How civility surprises us The 'invisible' wealth of criminals and Mahatir's The Inconsequence of Team

A well known internet site muslimmalaysia786.wordpress.com

 describes Perkasa veep Zulkifli Noordin  as an incendiary, dramatic, sardonic and churlish politician.

The British rulers in India through re-writing of history painted the eight hundred Muslim reigns in the country with misrule wherein showcasing their Kings and Nawabs being intolerant, prejudiced and bigoted towards their Hindu subjects to create mistrust and deep rooted hatred between Hindus and Muslims against each other. This was done to strengthen the reins of power in the backdrop of 1857 uprising.

Thus, the British rulers adopted divide and rule policy to sow the seeds of communalism in India by getting the history distorted and suppressed the facts of glorious communal harmony traditions practiced by many Muslim rulers. The facts that the Muslim rulers in honour of their Hindu subjects facilitated celebrations of their festivals at the government's expenses and gave annual grants and "Jagirs" (landed property) to temples were obliterated. While the acts of a few greedy Muslim rulers who indulged in demolishing some temples to loot gold were highlighted and this was included in school textbooks to influence adversely the impressionable minds and create tension between Hindus and Muslims post 1857 uprising.

The British taking over after the end of Muslim rule in India crushed the 1857 uprising with an iron hand which had been spearheaded jointly by the Hindus and Muslims to overthrow the yoke of foreign rule. The history of communal riots in the country started thereafter which culminated into the 1947 holocaust following the Partition of India andPakistan.

The above observations were made by Justice Markanday Katju, a senior judge in the Supreme Court of India, while delivering the valedictory address of the three-day international inaugural conference on “Towards Knowledge, Development and Peace -- Outlining Roadmaps for the Future” to mark the year-long silver jubilee celebrations of think tank Institute of Objective studies, (IOS), held here at the India Islamic Cultural Centre which concluded on Sunday.

Justice Katju said diversity is our asset and our guarantee for staying secular. Indiahas been a nation of diversities as 92 per cent of the populace is the descendants of the immigrants who migrated dating back to 10,000 years from the North West to the country for greener pastures here. Since the India's economy was agriculture based with the land being very fertile the immigrants found it to be a paradise. "We all are Bahar Ki Aulad (the descendants of the migrants) irrespective of being Hindus or Muslims”, he remarked. With people of all hues kept coming to India and a common culture between Hindus and Muslims was developed which he termed as "Sanskrit-Urdu" culture.

He gave full credit to former Prime Minister late Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru for maintaining the secular credentials of India which has been the land of various types of diversities. Pandit Nehru was the real architect of secular India as despite being under immense pressure to declare India a Hindu state after Independence in 1947, after Pakistan had announced the establishment of an Islamic state, stood his ground and did not succumb to the rabid elements then. India has kept together through federalism which is catering to the diversity in the country. The diversity, reflected in the wide range of religions, castes, languages and physical attributes found among the descendants, led the founding fathers to draft a Constitution with strong federal features, he emphasized.

He said the British Government in England in order to tighten their grip over the their rule in India conspired and planned ways and means to create an atmosphere of hate, mistrust and suspicion between the Hindus and Muslims. Before 1857 uprising there had been no Hindu-Muslim conflict in India. However, thereafter, the British rulers engineered riots as there game-plan to govern the country, he pointed out.

Justice Katju based his contentions on former Rajya Sabha member & Gover

nor of Orissa late Prof. B. N. Pande's book “History in the Service of Imperialism” which clearly states that a glimpse into official British records will show how this policy of Divide-et-Imp era was taking shape. The Secretary of State Wood in a letter to Lord Elgin [Governor General Canada (1847-54) and India (1862-63)] had said: “We have maintained our power in India by playing off one part against the other and we must continue to do so. Do all you can, therefore to prevent all having a common feeling”.

Meanwhile, George Francis Hamilton, Secretary of State of India, wrote to Curzon:“I think the real danger to our rule in India not now, but say 50 years hence is the gradual adoption and extension of Western ideas of agitation organisation and if we could break educated Indians into two sections holding widely different views, we should, by such a division, strengthen our position against the subtle and continuous attack which the spread of education must make upon our system of government. We should so plan educational text-books that the differences between community and community are further strengthened (Hamilton to Curzon, 26th March 1886).

