Indians in Malaysia, unlike the Malays or Chinese, do not have many options to improve their socio-economic position in the future. Their numerical weakness in relation to other groups, their weak material position and most importantly, the lack of strong representation within the present ruling coalition, makes it near impossible for their advancement.

Given the primacy of racial politics geared to the sole advancement of Malays, the present ruling coalition is least prepared to consider the interests and welfare of other economically deprived groups. So in this context, there is little Indians can expect to gain from the politics of the present ruling coalition in general and from the role of its official representative the MIC. It is not that the MIC is being selfish or reluctant to do anything worthwhile for the benefit of the community, its basic problem is structural, in other words, it does not occupy a relatively powerful position within the coalition to engage in serious discussions about the fate of the community.

Historical perspective

In order to understand why parties like the MIC or MCA do not have a strong position within the present ruling coalition, one has to take a bit of historical perspective. One could argue that before the formation of the Barisan Nasional in the aftermath of the 1969 racial riots, the Alliance ruling coalition was much more democratic in that the three component parties had more or less equal status. Policies and decisions taken by one group had to be endorsed by others before these became public. A kind of quid pro quo situation operated where Malays in Umno agreed to accept the status of non-Malays in the country in return for the latter to accept the political dominance of Malays. However, years of Malay underdevelopment, their confinement to rural areas, the visible presence not so much domination of Chinese in urban areas, the rise of competitive party politics and others changed the political scenario of Malaysia.

The adoption of the New Economic Policy in the immediate aftermath of the racial riots, the enlargement of the ruling coalition under the name of BN, the need to aggressively promote Malay interests and others conditioned the outlook of the BN. BN was different to Alliance in that the former came to be dominated by Umno with the sole purpose of promoting Malay interests, and the other component parties came to occupy roles subordinate to Umno; a scenario much different from what prevailed before the riots.

Given the dominance of Umno, other parties such as the MIC or the MCA could do very little to change the trajectory that was set in motion. The problem was not so much with the Chinese, for even in the absence of a strong political representation, they could survive in an atmosphere that was hostile, on the basis of their dominant economic position. It was acute for Indians simply because the community without a strong and independent material base, needed a stronger and a more viable representation.

Apart from the structural problems associated with the nature of representation and the weak economic position, the Indian community lacked a strong and committed leadership within and outside the government to articulate its interests and demands. Within the government the MIC leadership failed to provide effective representation to the community due to the existence of a number of problems. Lack of effective and bold leadership, over dependence on Umno, the problem of corruption, sectarian infighting and others contributed to a situation where the MIC proved to be a totally ineffective and irresponsible party in championing Indian interests. Moreover, given the weakness of the opposition in the parliament and state assemblies, it could do little to impress upon the government to focus on the affairs of the Indian community.

In the last general elections and in the subsequent by-elections, Indians in general might not have voted for Barisan Alternatif for a variety of reasons. The lack of institutional form of representation within the fold of BA as in comparison with BN, the failure on the part of BA parties to address Indian related issues, lack of good caliber Indian leaders within BA, money politics engaged by BN and others could have denied crucial Indian votes to BA. But nonetheless, some sections of the Indian community voted for the BA and if BA had fielded an Indian candidate in the Lunas by election, more Indians could have gravitated to BA. It is wrong on the part of some to argue that Indians have inherent predilection to vote for the BN due to their structural position, namely the factor of Indian marginalization.

MIC not pro-BN or BA

We also know that majority of Indians voted for the opposition coalition of Gagasan Rakyat in the 1990 general elections. This was not due to over determination of the Indian structural position, but rather due to presence of an Indian party, the IPF in the opposition coalition. The presence of this party gave Indians a sense of belonging and the confidence that they could shift their loyalty to the opposition. In these elections, the MIC performed miserably and its inability to provide Indians votes for the BN served to anger the Umno leadership. After the elections the MIC leadership was punished by Umno in denying it some crucial executive positions in the state assemblies and the delay in the appointment of a second deputy minister.

The point that needs to be established is that Indians are neither against the opposition party nor overly pro-status quo. They would go with any political formation that best guarantees their interest and provides a form of representation that would enhance the confidence of the community. In the last general elections and the subsequent by elections, it was the inability on the part of the opposition coalition to address this particular needs that could cost them crucial Indian votes. They voted for the BN not because they thought that the BN was a saviour of Indians, but rather due to the fact that it presented a slightly better model relative to the opposition.

Keeping options open

Presently, within the BA coalition, Indians are sort of represented in Keadilan, DAP and PRM to some extent. Of course, the DAP has the most credible Indian presence on the grounds of its historical ties with Indians. It has produced great Indian leaders such as P Patto, Karpal Singh, V David and others who have fought hard and made huge personal sacrifices for the benefit of the Indian community than the leaders in the MIC put together. Recently, it took much courage on the part of some Indian leaders to relinquish their party posts when their candidate for the Lunas by-election was bypassed in favour of the Keadilan's candidate. Although peace has somewhat returned to BA following the DAP's decision to remain within the opposition fold, sections of Indians are not very happy.

Pragmatism on the part of Indians necessitates that they keep their political options very much open and flexible. Whether or not Indians should have political party within the opposition coalition cannot be determined on the basis of abstraction. There is need to look further to examine to what extent multi-ethnic parties within the BA coalition would be able to uphold and articulate the interests of the various nationalities in the country. While I agree that the politics of BA should transcend the narrow ethnic considerations of the BN government, there is also a necessity for some kind of discourse within the ranks of the BA as to the formula that might eventually adopt to provide for a balanced representation of the various communities in the country.

In the final analysis, whether Indians need a party within the opposition coalition will have to discussed and debated in some forums. As it is Parti Insan Rakyat Malaysia has called for a public forum to discuss and to determine whether Indians in the county require the presence of an Indian political party within the fold of the opposition coalition. Whatever the other objectives of this forum, the very fact that there is an attempt to discuss subject cannot be simply dismissed.

P RAMASAMY is a professor of political economy at the Political Science Department, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia and has academic interests in Malaysian politics and labour. He has written quite extensively and is currently focusing on conflict management in Sri Lanka.