I refer to the Malaysiakini report Open letter to Indian leaders in Pakatan .

At the outset, I would like to say that even though I offer different opinions than the erstwhile writer, I am myself am a strong proponent for regime change in our country. There are significant assumptions in the writer's arguments that need to be dealt with. The conclusions may be the same, but the assumptions are vastly different.

In the writer’s words - let us start our deliberations by first asking this question: Has there been a government policy to deliberately marginalise the Indian community? You say no.

Take this case – a young girl has no birth certificate through no fault of hers and gets all As in her UPSR, something she was able to attain because of one sympathetic headmaster in one of the Tamil primary schools. She is refused admission to secondary school. Denying any human being a right to basic education is the denial of a very fundamental right in any century, in any country, let alone in the 21st century and in this up and coming Malaysia.

I ask you, is this act of denying this little girl her fundamental right acceptable even in the least, because it is not deliberate policy?

Even then, if this were an isolated case, I could agree with you, that we can overlook it because it was one of those inadvertent occurrences. But if this multiplies time and time again in many similar situations where the government bureaucracy systematically looks for opportunities to deny the poor Indians a chance to a citizen’s basic human right, is that still to be considered not deliberate policy?

The bureaucracy is an extension of Umno, brought into existence in its present form so that the state policy of apartheid like discrimination can be systematically applied. This is well known. Is that not deliberate policy but just the working of an incompetent and corrupt bureaucracy? Politicians will have us believe that, it is so convenient an argument. Why is the writer using the same argument?

He is going to come running back and say, ‘Oh no, that is not what I meant. What I meant was that there was no deliberate policy on the part of the government to marginalise just the Indians’. Well, I say to you, when the hill slopes of Bukit Antarabangsa slid down the other day, that was not because of a deliberate policy. But does it matter?

The people have lost their homes. Afterwards it is academic whether it was deliberate policy or otherwise, the problem happened because the system worked to make that problem happen - the system that was deliberately created.

Likewise, when there is such a large problem simmering with the marginalisation of the Indians and for so long and continues in spite of such loud feedback, can you still say it is not deliberate? When the powers-that-be continue to turn a deaf ear to the problem and provide lip service at best after all that has happened, is that still not deliberate?

I can only conclude from all of this that it is not that the writer has not understood it in this manner, he just prefers to see it the way he does. This is where his underlying assumptions are exposed.

The Indians in this country have to be spoken to and not spoken with, is an implicit assumption that he makes – maybe it is so commonplace for the likes of him, that he may not even recognise that he is doing it. You do not really have the facts of the working-class Indians’ daily life, nor do you care, as I understand from your treatment of the issue.

For you, the Indian is needed only for his vote, and loss of it will mean rocking of the boat that is headed for change and which is going to benefit the likes of you, not the marginalised Indians themselves whom you seem to be speaking up for. So, you say the same things that have been told to the Indians for the last fifty years – be patient.

I say rubbish to all of that; time is not the issue here. Come five years from now, I do not see a substantial change happening, given the present drift. The issue here is the lack of will. Plain and simple – lack of will to do the things that are necessary to change the state of affairs.

There are so many things that a state government can do on a priority basis for the most marginalised. We cannot change the bureaucrats, but we can start setting up watchdog citizen committees to watch over the shoulders of the bureaucrats. We can start becoming more transparent on more issues, especially where it relates to the poor and the marginalised.

State land can be more productively used by distributing it to the poor. Special scholarship schemes can be set up to pull in all the underemployed or currently unemployable youths in the 18 -25 category and places allocated to them in skills training institution, or special institutions be set up for this purpose; single mothers to be identified and treated on priority basis – but nothing like this is happening.

Only excuses are being given for maintaining the status quo. Nor do I see meaningful discussion going on in this respect. But then, it is always the numbers game after the elections. Marginalised Indians are too small a group to give priority to. What will the others say?

I do not understand how the writer suddenly became an apologist for the perpetrators of this regime on this issue. If you are the parent of that little Indian lass, maybe you will understand. But you are not and never can be. The least you can do is not masquerade.

You insult our intelligence when you say things like ‘What is the solution to the Indian predicament then? Would it help by giving a few more government posts or contracts to Indians by a state government? While that will make a few Indians happy, it would not alleviate the prevailing poverty of Indians, who number almost two million.’

You think this is rocket science that you are revealing here? You are not able to differentiate the symbols of the problem from the real problem. So what is being done for the two million marginalised Indians now – you tell me. Every time, this is the same argument that is brought up. But nothing seems to be happening for the very poor people referred to in that argument. It is all just too convenient.

Then the writer says ‘Under the circumstances, the best bet for marginalised Indians, and in fact for all Malaysians, is to work for the speedy realisation of a Pakatan federal government, which will bring healing and genuine nation-building to the country.’

I tell you, you make a faulty assumption here – the federal government of Pakatan will only be speedily and robustly realised when the poor and marginalised are truly taken care of now. Their vote is not to be given at the hint of the afterworld. It will be given for the here and now.

So, to the writer, please review your assumptions because we are all not going to get very far with your current assumptions – progressive as they may seem. We want not just a change to the names of the parties that are in power. We want true change. Not promises of change – but change that we all can feel and appreciate.

Viva la Makkal!