Indonesian Chinese in an unfinished integration and the premature cultural dialectics
Khairil Azhar
My memory about Indonesian Chinese has been firstly filled with the fact that several towns in West Sumatera there are locations called “Kampuang Cino” or the Chinese neighborhoods. We can find it in Padang, the capital, or in Bukittinggi, the tourist destination town where foreigners are a daily common view.
Interestingly, the neighborhoods are in the lands where Islam is a very dominant religion and the local traditions tend to be strongly held. Even in Bukittinggi, there is a mosque which is situated in the Chinese neighborhood and is side by side with inns, motels or even hotels which can be easily associated as non-Islamic or is against the traditional customs.
In both Padang and Bukittinggi, Chinese citizens are mostly working in trading field and enjoying good status economically. In Padang or Bukittinggi, if we would like to buy traditional gifts of food or handicrafts, we will find that many of the goods with good quality are sold by Chinese.
Lately it becomes a question in my mind that there is a possibility of such a segregation or localization, consciously or unconsciously, which might have happened to the Chinese fellows. Their being compounded in a certain location and to be only able to make their living in an ostensibly field, even though it is in the center of the city or town, might be a clue of what can be called as an unfinished integration, that they are still “another” among the dominating “natives”.
Furthermore, amid the homogenously built society, as if their presence is only a complementary element—whatever they have in hands or whatever they have done for the sake of the people or country—and is never completely accepted as the true members of the society.
Referring to what is called as dialectic process, which is widely accepted as the way the West Sumatrans enrich their treasure of wisdoms, the fact of the localization of the Chinese both in neighborhood and working field is a reflection of the failure of the cultural dialectic process.
As it is proposed in Hegelian method, the dialectic process requires both the thesis (which is here referred as alam or existed modality) and the antithesis (referred as rantau or the new wisdoms). As the effect of the dialectic process—in terms of negation—there should be an aufhebung, the resulted new thesis with best quality which is naturally proven more acceptable and usable.
In the case of the Chinese and Minangkabaunese (the people of West Sumatra), therefore, the cultural dialectic has seemed to be half accomplished as it stopped in the midway. There are many symbols, as the cultural evidences, for example, which have been absorbed in the Minangkabaunese language. But the possibility of the absorption through the dialectic processes has prematurely ended in a time where the dynamic of the society—as the driving force for a change—was disabled by a so far unknown thing. Consequently, there they are, our fellow Chinese who are encircled and enjoy a limited recognizably atmosphere.
In the context of Indonesia, the thing that happened in the West Sumatra seems to be a representation of the whole thing. Even worse, the current policy of the Tangerang district in Banten province to drive out the Chinese from their compound—where they have lived for more than a hundred years for an unknown development purpose—is describing how the more saddening thing is happening and is possibly to keep so.
Now and unfortunately, the state tends to facilitate unfruitful social differentiation. With the more accumulated power in the hands of the policy holders, with their more absolute and obsolete centralistic mechanisms—contrary to the democracy jargons overstated by the state officials—the possibility of unjust policies, especially over the stereotyped segments of the society because of race or religion, is much more likely to occur.
Therefore, the fastest and most possible way of a better integration—which actually means being better accepted and recognized—for the Chinese fellows, rest on the efforts to burden the continuation of the unfinished work, i.e. enabling a fresh start of cultural dialectic which had been the applicable way of enriching Indonesia as a nation in centuries.
And one of the prerequisites that should be noted is that the old definition of “cultural assimilation” which includes the assumption of being forced to culturally accept unnecessary things such as the necessity to change names, Javanization, or possibly Islamization is already out of context. Rather, there should be recognition of an entity as it is with only good governance function of the governmental institutions which can interfere.
Secondly, if a single effort of a conscious citizen doubled with another one, and then some other ones, to voice a dissenting opinion in a crowd, many better things can possibly happen. This way, we’ll open more suspicious eyes and minds and the possibility of another case like the expulsion of Chinese inhabitants of certain land will be narrowed or even never happen anymore. Or, the partitioned compounds of the Chinese in any places in Indonesia will be gradually open and someday unpartitioned.
The writer is a researcher at Paramadina Foundation
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Indonesia and the threat of identity politics
Book Review:
Indonesia and the threat of identity politics
Book’s title : Politik Identitas dan Masa Depan Pluralisme Kita (Identity Politics
and the Future of Our Pluralism)
Author : Ahmad Syafii Maarif et al.
