Role Name Department of Sociology Prof. Sujata Patel ...

Role

Name

Affiliation

Subject Coordinator

Prof. Sujata Patel

Department of Sociology University of Hyderabad

Paper Coordinator

Prof.Kamala Ganesh

Formerly Department of Sociology, University of Mumbai

Content Writer

Dr.M.Mahalingam

Content Reviewer

Prof.Kamala Ganesh

Formerly Department of Sociology, University of Mumbai

Language Editor

Prof.Kamala Ganesh

Formerly Department of Sociology, University of Mumbai

Module Structure

Description of the Module

Items Description of the Module Subject Name Sociology Paper Name Sociology of the Indian Diaspora Module Name/ Integration issues in the host lands: Southeast Asia and Fiji Module Id Section IV Module 3 Pre Requisites Objectives

This module tries to Illustrate the process of migration and formation of Indian communities in Southeast Asia and Fiji. Describe the adaption, integration and assimilation process of Indian communities in Southeast Asia and Fiji Reveal the nature, structure and characteristics of Fiji and Southeast Asian Societies in colonial and post-colonial times. Discuss what are the integration issues and theirprsent status of Indian communities in Southeast Asia and Fiji

Analyze the socio, economic, cultural andpolitical process within the Indian communities in Southeast Asia and Fiji at present.

Key words Migration, Plural society, Accommodation,Adaptation, Integration,

Assimilation, Issues of Integration.

INTEGRATION ISSUES IN THE HOST LANDS: SOUTHEAST ASIA AND FIJI

Section IV Module 3

QUADRANT 1

1. INTRODUCTION

The presence of Indians in Southeast Asia has had a long history spanning the various phases

, given its geographical proximity to India. The imprints of Indian culture can be discerned

from the antiquities of the past. The spread of Hinduism and Buddhism had an influence on

the development of language and religion in the region, and the continued popularity of epics

like the Ramayana and Mahabharata, the magnificent stupas in Borobudur, the Prambanan

Temple in Yogyakarta and a strong presence of Hinduism in Bali remain testimony to such

connections with India(Singh2006:195).

The movement of Indians to Southeast Asia has persisted since pre-modern times,

throughout the colonial times till the present age of globalization ( for details, see

Sandhu1969; Kondapi1951; Tinker 1974 and 1990; Kaur2009).The emergence of Indian

Diaspora is thus the result of numerous successive movements of unskilled, semi-skilled and

skilled Indians into the region. Their descendents later emerged as Indian ethnic minority

communities in the Southeast Asia.

There is a strong presence of Indian community in various parts of South East Asia. Their

size is small in countries like Philippines, Indo-China (present day Vietnam, Cambodia and

Laos), Indonesia, Thailand and Brunei. But, they are more visible and constitute a significant

ethnic minority in Malaysia (then known as Malaya), Myanmar (known as Burma until the

year 1989) and Singapore, given their numerical strength and their crucial role in the

development of the region since the nineteenth century.

In the Pacific region, Fiji has had a significant Indian ethnic minority population, which may

be traced to the colonial period indentured migration and also some amount of free migration

from India (see for details Mayer1963; Ali 1977; Lal 1983).Unlike Southeast Asia, the Indian

migration to Fiji is solely the result of colonialism.

Fiji and Southeast Asian societies are plural societies par excellence. After de-colonization,

these states headed by the natives initiated integration measures in the name of nation

building. Given the fact of its civilizational and cultural heritage and close proximity to the

original homeland the Indian community as an ethnic minority in these regions responded

and reacted t measures unleashed against them in various forms. The following sections

would lead into a discussion on these integration measures and the issues pertaining to the

ethnic Indian community in present day Southeast Asia and Fiji.

1.1 The Concept of Plural Society

The term ‘Plural Society’ is associated with the writings of J.S. Furnivall who was the first to

distinguish and identify plural society as a separate form of society. Furnivall held that

“each group holds by its own religion, its own culture and language, its own ideas and ways.

As individuals they meet, but only in the market-place, in buying and selling. There is a

plural society, with different sections of the community living side by side, but separately,

within the same political unit. Even in the economic sphere, there is a division of labour

along racial lines” (Furnivall1948: 304). He further added that the advent of plural society

was an outcome of expansion of western capital.

Following Furnivall, the concept of plural society has gained wide currency in the field of

social science (see for details Smith1960; Braithwaite1960; Freeman1960; Skinner 1960;

Morris1956). It has been hailed “as essential for comparative sociology”

(M.G.Smith1960:763) and “as a field of strategic importance for sociological theory”

(Rex1959:114).

M.G.Smith (1960) was one of the early scholars who extended, systematized and

reformulated the concept of plural society by looking at the varied context of the British West

Indies. According to Smith, pluralism is a condition in which there exist underlying

differences in the basic system of institutions such as kinship, education, religion, property,

economy and recreation but not government. This is due to the fact that, “given the

differences in belief, value, and organization that connote pluralism, the monopoly of power

by one cultural section” remains the essential precondition for the maintenance of status quo

in society(Smith1965:86). Thus, Smith’s theory emphasized political institutions rather than

the economic aspect as binding the society together. This stand point of Smith was at odds

with Furnivall who emphasized on economic dimension. Finally, Smith distinguished

between three types of societies: homogeneous, heterogeneous, and plural.

