Hinduism in Modern Indonesia

Martin Ramstedt

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2005
• ISBN:
  9781135790523
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Histoire
• Subtopic: Histoire moderne

This book provides new data and perspectives on the development of 'world religion' in post-colonial societies through an analysis of the development of 'Hinduism' in various parts of Indonesia from the early twentieth century to the present. This development has been largely driven by the religious and cultural policy of the Indonesian central government, although the process began during the colonial period as an indigenous response to the introduction of modernity.

1

INTRODUCTION

Negotiating identities – Indonesian ‘Hindus’ between local, national, and global interests

Martin Ramstedt

Rwāneka dhātu winuwus wara Buddha Wiśwa,

bhī beki rakwa ring apan kena parwanosen,

mangkāng Jinatwa kalawan Śiwatatwa tunggal,

bhīneka tunggal ika tan hana dharmma mangrwa.

It is often said that the eminent Buddha and Śiwa are two different essences,

indeed different from each other at a quick glance.

But the essence of the Jina and the reality of Śiwa are identical,

diverse, yet identical, as there are no two Truths.

(Kakawin Sutasoma, Canto CXXXIX, 5)¹

I would like to start the introduction to this volume by invoking the well-known motto of the Indonesian Republic ‘Bhīineka Tunggal Ika’, usually translated as ‘unity in diversity’. Just like the national heraldic beast, the garuda, vehicle of Lord Wiṣṇ, it was taken from the Hindu-Javanese heritage by Indonesia's founding fathers to inspire national unity. More precisely, it was taken from the Kakawin Sutasoma, a fourteenth-century Buddhist epic, which was created by one of the foremost Hindu-Javanese poets, Mpu Tantular, in the heyday of the East Javanese kingdom of Majapahit.² I found the motto a befitting opening for a volume on Hinduism in modern Indonesia, not because I wanted to argue for the continuity of the Hindu-Javanese court culture of Majapahit up to present-day Hindu Dharma Indonesia. Notwithstanding the fact that the Javanese nationalist imagination of Majapahit as the precursor of the modern Indonesian nation-state did indeed have an impact on the development of modern Indonesian Hinduism, my intention was rather to point to the still unresolved issue of ‘unity in diversity’ , namely an ongoing situation in which cultural and religious pluralism (emphasizing ‘diversity’) is pitted against cultural and religious homogenization (emphasizing ‘unity’),³ as the most important determinant for the past and future development of Hindu Dharma in the modern Indonesian nation-state. In this respect, it is important to note that ‘unity in diversity’ has not only been a difficult issue for the Indonesian nationalization process. It has also remained an unresolved problem in the ongoing universalization of Indian Hindu Dharma as ‘world religion’, a process which started in the nineteenth century, and of which the emergence and development of Hindu Dharma Indonesia has been an inseparable part.

Both processes have consequently formed important reference points for the chapters presented in this volume. Therefore let me first elaborate on the intricacies of these processes and then place the individual contributions within the overall conceptual framework. Before immersing myself in the details that are relevant to the development of universal Hinduism and its impact on the development of Hindu Dharma Indonesia, I will first turn to the difficult and often painful Indonesianization process (in Indonesian rendered as persatuan dan kesatuan, which translates as ‘union and unity’, implying a continuous proactive striving for union and ongoing commitment to unity), because it was this process that spurred the development of modern Indonesian Hinduism in the first place.

Right from the outset of the Indonesian nationalist movement in the early twentieth century, the heterogeneity of languages, local cosmologies, belief systems, ideologies, cultures, and lifestyles in the archipelago posed major obstacles to a unified struggle for independence. Pluralism was thus an apparent factor to take into account by leaders of supra-regional movements, and when zealous pioneers of an archipelago-wide nationalist movement, representing an array of different ethnic and ideological groups,⁴ met at the second Indonesian Youth Congress (Kongres Pemuda Indonesia) from 27 to 28 October 1928, to swear the ‘Oath of the Indonesian Youth’ (Sumpah Permuda Indonesia), they envisaged the basis of the Indonesian national identity accordingly. Hence, instead of invoking, imagining, or projecting a primordial ethnic link on to the future unification of the peoples of the archipelago, it was agreed (Keputusan Kongres Pemuda) that the common historical experience (from the time of Majapahit up to the current age of Dutch colonization), common adoption of the Malay vernacular (Bahasa Indonesia), a common notion of law and justice based on Indonesia's various local traditions (hukum adat), common education, and a common spirit of and conscious striving for national unification and independence were to unite the native inhabitants of the archipelago into one Indonesian nation.⁵

