Gus Dur supporters won't stage violent protests: NU leader
Gus Dur supporters won't stage violent protests: NU leader
Criticisms against President Abdurrahman Wahid have reached
unreasonable levels, according to ali Maschan Moesa, chief of
East Java branch of Nahdlatul Ulama, the staunchest supporter of
the President. He told The Jakarta Post's contributor Sirikit
Syah in Surabaya that the anti-Gus Dur campaign is adversely
affecting development programs, and that members of Indonesia's
10,000 pesantren (Islamic boarding schools) should stand up and
take action.
Question: How do you explain the rage of NU members when Gus
Dur is harshly criticized?
Answer: We are in a dilemma here. We are really enraged. Those
criticisms have gone too far, too much, and unreasonable. It is
not productive for the people and the development programs.
But we do have to exercise our common sense. We can be as
heated as anything (over the criticism) but we must remain cool-
headed. We do not instigate NU members or people to be angry.
Instead, we talk to them, listen to them, and together seek
solutions. One of the plans (for the solutions) is what we are
organizing now.
Q: Are you referring to a campaign to mobilize the pesantren
people to Jakarta in defense of the President?
A: It is not just for defending the President. It is to let this
government carry out its job in a conducive climate. And we will
not launch a massive and violent demonstration. We will talk to
legislators, executives, public figures, prominent leaders, NGOs,
etc.
We want all elements of this nation to be together in seeking
solutions in a peaceful manner.
Q: There have been other religious groups who held massive,
sometimes violent, rallies in Jakarta. What is your comment?
A: I think they are just using religion as a vehicle to achieve
their political ambitions. What is important is to use political
means to reach religious aims, to apply religious rules and way
of life. Not the other way around; otherwise, it would be
dangerous and this is what is happening in Indonesia at the
moment (the abuse of religion for political gains).
Q: We have seen leaders of the two largest Islamic organizations,
NU and Muhammadiyah, engage in a war of words. Your comment?
A: In East Java, at the leadership level, the two organizations
enjoy very good relations. We understand and respect each other,
and we agree that differences between our national leaders are
just a discourse that enrich people in a democratic setting.
People in the lower ranks of the organizations should not
interpret the squabbles as fatal disputes.
But I admit that many of the grassroots tend to be emotional,
and that is because they have strong solidarity and loyalty.
Debates among leaders of the two organizations transform in the
lower level as friction. (This is why) we, the leaders of those
organizations, work hard to avoid a major clash.
Q: What do you think is the solution for our community now being
torn apart by differences?
A: This is the time for reconciliation. The plan to establish a
Commission of Reconciliation must be realized now. Somebody must
pursue and bring this to reality.
Unfortunately, Indonesia has lost a mediator (for conflicting
parties). It used to be Gus Dur who acted as a mediator in the
past. Now he is the President. So far, there is nobody trusted
enough by all parties to become their mediator.
This is the weakness of the reformation era. Everybody thinks
he/she is more important than the other. The elite are busy with
the sound of their own voices, with the help of mass media,
ignoring the real problem and the real needs of the people.
Q: What is the real need of the people?
A: What people need is more economic opportunities, more access
and security. In short, they want an encouraging environment for
their businesses and livelihood.
In the rural areas, many people are able to solve many of
their problems quite well, maybe because they are supported by
adequate agricultural activities and products.
The situation is more difficult in urban areas. People have
greater interaction with other people; they are more easily
influenced, easily provoked, and definitely more sensitive.
Take, for example, the Christmas Eve bombings, it could easily
have been done by people so desperate over their poverty that
they were easily 'bought' (by people assigning them to do the
bombing). It could also have been because they were sensitive and
easily influenced.
Q: You mentioned the bombings. What do you know about them?
A: They could have been done by a small group of people suffering
from a post-power syndrome. They used to be in power, but they
have lost it. Or, they had expected to attain positions of power
in this reform era but failed to get them. They might have been
frustrated (enough to perpetrate the violence).
Q: Surabaya was spared from the bombing, but small towns like
Mojokerto were targeted...
A: I think it was because the ulema and umara (religious leaders
and political leaders) work closely (in Surabaya). We work
together in fighting terrorism, provocation, threats.
Actually, East Java in general has that basic capital, which
is a unity among ulema and umara, and also between different
religious leaders or religious organizations.
Q: Rijanto, who was killed in the bombing in Mojokerto, was a
member of Nahdlatul Ulama militia Banser...
A: His sacrifice was extraordinary. I think he deserves (current
local campaign to have him posthumously declared hero of unity).
Q: Rijanto was killed when a bomb, which he tried to remove from
a church's yard, exploded in his hands. What does this act say
about Banser?
A: Banser and GP Ansor (Nahdlatul Ulama's youth wing) have
commitments to humanity, peace, and unity. Of course, sometimes
some members get too carried away and become over sensitive and
act beyond the norms and rules. A very small number of Banser
members might be overacting and overreacting. Unfortunately, this
is what is mostly remembered by people.
Q: So, sacrifice for the sake of humanity is the spirit of
Banser?
A: Yes, and this is not new. It has been like that since 1965.
But in recent days, I admit that some Banser members go too far
as by working as guards for shops or real estates owned by
Chinese businessmen, simple and commercial things like that. I
think they should be more selective in playing their roles.
Q: There are reports that Banser also backs some gambling
businesses in Surabaya...
A: It cannot be true. (They wouldn't go) that far. Banser members
would have been expelled from the organization if they had really
been involved in such vice. Perhaps people mistook them for
members of some other 'forces.'
I don't think this information is accurate. But I will check.