opinion In a week which saw the well-deserved (albeit somewhat late) recognition of VS Naipaul's literary contributions by the Swedish Nobel Prize Committee, some cheer could be discerned from the committee's citation which mentioned, among others, his role in painting repressed histories.

Any attempt to proffer alternative histories should always be welcomed for the simple reason that too often history is postulated as the domain of the winners. How significant was the role of the Other in, say, the French Revolution? Is the staid and austere Robespierre the hero or is it the egregious and somewhat lover of life Danton? Both reached their ends at the foot of Dr Guillotine's invention.

Or is it Napoleon or some other? What about the ordinary French men and women? What about the role of ordinary men and women?

Closer to home then Deputy Prime Minister Tun Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman touched many a chord in the hearts of Malaysians in the early 1970s when he suggested that our national heroes who were not in the pantheon of the great and good should be recognised for their contributions.

Thus names like Ibrahim Yaakob, Ishak Haji Mohammad, Dr Burhanuddin El-Hilmy and Ahmad Boestamam began to percolate in Malaysian history classes which till then were suffused with Umno and Alliance leaders in hock with the likes of Stamford Raffles, Robert Clive, Lord Minto and Lord Nelson.

The salient point here is that it took the then second highest leader in the land to proclaim what is evidently historical truth, or at the very least an alternative historical reading of a significant period in our country's history.

Voice and engag

Where was the voice of the intellectuals then?

National laureate Muhammad Haji Salleh wrote:

Keberanian intelektuil itu
lebih payah dari keberanian jasmani
Kau berani melihat dan memikir,
berdiri di tengah kenyataan
yang dielakkan oleh zamanmu.

(di kubur chairil, 1973)

Avoidance of contemporary socio-cultural realities would certainly not fit the definition of an intellectual, engaged or otherwise.

Perhaps this is what WS Rendra meant when he wrote in his poem Kelelawar:

Apakah aku akan menelepon teman?
Apakah aku akan makan udang gapit di restoran?
Aku sebal terhadap cendekiawan yang
Menolak menjadi saksi
Masalah sosial di poles gincu menjadi
metafizika.
Sikap jiwa dianggap maya dibanding
mobil berlapis baja.

(1982)

Over the past few weeks there have been news that 61 lecturers have been at the receiving end at various universities. Other than that statement by Dr Wan Manan of the Academic Staff Association of Universiti Sains Malaysia, the silence of other academicians and intellectuals in articulating a response has been quite deafening.

Poet and national literary laureate Usman Awang reflected on the role of intellectual in a seminal speech he made at Malaysia Hall London in 1970. The gist of his speech is best reflected by a large segment of his life which is about engagement. The intellectual as engag; not mere spectator.

A Samad Ismail, one of the better and certainly astute minds of his generation, also encapsulated this especially in the earlier and middle part of his life.

Samad, Natsir and Chomsky

Indonesian intellectual Muhammad Natsir (prime minister of the nascent Indonesian republic in the early 1950s) often talked about noblesse oblige with regard to the role of the ulul-albab (intellectuals) in their respective societies.

Noam Chomsky, the MIT linguist, also spoke of the need for intellectuals to engage and be part of the solution. Although his statement that "if you are not part of the solution, then you must be part of the problem" may seem to be a little bit overdoing it, nevertheless there could be some truth to it.

It is thus with sorrow that we note a certain tendency lately to exercise or stretch our minds against softer targets.

The atrocious events of Sept 11 in New York have, deservedly, gained attention including of our domestic commentators.

However as Param Cumaraswamy, the UN Special Rapporteur, said while officiating at an art exhibition in Ampang on Oct 10, while we abhor injustices on the international front, we do need to remember injustices in our own backyard including the incarceration of Anwar Ibrahim.

It is perhaps easier to focus our attention at external problems rather than on domestic problems which are too close to home.

So who is colluding, or dancing to the tune of dictators?

