T

he recent assault conviction and six-month prison sentence imposed on the security chief of an Ahmadiyah congregation, arising from his attempts to protect the congregation from violent attack, certainly represents a sad day for Indonesia. This is all the more so, as it comes on the back of the token sentences for the perpetrators of the violent attack that resulted in death and serious injury as well as extensive property damage.

The shockingly harsh treatment of the Ahmadiyah security chief, who was just doing his job, when compared to the unconscionably lenient treatment of the perpetrators, who were clearly determined to commit violent crimes, makes it hard to take seriously the Indonesian government’s attempts to portray Indonesia as a modern, secular and tolerant country, where people of different religious beliefs can live in peace and safety.

This implication of recent events has certainly not been lost on the international media, which has been quick to criticize — and rightly so — the lack of evenhandedness shown by the courts in dealing with the perpetrators and the defenders.

Perhaps most concerning is the way the police, prosecutors and the courts have so openly chosen to take the side of and otherwise curry favor with the anti-Ahmadiyah forces by handing down sentences clearly intended to pander to the basest instincts of the mob.

Even the religious affairs minister has shown scant concern for the rights and well being of the Ahmadiyah.

No one could seriously suggest that, if the situation had been reversed and an Ahmadiyah mob had attacked a mainstream Muslim community and caused death and destruction, the courts would have sentenced the mainstream Muslim defenders to six months jail while letting the Ahmadiyah attackers get away with token punishments.

The woeful lack of independence and ethical standards (which characterize all the institutions) that make up the Indonesian legal system and particularly at the local level is, once again, plainly demonstrated by the deferential handling of the various participants in the Ahmadiyah incident.

It is, of course, possible to just dismiss the recent events involving the Ahmadiyah as an isolated dispute between two equally unlikeable and equally objectionable groups of religious extremists who richly deserve one another and are entitled to little sympathy from the rest of the community.

This, however, would surely be a mistake, as the Ahmadiyah problem is symptomatic of something much more serious, sinister and widespread happening in Indonesia. Quite simply, Indonesia is self-evidently losing its willingness to accept and show tolerance to people whose beliefs, lifestyles and views are not the same as the beliefs, lifestyles and views of the majority.

The increasing intolerance of Indonesian society does not bode well for the country’s future development as an advanced civil society, or its ability to become a respected and serious player on the world stage, outcomes which depend, to a considerable degree, on Indonesia’s receptiveness to new and different ideas and ways of doing things.

In this regard at least, Indonesia is clearly moving backward, not forward.

William A. Sullivan
Jakarta