna were often portrayed with skin colour of ‘blackish’ or ‘dark-blue’. In Mahabhrata, Draupadi, the daughter of King Drupada and also the wife of the Pandava brothers was considered beautiful for her ‘dark’ skin, and in fact was named Brahmanas by Krishna due to her radiant dusky skin. In Chapter 37 of the Mahabhrata, Arjuna was described as a ‘dark mass of clouds’ next to the beautiful complexion of the daughter of King Matsya. On the other hand, Shiva (considered by invasion theorists to be worshipped by Dasus/Dasyus) have been described as ‘gour varna’ (white colour) and even fair-skinned [6,7], yet strangely He is most commonly depicted as dark-skinned, or a tan of blue. As a matter of fact, even Veda Vyasa, (the one who compiled the Vedas) who wrote the Mahabhrata was also known as Krishna Dvaipayana; of which the term Krishna (not to be confused with Lord Krishna) was in reference to his dark-skin.

But concept of ‘jati’ and ‘varna’ in Hinduism is not as simple as being ‘gour’ (white) or ‘shyama’ (black), nor is as simple as being a ‘brahmin’ or a ‘shudra’. Having established that skin colour is irrelevant in determining ‘varna’, I attempt to correct other widespread misconceptions regarding ‘jati’ and ‘varna’, which I hypothesize as having originated from fundamentally flawed Western interpretations of Hindu scriptures and ideologies, leading to what many people around the world, Hindu and non-Hindu alike, understand (and wrongly so) about caste and social order within the religion.

Rig Veda 10.90.11-14
When they divided Purusa how many portions did they make?
What do they call his mouth, his arms? What do they call his thighs and feet?

The Brahman was his mouth, of both his arms was the Rajanya made.
His thighs became the Vaisya, from his feet the Sudra was produced.

The Moon was gendered from his mind, and from his eye the Sun had birth;
Indra and Agni from his mouth were born, and Vayu from his breath.

Forth from his navel came mid-air the sky was fashioned from his head
Earth from his feet, and from his car the regions. Thus they formed the worlds [4].

It is widely accepted that Hinduism divides the human society into their respective ‘varnas’ based on their origin from ‘Purusha’: Brahmans (Brahmins), Rajanyas (Kshatriyas), Vaishysas and Sudra. This verse from the Purusa Sukta (Hymn 90, Book 10) from the Rig Veda explains the creation of the world by God from ‘Purusha’, which by definition is the primeval man, considered to be the soul of the universe, which is created out of his body. Yet, I am quick to remind you that there was not a single occurrence of the term ‘varna’ in the entire Purusha Sukta, let alone in reference to any of the fore-mentioned groups above, which I thought was odd considering this very verse has been repeatedly been quoted as the origin of the ‘varna’ system.

Nevertheless the ‘varna’ system (as it is most commonly understood) can be loosely described as the following:

1. Brahmana/Brahmin

This scholarly community consists of learned individuals of the Holy Scriptures and possess high levels of knowledge regarding the Vedas and the religion. A Brahmana/Brahmin is sometimes considered closest to God, due to his inner knowledge and understanding of the religion and is able to perform priestly duties. Their duties also involve teaching of the Vedas as protectors of the religion.

2. Rajanyas/Kshatriyas

The Kshatriyas consists of the ruling and administrative class, ranging from kings and princes to warriors and leaders, and from generals to foot-soldiers. Etymologically the word ‘raj’ meant to rule and ‘kshatriyah’ originating from ‘ksatram’ meant ‘rule’ or power [8]. They are considered protectors of ‘dharma’ (duty and justice) and land, and are meant to uphold law and honour.

3. Vaisyas

Vaisyas, or the peasantry appears as the basis of the state on which the priesthood and military caste rest [9]. It comprises of merchants, artisans, entrepreneurs, farmers and commoners. Derived from the root ‘vish’ meaning ‘to live’, vaisyas have been been attributed with a ‘yellow guna’ denoting their wide range of mixed abilities. In Buddhism, it almost analogous to the term ‘gahapati’ in the Pali texts [9], referring to the household; a particular strata of society meant to represent the reality within society.

4. Sudras

Actions consisting of service are the duty of the Sudras, born of their own nature [10] of which its ‘guna’ has been described as black*. This service providing community contributes not only labour to the society, but offers obeisances to higher sections of the society. Their duty is mainly to serve and provide service to the Brahmins, Kshatriyas and the Vaisyas.

*as described earlier, this is a projection by Koenraad Elst from the ‘varna’ of the ‘guna’ of each group into the social spectrum, and the description of Sudras possessing a black ‘guna’ representing darkness is not to be taken as discriminatory, but purely as a description of their nature, qualities and duties (which will be explained in greater detail).

There are numerous religious scriptures that attempt to describe and teach the very ‘varna’ system that was described above, one of which is The Bhagavad Gita: a dialogue between Lord Krishna and Prince Arjuna on the eve of the battle of Kurukshetra demonstrates how Lord Krishna guides Prince Arjuna into performing his duties as a Kshatriya, at a difficult time for the Prince who is beset by conflicting emotions and thoughts. This select verse from the final chapter of this particular Holy Scripture describes the nature of each group and the concomitant duties alongside the qualities that individuals of each group possess:

Bhagavad Gita, Chapter XVIII
The duties of Brâhmanas, Kshatriyas, and Vaisyas, and of Sûdras, too, O terror of your foes! are distinguished according to the qualities born of nature.

Tranquillity, restraint of the senses, penance, purity, forgiveness, straightforwardness, also knowledge, experience, and belief (in a future world), this is the natural duty of Brâhmanas.

Valour, glory, Courage, dexterity, not slinking away from battle, gifts, exercise of lordly power, this is the natural duty of Kshatriyas.

Agriculture, tending cattle, trade, (this) is the natural duty of Vaisyas, And the natural duty of Sûdras, too, consists in service.

(Every) man intent on his own respective duties obtains perfection. Listen, now, how one intent on one's own duty obtains perfection. Worshipping, by (the performance of) his own duty, him from whom all things proceed, and by whom all this is permeated, a man obtains perfection. One's duty, though defective, is better than another's duty well performed. Performing the duty prescribed by nature, one does not incur sin [11].

(A complete list of references will be published at the end of the final part (Part VII) of this article)

An overview of Malaysia’s healthcare system. A miracle or a disaster?

2007-02-25T11:13:00.000-08:00

An overview of Malaysia’s healthcare system. A miracle or a disaster?

Part III of III – The Professionals and a Conclusion
Having discussed patients’ attitudes and the balancing act between the public and private healthcare sector, I imagine the next obvious discussion lies in the attitude and professionalism of the healthcare workers themselves. Before I go on, I wish to share my experience to readers, as an insider to the system:

“A young man, was admitted into the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) for a fatal overdose of paraquat (a type of herbicide); an obvious suicide attempt. With the patient critically ill, the family waited nervously outside the ward. The Medical Officer (MO) briefed the freshly graduated House Officer (HO) of what the priorities are in regards of treating the patient, before she left him to deal with this tremendous but seemly impossible task of treating this patient. Shortly afterwards, the patient arrests, and the HO attempts to resuscitate him, and calls for help from the available medical staff in the ward. In that instance, the nurses and an attendant immediately came to support the HO. Meanwhile, the patient’s family, who realised the sudden urgency in the medical staff, sensed that something was going horribly wrong, tried to force their way into the ward. The nurses and attendant, restrained them from entering the ward, and told them that they were only getting in the way of the medical team. So the nervous family, were forced to wait outside, and their only comprehension of the scenario, was the little they could see through the tiny window that connects the ward to the outside.

In ICU, the HO is tiring from performing the cardiac massage whilst the other nurses who crowd the ICU are discouraging the HO in what they believe is a futile attempt. I was in utter disbelief when a nurse muttered these exact words,

“Cukup la doktor, dia sudah mati! (That’s enough doctor, he’s already dead).”

I understand that given the scenario, the survival of a patient who had consumed a fatal dose of paraquat is practically zilch. But nowhere along my medical training have I encountered calling a living man, dead, and staff discouraging the efforts of another staff to attempt to save him, regardless of the odds.

The HO ignoring these comments persevered but eventually exhausted, requests for a nurse to take over. She reluctantly takes over, but with minimal regard and effort for the technique required for the cardiac massage, she ultimately renders the procedure useless. The HO pushes her aside to continue with the cardiac massage, whilst the attendant (who is also trained for the procedure) comments, that he would feel obliged to help only if he were paid to do so. The HO, losing the battle of resuscitating the patient, recognises the need for an urgent inotropic drug administration asks the nurse to titre the required dose. But at that moment, the HO realises, all the nurses had left, save one who was a student nurse and inexperienced and even she had to call for the other more senior nurses to help prepare the required drug.

Finally, the patient dies. The HO walks over to the family to break the news. They cried in disbelief as they hear the difficult and shocking news, but they were well within earshot when the MO yells in background from across the ward, calling for the HO hurry up with his ‘time wasting’ and carry on to complete his wards rounds because she could not be bothered to wait any longer.”

