Violence
and discrimination against non-Muslims continues
This month
marks the 10th anniversary of the reformasi movement in
Indonesia. Begun with the shootings of four Trisakti University
students in Jakarta, a week of violent demonstrations throughout Java
followed, and the subsequent political turmoil, including brutal
anti-Chinese riots in Jakarta, eventually removed former President
Suharto from power. May 1998 remains an important milestone for the
imperfect and sometimes chaotic progress the country has made toward
representative democracy.
In this
beautiful tropical country, well-founded fears among minority groups
have been rampant and rounds of exoduses of persecuted minorities are
expected in the near future. This month marks the escalation of two
things that the Indonesian government has been consciously imposing
on its minority constituents: the politics of avoidance and the
politics of listening to the loudest. That is, Indonesia’s
government is notorious for avoiding legal actions against human
rights abuses and for bending to Islamic extremists and radicals,
regardless of the fact that they make up less than 10 percent of the
overall Muslim population.
The 1998
violence, which included looting and targeted gang rapes, resulted in
1,338 deaths and the rapes of 92 Chinese minority women, according to
tallies by human rights groups; among the casualties were some who
were considered “native” Indonesians. There are several
theories on who orchestrated the anti-Chinese incidents, yet Komnas
HAM, the human rights commission created by the government to
investigate this incident, has not come up with any substantial
conclusions.
As long
ago as 2000, Komnas HAM was criticized by the Asia-Pacific Human
Rights Network for its repeated failure to respond to individual
victims’ complaints and for its “conciliatory and
clandestine mode of engagement (that) commissioners prefer to take in
dealing with the government. It quickly became apparent in interviews
with Commissioners that many were still committed to an old style of
affecting change — using the Commission’s ‘good offices’
to the exclusion of a publicly transparent and, when necessary,
adversarial role.”
The
government has also failed to protect innocent citizens by its
refusal to apply a civil action lawsuit in April 2008 enacted by the
Supreme Attorney General, Kejaksaan Agung, on the ground that it is
awaiting the results of an ad hoc tribunal. No meaningful
follow-ups have been done after 10 years.
One of the
most disconcerting recent developments is the possibility that the
government will back away from its original stance and outlaw
Ahmadiyya, an Islamic sect of about 200,000 that was labeled
“heretical” by the Indonesian Ulema Council and Bakor
Pakem (Monitoring Mystical Beliefs in Society Agency). The Ulema is
known for its active stance against secularism, pluralism, and
liberalism. The United Nations Committee against Torture has
recommended that the government refuse to outlaw the sect, saying the
ban would legitimize persecution of the members of the group. UNCAT,
in Geneva on May 16, noted that security forces and authorities had
failed to provide Ahmadiyah members with adequate protection or to
conduct prompt, impartial and effective investigations into the
recent violence against sect members.
The
politics of avoidance or of listening to the loudest are also evident
in the country’s failure to nullify more than 600 and possibly
more than 1,000 sharia-based and sharia-inspired bylaws enacted in
municipalities, in which include regulating women’s
participation in the public sphere and dress code. In Tangerang, just
10 kilometers from the capital city of Jakarta, arrests and charges
of prostitution have been reported against female factory workers
simply because they were working night shifts. In Padang, non-Muslim
women have been forced to wear the hijab, or head scarf.
In Aceh
Nenggoro Darussalam, oppression of “religious freedom”
within the context of Islamic tolerance also appears in writing that
might have been lifted directly from ancient Middle Eastern
practices, which are obsolete and unrealistic in today’s
circumstances.
According
to anthropologists on the scene in Aceh, non-Muslims have been forced
to sign unilateral written agreements, or so-called “social
contracts” in the province that agree to limit worship
activities, banning prayer groups in residential areas and limiting
the number of churches allowable in those areas. Clauses in the
agreements say failure to comply would result in destruction and
possibly, human casualties.
On top of
that, a widely popular fundamentalist political party, the Prosperous
Justice Party (PKS), which has been receiving support from those in
power and even moderate ulemas, has been successful in
instilling fundamentalist elements in society through pop-culture,
such as the wildly popular movie “Love Verses” or
Ayat-ayat Cinta.
Of course,
there is nothing wrong in instilling exemplary virtues in society,
such as compassion and grace, as long as messages of “mine is
better than yours” aren’t promoted nor imposed as heavily
in insensitive ways. It would be favorable to filter out such
arrogance intelligently by referring to the Quran’s Book of
Feast 5:48 that clearly promotes respect of differences, “If
God had so willed, He would have made you one community, but He
wanted to test you through that He had given you, so compete in doing
good.”
Unfortunately,
this verse is not that popular.
While few
political observers and scholars think Indonesia will become the next
Islamic theocracy, we should be prepared for more “Arabizations.”
If worst were to come to worst, Indonesia would become the world’s
largest Islamic state in which, under Quranic law non-Muslims, are
considered second class and categorized into three: dhimmis
(permanent residents who pay a jizyah or poll tax in exchange for
protection), hudna (those who sign a treaty after being defeated),
and musta’min (those who are not obliged to pay the jizyah tax
but are urged to convert to Islam).
Indonesia
boasts a pluralistic and tolerant culture, which is evident in its
moderate Muslim majority. The question is why are most of them
silent? And why does the government listen to those who speak the
loudest, the radical extremists? The Indonesian Ulema Council does
not seem to represent the peaceful majority either.
If the
politics of avoidance and the politics of listening to the loudest
continue, Indonesia’s spiral into the darkness is going to the
point of no return. Please don’t let Indonesia become a land of
legalized persecution.
At last,
allow me to cite a Somalian author who wrote in New York Times, “When
a ‘moderate’ Muslim’s sense of compassion and
conscience collides with matters prescribed by Allah, he should
choose compassion.”
Jennie
S. Bev is a columnist for The Jakarta Post
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comments
Show/Hide comment form
Coal surge is unabated, raising environmental concerns
Vietnam takes command of the issue
Arnoldus Lapre,
91a Marshall road,
Carlingford, N.S.W. 2118,
Australia.