Scholars like Leo Despres and Van den Berghe advanced Smith’s conceptualization and have

contributed to the debates on plural society (for details, see Despres1967; Berghe 1971).

While Furnivall’s conceptualization of plural society suited the situation of tropical, colonial,

multiracial societies, Smith and others refined the notion and extended it to slave and

multiracial societies in the colonial and post-colonial times.

2. INDIAN MIGRATION TO SOUTHEAST ASIA AND FIJI: AN OVERVIEW

Although India’s influence on Southeast Asia was prevalent prior to the arrival of European

powers, there were no Indian settlements as such, since the Indian traders transited and

shuttled between countries to trade their goods. There werea few Indian traders who settled

near the ports, married local women and assimilated into the local culture. For example, the

mixed progenies that are presently known as JawiPekan in Malaysia and Singapore (for

details, see Dhoraisingam2006).

In the beginning, Indian migration comprised religious mendicants, merchants and traders.

The advent of colonialism in the region saw the arrival of Indian labourers, convicts, imperial

auxiliaries made up of the colonial militia and administrators, teachers and medical

professionals (for details, see Sandhu1969;Tinker1990;Rai2008;Kaur2008 and2009).

In the nineteenth century, the colonization of India by the British facilitated the movement of

Indians to Myanmar, Malaysia and Singapore. These countries received large contingents of

Indian unskilled labourers and less of the imperial auxiliaries and business migrants. The

Indian unskilled labour migrants were assisted through innovative recruitment mechanisms

like indenture, kangany and maistry systems in these countries (fordetails, see

Sandhu1969;Kondapi1951;Adapa2002). A vast majority of Indian migrants was drawn from

the then Madras presidency, as the Indian government refused to allow the emigration of

Indian labourers from other parts of the subcontinent (Walker1994).They were employed in

the expanding plantation agriculture and as coolies in ports as well as in other infrastructural

projects.

In the case of Myanmar (as Burma was a province of British India), the government placed

no restriction on the flow of Indian labour (Than2006:168). The Indian migrants in Burma

hailed primarily from the states of Bengal, Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Orissa and Bihar

(see for details Kondapi1951; Mahajani1960). They were utilized for occupations relating to

the primary, secondary and service sectors of the colonial economy.

The Indian commercial class namely Chulias (Tamil Muslim traders) and the

NattukottaiChettiars had an extensive network throughout Malaya, Burma and Indo-China

which led to the urban and rural development of these regions (Sandhu and Mani1993). Other

Indian commercial migrants included Gujaratis, Sindhis, Parsis and Marwaris who carved a

niche in the commercial sector development of various regions of Southeast Asia (Ibid).

Sikhs undertook the key role of law enforcement in Malaysia and Singapore(Ibid).

Indian migration to the Dutch colony of East Indies (present Indonesia) was voluntary and

minimal as the British restricted the mobility of Indian labourers to the plantations of Sumatra

though the Dutch encouraged the arrival of Indian labourers (Mani1993a). The migration of

Indians to Indonesia was largely a spill over from the Malay Peninsula (Ibid).The nature of

Indian migration to Thailand, Philippines, Indo-China and Brunei was voluntary, small and

commercial in nature (for details, seeSandhu and Mani1993). Thus, the advent of Indian

settlement in Southeast Asia was primarily a result of European colonialism.

From the last decade of the twentieth century, the increasing migration of Indian human

capital especially Indian professionals in the information technology (IT) and other sectors

have added to the diversity of Indian community particularly in Singapore and to some extent

in Malaysia. Subsequently, there exists a sense of dichotomy between the ‘Old Indians’ and

‘New Indians’ within the Indian community in Singapore and Malaysia (Kaur2009).

Table: 1. An Estimation of the Indian Diaspora in the Southeast Asian Regions

Country Population NRIs PIOs Stateless Percentage of the population

Brunei 331,000 7,000 500 100 2.3% Cambodia 11,340,000 150 150 Nil Negligible Indonesia 200,000,000 5,00 50,000 Nil Negligible Laos 5,100,000 107 18 NA Negligible

Malaysia 22,890,000 15,000 1,600,000 50,000 7.3% Myanmar 46,500,000 2,000 2,500,000 400,000 5% Philippines 76,000,000 2,000 24,000 12,000 Negligible Singapore 3,160,000 90,000 2,17,000 Negligible 9.71% Thailand 62,000,000 15,000 70,000 Nil .07% Vietnam 78,000,000 320 Nil 10 Negligible Source: Report on the High Level Committee on the Indian Diaspora,2001.p.253.