This actual event took place in a district government hospital in Malaysia during my attachment as a pre-medical student. In my brief time there, there were uncountable accounts of unprofessional behaviour ranging across all levels of medical staff. Doctor-patient relationship goes no further than the extent of providing a drug to cure the disease. Nurses constantly complain of having to deal with both the patients’ and doctors’ attitudes, yet demonstrate little ability in completing their chores at an acceptable standard. These problems that I have highlighted are merely the tip of the iceberg of hugely unprofessional behaviour amongst medical staff in public healthcare service. Having experienced the public healthcare sector from varying perspectives, I have enough reason to believe that anyone would be discouraged from seeking healthcare services from the public healthcare services, if one could afford the more professional private healthcare service.

And if readers realised, I have yet to even discuss the competency of the medical staff in delivering a healthcare service that consumers require and demand. We have reason to believe that medical malpractice and negligence in government hospitals happens, which is indicated by the number of legal suits that have been filed, many of which reputedly have been settled out of courts. With the furore surrounding the de-recognization of Crimea Medical State University and other medical schools from Ukraine, the Malaysia Medical Association (MMA) stated that it places the highest importance in standards of doctors which are allowed to practice in Malaysia, a claim that is used to support their move. However, there have been numerous rebuttals from various groups demanding that Malaysia Medical Association (MMA) reveal and standardize the criteria which are used to ‘recognize’ medical degrees issued from all universities, yet it fell on deaf ears. The inconsistency that MMA portrays is worrying, with medical graduates pouring into the country from various institutions worldwide. How are we to know if they really are qualified to practice in Malaysia? The MMA solution to the question is a separate qualifying examination, which medical students from non-recognized universities need to pass. I personally wonder how many of our local graduates would actually pass these examinations.

The right for a healthcare service that meets the patients’ needs is a basic right that all citizens of Malaysia deserve. Anything short of that can only be perceived as an infringement of such a basic right. The earlier parts of my text discussed the growing trend of consumerism behaviour amongst healthcare users worldwide, but more prevalent in the developed country, a trend that is not currently widely observed in Malaysia, which could offer an explanation of the passivity of healthcare users in Malaysia with regards to the service that is being offered. This is a product of the paternalistic doctor-patient relationship, the elevation of the status of the doctor to somewhat mimicking a demigod: a doctor cannot do harm! Unfortunately, this is not true, and patients in Malaysia need to understand this, fast. We can preach about the unprofessional behaviour of the healthcare workers to limitless ends, but unless the patients adopt a new mentality, the arena of medical practice in Malaysia may never change.

Patients need to be more willing to assume a greater share of responsibility in their healthcare; be more willing to learn about the conditions which they suffer from and understand the implications of each treatment options. They need to discard their passive role and be more active with regards to the management of their own health, not merely absorbing the doctors paternalistic views, but instead challenging them to deliver the best of what the healthcare service has to offer. But this evolution will take time, and as for yet, it is impractical to introduce modern aspects of communication in medicine, such as informed consent and shared decision making, as patients are nowhere ready to take responsibility for their own health, and doctors likewise are nowhere ready to relinquish the authority and supremacy that they have been privileged to, all these years.

There are numerous areas in within the healthcare system that I have yet to discuss, such as healthcare delivery within the private sector, measuring patient satisfaction rates, and even expenses within the healthcare system. Also, I have not even approached the issue from the perspective of the medical staff, the limitations they face within the service, obstacles posed by guidelines, protocols and other red tape, inadequate facilities, poor opportunities for training, massive patient loads, horrendous working hours, and the list can go on. Other limitations in my text stemmed from the difficulty in accessing crucial statistics, such as exact figures of patients within each sector, breakdown of expenditure of the Ministry of Health, previous budget allocations, mortality rates, waiting times for patients in out-patients, waiting lists for medical/surgical procedures/investigations and others. Figures from the government allocations into the national budget and the 9MP, are in itself not useful unless we have figures from previous years to compare to and observe trends.

However, despite the numerous problems in the healthcare system that Malaysia faces, all is not lost. On the whole, as Ramesh and Holliday have said, Malaysia is truly a healthcare miracle, a miracle which has been made possible by the government who have created a system that is accessible by the multiple strata of the Malaysian society. For all the complaints, facts and statistics still prove that Malaysia possesses one of the leading healthcare systems in the Southeast Asia region, and a system that is the envy of many other developing countries. Furthermore, we can take some comfort in the recent efforts by the government with plans in place to show that things are definitely moving forward towards providing a better healthcare system for all. It may not be perfect, but it is definitely improving. However, the first step towards improvement lies in the ability to acknowledge the shortcomings within the system, such as some of the ones that I have discussed above. I self admittedly understand that huge chunks of my text have been critical of various parties, purely because I believe that there is much room for improvement.

As to the answer to the question that I put forward, ‘Is Malaysia’s healthcare system a miracle or a disaster?”…I believe that it is a miracle. It is an achievement that no one could have predicted with the numerous inadequacies and flaws at various levels. The existing system in far from being perfect, but it is undoubtedly a miracle that the healthcare system has succeeding in raising the overall standard of health (measured in terms of the variable mentioned above) of the mass population in Malaysia; a performance that deludes the circumstances under which the healthcare system operates on. However, as one who is within the medical profession, I too can appreciate and sympathize with the numerous problems that healthcare providers face: the lack of resources, support and protection. It is simply that, as patient, I would never give another the power to do harm, onto me.

An overview of Malaysia’s healthcare system. A miracle or a disaster?

2007-02-17T07:44:00.000-08:00

An overview of Malaysia’s healthcare system. A miracle or a disaster?

Part II of III – Healthcare Economics and How it Affects Us

Statistics from the World Bank and the Harvard Team in 1999 revealed that in 1996, the total expenditure in healthcare services (public and private sector) amounted to only 2.9% of the Malaysia’s GDP of which 1.4% was in the public sector and 1.5% was spent in the private sector. At first glance these statistics may appear to demonstrate that the decentralisation of healthcare services was successful, but upon closer investigation it clearly shows that it the proportion of expenditure is hugely disproportionate relative to the population size these distinct sectors service.

Pharmabiz (an online news service) in a report in 2004 estimated that the private sector in Malaysia only accounted for 20% of the countries hospital beds, yet it employed almost 54% of the doctors in Malaysia. Marzolf (1996), also observed a similar trend in the mid-1990’s, estimated that 75% of beds in the country were provided by government services, yet it only employed 45% of all doctors in the country.

Therefore, self-admittedly by taking a large leap of faith, I assume that it is fair to conclude that almost an equal share of Malaysia’s GDP (if not more spent in the private sector) was spent on approximately 20-25% of all patients in Malaysia, who sought services from private healthcare providers and on 75-80% of all patients in Malaysia, who sought services from the public sector. Clearly no one can deny the huge disparity that exists between private and public healthcare services. It is no surprise that services provided by the private sector in most fields are almost unanimously superior compared to service provided by the public sector. But, surely the huge disparity in quality, standards, workforce and expertise portrays the government’s insensitivity towards the masses and their inept ability to exert control over maintaining the balance between healthcare provisions supplied by the public sector vs. the private sector.

However is it fair to expect taxpayers and consumers of the public healthcare service to accept substandard care from the public services?

In March 2006, the Ministry of Health started a pilot project in Selayang and Putrajaya government hospitals, where these centres will remain open after normal working hours to provide private specialist care for full-paying patients. This project was designed to last for 6 months with the aims to reduce waiting lists for specialist care, with the hope that patients who can afford this option will choose to pay and avoid the long queues. At the end of the 6 months, it will be decided that if deemed successful this project would be expanded to other government hospitals as well. This ‘full-paying patient’ scheme have received mixed responses from various parties. The Coalition Against Health Care Privatisation (GMPKK) which is made up of various NGO’s, political parties and trade unions is amongst the key opposition of this project. Their arguments revolve around the fact that only 30% of specialists in Malaysia are employed by the public healthcare sector and have to deal with about 70% of the patient load in Malaysia. With these specialists burdened with a massive patient load, these extra hours for cash incentives will only over-work them and may affect the quality of care than the non-paying patients will receive. Also, patients may be threatened, pressured or even manipulated into paying for their treatment for ‘better’ care by specialists.

Prior to the introduction of the project, Deputy Health Minister Datuk Dr Abdul Latiff Ahmad said it was introduced to prevent government hospital facilities from being abused by people in higher income groups:

“For example, a patient who can well afford it, only has to pay RM3,000 for surgery as has been set now in government hospitals whereas he is capable of paying up to RM15,000...This will affect the chances of lower income groups from obtaining similar surgery or treatment.”

What I fail to understand is that the public healthcare sector which is funded by the government should cater for all income groups indiscriminately; simply because all income groups are taxed accordingly. Although the government has insisted that this project is only a pilot project, to determine its feasibility, it demonstrates the governments’ inability to continue its funding of its patients requiring specialist care and also insensitivity towards tax payers. This full-paying patient scheme can only be perceived as a system that imposes a ‘double-tax’ on patients who seek quality care from the public healthcare system. However, the project should have ended in September 2006, but what does the verdict say on the feasibility of the ‘full-paying patient scheme’?

