|
President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono underlined in his recent
state of the union address the state’s protection of minority groups. But as
the slow development of reconciliation between the Shiite and the mainstream
Muslim groups in Madura have shown, tolerance and freedom of religion in
post-independence Indonesia have been frequently interpreted mostly from the
perspective of the majority and many of the actual practices finally lead to
fake tolerance and pseudo-freedom of religion.
Despite backing down later, Religious Affairs Minister Suryadharma Ali and other important leaders from Jakarta as well as many local officials in East Java implied that conversion to mainstream Islam by the Shiites is the precondition for reconciliation in Sampang.
While still celebrating the spirit of freedom of our Independence Day, it is worth looking back into our history in order to better understand where we are at this point on these two central issues.
“Simorangkir’s question” can be referred to as the first post-independence national controversy over tolerance and freedom of religion. There was a protest over the building of a Congregation of Batak Church (HKBP) in 1957 among Pasaman Muslims of West Sumatra, but no further controversy afterwards.
Right in the beginning of the New Order period, Simorangkir’s question was asked before a 1967 parliamentary meeting by the Christians to protest the banning of a Methodist church building in Meulaboh, Aceh. For them, the church banning destroyed the Indonesian spirit of religious tolerance, ran counter Pancasila and human rights and threatened national unity.
On the contrary, such Muslim leaders as M. Rasjidi and M. Natsir argued that by building churches and conducting missionary activities in a Muslim environment like Aceh — which were prohibited even during the Dutch colonial period — the Christians showed no tolerance and defied the very principle of freedom of religion. The Christians thus endangered Pancasila and threatened social harmony and national unity.
A few months later the “Makassar incident” occurred. It was triggered by a combination of blasphemy against Prophet Muhammad by a Christian teacher and a big plan to hold the sixth General Assembly of Indonesian Council of Churches (DGI) in Makassar. A number of churches, schools, dorms and other Christian buildings were attacked by Muslim mobs.
For the Christians, again, this was further proof of intolerance on the part of the Muslims and the absence of freedom of religion. On the other hand, the Muslims said both the blasphemy and the DGI General Assembly in the predominantly Muslim city constituted open religious expansion and violation against the principles of tolerance and freedom of religion.
An inter-religious consultation held by the government at the end of 1967 could finally resolve the controversy that otherwise could shake the early years of the New Order, but it failed to address the real problem.
A number of incidents throughout 1967 took place and the formative period of the New Order as well as their solution seemed to have shaped the nature of inter-religious relations in the country until today.
Under Soeharto’s rule, tension and mutual suspicion between religious groups was swept under the carpet, although sometimes it exploded in such cases as the murder of an Australian Anglican minister in 1974 which was followed by cancellation of the World Council of Churches General Assembly scheduled to be held in Jakarta in 1975, as well as polemic over the 1973 marriage law, the 1989 religious court law and the 1989 national education system law.
From Isaiah Berlin (2002) we learn that liberty has two aspects: positive liberty or “freedom for” and negative liberty or “freedom from”. Not only are the two aspects different faces of freedom, but they can be rivals and incompatible interpretations of liberty. The problem of inter-religious relations in Indonesia is a clear example.
Due to a complicated history, especially in relation with the Christians, some Indonesian Muslims tend to understand freedom of religion as “freedom from” influence and disturbance by followers of other religion. The strict rule for building a house of worship (by minority) and the prohibition of religious propagation among people who “already have religion” issued by the New Order after the 1967 incidents are two popular examples. For the Muslims, tolerance and freedom of religion means “leave me and my faith alone”.
Meanwhile, the Christians tend to emphasize the “freedom for” aspect, including freedom to propagate their religion both to those who “already have” and those who “have no” religion. During the 1950s debate, besides Declaration of Human Rights, the Christians like to refer to 1949 Constitution that explicitly stipulates the freedom to convert. While the Muslims and Hindus agreed that people who already embraced a religion should not be the target of propagation.
This, in fact, was a critical issue, especially in 1965, after the New Order regime encouraged conversion to the recognized religions as an effective way to fight the Communist. The official religions competed with each other for new congregation members.
How about believers of local religions? Under New Order’s paradigm that requires everyone to join an official religion, not only did they become the main target of conversion, the status of their religion was simply ignored. There was no such thing as freedom of religion for them.
Much like freedom in general, freedom of religion always comes along with its “negative” and “positive” aspects, neither of which can exist exclusively by itself. In that regard, the state should not take sides to a particular aspect or group, but to the principle of justness and equality of groups and citizens
before the law.
Religion is a private business. The state should guarantee the right of its citizens but should not meddle with people’s belief or disbelief and how to practice it. However, any implementation of freedom of religion should be brought to justice when it violates the law.
The New Order and many of its policies in the past, including regulations for building a house of worship, supervisory right of the state over people’s belief, compulsory instruction of religious subject in public school etc. have created complicated problems concerning tolerance and freedom of religion. In practice, the New Order never guarantees the principles of tolerance and freedom of religion as such, but opted to take sides with an interpretation belonging to a certain groups in favor of the New Order’s political interests.
Sadly, many seem to uphold the New Order’s policies and paradigm on inter-religious relations until today, as reflected in the cases of Madura Shiite, the Ahmadis, Indonesia Christian Church (GKI) Yasmin etc. The New Order has gone in form, but not in “norm” and spirit. We didn’t move far enough from the 1967 situation.
