Imperative that the public lock horns over Interlok
Introduction by CPI
The Star today frontpaged Interlok stays as its main story and reporting Education Minister Muhyiddin Yassin as saying the contentious novel is to remain a Form 5 exam text but with amendments to several aspects deemed sensitive by the Indian community.
A section of the Indian community suspects that the selection of this more than 40-year-old book only reprinted as recently as last year was impelled by an ulterior motive. The novel Interlok not only portrays the Indian community as the pariah class that emigrated to the peninsula but has as its running theme a recurrent allusion to the Indian and Chinese races as pendatang as well as many negative, racial stereotypes.
Muhyiddin was quoted by The Star (source: Bernama) as saying that his ministrys decision to retain Interlok was made after taking into consideration the views of all parties, which acknowledged that the book was good in nurturing and strengthening unity among the multi-racial and multi-religious society in Malaysia.
The Ministers rationale and claim of nurturing unity fail to withstand scrutiny when there have been nationwide protests against the book, countless police reports as well as threats of civil suits. These very acts in themselves are already indicative of the deep cleavages and ill-will that the book has engendered.
Are we to trust Malay! Literat ure teachers, predominantly belonging to one race, to exercise an adequate wisdom and tact over such an emotion-rousing novel when the racist utterances of the Bukit Selambau (Kedah) and Kulaijaya (Johor) school principals still leave a sour taste in the mouth?
And are we to hope that the impressionable students sitting the exam who are tasked with writing standard exam answers where their essays will be expected to fit the officially prescribed model and thinking mode will not be subtly and sublimally brainwashedala the Biro Tata Negara (BTN) modus operandi?
In fact, complainants even suggest that the book was selected for this years reading list in bad faith and with the hidden agenda of denigrating Indians; the novel has too much potential to cause Indian students to become the object of derision in the classroom and victims of a state-fostered inferiority complex.
It is therefore timely that CPI has translated the article below so that a wider public may be aware of the woeful lack of understanding of India, Indians, Indian history, Indian customs and culture, and the Indian immigration to this land as shown by the author of the controversial book Abdullah Hussain.
**********************************************************************************
Translation by CPI
By K Pragalath
One factual error already known to the public is the mention of the Pariah and Brahma (sic) castes -- which dont exist.
Kamus Dewan (dictionary published by Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka) defines caste as the classification of people according to categories, that is, Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaisya and Sudra. According to Uthaya, the name Brahma on the other hand refers to a god in the Hindu religion.
Discussing the characterisation of the protagonist Maniams family, Uthaya said the novel was unclear in stating whether Maniam is a Tamil, Malayali or Telugu although the story begins in Kerala, India. [CPI note: Tamil immigrants who form the majority were from the state of Tamil Nadu]
Furthermore, the name Maniam is not a Malayali name.
According to Uthaya, Malabar and Kerala were referred to in the novel as two separate places whereas Malabar is actually the old name for Kerala state.
The author Abdullah Hussains explanation of the Kathakali dance is also incorrect as he had said the dancers used masks when in fact they use make-up.
Abdullah places Kerala geographically as a state a little to the north of Tamil Nadu when the atlas shows that Kerala lies to the north of Andhra Pradesh. Kerala is also pictured as filled with paddy fields when it is better known for its coconut trees.
Uthaya listed other reasons why Indians emigrated other than because of the caste system. Among them, job opportunities, the raising of quit rent and British pressure on the local industry that was in competition w! ith its own textile industry.
The book also pictures the Indian community in Penang as being 50 percent Malayali and the remaining half Tamil and Telugu when in fact 80 percent of the Indians at that time were Tamils.
Uthaya told his audience at the Shah Alam library (where the briefing was held) that the chapter on Maniams family failed to portray a correct Indian worldview with a corresponding appreciation of Indian culture.
The character of Malini calls her husband Maniam by his personal name whereas women of that period would never do that (as its not the culture to do so).
Uthaya was also curious as to why Malini calls her father Perumal papa and not appa (the Indian term). Other misses on cultural nuances include when the character of Mariama is said to be single (membujang) after the death of her husband when the more appropriate word is widow(balu).
In the book Maniam is said to have come alone to Tanah Melayu in 1910 even though the Pengajian Malaysia (Malaysian Studies) states that the inflow of free labour was stymied in 1859 because the travel fare was too expensive.
When the character Suppiah prostrated, it was misrepresented as kowtowing to the white man when the act is usually done only as a mark of respect to ones parents to obtain their blessing.
Uthaya also questioned Abdullahs description of using skulls as a form of traditional medicine practice.
Why are the Malay NGOs protesting (in defence of the book)? It (the book) is misleading (hence the reason for the Indians objecting to its use as an exam text).
Uthaya also commented on Abdullahs claim that he (Abdullah) was a follower of Gandhis teaching.
Gandhi referred to them (the untouchables) as Harijan which means Chil! dren of God (unlike Abdullah who termed them as pariah).
As a response to the Gapena resolution [CPI note: Gapena head Ismail Hussain is brother to Interlok author Abdullah Hussain] which declared that the Malay literary body will not permit the book to be altered even in one word, Uthaya pointed out that there are several sentences found in the special edition but missing from the students edition. He cited as a contrary example the poem Gagak Hitam by National Laureate A. Samad Said where the poem was not only translated into English but had one line amended.
Uthaya also responded to an Utusan columnist concerning the (lack of) protest against a book (similarly touching on caste) by Mulk Raj Anand titled Untouchables.
Uthaya countered that Mulks book did not draw any protest because it is not a component of the English Literature syllabus in Malaysia.
Another writer Lim Swee Tin who spoke at the same briefing session was of the opinion that it would be better if Abdullah Hussein himself himself made the necessary changes to the text in the interest of the students. Lim said this was the better approach as a writer is usually very particular about his work being changed.
Comments