Diaspora Dilemmas

A summit of the Group of 15 nations of the Non-Aligned Conference, whichdiscusses economic issues, was to be held in New Delhi in 1993 when ShriNarasimha Rao was the Prime Minister. The administration of Mr Bill Clinton,then in office, mounted an exercise through President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt tosabotage this summit. Some leaders of member-countries, including Mr Mubarak,informed Shri Rao that they would not be able to attend the summit due todomestic preoccupation. The real reason was the US pressure not to attend. Thesummit had  to be postponed since it would not have had the minimum quorumof 12.  It was held next year after reducing the quorum requirement to fiveheads of state or government and three deputy heads. This came to be known asthe five plus three formula.

The postponement of the 1993 summit due to US machinations and the collusionof Mr Mubarak with the US caused considerable embarrassment for Shri Rao andIndia. Despite the postponement, Dr Mahatir Mohamad, the then Malaysian PrimeMinister, and President Suharto of Indonesia visited Delhi to express theirsolidarity with the government of India at the time of its discomfiture.Policy-makers in Delhi even now remember the role played by Mr Mubarak insabotaging the  proposed New Delhi summit of 1993. That was one of thereasons why, when a subsequent summit of the Group was held in Cairo, Shri A.B.Vajpayee, the then Indian Prime Minister, did not attend it.

How many of us remember the campaign carried on by the Clinton Administrationagainst Malaysia and Dr Mahatir Mohamad. Dr Mahatir became a persona non gratawith the Clinton Administration because of his independent political andeconomic policies. He was one of the very few Asian leaders not invited to theUS so long as Mr Clinton was the President. He followed independent policies notonly vis-a-vis the US, but also against the International Monetary Fund (IMF)and other US-dominated international financial institutions. When the economiesof South Korea, Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines collapsed in 1997, theMalaysian economy remained largely unaffected, thanks to the vision of DrMahatir. Even after the crisis broke out causing panic and demoralisation acrossSouth-East and East Asia, he maintained his independent line and resisted manyof the ideas emanating from US-dominated financial institutions.

After having realised that Malaysia and its leaders  could not bebullied, the US administration changed its policies after Mr George Bush tookover as the President in 2001. Dr. Mahatir was invited to Washington DC after9/11. The relations have since improved, but even now the Malaysian politicalleadership resists US-inspired ideas, which it fears could be detrimental to itsnational interests. A good example is its opposition to US-inspired ideas for strengthening maritime security in  the Malacca Strait.

What I had stated above would illustrate two things. Firstly, it is notcorrect that Malaysia as a state has been ill-disposed towards India. Secondly,it has a proud political leadership, which has not hesitated even to defy theworld's sole super-power when it felt it was necessary to do so in its nationalinterests.

It is important to remember this because in the wake of the recentdemonstrations by a large number of Malaysian citizens of Indian origin in KualaLumpur and the visit to India of an important leader of the Hindu Rights ActionFront (HINDRAF), a coalition of Indian-origin  organisations in Malaysia,all sorts of bizarre ideas have been floating around for being tough withMalaysia in order to protect the interests of the Indian-origin Malaysians. Anyidea of using the big stick against Malaysia-- even the very talk of it-- couldnot only damage the state-to-state relations between the countries, but provedetrimental to the relations of the Indian-origin Malaysian citizens with theMuslim Malay majority. If we think we can cow down Malaysia through such strongtalk, we are mistaken--as the US and China learnt in the past. Let us not hurtthe sentiments of the proud leadership in Malaysia by indulging in such talk,even if we don't follow this up.

India has four main interests with regard to the Indian-origin Malaysiancitizens: Firstly, that they progress economically and get their due share ofthe national cake; secondly, that the Malaysian authorities refrain from actionssuch as the demolition of Hindu temples and idols, which hurt the sentiments ofHindus not only in Malaysia, but also all over the world; and thirdly, that theIndian-origin Malaysians maintain harmonious relations with the MalayBhumiputras and the Chinese-origin Malaysians. These interests should be takenup informally through back channels  and not through public statements.

India should not give any impression that it has been showing belatedinterest in these issues--after having remained oblivious to them for years--becauseof the agitation of the HINDRAF. The HINDRAF is not the only representative ofthe Indian-origin Malaysians. One does not even know the background of itsleaders and the extent of following they have in the Indian-origin community.The Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC), which is part of the ruling coalition, andsome non-political opinion-makers of the Indian-origin Malaysians have shownsigns of discomfort and concern over the manner in which the leaders of theHINDRAF have been agitating and projecting India as the mother country, whichshould come to their help.

A group of Malaysian Tamil writers, which had recently visited Tamil Nadu,had disagreed with the kind of picture  being painted by the HINDRAFleaders. It would be unwise for India to let itself be influenced by therhetoric  of the HINDRAF leaders. The Malaysian government has been unwisein trying to project the HINDRAF leaders as sympathisers of the LTTE and asacting at the behest of Hindutva elements in India. We will be equally unwise ifwe treat them as the sole and genuine representatives of the Indian-originpeople and let ourselves be influenced by their rhetoric.

Hindus all over the world have genuine reasons for anger over some of thepolicies of successive Malaysian governments as pointed out by me in my previousarticle titled RootCauses of Hindu Anger . As good friends and well-wishers of Malaysia, wehave a right to expect that Kuala Lumpur will  address these causes. But wehave no right under international law to act as the de jure protector of theinterests of the Indian-origin Malaysians.

During the Cultural Revolution in China under Mao-Zedong, the Chineseauthorities assumed aggressive postures as protectors of the interests of theoverseas Chinese all over the world. The ultimate result: The overseas Chinesepopulation was viewed in many countries as having extra-territorial loyalties toChina. By our words and statements, we should not unwittingly create similarsuspicions about the Indian-origin communities abroad.

When Mr Vajpayee was the Prime Minister, many  felt concerned over thehigh-profile interest taken by his government in cultivating the Indian-origindiaspora abroad and over its implications for India's relations with countrieswhere these people live and for the future well-being of the Indian-origincommunities themselves. A well-argued article on this subject was written in2003 by  the late Shri J.N.Dixit, former Foreign Secretary, whosubsequently became the National Security Adviser to Dr.Manmohan Singh. A copyof his article is annexed.

B. Raman is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. ofIndia, New Delhi,and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies,Chennai.