As of now, the percentage of GDP spent by Malaysia on healthcare services still stands well below the 5% of GDP recommendation by WHO. Mafauzy M. in an editorial in January 2000 stated that Malaysia’s expenditure in public healthcare services in 1994 was about 2% of the GDP, compared to the US who spent 14% of their GDP and the G-7 who spent between 5-8% of their GDP. Meanwhile Phamabiz projections estimate that Malaysia’s healthcare expenditure may eventually reach 6% of GDP only by the year 2020

N.B I am obliged to inform readers that the statistics from Mafauzy M.’s editorial and Phamabiz did not cite their sources and therefore I caution readers that the inclusion of these statistics in my text is purely to triangulate the various sources in hope to gain a differing perspectives of our healthcare system.

Although these projections seems reasonable, we must understand that in this space of 15 years there will be tremendous changes within the healthcare needs of the Malaysian population, mainly due to changes in the population demographics as a higher proportion of our population will be older, evolution of diseases and medical advances, just to name a few. Furthermore, by consistently spending less than recommended, we can almost be certain that the Malaysian healthcare system will soon fall much further behind other developed countries (who is consistently spending a higher percentage of their GDP) and over this space of 15 years, I can only foresee this gap multiplying itself. By year 2020, which has been earmarked as the time to announce Malaysia as a developed country, I predict our healthcare system to be nowhere closer to one worthy of a developed country.

According to the Human Development Report in 2006 prepared by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Malaysia was ranked 61/177 based on the Human Development Index which takes into account factors involving life expectancy, literacy and standard of living. The report revealed that in 2003 Malaysia also spent 3.8% of the GDP for healthcare services of which 2.2% was allocated to public health expenditure which ranked Malaysia at 124/175 based on percentage of GDP on public health expenditure. Private health expenditure amounted to 1.6% of GDP which ranked Malaysia at 123/175. Therefore I found it surprising that Malaysia ranked 75/175 in terms of total health expenditure (public and private sectors) per capita amounting to US$374 (adjusted for purchasing power parity).

N.B. Health expenditure per capita was adjusted for purchasing power parity (PPP) in US$ to allow a more valid comparison between countries and does not represent the absolute amount of expenditure per capita in RM.

However, there are signs of improvement in recent times. Although during the 1990-2004 period there were only 70 physicians per 100,000 population in Malaysia; ranking Malaysia at 101/175 in the UNDP 2006 Report, trends show that the ratio has improved greatly compared to those released by the World Bank, 1999 that show there were only 14 physicians per 100, 000 people in 1960 and 44 physicians per 100, 000 people in 1995; more than a 60% increase presently, in ratio of physicians to per 100, 000 people since 1995. Another crucial statistic that strengthens the claims of signs of an improving healthcare delivery is the population’s life expectancy since birth. The World Bank, 1999 showed that life expectancy in Malaysia since birth at 1962 and 1997 stood at 55.8 years and 71.6 years respectively. The UNDP 2006 Reports measured Malaysia’s life expectancy since birth at a hugely improved 73.4 years, ranking Malaysia at 58/175!

Ramesh and Holliday, 2001 in their article titled, ‘Healthcare Miracle: East and Southeast Asia’ applauded Malaysia (amongst Hong Kong and Singapore) for having achieved a remarkable health care status are a modest cost. The paper argued that the financing of the healthcare system is not the key factor for the performance, but rather concentrating the provisions on in-patient care, an expensive component but of considerable efficiency. Whereas on the whole, there was less importance placed on out-patient care; a feature common to the three healthcare system discussed. However, the paper was exact in recognizing its limitations and acknowledging that the improved markers of health status in Malaysia are not solely attributed to the contributions of the healthcare delivery system. On a separate note, I also believe it is worthy of mention that the paper also recognize and warn that with increasing efforts to privatisation, it will increase inflation and the cost of healthcare to the society as a whole, as discussed above earlier. In summary, Ramesh and Holliday marvelled at the manner how Malaysia continued to demonstrate improved health status markers despite contributing well below the 5% of GDP recommended by WHO.

The governments’ stand and approach to the future of the healthcare system in Malaysia also shows greater intent towards improving the healthcare system than previously. Mafauzy M. claims that the government allocates approximately 5% of the national budget to the Ministry of Health amounting to approximately RM2.6 billion, which I presume was true at the time her editorial was published. However, the Federal Government Budget in 2006 through the Operating expenditure Estimates by the Treasury Department of the Ministry of Finance, revealed that approximately RM7.4 billion was allocated to the Ministry of Health, which amounts to almost 7.3% of the entire budget. Of which, RM1.3 billion is allocated purely for development expenditure amongst which RM85 million to complete construction of hospitals in Alor Setar and Cameron Highlands, RM 229 million for building and upgrading clinics nationwide, and RM 131 million for upgrading hospital laboratories and equipment.

Also the Ninth Malaysia Plan 2006-2010 (Rancangan Malaysia Ke-sembilan) states that the Ministry of Health will continue to be the leading agency and main provider of health services and together with other healthcare service provides and NGO’s will receive an allocated 5.4% of the budget amounting to almost RM10.2 billion, of which RM3.3 billion will go into public health care, RM5.4 billion into patient care services, which includes building new hospitals and renovation and RM1.4 billion into other healthcare services, which includes training of staff. The 9MP also outlines a broad plan to cover areas of weakness within the existing system such as greater efforts into development, primary and secondary prevention, and improving the efficiency of the delivery. Also it shows greater sensitivity towards a more equal distribution of healthcare services and with aims to improve healthcare services delivery to rural areas.

However, before we marvel at statistics that have led to Ramesh and Holliday lauding Malaysia as ‘Southeast Asia’s Healthcare Miracle’, we must be aware that the healthcare system in Malaysia, as previously mentioned, focuses mainly on in-patient care, or tertiary care. Therefore by implication, it means areas of medicine such as primary care, primary and secondary prevention which often utilises out-patient services are less pronounced and less successful in terms of implementation. These areas of medicine usually involves long term management dealing with numerous chronic medical conditions, as opposed to the in-patient setting which can only deal with acute conditions.

Therefore, patients who suffer from conditions that are more often prevented or controlled via careful long-term monitoring which is not plausible within the in-patient setting, often are left to manage their own conditions, until an acute event which requires hospitalisation occurs. This often leads to a drastic disruption to the patients’ life, and can also lead to a poorer quality of life following recovery after the acute episode of the disease. Furthermore, cost-benefit analysis of numerous conditions have demonstrated that long-term management of chronic conditions with primary and secondary prevention methods are often more cost-efficient than treating the acute complications of these diseases within the in-patient setting. By failing to control these chronic diseases, numerous hospital beds are unnecessarily occupied and unavailable to other patients who might need them. The management of such acute-on-chronic conditions are mostly otherwise preventable, and avoids unnecessary incurred costs of treating them within in-patients.

The most successful form of primary care in Malaysia relies heavily on private general practitioners (GP) clinics that have mushroomed throughout the country. These are easily accessible in most parts of the country by anybody at all, requiring only a quick registration process and the GP is at your service. Unfortunately, the GP service is ultimately a privately owned business that provides out-patient care for anyone willing to pay. These clinics by large, are poorly regulated with huge amounts of ongoing concealed malpractice, out-dated medical practice, unprofessional behaviour, and conflicting interest between doctor and patient. Therefore, it is shocking that these privately own GP clinics are the only form of out-patient healthcare service that ‘reliably’ provides a long-term management of chronic conditions with the concept of continuity of care, allowing the patients and doctor to forge a relationship that allows the doctor to appreciate the individual needs of the patients and cater for them in a manner that the public healthcare service is unable to do. Although, this is not necessarily guaranteed because with the increasing competition amongst private healthcare providers, there is also a huge disparity within the standards of service provided by GP clinics, and consequently a shift of patients from one GP to another for better service and value for their money. Unfortunately, this disrupts the concept of continuity of care and thereby the most valuable service provided by the GP itself.

(to be cont.: Part III of III – The Professionals and a Conclusion

An overview of Malaysia’s healthcare system. A miracle or a disaster?

2007-02-11T12:59:00.000-08:00

An overview of Malaysia’s healthcare system. A miracle or a disaster?

Part I of III – Consumerism and a Dual Health Care System

“…First do no harm. What is implicit in this simple precept of medicine? An awesome power. The power to do harm. Who gives you this power? The patient…because he trusts you. He trusts you the way a child trusts. He trusts you to do no harm…”

~Dean Walcott; Patch Adams, the movie~

The 1998 movie, Patch Adams (based on a true story) which was set in the early 1970’s accurately captured the paternalistic relationship between a doctor and his patient. Historically, for many years, doctors and other medical staff alike have imposed their thoughts, ideas, and beliefs onto their patients in a paternalistic manner under the guise of maintaining professional distance, preventing transference and a superiority complex stemming from specialised inside medical knowledge. These elements have been deemed necessary to deliver the most appropriate and unbiased healthcare service to the patient.

But the medical profession is no longer as untouchable as it once was before. Patients in the developed countries, in the wake of consumerism are currently rejecting these traditionalistic approaches by healthcare providers.

Over the years numerous medical scandals have shook the foundations of a once unquestionable medical practice; the distribution of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) contaminated growth hormones in France (1985), the Apotex Drug Trial scandal in Toronto (1995) are amongst two scandals which have received wide media attention. More recently are the tragedy of Dr Shipman and the horrifying truth about the Bristol hospital scandal, the two most recent medical disasters in the UK which has contributed tremendously to the tarnished reputation of the formerly sacred profession and consequently lead to an increased medical awareness and consumerism amongst patients in the UK.

