Is the world headed for an Asian future? Not if we don’t admit to some inconvenient histories

Asia’s leaders, intent on dragging their countries into developed status, kicking and screaming, are ignoring festering historical fissures that threaten any developmental gains, writes Imran Shamsunahar

Imran Shamsunahar

Published: 7:32pm, 9 Aug 2019

Why you can trust SCMP

“The future is Asian,” boasts Parag Khanna, a Singapore-based consultant in his recent book of the same name. Khanna believes that as American unipolarity begins to ebb, the Asian regional system will increasingly begin to exert itself on the world stage, reorienting the global economy, altering geopolitics, and elevating the appeal of Asian cultural norms worldwide.

Certainly, there is much evidence to support Khanna’s thesis. Asia now accounts for 50 per cent of global GDP and two thirds of global economic growth. It hosts some of the world’s largest economies and produces, trades and consumes more goods than any other region.

Yet, as the ongoing protests in Hong Kong and the May riots in Jakarta have showed, key financial centres in the Asian system remain vulnerable to disruption. The trumpeted economic rise of Asia, from Southeast Asia to the subcontinent, remains stunted by the spectre of unresolved histories. These are historical tensions hailing back decades and pertaining to issues of national identity, violence and power, and the value of pluralism and tolerance. Asia’s leaders, intent on dragging their countries into developed status, kicking and screaming, choose to ignore the festering historical fissures that threaten to wash away any developmental gains.

Singapore back in play as more Hongkongers consider migrating due to deepening political crisis

Supporters of Indonesian presidential candidate Prabowo Subianto throw rocks at police during clashes in Jakarta. Photo: AP

Indonesia’s altogether successful completion of a momentous presidential election on April 17 was tarred by two days of violence in Jakarta between supporters of losing candidate Prabowo Subianto and police. For many Indonesians, violence and democracy is an old story, with its young democracy birthed out of the rioting that gripped Indonesia’s cities in 1998, eventually leading to the downfall of Suharto’s New Order regime. The riots in Jakarta alone in May 1998 killed an estimated 1,200 people.

As observed by Indonesian writer and activist Andreas Harsono, the violence that permeates Indonesian history is tied to both the cynical pursuit of power by elites, as well as a culture of impunity that protects them. Ghosts of Suharto’s New Order continue to bedevil Indonesian stability. The rise of hardline Islam as one of the more pertinent issues of this recent election can be traced to the Islamisation of society under Suharto, who sought to balance the military by currying favour from the Islamic lobby.

Is India’s Kashmir move an attempt to shift its Muslim demographic?

Although most hardline Islamic groups threw their lot in with Prabowo this election, Widodo’s choice of conservative cleric Ma’ruf Amin as running mate caused consternation among liberals about the further normalisation of conservative Islam and what this means for Indonesia’s religious and sexual minorities. The still ambiguous position of the military vis-à-vis civilian institutions also remains another remnant of the Suharto era.

Across the Indian Ocean, another momentous election was being concluded on the subcontinent. A general election in India saw the return of Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) with an even larger majority in parliament. Although the election was dominated by issues of economy and national security, fears have been raised about whether the return of the BJP will see an ongoing entrenchment of Hindu nationalism within Asia’s greatest democracy.

Hindu hardliners, one holding a sword, chant slogans against Muslim communities during a rally demanding in northern India. Photo: AP

The school of thought referred to as Hindu nationalism, or Hindutva, traces its roots to the twilight of the British Raj, when Indian intellectuals debated how a future Indian nation would be defined. While the likes of Nehru and Gandhi were successful in establishing India as a secular state that respected minority rights and cherished pluralism, Hindutva advocates saw India defined by its Hindu majority. According to political scientist Kanchan Chandra, Hindutva ideas range from the mere symbolic recognition of Hinduism by the state as first among equals, to a more hardline system of privileging Hindus over minorities.

Starting under Indira Gandhi and further expedited with the accession of the BJP in 2014, India’s traditional democratic, secular values have been increasingly eroded in favour of majoritarian rule. Alongside the increased testing of India’s democratic institutions by the Modi government has been the further marginalisation of its minorities. Indian Muslims, for example, have been the victims of Hindu vigilantism based on the accusations of seducing and converting Hindu women (labelled as “love jihad”), and the mistreatment of cows – the lynching of Muslims by cow protection gangs often implicitly backed by police.

On the ground in Kashmir, feelings of loss, betrayal and helplessness as Srinagar remains in lockdown

Members of United Hindu front demand the deportation of Bangladeshi and Rohingya Muslims, in New Delhi. Photo: AFP

Hindutva has also reshaped the practice of Hinduism itself, moulding what was a once of myriad of different practices mediated through ethnicity and region and into a monolithic Hindu identity. While a best-case scenario is that Modi will now choose to ignore divisive religious issues in favour of economic development and international statesmanship, the social fissures that his government has stoked threaten the future unity of this rising economy.

In Malaysia, the spectre of racialised politics continues to bedevil aspirations by the Pakatan Harapan coalition in creating a “new Malaysia”. One of the most controversial aspects of Malaysia’s brand of racial politics, its affirmative action policies which privilege Malays in university spots, government contracts and company equity, traces its roots to the racial riots of May 13, 1969. The bloodletting that took place in the streets of Kuala Lumpur and killed up to 600 people remains an ugly scar on Malaysian history, constantly exploited by Malay nationalists to warn of the dangers of the social contract ever being challenged.

What Mahathir’s call for Malay unity means for Pakatan Harapan – and the opposition

This despite criticism that pro-Malay policies have resulted in a culture of crony capitalism, as well as to scare away foreign investors and hurt productivity. Recent calls by Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad for the Malays to unite under his party else they become “weak” suggests the current leadership has no intention of moving past this racialised mentality.

Protesters wear opposition Islamic headbands reading in Arabic ‘Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party’ during a rally in Kuala Lumpur. Photo: AFP

Tied in with this notion of Malay supremacy has been issues concerning the prerogatives of Malaysia’s Sultans and the rise of conservative Islam, the latter a legacy of Mahathir’s first stint as leader. This has created what writer Murray Hunter dubs the “Islam-Royalty-Malay Rights” nexus, which he refers to as an “almost unmovable barrier to any sense of secularism” within Malaysia. Fears of being perceived to be threatening royal (by extension Malay) rights has already forced the Pakatan government to backtrack on its earlier commitment to accede to the International Criminal Court.

The institutionalisation of hardline Islam has seen the government continue to equivocate on the issue of extraditing controversial cleric Zakir Naik, while steadfastly refusing to entertain LGBT rights. Meanwhile, a man was jailed in March for 10 years for insulting Islam in a Facebook post, and recently a seminar promoting tolerance to Shiite Muslims was cancelled following online bomb threats.

Granted, perhaps I am being too much of a pessimist. Asia may well bury its past, maintain stability and roar ahead to claim its place in the sun. But an Asian future that ignores fostering healthy democracies, ethnic pluralism and religious tolerance in favour of only economic growth and material gain? What a soulless future indeed.

Post