In case of Fiji in the Pacific region, from 1879 to 1916 (until the abolishment of indentured

labour migration), around 60,000 indentured Indian labourers were transported to sugar,

banana and coconut estates of Fiji (see for details Mayer1963; Ali1977; Lal 1983). The

indentured labourers in Fiji were popularly known as ‘girmitiyas’ which is the derivative

word of ‘girmit’ as the term ‘agreement’ was pronounced by them(Lal1983).Gujarati traders

and South Indians arrived as free migrants in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century

(Ibid).Most of them came from northern India (80 percent from Uttar Pradesh and 13 percent

from Bihar and Bengal) and the remaining came from southern part of India

(Srebrnik2008:77).

The Indian migration to both Southeast Asia and Fiji was initially ‘transient’ in nature. With

the prevalence of conducive atmosphere, the Indians adapted to the new environment and

finally settled in the host lands. Later, they obtained citizenship rights at the time of

independence and became ethnic minorities in their respective host lands. The Indian

community is now in transition as the integration measures are being unfolded under the

guise of nation building ever since independence. The following section will deal with a

country wise detailed account of such integration measures and the resultant impact on the

Indian community.

2.1 Myanmar

In Southeast Asia, Myanmar (known as Burma until 1989) has a significant Indian ethnic

minority (see for details Mahajani1960; Chakravarti1971). In the absence of census since

independence due to unstable governments, it is very difficult to give reliable information on

the size of the Indian Diaspora in Myanmar. A rough estimate of the size of ethnic Indians

comes out to 2.9 million (Lwin2008:489).

Table.2. Indian Population in Colonial Burma-1881-1941

S,No Year Total Population Indian Population Indian Percentage 01. 1881 3, 736,771 243, 123 6.5 02. 1891 8, 098, 014 420, 830 5.1

03. 1901 10,490, 634 568, 263 5.4 04. 1911 13, 115, 217 743, 288 6.1 05. 1921 13, 213, 192 887, 077 6.7 06. 1931 14, 667, 146 1,017, 825 6.9 07. 1941 16,823, 798 918,000 5.4 Source: N.R.Chakravarti, Indian Minority in Burma,P.15. Note: Indian population included temporary residents and seasonal immigrants. By waging three wars with the Burmese in 1824, 1852 and 1885, Britain gained control over

Burma and made it a province of British India with capital at Rangoon(now known as

Yangoon),until its separation in the year 1937. The influx of Indians into Myanmar

continued from 1853 to 1942 and was strongly encouraged by the British government to help

the expanding colonial economy of Myanmar. The Indian migrants comprising skilled, semi-

skilled and unskilled labourers belonging to various strata of Indian society.. For instance, the

Indian business community ofChettiars from the Chettinad region of Tamilnadu dominated

the money lending business in the rural and urban parts of Burma

(Singh1982;Bhattacharya2003).

Table.3.Indian Occupational Categories in Colonial Burma(1931)

S.No Sector Percentage of Total Indian Workforce

01. Industry, transport and trade 51.5 02. Raw material production(mainly

agriculture) 30.0

03. Miscellaneous( including domestic workers)

9.5

04. Public administration, arts and professional services

6.5

05. Minerals exploitation 2.5 Total 100 Source: 1931 Census of Burma quoted in Than(2006:169).

In colonial Burma, the Indian community occupied all walks of life and barely integrated

with the locals as the ‘plural society model’ was encouraged under the colonial regime.

KhinMaungKyi observes that even after seventy years from the first wave of migration, the

Indian community remained an alien settlement which had little in common with the local

Bamars in terms of political ideals, economic interests or cultural moorings, and social

interaction between them remained confined to economic realm(Khin1993: page?). In the

light of minimal integration and economic dominance of Indians, there was a surge of

alienation, xenophobic sentiments, aversion, disenchantment and resentment against Indians

among the Bamars.

This growing sense of resentment got further aggravated when the Indian money lending

community, the Chettiars, began enclosing the lands of the Burmese peasants who were

unable to pay the dues due to the impact of the Great Depression. By the late 1930s, about a

quarter of the total agricultural land in Burma was under the control of the Chettiars

(Landon1943).Burma gained independence in 1948. Thereafter, the national policies have

been enacted to secure the rights and privileges of the native Bamars at the expense of the

ethnic minorities. For instance, the citizenship laws of 1948 mandated the non-Bamars to take

citizenship or else they would be considered to be ‘aliens’ without any rights. Under the

revised constitution of 1974 and thereafter a series of reform measures during the 1980s

signalled a clear inclination towards granting rights and privileges to the native population

and providing the “non-indigenous” and the “other” category with only limited rights

(Rai2008:41).

Moreover, the Myanmar constitution of 1947 did not recognize Indians as an ethnic minority

despite their crucial contribution in the economic development of the country. In addition, the

transformation of laissez faire economy into socialist economy further jeopardized the

interests of the Indian community. The land nationalization act of 1953 led to loss of land

ownership by the Chettiars who received little or no compensation at all in some cases

(Cooper1959:81).

Photo:1. A Hindu procession in Yangon, Myanmar.Source :en.wikipedia.org.

Following the coup d’état of 1962, General Ne Win assumed power and began reorganizing

the society on the lines of “Burmese way to socialism”. This further affected the Indian

interests adversely. With the enactment of the Nationalization of Enterprises Act, 1963, the

Indians lost all their rights over shops, stores, wholesale business and brokerages. Over

12,000 retail shops owned by Indians were taken over by the government which resulted in a

loss of Rs 15 crores( Kuppuswamy1996:36-66).

