In 2015, a group of Islamic scholars under the banner of Nahdalatul Ulama declared that an alternative vision of Islam was needed to defend the concept of the nation-state and the liberal value of Islam against the violent teachings of the ISIS caliphate. This teaching would be introduced as Islam Nusantara (Insular Islam). As elements of ISIS began to gain followers in Indonesia, the government soon approved Islam Nusantara as the country’s official religious discourse.
Since then, Islam Nusantara has been seen as a model for various Muslim countries facing inter-ethnic conflicts, and difficulties balancing religious needs and political democratization. One of the elements of this model of Nahdalatul Ulama was that national consciousness should be made part of religious doctrine. The Indonesian government and Nahdlatul Ulama have conceptualized several projects to propagate the doctrine of Islam Nusantara in Afghanistan. The Indian Muslim community was also called upon to emulate Islam Nusantara. Recently Produced by Ram Madhavi,
This brings us to two important questions: what makes Islam Nusantara different from other models of the Islamic world and how can Islam Nusantara work to resolve religious conflict in India?
Islam Nusantara—Harmony of Religions
The formation of Indonesian Islamic heritage has always included cultural elements from different civilizations—Arabia, Turkey, China, and India. This is evident in the traditional puppet theater play called Wayang, a Javanese Islamic part of the Mahabharata created by Sunan Kalijaga, who was a part of the ‘Nine Saints of Islam’ sangha on the island of Java.
Wayang includes not only characters from the Mahabharata, but also local characters called Punakavana. The traditional art form has played an integral role in harmonizing Islamic values with the heritage of Hindu civilization and has made it an integral part of Javanese culture. To this day, many Javanese and Indonesians with different cultural backgrounds are still familiar with the moral values in Wayang stories. The cultural assimilation that took place during this era can be compared to the case of the Ganga-Jamuni tehzeeb and the tolerant attitude of the Deccan Muslims towards their Hindu counterparts.
After Indonesia’s independence, the political leadership decided that the country should be neither a ‘secular’ nor a ‘secular’ state. The decision was inspired by lessons Indonesian nationalists had learned from Turkey’s enthusiastic secularism and the development of a ‘two nation’ narrative in the Indian subcontinent.
The key agreement achieved between nationalist and Islamic politicians states that Indonesia should instead be a ‘religious’ state. According to the agreement, the moral framework of the Constitution of Indonesia must find a foothold in the religious teachings followed by the Indonesian population. This is the reason why Indonesia put ‘belief in one god’ as the ultimate principle of the national ideology ‘Panchshila’.
During Indonesia’s democratization, Islamic discourse received a new challenge – the Wahhabi movement that promoted jihadism in conflict-prone areas such as Maluku. The events of the two Bali bombings prompted the government to formulate a new discourse of Islam that would prevent further radicalization. This effort was successful in the 2015 conference of Nahdlatul Ulama with the concept of Islam Nusantara.
There are two main aspects of Islam Nusantara. It envisions a creative linkage between Islam and local culture. The doctrine cannot have only ‘Javanese, syncretic and Sufi’ characteristics. It should also include the different cultures of the Indonesian people. Islam Nusantara aims to change the role of religion from a source of conflict and hatred to a source of compassion and cooperation.
Read also: The seeds of murders like Udaipur are sown in madrassas. regulate the teaching of theology
India’s problem like Indonesia
By following the Indonesian example, India can benefit in two key areas – reducing extremist tendencies and ensuring harmony between Hindus and Muslims.
It has been seriously argued that madrassas in India have influenced Muslims to radicalise. Some say that the Deobandi ideology is responsible for fundamentalism, others argue that it is due to the abandonment of secular knowledge by clerics and madrassas. India can see how Indonesia handled its madrassas, which helped them to engage with the society at large.
Madrasas in Indonesia, state-owned or private, are managed and supervised by a directorate of the Ministry of Religious Affairs. This not only helps madrassas to develop their potential but also checks extremist tendencies in their curriculum. Indonesian madrasas owe their liberal character in their fiqh education to the Bahtsul Masail model, which is led by a religious scholar and includes both male and female students. This learning model enables Indonesian Muslims to interpret fiqh in their local context. One notable difference is that Indonesian Muslims do not refer to non-Muslims as Kafirs.
Madrasas in Indonesia are also known for their openness to the local culture. Some of them, for example, Pesentran Kaliopak (Kaliopak Madrasa) have made cultural education a central part of their curriculum. In Kaliopak, the kai (or madrassa leaders) teach Islam through traditional dance forms and wayang.
The increase in violent clashes between Hindus and Muslims in India is also a matter of concern. The Udaipur murder shows how a local issue can spark nationwide protests. In the late 1990s, Indonesia also faced similar conflicts between Muslims and Christians in Maluku province. But religious leaders resolved this by setting up the Maluku Interfaith Commission (Lembaga Interfaman Maluku) to ensure general prosperity, a tolerant education model, and equal economic opportunity for those affected by the conflict.
The example of Indonesia shows India that an institutional approach, the government’s commitment to uphold the Constitution honestly and engage with relevant civil society organizations can work to reduce the impact of extremist elements.
Read also: Why Indonesian President Jokowi wants to be a ‘communication bridge’ between Russia and Ukraine
The way forward for India
So, what does India have to do with the Indonesian example? During the Indonesian presidency of the G20, two important steps were discussed.
First, the Nahdlatul Ulama, led by Yahya Cholil Staqf, decided to organize a Religious-20 (R-20) event, the first of its kind. Indonesia and India should use the R-20 Forum to help build a global, critical framework to tackle religious violence and extremism. In this aspect, the R-20 should translate into a more practical guideline the ‘authentic’ document on human fraternity, signed by the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, Ahmad Muhammad al-Tayeb, and the Catholic Church. It will provide a global curriculum on inter-religious engagement and policy making on religious harmony to countries facing problems of religious violence. This global curriculum can take Indonesian Islam as inspiration and can be implemented in India as well.
Second, the current work of the India-Indonesia Bilateral Interfaith Dialogue, established in 2018, should continue to enable effective ways of learning from each other. In addition, consideration should be given to the creation of a permanent bilateral Inter-Religious Commission to advance inter-religious exchanges and cooperation between the peoples of India and Indonesia.
The author is an assistant professor at the Department of International Relations, University Islam Indonesia. Thoughts are personal.
(Edited by Srinjoy Dey)