Thus, under a definite policy the Indian history text-books were so falsified and distorted as to give an impression that the medieval period of Indian history was full of atrocities committed by Muslim rulers on their Hindu subject and the Hindus had to suffer terrible indignities under Islamic rule. There were no common factors in social, political or economic life, Prof. Pande had concluded.

It's the provocative question that polite people don't like to ask in the presence of their friends of different races. Who really has it tougher? Black person A or white person B or Asian person C, Latino person D or multi-racial person E?

Part of why that question remains so provocative is because while many of us may believe we know the answer (and may be willing to cop to it in the comfort and privacy of our homes out of earshot of the political correctness cops), we also acknowledge that there are endless qualifiers to that question. Statistically, black men are more likely than others to find themselves on the losing end of our criminal justice system (a fact even Ron Paul acknowledged in the last GOP debate, which is saying something). Unless of course it's 1995, you're rich, and your name is O.J. Simpson. Racial minorities are often held to higher academic and professional standards when it comes to receiving promotions at the upper echelons of their fields. Unless of course your name is Clarence Thomas and a conservative president needs to prove he's not a bigot. When the word "unless" enters the equation, it makes it easier for people to argue that the equation itself should not exist. Welcome to the 2011 debate over affirmative action. As recently reported in the New York Times, a legal battle that's likely headed for the Supreme Court could soon mark the end of affirmative action as we know it in higher education. (Click here to see a list of the most important legal battles in America's war over affirmative action.)

Let me state this for the record: I don't believe that I should receive an opportunity for a job or admission into an institution of higher learning over someone more qualified simply due to the color of my skin, and wouldn't want to. By the same token I wouldn't want to lose a job or admission to an institution of higher learning due to factors equally beyond my control, such as my last name or my class status, yet that kind of missed opportunity happens to people like me all of the time. (To clarify, by "people like me" I mean those of us who were not born wealthy, well connected and fabulous.)

And therein lies the dilemma in whether to end affirmative action as we know it. Colleges and universities weigh a variety of factors that have little to do with merit, in making admissions decisions. The findings of a recent survey conducted by Inside Higher Ed confirmed what many of us already know: admissions officers feel pressured to admit students from wealthy families, specifically over students who may require financial aid. This finding simply reaffirmed one of America's most embarrassing dirty little secrets: that many of the criteria used to determine admissions in higher education -- the gateway to the American Dream -- overwhelmingly benefit those born into privilege. And even in 2011, the majority of people born into privilege in this country are not racial minorities.

On the most obvious level there is the issue of legacy admissions, benefiting those whose parents, grandparents, great-grandparents or other relatives attended an institution of higher learning. The second President Bush evoked the ire of affirmative action proponents when his administration famously filed a brief encouraging the Supreme Court to declare the University of Michigan's admissions process unconstitutional for the manner in which race was considered. This despite the fact that his father and grandfather's previous attendance at Yale played a much greater role in his admission than his lackluster academic record. (As a quick comparison like many black Americans, none of my grandparents, all of whom were farmers and picked cotton, had the opportunity to attend college, although considering my great-grandmother was born into slavery they did reasonably well for themselves.) But there are countless other ways in which the college admissions process is rigged to benefit the privileged.

"Internship" is code for work done for very little money and often for free. The more prestigious the internship, the more likely it pays nothing. That's great for those kids whose parents can afford to subsidize junior's summer internship at a fashion magazine, or an international charity founded by a celebrity in a foreign country. That's not so great for the average kid who has to work at Starbucks or the Gap for the summer to help out the family -- if they can even get those jobs in the current economic climate.

Then of course there are all those extracurricular activities that don't pay for themselves. If a student lists playing the violin or flute on his application, mom and dad must have paid for private lessons because music programs are being cut left and right in public schools. If an applicant lists "fluent in multiple languages" on an application, mom and dad probably paid for a private tutor, and as far as standardized test scores go? There's not a single self-respecting parent on the Upper East Side who doesn't have a tutor for that too.

My point? Those born into privilege start the college admissions process miles ahead of those not born into privilege. If there is one flaw in affirmative action as it stands now, it's not that it benefits too many racial minorities. It's that it doesn't benefit enough other people from non-privileged backgrounds.