When independence seemed to be finally within reach at the very end of the Japanese occupation, from 29 April 1945 onwards, the members of the Investigative Committee for the Preparation of Indonesian Independence (Badan Penyelidik Usaha-Usaha Persiapan Kemerdekaan Indonesia, BPUPKI) set out to reinvesti-gate and thereby specify the basis of national unity in the constitution of the soon to be independent Indonesia. The committee was selected by Sukarno and ratified by the Japanese. It consisted of 62 members, representing all the major political and ideological factions of the independence movement, and was presided over by Dr Radjiman Wedyodiningrat, one of the leaders of Budi Utomo and a longstanding member of the Theosophical Society.⁶

Budi Utomo has been called the first nationalist organization in the Dutch East Indies, both by Indonesian politicians and Western scholars. The European-style, nationalist Javanese organization had been established in 1908 by Dr Wahidin Soedirohoesodo, Soetomo, and M. Soeradji. Its (Javanese) name, ‘Noble Endeavour’, points to the aspirations of its members, all of them Javanese intellectuals from an aristocratic or priyayi (native officials within the Dutch colonial bureaucracy) background. Trying to blend valuable aspects of the literary Javanese court culture with Dutch scientific learning, they endeavoured to further the traditional Javanese arts and spiritual values, such as harmony with the social and natural cosmos (rukun) and a contemplative way of life as professed by the various kebatinan groups, while doing away with out-dated ‘feudal’ customs. In order to realize their aspirations, they set out to strive for ‘a proper education for the broader layer of Javanese society and a heightening of the national consciousness of the Javanese’.⁷ Rather than furthering an all-Indonesian nationalism, Budi Utomo was thus, in fact, a forum for ‘Javanist’ aspirations.

The term ‘Javanist’ was coined by Robert W. Hefner, designating those strands of the Javanese population who believe ‘that even while embracing Islam one should qualify or neglect many of its formal strictures in favour of High-Javanese traditions’.⁸ And ‘High-Javanese tradition’ has, according to Hefner, been grounded on Javanese court etiquette, court ritual, court language, and court aesthetics, which again are rooted in a kind of mysticism (kebatinan) that displays Hindu-Buddhist, Sufi-Islamic influences and what have often been called ‘animist’ traits.⁹

That Budi Utomo endeavoured to realize Javanist aspirations rather than pan-Indonesian ones was, for instance, borne out by Wahidin's inaugural speech in which he emphasized the pre-Islamic tradition of Java, discussing at length the continuous Hindu-Buddhist influence of ancient Java. It is in this context that the link between Budi Utomo and the Theosophical Society acquires its meaning. European members of the Dutch East Indies' branch of the Theosophical Society – and many a high-standing member of Dutch colonial society in the Indies among them – had openly professed allegiance to certain Hindu Mahatmas, on whose behalf Helena Petrovna Blavatsky had – according to her own words – started the Theosophical movement. These Mahatmas, believed to reside in remote spots somewhere in the Himalayas, were inspiring both the ideal of the universal Brotherhood of Men to be built by the Theosophical Society and the Society's teaching of ‘Divine Wisdom’ embracing all religions of the world as manifestations of the ultimate, one and only source of all religion, albeit with a certain preference for ‘Reform-’ or ‘Neo-Hinduism’ (see below) and Buddhism. The appreciation of Indian philosophy by European Theosophists subsequently inspired not only Indian Hindus or Singhalese and Burmese Buddhists to (re)turn to their own religious traditions; it also stimulated a new interest of the Javanese learned elite to revitalize and reconstruct their Hindu-Javanese past in what has become known as the Javanese nationalist movement.

With Radjiman being the head of the Investigative Committee for the Preparation of Indonesian Independence, the tone was set, one would think, for the common acknowledgement of pluralism, especially religious pluralism, since Theosophy preaches the ultimate oneness of all the religions of the world. Yet, Budi Utomo – and Javanese nationalism in general – was strongly biased against political Islam, partly due – one has to admit – to the contrivance of the Dutch. Taking Christiaan Snouck Hurgronje's warning against political Islam seriously, the Dutch colonial government had helped to increase the rift between Javanists and orthodox Muslims (santri) by strengthening the position of the priyayi and by boosting the study and reconstruction of the traditional Javanese court culture as a buffer against pan-Islamic – and Communist, for that matter – ideas.¹⁰