The liberalization of Myanmar economy in the 1990s offered little relief and ray of hope to

the Indian business community. With the constant growth of ethno centric feelings, religious

nationalism and discriminatory citizenship practices, the proportion of Indian community has

witnessed a decline. The exodus of Indians from Myanmar took place a number of times but

reached its peak during1962-64. Approximately 1, 50,000 expatriates returned to India and

the Indian government sent mercy ships for evacuating Indians from

Myanmar(Lwin2008:489).Myanmar has been under military junta since 1962 until its

transformation to a nascent democracy in the year 2012. This forced the Indian community

from time to time to remain apolitical and restrict its political participation despite their great

numerical strength.

On account of integration measures initiated by the government, the acculturation process has

been under way with regard to dress, food and language. The Indian community has begun

wearing Burmese dress, eating Burmese food and has acquired proficiency in Burmese

language. However, they still retain their subculture in the private sphere. Subsequently, they

are still not integrated politically, economically and culturally and continue to remain as

‘alien’ or ‘other’ community in the socio-economic, cultural and political landscape of

Myanmar which has only multiplied due to the persistent political crisis, religious and ethnic

insurgencies since independence.

2.2 Malaysia

Malaysia is a multi-ethnic and multiracial society which has substantial number of people of

the Indian community. The Indian community is the third largest after the native Malays and

the immigrant Chinese. According to the 2000 Census, out of the total population of 21.9

million, Indians account for 7.7 per cent (1.7 million) of its population. The term “Indian” in

the census refers to the persons from the Indian subcontinent comprising India, Pakistan,

Bangladesh and Sri Lanka (Marimuthu2011:67).

The Indian ethnic group is fragmented along the lines of class, caste, language and region (

see for details Arasaratnam1970;Sandhu and Mani1993).Given the numerical majority of

Tamils among the Indians, a sense of “Tamilness” is asserted from time to time in the realm

of culture, religion and political representation in Malaysia(Arasaratnam1970).

The policy of racial division of labour was practiced under colonial government in erstwhile

Malaya. The Malays were essentially peasants and rice cultivators. A few of them who

belonged to an aristocratic background got recruited in the lower ranks of the colonial civil

service. The Chinese were either mining coolies or middlemen engaged in trade and

commerce; and the Indians were employed in rubber estates or public works

Table.4.Major Ethnic Groups of Malaysia

S.No Ethnic Groups

Percentage of Total Population

01. Malaysian citizens 94.1 02. Bumiputra 65.1

03. Chinese 26,0 04. Indians 7.7 05. Non-Malaysian Citizens 5.9 Source: Malaysia Department of Statistics (2000) as quoted in Rai (2008:43).

Stenson argues that the Indian estate labourers who constituted a large group of industrial

labour remained isolated in such a cocoon-like environment (Stenson1981:150). Jain has used

Erving Goffman’s concept of ‘total institution’ to analyze the plantation life of Indians in

Malaysia (Jain1970).The insulated or closed plantation life of Indians avoided acculturation

with other races and subsequent integration and assimilation. The categorization of races

worked to preserve the respective social and cultural identities. At the same time, it also

resulted in the emergence of dichotomy between the natives and immigrant communities in

colonial Malaya.

Following Malaysia’s independence in 1957, the Indian community obtained citizenship

rights and their status was upgraded to third largest ethnic minority from earlier transients or

sojourners. The Malaysian constitution of 1957 is inherently discriminatory in nature as it has

enshrined special privileges for the Malays on the basis of ‘KetuananMelayu’ or Malay

supremacy for being the ‘Bumiputera’(son of the soil) community. This resulted in the

subsequent institutionalization of the Malay ethnic identity in the constitution. Article 153

mandated special positions for the Malays and made it the responsibility of the Parliament

to safeguard it. This provision of the constitution has been conveniently manipulated by the

United Malay National Organization (UMNO) given its hegemonic political position in the

ruling BarisanNasional (BN) alliance since independence in order to establish Malay

hegemony and Malay ethnocracy.

The special provision includes preferential treatment in the reservation of land, civil service,

education and scholarships and issues of business permits and licenses for the Malays.

Inspired by the constitution, the successive Malaysian governments have implemented the

preferential treatment for the Malays since independence, which has relegated the ethnic

minority communities to a low level both in economic and political terms (see for details

Sandhu and Mani1993;Nagarajan2008). The Indian community, given the historical

disadvantage, has been worst hit and has become the ‘insignificant other’ in Malaysia’s

multiracial society. Almost two-thirds of the Indian population of Malaysia has been caught

in the vicious cycle of poverty (Ganguly1997).

