THERE was an interesting article by DAP rep Satees Muniandy advising Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad on foreign policy.

The article was on Dr Mahathirs criticism of the Indian government over the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019, which is seen as discriminatory since it accepts Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians, and leaves out Muslims.

It is surprising that Muniandy, who comes from a secular party, does not question why religious identification is important for oppressed groups, when oppression and violence are a universal phenomenon.

As for Dr Mahathir, dancing to the tune of the Muslim audience at home, he was wrong to make a citizenship comparison in this country with regard to the Chinese and Indians, when the Indian law is not about the citizenship of local Muslims, who have been in India for generations and have their own unique history.

If he is authentically opposed to the law and its discriminatory nature, he should have question why Tamils from Sri Lanka are also excluded. It is a well-known fact that the BJP government has always been against Tamil nationalism, and this could be the reason it rejects the inclusion of Tamil refugees.

It is ironic that certain leaders in DAP, while opposed to ethno-religious politics in Malaysia, are quick to support the Indian government when the mainstream BJP politicians are similar to Umno and PAS in the way they approach politics.

While Dr Mahathir tried to trigger the Muslim world with his communal vision and politics, it is sad that certain DAP leaders were quick to respond without having done a thorough analysis of the Indian law and its discriminatory nature that is very much rooted in Hindu nationalism or the Hindutva ideology, which tends to create a dichotomy between different religious groups. This is the reason southern India, with states like Tamil Nadu and Kerala, vehemently opposes the law, citing its violation of Indias secular constitution.

With the rise across the globe of populism and nationalism that have taken on ethnic and religious tones, it is vital to comprehend the underlying ideology of parties with ethno-religious rhetoric, as well as the policies they come up with that cater to such thinking.

For example, US President Donald Trump came to power by stirring up anti-immigrant sentiments. This was done in the context of white Americans facing unemployment for years and a widening gap between the super-rich and poor.

The Trump administration set in place a policy restricting migrants from certain Muslim countries, as well as Mexico. The policy has a clear demarcation between Americans and migrants, even though the nation itself was built by migrants and has a strong secular constitution.

In a different setting, Indias BJP government has a similar ideology, where it tends to divide people between the majority and minorities, based on ethnicity or religion. The citizenship lawis testimony to the underlying Hindutva ideology, which has similar characteristics to right-wing movements around the world. In Malaysia, it includes the likes of PAS, Umno and Bersatu.

What makes it interesting and puzzling is that when ones perception of a given issue has a communal nature,what comes out in the discourse is also communal, but disguised as human rights or the purported desire to maintain good relations with a bigger country. December 25, 2019.

* Ronald Benjamin is secretary of the Association for Community and Dialogue.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight.

Visit link:

Communal politics and reactions - The Malaysian Insight