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.