In order to develop a national culture, national unity and common Malaysian identity as part

of nation building, successive governments have promulgated integrative policies such as

national education policy, national cultural policy, the new economic policy(NEP), the

Rukun Negara( the national ideology), the Bangsa Malaysia(Malaysian race ) concept(for

details, see Marimuthu2011:72). The above integrative measures did not have any bearing on

the ethnic minorities because of the entrenched racism in the public sphere of Malaysia. The

long serving Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammed had declared Malaysia as an

Islamic state in the year 2000. The adoption of Islam Hadhari (civilizational Islam) as the

guiding principle of development planning by the Badawi government further intensified the

feeling of alienation amongst ethnic minorities. In the recent times, the gulf between Malays

and the non-natives has widened in the wake of growing Islamisation, ethno-linguistic and

religious nationalism. The growing racialization, polarization and communalization of society

have led to a surge in racial riots in the post-independence era. The racial riots of 1969

(Sandhu and Mani1993) and Kampung Medan in 2001(Willford2008:439) are some classic

examples. Apart from economic marginalization, the Indian community has also witnessed

cultural marginalization in the recent past when old Hindu temples and shrines were

demolished on trivial technical grounds.

Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC) as an Indian political party was formed in 1946 that has

been in power since independence as an Indian ethnicpartner in the BN on the basis of

consociotional political system of Malaysia. However, it failed to reduce the plight of the

Indians due to the dominant politics of ethnicity and hegemony (Ramasamy2008:372). In

light of this political vacuum, the civil society group HINDRAF, the Hindu rights advocacy

group spear headed and organized the ‘Indian spring’ on November 25, 2007 on the eve of

golden jubilee year of Malaysia’s independence and confronted the Malaysian state in a bid

to highlight the predicament of the Indian ethnic minority in multiracial Malaysia (see for

details Mahalingam2014:20).

Photo:2. HINDRAF Rally on 25th November ,2007 in Kuala Lumpur. Source: asiapacific.anu.edu.au Recently, Prime Minister Najib came out with the concept of “Satu Malaysia” which means

“one Malaysia” in a bid to forge national unity amongst the racially divided ethnic groups.

This move failed to gain ground amongst the minorities as they regarded it to be an empty

rhetoric dominated by racist politics. Though the Indian community has adopted the policy

of acculturation in the realms of dress, food habits and language, the overwhelming practice

of institutional racism, repressive measures against minorities, political inequality and

economic exclusiveness has instilled a sense of ‘otherness’ in the Indians.

2.3 Singapore

Singapore is a multiracial, multi cultural and meritocratic society consisting of ethnic groups

such as Chinese, Malays, Indians and others. It was founded by Thomas Stamford Raffles, an

Englishman, in 1819 and remained as one of the British settlements (known as the Straits

Settlements) composed of Penang and Malacca. It was part of Federation of Malaysia until its

separation in 1965. Due to its geographical location in Southeast Asia and proximity to

Malaysia, Singapore has continued to attract wide influx of people from diverse origins. The

presence of Indians in Singapore can be traced back since the time of its inception.The Indian

migration and settlement in Singapore took place at various points in history (for details see

Arasaratnam1970; Sandhu and Mani1993). Indian migration produced a diverse community

comprising convicts, labourers, imperial auxiliaries, traders and businessmen. In 2005, the

Indian community accounted for around 8.7 percent of the total population of

Singapore(Shantakuma et.al2008:568). The Indian community remains a heterogeneous unit

dominated by ethnic Tamils.

Table:5. Singapore Residents by Ethnic Group ( June 2005)

S.No Ethnic Groups Total(thousand) Percentage%

01. Total 3,553.5 100 02. Chinese 2,684.9 75.6 03. Malay 484.6 13.6 04. Indian 309.3 8.7 05. Others 74.7 2.7 Source: Singapore Department Statistics (2005) quoted in Rai (2008).

According to Hodder, there existed racial and ethnic enclaves in colonial Singapore. The

Chinese were concentrated in the congested part of the city, the Malays resided on the

western fringes, and the Indians lived in the southern part of the central city and primarily

worked in railway and docks(Hodder1953:29).It has been argued that Singapore was a plural

society prior to self-government in 1959(Chiew1985:51-4). The state managed the process of

de-pluralisation since 1959, by a slew of policy measures to break down ethnic barriers

(ibid: 55-7).As a result, Singapore society enjoys high levels of structural integration and

national identity (ibid: 61).

Since its independence in 1965, People’s Action Party (PAP) has continued in power in

Singapore. The model of ‘cultural pluralism’ or ‘multiracialism has remained the ideology of

PAP which accords equal status to the cultures and ethnic identities of the various ‘races’ in

Singapore(Benjamin1976:115). The constitution of Singapore ensures that there shall be no

discrimination against any citizen on grounds of religion, race, descent or place of birth.

PAP’s commitment to ‘multi-racialism’ was part of a political strategy that recommended

principal treatment for the four streams of education-Chinese, Malay, English and Tamil

which laid the foundation of Singapore’s ‘multiracial policy’ and a subsequent bilingual

education system(Lian and et al 2002:230).

Photo: 3. MahaMariamman Temple of Singapore Gazetted as a national monument on 6 July 1973. Source :www.streetdirectory.com.

