On unified Indonesia
On unified Indonesia
The recent letter by Masli Arman (Towards a more unified Indonesia, Dec. 8, 1995), and indeed all of Masli's letters often bear interesting comments for The Jakarta Post readers.
His focus this time was the subject of transmigration programs and how their successful implementation might be enhanced. I would like to point to several of his comments, and ask for clarification because I am most unfortunate in not completely understanding all his meanings.
Masli correctly recognizes that race/ethnicity, religion and language are tools used to rally people to the poles of power struggles. In doing so, he makes a strong case for the expansion of Bahasa Indonesia use among all citizens, as a means of unifying Indonesia.
However, several of his positions confuse readers because they are perhaps in conflict with the original theme of his letter. From this and past letters, we have seen the writer call for not only the exclusion of words from other Indonesian ethnic languages, but also foreign terms (chiefly English, though curiously not Arabic) and even Sanskrit words. His call to defeat the dilution of Bahasa Indonesia reveals itself to be confusing because of the limits he wishes to impose on its natural evolution.
Masli points to three primordial elements as sources of social conflicts: race/ethnicity, religion, and language. While these and other elements (e.g. extreme of political ideology or nationalism) are often used by leaders to rally people to their cause, perhaps they should be regarded merely as tools of manipulation, and not themselves fundamental elements in conflict.
A more in-depth analysis of conflicts will almost always lead wise observers to an ultimate primordial element: power to control resources. Anthropological literature is full of references to this. Hunter gatherers and simple agriculturists were often spurred into conflict as their land exceeded its carrying capacity.
Advanced agricultural and industrial states gave numerical and technological advantages which allowed (and continue to allow) "advanced" cultures to steal the resources of those who remain "undeveloped".
Perhaps in our goal to avoid social conflict, we should learn to hold at arms length our nonrational attachment to the aforementioned institutions of ethnicity, religion, etc., so that we avoid being swept up by them during times of conflict.
Furthermore, as we learn to recognize conflict over resources as the fundamental primordial element in social conflict, we could personally contribute to our mutual harmony by being less attached to our aspirations for more and more possessions.
In this instance, we in the "advanced" cultures have much to learn from the "undeveloped". Perhaps those undeveloped ones are the "lilies of the field", to which we could aspire emulation.
STEPHEN G. KRECIK
Jakarta