Yes, President Yudhoyono won the tolerance award and for the umpteenth time, preaching about the equal rights of minority groups. But we have yet to succeed in realizing religious tolerance and freedom of religion. We are busy asking the whole world for recognition, but our attitude and actions prove exactly the opposite. ●
Despite backing down later, Religious Affairs Minister Suryadharma Ali and other important leaders from Jakarta as well as many local officials in East Java implied that conversion to mainstream Islam by the Shiites is the precondition for reconciliation in Sampang.
While still celebrating the spirit of freedom of our Independence Day, it is worth looking back into our history in order to better understand where we are at this point on these two central issues.
“Simorangkir’s question” can be referred to as the first post-independence national controversy over tolerance and freedom of religion. There was a protest over the building of a Congregation of Batak Church (HKBP) in 1957 among Pasaman Muslims of West Sumatra, but no further controversy afterwards.
Right in the beginning of the New Order period, Simorangkir’s question was asked before a 1967 parliamentary meeting by the Christians to protest the banning of a Methodist church building in Meulaboh, Aceh. For them, the church banning destroyed the Indonesian spirit of religious tolerance, ran counter Pancasila and human rights and threatened national unity.
On the contrary, such Muslim leaders as M. Rasjidi and M. Natsir argued that by building churches and conducting missionary activities in a Muslim environment like Aceh — which were prohibited even during the Dutch colonial period — the Christians showed no tolerance and defied the very principle of freedom of religion. The Christians thus endangered Pancasila and threatened social harmony and national unity.
A few months later the “Makassar incident” occurred. It was triggered by a combination of blasphemy against Prophet Muhammad by a Christian teacher and a big plan to hold the sixth General Assembly of Indonesian Council of Churches (DGI) in Makassar. A number of churches, schools, dorms and other Christian buildings were attacked by Muslim mobs.
For the Christians, again, this was further proof of intolerance on the part of the Muslims and the absence of freedom of religion. On the other hand, the Muslims said both the blasphemy and the DGI General Assembly in the predominantly Muslim city constituted open religious expansion and violation against the principles of tolerance and freedom of religion.
An inter-religious consultation held by the government at the end of 1967 could finally resolve the controversy that otherwise could shake the early years of the New Order, but it failed to address the real problem.
A number of incidents throughout 1967 took place and the formative period of the New Order as well as their solution seemed to have shaped the nature of inter-religious relations in the country until today.
Under Soeharto’s rule, tension and mutual suspicion between religious groups was swept under the carpet, although sometimes it exploded in such cases as the murder of an Australian Anglican minister in 1974 which was followed by cancellation of the World Council of Churches General Assembly scheduled to be held in Jakarta in 1975, as well as polemic over the 1973 marriage law, the 1989 religious court law and the 1989 national education system law.
From Isaiah Berlin (2002) we learn that liberty has two aspects: positive liberty or “freedom for” and negative liberty or “freedom from”. Not only are the two aspects different faces of freedom, but they can be rivals and incompatible interpretations of liberty. The problem of inter-religious relations in Indonesia is a clear example.
Due to a complicated history, especially in relation with the Christians, some Indonesian Muslims tend to understand freedom of religion as “freedom from” influence and disturbance by followers of other religion. The strict rule for building a house of worship (by minority) and the prohibition of religious propagation among people who “already have religion” issued by the New Order after the 1967 incidents are two popular examples. For the Muslims, tolerance and freedom of religion means “leave me and my faith alone”.
Meanwhile, the Christians tend to emphasize the “freedom for” aspect, including freedom to propagate their religion both to those who “already have” and those who “have no” religion. During the 1950s debate, besides Declaration of Human Rights, the Christians like to refer to 1949 Constitution that explicitly stipulates the freedom to convert. While the Muslims and Hindus agreed that people who already embraced a religion should not be the target of propagation.
This, in fact, was a critical issue, especially in 1965, after the New Order regime encouraged conversion to the recognized religions as an effective way to fight the Communist. The official religions competed with each other for new congregation members.
How about believers of local religions? Under New Order’s paradigm that requires everyone to join an official religion, not only did they become the main target of conversion, the status of their religion was simply ignored. There was no such thing as freedom of religion for them.
Much like freedom in general, freedom of religion always comes along with its “negative” and “positive” aspects, neither of which can exist exclusively by itself. In that regard, the state should not take sides to a particular aspect or group, but to the principle of justness and equality of groups and citizens
before the law.
Religion is a private business. The state should guarantee the right of its citizens but should not meddle with people’s belief or disbelief and how to practice it. However, any implementation of freedom of religion should be brought to justice when it violates the law.
The New Order and many of its policies in the past, including regulations for building a house of worship, supervisory right of the state over people’s belief, compulsory instruction of religious subject in public school etc. have created complicated problems concerning tolerance and freedom of religion. In practice, the New Order never guarantees the principles of tolerance and freedom of religion as such, but opted to take sides with an interpretation belonging to a certain groups in favor of the New Order’s political interests.
Sadly, many seem to uphold the New Order’s policies and paradigm on inter-religious relations until today, as reflected in the cases of Madura Shiite, the Ahmadis, Indonesia Christian Church (GKI) Yasmin etc. The New Order has gone in form, but not in “norm” and spirit. We didn’t move far enough from the 1967 situation.
Yes, President Yudhoyono won the tolerance award and for the umpteenth time, preaching about the equal rights of minority groups. But we have yet to succeed in realizing religious tolerance and freedom of religion. We are busy asking the whole world for recognition, but our attitude and actions prove exactly the opposite. ●
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar