May 1998, Ahmadiyah and the alterity problem

Bagus Laksana ,  Chestnut Hill ,  Massachusetts   |  Fri, 05/16/2008 12:49 PM  |  Opinion

Ten years ago this month, we witnessed how barbarity was displayed among us in the most disgusting manner. May 1998 has certainly been recorded in our history as a dark episode on account of our utter failure to negotiate profound political change in a civilized way.

Now, in light of what has transpired recently in the discourse and attack against the Ahmadiyah sect, it proves insightful to look again at the May 1998 riots. As John Sidel has observed in his work, Riots, Pogroms, Jihad: Religious Violence in Indonesia (Cornell University Press, 2006), the May 1998 riots initiated a new pattern of violence, namely the direct and collective attack on individuals, accompanied by the more well-established pattern of assault on physical buildings such as churches, business centers, government offices and the latest examples of the attacks on Ahmadiyah mosques.

In this dynamic, the issues of religion and ethnicity become more and more pronounced in the pogroms in Kalimantan, Maluku and Poso, as well in the various forms of "jihad violence" seen since 2001.

The bottom line of this new pattern of violence is that there is a growing intensity in our collective incapability to deal with otherness among us. In the face of this troubling ineptitude, the otherness of certain groups of people tends to be much more threatening.

In the earlier pattern of collective violence, it was the physical manifestations of otherness, such as Christian churches, Chinese business centers and so forth, that constituted the immediate targets of violence, given the fact that they are the most palpable symbols of alterity.

However, probably due to the fact that destroying the mere physicality of these architectural structures did not make otherness completely disappear, violence is then directed against the real locus and source of alterity, namely the individuals who happen to belong to different ethnic groups or religions. Expanding on Sidel's very perceptive analysis, this logic seems to lie at the heart of the series of violent incidents since May 1998.

In the context of this dynamic, the attack on the Ahmadiyah unmistakably adds a new dimension, where there is a formal effort to outlaw the rights of this group to exist. For the attackers, it is their sheer existence that is deeply troubling because it is grounded in a deviant set of theological beliefs. Thus, the otherness of this group is perceived as originating in the most profoundly personal and private sphere of human existence.

When coupled with the attack on the more tangible structures of the communal life of the Ahmadis, this move puts them in an absolutely dire situation. We might even argue that in terms of its depth, intensity and comprehensiveness, this kind of persecution has never been inflicted on the Christians, the Chinese or any ethnic group. The odd thing is that Ahmadiyah has to endure this drastic surge of persecution only recently, decades after their arrival in the country.

In light of this dynamic, what is really at stake in the current religious-political debate on Ahmadiyah is not so much the fate of this religious group or other groups for that matter, but rather our very capability, or lack thereof, as a nation to deal with otherness or alterity in ways that are dignified, reasonable and effective.

It is rather clear that the way we handle the Ahmadiyah controversy indicates the symptoms of the larger and more fundamental problem we face as a nation: We are losing our capability as a civilized nation to negotiate identity in the face of alterity without wiping out this alterity altogether.

The alarming sign of this can be detected in the fact that all segments of society seem to be involved in the frenzy, from the religious elites and government agencies to vigilante groups and ordinary people. The lack of prudence on the part of government officials and religious elites involved in dealing with the issue is matched by the profoundly disturbing proclivity of the masses, led by vigilante groups, for taking matters into their own hands. This situation leaves the victims completely at the mercy of lawlessness.

For the time being, it is Ahmadiyah that is being singled out as the epitome of the horrifying alterity. However, if we may judge from the intensifying and expanding pattern of violence in the last decade, there is no guarantee that other minority groups will be spared.

For once we get addicted to the discourse of exclusion that justifies the pain inflicted on others, there will be next to nothing that will prevent us from finding any slight of alterity as the grounds for the justification of violence. Emmanuel Levinas, the philosopher of alterity, once said that the justification of the neighbor's pain is certainly the source of all immorality.

This justification might begin, as the sociologist Zygmunt Bauman calls it, in the process of "adiaphorization", the process of excluding some categories of people from the realm of morality so that they can be "dealt" with in any way we want.

In times of economic and political uncertainty, various mechanisms of excluding others, of victimizing and scapegoating them, would be extremely tempting both for the frustrating masses and the ineffective government.

Under this condition, the current victimization of the Ahmadiyah might turn into the worst, spilling out to other minority groups, as the May 1998 violence against the Chinese has shown. Over against this bleak prospect, our willingness to just end this victimization frenzy might go down in history as one of the most honorable services we do for our nation. Let's pause for a cause!

The writer is a PhD candidate in comparative theology at Boston College, Massachusetts. He can be reached at laksanaa@bc.edu

Copyright © 2008 The Jakarta Post - PT Bina Media Tenggara. All Rights Reserved.