Patients worldwide are slowly but surely beginning to gain awareness of their rights as consumers with regards to healthcare services, and especially with the severely inflated costs that is being incurred by these healthcare providers. There is an increasing demand amongst patients from their healthcare providers for better overall services apart from a simple prescription to cure the disease; patients are demanding to be more informed regarding the disease itself, treatment options, and psychosocial problems stemming from the impact of the disease on the patients.

Simply put, patients now expect a healthcare service that is centred around the patient and his/her life rather than traditional practices where it revolved primarily around the disease, an idea which Dr Patch Adams brought forth and startled many at the time. It is no longer acceptable for a medical practitioner to merely provide a cure for the disease, but instead is expected to investigate the patients’ symptoms to form a definite diagnosis and offer the patient a number of treatment options in which the patient can choose by means of making an ‘informed consent’ and a ‘shared decision making process’ of the best treatment for the symptoms the patient experiences in view of the particular patients’ lifestyle, taking into account of the psychological and social impact the disease process and its treatment has on the patient, his/her lifestyle and social circle. Not to mention that all this has to be achieved in confidence between the medical practitioner and the patient with the ultimate goal of improving the patients’ quality of life or to regain as much function as prior to their morbidity.

How much of all these are actually practiced by healthcare providers in Malaysia?

It is difficult to appreciate the effectiveness of the healthcare system in Malaysia due to its complex structuring, which can be (at simplest terms) described as dominated by the public sector with increasing decentralisation to the private sector.

As a former colony of the UK, it is no surprise that Malaysia’s public sector is loosely based on the highly successful National Health Services (NHS) which forms the backbone of the public healthcare services of the UK. However, with the increasing burden of disease, patients’ expectations, patient load and financial constraints, the public healthcare system in Malaysia now faces a struggle to deliver healthcare services to the public and seeks to lighten its burden by the process of decentralisation; increasing privatization of healthcare services to mainly to reduce the patient load in the public sector. Whilst the actual intention of the government to promote the private sector is genuine to improve the delivery of healthcare services to the masses, it underestimated the waves of repercussions produced by the blossoming of private healthcare providers.

The initial push towards promoting private healthcare providers was intended to offload the burden from the public sector, in hope with increasing privatization, the standards of healthcare services delivery will improve tremendously. This indeed proved true, but at the cost of severely inflated medical costs causing many to revert back to seeking services from the public sector whose costs by large were relatively unaffected by the inflation that beset the private sector, and thereby still managing to sustain its services at minimal costs. However, the shift of patients from the private sector into the public sector proved that the governments’ actions were made redundant as the decentralization efforts failed to create the impact they had hoped for and consequently the public sector were once again beleaguered by the same problems they faced prior to the promotion of healthcare privatisation.

There is no doubt that the increasing competition within the private healthcare sector has led to a tremendous improvement in the delivery of services which ties in nicely with the patients’ consumerism. Areas which has benefited largely with this improvement in delivery are things such as, improved doctor-patient relationship, better communication, shorter waiting-lists for investigations allowing prompt diagnoses, more generous time allocation per patient, more comfortable stays at hospitals and better patient adherence to treatment, just to mention a few.

But what shadows all the benefits that I had mentioned above is the concomitant inflation that accompanied privatisation has lead to it being a highly lucrative business. Facing stiff competition, private sectors seek to hire the best medical practitioners and expertise in their respective fields to improve their own standards, and do not hesitate to offer irresistible salaries to those who they deem as valuable assets to their service [business]. Although this improves the ability of private healthcare providers to deliver better services, it regrettably forces a brain-drain of expertise from the public sector to the private sector. It does not take a genius to understand that the public sector is by no means able to compete with the private sector in terms of offering better financial wages, benefits and working environments; whilst appreciating the priority of the government: to provide a sustainable public healthcare service at an acceptable standard to the masses and attempting to keep the bill down to a minimum.

Unfortunately, as the masses revert back to the public healthcare services, many find themselves dissatisfied and wanting for better services having experienced the luxuries of the private sector. The demands of modern medicine and consumerism of patients impose a significant pressure on institutionalised healthcare services such as the public healthcare service in Malaysia to deliver. However it is vital to understand that from the governments’ standpoint, the aim of the public sector is to provide a healthcare service that is accessible to the majority population and often this is only possible by compromising the quality of individual services to cater for a larger population. Thereby this creates a disproportion between the actual needs of the patient, the demands of the patients (or perceived needs), and the delivery of the healthcare service by the public sector; rendering patients to deem the public sector as unsuccessful, ineffective and seek better services from the private sector.

Ultimately, this dual healthcare system consisting of a public sector employing efforts of decentralisation via promoting the privatisation of healthcare services has lead to a gaping inequality between the two sectors. This is characterised by the huge swing of patients, especially those belonging to the middle-class between the public sector and the private sector, having left with the difficult choice of choosing between a much higher quality of healthcare service or settling for the cheaper option.

(to be cont.: Part II of III – Healthcare Economics and How it Affects Us)

The 'typical' Malaysian Indian

2007-01-28T15:08:00.000-08:00

The ‘typical’ Malaysian Indian

Part II of II: An Explanation

Treading along the lines of racism, can we consider it possible that these ‘negatives’ can be accounted for by the genetic composition of Malaysians of Indian ethnicity? Surely not; a phenotype of any given individual is utterly impossible to predict even if given a fixed genome. I believe that the genome of the Indian population is in no way defective or even inferior to of any other race population in this world, and there are many outstanding Indian individuals who can testify to that claim. This underlines the importance of nurture over nature within the varying environments one is subjected to. Therefore if these stereotypes on Malaysian Indians are true, they indefinitely must be of a direct consequence of a complex environmental-nurture component revolving around the majority of Malaysian Indians.

The role of religion and culture are hugely traditional and are of grave importance to many Malaysian Indians. These have been embedded deep into the nurture of most members of the Malaysian Indian community in Malaysia. Unfortunately, a by-product of this traditionalism is the concomitant conservatism that exists amongst the Malaysian Indian community. Globalisation has increased the boundaries of social interaction and allowed the influx of different cultural and religious elements. In order to survive within the era of globalisation with a mind to protect one’s own traditionalistic values, one can only do so by adopting a conservative mindset.

I hypothesize that many conservative Malaysian Indian families are unwilling to actively engage in social mobilization as this largely remains the only way they know to impose and instil their cultural and religious beliefs into their children and simultaneously warding of cultural ‘pollution’. Whilst this often guarantees the traditional continuum that by large the conservative Malaysian Indian hopes for, it comes at a cost of falling behind their contemporaries. The end-result is a closed-community who is naïve to the evolution of modern society and ultimately the reality that surrounds them.

The conservatism of Malaysian Indians can account for (to a certain degree) their marginalization in Malaysia. They have failed to evolve sufficiently to allow the community to thrive. Taking this into context of stereotyping, many Malaysian Indians now have failed to keep up with their counterparts of other ethnicities, and now struggle to even ‘fit-in’ leading to alienation when thrown into the fray of a mixed group. Therefore, their only option of maintaining viability within the mixed group is via forming a ‘clique’ and hence the ‘out-group’.

However the Malaysian Indian conservatism in not the sole contributory factor to basis of these negative stereotypes. Years of living under difficult discriminatory conditions have lead to the inability of the general Malaysian Indian community to engage in modernization effectively.

The Economist in an issue on February 2003 published that 60% of urban squatters and 41% of beggars in Malaysia are Indian. Economically, the national equity holdings of Malaysian Indians are significantly low relative to the proportion of the Malaysian Indian population in Malaysia, and there is much reason to believe that there is a huge intra-group variation in individual earnings as demonstrated by Perumal (1979) and Snodgrass (1980) which showed that the median earning of Malaysian Indian household decreased from RM228 (1957/58) to RM192 (1970) and was lower that the mean income of the Malaysian Indian population; a phenomena not observed with the other races in Malaysia. Critics may rightly observe that the household earnings of Malaysian Indians were at the time higher than of the Malays. But this was prior to the implementation of the NEP, and assuming these trends continued combined with the policies of the NEP, there is every reason to believe that the Malaysian Indian population is relatively ‘poorer’ now.

The level of education amongst Malaysian Indians is also on a decline. The employment of Malaysian Indians in most occupational fields, namely professional and technical workers declined between the periods 1970 to 1995. University intake percentages of Malaysian Indian students have also experienced a drop from 10% in 1970 to 5.2% in 2003. Malaysian Indians students also have the highest dropout rates in the country when compared to the other races (although literacy rates are still highest amongst Indians at 89% according to a UN report in 2002).

There are numerous other statistics to quote to prove the marginalization of Malaysian Indians as a direct consequence of discriminatory national policies and inappropriate distribution of opportunities and wealth. But I believe that I have underlined that with simply the two examples I have provided above: education and economics. Without any active intervention, via means of extrapolation there is no doubt that these figures will continue to deteriorate and by no means of choice, the average Malaysian Indian will find himself excluded from the general population as an ‘out-group’, which ties in nicely with the theories I proposed regarding the origin of stereotypes of the ‘typical’ Malaysian Indian.

