After all is said and done, who is Indonesian?

After all is said and done, who is Indonesian?

By Peter Richards

This is the second of two articles exploring the identity of
Indonesians.

JAKARTA (JP): So what is it to be an Indonesian? For the
first time in decades, this question is in play.

The attempts to find answers are risky. Indonesians have been
trained for a third of a century to supplicate rather than
negotiate, to pretend that a smooth surface is all one needs to
know about water. Yet from out of the shadow of imposed
homogeneity emerges an untidy reality of the perceptions and
aspirations of individuals and groupings.

The exercise of who is a real Indonesian begins with two
groups. One is an ethnic minority that resents that its members
are, to some extent, excluded from the de jure and de facto
definitions of what a real Indonesian is. The other is a
minority, many of whose members seem to feel that they are
included in the definition to some extent beyond their desire.

Chinese households suffered destruction and worse in May. And
not only in May. And not only in Jakarta. Maybe Indonesia can
"make it" without Chinese-Indonesians. Maybe not.

The relevant question is: Are Indonesians of Chinese origin
Indonesian or aren't they? If they aren't, is it because of the
way they look, their philosophical beliefs, their occasional use
of a language other than Bahasa Indonesia, the enormous wealth of
some of their number, the relative wealth of others from their
ranks, their apparent relations with foreign nations and
cultures? It cannot only be these characteristics since they are
common to all Indonesian ethnic groups considered to be
indigenous.

Or, is it because in line with the Dutch colonial model they
are categorized as being of Chinese origin (keturunan) and not
from an ethnic group (suku bangsa), as all other Indonesian
citizens are?

If this is the case, why does modern Indonesia continue to use
this colonial model of tripartite status? This model is not
particularly flattering with its division into rulers (once the
Dutch), the masses (once the inlanders, now the rakyat or
people), with the Chinese as intermediaries.

Go-betweens excluded from all but commercial functions in the
interests of the ruling caste, and always vulnerable to
scapegoating should the anger of the masses need to be deflected
from those at the top.

Whose interests does it serve to keep these long-time
residents of Indonesia in a position where they are expected to
be loyal -- if second class and vulnerable -- citizens of
Indonesia where their actions as "non-native" are always subject
to greater scrutiny than those of "natives"?

Why would bigots accept as sincere President B.J. Habibie's
claim in his recent state address that "the goal is that everyone
and every community, whether native or not, whether indigenous or
not... can feel as a legitimate citizen with equal rights,"?

The very concept of "non-native" and "non-indigenous", when
applied to citizens who's families have lived for many
generations in Indonesia, invites a differentiation that can lead
to and excuse irresponsibility all round.

Many of the indigenous people of East Timor have died (and
killed) to assert their desire not to be Indonesian as they
understand that term.

Why are East Timorese behaving towards the Indonesian state as
Indonesian nationalists did towards the Dutch colonial system? Is
it credible that the answer has anything to do with loyalty to
the now defunct and famously unenlightened Portuguese empire?

What does it say about what it is like to be an Indonesian of
Melanesian extraction? What does it suggest about the perceptions
of other people in the lesser Sundas, Moluccas and Irian Jaya who
were incorporated into the Indonesian republic long ago?

These are the immediate issues. But there is an equally
pressing issue concerning Indonesians of Moslem faith from Sabang
to Merauke. Simply put, are Indonesians of Moslem faith
completely Indonesian or aren't they? If they aren't, is it
Islam's connection with the Arab world that makes this so? Is it
because some link them with possible majority oppression, with
obscurantism, with backwardness? Is it because of the way many
dress? Is it because a small number of Moslems sought decades ago
to make Indonesia an Islamic state? Is it because some
Indonesians recall proudly the days when their regions were
independent Moslem states?

The list is long of those who regret their relationship to the
official myths that define what it is to be 100 percent
Indonesian. It includes people all the way from Aceh to Irian
Jaya.

In the last analysis, are the masses set "floating" in the
Soeharto years full Indonesians or not? They have distinct views
shaped in the context of rising standards of communication and
education in the Soeharto era, but in stark contrast to the false
rhetoric of that period.

Being silent is not the same as being stupid. It could be time
to talk and listen. It could be time for generosity, a quality
that can achieve what all most desire and prevent what all most
fear.

The writer is a former Canadian diplomat who is now working as
a tourism marketing consultant for the Indian Union Territory of
Pondicherry. He has written this article in a private capacity.