Disciplining the Accepted and Amputating the Deviants: Religious Nationalism and Segregated Citizenship in Indonesia

Abstract

T. H. Marshall’s 1950 seminal work shows that the granting of civil, political, and social rights leads to the institutionalization of rules binding the state and its citizens. In practice, however, citizenship goes beyond these unproblematized paternalistic relations. It is political, involving connection, competition, and conflicts. Isin and Turner (2002) propose that “citizenship” should be examined through its extent (norms of inclusion and exclusion), content (rights and responsibility), and depth (citizens’ perceived relation to their political community). In Indonesia, the discrimination against members of minority religions by Islamic conservative groups is among the main issues in politics. This article therefore examines the ambiguity between the constitutionally embraced “religious freedom” and the everyday discriminatory practices of conservative groups. Taking the case-studies of the sectarian campaign against a Chinese-Christian governor, the blasphemy sentence of a Chinese-Buddhist woman, and the persecution of the Ahmadiyah and Syiah, I argue that conservative groups have practised a “segregated citizenship” that prioritizes the values and interests of the majority religion against those of both the “accepted” and the “unaccepted” minority religions.

Introduction to the Research Handbook on Law, Movements and Social Change: On "legitimate political discourse" in the global twenty-first century

“…States and other powerful actors create propaganda narratives that reinforce deeply embedded beliefs and identities, while activists try to expose the lies of these narratives or replace them with alternatives. Sometimes the most politically consequential narratives come from sources outside the boundaries of institutional politics, from conspiracy theories (Cassam, 2019) to religious revivals (Abiri, 2021;Gorski & Perry, 2022;Holmes, 2001;Kyaw, 2021;Simandjuntak, 2021;Tonsakulrungruang, 2021;Van der Veer, 2021) to celebrity fandoms (Cramer, 2015;Majic et al, 2020). The growth of social media has further transformed the ways these narratives circulate (Adunbi, 2017; de Sa e Silva, 2022b; Khan & Aziz, Chapter 12 in this Handbook; Nyabola, 2018;Nyong'o, 2012;Wang & Liu, Chapter 9 in this Handbook).…”

Grassroot Women’s Perspective on Interreligious Issues: A Sociocultural Analysis

“…On the other side, the Indonesian government was built on the modern paradigm of separating religious and secular matters. Due to the presence of six legal religions in the country, this distinction extended to the institutionalization of religion, resulting in each individual being exclusively a member of a legal religion (Krisharyanto Umbu Deta, 2022;Safa'at, 2019;Simandjuntak, 2021). As a result, interreligious encounters are unavoidable, demanding an awareness of Diana Eck's paradigms of exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism.…”

The Repertoires of Religious Nationalism: The Case of İsmet Özel

“…As such, religious nationalism turns into an empty signifier. This is especially true for the pieces of area studies, employing the concept and its correlates in the analyses of potentially fruitful cases of religious nationalism, such as India (Ahmed 2011a;Hansen 1999;Varshney 1991), Pakistan (Ahmed 2011b;Varshney 1991), Indonesia (Simandjuntak 2021;Formichi 2010;Bourchier 2019), Malaysia (Barr and Govindasamy 2010), Burma (Gravers 2015), Sri Lanka (DeVotta and Stone 2008), Israel (Yadgar and Hadad 2021;Scham 2018;Inbari 2012), Turkey (Haynes 2010;Kaplan 2005), and the Balkans (Loizides 2009). They cite little, if any, from the literature on religious nationalism and barely offer analytical frameworks for the concept beyond the narrations and illustrations of what is considered as religious nationalism, apart from a few exceptions (e.g., Yıldız and Kizir 2022;Aghaie 2014;Ram 2008).…”