Anwar wants Indian leaders to end their squabbles and work as a team. c
About 60 people attended the two-hour, closed-door meeting at the PKR headquarters last week.
“We talked about how to win back Indian voter support that has drifted back to Barisan Nasional,” said one Indian PKR leader who attended the meeting.
“Anwar rallied the Indian leaders to end their squabbles and work as a team,” he said.
Two decisions were taken during the open, candid and wide-ranging discussion.
One, Anwar has tasked newly-appointed PKR vice-president N. Surendran to form a three-man committee to handle Indian grouses. Major issues that can’t be resolved will be brought before Anwar for an immediate resolution.
One example Anwar cited, PKR insiders said, was the public holiday for Thaipusam in Kedah which the Pakatan had promised but has failed to deliver.
“Anwar wants to know what is holding it up,” the insiders said.
The second decision was to open talks with lawyer and Hindraf founder P. Uthayakumar and if possible accommodate him and his HRP group in return for his help in getting the support of the Indian community.
Anwar silenced opposition to Uthayakumar that was raised by several PKR leaders and NGO leaders, saying “politics is all about accommodating each other.”
Sources said Anwar informed the meeting that he would take up the “Uthayakumar matter” with Pakatan leaders like PAS president Datuk Seri Hadi Awang and DAP adviser Lim Kit Siang.
The meeting discussed the reasons why Indian voters were leaning towards BN after voting overwhelmingly for Pakatan Rakyat in the 2008 general election.
“Anwar was open and listen carefully to everyone. The discussion was heated at times because everyone was blaming each other for the erosion of Indian support,” said one NGO leader who attended the meeting.
Anwar blamed the massive infighting among Indian leaders for the erosion of Indian community support.
“I really don’t understand why there is so much infighting among yourselves,” Anwar alleged said, pointing to the poor showing among Indian Pakatan leaders in the recent Tenang by-election.
“Don’t fight in Merlimau,” Anwar told them, referring to the upcoming by-election in Malacca.
“Go down now (to Merlimau) and please work together. Don’t go to the media with your grouses,” a visibly upset Anwar told the meeting.
Anwar also picked out several key Indian PKR leaders at the meeting and urged them to close ranks and not continue the infighting. “If you are unhappy leave the party,” Anwar pointedly said.
The meeting concluded that the return of Indian voter support was crucial for Pakatan if it was to not just win more seats but retain what it won in 2008.
“I am happy Anwar is willing to listen and put the PKR house in order, at least in the PKR,” said an Indian NGO leader. “My only fear is that the new thinking in PKR might be too late in the day.”
While most of the leaders present, who included all the elected state and Parliament representatives, were not in favour of approaching Uthayakumar, a small group was however vocal in wanting to rope him into the Pakatan Rakyat coalition.
They felt that it was he and Hindraf that gave the Pakatan the big lift in 2008 and without him the Pakatan could not perform as well as it did in 2008.
“Let’s admit it, it was Uthaya who gave Pakatan the big win in 2008. Without his involvement Indian voters are unlikely to back the Pakatan in a big way again,” said T. Balakrishnan, a Pakatan supporter who attended the meeting and is better known as David Bala for his staunch support of the late DAP leader and trade unionist V. David.
“Anwar has an open mind about Uthaya. He has no problems exploring alliances with him and other Indian NGOs,” Bala said. “I am happy he (Anwar) is personally attending to Indian issues. It is a recognition that Indian voters matter.”
However Hindraf/HRP information chief S. Jayathas told The Malaysian Insider that it was willing to open talks but its platform was already well known.
“We must be taken seriously and treated with respect. Pakatan must also attend to numerous issues of the Indian community like land for temples and Tamil schools,” he said.
LAHORE, Pakistan — The wife of a Pakistani man shot and killed by a U.S. official committed suicide by eating rat poison Sunday, explaining before she died that she was driven to act by fears the American would be freed without trial, a doctor said.
The U.S. has demanded Pakistani authorities release the American, saying he shot and killed two armed men in self-defense when they attempted to rob him as he drove his car in the eastern city of Lahore. He was arrested on Jan. 27, and the U.S. has said he has diplomatic immunity and is being illegally detained. The shootings have stoked anti-American sentiment in Pakistan, feelings that could be further inflamed by Shumaila Kanwal's suicide. She died several hours after being rushed to a hospital, said Ali Naqi, the doctor in Faisalabad city who treated her.