Thus it is to our regret, the seeming picking on Anwar Ibrahim over his article carried by Time magazine and picked up by the International Herald Tribune (See Farish A Noor's '[#1] Hijacked Islam - who indeed Mr Anwar?[/#]', Oct 11 ).

Open season on Anwar?

Is it open season on Anwar now? Safely incarcerated, unable to respond efficaciously and certainly not publishable in mainstream media unless to be pilloried, he is now the subject of apparently disinterested intellectual inquiry.

Anwar is not beyond criticism as is any public figure especially in the realm of public morality. But in all fairness, was it Anwar who was involved in shenanigans aimed at bailing out bankrupt companies? Was it Anwar who caused this nation to be at this particular crossroads?

Is Dr Mahathir Mohamad such a blameless and perfect leader? Muslims know too well the meaning of maksum and the impossibility of mere mortals to be infallible.

However such is the intellectual mindset now so that Anwar the incarcerated, the demonised, is the root cause of all evils whilst the powerful and mighty are not to be criticised.

This of course goes against the grain of all major religious and civilisational traditions when those in power are exonerated of all evils while the victim is to be pilloried.

Has Dr Farish A Noor overlooked the example of Ahmad ibn Hambal who chose to speak truth over silence against the temporal authorities of his day? Or of Umar al-Khattab who told his citizens to correct him when he makes mistakes?

But perhaps Anwar ensconced in Sungai Buloh is a softer, and infinitely, safer target.

And the intellectual, who suddenly attempts to reclaim voice, finds it convenient to direct his flak at the intellectual adversary whose voice is being silenced.

The litany of supposed infractions by Anwar include dealing a tough hand on Al-Arqam, PAS and the "creation of a climate of fear in the country".

Touching base

The scenario created such that it would not be stretching the imagination to suggest that Anwar could have been responsible for the actions of one Jean Bedel Bokassa, one-time army sergeant who proclaimed himself emperor of the Central African Republic? Or perhaps the sundry activities or atrocities committed by whalers.

Perhaps therein lies the problem of intellectuals flitting from one conference to the other without touching base with real people and real problems of their society.

Can anyone seriously believe Anwar helped in the creation of a climate of fear and oppression? Perhaps by some solipsistic argument on the lines of "Anwar chose to defy Mahathir on major policy issues, thereby forcing Mahathir to dismiss him from government; thence to ensure efficacy of the sacking various measures had to be taken which entailed the creation of a climate of fear". Perhaps to answer this point would be to lend credence to the ridiculous.

The unkindest cut of all, the icing on the cake, would surely be Farish's assertion referring to Anwar, that "With all the free time that he has. . ." Would anyone really, really like to exchange places with Anwar, to enjoy the "free time" that he has? I repeat, anyone? Despite Farish's having not much of a problem with the message, since when have intellectuals generally placed greater emphasis on the messenger rather than the message?

Unless of course one subscribes to the trivialisations of intellectuals by writers such as Paul Johnson rather than Julien Benda's treaties on intellectuals.

Why the great exception taken to Anwar's pointing out of Dr M's double-speak, satisfying domestic and international constituencies in the same breadth?

Farish pointed out Anwar's receiving honours from foreign governments as examples of colluding with dictatorial regimes. Being part of a team in government engaged in constructive relationship with those governments does not enable an insider to pontificate, no matter what one's personal reservations are.

But to equate that act with active endorsement or collusion to such regimes is surely an over-simplification and an act of injustice.

The sorrow is all the greater because I have enjoyed reading, and substantially in agreement with many of the theses posited by Farish. Always measured, cogent and well thought-out as a researcher. His articles have been a pleasure to read.

I certainly hope to continue enjoying his writings, although perhaps in areas where certainty is not with him he should be more circumspect in pontificating on it.

RAJA AHMAD AMINULLAH is a cultural activist and student of history. He is currently pursuing his passion in writing essays and poetry.