Solutions to 'minority' issues are a two-way street

Solutions to 'minority' issues are a two-way street

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): "If an Indonesian of Chinese descent converts to
Islam, can he or she forget his or her Chineseness?"

This question was asked by a native Indonesian Moslem in a
seminar discussing minority problems in Indonesia, Malaysia, the
Philippines, Germany and United Kingdom. It created a vague and
not-so-enlightening debate and mild "emotional commotion" among
the 20-something participants. At the end, however, after
examining the similarities and differences of the minority
problem in these five societies, the participants reached a
common understanding concerning a general framework for analyzing
this problem, and a kind of "wisdom" concerning how this problem
should ideally be solved.

In every society with minority groups in the population, every
individual has more than one identity. In the Indonesian case,
for instance, it is safe to assert that every Indonesian of any
ethnic origin has more than one identity within his or her
psyche. An Indonesian scholar of Javanese origin and a professed
Catholic has four identities: an Indonesian, a Javanese, a
Catholic and a scholar.

The permutation of these identities may vary from one case to
another, but they will always be present in each case, and no one
can deny their presence. In addition, the person may also feel
that he or she is a world citizen and a modern person, not a
traditional one. These are two identities that the individual may
feel as distinguishing characteristics from the diffuse mass
around his or her daily existence.

At different moments and in different life situations, one of
these identities may assume a more prominent role than the
others. The crucial problem in this respect is to ensure that
these identities remain interrelated to one another in a
centripetal way, such that when one identity comes to the
foreground, the others are supporting it from the background.

If, on the other hand, the relationship that does develop
among these identities is antagonistic or centrifugal, then such
an individual is in a sorry condition. He or she will be
constantly torn between the identities. It is in cases like this
that an individual might feel the need to deny part of the
identities, or deny a part of his or her past.

Denying a part of oneself is unhealthy. One form is falsifying
one's origin or part of one's past. There have been cases in
every society where relatively famous personalities successfully
hid a portion of their background. A humble origin can easily be
masked behind an excellent language competence, good social
etiquette or mannerisms, social status or wealth. Language
competence and mannerisms can be learned, while social status and
wealth can be acquired.

But is hiding one's origins a good way of leading one's life?
And how long can such a lifestyle be sustained? Unless one is a
genius like Andre Malraux, one cannot live peacefully with a
pretended self while denying one's true identity. An ordinary
person will sooner or later crack under the burden of lies and
pretensions, and the true self will be exposed. Former Austrian
president Kurt Waldheim, who attempted to conceal his Nazi past,
is one case. Nineteenth century English poet Matthew Arnold gave
us the following wisdom: "Resolve to be thyself: and know, that
he/Who finds himself, loses his misery."

For this reason it is psychologically cruel, in my view, to
put pressure on members of a minority group to forget or deny
their origins. To ask Chinese-Indonesians to forget their
Chineseness after they change their names or after they have been
converted to Islam is, in addition to being cruel, also
politically unhealthy. We should not forget in this regard that
for any person to accept oneself completely is a very hard
struggle.

Edward Estlin reportedly said in this regard, "To be nobody-
but-myself in a world which is doing its best, to make you
everybody else means to fight the hardest battle which any human
being can fight, and never stop fighting". And according to Jean
Paul Sartre, "We only become what we are by the radical and deep-
seated refusal of that which others have made of us".

To convert oneself to a new religion is, without doubt, a
deadly serious affair. This must involve the act of soul-
searching, the act of questioning oneself, who he or she really
is. If thus, after such a struggle, one is asked to deny a part
of his or her past, is this not a psychologically cruel act? To
me, the question that should be asked in this respect is not
whether Indonesian Moslems of Chinese descent can forget their
Chineseness, but whether or not they can show their solidarity
with fellow human beings who suffer because of violations of
Islamic principles.

On the basis of this kind of deliberation, the participants of
this seminar came to the conclusion that the solution to the
minority problem everywhere is the acceptance and inclusion of
the minority by the majority. This can only be reached if there
is mutual tolerance on the part of both the majority and the
minority, and this in turn can be obtained only through
enlightened perception and thinking on the part of both the
majority and the minority.

We know, however, that in real life each of these four steps
-- enlightenment, tolerance, acceptance, and inclusion -- is very
hard to achieve. Ignorance blocks enlightenment, prejudice stands
in the way of tolerance, communalism which implies exclusiveness
hinders acceptance, and self-interest, be it political, financial
or other types, constitutes an almost insurmountable block to
inclusion.

How do we overcome these obstacles? According to English
journalist, novelist and essayist G. K. Chesterton, understanding
may constitute the key element in this case. He wrote in 1908
that, "If you do not understand a man you cannot crush him. If
you do understand him, very probably you will not".

The writer is an observer of social and cultural affairs.