During the heyday of awakening Indonesian nationalism leading to the birth of this nation, there were many stories about making compromises. Most of our founding fathers have, in this regard, set excellent examples.

In the process of establishing the foundation upon which this nation was built, they did not compel others to accept a certain ideology. They instead compromised among their many differences.

Those who regarded nationalism as the basic principle in their movement listened to their counterparts -- socialists, religious leaders and communists -- and vice versa. In many meetings and discussions, they always tried to accommodate differing ideologies.

This becomes apparent when we learn what happened during BPUPKI meetings. This Japanese-organized committee for granting independence to Indonesia, which later became the Committee for Indonesian Independence, held meetings in which prominent figures -- such as Muhammad Yamin, Sukarno and Supomo -- formulated the basic principles of Indonesian nationhood. As the story goes, until Indonesia's independence was achieved, a secular state remained the best choice, which most of our leaders agreed with.

The exhausting debate about Islam and the state is an old story as a lengthy polemic between Sukarno and M. Natsir, detailed by the late Deliar Noer, has shown. The dispute over these issues has, however, been resolved, thus current Indonesian generations should not repeat the same issues and stories with the same approaches and styles.

Our past leaders chose that this republic be neither theocracy nor caliphate, a legacy we should guard. It is not an exaggeration to say those who dream of founding a theocracy or caliphate in Indonesia are those who ignore history and are reluctant to learn from it.

Ironically, many debates held recently by Indonesian Islamists -- whether on behalf of Islamist political parties or nonpolitical organizations, such as Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia, Indonesian Mujahidin Council and Islam Defenders Front -- contained no new arguments compared with those of Natsir.

Religions, as the history of Indonesia has taught us, should not contradict the spirit of nationalism and humanity. In his famous piece, Sukarno called on Indonesians to embrace an eclectic ideology consisting of religion, Marxism and nationalism. Indeed, Marxism and socialism in the nascent history of Indonesia can be seen in many views adopted by some Indonesian leaders, such as HOS Cokroaminoto and Tan Malaka.

Some elements of Marxism, entailing criticism of religion and religious beliefs, were found often enough in many writings penned by early Indonesian nationalists. The fully demonized version of Marxism, and particularly communism, occurred only after the tragedy of 1965, a known upheaval which involved homicides of innumerable Indonesian citizens.

Many of our leaders, such as Agus Salim, Wachid Hasyim and A.A. Maramis, were religious themselves and did not intend to destroy religions. Rather than contradicting religions and the contemporary values of nationalism and humanity, they sought compromise. In avoiding egoism, by stressing their identity as Muslims, Christians or followers of other religions, they wholeheartedly supported this nonreligious state.

Thus there is no Islam in Indonesia other than Indonesian Islam. Neither is there any Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism or any other belief which is beyond "Indonesian-ness". This critical element of Indonesian-ness has bound together all people in the country with various ethnicities, faiths and origins.

A few recent groups, who display their egoism by stressing their religious identity, deny the lessons drawn from Indonesia's history. Primordialism -- a group sentiment based on a single ethnicity and religion which has been codified in local ordinances under the aegis of sharia -- is never justified.

Not only have proponents of this idea gone against Indonesia's founding fathers, they have also threatened the foundation which those leaders laid down. These proponents have forgotten the above compromises. They instead try to impose a single identity upon a diverse people.

An antidote to this new wave of Islamism is recalling our own traditions: the blend of religion and nationalism which has taken root in our soil. Nahdlatul Ulama and Muhammadiyah could perhaps serve as remedies as these two organizations have demonstrated experience in nurturing Indonesian Islam.

Some leaders of these two groups, such as Hasyim Muzadi and Din Syamsuddin, have often condemned violence resulting from Islamism, which could endanger the unity of Indonesia, notably during two recent international conferences on religious peace held in Jakarta. We can only hope statements delivered by such religious and political leaders are not merely rhetorical.

Inasmuch as history never repeats itself, recent challenges cannot be equated with past ones. Yet some lessons can be learned. While previous leaders blended values from nationalism, Marxism, humanism and religious beliefs, we are now facing different challenges which demand new solutions.

Far more complex issues -- everyday economic challenges, local and global politics, regional issues in Southeast Asia, global competition -- are now confronting us. A new formulation of nationalism is called for, an effort in which today's Indonesian intellectuals should engage.

The writer is a lecturer at State Islamic University of Sunan Kalijaga, Yogyakarta. He can be reached at nabiy13@yahoo.com.

Popular

Great Barrier Reef hit by record bleaching

Govt to undo latest curbs on personal imports

Middle East on edge as Israel and Iran trade threats