Papua: A Forced Imagined Communities (?)
In one corner of Monas Museum, there is a small diorama of conference which deeply significant to Papuans today. It is a reconstruction of PEPERA (Act of Free Choice) in 1969 which finally and legitimately decided that Papua (previously West Irian) to be integral part of Indonesia. Even the decision was made clearly, the development of Papua (including West Papua) seems more retarded and often marginalized compare to other provinces in Indonesia. Until now, Papua still haves armed conflict with mysterious human rights issues between military force. The demand of Papua separatism still became warm discourses in Indonesia political life. It is even shocked by the announce of Provisional Government of Papua on last 1st December, which claims to have own constitution and rejects Indonesia’s rule. The situations bring writer to question the existences of Indonesian Nationalism in Papua. Does the concept of Indonesia nation fully exist and well develop in Papua? If so, then why we have so much conflict, problem, or issues about Papuans that does not feel fully Indonesians?
The concept of nationality refers to Benedict Anderson famous book of Imagined Communities which stated that nation is an imagined political community as both inherently limited with borders and sovereign with legitimate authority within those borders. Nationalism, according to him, develop by the development of same language and education within society that creates senses of shared information and sameness of feeling (Anderson, 1991).
By referring to Anderson’s theory of nationalism, this essay argues that Papua has its own complexity that differs from another part of Indonesia because of four factors. First, different colonials experience from Dutch East Indies towards Papua and Indonesia. Second, counter argument towards integration history especially case of PEPERA. Third, political and human rights violence towards Papuan. And fourth, failure of Papua development that marginalize Papuans itself. All the fourth arguments will be comprehensively explained in the following below.
Indonesia was formed not based on the ethnic, race, and religion identity but based on the sameness of faith as ex-Dutch colonized region. However, the way Dutch East Indies colonized Papua is different with Java. Back then, Papua or so-called Netherlands New Guinea experience dual colonialism where Dutch official held the senior administration and missionary position as well as Indonesians held low ranking positions while indigenous Papuan remain uninvolved (Chauvel, 2004). Papuan does not get anything to contribute may be due to their low education and they are forbidden to be officials until after Pacific War while Indonesians that is from Maluku, Sulawesi and Java were allowed to hold many positions in Papua that unfortunately the positions of what Papuans wanted (van Baal, 1989). Benedict Anderson himself even noted that the way Indonesians saw Papuans different with the way Papuans saw Indonesians due to the presence of many Indonesian servants in Papua. Indonesians saw Papuans as their brothers of the same fate of Dutch colonialization, but Papuans saw Indonesians as a foreigner who colonized them too (Anderson, 1991). The education of Papuans was centralized in Jayapura, not Java resulted in the sense of shared information and sameness feeling of Papua nationalism instead of Indonesia nationalism. However, the language that both nationalism use is Malay which quite ironic and paradoxical to Anderson’s theory until he noted that the paradox is not as great as it seems because role of language lies in their capacity for generating imagined communities and creating solidarities (Anderson, 1991).
After the Pacific War, Papuans finally got opportunity to have educations and positions. However, those opportunities limited in Papua are only meaning that Papuans were trained and appointed positions only in Papua, not Jakarta or Ambon. There is also social stratification between Papuans and “amberi” where the latter were the Indonesians officials of the colonial government. According to Bonay, “amberi” were seen as stooges of Dutch colonials where they treat Papuans inhumanly and discriminately as stupid, dirty and curly haired. “Amberi” superiority even worse after Indonesians became the new colonizer of Papua which continuing the conflict and antagonism between Papuans and Indonesians (Bonay, 1984). This image of Indonesians as common enemy for Papuans also increases the sense of Papua nationalism.
The third factor was the counter argument about social integration history especially case of PEPERA which are the agreement that resulted in the integration of Papua into Indonesia. Some of pro Papuan argue that PEPERA is not legitimate because it is not held in one man one vote but by discussion method called musyawarah. Another argument is that the Dewan Musyawarah PEPERA who represented Papua had got the intimidation to choose became the part of Indonesia (Stoffel, 2019). This ratification in practice was carefully orchestrated by the Indonesia authorities which was full of intimidation, coercion, and other forms of human rights violation (Chauvel, 2005 & Rosandry, 2009). In the other side, the government of Indonesia only used the pro-Indonesia Papuans to make statements that they support the integration (Pigay, 2001).
