Nahdlatul Ulama, Muhammadiyah not in 'all-out' war
Nahdlatul Ulama, Muhammadiyah not in 'all-out' war
Recent tension between two of Indonesia's largest religious
organizations, Nahdlatul Ulama and Muhammadiyah, is an offshoot
of long-standing differences. Mitsuo Nakamura, however, thinks
incidents of violence involving the two groups are a legacy of
the New Order's culture of violence. The emeritus professor at
the Department of Cultural Anthropology of Chiba University and
veteran observer of the two organizations shared his thoughts
recently at his residence in Usami, Japan, with The Jakarta
Post's Kornelius Purba.
Question: What are the main differences between the two?
Answer: Generally speaking, differences between the two
organizations are not only theological but also historical and
sociological. They are deep-rooted and widespread -- not to be
wiped out overnight. Islam in Indonesia -- like elsewhere in the
world -- is not monolithic but diversified.
NU represents older and mainstream traditions centering on
pondok pesantren (Islamic boarding schools) under the tutelage of
kyai/ulama (religious leaders). Kyai/ulama are transmitters and
interpreters of divine messages embodying the Muslim norms and
virtues in a person exemplified by the Prophet Muhammad.
They play multiple roles as preachers, teachers, counselors,
advisers, mediators, judges, and sometimes even, martial arts
trainers, healers and diviners -- in short, they are spiritual
and informal social leaders for the Muslim masses in rural areas.
Today there are about ten thousand pondok pesantren in
Indonesia heavily concentrated in East and Central Java with many
thousands of kyai/ulama. The NU is their federation. Of course,
not all kyai/ulama are NU members. But they share a common sub-
culture reinforced by guru-disciple relationships, marriage and
family ties, as well as Sufi brotherhoods.
The Muhammadiyah movement represents a modernist challenge to
NU traditions. They deny the extraordinary status of kyai/ulama
and insist on returning to original sources of divine
revelations, i.e. Qur'an and Hadith (words and deeds of the
Prophet Muhammad).
They have instituted schools after the Western model in which
secular subjects are taught in addition to religious ones. These
schools educate Muslim children to be adaptable to the ways of
life in the modern urban world.
Over the past nine decades since its foundation in 1912, the
most remarkable achievement of the Muhammadiyah movement is the
establishment of schools and madrasah (religious schools), from
kindergarten through to elementary and high school levels,
totaling around one thousand across cities and towns,
predominantly in Java and Sumatra.
On top of this huge network of schools, are located a number
of universities, institutes and academies, making the
Muhammadiyah school system the largest private school network in
Indonesia today.
Some of the Muhammadiyah tertiary institutions set extremely
high academic standards becoming as competitive as their
Christian counterparts. The Muhammadiyah is a voluntary
organization par excellence.
Members are individually registered at central headquarters
and receive membership cards with a national serial number. The
latest official information indicates that there are
approximately 170,000 registered members of the Muhammadiyah.
They are teachers, industrialists, traders, civil servants, and
private office workers.
The organization is strictly ruled by a set of by-laws which
requires frequent voting on decision-making and the election of
leaders.
These differences are undeniable but not necessarily the
source of conflict between the two. How and why then have these
differences escalated into recent confrontation and conflict? My
view is that this is exactly one of the fruits of reformation and
democratization.
Today, contests for scarce resources, especially power (i.e.
positions are openly fought, instead of authority from above or
lobbying among the parties concerned, a common practice during
the New Order days.
In this open struggle for power, political parties and other
social groupings and interest groups tend to resort to the
mobilization of religious affiliation or feelings of solidarity
based upon religion.
Mixture of religion with mass democracy becomes explosive;
unfortunately Indonesia is proving this sociological truth.
Contests for power, wealth and prestige are a fact of life.
They cannot be eradicated from the earth so long as human beings
remain human beings, i.e. not angels. The problem is how to
manage conflicts -- contain them and resolve them at a low level
of intensity so that the system does not disintegrate or
degenerate into anarchy. Here the will of leaders, decision-
makers, is crucial.