The more difficult task lies in scrutinizing these stereotypes and understanding the foundations on which they lie on. Here I hope to offer a few explanations for some of the stereotypes that are most prevalent and commonly encountered:

1) Indians dress in bright colours and often look mismatched – Indians have always associated bright colours with good fortune; an esoteric significance of light in Hinduism as opposed to darkness/dim colours which is associated with barriers, ignorance, misfortune or evil. The aesthetic appreciation of bright coloured clothing is almost unique to the Malaysian Indians and does not necessarily appeal to what mainstream fashion dictates: that bright colours and a dark complexion do not always match well. However, combined with the Malaysian Indian conservatism, indulging in mainstream fashion to appeal to the general population is less important compared to cultural symbolism that these colours represent.

2) Indians look and smell funny – The cosmetics industry is undoubtedly experiencing huge growths in market in terms of demand despite the ballooning inflation. The increasing cost of cosmetics is far beyond what the average Malaysian Indian can afford. Therefore many Malaysian Indians eventually end up relying on cheaper tried and tested traditional cosmetic remedies such as Shikakai, Turmeric, Coconut oil, Attars and Henna that have passed on through numerous generations. These products however are hugely unpopular amongst other groups of people who remain unfamiliar with its uses, application and even scent. I believe this unfamiliarity is the basis of the stereotype that Indians look and smell funny. But do consider: would anyone use Attar perfume if they could afford a Dolce and Gabbana?

3) Indians are gangsters – There are statistics to show that Malaysian Indians make up a huge proportion of arrests made by the police demonstrating a high crime rate associated with Malaysian Indians. But I believe this correlates quite nicely with the fact that these proportion of Malaysian Indians are also amongst those who live in areas of deprivation. The combination of poverty, poor education and lack of accessibility to opportunities are well established reasons for high crime rates in any given population irrespective of ethnicity. It is no mere coincidence that Malaysian Indians have been stereotyped as delinquents; not by choice, but instead as a consequence of marginalization. The high crime rate amongst Malaysian Indians, I believe is merely a crude measure of the poor living conditions and quality of life that many Malaysian Indians suffer. Furthermore, let me remind readers that the crimes that are these Malaysian Indians are arrested for are usually petty crimes involving the under-educated population of Malaysian Indians. What if we measure crime rates amongst the well-educated population? What if we measure crimes rates for those involved in white-collar offences, organized crime, corruption, money laundering, piracy, loan sharks, assault, and sexual abuse/assault? I admit that Malaysian Indians heavily contribute to the numbers of petty crime rates, but we must understand there are examples of more serious offences to which there is less association with the Malaysian Indians and perhaps more closely linked to other ethnic races.

4) Indians are drunks – Alcohol problems in often described as solely an ‘Indian issue’. However examining most of the researches that has come to this conclusion will reveal the methodology used to sample participants was based on the hospital seeking behaviour of individuals in urban hospital settings. This therefore leads to an over-sampling of lower income urban groups; mainly the Malaysian Indians. Projecting the findings of these restricted researches onto the general Malaysian population is not plausible and fundamentally flawed. As a matter of fact, the Chinese are the largest consumers of beers (Carlsberg estimates that 80% of its customers are Chinese) and distilled spirit; the high-end products of the alcohol market. Whereas, most Indians can only afford ‘samsu’ or toddy, most of it which are illegally brewed and potentially dangerous. Whilst I admit that the numerous researches has demonstrated that Malaysian Indians of mainly lower income groups contribute to a huge chunk of alcoholic problems in urban Malaysian hospitals, it has proved little otherwise. Without obtaining a larger and more representative sample of the general population and stratifying the results for ethnicity and income groups, the generalization that Malaysian Indian are mostly drunks and that it is solely an ‘Indian issue’ is unjust.

At the risk of being accused of denying reality, I stand firm that I am not offering excuses for the condition that the Malaysian Indians exists in, but instead providing reasons and arguments for readers to understand the nature of some of the negative stereotypes, why they exists, the origin of these stereotypes and whether or not they are true. More so, is the importance to appreciate that some of these stereotypes are unfair or misunderstood, and ultimately have created barriers towards the integration of Malaysian Indians with the other races.

The lists of stereotypes, explanations and theories behind all these are limitless and I acknowledge the numerous limitations and constraints that lie in my text. What I hope to achieve is to educate readers into understanding that the ‘typical’ Malaysian Indian is a product of subjugation by his own conservatism and socio-economic marginalization. Therefore the next time you encounter the derogatory term ‘typical Indian’, please question, be it with yourself or others, the appropriateness of the context in which it was used in, with a view of the arguments that I have presented above. Things may not always seem to be as straightforward as they appear to be.

The 'typical' Malaysian Indian

2007-01-22T12:50:00.000-08:00

The ‘typical’ Malaysian Indian

Part I of II: Stereotyping and Prejudice

I recall many years ago during my attachment with the state athletics team, I collected numerous sports memorabilia from Perak, who had shamelessly splashed all their sporting apparel with bright yellow. I would proudly wear a bright yellow tee bearing the words ‘Perak’ written in bold across the back, but I began to realise that I was turning heads in my direction for the wrong reasons. I was a little bemused until an Indian friend commented in disgust that I looked like a ‘typical’ Indian. A little apprehensively I asked her in return to describe what a ‘typical’ Indian would look like. Her answer was:

“Greasy hair smelling of coconut oil, shabbily dressed in bright coloured clothing that could probably blind you if you stared long enough, foul mouthed, looking scruffy and dirty.”

I laughed and shrugged of her words, but I never wore my bright yellow tee outdoors afterwards.

Skip a few years; during a visit to my former college during its alumni weekend, I was most unfortunate to be caught by a former teacher (who was also a good friend) whilst playing sports, not looking my usual best: dressed in a dirty cap, a worn out tee and shorts. His first words to me at our reunion were, “You look like you came straight out of the estate,” which I presumed was referred to the ‘typical’ Malaysian Indians who in masses used to live in estates under the British rule. It took me a while to appreciate that there was not a hint of malice in his words, but only misplaced humour by drawing comparison to a ‘typical’ Indian.

The word ‘typical’ itself is defined as, ‘of the nature of, or serving as a type, or representative specimen; distinctive or characteristic’. Taking the term ‘typical Indian’ and translating this into statistics (accepting that ‘typical’ meant a representative specimen) would be the equivalent of a scatter of characteristics, around a defined set of racial stereotypes towards Indian which serves as a mean (or median) sample of the given Malaysian Indian population. Simply put, the term ‘typical Indian’ when used to describe a certain pattern of (usually undesirable) behaviour or character refers to the fact that it is consistent with their stereotypes and views of the general Malaysian Indian population; a pattern which they recognize and pertain to the average Malaysian Indian.

I acknowledge that racial stereotypes are inevitable in any given multiethnic society, even more so in Malaysia where ethnic ties are constantly at friction with each other. Whilst these stereotypes may not necessarily be true, it provides us with a crude idea on how a particular race is viewed or perceived by the others, regardless if it is justified or not.

There are many explanations and theories behind why stereotypes exist. I choose to highlight two which I believe are relevant in most cases in Malaysia: 1) to predict the social world by which one accumulates several distinctive characteristics of a number of individuals belonging to a particular group, and then projects these views into a broader generalized picture of what one perceives or expects this group to be. 2) is the ‘in-group favourability bias’ which by belonging to a particular group, one believes that he/she is part of group that one views positively, and the others (out-groups) negatively; a phenomenon (closely related to ethnocentricity) that is observed predominantly in groups that lack social mobility e.g. the divided multi-ethnic Malaysia in its early years.

The need of the ability to predict the social world is easy to understand. It dictates our approach in social situations at the most basic level; the way one talks, dresses, behaves in front of a particular type of audience. This can be achieved by numerous ways, such as experience of encounter or more significantly imposed beliefs by an influential person such as parents, family or close friends. Erving Goffman (1959) wrote:

“…when an individual enters the presence of others they commonly seek to acquire information about him or bring into play information already possessed… information about the individual helps to define the situation, enabling others to know in advance what he will expect of them and they may expect of him…”

The ‘in-group favourability bias’ is somewhat more subjective. In Malaysia (and Malaya alike) whilst ethnic mixing is common, it does not necessarily reflect on the harmony of these ties. Inter-ethnic tensions are well known and intra-ethnic groups tend to gel together much more willingly. However, when comparing an individual (regardless of ethnicity) who mixes freely with other races against another who does not, do they both hold the same stereotypes against other races?

According to A. Rabushka, who researched stereotypes in Malaya they both should do. In his paper titled ‘Racial Stereotypes in Malaya’ in 1971, he concluded that stereotypes are invariant and independent of social interaction. Rabushka argues that ethnic mixing does not alter one’s perception of an ‘out-group’ and display distinct beliefs of members of other ethnic groups, whilst acknowledging that this may not necessarily affect social or political behaviour.

Here Rabushka defines the fine line between prejudice and actual discrimination which may be a difficult concept to grasp. Anthony Giddens a leading social theorist defines prejudice as:

“…opinions or attitudes held by members of one group towards another…preconceived views are often based on hearsay rather than on direct evidence, and are resistant to change even in the face of new information…”

Whereas discrimination is defined as:

“…the actual behaviour towards another group or individual by making a distinction in favour for or against based solely on the group in which one belongs to...”

But there is much reason to doubt Rabushka’s conclusions in view of more recent psycho-sociological research on stereotyping between ‘in-groups’ and ‘out-groups’. It is simply common sense that an individual who spends more time together with an ‘out-group’ will be able to experience by encounter and gauge accordingly if any of his/her preconceived stereotypes hold and discard any stereotype should they prove false.

