Reflections on Indonesian Reality

reflections on indonesian reality

by: Dr. Soetarno

1. First of all I would like to make "a confession of sin" before you. A sin, which, I think, is common to many administrators, namely, the difficulty in getting the time and the courage to sit down and to write. That is one of the 'dehumanizing factors' of being an administrator. Overwhelmed by all kinds of continuous, practical problems, which require immediate decision there is hardly time for true reflection. This is even so because for most administrators working with the church or Christian institutions in Indonesia the word 'vacation' is not known at all. Being one of such administrators, I am, naturally, unable to prepare myself appropriately for this task of giving a theological reflection during this ASFOR activity. Please, have mercy on me!

2. In fulfilling the request of the Organizing Committee, I would like to share with you some thinking of Dr. T.B. Simatupang, which he has written and delivered in various gatherings organized by the National Council of Churches of Indonesia (DGI). Why Simatupang? The answer is because in him I can witness a person who has tried honestly through his life and activities to be at the same time a true Indonesian and a devoted Christian. As you have probably known, he is one of the nationally recognized great fighters and leaders during our independence fight and the first years of our freedom. No one in Indonesia will question his love and loyalty to the country. Therefore, even up to now he is able to address the Indonesian government and the Indonesian people with authority. He is also one of the utmost leaders of the Church and Christian community at the moment. Furthermore, Simatupang

also has the ability to put together well various ideas arid thinking of his fellow Christians. Therefore, his writings can be considered as the result of a collective thinking of prominent leaders in our community at the moment.

3. Allow me now first to give you some general remarks concerning Indonesia, in which our churches are situated and to which the gospel of salvation of Jesus Christ must be witnessed and proclaimed. As you know, Indonesian society is a very pluralistic society. One can even say that Indonesia is a country of contradictions. It is the largest Muslim country in the world, in the sense that it has the world's largest Muslim community, officially over one hundred million. This is more than all the Arab countries put together. But on the other hand, it had the strongest Communist Party outside China and Russia, before 1965. And then you have the churches, some among them growing very significantly. When you look at these three elements together, you might ask yourself: what kind of a country is this?

From the point of view of its geography, you can say Indonesia is the most disperse country in the world with its 13,667 islands. In terms of languages, cultures and religions, you can say it belongs among the more heterogeneous countries: 250 languages and about 30 ethnic groups- all of the same numerical strength. Take the Javanese for instance, who are about 50 million, with their own identities, their own languages, their own religions. We have Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam, Roman Catholic and Protestant Christianity, and also, the Chinese religions. Many people are still animist. We have practically all of the world's religions except for Judaism. And yet, it is one country. If you compare us with the Indian subcontinent which was not able after independence to maintain its unity, breaking up into India and Pakistan, and the latter again dividing into Pakistan and Bangladesh, or if you compare us with Indochina- Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam- it is something of a miracle that Indonesia remains one, and that it has apparently succeeded in consolidating this unity within the very short span of the last 33 years since independence.

4. This country, in its very historical experience, has gone through a war of liberation. In the life of nations such a war, especially if it is waged by means of guerilla warfare, is a very formative experience; it breaks down many old things and conso-

lidates new relationships, new kinds of solidarities, opens up new perspectives, new hopes. The nation was really born during this struggle for independence. If it had not been for that war, if independence had been negotiated, the nation would never have been welded together the way it is now. Most of the people who fought our war of independence are still alive.

Then came the period in which our central theme was "revolution", during which we attempted to do away with the old and create something that had never been before. We had a hope of making the world anew. But because of, among other things, the internal contradictions raised by the very effort to do away with the old and to start something new, this expectation came to a dead end. Different people have different ideas about the future, and in a revolutionary situation these contradictions become sharper. The sharpest of all contradictions was the one between the communists, who had their own clear idea about the future, and the rest of the people, who while perhaps not having one clear notion of the future, clearly knew they were against the communist proposal. This brought us to the sharp clash, actually a civil war, in 1965.

It was a traumatic experience, exacerbated by the memory of the likewise bloody communist rebellion in September 1948, which happened at a time when the Republic was facing a Dutch threat of attack, a threat which then materialized in December 1948 after the swift suppression of the communist revolt. Many of us at that time saw the communist uprising as a stab in the back. Those two events left not only scars, but even now, 13 years after 1965, open wounds in the hearts and minds of many people. The complicated problem of political prisoners is a tragic aspect of the aftermath of the 1965 experience. There are many levels to this problem. On the deepest level, you have the problem of healing wounds, the problem of reconciliation if you like. There are emotional and ideological gaps, which must be bridged – not an easy task. Then there is the problem of security: many people in responsible positions are of the opinion that they cannot take the risks. The problem also has legal aspects and, last but not least, human and humanitarian aspects. Much human suffering is involved here.