Editors : Ihsan Ali-Fauzi and Samsu Rizal Panggabean
Published by : PUSAD, Yayasan Paramadina, Jakarta
Published in : May 2010
Pages : x + 133
Nowadays, in Indonesian plural society, violence (or the threat of violence) in the name of religion seems to haunt its people, especially the minorities. Pages of newspapers and magazines, or more some news program on TV screen, too often inform—also often perform open discussion with the involvements of clerics, politicians, observers etc.—how social unrest have been caused by certain radical groups.
Taken as the main sample is the violence or threat mostly staged by certain Islamic groups with a variety of religious “truth” claims as the basis of their movements. Among the most famous ones are Islam Defense Front (FPI), Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia (HTI), and Majelis Mujahidin Indonesia (MMI).
Ahmad “Buya” Syafii Maarif, an Indonesian leading Islamic figure veteran, whose essay is taken as the focus of debate in this book, clearly states that instead of accepting the mainstream interpretation of Islam—especially in relation to politics—and recognizing Indonesian state philosophy of unity in diversity, these groups are trying to impose, for instance, an utopia of an Islamic state and the enactment of syaria (Islamic laws). Even HTI, with its transnational networks, struggles for a worldly khilafah, that all Muslims all over the world obligatorily must unite and establish a government negating the current nation-states.
In the essay called “Politik Identitas dan Masa Depan Pluralisme Kita”, originally presented as a lecture commemorating one of Indonesian Islamic Figures, Nurcholish Madjid (1935-2005), Buya Syafii apprehensively discusses the nature of these groups—which he calls as organized crowds of “preman berjubah”, gangsters with religious robes—in the frame of “identity politics”. In this sense, these groups are understood as fighting for their political arguments that focus upon their own interest(s) in the context of a state or world which is based, to most extent, on the feeling of having been suppressed or alienated by “the certain main stream”.
While identity politics in the positive view should be accepted in the context of freedom of expression, its manifestation factually has extended to the permissibility of violence and terror. Therefore, in the context of peaceful mainstream, Buya Syafii’s views the actions done by the hardliners are defiant from the true teachings of Islam which definitely edifies pluralism and democracy. These groups, especially in their political arguments, literally and monolithically interpret Islamic canons resulted in their exclusive form of religious absolutism in politics.
However, amidst the current frauds and the possibility of threats enabled by these groups, Buya Syafii, who graduated from Chicago University in 1983, convinces the continuity of Indonesian pluralism, that unity in diversity is the best choice for Indonesian society. And this is based on his extensive comparative perspectives both in Indonesian and worldly contexts, But it is not without a prerequisite.
The main threat is what he calls as “political pragmatism”, that the incumbents and the people loses their moral and vision. Identity politics is never a danger when Pancasila, the five tenets of Indonesian state philosophy comprising of the belief in God, humanity, unity, democracy and social justice, is comprehended and implemented thoroughly.
The seven other essays compiled in this book, which serve as the comments or analysis of the main article written by Buya Syafii, discuss the above identity politics hard issue from different perspectives.
Martin Lukito Sinaga, a theologian from Lutheran World Federation, offers the alternative of “avoiding” (religious based) identity politics, that a religion should traverses the non-political way to escape from the black hole of identity politics. What should be done is to ascertain the dynamic of the identity for the most advantages and least disadvantages. And Buya Syafii, in his closing article, agrees this solution with a condition that there must be an effort to tame an identity politics to make sure its participation in democracy.
Siti Musdah Mulia, a professor at Syarif Hidayatullah Islamic State University, in her essay, analyzes the threat of identity politics in the ongoing process of the modernization of Indonesian society. So, it is a necessity to facilitate the process with ceaseless efforts of socializing the substances and undeniable urgency of pluralism and democracy. At the same time rehabilitation and assistance should be given to the victims of violence directly or indirectly caused by the radicals.
In his “warning” of the possibility of excessive anxiety in analyzing the groups with identity politics, Eric Hiariej, a lecturer at Gadjah Mada University, proposes the right of any social groups with their identity politics to exist and to be perceived justly. Improper efforts to impose pluralism can risk with the negation of certain other(s) and the failure to properly understand their existence. A group with a specific identity politics, for instance, might have been constructed as “a historical product”, that its presence might serve as a way to resist against an injustice or a medium of right to narrate.
Asfinawati, an Indonesian human right activist, differentiates the rights to think or to dream) anything—including radical thoughts—from what she says as the manifestation of the thoughts. When a dream arrives in a public sphere, certain consensus might constrain its manifested-existence because of its interference with democracy values or other any other individuals or groups. In America or England, for instance, Hizbut Tahrir is allowed while Germany and Netherlands disallow it for its anti-Semitic principle. In building a pluralistic and democratic society, Asfinawati proposes the possibility of dialog, included with the “most stubborn” radicals ever.
