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.