President Obama's daughters will have opportunities in their lives that most of us will only dream of. I'm not alleging that the President and First Lady will pick up the phone and call in favors on their behalf. They won't have to. Just as both President Bushes did not have to call in favors for their children or President Clinton has not had to call in favors for his daughter. By virtue of their names and family connections, there are doors that will swing open for them at colleges, graduate schools and jobs that may be closed to many of us. Or at the very least will require one hell of a strong key to unlock.

What I find mind boggling is why so many invest energy and litigation trying to remedy being "cheated" out of opportunities by a system that they view as "unfairly" benefiting a few minority students, when the entire system unfairly benefits a group of privileged people it keeps recycling generation after generation. Where's the outrage in that? Not to mention the court challenge? Where's that "Occupy Admissions" movement? Maybe people simply assume it's a lost cause. Well, maybe it is. But here are a couple of remedies worth considering before we give up altogether.

The next time a wealthy person attempts to buy his son or daughter's way into his or her alma mater, may I suggest that instead of the college or university using that big check to build another useless recreation center and smacking that person's name on it, how about as a rule only using such contributions to subsidize the attendance of a less privileged student (or two or three or more)?

And a more extreme solution? In some Olympic sports routines are weighted differently based on their complexity. If someone attempts a complicated move and nails it they are graded on a different scale than someone who attempts a relatively easy routine. Why not apply the same thinking to admissions? If someone attended prep school, interned for Madonna's Raising Malawi Foundation at 15, traveled to the United Kingdom to intern for David Cameron at 16, while taking private cello lessons in his spare time (with an instructor who once played for the New York Philharmonic), good for him. His application should receive every consideration. But if the goal of education in this country is to create an equal playing field and equal opportunity, then I would argue that that application should actually not receive as much consideration (or as many "points" per the University of Michigan case guidelines) as the one next to it from the kid who has the same grade point average, similar SAT score, who spent summers working two jobs to help support his family, and whose only shot at the American Dream is that college admissions slot -- and the financial aid to make it possible.

Because you know what? The Malia and Sasha Obamas of the world will ultimately be just fine. It's the Malia Washingtons and Sasha Smiths of the world that we have to worry about.

the triumph over evil and light over darkness.

With the 13^th General Election just around the corner, let all Malaysians join Malaysian Hindus to mark this auspicious occasion with one single-minded wish -

Let the light of love, justice and moderation triumph over the darkness of hate, extremism and intolerance to build an united, just and prosperous plural Malaysia.

Recently, Malaysia’s body politic had been poisoned by an outpouring of hate, extremism and intolerance.  All moderate Malaysians of good sense and goodwill, regardless of race or creed, must unite to reclaim our country from such hate, extremism and intolerance to build a nation all Malaysians can fully belong and feel proud in having an equal place under the Malaysian sun.

It is undeniable that the Hindu civilization has contributed vastly to the civilization in the Archipelago. The greatest achievement is, upon the arrival of Islam, these two civilizations could get along very well without tensions and difficulties.

Abused and betrayed

The real test is today. As one of the main races in Malaysia, the Indian community especially the Hindus are still left behind. Just look at those living in the estates, the conditions are still very poor.

It has been mentioned many times, including in Parliament that a large number of convicts, school dropouts and gangsters are Indian youths. Clearly the trust they have placed in the current government has been betrayed.

We even hear of how billions of ringgit worth of shares allocated to the Indian communities have gone missing. Defending the people who are in need has always been the main struggle in Keadlian since its formation.

Can no longer be ignored or neglected

In this context, the Indian community cannot be left behind, causing an imbalance in the social pattern of our country. This is the test and challenge faced by all Malaysians who love justice and harmony.

Parti Keadilan Rakyat is not taking this matter lightly. We truly do not want the Indian community to be left behind, nor their well-being just a show on TV to pretend happiness and harmony.

On this 26 October 2011, I, representing all leaders and members of Keadlian wish our Hindu friends a very Happy Deepavali. Let us bring the light of goodness into this beloved land of ours for all citizens to share and treasure.

Dr Wan Azizah Ismail is the president of Parti Keadilan Rakyat