But what if they are true? Are these stereotypes then retained?

To explore this, I scourged the internet, literature and even took the liberty to conduct a quick survey amongst friends on their views of the ‘typical’ Indian. I must admit that I was nowhere near elated with the pattern that began to emerge from my ‘research’. The internet and existing literature generated a long list of negative stereotypes. My quick survey drew an immediate almost apologetic opening from most respondents, as though to warn me of unpleasantness and to prep me for their opinions before generating the already familiar long list of negatives.

I list down some the negative stereotypes regarding the ‘typical’ Indian that I encountered to provide readers with what I believe is a true snapshot picture of what people think of the Malaysian Indian population in general, in no particular order:-

“…passive, non-competitive, smelly, hairy, snaky, uneducated, gangsters, drunks, class/caste based, just the type of guys who you would expect to disturbs/harass the girls, pitiful, lazy, involved in petty crimes, way behind the Chinese/Malays in economic terms…”

I also choose to quote a selected excerpt from Peter J. Wilson from, ‘A Malay village and Malaysia’, 1967:

“…In general, villagers seem to regard Indians as people to laugh about: the blackness of skin, hairiness, and skinny men and fat women seemed to amuse them most… Village men and women alike object to, and find most peculiar, the smells associated with Indians. Most Indian stores have an incense stick burning, and there is often blended in with this the smell of scent. The smell of Indian cooking seems characteristic to Malay villagers, to whom the body smell of Indians is also oppressive. A major reason given by villagers for not travelling on a bus at night is that the smell of Indians is so strong… But whereas the Chinese are ritually or mystically dirty, Indians are considered squalid…”

John Crawfurd, a former colonial administrator in Malaya also wrote:

“…with respect to their intellectual faculties, the Indian islanders may be pronounced slow of comprehension, but of sound, though narrow judgement… it must be confessed that an Indian islander of the best capacity is unequal, in most respects to an individual not above mediocrity in a civilized community…”

N.B John Crawfurd has often described the Malay Archipelago as the Indian Archipelago, and therefore the term ‘Indian Islanders’ in his writings may potentially be a misnomer and could possibly be a reference to the Malay race. Or perhaps he was actually referring to the Indian race? I make the assumption in my text, that the term ‘Indian Islanders’ was in reference to the Indian race (perhaps at my own folly).

(to be continued; Part II will be posted on the 28th January 2007)

A transition from glorious Hindu Malay Kingdoms to crumbling Hindu temples

2007-01-13T09:45:00.000-08:00

A transition from glorious Hindu Malay Kingdoms to crumbling Hindu temples:
The past and present of Hinduism in Malaysia.

Part II of II

Down the years following independence, the days of the British divide et impera, are long gone, but the waves of its repercussions still shake the wreaking foundations of our multiracial society. The demographics of Malaysia have changed remarkably, and there are much less single ethnic based local populations who remain confined within a certain geographic distribution. With the window of opportunity to break their confines, many Malaysian Indians have managed to migrate into larger towns. But remnants of their previous settlement still exist with a small proportion of Malaysian Indians who are unable to break into the larger mould, mostly because of the lack of opportunities but also due to complacency; with all their needs fulfilled within the small local population, I hypothesize that many Malaysian Indians chose to remain faithful to their existing state to avoid the hassle and pure convenience. Therefore, regardless of how small a Hindu population, their religious needs for a temple within the local population will never cease to exist.

But not all temples experience the same fate. Numerous small temples have been abandoned or poorly maintained and do not serve their intended purpose as a place of worship. Also with the increasing migration of Malaysian Indians from rural to urban areas, many temples have lost a significant amount of their worshipers or those that have been abandoned remain situated in inconvenient (or impractical) locations. Furthermore, the numbers and scatter of some of these temples do not reflect on the demographics of Hindus in Malaysia. Whilst Malaysian Indians only make up approximately 8% (2 million) of the general population, most whom are Hindu devotees, the number of Hindu temples in certain areas are disproportionately high.

The Selangor Chief Minister, Datuk Seri Dr Mohamad Khir Toyo said that a study conducted through its local authorities estimated that there are over 5000 Hindu temples in Selangor and certain areas within the state had too many temples located too closely together. He also said that it is the state’s policy that a place of worship can only be built in an area where there are between 2500 and 5000 followers, and the ratio applies to all religions. In October 2006, he released a statement to the press, which implied that 95% of the temples in Selangor will be demolished for numerous reasons, including others that have not been cited above.

Whilst I thoroughly recognize the problems that beset many of the Hindu temples in Malaysia, is this mass demolishment of Hindu temples justified, albeit its’ numerous shortcomings and inadequacies?

HINDRAF (Hindu Rights Action Force) have filed a civil suit at the high court against Datuk Seri Dr Mohamad Khir Toyo and several other Chief Ministers for the unlawful ‘Hindu temple cleansing’ in Malaysia, but I regret to say that is the extent of my knowledge on the legal proceedings. Currently, statistics by HINDRAF estimates that at least 1 temple is being demolished every 3 weeks in Malaysia. Between 22^nd February and 30^th November 2006, at least 15 temples have been demolished; 3 temples were at least 100 years old. During this period, at least 48 other temples have been issued notices and threatened with demolitions; at least 9 beyond the century mark and one temple even having allegedly received recognition from UNESCO.

Subang Jaya Muncipal Council President, Ahmad Fuad Ismail claimed that most Hindu temples in Subang Jaya were illegally built, as they occupied state land and failed to apply for permission to use the land for temples. Here I deem it necessary to educate readers that occupancy of land prior to Merdeka, does not grant any form immunity to the occupants against state or government land acquisition as stated under the constitution and the Land Acquisition Act 1960. This thereby requires temples to applying for permits to allow them to continue to occupy these sites. In a huge number of cases, many of the temples were built on privately owned plantations prior to Merdeka, but were transferred to government ownership afterwards.

However, on the other side of the argument, numerous temple officials have claimed that fault was not on their side for the failure to apply for permits, instead they have rigorously applied for permits, only to repeatedly receive rejections for their applications. This inconsistency between the government administrators’ and temple officials’ account of the event has not only contributed to a major communication breakdown but has the potential to escalate racial tensions. What bemuses me most is that under government ownership, these temples should be valued as national monuments and symbolic of our diverse culture and tolerance within our multiracial society, instead the decision to demolish these places of worship over petty paperwork implies that there may be a more sinister motive hidden underneath the red tape.

This however, is merely the tip of the iceberg revolving around the ‘Hindu temple cleansing’ saga. Demolishment notices have even been issued to temples for failing to gain approval for buildings, when these buildings have existed years prior to the governmental organizations. Some temples have been issued notices for demolishment to make way for housing projects, which can so easily be manipulated to accommodate both the temples and the housing projects. Let me be quick to remind you that these were only the cases that were reported to, and discovered by HINDAF, and there is much reason to suspect that many more such cases exists throughout the country, falling onto deaf ears.

The legalities surrounding these issues are grey. The constitution states, that under Section 295 of the Malaysian Penal Code that it is a criminal offence to violate or defile places of worship. It is mystifying how the demolishment of Hindu temples can proceed even with the Land Acquisition Act when such an implicit contraindication in the constitution exists. The Land Acquisition Act 1960, also states that those affected by land acquisition will receive adequate compensation based on the value of the premises as evaluated by Jabatan Penilaian dan Perkhidmatan Harta. How ‘adequate’ translates into moving a place of worship adjacent to sewerage tanks or into a 10x10 feet allotment, I fail to understand.

However, it would be folly to blindly accuse the government administrators and place all blame on them. It is undeniable that there exist numerous temples scattered too closely together that have been poorly maintained and provided inadequate service to meet the religious needs of a small number of Hindus. From the government administrators’ perspectives, it is important to identify these temples located in prime areas that are redundant in purpose and adopt strategies that will allow the state government to ensure the necessary development in these areas. Some of these poorly maintained temples which fail to fulfil their purpose certainly need to give way and warrant demolishment or relocation.

While the state governments’ hopes that these numerous smaller poorly temples should cleared in place of a single well maintained temple has its impracticalities, which demonstrates further evidence of a lack of sensitivity of the government towards Hinduism and essentially a communication breakdown between community leaders and administrators. The nature of Hinduism’s “many forms of Gods” (within its monotheist concept) makes it difficult for a single temple to cater for the needs any given Hindu population in a similar manner there exists numerous sects within any given religion.

This is exemplified by a statement by Muniandy (Section 11, Shah Alam Temple Chairman) who said, “It seems that they want us to build all the temples under a single roof in a complex-like manner or even a pasar malam. All we’re asking for is a room for prayers. Just as much as their need for a room for their prayers, we’re simply conducting our prayers in our room…. If this continues, how can we pray?”

Nevertheless, what angered the Hindu devotees most above all was the manner in which the temples were demolished. Ahmad Fuad Ismail stated that although notices were issued well in advance, the temple authorities despite having more than ample time to carry out the necessary arrangements to vacate the premises in a respectable manner failed to do so. He also stated that the failure of the temple authorities was the reason behind the fracas of the demolishment of temples, and even so the enforcement team on one occasion gave the temple authorities an hour to relocate the deities, and even helped them do so. This however is contrary to experience of the majority of the Hindu devotees during the many temple demolishments.