After that period cams our current emphasis on 'development' So, having come from a war of liberation, a people's war, and through a revolution, a very emotional period, we have now arrived at a

strategy of development, something more pragmatic, less emotional. The country, having undergone all these different experiences in such a short time, cannot be quite sure of what the real character of the nation is. The dynamics and the emotion of the war of liberation is still there among the generation that went through it and were molded by it. Beneath the surface, the emotional approach to things expressed in the word 'revolution' is not yet quite finished. But now, we must work with the notion of development, a notion, which presupposes not too much emotion, not too much antagonism to the outside world, which does not raise too much the fundamental questions about capitalism and other things but just tries to improve the life of the people, pragmatically, producing economic growth and waiting patiently for long term results. This is where we are now.

5. The church came to Indonesia rather late in the nation's history compared with India, for example, where the church was established during the first centuries of the Christian era. In Indonesia the church came in the wake of Western expansion, first, the Spaniards and Portuguese, and later, the Dutch, and during the missionary period of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, preached by missionaries unrelated to the Dutch colonial government. The result is that the churches are folk-churches in the parts of Indonesia that were never Hinduized or Islamized. Christians in such areas- the Batak area and to some extent, Minhasa and Irian Jaya - feel themselves to be the people; there is no minority feeling among them. Later on, smaller churches developed among people who were already Hinduized or Islamized. These are the churches in Central Java, East Java, West Java, Bali and South Sulawesi.

Then there are the churches among the Chinese of Indonesia. So there are three types of churches, each having its own characteristics. The fastest growing are, of course, the newer ones, because they live among a population that is primarily non-Christian, as for instance in Java. The coming of the church, then, was to some extent related in the beginning to Western expansion. But Indonesian churches began very soon to become rooted in the country, developing their own characteristics and, especially in the case of churches in areas where Christians formed the majority, no longer feeling themselves to be a group with an alien religion. This is a very important factor in the whole development of Christianity in Indonesia even if Christianity is considered as a minority group in the country. I think this is a rather important characteristic of Indonesian Christians as compared to Christians

in some other Asian countries: Christianity is not a foreign religion in Indonesia. This is because the church very soon took root in our soil and soul.

6. The wave of nationalism which came as a reaction against Western expansion, but also to some extent as a result of it, tried to do away with Western domination at the same time as it took in much of the thought characteristic of the modern West. It was only by the adoption of Western ideas that nationalism was able to free Indonesia from Western colonialism. When we fought the Dutch in the old way, we lost. Diponegro who fought the Dutch in 1825-30 lost; Singa-mangaradja, who fought the Dutch in North Sumatra lost; Teuka Umar, who fought the Dutch in Acheh lost too. They were not yet organized in the modern way and were not able to wage war in a modern sense. But the moment came when nationalism had taken enough from the West and we were conscious of being a nation. We then devised the Indonesian flag, a modern concept, and established the Indonesia language: one language, one nation. And in fact, on the 28th of this month, we are going to celebrate what we call the Youth Pledge Day. On 28 October 1929, the youth of the nationalist movement came together and made a very significant decision: that we are one, one in language and one nation. Then we tried to put all this under some ideological perspective, nationalism and socialism. We developed a modern historical consciousness, seeking inspiration from Indonesia's history. The moment came for the proclamation of a modern independent state and a constitution was devised.

And we face at the same time the need to organize a modern army in order to wage war strategically and tactically, in modern ways, and to establish a modern diplomacy. Only after all this was done were we able to eliminate Western colonialism in Indonesia. But let me underline this: this happened only after we had taken enough from the West. This is why I say nationalism is a reaction against the West, and also a continuation of a process of modernization already started. And it was because we had advanced far enough in this process that we were able to do away with Western colonialism. After independence, this process did not stop; it continued beyond revolution into development.