In the case of the Muhammadiyah and the NU there are obvious
differences between them and they represent different ummat
(Muslim communities). Sometimes they fight for positions --
government positions, in legislatures -- DPR, DPRD, in
ministries, and even in university administrations and student
unions. They fight, and I think that is normal.
The problem now is how to manage the fighting so that it does
not become violent. Again what is crucial is the determination of
the highest level of leadership both from Muhammadiyah as well as
the NU. I am convinced that they are endowed with reason, common
sense and wisdom. They are determined to prevent minor conflicts
from escalating into confrontation.
Q: But now with Gus Dur and Amien Rais at the top of national
leadership, violence between the two members of the two
organizations has become more violent. How did that happen?
A: Let me refrain from mentioning the incidents of violent
confrontation supposedly occurring between members of the two
organizations since I do not have first-hand information on these
incidents. The only point I want to make is that the two
organizations are not engaged in an all-out war to wipe out the
other party. That is unlikely to happen simply because they live
in different places in term of social ecology, basically in terms
of rural vs. urban.
They may defend their territories but are unlikely to invade
others. They do not have to fight for survival. They may fight
for positions, as I mentioned before, in the framework of
parliamentary democracy. But they will compromise eventually
unless they want to abolish their positions or the system itself.
More generally, I would like to emphasize the negative
heritage of state terrorism rampant during the New Order days
which has produced a general atmosphere conducive to violence.
Government terrorism under which Indonesian people suffered so
long still haunts the psychology of the people.
They feel that they have the license now to resort to violence
because they themselves were intimidated by state violence for
many years. In revenge, and in order to seek what they would call
retribution, they feel that they are now at liberty to do
anything they like including rioting, looting, and lynching. That
is the kind of situation in which Indonesia finds itself today.
Q: NU has militia called Banser while Muhammadiyah does not...
A: The Muhammadiyah also mobilizes its own self-defense units,
including Tapak Suci Silat groups, when necessary like the
national congress although they are not as well established as
the Banser for NU.
In fact, there are so many elements of militia in Indonesian
society. Indonesian villages have a long tradition of ronda, the
night watch by young men. It is a sort of self-defense
organization. Until the advent of the republic, the presence of
police forces in rural areas was so negligible. Self-defense
bodies at village level were the main means of keeping law and
order. Even after independence, government law enforcement
agencies have been weak, ineffective and corrupt until today.
Ordinary people have had to defend themselves by relying on
those self-defense bodies. I think that has been the general
situation. The period of recent lawlessness following the fall of
Soeharto regime has accentuated the presence of these self-
defense units including occasional skirmishes among them.
Especially regrettable is the use (or misuse) of them by the
military.
Banser and other self-defensive organizations are double
edged. They have positive as well as negative roles in society.
They have positive roles in terms of self-defense and self-
control. The Bansers role for self-defense is understandable in
the recent ninja attacks on NUs kyai ulama in East Java. Aspects
of its self-control are often underestimated by many.
Banser applies discipline and self-control to NU members and
supporters to prevent them from falling into disorder or
resorting to violence. I saw this many times at NU congresses and
during election campaigns where Banser guarded people and
forcibly prevented them from instigating lawlessness.
In the absence of effective law-enforcement agencies and of
basic civic manners like queuing to purchase train tickets or in
receiving food distributions, the presence of a well-disciplined
civil organization is essential.
I believe the key is the establishment of trust-worthy
national police. But, it will take some time. Meanwhile, Banser
and other civil defense or self-policing organizations have
positive roles to play.
I hope the day will come in the not so distant future when
Banser and its fellow organizations become purely educational and
recreational.
Q: What would be the reaction of the NU in case Gus Dur loses his
presidency?
A: I don't think he is likely to lose.
Q: Why are you so confident that the NU, in this case PKB, will
not become another Golkar?