Indians have been well represented in the parliament as well as the cabinet. Singapore has

had two Indian Presidents since independence. Thus, Indians are found at all levels of

Singapore civil service. Tamil is recognized as one of four official languages. Indian popular

culture is very much visible in the public sphere of Singapore. The popularity of Indian

culture is manifested in the popularity of ‘Little India’ , the neighbourhood in and

aroundSerangoon Road full of Indian religious, cultural and commercial institutions

including shops and restaurants.

As part of the policy and practice of multiracialism, the adoption of racial/ ethnic group as the

official classification of the Singapore population into four categories is commonly known as

‘CMIO’ (Chinese, Malays, Indians and others). However, it is more than an administrative

category which nurtures ethnic distinctions and revitalizes ethnic identity and culture

(Benjamin1976). Further, the heterogeneous population of Singapore that gets subsumed into

four categories is marked by complex diversity (Rai2008:45). In addition, many

Singaporeans have come to accept the CMIO model, which is racial and is regarded as

reference point in their relation to other ethnic groups (Lian2006:230). In an attempt to

depoliticize ethnicity, the PAP government through its multi-racial policy has racialized

society (Lian2006: 229). However, despite all the criticisms, Singapore remains the only state

in Southeast Asia that has successfully integrated all the major existing races into its national

culture and identity.

2.4Thailand

The emergence of the Indian community in Thailandmaybe considered an outcome of various

waves of migration. Tamil Hindus as well as Tamil Muslims and Bohra Muslims were the

early migrants to Thailand. It was followed by the movement of Punjabis, Hindi speaking

Gorakpuris from eastern Uttar Pradesh,Sindhis, Parsees, Gujarati Sunnis, Pathans and

Bengalis who all belonged to different phases of migration to Thailand.The Punjabis are a

predominant group amongst the Indian community at present and ninety percent of them are

Thai citizens. Around 40 percent of them are Thai citizens by birth (Mani1993d:944).

Given the liberal Thai culture and provided an easy access and acceptance into wider Thai

society, the process of assimilation is very much visible amongst the Indian community.The

Tamil Hindus who represented the first wave of Indian migration to Thailand in the

nineteenth century have assimilated (Mani1993d:941). Similarly, the Tamil Muslims, the

Bohras, and the Pathans, have shown different levels of assimilation into Thai society

(ibid).A study by LipiGhosh(2004) shows that the number of inter-ethnic marriages in the

second and third generation have been on the rise(Ghosh:2004:159).

The second generation Indians have taken to Thai language, food and have adopted the

acculturation process well.However, there are some who have maintained their own cultural

identity without being part of the acculturation process and some others who are selectively

accommodating Thai culture.The former would include the Gorakpuris, and the latter

involves the category of Hindu Punjabis and Sikhs(ibid:161).

Photo:4. Sikh Religious procession in Pattaya of Thailand. Source: www.pattayamail.com

Table.6. Marriage Patterns of Indians in Thailand

Ethnicity of Spouse

1st generation 2nd generation 3rd generation

Thai

0%

14%

47%

Indians

100%

86%

53%

Source: LipiGhosh(2004)

The DawoodiBohra Muslims and Tamil Hindus exemplify cases where interethnic marriages

amongst the early migrants resulted in the indigenization of their religious institutions. To

cite an example, the Sri MahaMariamman Temple that was built in 1870 by the Tamil

migrants, is administrated by the descendants of such interethnic marriages. The temple has

been also popular amongst the Thais and the Chinese.The temple has also responded to the

religious needs of the wider Thai society and its devotees. In 1953, a huge statue of Lord

Buddha was incorporated into the temple pantheon. This may be attributed to the fact that

Thailand has followed the principle of ‘one king, one religion, and one culture’ in order to

create an ethnically homogenous society. Despite the integration and acculturation process of

the Indian community being well underway, a complete assimilation is far from being

realizeddue to the geographical proximity and cultural rootedness in India.

2.5Indonesia

The Indian community constitutes a miniscule ethnic minority in Indonesia. It is a challenge

to determine the real demographic strength of the Indian community here due to its attempt to

assimilate with the host society and claim an Indonesian identity (Singh2007:195).Most

European travelogues refer to the South Indians as ‘klings’ and ‘Chulias’ and the North

Indians as ‘Bengalees’, owing to their geographic origins. Indians though scattered across

Indonesia are predominantly settled in North Sumatra and Jakarta (see for details Mani1993b,

1993c). The presence of Indians may be traced to the colonial times when the Tamil and Sikh

labourers came to workon plantation and other service sectors. Thereafter, the Chetttiars,

Sindhis, Malabar Muslims, Gujaratis , Indians from Uttar Pradesh and other parts have

entered into a variety of occupations as money lenders, traders, gold smiths, dairy farmers

and so on.