A witness of a temple demolishment in Seksyen 7, Shah Alam on June 12^th, claimed that during the demolishment, the municipal council officers all had sticks in their hands, accompanied with police and the Federal Reserve Unit (FRU). He deemed that all this effort was unnecessary to demolish such a small temple and questioned the need for the presence of about 100 law enforcers at the temple’s premises. He also added that he perceived this action by the authorities as a mockery towards the inability of Tamils (Hindus) to respond or retaliate.

Nevertheless, before I am accused of bias, I wish to clarify, that there also have been accounts on which the local authorities had made attempts to be sensitive to the Hindus. There is evidence to Fuad’s claims that the authorities did attempt to preserve the deities and religious symbols whilst only demolishing the building structures of the temple. There were instances where the local authorities allowed the temple authorities and the temple’s worshipers to remove the deities respectably immediately prior to the demolishment, even despite the fact that this should have been settled by the temple authorities at a more convenient time after the clearance notice had been issued.

In separate events however, there have been other reports of wrongdoings by the authorities at several other unrelated temple demolishments. In Setiawan, the Manjung local council in Perak had allegedly thrown the smashed deities into drains after the demolishment. At another temple demolishment in Ipoh, an estimated RM17, 000 worth of jewellery and donation money was reported stolen after the demolishment in the presence of Ipoh City Hall Enforcement Officers and the police force. Whereas, in Setapak, a mentally challenged Hindu devotee was allegedly beaten up by enforcement officers after being held for false accusations of robbery in a series of events that followed a temple demolishment.

In view of the potential damage the mass Hindu temple demolishment could cause to ethnic ties, there is no doubt that this should have been approached with greater sensitivity and a greater effort by dialogue between government administrators, leading political parties with MIC as a frontrunner, community leaders and a the general public. The failure to do will lead to devastating consequences and for some cause irreparable damage.

On the 20^th October 2006, about 200 Hindu devotees, Hindu Servai Sangam officials and NGOs protested against the demolishment of Hindu temples at the parliament house and hoped to submit a memorandum regarding this issue to UMNO ministers. However, the Chief Security Officer of the parliament stated that there were no UMNO ministers present to receive the memorandum. A video presentation by Malaysiakini truly captured the emotions and sufferings of the Hindu devotees during the protest, and presented the rest of Malaysia with much reason to lament our flailing multiethnic society.

An interviewee in the 10 minute video presentation said, “We cannot be expected to go to Batu Caves every time we want to pray. Other religions in Malaysia have their places of worship, so why can’t we? Why are Hindu temples being demolished?”…the expression on his face said it all; his brows furrowed in frustration, his voice trembled with anger as he demanded an answer to this atrocity towards Hindus in Malaysia.

For argument sake, even if the temple demolishment proved to be lawful, we must acknowledge that legislation has its limitations, and reason can sometimes elude us when it involves matters close to our hearts such as religion and God. The actions of Malaysia as a moderate Muslim country can be perceived as a denial of its deep Hindu heritage which has played an immense role and a significant influence on its society, culture, traditions and language. The glorious days of the Hindu Malay kingdoms are long gone and it appears that history is repeating itself as the future of Hinduism in Malaysia is looking increasingly bleak. This is simply a testament of Malaysia’s blatant intolerance towards other Hinduism, despite priding itself as a democratic multiracial country which allows the freedom of religion.

…Unfortunately, I still am only human. My thoughts, judgements and rationale, are not impervious to my emotions.”

A transition from glorious Hindu Malay Kingdoms to crumbling Hindu temples

2007-01-08T13:12:00.000-08:00

A transition from glorious Hindu Malay Kingdoms to crumbling Hindu temples:
The past and present of Hinduism in Malaysia.

Part I of II

“Emotions can often so easily cloud judgement and deprive even the highest intellect of his rationale. But emotion makes us human, and we can never wholly separate emotion from our thoughts…

The demolishment of numerous Hindu temples in Malaysia has provoked both emotion and thought, and it is a struggle to approach this issue with rationale. I attempt this arduous task in hope to explore the various perspectives of the people involved in this issue, whilst trying to maintain an unbiased opinion on the matter, with a view of the historical roots of Hinduism in Malaysia.

The origin of Hinduism itself in Malaysia (or rather Malaya) is deep stemmed in our rich history, but like many other things in the past, the exact details remain elusive to us due to missing links in historical evidence of civilizations in the Malay peninsula, between the pre-historic periods and the Malacca Sultanate. Numerous texts attempt to fill in these missing pieces, but have failed to provide reliable citations which make this task not only difficult, but lacking credibility.

Nevertheless, The Malay Annals (Sejarah Melayu), Kedah Annals (Hikayat Merong Mahawangsa), Chinese chronicles and King Rajendren Chola’s historical writings have all described ancient Hindu Malay kingdoms that predate the Malacca Sultanate.

Gangga Negara (meaning ‘a city on the Ganges’ in Sanskrit) is an example of one of the Hindu Malay kingdoms that was described in the Malay Annals (believed to be first compiled by Tun Seri Lanang, the bendahara of the Royal Court of Johor in 1612). It was believed to be founded by Hindu traders in the 2^nd century originating from Ganganagar. The Gangga Negara period also coincided with Langkasuka (another another Hindu Malay kingdom that had also adapted elements of Buddhism) and the Kedah Sultanate (where Sultan Mudzafar Shah is believed to be the first Islam convert in the Malay Peninsula). However, these civilizations were severely weakened or collapsed after a series of attacks by King Rajendra Chola I (a king from the great Cholan dynasty).

Here I believe that is worthy of note to mention that Kedah, was formerly known as Kadaram was founded too by a Hindu king, known as Merong Mahawangsa. The influence of Hindu-Buddhism in ancient Kedah is undeniable as numerous archielogical evidence (e.g. inscriptions from the Cholan Empire some dating as early as 1030 A.D.) have been recovered and extensively researched by Col. Low and Dr. Quaritch Wales. For the more enthusiastic historians, further evidence of Hindu Malay kingdoms in ancient Malaya can be found in a number of museums in Malaysia, such as the Beruas Museum and the Bujang Valley Archaeological Museum which displays artefacts recovered from ancient Hindu-Buddhist Malay kingdoms, some believed to be as early as 300 A.D.

It was following this period that kingdoms such as Srivijaya and Majapahit (both Hindu-Buddhist Malay kingdoms) rose to power in Southeast Asia, in the Malay Archipelago. Srivijaya, like the Hindu Malay kingdoms that preceded it suffered a similar fate as Srivijaya was subjected to a series of raids of King Rajendra Chola which although ultimately unsuccessful, left the kingdom severely weakened and eventually became a part of the Majapahit empire. It was shortly after this when Parameswara, a Hindu Srivijayan prince who was a descendent of Raden Vijaya (the first king of the Majapahit empire), founded the Malacca Sultanate in Malaya.

Parameswara later converted into Islam and assumed the title Sultan Iskandar Shah which sparked a remarkable turnaround in the fate of Hinduism in Southeast Asia. Upon his conversion, he encouraged his followers to also convert into Islam. However, it was under Sultan Mansur Shah that the Malacca Sultanate prospered as the centre of Islam in Southeast Asia. Using marriage alliances, he managed to convert the rulers of his conquered state into Islam and strengthen ties. He invited holy man (imams and ustazes) to discuss religion and often sent missionaries to spread Islam to Java, Borneo and the Philippines, at a time when most of Southeast Asia was predominantly Hindu. Whilst Hindus never proselytized, Islam swept over Southeast Asia by various means of active conversion (a topic which largely remains controversial till today in both scholarly and public opinion). Nevertheless Islam managed to grab a stronghold in Malaya, under which the influence of Hinduism in Southeast Asia gradually weaned.

The resurgence of Hinduism in Malaya began with the immigration of Indians (who were predominantly Tamil Hindus) as coolies under the British rule in the early 1900’s. The majority of the Malaysian Indians today can trace their ancestry to these immigrant families, and as dictated by evolutionary changes in the structures of our society, exists as the brand of Malaysian Indians that we recognize today.

N.B I remind readers that since the majority of Hindus in Malaysia are Malaysian Indians, and vice versa, from hereon I use these two terms interchangeably (and perhaps even wrongly so). Therefore I advice readers to explore the context in which these terms are used carefully to prevent any misunderstanding.

The second coming of Hinduism following the influx of Indians in Malaya never reached the heights achieved by the ancient Hindu Malay kingdoms, but was nevertheless significant.

Under the cleverly employed divide et impera (divide and rule), the British managed to isolate the various ethnic groups in Malaya to prevent any form of uprising, a similar tactic which was successfully employed in India (although the implementations itself were hugely dissimilar). Simply put the majority of immigrant Indians were employed as estate workers and therefore geographically concentrated in estates. Needless to say, that there were various factors which ensured this geographic distribution persisted, such as lack of social mobility and poor transportation system. However, this could only be achieved as long as the Indians were satisfied – meaning their needs including their religious ones were adequately addressed. Thus, many Hindu temples were constructed to meet the religious demands of the local Hindu population.

(to be continued)

How can one rightfully claim 'Ketuanan Melayu'?

