The Hindraf assembly was an illegal assembly. The Hindraf memorandum to the British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown contains exaggeration of ethnic cleansing which exposes its authors to the charge of sedition, or worse still the ISA under domestic law. Appealing to UK and Indian governments expose them to charges of being disloyal to their own country with Rustam Ali demanding a revocation of their citizenship. On top of that they would be mindful that racial discrimination in general and marginalisation of Tamil Hindu in particular would generally be considered a domestic issue in relation to which other countries would normally not interfere by international law and norm. Yet they went against these odds.

The Hindraf leaders are, by majority, lawyers. They ought to know the law, whether domestic or international. Indeed they know it but chose to disregard abiding by it. Why?

Increasingly, it is becoming clear, that whilst taking huge risks, they have a daring but coherent plan.

They are smart to know that the crux of the problem here is the prevailing political architecture of racial cum religious discrimination. And they know that no matter how hard one tries to dismantle this architecture by traditional means of the ballot box, civil discourse and abiding by the law, it will be an exercise in futility.

The plan from day one is to throw a red herring in filing a mega RM27.7 trillion suit against the ex Colonial power (that has no hope of winning), mobilize a demonstration, exaggerate the extent of Hindu Tamil’s persecution for the greater objective of riveting international attention to the architecture of racial cum religious discrimination in Malaysia, galvanizing international support for their cause, and principally subjecting the government to international scrutiny of its national discriminatory policies in the hope of bringing to bear unto the Malaysian government international pressure and moral opinion to dismantle what must be the last legalized bastion of Apartheid in the world after South Africa.

It is as if to say since domestic pressure does not evince the remotest chance to make the government change its stance, why not try, for a change, international pressure by spotlighting Malaysia’s inequitable policies to world’s scrutiny and attention?

Already Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said New Delhi would take up issue with KL; Waythamoorthy’would meet US State Department Malaysia desk officers, congresspersons, senators and human rights group;one or two Labour Party parliamentarians are likely taking up issue to ask our government to stop the demolishment of temples. Where would it lead to?

Of course the ruling elites are angry. They are because the strategy is working.

Pressure will be exerted if the plan works smoothly. How could, for example, government leaders posture with liberty to lecture Myanmar junta generals on democratization when their own backyard has the same problem?

The very life blood of crony capitalistic system upon which politicians feed here for sustenance is investment and business which will be subject to all kinds of risks (the worst being sanctions, though I am not suggesting it is anywhere near there at this moment) if and should international pressure intensifies and gathers momentum!

It is shrewd calculation that international opinion and moral pressure is also likely their greatest ally should and if the powers-that-be deems it appropriate to incarcerate them for breaking domestic laws.

To be sure many things can go wrong with this epic and ambitious strategy – a classic non violent strategy, Ghandi style but I shall not dwell at this juncture with these risks.

Suffice to say, what they try to do – by defining their Cause and Movement on a narrow frame of reference of Tamil Hindu plight for which they have been severely criticized by moderates and liberals as not being sufficiently broad based and inclusive of other oppressed Malaysians – may well prove the strategy that represents most hope for all Malaysians of ever pressuring the powers-that-be make concessions to revise the NEP and tone down the race based aspects thereof.

The authors of Hindraf memorandum were not interested in its factual accuracies (the part on ‘ethnic cleansing’) because their main agenda was to dramatise the Hindu Tamil plight, bring Malaysia’s architecture of discriminatory policies to the fore of international scrutiny and subject Malaysian government to international pressure to ameliorate if not dismantle them.

It is all part of a classic non-violent civil disobedient strategy, which began, with a non-starter red herring of a RM27.7 trillion class suit against the ex-colonial government.

Right or wrong, Hindraf leaders are positioning to portray the country as a kind of last surviving apartheid “rogue” regime violating the principles in the UN Declaration of Human Rights in the hope that like Myanmar it will be subject to international pressure to dismantle the architecture of discriminatory policies.

The government is furious because the strategy shows a promise of working to an extent as Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said New Delhi would take up the issue with KL via diplomatic channels; US state officials will be seeing one of their leaders, Mr.P.Waythamoorthy and one or two Labour parliamentarians evinced intention to raise the issue with the Gordon Brown’s government.

With international support being galvanized, Malaysian government leaders will be severely embarrassed if they try to posture on the international stage to lecture other countries like Myanmar on its civil and human rights record.

Also it is also the very nature of patronage system within the BN to rely on foreign investors’ support to sustain the various infrastructure projects (the various “Corridors”) to sustain and feed it. If the government’s image as observer of basic human rights is dented, it will have negative effect on its capitalistic programs.

It is striking where it hurts.

The other advantage of international support is that any attempt to arrest them under ISA or Sedition would elevate their stature towards that of Aung Sang Su Khi’s, at least that’s what they hope.

Where Hindraf’s agenda may by original terms of reference be restricted to narrow Hindu Tamil’s concerns, and has been criticized by liberals and moderates as exclusive of broader Malaysian concerns, yet what it does – and even if it was executed with scant attention to niceties of legalities – still it represents a glimmer of hope for all Malaysians wishing for the country’s discriminatory architecture to be dismantled, now that international pressure has been canvassed where domestic pressure has so far proven inefficacious.

Whether the grand strategy would work or back fire with the government’s tightening its grip and ordering a crackdown, remains to be seen.