Papua: Theater of Development and Violence
However, we do not always realize that the formulation of technocratic regulatory documents ultimately fails to address the painful and bitter narratives of Papuans in building their future.
The ratification of the Papua Special Autonomy Law No. 2/2021 as a revision and amendment to Law No. 21/2001 coincided with the approval of the formation of three new provinces in Papua: South Papua, Central Papua and Central Mountains Papua.
The Papuan People's Assembly (MRP), an institution established by the special autonomy as the representation of the Papuan people, has proposed a judicial review of the Papua Special Autonomy Law No. 2/2021, known as the Special Autonomy Law Volume 2, on the consideration it sidesteps the interests and constitutional rights of the indigenous Papuans (OAP).
A recent demonstration in Dekai, Yahukimo regency, on March 15, 2022, in protest against the proliferation of Indonesia’s easternmost region into more provincial administrations, resulted in the deaths of Yakob Meklok and Esron Weipsa. The two victims were buried at the roadside the next day upon request of the bereaved families. The graves of the two become a monument to the Papuan people's resistance to the Special Autonomy Law Volume 2 and the planned regional proliferation imposed by the central government.
This is an ambitious technocratic document that tries to “formulate and guide the development acceleration” for the Papuan people.
The current uproar is attributable to the state’s rationale that the planned regional proliferation is seeking to narrow control of the governed region in order to accelerate development for the welfare of the Papuan people. The issue of regional proliferation appears to be overshadowing one of the mandates of the Special Autonomy Law Volume 2 contained in the Government Regulation No. 107/2021, which is the preparation of the Master Plan for the Acceleration of Papua Development (RIPPP) 2022-2041. RIPPP contains projections, directions and strategies to ramp up Papua's development in the next 20 years. This is an ambitious technocratic document that tries to “formulate and guide the development acceleration” for the Papuan people.
Also read:
> Immediate Solution Needed for Papua
However, we do not always realize that the formulation of technocratic regulatory documents ultimately fails to address the painful and bitter narratives of Papuans in building their future.
The German philosopher, Andreas Huyssen, once, touchingly, said that “the more monuments there are, the more the past becomes invisible, the easier it is to forget: redemption, thus, through forgetting”. A monument can be either a reminder of struggle or a camouflage of the violently spilled blood under aestheticism and splendor, which finally carries us away to such an extent we do not ask nor remember anymore what really lies beneath the foundation of the monument (Santikarma, 2003).
Monuments of violence are embedded in the daily lives of the Papuan people. Monuments revolve over the power either to remember or forget the memory of violence and suffering, which are buried by the aesthetics of development and advancement.
Execution against plans
Various kinds of development documents and designs for Papua are overloaded with various terms and concepts of empowerment and development put forward by technocrats as the policymakers. The issue of development and its excess of violence are intertwined in Papuan people’s lives. The Papuan development designs or documents show a dearth of the nuance of recognizing Papuan identity, a fundamental factor that is being overlooked.
Identity recognition means an attempt to explore and delve into how Papuans see themselves today; how they relate to the nature and their ancestors; how they engage with solidarity and togetherness; and how they articulate themselves in the rights for freedom.
We are well aware the development of Papua does not operate in an “empty” space. It is loaded with various interests. If we follow a discussion at the para-para (meeting place) of the Papuan people, we will be familiar with a jargon “latihan lain, main lain” (the game is played differently from what has been practiced). It refers, as people believe, to the deception in the form of inconsistencies between the regulations or development designs with their implementation in the field. The Special Autonomy Law Volume 2, which has drawn pros and cons, is a manifestation of the jargon. Regional proliferation, whose approval was previously part of the MRP and the Papua People’s Representatives (DPRP), is now subject to the central government and the House of Representatives (DPR)’s endorsement.
The Papuan development master plan documents and the planned regional proliferation are ambitious projects, yet heedless of the incurred hostilities and suffering of the Papuan people, as Noer Fauzi Rahman points out in his article “Paradigma Pembangunan Papua” (Papua development paradigm) (Kompas, 29/3/2022). It may seem emancipatory, with the spirit to “advance” Papuan people, but the basis of the argument is very dry and reeks of power control, violence and colonization of the Papuan people. This is a form of the modern practice of academic articulation and policy for power control, not for the liberation of humanity (the Papuan people).
Papuans’ orientations
I propose at least three important aspects that can be improved to broaden our perspectives in developing Papua. First, it is necessary to review the historical context and the cosmology of thinking of the Papuan people, who view the Indonesian government either as the colonizer or the liberator for them. The development in Papua has so far been based on a colonialism perspective that is discriminatory, racist and shows an absence in recognizing their identity.
The failure to recognize Papuan identity, coupled with the persistent cycle of violence, pulled development’s goal away from former president Sukarno's ideals of liberating the Papuans from Dutch imperialism when he declared the Trikora (Indonesian military’s operation to free Papua from the Dutch). The development that is carried out as part of the "empowerment" program will be seen as a colonialism-driven policy toward the Papuans (Giay, 2000: 68).
Second is the recognition of memoria passionis (memory of violence and suffering) that is attached to Papuan people’s lives.
Memory of suffering can be "dangerous" and "subversive" because of it being able to expose banality and tip the balance of the current status quo.
The memory of violence and suffering provides Papuans with the spirit to recognize their identity. Memory of suffering can be "dangerous" and "subversive" because of it being able to expose banality and tip the balance of the current status quo.
Apart from its threat posed to the status quo, memory of violence and suffering is also linked to Papuans’ hope for the future. The relationship between memory of violence and suffering with identity is how the Papuan people engage the memory of suffering in the past to show their identity in the present and future (Hernawan, 2021: 335).
The third, which is no less important, is the reduction and simplification of Papuan culture and identity. This is a legacy of colonialism that becomes an appealing anthropological study of Papua. It tempts us to draw the boundaries and explain the diverse culture and language in Papua, which are exotic and localized, with the Papuans having hardly undergone mobility and transformation.
The further formation of new provinces in Papua should follow this logic by placing the Papuans as static and homogeneous, instead of dynamic and heterogeneous. It is important to examine in depth the perspective of Papua's transformation and mobility, which focuses on groups and networks of the younger generation engaging in various fields, such as literacy and literature, visual media, education, the women's movement and journalism. These groups and networks are formed within the horizon of contemporary Papuans, transcending the local cultural barriers (Timmer, 2019).
These orientations roam far beyond modernity and advancement.
Development and advancement potentially remove Papuan orientations related to their relationship to land, memory, stories, travel, faith system, engagement with non-human entities, the state and marginalization. The perspective of modernity promoted by development needs to recognize these Papuan orientations, even though they are often considered to deviate from the logic of development. Papuans have been forced to be part of Indonesia's ideology of development, history and future. Papuan orientations often challenge state regulations. These orientations roam far beyond modernity and advancement.
It is very important that we understand the Papuans’ orientations and identity to challenge the orientation of modernity and development for the Papuans’ prosperity as we aspire. We need to dive deeper and engage with the bitter history and struggle of the Papuan people and bring them into understanding themselves in this nation and state.
I Ngurah Suryawan
I Ngurah Suryawan, Lecturer of the Anthropology Department, the University of Papua (Unipa), Manokwari, West Papua
(This article was translated by Musthofid)