2006-12-29T17:10:00.000-08:00

How can one rightfully claim ‘Ketuanan Melayu’?
An opinion on Ibnu Hakeem’s, “Melayu mesti kusai Gerakan dan DAP.”

The volatility of politics in Malaysia is well known due to the nature of our multiracial society. Our progress over the years, have certainly been tremendous. Yet the biggest flaw of the political institutions of our country is their failing to acknowledge and/or adequately address the silently growing rumblings of inter-ethnic tensions. Whilst many politicians often flirt with this issue, it is more often dismissed before any formal deliberation even shapes, on the grounds of sensitivity. The struggle to openly discuss inter-ethnic tensions and inequality has now lead to our inability to unite Malaysians as a single entity, thereby strengthening calls for new political thought and approaches that potentially offers a quick solution to these problems. But for a unique Malaysia, no simple pragmatic traditional approaches seem plausible. Instead what we need is bold ‘out-of-the-box’ ideas, lateral thinking from various perspectives and collectively derive a formula that will be irresistible to all.

Ibnu Hakeem’s piece certainly fit the criteria save one – it does not appeal to the non-Malays. Hakeem’s primary argument in this piece revolves around how Malays can claim ‘Ketuanan Melayu’ by gaining absolute political dominance by diluting the non-Malay political representation and wresting economic dominance away from the Chinese. His arguments on Malay supremacy are contentiously justified, but the failure to address how the political and economic interest of the non-Malays will be safeguarded, reek a raw audacity of racism from the author; and similarly from some of the discussion comments posted in response to his piece.

(N.B However, I am quick to add a word of caution, that I am naïve to Hakeem’s previous works and writings. Therefore it would be hugely unfair to sum up or form any judgement on his political ideas and thoughts purely based on this one article. Therefore I remind readers that my essay is strictly restricted and limited to drawing on opinions and criticism which is solely based on the article quoted above which may (or may not) represent a chunk of a larger picture.)

The idea presented by the author, of a multiracial political party (e.g. participation of Malays in predominantly non-Malay parties) is what ideals of our country such as Dato’ Onn Jaafar often preached. Nevertheless, the reasoning behind the author's argument is fundamentally wrong - to dilute any form non-Malays political representation to allow the majority Malays to gain absolute political power.

It is easy to understand from the Malay perspective, their ideas on 'Ketuanan Melayu'. As 'sons-of-the-soil' (bumiputera) and the ethnic majority, surely one would expect them to resist any attempt of marginalization on their own land in terms of ruling authority and socio-economical demographics. Hakeem implies that the future of Malaysia lies in the ability of the Malays to secure economical power ahead of the Chinese, and if otherwise mounting racial tensions arising from inequality would render the country defenceless against external powers.

The Jakarta riot in May 1998 may not provide the perfect analogy, but suggests that even in recent times; we can often underestimate the danger from silently accumulating racial tensions. But surely first we must acknowledge that the greatest threat to our resilience against foreign powers does not come externally, but from within our fundamentally flawed policies.

The author claims that the Chinese have deservedly staked a greater claim in economic power due to their own diligence and hardworking efforts. Official government statistics have demonstrated that the national equity holdings of the Chinese population have remained fairly stable and constant in proportion to their population relative to the total population of Malaysia; whilst the national equity holdings of the Malay population have constantly and significantly increased although still below the predicted targets and proportionally to their population relative to the total population.

(N.B The Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute (ASLI) released a report in October 2006 claiming that the national equity holdings of the Malay population was actually significantly higher that the official statistics, but with pressures from various parties, the research has subsequently been withdrawn with the reason provided that the researcher had erred in his methods.)

Bear in mind this is the an end product of (or rather despite) the NEP (National Economic Plan, also known as DEB – ‘dasar ekonomi baru’) which has lead birth to positive discriminatory policies against the non-Malays in effort to boost and encourage the Malay populations’ participation in various projects, contracts, business, scholarships, government and corporate positions, etc. with a higher chance of success via eliminating competition from non-Malays. This in return had undesired reciprocal effects which lead to the stiff competition amongst the non-Malays for a much severely limited economic niche and consequently has lead to markedly increased standards in performance of non-Malays relative to the Malays who in Hakeem’s own words are described as ‘lebih relaks’ (more relaxed).

Hakeem’s proposition of Malays gaining economic power by diluting the non-Malay political representation and creating a competitive environment for the Malays for the benefits of the Malays shows little tolerance and sensitivity towards the various ethnic minority groups in Malaysia. To wrest economic power by political dominance is unnecessary and will only be perceive by non-Malays as a threat to extinguish their representation and rights. He has failed to represent in any way the interest of any non-Malay groups and failed to address any of the issues and problems that non-Malays face in the current system. Surely we must acknowledge the non-Malays contribution to the development, progress and identity of the Malaysia that exists today.

But does Malaysia have space for non-Malays within ‘Ketuanan Melayu’? The answer for this vital question still remains elusive.

The Malays must surely understand that the Chinese and Indians are no longer coolies who send their earnings back to China or India. For most (in not all) of the present generation of non-Malays, everything they possess lies in Malaysia; family, friends, wealth and most importantly loyalty towards country. Hakeem’s radical political thoughts may be an echo of a significant proportion of Malays who have collectively failed to understand is that the non-Malays have no such ill intentions of sidelining the Malays in terms of ruling and economic power and in all honesty, are simply looking to achieve simple rights which have been both explicitly and implicitly denied to them; a violation of an individual's rights as citizens that has been denied simply due to ethnicity.

The alliance between UMNO-MCA-MIC to form ‘Parti Perikatan’ paved the way for our independence from the British. It served as a testament to prove that the Malays and the non-Malays could work together to disprove the theory that the British had held against granting us our independence. Dato’ Onn Jaafar had previously sought to incorporate non-Malays into UMNO which even preceded any effort towards gaining independence. He truly was a great visionary whose extraordinary ideas were beyond the grasp and understanding of his peers in his days. Eventually it was the alliance of UMNO-MCA-MIC that won us our independence despite its numerous inadequacies and shortcomings. Although the alliance has grown in numbers and strength through the decades, ultimately it has failed in integrating the Malays and non-Malays. As much as I refuse to even contemplate that perhaps our independence was premature and that the British were right in their concerns on our efforts to integrate, it is impossible to ignore the gap that exists between the various ethnic groups in Malaysia.

The positive discrimination policies in favour of the Malays are the price the non-Malays paid to be a part of Malaysia; a symbiotic relationship which allowed the Malays and non-Malays to unite comfortably in the 1950’s. This symbiotic relationship is less clear now to the present generation where the effects of the memoirs of our forefathers from the struggling days of independence are gradually fading. Perhaps we are forgetting that the positive discrimination policies were set in place to prevent racial tensions by preserving Malay rights. But have the tides turned, and are these policies the root of the racial tensions between the Malays and the non-Malays? This paradox is a classic case of ‘cause or effect?’ argument which is tied to the racial politics that has become the backbone of various parties in Malaysia. But is anyone willing to open Pandora’s Box to find out?

The solution lies in, as suggested by the author, a multiracial political party, not however to dilute the political representation of non-Malays, but to truly generate a brand of Malaysians indistinguishable by ethnicity.

Our 50 year history has demonstrated that positive discrimination policies based on ethnicity have failed to correct racial inequalities. Whilst these policies help the Malays secure, in short term greater economic power, in the long term it will ultimately only succeed in increasing the social divide between the Malays who can access and take advantage of these policies and those who are unable to, whilst the middle class will ultimately linger in complacency accepting whatever that comes their way. Improving access to these policies will help ease these inequalities amongst the Malays, but will leave the non-Malays in an even smaller niche to operate within, and as discussed earlier will generate a more competitive environment relative to the Malays and eventually lead to the very disparity between the ethnic groups that we had hoped to abolish.

Therefore it surprises me that these methods are still advocated and in line with the racial politics played by various parties to garner votes from their ill advised audience. The only way forward is to gradually drop these policies and allow these inequalities to balance out naturally. It is vital to clarify at this point that this should be not perceived as an attempt to question the treatment that the Malays receive as ‘bumiputera’, but a genuine attempt to correct the consequences of failed policies that have created racial tensions without much success at reducing inequalities.

Although these policies were meant to protect ‘Ketuanan Melayu’, it subconsciously has instilled a feeling or even a fear amongst some Malays that they are unable to compete on equal terms with non-Malays. Withdrawing these policies abruptly is not an option, as it will leave the Malays sharply exposed to the harsh reality of disparity in standards and competition that comes on a level playing field. The protection the Malays have received over the years through these policies will leave them ill prepared for any such rash move and will have devastating consequences similar to what was experienced on May 13, 1969, as Hakeem rightly observed.

However, gradually weaning the level of protection they receive through these policies will slowly but surely enable the Malays to achieve higher standards via working against greater competition and adversity. As the momentum gains, this will remove all barriers including racial ones and create a level platform on which Malays can compete with non-Malays, and I believe successfully too. It repercussions will be great in generating a wave of confidence amongst Malays in their own abilities to engage the non-Malays successfully. As for the non-Malays, they will surely embrace a non-discrimination policy that they have so dearly longed for. However, there is no doubt that this process will be painfully and treacherously long.

Surely then, no one can deny the Malays rightful claim of ‘Ketuanan Melayu’; and it is acceptable to the non-Malays too.