In the famous 19th century record Hikayat Abdullah, the writer Munshi Abdullah Abdul Kadir recounts the story of his life as a British colonial subject and the wonderful events that he witnessed in the course of his travels in the Malay world. Being himself a colonial subject who lived during a time of unprecedented social change and upheaval, Abdullah was very much a product of the modern age as well.

One of the most spectacular episodes that he witnessed in his life was the gathering of the British war fleet that had come together in the port-city of Malacca, prior to the invasion of Java, that was led by men like Lord Minto and Stamford Raffles.

The arrival of the war fleet took place in the year 1811, and Abdullah describes the spectacle thus:

pada tiap-tiap hari selalu sahaja kapal-kapal sampai, pada sehari empat-lima, barangkali sebuah; sehingga penuhlah pelabuhan Melaka itu dengan kapal berlabuh, berjajar seperti tiang pagar rupanya tiang kapal-kapal itu.

Abdullah was amazed by the speed and efficiency of the British colonial authorities, who could bring together such a large number of ships bearing troops, weapons, food and other requirements for the military campaign that lay ahead. He noted in detail the uniform and equipment of the soldiers, their marching drill and the strict discipline that was enforced while they were bivouacked by the beach.

At another point in his narrative he describes his close encounter with these troops, who turned out to be made up of a host of different nations and religious groupings. There were Rajputs, Pathans, Sikhs and other communities, all bound up in one single polyglot army that could be moved about anywhere on the globe and be made to fight in the name of another country that wasn't even theirs.

That the British were able to command foreigners to do their bidding was, for Abdullah, the secret of their success and power. When he interviewed the Indian sepoys and asked them why they were laying down their lives for the sake of the British crown - a foreign power which had, after all, conquered their land and colonised them - their answer was simple.

The sepoys argued that they were treated better by their British colonial masters than their own patrons and rulers in India. What is more, the British introduced something that was entirely new and modern to their colonised subjects: the contractual relationship.

Abdullah notes that the modern contract was a symbol of progress and modernity. He could not help but compare this modern Imperialist army that was held together by agreements written on paper with the armies of the Malay kingdoms that were still organised and run according to the parochial and primordial links of clan loyalty, patron-client bonds and ethnic belonging. How different the two systems were!

The British had managed to bring together a disparate crew of foreigners through the device of the contract, while the Malay Rajas still demanded that their people die for them out of a sense of personal loyalty. When it came to the fight, Abdullah was in no doubt as to which side would emerge triumphant.

The modern contract managed to build modern and efficient armies, while the traditional system of rule in the Malay lands produced ill-disciplined and poorly organised forces with low morale and even less motivation to fight. As soon as the first shot was fired, the Malays were more likely to drop their guns and bid a hasty farewell to their Sultans and Rajas before quitting the battlefield.

Modernity takes over

Munshi Abdullah's narratives - the Hikayat Abdullah and the Kisah Pelayaran Abdullah - remain as two of the most important works in the corpus of Malay literature that depict the process of change occasioned by the arrival of modernity to the Malay world. In them we see how the world view of the Malays was changed due to both internal and external variable factors in the course of the 19th century.

The net result of this long and problematic process of development and social upheaval was the creation of the modern colony known as British Malaya and later, independent Malaysia.

The Modern age is one that is characterised by the subtle and not-so-subtle shifts and changes that Abdullah describes in his writings. The modern world is one that is atomistic, compartmentalised, highly regulated and controlled. The care of the public and the care of the individual self often takes place within a regime of control and surveillance, leading to a complex inter-relationship between power, sovereignty and rights.

The modern citizen-subject is given rights that his pre-modern ancestors never had, but she/he also has to live with new responsibilities and obligations, and has to come under the regime of the State which protects and polices her/him at the same time.

Abdullah enjoyed the legal protection of the British colonial powers, but he also realised that he was very much subjected to their laws and contracts. These are the costs of Modernity, something which we all have to pay for.

But the regime of Modernity is also known for its tendency towards policing the subject as part of its pastoral duties. All Modern states, and modern Malaysia is no exception to the rule here, tend to create and enforce systems of social management and government that effectively police the boundaries of society and what takes place within that social space.

So it is hardly surprising that during the modern era we see more popular writing and mass communication taking place, but also more censorship and control over what is said. The Modern function of policing takes place everywhere around us.

We see society - and ourselves - being governed and tutored practically every day of our lives, and at times this form of policing can be quite explicit and not very gentle. Our ideas, tastes, values and preferences are policed and guided by the censor, the market, the fashion show, the cinema, the popular novel, by pressure groups and political lobbies, and of course by the police force themselves.

Policing in all its varied forms is a normal part of modern life - indeed it happens to be one of the key constituents of Modernity and the Modern project itself. Can one imagine a modern world without policing? That would almost seem to be a contradiction in terms.

The problem, however, arises when the tensions between the Modern and the Primordial arise and when modern states are forced to deal with individuals who cling onto beliefs, values and practices which are loosely categorised as pre-modern, un-modern or primordial.

