The dangers of allowing communalism to spread

The dangers of allowing communalism to spread

By Makmur Keliat

SURABAYA (JP): Where is Indonesian politics heading? Why has
social violence increased? Is it right to say that the recent
violence in Situbondo, followed by Tasikmalaya and
Rengasdengklok, symbolizes the resistance of the poor?

Various media analysis has put the answers to these questions
under two broad categories. First, there are those who attempt to
explain the issue from an academic viewpoint. Second, there are
those who tend to simplify the situation by trying to find a
scapegoat. If the first category has come from a critical
perspective, the other has been mainly based on speculative
thinking.

Irrespective of the existing divergent views, it is an
undisputed fact that the series of violence indicates the
vulnerability and violation of minority rights. In a wider
perspective, we could also say that violence is conveying a
signal that communalism is strengthening at the cost of
nationalism. It is necessary to keep in mind, however, that
intolerance of religion and ethnicity does not stem from
religious beliefs.

India is one example. Though the country is constitutionally
based upon the principles of unity in diversity, communal
violence is a well known and widespread fact. It would be a
mistake, however, if one assumed that religious precepts have
sown the seeds of hatred among Indians. What has happened, as
many Indian social scientists believe, is that communalism in
that country, particularly between Moslems and Hindus, is an
apotheosis of the uprooted India economy base overlapping with
the opportunism of many political elites.

In a nutshell, though wrapped in the name of religion,
communal violence has nothing to do with religion itself. It
results from the anxiety of deprivation exploited by the
political elite.

The importance of non-religious factors has become more
relevant not only in the Indian case. If one examines abundant
research reports on ethnic conflicts in developing countries from
the perspective of ethnopolitics, one would find that various
antecedent variables can create ethnic conflict, ranging from
economic to psychological factors, from elite rivalry to the
absence of a middle class as glue for social integration. And in
most cases, they are not mutually exclusive.

In the case of Indonesia, it is likely that the recent
tendency towards communalism could be ascribed to the realities
of development which overemphasizes its economic aspects. All
activities tend to be judged from market and commercial terms. In
contrast, activities which cannot be marketed are perceived
marginal.

It is no wonder that within this kind of social interaction
and cutthroat competition, it is not only morality which has been
disregarded. People also do not gain equal rewards because their
access to the market becomes limited or closed, or their skills
do not have market value.

It is those who lag behind economically and have been
marginalized in the process of development who are easy to be
mobilized and agitated under communal politics.

If we accept this proposition, the remaining question is what
should be done? One alternative is to encourage the government to
strengthen its social welfare policies.

It is also necessary to make those who are concerned with the
poor realize that reforms of the system should not be carried out
through physical violence even though physical violence could
bring a victory.

However, such a triumph would last for a short period only.
According to an old proverb, the law of an eye for an eye leaves
everybody blind. Therefore physical violence serves no purpose.
This option also cannot be justified morally because its primary
objective is to eliminate the enemies. It would also make social
communication one-sided.

This does not mean that silence is the best alternative and no
resistance is required. Doing nothing and being acquiescence
cannot be justified morally. The reason is simple. Moral
obligation not to cooperate with evil is the same as moral
obligation to cooperate with good. If this is the case, the best
alternative is to adopt non-violent resistance.

This strategy is indeed a synthesis of the first and the
second alternatives. It admits that the oppressed should not be
physically aggressive but at the same time it does not deny the
importance of resistance.

However, resistance aims not to fight against the oppressor
but against oppression. In this context, moral force among those
who claim to be a protector of the oppressed is of great
importance to launch such a resistance.

It is likely that without the presence of a moral force,
resistance would not only fail but it would be misused by
political adventurers for their short-term interests.

The writer is a lecturer at the Faculty of Social and
Political Sciences, Airlangga University, Surabaya and holds a
Ph.D degree from the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal
Nehru University, New Delhi, India.