An insight into the tragic Banjarmasin riot

An insight into the tragic Banjarmasin riot

Amuk Banjarmasin (Banjarmasin Unrest);
Dr. Hairus Salim HS and Andi Achdian;
Forewords by Dr. Mohtar Mas'oed and Setia Budhi;
Yayasan Lembaga Bantuan Hukum Indonesia (YLBHI) Jakarta, 1997;
XXII, 124 pp.

JAKARTA (JP): The bloody riot in Banjarmasin, South
Kalimantan, on May 23 last year is still fresh in our minds.
Police data lists the toll in people and property: 123 dead, 179
missing, 118 injured and five shopping centers and dozens of
places of worship razed.

Known as "Grey Friday" because it happened on the Moslem holy
day, it left deep psychological scars on the local community
which, the authorities said, had always lived harmoniously.

The tragic irony was it occurred during the electoral campaign
-- dubbed a "festival of democracy" -- as the ruling Golkar
grouping, which enjoyed full government support and protection,
embarked on its final round of soliciting votes.

Haunting questions persist. Why did it happen in a city with
almost no history of social conflict? What element in the
campaign undermined this precious social harmony? How did racial,
ethnic and religious issues figure in the unrest?

Amuk Banjarmasin (Banjarmasin Unrest) tries to answer all
these questions on the basis of reports made by a fact-finding
team from YLBHI, the Foundation of the Indonesian Legal Aid
Institute. According to its director, Bambang Widjojanto, answers
are not far removed from reasons for riots in Tasikmalaya,
Situbondo, Rengasdengklok, Abepura and other areas of the
country.

This work contains other important elements in its accurate
portrait of the South Kalimantan provincial capital. Its opening
section discusses Banjarmasin as a coastal port and the makeup of
its population, 75 percent of Malay descent but who had never
played a dominant role in civic activities, including trade.

The Malays, traditionally Moslems, are moderate in their
social and political attitudes. They had successfully maintained
peaceful relationships with people of different religions and
ethnicity. Their tolerance and egalitarianism were impressive.
Their problems were not social so much as meeting daily needs,
such as finding drinking water and dealing with frequent fires.

The second part of the book discusses the chronology of the
riot, which it says was sparked by the Golkar procession. The
latter had started early to allow Moslems to go to the mosque for
the weekly prayer service at noon.

But the behavior of Golkar activists, riding motorcycles and
in vehicles, offended Moslems, especially those at the Noor
Mosque. This anger spread like wild fire in the heated political
climate.

The book says the real aim of the rioters was to attack the
Golkar gathering at the Kamboja city square, which was attended
by the city mayor and other high-ranking officials.

Seven young men jumped on the stage at the rally and shed
their yellow shirts -- the Golkar color -- and ordered everybody
to do the same. Several local dignitaries were so scared they did
just that; some of their wives followed suit and were left half-
naked except for their bras.

Thousands of Golkar supporters in the audience also took off
their shirts before fleeing. The anarchy had begun.

For the minority who have had more than their fair share of
the pie of development prosperity, Golkar was an umbrella and
mother figure. It was the reverse for the less fortunate, who
harbored a kind of enmity against the grouping.

The perceived arrogance of the campaign organizers on this May
day pushed seething frustrations to the fore.

These had been exacerbated by security forces playing
favorites with campaigners. They were rough in handling
supporters of the United Development Party (PPP) and the
Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI), but treated Golkar members
with respect.

Slum residents joined in the unfolding riot. These citizens
have been marginalized by the national development system, which
has catered primarily to society's privileged. The riot was the
poor's opportunity to vent their frustrations at exclusion from
the development gains.

Why, then, did all this spill over into ethnic and religious
attacks? Part of the answer lies in the public's perception that
the Golkar supporters who disturbed the Friday prayer services
were Christians.

This reveals the fragile nature of social harmony, undercut by
overlapping social tensions and economic jealousy.

The work also details the messy aftermath of the riot. Many
onlookers were suspicious of official explanations that the dead
had been trapped in the conflagrations as they tried to loot
shopping centers. Rumor had it they had been shot in the
buildings.

The book fails to answer all its questions, a limitation
admitted in the foreword. Instead, Amuk Banjarmasin reveals facts
and puts them into a logical order for readers to make their own
deductions. Discussion of this problem is contained in the
statement submitted by YLBHI to the National Commission on Human
Rights, an appendix to this work.

The backcover blurb serves as the foundation's admittance of
the inevitable limitations of its investigation and a succinct
evaluation of the incident: "Things which can be recorded in this
book are the remainders of the riot: loss of life, the injured,
trauma and material losses.

"But answers to the problem of victims of political dirty
games and those who are hungry for power, the monopoly of
economic and political resources, remain in the hands of the
political elite. We face obstinate authorities who have refused
to learn from history."

-- AA Kunto A

The reviewer is a chairman of the Forum of Social and
Humanities Studies (FKSH) in Yogyakarta.