FRANZ MAGNIS-SUSENO: Religious Tolerance is SBY's Responsibility  

Franz Magnis-Suseno, an expert in philosophy who monitors closely issues on human rights and interfaith dialogue, sent out his email which would reverberate around cyberspace. Three weeks ago, this Jesuit priest and philosophy professor wrote an open letter to the Appeal of Conscience Foundation (ACF), a New York-based organization allegedly promoting peace, democracy, tolerance and interfaith dialogue. The ACF presented its World Statesman Award to President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, which he accepted on May 30 in New York.

In his electronic epistle, Magnis asked the ACF what motivated them to present the award: “How could you make this decision without consulting the people of Indonesia?" Magnis confessed to being concerned about the rise in violence against Ahmadiyah and Shia followers. The case of Yasmin Church is another example of a never-ending issue that Magnis submitted as evidence of increasing pressure on minorities in Indonesia. The President, as leader of Indonesia, according to Magnis, has not addressed the problem as he should.

"Therefore, I wrote the letter in my personal capacity," Magnis told Tempo.

The pros and cons in response to the letter quickly emerged, domestically and from other countries. A petition appeared online urging the ACF to cancel the award. Conversely, there were many who were upset at Magnis's challenge, particularly among people in the president's camp.

Magnis is taking in all the criticism against him with aplomb. "I was harsh, so they also have the right to be equally harsh," he said. He admitted that his words were justified, while acknowledging that freedom of religion in Indonesia was--in general--working. But he said the situation could regress if the acts of violence against minorities are allowed to go on.

Last week, Romo Magnis met Tempo reporters Hermien Y. Kleden, Agoeng Wijaya and Maria Rita Hasugian for a special interview. He spoke in faultless Indonesian, although his thick German accent was quite pronounced.

What prompted you to write your protest letter to the ACF?

I was very upset at that foundation. I felt offended because they gave that award without considering the conditions over here, as if freedom of faith and religious tolerance in Indonesia is so good that it deserves an award. They obviously never consulted the relevant parties involved in freedom of religion in Indonesia.

Who did you consult with before sending your letter?

I exchanged emails with many people who questioned the ACF's plan. My point was, why keep complaining? So I decided to write a letter of protest.

How did you identify yourself in the letter? As a professor, a philosopher, a religious person or an observer of human rights?

As an Indonesian citizen, I am very concerned at the increasing intolerance in our country, worried that the government was allowing it to happen. The government here is the President. He is the head of state and chief executive. Whatever happens here is the responsibility of the state's CEO.

So, why didn,t you send a critical letter to President Yudhoyono?

I didn't want to write a letter to the President' and I refused to comment whether he should receive the award or not. The gist of the letter was: a sharp criticism of the President.

You dared saying that for eight years he has been in power Yudhoyono never once asked the Indonesian people to respect the rights of minorities?

I don't remember the President ever saying it' specifically on the issue of the Ahmadiyah and the Shia. I cannot remember once when he said that the Ahmadiyah and the Shia are our people' so let us guarantee their safety.

The impression many people got is that your letter was very emotional. The award, after all, is not in the same class as the Nobel Peace Prize or even the Ramon Magsaysay…

Admittedly, my language was harsh, because it was a critique against a foreign foundation' so I thought I should be open about the issues.

How do you feel about the reaction of Cabinet Secretary Dipo Alam on Twitter' in which he called you a non-Muslim?

I very much hoped that religion would not enter the issue. Indirectly' this can be seen as a threat. I accept the responses because I was harsh' so they deserve to be harsh too.

We heard people around the palace came to you after the publication of your letter?

No one from the palace came to see me. There was someone from the Defense Ministry who contacted me, but he just wanted to know the background of the letter. I never got any message and I respect that.

You paint a very alarming situation of religion in our nation. Is it really that bad?

I did not say religious freedom in this country is in a critical situation. On many occasions, I always say that about 95 percent of minorities, for example the Christians, can live, work, communicate and follow their faith freely. When the Yasmin Church in Bogor was closed, many churches and their followers in that town had no problem in practicing their faith.

Why should the state or the president be responsible? Aren't religious disputes caused by relations between their respective followers?

Because the problem no longer lies on the religious people; but on the state, which is not doing its task.

Can you give a concrete example?

The Catholics or the Protestants, for example, were able to build good relations for the past 15 years with Muslims in the Nahdlatul Ulama and Muhammadiyah groups. Our experience shows that mainstream Muslims are tolerant, provide protection to and are concerned about minorities.

In your view, doesn't the violence against the Shia and Ahmadiyah reflect an intra-faith dispute?

I have heard from many of my Muslim friends who also regret the state has not done enough to prevent the violence. Of course they reject Shia and Ahmadiyah from the religious point of view. But they also reject violence. So my protest towards the state is that they have not fully carried out its task.

What have they not done enough of in Indonesia?

The state is obliged to create a zero-tolerance condition or not tolerating any violent acts at all. The government must guarantee the freedom of small groups and protect them from local threats and to educate the people.

What would happen if the situation is not controlled?

I was in Pakistan in 1969 on my way back from Germany to Indonesia. For four nights I stayed at the house of a fellow Jesuit. Not one Pakistani banned me from walking around Lahore, or even warned me to be careful. Lahore is a totally peaceful city, yet it is a very Muslim city and I was never worried. Today, every month a Shia in Pakistan is killed because of sectarian conflict.

Are you worried a similar situation will happen in Indonesia?

In Indonesia today, many people's lives have been threatened, they are unable to go back to their kampungs, some have even been killed because of their faith. My question is: where are we heading? The law must be followed. If the rule of law is sabotaged, what we will have is the law of muscle. That is the terminology popularly used to describe a nation of thugs.

The interview is also available is this week's edition of Tempo English.