Budiman Sudjadmiko, a member of the House of Representatives, states that identity politics is a certainty, something inevitable, as long as its presence does not weaken the foundations of democracy, Pancasila and pluralism. Any groups in the society, with or without identity politics, should serve as the building blocks which are united by mutual understanding.
Despite of psychological constraints which affect humans to naturally be differentiated and grouped, Yayah Khisbiyah conveys the very strong possibility of harmony in a plural society. Intolerance and hatred in the name of religion, for instance, might be made possible by a library of infamy, such as mass media or even schools. One of the best ways to overcome this tendency is to establish peace pedagogy, that human characters should be constructed gradually and continuously through direct exposures of democracy and pluralism values and practices.
Tonny D. Pariela, a professor at Pattimura University, who provides the last essay of the book, presents an empiric datum of the possibility of the continuation of pluralism and democracy in Indonesia. Based on his research in Wayame Village in Maluku Province, for instance, the writer proposes the process of what he calls as “social chemistry”. In this process, while the different groups of the villagers keep their original identities, they could form a new bigger identity which serves as the survival strategy against the continuing conflicts in Maluku.
This book, despite of its compilation nature, is surely another corner stone for the knowledge about democracy building in Indonesia. It at least maps the relatively current viewpoints of Indonesian intellectuals or human right and educational activists. Besides, it can function as an introductory reading related to the issue of identity politics and pluralism, not only in Indonesia but also in the wider context because of the perspectives used by the writers.
With the focus on identity politics related to religion, this book serves as a medium
for us, as the editors write, “… to face new challenges which should be carefully faced, since identity politics is a double-edged sword: while its appearance promises an advantage (such as the possibility of widening the rights of women which was previously started from a recognition of their gender identity), its expressions in the public sphere should be managed well in order not to violate any other’s identity groups or even any individuals in a group… there should be no deprivation nor privilege because of any reasons.”
Reviewed by Khairil Azhar, a researcher at Paramadina Foundation
Indonesia and the threat of identity politics
Book’s title : Politik Identitas dan Masa Depan Pluralisme Kita (Identity Politics
and the Future of Our Pluralism)
Author : Ahmad Syafii Maarif et al.
Editors : Ihsan Ali-Fauzi and Samsu Rizal Panggabean
Published by : PUSAD, Yayasan Paramadina, Jakarta
Published in : May 2010
Pages : x + 133
Nowadays, in Indonesian plural society, violence (or the threat of violence) in the name of religion seems to haunt its people, especially the minorities. Pages of newspapers and magazines, or more some news program on TV screen, too often inform—also often perform open discussion with the involvements of clerics, politicians, observers etc.—how social unrest have been caused by certain radical groups.
Taken as the main sample is the violence or threat mostly staged by certain Islamic groups with a variety of religious “truth” claims as the basis of their movements. Among the most famous ones are Islam Defense Front (FPI), Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia (HTI), and Majelis Mujahidin Indonesia (MMI).
Ahmad “Buya” Syafii Maarif, an Indonesian leading Islamic figure veteran, whose essay is taken as the focus of debate in this book, clearly states that instead of accepting the mainstream interpretation of Islam—especially in relation to politics—and recognizing Indonesian state philosophy of unity in diversity, these groups are trying to impose, for instance, an utopia of an Islamic state and the enactment of syaria (Islamic laws). Even HTI, with its transnational networks, struggles for a worldly khilafah, that all Muslims all over the world obligatorily must unite and establish a government negating the current nation-states.
In the essay called “Politik Identitas dan Masa Depan Pluralisme Kita”, originally presented as a lecture commemorating one of Indonesian Islamic Figures, Nurcholish Madjid (1935-2005), Buya Syafii apprehensively discusses the nature of these groups—which he calls as organized crowds of “preman berjubah”, gangsters with religious robes—in the frame of “identity politics”. In this sense, these groups are understood as fighting for their political arguments that focus upon their own interest(s) in the context of a state or world which is based, to most extent, on the feeling of having been suppressed or alienated by “the certain main stream”.
While identity politics in the positive view should be accepted in the context of freedom of expression, its manifestation factually has extended to the permissibility of violence and terror. Therefore, in the context of peaceful mainstream, Buya Syafii’s views the actions done by the hardliners are defiant from the true teachings of Islam which definitely edifies pluralism and democracy. These groups, especially in their political arguments, literally and monolithically interpret Islamic canons resulted in their exclusive form of religious absolutism in politics.
