The Indian problem — the Reformasi that failed

 

From Dr I Lourdesamy

Concerned Indians and Indian organisations made the biggest effort to solve the Indian problem in the 1970s and 1980s. It involved politicians, academics, trade unionists, NGOs and the Indian community at large.

This “Indian Reformasi” was the reaction to the New Economic Policy (NEP) in 1970 and the feeling that the MIC had failed to protect Indian interests.

The fragmentation of estates had compounded estate poverty. Urban poverty among Indians had grown. Indian equity participation was dismal, around 1.0% or less. Indians were getting excluded from government jobs. Indian students were neither getting admission to public universities nor were they given scholarships.

The Tamil schools were in a deplorable state. Indians had little access to capital to do small businesses. The government had no programmes for the Indians.

Numerous discussions were held and papers presented on understanding the Indian problem and finding solutions. Some of them were held under MIC’s initiative, some under trade union leaders like PP Narayanan and V David, while others were organised by academics and Indian NGOs.

For the first time, the Indian community came together despite its differences and conflicts to tackle the Indian problem.

The approach adopted was two pronged. One, to put pressure on the government to pay attention to the Indian problem and take corrective measures. Two, to undertake self-help programmes to improve the economic and social conditions of the Indians.

Toward the first end, several memoranda were submitted to the government, with action recommendations. On the second front, a number of self-help programmes were launched.

This was in addition to the Indian organisations that were already serving the community – the National Union of Plantation Workers (NUPW, which was founded in 1954), the National Land Finance Co-Operative Society (NLFCS, 1960), PPN Hostel (1966) and the Dr Rama Subbiah Scholarship Fund (1967).

A group of academics established the Educational, Welfare & Research Foundation (EWRF) in 1979. It was directed at meeting the social and educational needs of the community.

An offshoot of EWRF was the Sri Murugan Centre (SMC). The decision to help Indian students with tuition classes was taken at one of the EWRF meetings. Dr M Thambirajah from Universiti Malaya was given the responsibility for this project. This eventually evolved into what SMC is today.

In 1980, MIC bought the Vanto Academy, a private college. Most of the students at Vanto were Indians from the lower-income group. Many studied under financial aid or full scholarship. Vanto did a good job, but it did not become the equivalent to TAR college owned by MCA.

MIC also set up TAFE College in Seremban to provide skills training to Indians. To deal with educational issues, MIC established the Maju Institute of Educational Development (MIED) in 1984. MIED was instrumental in founding the Asian Institute of Medicine, Science and Technology (AIMST) to meet the shortage of places for medical studies for Indians.

One other educational project that needs mention was the Workers’ Institute of Technology (WIT), set up by V David in 1977 under the Transport Workers Union (TWU). Although open to all, the vision was to help Indians develop industrial skills for employment. Many Indians benefited from WIT.

The Reformasi group was aware that social issues constituted only a part of the Indian problem. Economics was important and had to be addressed.

To this end, Sampoorna Holdings was established in 1979 with a capital close to RM10 million, with Kishu Tirathrai as the chairman of the board. Indian organisations and individuals were persuaded to take up shares.

However, Sampoorna Holdings never took off in the way it was envisioned. It was wound up in 2018 and many Indians lost their savings.

For business, a friendly banker is helpful. At one time, I believe there were three “Indian banks” in the country. Through a merger exercise by the government, they were reduced to one (the United Asian Bank) and eventually to none.

In 1976, the trade unions set up Bank Buruh. Although the bank was not an Indian bank, the top leadership was Indian, which included Narayanan and David.

The bank was able to help many small Indian businesses with micro credits and personal loans. Unfortunately, the bank did not remain in Indian hands for too long and the opportunity to help the community was lost.

Maika Holdings’ massive capital

The biggest effort to mobilise the Indian community to increase its equity participation in the economy was Maika Holdings, under the initiative of the MIC. The community responded enthusiastically, especially the lower-income group.

Maika Holdings was incorporated in 1982 with a massive capital of RM125 million and over 60,000 shareholders. Maika failed. This was the biggest failure of the Reformasi movement. It destroyed the trust of the community in Indian leadership.

Maika was wound up in 2020. It showed that community projects had to be managed well. Otherwise, they will go down the path of Sampoorna Holdings, Maika Holdings, NUPW, Bank Buruh and many smaller projects that were started at the local levels but did not last.

The two-pronged strategy to tackle the Indian problem in the 1970s and 1980s failed in its primary mission. The Indian leadership also did not succeed in persuading the government to intervene in any big way on behalf of the Indians.

The many memoranda submitted to the government on Indian problems and calling for intervention produced no substantive response. The self-help efforts of the community saw only limited successes, with some big failures.

The failures were due largely to bad or corrupt leadership and rivalry between Indian leaders. For example, I remember asking the late Tun V T Sambanthan to use NLFCS to save Bank Buruh when it was going down. His response was that he could not work with Narayanan.

The government did give some handouts for the community but these were mostly hijacked by Indian leaders. The hijacking of the 10 million Telecom shares given to Maika Holdings by Indian political leaders remains a classic example.

The Indian problem is still here. This does not mean the community has remained stagnant. Lower-income households have moved up economically and socially since 1970.

Many own cars and houses now and their children have a college education. This has been a result of their own efforts and sacrifices, not from any government help.

This does not represent the aggregate progress of the community. For example, the equity share of the Indians has remained about the same since 1970.

Where does this leave the Indians? The Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) attempted to force the situation by taking to the streets in 2007 but failed. This is a challenge for the new Indian leaders and reformers.

It will be a mistake to seek solutions in the old mould. The national dynamics are fluid and changing.

The Indian leadership has to craft a strategy within the new order to maximise the Indian potential and remain relevant. - FMT

Dr I Lourdesamy is an FMT reader.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.