"I do not expect any justice from this government," said Kanwal in a statement recorded by the doctor before she died. "That is why I want to kill myself."
Kanwal also spoke to reporters after arriving at the hospital, saying "I want blood for blood."
"The way my husband was shot, his killer should be shot in the same fashion," she said.
The case puts Pakistan's government in a difficult position. The government relies on the U.S. for billions of dollars in aid but is wary of being seen as doing Washington's bidding. The U.S. is widely unpopular in Pakistan, in part because of its undeclared campaign of drone missile strikes along the northwest border with Afghanistan.
The government could face charges of being an American lackey if it hands Raymond Davis over to the United States. But refusing to do so risks harming a relationship with a vital ally.
Pakistani officials have avoided definitive statements on Davis' level of diplomatic clearance and whether he qualifies for immunity.
Federal officials have said the decision on his fate is up to courts in Punjab province, where the shootings occurred. But provincial officials have said the federal government must decide whether Davis has immunity. The two governments are controlled by rival political parties, which has further complicated the case.
Besides the two men who were shot dead, a bystander was also killed when he was struck by an American car rushing to the scene to help Davis. Police have said they want to question the Americans suspected in that death as well.
Relatives of the men who were allegedly shot by Davis have participated in several protests in Lahore, including one Thursday outside the U.S. consulate where demonstrators shouted "Hang the American killer!"
Some commentators have tried to paint the two men as innocent Pakistanis rather than thieves who were attempting to rob Davis. But the U.S. Embassy has said the men had criminal backgrounds and had robbed money and valuables at gunpoint from a Pakistani citizen in the same area minutes before the shootings.
May Seetha rest in peace after the marginalised, discriminative life she had led in Malaysia. I remorsefully feel that I had indirectly contributed to
We must understand that for the last twenty-odd years, the sole purpose of this nation along with its people has been to make money without a uniting factor. The unity part can only happen if we participate, unite and act to uplift those segments of our society that have been neglected for the as opposes to our own needs.
Only we Malaysians in unity can ensure that a Malaysian Indian's life is not so cheap and worthless for the betterment of our own community and for our common cause.
May Seetha rest in peace after the marginalised, discriminative life she had led in Malaysia. I remorsefully feel that I had indirectly contributed to the neglect of this society selfishly for my own needs.
Sita has always intrigued me. She’s quite a standalone. She’s the one woman who the janta hasn’t sort of figured out quite. Through the entire Ramayana story, of which I’ve read no ‘original’, all I keep realising is that there’s something about Sita. She eludes specific characterisation, lending herself only to interpretations of which there are a zillion. She’s probably the only character among all our ‘gods’ in whom we see what we want to. It’s our reaction to, our interpretation of Sita’s life that truly sets her value, and our beliefs.
Not certain why, but I’ve always been miffed at suggestions of her being a doormat, of being helpless, of her not having a say. There’s something about the viewpoint that don’t seem right. I have my own over-simplistic, interpretations of the major points in the lady’s life. I still flounder at the abandonment, though, when she’s sent off to the forest although she’s pregnant.
For starters, her joining Rama on his punishment posting. It’s mostly spoken of as sacrifice. Sita ‘gave up’ her royal lifestyle to go with hubby. But look at the choice the woman had: she could either go with handsome hubby or stay back with three mothers-in-law and a hen-pecked dad-in-law. Not much choice there, if you ask me. Any girl in her right mind would go with hubby, discomfort be damned. And she finally had cool dude bro-in-law Lakshmana tag along as well who respected her no end. What could be better? You always need an assistant for sundry work. Hubbies don’t oblige often, only lip-sync.
Then the Lakshmana-rekha. Ooh, the line that was crossed, which led to her kidnapping by a man besotted. Yet, nothing happened. Ravana was scared of the curse that if he dared molest another woman, his tenner would splinter. Capital punishment, no less: quite a deterrent that if it was what kept Ravana away. But surely he knew that when he was plotting? Kidnapping Sita was a rather elaborate plan. He yanked her all the way to his kingdom and then got cold feet worrying about his heads? I find the argument a tad insufficient.
