That of Jayapura

Once again, as part of my PhD thesis, I travel to another part of Indonesia: Jayapura, Papua. After completing data collection at SMAN 4 Jayapura, the vice principal asked me to fill in one of the ‘affirmative classes’ (i.e. classes designed for indigenous Papuans, funded by the local government under the special autonomy law). I had expected them to be particularly intelligent, being students of a prominent school. But I was still flabbergasted by how critical and brazen they are with the questions they addressed me with.

They asked me why I decided to go to Papua as part of my research. Usually any kind of development and/or research stops as Sulawesi.

They asked me what I expected of them before I arrived. Did I expect them to wear Kotekas like most Javanese do.

They asked of my thoughts on the Free Papua Movement. I answered as honestly that I could. That although I have an Indonesian bias, I was not born and raised in a land that is abused by foreign companies. The best I can do is support the right for Papuans to choose.

They asked me how old I was and why I decided to continue my education. They asked me how they can do the same and whether or not their being poor would hinder their efforts.

They asked me what my religion and ethnicity was. And with the chance to state my views prior to their questions, I understood from their gestures that having heard my answers – it did not matter to them.

I explained that it is very easy for people from Jakarta in particular and Java in general to compete. With sound infrastructure, the starting line of this sprint race is not the same. I also explained that there is increasing attention from international aid, in the form of scholarships, for East Indonesia. Do not stop.

If any of my students are reading this now, please realise that the competition is not fair. And it will remain unfair for quite a while. This sounds like a cliché, but while we fuss about not being able to watch Hollywood films during the weekends, some walk down mountains without shoes to receive basic education. It is the responsibility of the priviledged, because we were born in a social setting that makes it easier for us to be economically and socially mobile, to make sure we do what we can to make sure that nobody gets left behind.

Travel. Expose ourselves to less developed areas of the country (or the world). Choose a career line that is of benefit to other people. Living solely for our own happiness will sooner or later feel hollow and purposeless. At least for me.

It is not thoughtful, it is not even kind. It is being responsible; a lame attempt to avoid being ignorant. The cycle of inequality may only stop when we realise that it’s there.

And not keep quiet.

Questioning Religious Divides

Note: Article published at Inside Indonesia. Unfortunately it doesn't include the recent FPI-SCTV debacle. More reading here.

A recent film supporting religious pluralism stirs public debate

Inaya Rakhmani

In April 2011, thousands of Indonesian film-goers flocked to director Hanung Bramantyo’s latest film with the intriguing title of ‘?’ (Question Mark – in Indonesian, Tanda Tanya). Hanung has had a string of successful Islam-themed films starting with Ayat-Ayat Cinta (Verses of Love) in 2008, a film addressing the personal aspects of polygamy. That was followed in 2009 by Perempuan Berkalung Sorban (Woman with a Scarf around Her Neck) which dealt with Islamic feminism, still a highly controversial topic. In 2010, he directed Sang Pencerah (The Enlightener) which portrays the life of Muhammadiyah founder KH Ahmad Dahlan (1869-1923) as a progressive leader – one who was modern, open-minded and rational and dared to challenge the authority of the more dominant, traditional religious teachers of his time. Audiences now expect that Hanung’s films will deal with contemporary issues confronting Indonesian Muslims.

They were not disappointed with this year’s film. In ‘?’ Hanung once again deals with a sensitive issue, religious pluralism. The date of the film’s release, as well as its content, underlines its theme. Fresh in viewers’ memories were the September 2010 attack on Christian pastors in Bekasi, the devastating violent acts against Ahmadis in Cikeusik in February 2011 and the ongoing revoking of church permits, the latest that of Yasmin Church in Bogor in March 2011.

In contrast to the violence of the anti-Christian and anti-Ahmadi acts, which threaten peaceful co-existence between religious groups, the film ‘?’ centres on the intersection between people’s daily lives and their (chosen) religion. One of the film’s main characters, Rika, converts from Islam to Catholicism. Rika’s conversion is explained in a scene where her husband speaks about loving another woman, as if he is considering polygamy, while Rika cries in bed, hugging their son. Although Rika’s inner spiritual journey from Islam to her new faith is not revealed, the film touches on socio-cultural practices in Indonesia, particularly in multi-faith Semarang. The film highlights how these practices affect converts and community members of different convictions.

An illustration of such practices is provided by restaurant owner Tan Kat Sun, who shows sensitivity to the beliefs of his Muslim customers by using separate cooking utensils when preparing pork and non-pork dishes. He also allows his Muslim employee, the veil-wearing Menuk, to take prayer breaks during work hours. In these and other ways the film depicts the lived realities of religious practice, and shows the compassion and tolerance which can exist between community members.

With violent acts motivated by religious extremism on the increase in Indonesia, the film’s message is a significant one. The country’s commercial media in general and television stations in particular favour sensational news over quality journalism because the former attracts ratings. Hanung’s film offers an alternative and more nuanced view to the sensationalism and extremist positions that currently dominate Indonesia’s information and entertainment industry.