6. Let me go back to the church in Indonesia. In the historical process, which I have described, including both reaction and continuity, how do the churches fit in? At the beginning of our independence, the churches were in a rather ambiguous position. On the one hand, they were a part of the nation, they were rooted in the nation. The national movement was still

more or less locally organized; there were groups as 'Young Java', 'Young Batak', and 'Young Timor'. Young people from the various churches felt free to take part in the movement. Then the nationalistic movement became national and the idea of one nation was born. But the churches remained ethnic. This period, the twenties, was a very critical one in relations between the churches and the nationalist movement. At that time Christians who became nationalist, were generally speaking, regarded by the church as no longer good Christians, a new period started with the Student Christian Movement. Then, because the SCM broke down ethnic barriers, it was possible for students, young people, to be at the same time nationalist and Christian. Even if they belonged to different churches, in their community, in their living together, they expressed the ecumenicity of Indonesian Christianity. They were the people who really managed to put an end to the dichotomy between Christianity and nationalism. They were the pioneers. Nationalism and the church were reconciled again. Of course, many of the members of the churches went on living the dichotomy; but the breakthrough had been achieved. To some extent, the Dewan Gareja-Gareja (DGI) comes out of this pioneer ecumenicity, but it appeared later, in the '50s. In 1934 the theological school, the first one that had a true ecumenical characteristic, was started with a clear purpose of preparing leadership for the churches of the future in Indonesia. Ecumenical awareness was already there.

World War II and the period of Japanese occupation was a very critical one for the churches in Indonesia. Their relation with churches outside was interrupted and completely broken and they had to survive on their own. So during the Japanese occupation we experienced a kind of forced moratorium. This provided the Indonesian churches with an experience that gave them 'confidence. Now the gates are wide open again for contacts outside Indonesia but most of the churches receiving help know that they can do without it if necessary. Recently the Ministry of Religious Affairs had issued regulation that stated that proclaiming religion to people who have subscribed to religion is not allowed and that all help received by religious institutions in Indonesia must be reported and channelized through the Ministry of Religious Affairs. Based on our experience during the Japanese occupation, our churches are now ready to face the worse.

The war for independence was also a great experience for Christians in Indonesia. It was their participation in it which gave Christians the acceptance and recognition they now enjoy. Everybody knew, and we

knew ourselves, that we were really a part, unseparate part, of this nation. If it had not been for this period the position of the Christians in the nation would be very different. In this context, I would like to say something about the integration of the Chinese in the country. If they had been more fully a part of the war for independence, I think their full integration would not be the problem it is now. No nation can understand its own life except in terms of its own historical experience. Unfortunately, the Chinese played a very ambiguous role during the war for independence. Some tried to be neutral; they related themselves to the Dutch. The group thereby gained economically while the people who fought the war on the Indonesian side lost everything, most of which went to the Chinese who occupied a more or less neutral position. Nor did Indonesians fighting the war have much time for education, but those who were in a neutral position could go to school, obtain their diplomas and specialize. This element is still here, and creates, to some extent, some tensions among the people.

7. One of the most important decisions we took during the period of struggle for independence was on the nature of our statehood. In 1944, when World War II had not yet ended and we were on the threshold of nationhood, practically all agreed that Indonesia should be independent and free. But the problem was to decide what kind of state we were to become together, to build together. Like the people of the Indian subcontinent who were faced by a general desire for freedom but a lack of agreement on the nature of statehood, the people of Indonesia were faced with a secular and a religious understanding of the state. India did not remain united, but divided into a secular state, India, and a religious one, Pakistan. We had that kind of conflict, too, although the unity of our nation was not called into question. There were, of course, local loyalties, which the Dutch attempted to use for their own benefit, creating dissension, but among nationalists the question of Indonesian unity was no longer a problem by 1945.

From a Western philosophical point of view, the problem implied an 'either / or ' choice. But we found a solution based on a non-Western approach. The Pancasila State was based on an inclusive 'both / and' possible to us because we are non-Westerners, perhaps not possible for those who are Westerners, although we should not have a clear-cut distinction. We tried to devise something that included all the elements, which from a Western philosophical point of view were contradictory. This is very Indonesian, and it runs parallel to some Indian philosophical attitudes that in-

fluenced us very much in the old times. It is not indifferentism, but a more inclusive understanding of reality. It is out of this philosophical background that we produced the five principles that make up the Pancasila, the philosophy of our statehood. The five principles are a wide enough umbrella for everybody. Nobody has anything against them; people can accept them; we can all live together under them. This was formulated early in 1945 and 1965.

But the Pancasila is more than an umbrella. It has an emotional appeal of its own; it becomes an ideology, a world view. In three of the five principles, you will recognize the three principles of Sun Yat Sen: nationalism, democracy and socialism. In addition we also have the principle of the unity of mankind and the first principle, which is very difficult to translate. This first principle is not 'belief in God', but rather belief in 'the idea of Lordship' since the word for 'God' used here is neuter, ketauhan, Lordship. To this must be added oneness and supreme-ness. So, the first principle in the Pancasila does not speak about God, but about a Godhead; it speaks of the concept of the divine. So even people who do not believe in a personal God, as many Buddhists do not, still accept the principle.

During the Plunge-in interview