Quo Vadis NU Setelah Kembali ke Khittah 1926

The traditionalist Muslim Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) is Indonesia's largest organisation. Credibly claiming the loyalties of twenty or thirty million Indonesians, it is also the largest organisation of its kind in the Muslim world, even if the number of dues-paying members is but a small minority of that figure. In contrast to the modernist Muslim movements and organisations, however, NU is relatively little studied. There is no published monograph in any European language yet (although several are under way now). A number of books on NU Indonesian have recently appeared, however, of which the two books under review are the most interesting.

Both books give a summary overview of the history of the organisation but concentrate primarily on the important decisions taken in the mid-1980s: the acceptance by NU of the state ideology Pancasila as its one and only foundation (asas tunggal) and its loosening of the organic ties linking it with the Muslim political party PPP. These decisions amounted to emphatic declarations of loyalty and obedience to the Suharto regime, a clear foreswearing of the oppositional attitude of the 1970s. To some observers it appeared that the NU had returned to its opportunism of the Sukarno period. It was, in fact, obvious that the decisions were taken under heavy pressure by the government. At the same time, however, these decisions also presented themselves as the logical consequences of a process of soul-searching among reform-minded, committed NU members that had started well before the pressure was on.

Both Sitompul's and Marijan's books have received an imprimatur in the form of a laudatory preface by a prominent NU leader. It is perhaps not surprising that their interpretation of the events largely follows that of NU's apologists. They uncritically repeat the claim that the accommodating attitude of the 1980s does not represent a break with the uncompromising one of the 1970s, and that both were rooted in fiqh, Islamic jurisprudence, applied to different situations. As a result, they pay relatively little attention to the sheer pressure exerted by the authorities in order to force NU into compliance.

Einar Sitompul is a Protestant theologian, and he wrote the book under review as his master's thesis. Pancasila may represent different things to different people, but for Indonesia's non-Muslims it means first of all a guarantee against the idea of an Islamic state in which they would be reduced to second-class citizens. The formal acknowledgement by NU that in social and political matters Pancasila rather than Islamic ideology will be its guiding principle was obviously reassuring. (Christian organisations, however, hesitated much longer before finally declaring Pancasila their "one-and-only foundation", showing their awareness that it was not simply a matter of harmonious inter-religious relations.) Sitompul attempts to show, as Abdurrahman Wahid has done in numerous newspaper columns, that tolerance toward other faiths and an all-embracing Indonesian patriotism is part and parcel of NU's tradition, and that the 1984 decision to proclaim Pancasila as its one-and-only "foundation" simply formalised what had always been NU's attitude anyway. He pays little attention to the process of redefining key terms in the Pancasila debate that made this proclamation palatable to the NU elite, and none at all to the pain and sense of betrayal this decision caused many.

Ironically, one of the government's chief reasons for imposing ideological conformity upon the nation and obliging social and political associations to formally renounce all ideological commitments apart from Pancasila was precisely NU's oppositional stand in the 1978 session of the MPR. NU's deputies (who were part of the PPP group) opposed legislation concerning Pancasila indoctrination courses; they were particularly offended by a passage in Pancasila course books declaring all five officially recognised religions equally good. They also vehemently protested a related piece of legislation granting a form of recognition to mystical sects (aliran kepercayaan), which in a sense are competitors of the great religions. In the view of many Muslims, it should be noted, Pancasila as interpreted by the Suharto regime reflected a kepercayaan mentality that was not entirely reconcilable with conscientious Islam. Realising they could not stop this legislation, the NU deputies, followed by the other members of the PPP group, walked out of the assembly. This was the most radical form of protest seen in this body during the New Order, and in the government view a grave violation of Pancasila democracy. In 1980 NU once again staged a walk-out from parliament, this time to protest undemocratic provisions in the new election law. This, it appears, was the last straw for Suharto, who henceforth was determined not to allow any other ideology -- religious, socialist, liberal, or whatever -- beside Pancasila.

The change from partial rejection of Pancasila in the 1970s to its adoption as the exclusive ideological orientation in the 1980s was more dramatic than Sitompul's account suggests. Because of his emphasis on continuity, he does not -- at least not explicitly -- address the question of what caused this change. His treatment of the break with PPP also remains rather superficial. He appears to take the explanations of apologists of the present policy at face value. NU's involvement in practical politics was, in this view, a mistake that caused the organisation to deviate from its original course (the "khittah" of founding year 1926) as an apolitical association with religious and social aims. Sitompul does mention some of the events that led to a disenchantment with PPP, but he does not attempt to place them in an explanatory framework, nor does he consider that within NU there are different interpretations of the same events. Interviews with the various factions within NU might have given him a different perspective. The book however is exclusively based on published written materials. It is useful because it gives a readable synthesis of what has been written before, without however offering a new analysis or interpretation.

Marijan's book is not very analytical either but it is more informative on the internal dynamics of NU. The author, a young political scientist at Surabaya's Airlangga University, is more of an insider, being of NU family background himself and having interviewed various members of the NU elite. Like Sitompul, he writes a straight-forward narrative history without much critical reflection, but he is more aware of the various factions within NU and of the less visible pressures exerted by the regime. He is to my knowledge the first author to describe in some detail the meetings and lobbying of young reformers (including Abdurrahman Wahid but also some who later fell out with him) seeking to redefine NU's mission, but he also leaves little doubt that the break with PPP was demanded by the regime. Describing how toward the 1987 elections leading NU members were seen campaigning against PPP rather than simply remaining neutral, Marijan comments that NU was obliged to prove to the government that its break with PPP was for real and not just a cosmetic measure.

Marijan also gives a glimpse of the ambiguities in the slogan of "return to the khittah of 1926", which does not for everybody mean a departure from practical politics. For the group that became dominant it did mean a clean break with PPP, but many NU members remained active in that party, and others who turned against PPP dreamt of NU's becoming a party in its own right again. For others, return to the khittah meant that the organisation should be controlled by the ulama father than Jakartan politicians. (These people initially placed their hopes in Abdurrahman Wahid but were soon disappointed.) The question in Marijan's title (Quo vadis?) probably refers to the existence of these conflicting interpretations of what course NU had taken at its crucial 1984 congress. He does not really address that question nor attempt to sketch possible scenarios or chart likely courses for the near future. However, the reader with that question in mind will find much useful information in this book.

-----------------------------

Named Works: Quo Vadis NU Setelah Kembali Ke Khittah 1926 (Book) Book reviews

Source Citation:Bruinessen, Martin van. "Quo Vadis NU Setelah Kembali ke Khittah 1926." Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 25.n2 (Sept 1994): 419(3). Expanded Academic ASAP. Gale. Victoria University. 25 Sept. 2007
.

Title:Quo Vadis NU Setelah Kembali ke Khittah 1926.

Author(s):Martin van Bruinessen.

Source:Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 25.n2 (Sept 1994): pp419(3). (1328 words)

Document Type:Magazine/Journal

Bookmark:Bookmark this Document

Library Links:

Full Text :COPYRIGHT 1994 Singapore University Press Pte. Ltd. (Singapore)

By KACUNG MARIJAN. Jakarta: Penerbit Erlangga, 1992. Pp. xxvii, Appendices, Bibliography. [In Indonesian.]