However, amidst the current frauds and the possibility of threats enabled by these groups, Buya Syafii, who graduated from Chicago University in 1983, convinces the continuity of Indonesian pluralism, that unity in diversity is the best choice for Indonesian society. And this is based on his extensive comparative perspectives both in Indonesian and worldly contexts, But it is not without a prerequisite.
The main threat is what he calls as “political pragmatism”, that the incumbents and the people loses their moral and vision. Identity politics is never a danger when Pancasila, the five tenets of Indonesian state philosophy comprising of the belief in God, humanity, unity, democracy and social justice, is comprehended and implemented thoroughly.
The seven other essays compiled in this book, which serve as the comments or analysis of the main article written by Buya Syafii, discuss the above identity politics hard issue from different perspectives.
Martin Lukito Sinaga, a theologian from Lutheran World Federation, offers the alternative of “avoiding” (religious based) identity politics, that a religion should traverses the non-political way to escape from the black hole of identity politics. What should be done is to ascertain the dynamic of the identity for the most advantages and least disadvantages. And Buya Syafii, in his closing article, agrees this solution with a condition that there must be an effort to tame an identity politics to make sure its participation in democracy.
Siti Musdah Mulia, a professor at Syarif Hidayatullah Islamic State University, in her essay, analyzes the threat of identity politics in the ongoing process of the modernization of Indonesian society. So, it is a necessity to facilitate the process with ceaseless efforts of socializing the substances and undeniable urgency of pluralism and democracy. At the same time rehabilitation and assistance should be given to the victims of violence directly or indirectly caused by the radicals.
In his “warning” of the possibility of excessive anxiety in analyzing the groups with identity politics, Eric Hiariej, a lecturer at Gadjah Mada University, proposes the right of any social groups with their identity politics to exist and to be perceived justly. Improper efforts to impose pluralism can risk with the negation of certain other(s) and the failure to properly understand their existence. A group with a specific identity politics, for instance, might have been constructed as “a historical product”, that its presence might serve as a way to resist against an injustice or a medium of right to narrate.
Asfinawati, an Indonesian human right activist, differentiates the rights to think or to dream) anything—including radical thoughts—from what she says as the manifestation of the thoughts. When a dream arrives in a public sphere, certain consensus might constrain its manifested-existence because of its interference with democracy values or other any other individuals or groups. In America or England, for instance, Hizbut Tahrir is allowed while Germany and Netherlands disallow it for its anti-Semitic principle. In building a pluralistic and democratic society, Asfinawati proposes the possibility of dialog, included with the “most stubborn” radicals ever.
Budiman Sudjadmiko, a member of the House of Representatives, states that identity politics is a certainty, something inevitable, as long as its presence does not weaken the foundations of democracy, Pancasila and pluralism. Any groups in the society, with or without identity politics, should serve as the building blocks which are united by mutual understanding.
Despite of psychological constraints which affect humans to naturally be differentiated and grouped, Yayah Khisbiyah conveys the very strong possibility of harmony in a plural society. Intolerance and hatred in the name of religion, for instance, might be made possible by a library of infamy, such as mass media or even schools. One of the best ways to overcome this tendency is to establish peace pedagogy, that human characters should be constructed gradually and continuously through direct exposures of democracy and pluralism values and practices.
Tonny D. Pariela, a professor at Pattimura University, who provides the last essay of the book, presents an empiric datum of the possibility of the continuation of pluralism and democracy in Indonesia. Based on his research in Wayame Village in Maluku Province, for instance, the writer proposes the process of what he calls as “social chemistry”. In this process, while the different groups of the villagers keep their original identities, they could form a new bigger identity which serves as the survival strategy against the continuing conflicts in Maluku.
This book, despite of its compilation nature, is surely another corner stone for the knowledge about democracy building in Indonesia. It at least maps the relatively current viewpoints of Indonesian intellectuals or human right and educational activists. Besides, it can function as an introductory reading related to the issue of identity politics and pluralism, not only in Indonesia but also in the wider context because of the perspectives used by the writers.
With the focus on identity politics related to religion, this book serves as a medium
for us, as the editors write, “… to face new challenges which should be carefully faced, since identity politics is a double-edged sword: while its appearance promises an advantage (such as the possibility of widening the rights of women which was previously started from a recognition of their gender identity), its expressions in the public sphere should be managed well in order not to violate any other’s identity groups or even any individuals in a group… there should be no deprivation nor privilege because of any reasons.”
Reviewed by Khairil Azhar, a researcher at Paramadina Foundation
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
