Seafield Temple - List of mosques built on the site of  destroyed Hindu Temples in India

COMMENT | Saying the temple protests in the last two days were proof that “good gestures are not always appreciated”, Perlis mufti Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin called on Malay groups planning to hold a rally next month to oppose Malaysia’s joining of the global anti-discrimination treaty, Icerd, to instead hold a rally for “Muslim survival”. People always ask me, what is the issue the Malay/Muslim far right have with temples? That is an easy question to answer. Hindu temples are all over the place. It is a fact that some of these structures are “illegal”. While some have a history like the Seafield Sri Maha Mariamman Temple, others have less of a pedigree.

Hindu temples are in your face. While Christian places of worship are subject to strict rules when it comes to Islamic sensitivities – the cross for instance apparently has a debilitating effect on some people – Hindu temples are gaudy architectural provocations for people who believe in the supremacy of their faith

But forget about this for a moment. If this was a mosque of more than 100 years old, and a court ruled in favour of corporate interest, what do you think the consequences would have been for the corporate entity when it came to this piece of land? I love the way how some people talk about legal judgments as if they are made in a vacuum when it comes to vested political and corporate interest. As usual, when it comes to an Indian issue, people have faith in the system.

The Perlis mufti, for instance, thinks that the BN government was too soft with these illegal Hindu temples. He wants the Harapan government to uphold the rule of law when it comes to a historical site which is essentially what the Seafield temple is. He believes this so strongly that he uses this incident to call for the Dec 8 anti-Icerd “celebration” to be one for Muslim survival.

I have very little interest in temple committees. I think that they are a bunch of parasites who use their office to further their own economic agendas that have very little to do with religion. In the Seafield temple case, for instance, I have no doubt that temple committee intrigue is part of the problem. There are more informed people who should have the courage to speak up on this issue than me.

Having said that, when it comes to religion in Malaysia, everything is racial. Asri (photo), for instance, prefers to use the law against what he believes is an existential threat to the Muslim community. Meanwhile, the “gangsters” who trespassed into this Hindu place of worship were relying on the weakness of the institutions to facilitate whatever they were allegedly hired to do.

Eyewitness reports claim that the state security apparatus was lackadaisical in containing the situation, while the state security apparatus claims that it had to be restrained because this was a place of worship and to do otherwise would add fuel to the fire. Who do you believe? How does your experience inform you about your faith in the system? Not an easy question to answer.

Fracases like these test your faith in the system. Is this a system for the "core" or is this a system for all of us? Some people got upset with those ministers who disputed the original “Indian vs Indian” police claim. This claim plays to the Indian stereotype that would make it easy to forget this issue and carry on playing the game of not spooking the Malays.

Look, when Ahmad Zahid Hamidi calls for the resignation of a minister for communal provocation, for merely speaking the truth, what does this tell you about the system? Think of it this way, Zahid, the former deputy prime minister, claimed that the Malays would run amock if Icerd was ratified and he gets away with it. What would happen if a non-Malay minister said the same thing to his or her community when it came to something they consider sacred?

When it was later confirmed by deputy inspector-general of police Noor Rashid Ibrahim that it was possible that the party that wanted to take over the land “...hired a group of Malay men to facilitate the process of taking the land. There is a possibility those (hired) were gangsters and for sure, the group of Indians tried to defend (the temple against the incursion)”, there was a caveat added that this was not a racial issue.

Even the temple people claimed that this was not a racial issue. The prime minister claimed that this was not a racial issue. Various ministers come out to claim that this was not a racial issue but the reality is that this issue will always be racial or religious because the system is set up this way. Whoever hired those “Malay” gangsters to invade a sacred Hindu ground did so with the knowledge that this was racially and religiously provocative.

The Perlis mufti, for instance, uses this incident to further his Islamic agenda. Politicians, meanwhile, attempt to use it to deflect from the situation by propagandising an injured fireman. I can see why. Far right Malay bloggers and propagandists have already started forwarding me literature that claims that it is the Malays who have to put their lives on the line and that these “Indians” are only good for drinking and rioting. All this is part of the “ketuanan” narrative that makes it impossible to have a reasoned discussion when it comes to issues like this.

Look at the difference between the Low Yat rioters and this incident. The rioters in this incident do not have the protection of the state. They are lucky that there are some politicians who would push back on official narratives that would seek to demonise the community at the expense of the truth – but ultimately, they have to have faith in a system which very often lets them down.