What I would like to believe, instead, is that Ravana was ultimately kept away from Sita not by any male-drawn limits or codes, but by Sita herself. There was something about Sita. What it was every woman might want to figure out. It was Sita’s own drawn ‘rekha’ that Ravana didn’t dare cross. Learned he may have been, great ‘love’ --- for want of a better word --- he may have had, but rakshasa he was and he had kidnapped her for a purpose. Which he didn’t complete. Why? What kept him away? What was that quality in Sita? To me, men can keep drawing lines crisscrossing women’s lives till they do themselves to exhaustion, but when it comes to crunch, women draw their own lines, which no Ravana dare step over.
In fact, Sita kept drawing lines for herself throughout her life. So much and no more. Meghnad Desai makes a damn neat point in a recent book, In Search of Sita by Malashri Lal and Namita Gokhale. In commonsensical reasoning, referring to a footnote in his Gujarati translation of Ramayana, he writes that Rama marries at age 16 and lives 12 years after that in King Dasharatha’s palace. At 28, he goes into exile for 14 years to return when he is 42 years. “If this is true, then during the twelve years of marriage …and thirteen years of exile…Rama and Sita have no children and Sita becomes a mother in her late thirties. This implies that she is at least in control of her reproductive cycle, as she manages to delay her child-bearing until her husband is secure on a throne.” How cool is that?
Alright, to the agni-pareeksha. Here I go with what cartoonist Nina Paley says: that it was demonstration of a woman’s deep grief. Rama had his compulsions, they say, but really, what true-blue independent queen would endure such ridicule? So, Sita snapped, was tired, angry and got a fire crackling in seconds to show she meant business. That kind of wild anger and hurt is completely understandable. Heart-breaking grief that after all that, this. At the same time, you have to spare Rama a thought. He may have snapped too. He was no god at the time, right? He was a human king. So he could surely snap? He probably thought, for this silly woman’s silly desire, I’ve had the most harrowing time on earth. Using ‘citizens gossip’ to explain his directive is just shooting off the hapless citizens’ shoulders. He wanted to hurt her, probably, real bad. And he did. She shot back. It’s been known to happen. Zooksh, zoom, that kinda thing.
What line did Sita draw at the abandonment? I’ve told myself maybe Rama and Sita had a good chat and figured the city’s no place for kids, pollution and all, but it don’t ring true. It equally doesn’t ring true that Rama actually got manipulated into believing Sita had a soft spot for her kidnapper. I don’t know if the equivalent of Stockholm syndrome existed in those days. Haven’t figured that out. It’s not as if they split. They simply separated. And stayed so. That’s saying something grand about Sita’s freedom alright. And also that single mothers can well manage on their own.
Rama ended up a miserable wreck, and Sita, when wounded again, simply said enough and went back home into the earth. Still figuring that out. Maybe I’m too Bollywood-conditioned into wanting endless happy endings. More when I’ve cracked it. Meanwhile, for Sita seekers, go find her. And send across some thoughts. Nothing like figuring out what Sita was all about.s a Malaysian Indian's life so cheap and worthless in Malaysia? I believe so. After all, this segment of the society, the current underclass, contributes to practically all the majority negative vices or worsening social ills in the country ie, murder, robbery and white-collar cime.
Now look at the history. When the plantations were one of the pillars of the nation, this was not the case - until probably the late 80s when the 'magnanimous' Dr Mahathir Mohamed came into the picture for the 'benefit' of the Malaysian Indians (I am actually being sarcastic here).
Despite the economic significance of their contributions in the yesteryears, these plantation workers received scanty attention yet they never turned to the negative vices that are prevalent today.
Sure, we talk of development, fine. But then what happened to the hundreds of thousands of Malaysian Indians who were shortchanged in the process and left stranded without the right infrastructure or government planning to address their social development along with the other Malaysians.
The Malaysian Indian, being as much as the son of the soil, needs to survive and the plight of the Indian community, especially the plantation workers in Malaysia, has largely remained unchanged since independence in 1957. At least then, they had their plantation work to ensure their survival no matter how poorly they were paid.
But in today's scenario, with their displacement from the estates and without proper planning and equal opportunities, they resort to negative vices as a matter of survival.
For argument's sake, one would, of course, say why resort to such things. Frankly I don't have any answer to this but we are all not made equal to our five fingers or to our siblings. What is perplexing is that other than passing their two sen comments, nobody wants to neither understand nor comprehend why the Indians have come to this stage within two decades.
A simple example is R Seetha, the latest suicide casualty of this engineered social displacement of the community.
Associated Press writer Asif Shahzad contributed to this report from Islamabad.
No comments:
Post a Comment