Melani Budianta: JP/Ida Indawati Khouw

The words "Milik Pribumi" (belonging to "indigenous Indonesians") scrawled on private properties were a common sight in cities affected by the May 1998 riots -- a sort of talisman against rioters targeting ethnic Chinese-owned properties, labeled non-pribumi (not indigenous).

For Professor Melani Budianta, from the University of Indonesia, the properties owners' attitude in shielding themselves from the political upheaval that marked the birth of the present Reformasi era has put the meaning of being Indonesian into question.

"A (Chinese) friend of mine questioned the attitude of her neighbors," she recalls.

"So during a community meeting, she raised the issue: 'We say we are one family, living together in a common house. If you mark your properties Pribumi, it means you're letting the rioters attack me. Are you willing to live while letting me die?'"

Melani, has worked with women's groups since the events of 1998, says her friend's criticism put into doubt the spirit of nationalism.

"Nationalism is about our everyday life, how we maintain the sense of togetherness not as something romantic, but as something we should work out daily," she says.

"It is not about writing (scholarly) essays or about the independence day celebration every August 17. It's our daily challenges."

Question (Q): How do you imagine Indonesia?

Answer (A): We continuously redefine the meaning of being Indonesian. What is certain is we have a rich heritage of more than 300 ethnicities, 200 million people, 740 languages and 13,000 islands; the condition that makes our country one of the most pluralistic nations in the world is a condition we should be grateful for.

Our cultural heritage and diversity is our capital, our bargaining power in this era of globalization, as people come to Indonesia for our diversity, not uniformity. Our cultural diversity is our means of competing globally.

(I imagine) Indonesia as a country with cultural diversity bounded by an understanding that nationalism is not related to color. We can love Indonesia whatever color (race, ethnicity) we are. We should give our best dreams to the country.

If we have no imagination, we have no vision. Without dreams, we lose ourselves in a life without vision. Our visions can be realized through our small contributions to our surroundings, and that is nationalism. Indonesia comes into existence in everyday life.

There are challenges from those underrepresented in the annals of our national history.

History is always the site of power struggles. It is always the rulers who determine history. Papuans, for instance, might say they are not represented, thus are not reflected in our national history. Our history is very Java/Jakarta-oriented. We should include voices from other areas, so that every one of us has a place (in our history).

How should our history books look like, then?

There will still be consensus with regards to our milestones as part of our collective memory, such as the historical milestone of the 1945 Independence Day. Local histories can be included in our historical milestones, so each of us has our own heroes.

Furthermore, there are moments in our history that are open to multiple interpretations. For instance, how do you retell the incidents of 1965, the year of bloodshed, of mass killings of alleged communists, in a more reconciliatory manner and leave out the militaristic version? We do not want to repeat this dark history in which we killed our own brothers and sisters because of different ideologies.

As you have said, differences, on the other hand, can also lead to conflicts.

Perhaps the conflicts were not the direct result of these differences. The conflicts themselves were probably caused by economic disparities, unequal access (to economic resources), unbalanced power sharing; but they were manifested in the differences.

The conflicts resulted in traumatic collective memory, that is, the differences were then perceived as trauma. The New Order regime (1966-1998) suppressed diversity, campaigned for uniformity through the banning of the communist ideology, imposed control over religious practices and censored democratic expression.

(In her essay, "Plural Identities: Indonesian Women's Redefinition of Democracy in the Post-Reformasi Era" *published in 2006 in the Review of Indonesian and Malaysian Affairs (RIMA) Journal*, Melani writes the demise of the New Order regime gave rise to violent expressions of difference and a raucous period of identity politics.

"Strict New Order censorship of public discussion of the 'sensitive issues' of ethnicity-race-religion-class differences since at least the mid-1980s effectively robbed citizens of the opportunity to learn to manage conflict and address suppressed communal tensions, rendering them highly susceptible to provocations of violence. As a result, Indonesia at the beginning of the 21st century is witnessing spreading ethnic, religious and communal strife in areas as diverse as Maluku, Kalimantan and Sulawesi.")

Melani, the intellectual who specializes in postcolonial studies, comparative literature, gender and cultural studies, tells The Jakarta Post further, "In the present democratic era, a decentering force has emerged. People celebrate diversity, which is good, but the excess is the burgeoning of identity politics in the form of putra-daerahisme and exclusivism. For me, (the latter phenomena) are the processes to reaching balance (from the repressive regime to the democratic era), as we are very dynamic in terms of mobility and cross-cultural adaptation."

"All ethnicities speak Bahasa Indonesia. Those from Kalimantan and Sumatra study in Yogyakarta and they adapt quickly. This is our strength. Our weakness is when exclusivism and fanaticism against other religions and identities emerge."

Violent culture

The conclusion of your essay is thought-provoking and very interesting. You mention the shifting of a culture of violence *militarism, inter-group conflict* into a violent culture *conservatism, religious fanaticism*.

(Because culture is an active process of creating meaning), it should be able to humanize people. If we consider culture sacred -- consider it inherited and unchangeable -- it can lead us to do violent things to others, it becomes culturalized violence. (The tradition of) binding women's feet in China (as a sign of high status and elegance), is an example of violence that is culturalized.

So we should be selective in our own culture, we should choose those elements that are adaptable to present-day human beings. We should leave out those that are violent or not in line with gender equality, for instance.

What are the factors that should be considered when selecting the elements of culture?

As a community, we have some consensus with regards to family, to the state. On the state level, we have the national ideology of Pancasila, the Constitution and laws. There are consequences for those violating the consensus.

On the individual level, of course we have certain values that can't be compromised, while still being critical.

Discussing the adaptation of culture will, eventually, touch on the issue of modernity, which is deemed Western. We know certain groups in Indonesia are anti-Western.

Where does modernity come from? There are plenty of sources of modernity. The Arabs are famous for their discoveries in maths, for their civilization. The same applies to the Chinese. We now live in the modern era and it is up to us to decide how to color this modernity with our own culture.

The emergence of India, China and Latin America (influence) different forms of modernity; the dynamism will decrease the dichotomy between the West and the rest.

Popular

RI, Australia strengthen partnership on taxing crypto assets

Analysis: Indonesia denies normalization with Israel to enter OECD

Citroen to produce electric cars in Indonesia