Photo:5.Balinese Hindu worshipers walk during the TawurAgung ritual ahead of 'Nyepi', Bali's Hindu New Year.Source: www.rediff.com

The earlier Tamil and Gujarati Muslim migrants assimilated in the host culture through inter-

ethnic marriages (Mani1993c:122-124). Thus, Indonesia exemplifies a melting pot

tradition.The descendants of the mixed marriages who claim the Indonesian identity are

found in all parts of Indonesia. After the independence of Indonesia in 1948, the political

developments, economic recession in the 1990s and resurgence of Islam began to impact the

Indian community. As the Indonesian government favours the integration and assimilation of

ethnic minorities to create a national culture, the degree of integration of the Indians has been

found to be differentiated and not uniform.

The Sindhis and Sikhs, given their high economic status, have tried to maintain their socio-

religious and linguistic identity. On the other hand, in the case of Hindu and Muslim Tamils,

and the Gujarati Muslims, the process of integration has been rapid. As the national language

‘Bahasa Indonesia’ has been promoted as part of nation building, Sindhis, Sikhs and Tamils

have shown their concern towards the declining literacy in their own respective languages

amongst their children (Mani2008:249). The acculturation process has occurred at varying

levels amongst the Indian community in Indonesia.Nevertheless, given the diversity of

various indigenous ethnic groups,the Indian community has managed to maintain its

linguistic, religious and regional identity despite the on-going integration and assimilation

process with the host culture.

2.6Other parts of Southeast Asia

The presence of Indian Diaspora is very small in certain Southeast Asian countries, namely,

Brunei Darussalam, Indochina and the Philippines.Numerically, the Sindhis are in majority,

followed by the Sikhs, who constitute a major group amongst the Indians in the Philippines.

The Indian community is apolitical, urban in nature and given its small size, has been gradual

and slow in integrating socially and culturally with the host state (Rye1993:760-761).Brunei

gained independence in 1984. At present, the Indians are found in the various sectors of

economy and business establishments. Brunei doesn’t allow full citizenship rights to the

foreigners as part of its national policy. Thus, the Indian community constitutes a group of

transients and sojourners.With such a status, the question of their integration or assimilation

into the society of Brunei doesn’t arise.As regards the Indian migration to the states of

Indochina, it remained primarily for business and economic purpose. The Chettiar

businessmen were engaged in money lending business. They were dominant in particular in

the region of Saigon, where they had built Hindu temples which had assets worth 50 million

Indian rupees as per an estimate done in 1971(Chanda1993:33).

Photo:6. The Hindu temple in ruins that are dedicated to the Lord Shiva in Central Vietnam.UNESCO World Heritage Site.Source:http://www.beontheroad.com

Chettiar community may be found in every state of Indochina except Laos. However, the

Sindhi community is engaged in business in all the countries of Indochina. The exodus of

Indians from South Vietnam took place in the immediate aftermath of the communist

takeover. The Indians began leaving Saigon (present Ho Chi Minh city) for Singapore. A

similar situation emerged in Laos too which led to large scale exodus of the Indians. The

Indians left Cambodia in 1975 following the victory of Khmer Rouge who advocated the

expulsion of foreign nationals on a large scale. The earlier Hindu and Muslim Tamil migrants

assimilated with the host culture of Indochina, while theChettiars and Sindhis chose to

maintain their links with India. Overall, given the political instability and a hostile

atmosphere towards the non-nationals, Indochina didn’t attract the Indian community.

3. THE PACIFIC REGION:FIJI

The Fiji archipelago is located in the South-West Pacific region between 15’S and 22’S and

177’W and 175’E and has approximately 300 islands of varying sizes with a total land mass

of 7,056 sq. miles. The majority of its population lives on the two largest islands namely,

Vanua Levu and VitiLevu. Fiji is a multi ethnic nation comprising two dominant ethnic

groups, indigenous Fijians(56 percent), Indo-Fijians 37 percent(most of whom are

descendants of Indian indentured workers),Chinese, people of European descent and other

Pacific Islanders. The Indian community of Fiji is a microcosm of India. Indians are found in

the rural and urban parts of the country.

Fiji became a colony of Britain in 1874. The ‘divide and rule’ policy of the British led to the

emergence of ethnicity based colonial political economy. The Indians were engaged in sugar

industry monopolized by the Australia based Colonial Sugar Refinery (CSR). They worked

initially as plantation and mill workers but later turned into smallholding tenant farmers.

Indigenous Fijians were largely confined to the traditional sectors of the colonial economy,

although a small proportion of them entered the wage employment sector in mining and copra

industries and also in the colonial military and police service. The arrival of labour market

based on ethnicity under the colonial political economy resulted in the advent of ‘classical

plural society’ as Furnivall had advocated. The protectionist policies of the British

administrators led to the segregation of Indians and indigenous Fijians, and ever since, the

two cultures have little in common and have maintained a distance regarding education,

religion and other practices(Lal2004:24;Campbell1989:175-6).

Sir Arthur Hamilton Gordon, the first Governor of Fiji, laid down the policy of inalienable

Fijian right to land, which has continued even today.As regards control over land, the

majority constituting 82.16 per cent remained with the indigenous Fijians, 9.45 per cent was

with the Crown and only 8.39 per cent was private(Lal 1988:24). The Indians owned a mere

1.7 percent of the land. Since the majority land ownership remained with the indigenous

Fijians, the Indo-Fijians were dependent upon the grant of lease (Nandan2000:22). Land

continues to be the most contentious issue between the natives and the Indo-Fijians.