Return of the Primordial

It would seem ironic that the march of Time has not eradicated the hold of our primordial beliefs and values. By 'Primordial', we are not referring to practices or beliefs that are necessarily negative or obnoxious in themselves. Not all primordial beliefs and values are necessarily bad or reprehensible - (unless you happen to be a die-hard fanatic of modernisation who thinks that anything which goes against the current of Modernisation must be opposed).

Here the term 'Primordial' refers not only to pre-modern beliefs, practices and values but also those which cannot be accommodated by modernity. Some social scientists have argued that feelings of patriotism, nationalism, clan-love, group-feeling and traditionalism are essentially un-Modern or even anti-Modern. We are told that to live in the modern age, the modern individual must give up her/his longing to return to the past, or the dream to belong to some un-modern totality like the Ummah.

The same social scientists will tell you that in the modern world one must necessarily play by the rules of the modern age: We cannot try to go back to some Golden Age of the past, be it the Golden Age of Islam, Christianity or Hinduism.

We are also told that to harp on about the values and traditions of the past is tantamount to a rejection of Modernity and Modernisation, and those who harbour this penchant for the nostalgic are out of place and out of time.

Where then does this put us, who are forced to live in the present age with all its in-built contradictions? Does obedience to the Law of the land mean that we have to discard our belief in our religions, our faith and our values? Does playing by the rules of Modernity mean that we need to subsume all our beliefs and ideas to the all-powerful register of Modernity as well? Is there no space, no room for tradition and traditional notions of kinship, community, justice and fairness?

These questions are coming to the surface all over the world today, and in the unevenly developed Third World in particular. In most of the countries of the developing South, we see nation-states in crisis with modern State structures and governments trying to cope with the resurgence of religions and traditions.

Problematic relationship

The modern State tries to govern according to contractual bonds that are universal, but they are thwarted by the emergence of opposition movements that speak the language of religion, tradition and culture instead.

That we are witnessing the return of the primordial is itself proof of the hollow claims of Modernity. For most of us who live in this modern age are not as convinced or persuaded by the charms of Modernity the way Munshi Abdullah was.

Abdullah may have been impressed by the tightly regulated and governed world he lived in, but those of us who reside in this brave new world of the modern age know full well by now that Modernity is also laden with myths, fallacies and contradictions of its own.

Modernisation has not brought with it the promises of the Enlightenment and progress. We do not live in a world that is safer, healthier or more just. Indeed, in many parts of the developing world today all we see is the use (and abuse) of the tools of modernity for the sake of power and riches. Modernisation has not made all of us into civilised human beings, but instead turned some of us into more efficient killers and thieves instead.

As the charms of modernity begin to fade away, people the world over are asking the same questions. Do we still need to abide by the laws and conventions of the modern age? Do we still need to obey the laws and abide by the social contracts that bind us within this increasingly narrow and policed social space?

Can there not be other sources that inspire us with the notion of Goodness, Justice and Freedom? Can religion, for instance, provide us with the spiritual and moral depth that is so lacking in this cosmetic and two-dimensional modern world of ours?

All over the world, we see the revival of popular religion and tradition as it tries to address precisely these questions. The problematic relationship between Modernity and the Primordial just got more problematic.

In a sense, this seemingly irreconcilable impasse was evident in the standoff that took place on the Kesas Highway (photo) earlier this week, when supporters of the now-jailed ex-deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim confronted the officers of the Malaysian police force.

On the one side there were those who insisted that theirs was a struggle based on justice and ethics. Their support of a man they take as their leader and role-model is founded on powerful inter-personal bonds which modern technocrats and law-makers may find difficult to understand.

Their recourse to a moral vocabulary based on religion and traditional notions of Justice was something incomprehensible to the modern realist.

On the other side there were the members of the state security forces, who were performing the task given to them and obeying their orders like all contracted agents. Their sense of loyalty was not so much to a person or a idea, but to the function of policing itself.

By performing their function without question, they were merely obeying the dictates of the modern contract and doing what they were paid to do. 'Menjalankan Tugas' (Doing our job) and 'Mengikut Perintah' (Following orders) are their modern mantras.

The clash between the protesters and the State security forces was therefore a complex one that took place on several registers. On the surface it seemed like a simple confrontation between two opposing camps, but when one looks at the event and the political crisis that preceded it in closer detail, one can see that something much deeper is at work here.

For the real question now is who defines what is Justice? Is it to be based on the State's modern notion of law and order, stability and harmony? Or is it to be based on the Islamist notion of Justice as embodied in Islam? Or perhaps the traditional Malay understanding of Justice which demands that a condemned man be given a fair chance to defend himself in the open?

Whatever the case, the dilemma remains- Between Modernity and Primordialism, which comes first and which overrides the other? Two centuries later, the predicament of Munshi Abdullah, the Malay-Indian Muslim colonial subject who stood in the middle of the tumultuous process of social evolution, remains with us still.

DR FARISH A NOOR is a Malaysian political scientist and human rights activist who is currently visiting professor at the Department of Islamic Studies, Freie University of Berlin. "The Other Malaysia" tries to unearth aspects of Malaysia's history and culture that have been erased or relegated to the margins, in order to remind us that there remains another Malaysia that is often forgotten.