I am extremely disturbed and so are many Indians in the country by a recent piece in the Star entitled Standing up for Ceylonese (March 27) by Suhaini Aznam. One of the paragraphs in it, "unspoken, perhaps, is that education had given the Ceylonese a slight edge over the Indian coolies", is not only an inaccurate description but highly insensitive and pernicious to the good name and dignity of Indians in the country.

The short explanatory note carried in the Star (March 31) that the words were "the writer's observation in a historical context" does not really exonerate or provide justification for the author to have used arbitrarily the term "coolies".

The article focuses on the decline of the Ceylonese community in terms of its numbers and identity in the larger Malaysian society. While such pieces on minorities are important, it is not understandable why the author wants to make a comparison between the Ceylonese with only with one community - Indians. Why not compare the Ceylonese with Chinese, Malays and Gujeratis as well?

What is most troublesome and mischievous on the part of the author is the use of the term "coolies" to describe Indians. Are Indians still called coolies in this country? Is this another name for the community? During the early part of the colonial period, the term "coolies" was used by plantation employers, mostly Europeans, to describe indentured labourers not only Indians, but also Chinese and Javanese.

With the institution of the Kangany, or free labour system, the term became less frequent in use. Nobody uses the term at present because it considered inapt, derogatory and insensitive.

Some segments of the Tamil Sri Lankan community especially the conservative elements still describe themselves as 'Ceylonese'. In fact, the author is not aware of the general awakening among members of this community especially among the younger generation that they are Tamils and not Ceylonese.

During World War II, when members of the Ceylonese community refused to support the Indian Independence Army (INA) on the grounds that they were Ceylonese and not Indians, the Japanese warned them. In fact, the Japanese authorities told them clearly that the term 'Ceylonese' was a colonial/British concept and its use might be problematic. It was only after the stern warning by the Japanese, members of this community decided to support the efforts of the INA.

The article on Ceylonese is very superficial to say the least. The biggest problem for this community is not so much their dwindling numbers, but rather the rise of new identification as being Tamils.

The ethnic conflict between Tamils represented by the LTTE and the government of Sri Lanka has invariably affected their old forms of identification. More and more members of the Sri Lankan Tamil community (Ceylonese) are articulating their identity as Tamils rather than Ceylonese. The term 'Ceylonese' is a dying concept, only kept alive by some conservative members of the community especially those interviewed by the author of the said article.

The historical rift between the descendants of those who migrated from present-day Sri Lanka and those who came from South India has been slowly closing due to the emergence of Tamil identity. The ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka has been the major contributor to the healing of differences between the two communities. It is rather unfortunate that the author has failed to capture this dynamic and as a result succumbed to the old and archaic views of those who are still trying to preserve an outmoded political and ideological identity as Ceylonese.

Lack of effective political representation and economic opportunities has alienated large sections of the Malaysian Indian community. Given this, writers such as Suhaini and publications like the Star should be more careful in what they write and disseminate. It serves no purpose to humiliate the Indian community.

They have done no wrong. In fact, they have contributed so much in sweat and blood for the well-being of this country.