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