The Indo-Fijians had made demands for long lease of 99 years as the current system offered

short term lease for30 years. The short term system didn’t give the Indian tenant farmers

sufficient security of tenure to make productivity enhancing investments like drainage,

irrigation etc. However, the Fijian landlords remained reluctant to allow control over their

land for such long periods (Davies2000:43). The question of land and lease remains

unresolved despite half-hearted measures adopted by successive governments.

In the aftermath of the indenture system, the descendants of the free migrants and the ex-

indentured labourers established their living under agriculture, trade and commerce

(Lal2004:22-23). The Indo-Fijians have continued to play a major role in the trade and

commerce sector. After ninety six years of the British colonial rule, Fiji gained independence

in 1970. At the time of independence, Indo-Fijians (48.6%) slightly outnumbered

themajoritynativeFijians who constituted 46.2%of Fiji’s multiracial

population(Lal1990:115).

The higher birth rate of Indians reduced theindigenous Fijians into a minority. This led to a

sense of fear and concern amongst the natives which was followed by a range of policy

measures under the 1970 constitution to ensure the inalienable rights of land for the

indigenous Fijians, their political representation and maintenance of their traditions and

customs. The amendment for these provisions required the consent of the Council of Chief in

the Senate. The communal nature of the Fijian political system has been highlighted by

Ahmad Ali who has argued that it resulted in a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the Indo-

Fijians who have been treated as second class citizens compared to the native population.

(Ali1976:425).

For the past 34 years, Fiji has witnessed a number of coups led by the indigenous Fijians,

owing to the constant problem of political instability. Four elected governments were

overthrown in the following years - 1987 (twice) , 2000 and 2006. Fiji’s first Prime Minister

of Indian origin, MahendraChaudhary was deposed in 2000.The revised constitution of 1990

reserved political offices, ensured employment opportunities, educational and training

scholarships, government loans, grants and funding for the indigenous Fijians thus adversely

impacting the interests of the Indo-Fijians(Prasad2009:175).

The policies of Qarase government further marginalized the interests of Indo-Fijians in the

area of land, fishing rights, education, employment in the civil service and statutory bodies

thus denying them equal and effective citizenship rights at par with the natives (ibid). As a

result of military coups, discriminatory legal provisions, and rising fundamentalism, the Indo-

Fijian community was forced to leave the country. Indo-Fijians continued to emigrate from

Fiji. This led to a constant lowering of their numbers from being 51 per cent of the population

in 1966 to just 38 per cent by 2005(Srebrnik2008:93).

Photo:7. Looting in the streets of Suva during the 2000 coup.Source: AFP Photo. Fiji Times,2000.

They migrated to a diverse range of countries within and beyond the Pacific, from southern

hemisphere countries such as New Zealand and Australia, to Canada and the United States in

the north. As a result, they have emerged as a transnational community across space.

Fiji went to the polls on September 17, 2014 to elect a new democratic government on the

basis of new revised constitution after a military rule under Rear Admiral Frank Bainimarama

who had earlier overthrown the elected Prime Minister LaiseniaQarase in 2006. The 2013

constitution abolished the earlier race based electoral system and adopted the system of ‘one

vote, one value’ .Despite the democratic transition that has taken place in recent times, the

persistence the Fijian version of apartheid, the non-natives continue to remain landless and as

aliens in their adopted land. The Australian historian, K.L.Gillion, in his study of the history

of Fiji, states that “they continued to adapt to the land to which their great grand parents

came”. (Gillion1977:198).

CONCLUSION

The making of plural society in Fiji and Southeast Asia by the colonial powers is based on

the notion of ‘ascriptive ethnicity’. This notion of ascriptive ethnicity has been used by

Taylor (1982) to emphasize the essentialist notion of ethnic difference. The colonial policies

and practice like the racial division of labour which is based on ascriptive ethnicity has led to

the perpetuation of ethnic and cultural differences, ethnicization of races, racialization, racial

stereotyping in Fiji and other Southeast Asian societies. The colonial discourse on ethnic

distinctions such as ‘native’ and ‘immigrant’ or ‘local’ and ‘alien’ has adversely impacted

the ethnic relations after decolonization in Southeast Asia and Fiji. Thus, the process of

racialization of Fiji and the Southeast Asian societies is well rooted in colonial past.

Racialization in colonial society, however, is not same as racialization in post-colonial

society(Lian2006:222).

After decolonization, the dominant or majority native groups in Fiji and other countries of

Southeast Asia have tried to politicize the ethnic, cultural differences and identities and have

appropriated it for seeking privileges. Thus, the dominance and hegemony of the majority

native population towards the minority “other” appears in all the areas of social, political and

economic life in Fiji and Southeast Asian states, except Singapore. Under such

circumstances, the process of integration of the Indian community in those states has

remained inconsistent and contradictory. A complete assimilation, despite a range of

integrative and assimilative measures by the host state, remains impossible due to the rich

civilizational and cultural heritage and geographic proximity with India.