Monday, August 1, 2016

Why Kabali is not S.A Ganapathy

I am totally disgusted reading an article published in Malaysia Nanban "Yaar Antha Kabali (Who was Kabali) on the 31st July 2016 which seems to be misleading and having mixed up "Kabali" and "S.A Ganapathy" and "The Klang Strike 1941", thus giving the impression that the character Kabali was based on Ganapathy's life story. 
Yaar Antha Kabali - Malaysia Nanban 31st July 2016

Even more disgusting when some caste based quarters in Tamil Nadu started to claim that the character Kabali was based on their own caste (which Ganapathy belongs to) after reading the article, unlike as widely claimed by many and Kabali's own director Pa.Ranjith that the movie based on Dalits on struggle in Malaysia.
(I refrained from naming any community/caste names implicating Ganapathy as I believe Ganapathy was not belong to any caste. Ganapathy's ideology was based on class struggle but not caste struggle!)

Based on the article, it only managed to refer one incident in the movie which related wage issue to Ganapathy. This is a dire mistake. The editorial team gave reference of this incident to "The Klang Strike 1941", without even realizing that Ganapathy was not involved in 1941 Klang Strike!

Even though colonial records show Ganapathy already an active member of Malayan Communist Party (MCP) in 1939, but he was not involved in Klang Strike 1941. The Klang Strike was staged under leadership of R.H Nathan and Y.K Menon of CIAM - Central Indian Association Malaya. The reason behind why Ganapathy did not involve in Klang Strike was due to an "important issue" which effected almost all Indians migrants living in Malaya at that time- which I will reveal in my book. Apologies for that!

Other than that there are some factual errors in the article:

1. It was mentioned in the article that Malayan Communist Party - MCP was banned in 1947. Actually MCP was only banned in 1948. There were representatives of MCP took part in public events organised by Pan Malayan Federation of Trade Unions in 1946 and 47.

2. The article mentioned that Ganapathy was member of Malayan National Liberation Army (MNLA). No colonial document nor historians mentioned about this. Even the one who would had a full access the colonial secret files, Anthony Short, did not mention that Ganapathy was part of MNLA in his works. This is one of the reasons why Ganapathy was caught on Waterfall Estate and not in the jungles.

3. It was mentioned in the article that Ganapathy was the person who informed Nethaji on Japan defeat in WW2. But this is yet to be proven. There could be other Ganapathy(s) in INA.

4. It was mentioned Nehru took personal interest in Ganapathy's case. But it is a bit strange to read the colonial documents that mention only one day before Ganapathy to be hanged, Indian High Commissioner to UK, V.K Krishna Menon met Lord Listowel to discuss about Ganapathy. The telegram to save Ganapathy was sent from the UK Prime Minister Atlee's office less than one hour before Ganapathy to be hanged. If Indian leaders intended to save Ganapathy, they would have taken all measures in the earlier stage. After Ganapathy's execution, Periyar criticized the Indian leaders of their inertness and failed to act in promptly.

5. The article also mentioned that The Straits Times editorial exerted pressure upon High Commissioner of Malaya Sir Edward Gent to take drastic action against strike organizers. This statement was taken directly from my blog. Of course, I have mentioned this in my blog referring to the editorial. But only those who have researched well in labours strike in Malaya would understand it was not the editorial, but the United Planters Association of Malaya (UPAM) and the Rubber Growers Association (RGA) who lobbied a huge and expensive campaign to ousted Gent from Malaya.

6. The article failed to mentioned Ganapathy's involvement in Hartal 1947. It failed to mention his speech during a meeting in Ipoh on the 15th Oct 1947, which was published in full text in many newspapers at that time including The Singapore Free Press, Indian Daily Mail and The Malaya Tribune. The essence of the man's struggle and his ideology reflected clearly in his speech that day. I have extracted the speech in my blog

It was in deed a misleading article by Malaysia Namban - who have taken 98 percent from my blog and thank Wikipedia instead (even Wikipedia made many reference to my work). I know the person responsible to circulate this rumour.

I would seek the readers' judgement to dissect the article. Stop this insult - Ganapathy was not a gangster like Kabali! Unlike Kabali, Ganapathy fought against the oppressive British capitalist regime in Malaya. Kabali, in other hand, blamed the Chinese and the Malays for the deplorable condition of the Indians in Malaysia!    

No comments:

Post a Comment

Bukit Sembilan Incident - Police Killing Was Justifiable said Coroner

More on Kedah Riot 1947- The Straits Times dated 1st April 1947 reported that the Coroner who judged the Bukit Sembilan case of police brut...