The first meetings of the Radjiman Committee took place from 28 May to 1 June 1945. On the last day of these meetings, Sukarno introduced ‘five principles’ (Pancasila) to the assembly, which he claimed to have excavated from the depth of Indonesia’ s traditions, and which were to become the philosophical foundation of the future Indonesian state: nationalism (kebangsaan), humanity or internationalism (peri-kemanusiaan/internasionalisme), political decision-making based on discussion and unanimity as practised in the traditional ‘village republics’ (permusyawaratan/ perwakilan [mufakat/demokrasi]), social welfare (kesejahteraan social), and belief in God (ketuhanan). He then merged the five principles into three (Trisila): socio-nationalism (sosio nasionalisme), socio-democracy (sosio demokrasi), and belief in God (ketuhanan). In a further process of distillation, he reduced the three to one (Ekasila), i.e. cooperation in the spirit of the traditional Indonesian villages as the core of national unity (negara gotong-royong). His proposition – later called ‘Birth of the Pancasila’ (Lahirnya Pancasila) – was accepted by the majority of delegates through acclamation. It was, however, greeted with sharp protest on the part of the representatives of political Islam, who would not condone what they believed to be a glaring and uncalled-for neglect of the role of Islam in the future constitution. Consequently, as unanimity had not yet been reached, a smaller committee, presided by Sukarno himself and consisting of 38 members of the Radjiman Committee was to draw up a final conclusion of the matter. Of the 38 people, nine were eventually chosen to spearhead this working committee. Among them was, of course, Sukarno, co-ordinating and guiding the proceedings. The deliberations of the Sukarno Committee resulted in the so-called ‘Jakarta Charter’ (Piagam Jakarta), which proposed a reformulation of the Pancasila, starting with the Koranic formula ‘[b]y the blessing of the mercy of Allah, the Almighty’ (‘[a]tas berkat rahmat Allah Yang Maha Kuasa’) and demanding that every Indonesian Muslim live in accordance with Islamic law (syariat).

Meetings of the Radjiman Committee were resumed from 10 to 17 July 1945. On 11 July, another sub-committee was appointed, consisting of 19 members of the Radjiman Committee. It, too, was chaired by Sukarno. From the 19 members of this committee, seven were then drawn to work out the details of the statutes of the Indonesian Constitution under the guidance of the eminent, Dutch-educated lawyer Dr Supomo. Like Radjiman, Supomo was one of the leaders of Budi Utomo and a member of the Theosophical Society.¹¹ He was a fervent advocate of the diverse adat law or local customary law traditions¹² in the archipelago, which – according to him – should inform the constitutional foundation of what he called the ‘integral [Indonesian] state’. He thus pleaded for the cultural highlights of the various local traditions to be ‘organically integrated’ into the new nation-state. Supomo proposed this as a synthesis of his study of the Dutch adat law school (in the sense of a school of thought) as well as of the political ideals of German and Japanese fascism, wedding such diverse concepts as the Nazi ideal of the ‘organic unity of blood and soil’, the Japanese ideal of organizing societ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Routledgecurzon Iias Asian Studies Series
• Full Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of illustrations
• List of contributors
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Introduction: negotiating identities – Indonesian ‘Hindus’ between local, national, and global interests
• 2 The Theosophical Society in the Dutch East Indies, 1880–1942
• 3 The revival of Buddhism in modern Indonesia
• 4 What's in a name? Agama Hindu Bali in the making
• 5 The development of Hindu education in Bali
• 6 The Parisada Hindu Dharma Indonesia in a society in transformation: the emergence of conflicts amidst differences and demands
• 7 Hindu reform in an Islamizing Java: pluralism and peril
• 8 Ethnic, national, and international loyalties of Indonesian Christians
• 9 Peacemaker for religious conflicts? The value of pela relationships in Ambon
• 10 Religion and ethnic identity of the Mentawaians on Siberut (West Sumatra)
• 11 From ‘Grooter Toradja’ to ‘Toraja Raya’: emergent ethnic identity, expansionism, and political struggle in Tana Toraja and Luwu, South Sulawesi
• 12 The Hinduization of local traditions in South Sulawesi
• 13 The position of Hinduism in Karo society (North Sumatra)
• 14 Old gods for the new world: the ritual struggle of the Tamil and the Karo within Hinduism in North Sumatra
• 15 Cultural and religious interaction between modern India and Indonesia
• 16 Hinduism, identity, and social conflict: the Sai Baba movement in Bali
• Index