A: Because of the fact that they are quite different from Golkar
in terms of religious orientation. Golkar is a secular party of
individuals who seek power. Basically, they want to grab power,
hold to power, and make money out of power. But, NU members
belief is that this life is just a preparation for the next life.
So, power in this life is nothing for them.
Of course, you can utilize power in order to make life
happier. This life itself is not the focus, but pursuing the
eternal life is. So, this kind of religious conviction makes one
less hungry for power.
Q: And Muhammadiyah?
A: Muhammadiyah is basically the same in this regard. There are
several outspoken people connected with the name of Muhammadiyah.
But, I do not think the Muhammadiyah itself is a power-hungry
organization. There is a tradition of Muhammadiyah not to
overplay their position. So, Muhammadiyah will be a watchdog of
power but they will not attempt to grab power. That is my
understanding.
Q: There is a fear that Gus Dur is becoming a new dictator and
uses NU, especially Banser, to fight against his opponents and
political rivals?
A: I think that opinion is very simplistic. There is no
comparison between Gus Dur and Soeharto at all in terms of
dictatorial power. The very fact that Gus Dur has been criticized
by some of the DPR members and by the media so severely and
openly is thanks to the fruits of the reformation. The people's
voice, or the voices of those who claim to capture public
sentiment are well heard now.
That means that there has been a major change in the power
relationship between presidency and legislature. I think it is a
very good thing that people are no longer afraid of the
President. You are no longer caught or punished by criticizing
the President. That is a very healthy thing for it is a kind of
basic element of democracy.
I don't think that Gus Dur wants to use Banser to intimidate
people. Gus Dur himself was rather angry when Banser made a noisy
protest against Jawa Pos.
Q: What is the weakness of Gus Dur as president?
A: One thing is quite clear that he has never been trained in the
management of modern bureaucracy. This is not only his personal
shortcoming. The sub-culture of NU, i.e. pondok pesantren, is not
conducive to modern management.
I was attending the NU's congress in Situbondo in 1984. As an
anthropologist, I wanted to know the details of the event. I
wanted to know how the congress was managed in terms of
logistics: how many people were gathering, how many were
sleeping, how many were eating there etc.
I got rough estimates. I was amazed to find that there were no
records for the common kitchen to feed the people gathering
there. People just came to donate goats, chickens, eggs, fish,
vegetables, rice, tahu, tempe, krupuk, etc. in kind and these
food items were immediately cooked up to serve people. There was
no use of keeping a balance sheet -- food just came in and went
out.
I believe this is a pesantren sub-culture. The culture of
donation (nyumbang). The Kyai in pesantren receives money or
material from people and spends it for the maintenance of
pesantren or for an immediate project or event. Often there are
no exact records. Only the kyai remembers and people trust him.
He often does not bother or care to make records since those
donations are recorded in heaven by angels.
The Kyai does not use the money for his own interests and, to
begin with, there is no clearcut separation of the kyais personal
household and the pesantren management. This applied to the NU
management, too.
When I attended the NU's congress in Semarang for the first
time in 1979, I witnessed a very interesting phenomenon. In a
general session of the congress, the national treasurer was
presenting a report on the NU's finance.
He reported to the participants of the congress that the money
he had received thus far was enough to cover all the expenses of
the organization. There were no debts nor any carry-overs. He
made this brief statement verbally without presenting a balance
sheet. And the participants accepted his report warmly.
It is different from the Muhammadiyah, which has very
meticulous bookkeeping. During the congress, the treasurer even
reported details down to the smallest unit of money sen!
Compared to the NU, financial management of the Muhammadiyah
is crystal clear. It is easy to criticize sloppiness of NUs
management especially in financial matters. But, it must be
understood that pesantren did not need meticulous bookkeeping as
it is operated on the basis of personal respect and trust upon
kyai.
The NU represents a sort of center of gravity of Indonesian
society. It was marginalized too much during the Soeharto era.
It will take a long time for the NU to adapt to modernization in
many aspects. But, if the NU fails to succeed in doing that,
then success for the entire society will not be possible.