Conservative reactions

Hanung Bramantyo and his film ‘?’ have been heavily criticised by conservative Muslim groups. One example is the organisation Voice of Al Islam. In an online article entitled Hanung’s Film “?” Should be Entitled “The Apostate”, Voice of Al Islam claims that Hanung’s definition of tolerance erodes the faith of believers and is the gateway to hell. Desastian, author of the article, asserts that the film presents Islam negatively, as being ‘exaggerative, tendentious, and fatalistic’. In the same article, KH Cholil Ridwan, the Head of the Indonesian Ulama Council’s (MUI) Centre for Culture, stated that ‘The film clearly propagates religious pluralism, which has been declared haram (forbidden) for Muslims.’ He refers to the film’s opening statement: ‘Every path is different, but heads to the same destination: seeking the same entity with the same objective, God.’ He suggests that Hanung should learn how to recite and understand the Qur’an rather than speak about issues he does not fully comprehend.

Cholil seems to believe Hanung’s inadequate knowledge of Islam has led him to treat all religions as having the same goal. Yet, somewhat ironically, through his film Hanung argues that religious violence stems from ignorance. In an interview with the Jakarta Globe soon after the film’s release, he said ‘to wage a proper battle against the stupidity and ignorance that causes so many problems in our lives we should strive for a well-rounded and informed viewpoint’. In the same interview, he argues that ‘Islam today is readily associated with intolerance toward people of opposing faiths, acts of terrorism and even violent theology.’ It is clear that he is using the film to communicate his own views of religious tolerance.

Support for the film

The message on pluralism delivered by ‘?’ is apparently in line with the government’s current projection of religion as part of national identity. The Minister of Culture and Tourism, Jero Wacik, told journalists that the film should be entitled Bhinneka Tunggal Ika (Unity in Diversity, Indonesia’s national motto) for its depiction of ethnic and religious tolerance, particularly its depiction of Indonesia’s multiple ethnicities and religious groups. The minister says the film, particularly because it is made by an Indonesian, represents the nation’s character.

The online magazine, Majalah Madina Online, has also praised Hanung’s efforts to present a positive image of Islam in Indonesia. A supporter of religious pluralism, the magazine’s editor-in-chief, Ade Armando, reminded readers that despite incidents of violence in the name of religion, Indonesia is a country that can nurture a peaceful Islam – one that respects diversity. Armando also praised the film’s main investor, Mahaka Pictures and its Chief Executive Officer, Eric Thohir, for supporting pluralist ideas. As Armando notes, ‘This is very important considering the fact that Mahaka is the company that also publishes Republika newspaper, known for its conservative position in on pluralism.’

A public ‘space’

The public debate surrounding the film is an interesting one. It is a general trend that institutional media, namely televised news programs, have mainly focused on Islamic radicalism in Indonesia. For instance, the strident demonstrations of the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) are often featured in the TV news. The FPI demonstrators with their loud chants, threatening gestures, and ritual burning of objects provide sensational footage and dramatic scenes which have become the staples of commercial television.

By contrast, Hanung’s ‘?’ provided the trigger to initiate an internet-mediated debate that questions the role of Muslims in a plural nation. Being a medium that does not rely on sensationalism to attract an audience, the internet provided a space for different and even opposing ideas to interact. While religious issues reported by television news often feature violence or provocative behaviour, the debate between Desastian and Hanung about ‘?’, was conducted in a low-key and even balanced way on Voice Al Islam’s website. Although Desastian and Hanung disagreed and sometimes used aggressive language, their arguments were rational and each respected the other’s right to speak their mind.

Readers of Armando’s article in Madina Online also praised Hanung for his depiction of religious tolerance although some condemned him for over-simplifying Islamic teachings. This was also the atmosphere when I saw the film in the theatre. A man in the audience audibly exclaimed ‘Astaghfirullah’ (God forgive me) in a scene where one of the film’s characters, Surya, a down and out Muslim actor, played Jesus in an Easter play. But when the film ended, I heard several members of the audience applauding and no one left the theatre in anger.

By its fifth day, ‘?’ had reached almost 100,000 viewers, a number predicted to grow to over one million by the end of 2011. The number of viewers indicates that Indonesians are interested in films which deal with sensitive topics in a realistic contemporary context. The relatively civil debate that ensued about the film’s subject matter indicates that that Indonesian citizens, be they film makers, audiences, or religious authorities are not always passive bystanders. When the state fails to protect vulnerable groups, some choose to use the internet to argue for the rights of those groups and peaceful co-existence. And, in contrast to the flowering of action at the end of the New Order, it is not happening simply because of the emergence of a more liberal political and economic climate – it is happening because Indonesians are actively seizing these new opportunities for debate.

Inaya Rakhmani (inaya.rakhmani@gmail.com) is a Media Studies lecturer at the Department of Communication Science, University of Indonesia. She is currently completing her PhD thesis at the Asia Research Centre, Murdoch University. She wishes to thank Dapur Film Productions and Voice of Al Islam for permission to publish images from the film.