It has recently become fashionable for Malaysian politicians to use history as a reference point in marking milestones in politics.

Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad has paid tribute to the first PM Tunku Abdul Rahman, while the 'Alliance formula' of 1957 has been cited as the basis of unity among Malaysians and the Barisan Nasional's (BN) secret of electoral success.

Mahathir and BN component party leaders have gone a step further by ridiculing the opposition front Barisan Alternatif (BA) for duplicating the 'Alliance formula' in a shallow and loose way, just to win votes.

Indian Malaysian leaders from V.T. Sambanthan and Manickavasagam up to S. Samy Vellu have often boasted that the 'Alliance formula' is the community's ideal choice in politics and nation-building.

But Mahathir has never communicated directly or openly with Indian Malaysians on bread-and-butter issues, conveniently leaving these to be channeled through Samy Vellu, who has been MIC president for more than two decades.

Questions raised

As the Mahathir era draws to an end, it is only logical for Indian Malaysians to ask if he has been fair and just to them.

Has he left any tangible legacy, or has he shifted this responsibility to the MIC president on the basis of the 'Alliance formula'?

As such, has he forced Indian Malaysians to fend for themselves without policy and institutional support from the government?

Essentially, the formula has been used to give the false impression that the socio-political, economic and constitutional rights of Indian Malaysians have been nurtured within BN as well as by the community's leaders.

MIC leaders have said the same thing - on university intake, jobs and promotion in the civil service, low-cost housing, allocation of land and other resources, and on matters relating to the legitimate aspirations of the community.

The reality is otherwise. Mahathir's total reliance on communications only through MIC leaders has tainted and undermined the community's perceptions and confidence in cabinet ministers, menteris besar and even government institutions.

In recent years, Umno leaders have gone on a 'divide and rule' policy by supporting the Indian Progressive Party (IPF) led by MG Pandithan.

This has eroded the MIC's position within BN, especially since certain Umno leaders in Selangor and Perak have shown open support for IPF and trated Pandithan as if he were a BN leader. MIC insiders have often complained about this.

Wrong

choices

MIC, despite being a component and founder member of the 'Alliance formula', has failed to put in place a framework for policies that would buttress and protect the civil and political rights of the community.

The leaders of MIC, IPF and PPP have yet to find ways and means to articulate the community's problems. Instead, there is fierce competition among them to kow-tow to Mahathir so as to be in Umno's good books.

There have been blunders in the choice of Indian Malaysian candidates to fill positions of local councillors, state assembly representatives, executive councillors, members of Parliament and senators on the BN ticket.

Mahathir has turned a blind eye to weak choices - there are individuals whose credibility is truly suspect in the eyes of the community and whose only contributions appear to be their support of the MIC leadership.

It is unlikely that the post-Merdeka generation of Indian Malaysian voters will support representatives who rely solely on government posts and funding to become 'leaders' of the community.

The 'Alliance formula' has broken down and BN's 'power-sharing' concept has become dysfunctional. It has only benefitted a handful of leaders, both in Umno and Indian Malaysian political parties.

D G BHARATHI is a corporate lawyer and a freelance writer.