Thin line between hero and villain

AS I write this, I am in India – or Bharat as they want to call it now – visiting the southern states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu.

India is a land of many hues; the people speak different languages in each state, and even between districts.

It’s also a land of many stories, from Rudyard Kipling’s Jungle Book and Arundhati Roy’s God of Small Things to great ancient epics like Mahabharata and Ramayana.

In South India, though, some tales are being retold; the hero becomes the villain and the bad guy finds redemption. It’s true of the Ramayana, for one.

In ancient belief, Rama was the godly reincarnation who killed the “evil” Ravana. He had a bridge – Ram Sethu – built with an army of “monkeys” before crossing into Sri Lanka to rescue his kidnapped wife, Sita. But the southerners are questioning that.

Their take is that the fair-skinned northerners who wrote the tale had portrayed the southerners as monkeys.

“Why should a bridge built by southerners be named after Ram, a northerner?” asked Raj, my travel agent friend in India. To him, Ravana, the villain of the piece, is actually the hero.

“Note that Ravana did not even touch Sita while she was in his custody, while Rama expected her to prove that she was chaste by walking on fire even after her rescue. Now, who is the better person?” he asked.

Of course, the Westerners call it Adam’s Bridge. But that’s another story.

We have something of a similar quandary with our own great tale. Was Hang Tuah the hero, or was it Hang Jebat?

Jebat rebelled against the sultan when he ordered the death of his friend Tuah. It was a show of fierce friendship and loyalty to his warrior mate.

Yet, Tuah, who had been spared by Tun Perak, came out of hiding to kill his filial friend. His obedience was to the sultan who had actually ordered him to be killed. Tuah was probably the worst kind of friend, but he remains a hero to many for his loyalty to the sultan.

So, who was the better person? It’s a question that has no real answer. It’s also a question for today. Who are our heroes? And who are the villains?

Back in the late 1960s, Tunku Abdul Rahman was painted as the bad guy.

He was accused of selling the country to the Chinese – at a huge price to the local Malay-Muslims.

The man at the forefront of the criticism was (now Tun) Dr Mahathir Mohamad, the man who later ran the country for more than two decades.

Dr Mahathir was long hailed as a hero. He was behind the PETRONAS Twin Towers, the country’s new administrative capital Putrajaya, our own national car Proton, and my favourite – the North-South Expressway.

He was the father of modernisation. The keyword, though, is “was”.

How the hero has fallen. Now, questions arise about Dr Mahathir. Is he hero or villain? His current supporters, who were once his sworn enemies, obviously consider him a hero.

But many more, with broader minds, see him as the country’s villain today.

He has been behind much of the discord in the country with his controversial attacks on the non-Malays. He has questioned the rights of the non-Malays in the country. He wants vernacular schools banned, blaming them for the huge, widening divide between Malays and non-Malays.

However, many others point to him – and his refusal to let go even 20 years after his retirement – for the huge racial divide in the country.

He has formed one Malay-only party after another and vilified the non-Malays, often ignoring the fact that he himself is a descendant of an Indian immigrant from Kerala (where I was last week).

Now, he has yet another controversial complaint. He says the non-Malay immigrants (pendatang) have become leaders of political parties, something he claims cannot be done in countries like Thailand, the Philippines and Indonesia.

I just saw a video where schools in Indonesia are having places of worship for Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and Christian students, so Dr Mahathir is wrong. The Indonesians are embracing their diversity.

The former prime minister often says Malays and Malaysians forget easily.

But in his old age, he seems to have forgotten that these pendatang-led parties, like MCA and MIC, were at the forefront during our fight for independence.

Dr Mahathir was a nobody when people like Tun Tan Cheng Lock, Tun HS Lee and Tun VT Sambanthan boarded the ship with Tunku Abdul Rahman to England for independence talks.

The British granted independence to a nation that promised peaceful co-existence among the various races.

Dr Mahathir was, in fact, kicked out of Umno for his rabble-rousing. It was Tun Abdul Razak Hussein who brought him back, and now even Razak’s son has told him to zip it.

Datuk Seri Najib Razak may have his faults, but his 1Malaysia vision was something noble. It envisioned a multicultural nation with all races living in harmony.

Dr Mahathir was something like that once. He drew up Vision 2020, a plan for a multiracial Malaysia with a united people, one where all could find their place under the sun.

But now, he is saying Malaysia cannot be called multiracial but has to be a Malay nation with the non-Malays being second class unless they assimilate.

While his Vision 2020 preached tolerance and togetherness, the man who espoused it now preaches hate and divisiveness.

So now we are faced with the big Malaysian dilemma: Is Dr Mahathir a hero or a villain?

It is a difficult question. I remember many shedding tears when he announced that he was leaving in 2003. Who can forget Tan Sri Rafidah Aziz’s loud cries for him to reconsider? It was difficult to think of a Malaysia where Dr Mahathir was not prime minister.

Even people like me, who were left jobless and in fear when he unleashed Ops Lalang on the country, were sad to see him go.

The only problem was he never went.

He stayed on in various forms – and for many, he has now overstayed his welcome.

For me, as a third or fourth-generation Malaysian of Indian descent, he was once a hero. But not anymore. He has taken his place among the villains in the country.

And he is not alone. When you think about it, our current prime minister is also shuttling between being hero and villain as things unfold in the country.