In the final result, these objections cannot break the validity of PEPERA due to the legitimation from United Nations coupled with the absence of countries, including Netherlands that opposed the agreement. However, the objections have created severe traumatic disease towards Papuan about Indonesia. Until now, there is impressions that Indonesia nationalism is like a foreign item that coercively transplanted into Papua (Meteray, 2012). Similarly, it is like marrying someone that you do not love which in other word, Indonesia authorities biggest project in Papua is to destroy Papua nationalism and replace it with Indonesia nationalism (Supriyono, 2014).
The different colonial experience continues into the second root problem which is the political and human right violence. Since PEPERA and Soeharto regime established, Indonesia nationalism constructed in militaristic approach with NKRI Harga Mati motto. This mean anyone who aspire to separate or protest to the authority considered as disobeying constitution and must be terminated in any way including human rights violation which well package and justified as noble task of the military to defend the Republic of Indonesia (Suropati, 2019). Research from International Center for Transitional Justice found that there is almost 750 alleged human rights violation that happening in Papua since 1963 until now which became root cause of Papuan distrust to Indonesia government (ICTJ, 2012). This indirectly showing how Papuans opinion about their own land were suppressed and terminated coercively until forced them to have Indonesian nationalism.
To be specific, there is numerous of human rights tragedy that happen in Papua throughout history. To list, first was Enarotali incident which killed 634 civilian that accused as separatist. Second was Timika incident which start from 1977 which destroyed many villages added with kidnapping, persecution, and disappearance of civilians. Third was the incident of Biak were totally counted of 223 civilians that persecuted and killed. This is not yet mentioning Wamena, Bela and Alama bloody incident as well as killing of public figures such as Theys Eluay, Arnold Ap and Dr. Thom Wanggai. Another human right violation was the suppressing of freedom of expression, speech and pers with extra limitation for international journalist. Not also mentioning how do government treat the political prisoners in Papua which reportedly very inhuman (Pigai, 2014). If listing all the violation case, this essay will be not ending. As to think logically, where Indonesian government treat inhumanly, it creates such differentiation which resulted in the division, hatred and alienation of Papuan in Indonesia nationalism.
The fourth factor was the failure of development in Papua which became another root factor besides political and historical factor. According to Indonesia Research Institute of Science, the failure of Papuan development and economic disparity are mainly because conflict of interest between the immigrant (amber), policy discrimination and exploitation of culture and natural resources (LIPI, 2014). Even data shown that the economic growth before the special autonomy (Otsus) was accumulatively bigger that after. Government seriousness towards health and education is considered low which can be seen of the low rate of education, high rate of illiterate and the most concerning is the high rate of HIV/AIDS and stunting case in Papua (Suropati, 2019).
The development policy in the new order also strengthens the Papuan identity such as transmigration program which create anti-Indonesia sentiment (McGibbon, 2004). The policy has created tremendous transmigrant that come to Papua to become labor force and leaving indigenous labor force (Rumbiak & Maning, 1989). One case of rice self-sufficiency program that replace natural forest to be thousand hectares of paddy field in Papua. As rice is not the main carbohydrate of Papua, Papuans were not used to work in paddy field and those paddy field were worked by transmigrant that come from Java (Supriyono, 2012). Papuans were not involved in Papua development and transmigrants saw them as ‘backward society’ which more inferior (Supriyono, 2014).
Since Papuans become the second-class community and only become the watcher of Papua development, there must be sentiment or feelings that they were not belong to Indonesia. It has been a clear picture that Papua has their own complex issue due to what Indonesian government has done to develop Papua itself. In the future development, Papuans as the indigenous must put as involving actors to do positive things for them to have sense of belongings to Papua and eventually to Indonesia itself.
To conclude, there are four majoring factors to answer the question of why Papua have their own complexity that distinct another area in Indonesia. Those factors are different colonial experience, contrary arguments on PEPERA that cost severe trauma on history, political and human rights violation as well as failure on development and policy. To think of such event that happened throughout history of Papua, it could be think by basic logic on any human being that Papua have traumatic problems that the government must put on focus into it. Coming back into Anderson theory, Papua has their own nationalism which can be traced from colonial experience and seems still growing by the presence of ‘common enemy’ and handling by military force or hand fist. By the arguments above, writer conclude that Indonesian nationalism in case of Papua was putted in by force and therefore not purely a construct “imagined communities” as Anderson argued. For writer, it seems make sense that Papua is more a forced imagined communities which government of Indonesia had a great homework to solve it. It is our job as citizen of Indonesia to spread to spirit of inclusivity and Bhineka Tunggal Ika specifically focusly on Papuan citizens. From this great experience, let us not forget the reminder from our founding father Mohammad Hatta about the dangerous of ‘colonialism’ within ourself.