VOLUME 23 No. 2 Juni 2011 Halaman 1 13 - 1 24

LOVE ME, LOVE ME NOT: THE FLORENESE STRUGGLE IN THE INDONESIAN

NATION STATE PROJECT OF NATION UNITY Tular Sudarmadi*

ABSTRACT

lndonesian nation state develops project of nation unity to share imagined past and to offer a future dream. In this process, the nation with its power and authority invents, reinvents and creates collective memory by attaching meaning to cultural heritage, both tangible -sacred artifacts, monuments, sites and landscapes- and intangible -national history, religious celebration, nation day commemoration and collective memory-. However, when this collective memory is associated with the cultural heritage of major ethnic group, it marginalizes, subordinates and denies the heritage of ethnic groups outside the core. In response to the state ignorance, the minor ethnic groups develop various ways to attach and include on the nation state project of nation unity. In this article I discuss the Florenese marginalize ethnic in lndonesian nation state struggle to be granting the status of homogeneity and belonging to the Indonesian nation state citizen.

Keywords: lndonesian nation project, collective memory, cultural heritage, inclusion-exclusion, the Florenese struggle.

ABSTRAK

Pemerintah Indonesia mengembangkan proyek kesatuan bangsa untuk menyatukan I<ejsamaan

sejarah di rnata larnpau dan impian benarna di mya depan. Dalam proses m c a m ini, wars Indonesia melalui kekwtan dan kekuasaannya menemukan, memperbarui, dan mencipaakan kdektif memori dengan mber ikan m&na terhadap warisan budaya, baik yang berupa budqa matwi- artefak keramat, monumen-monmn, situs dan bentang lahan- maupun budaya non -jarah mid, perayaan keagamam, peringatan hari nasional, dan kenangan tihadap perlstiwa nasional. Meskipun demikian, pengkaitan kdektif memori nasional Indonesia dengan warisan bud* dad kelompok etnik dominan atau utama akan memarginalisasikim, menjadikan subordinat, dan mengesampingkan warisan b d q a dari kelompok etnik minor. Dalarn upaya mnanggapi dari negara Indonesia, ktdompoEr edc minor jugs akan mertgembangkan berkgai macam macam agar dapat dimasukkan ke ddam pmpk pemwintah tentang kesatuan bangsa Indonesia. Artikel ini mendiskusikan perjuangan keknnpoketnik minor Flores dalam upaya rnernperoleh pengdcuan status sebagai komunitas bangsa Indonesia, khususnya melalui pemaknaan warisan budayanya.

Kata Kunci: proyek bangsa I h s C , identitas kokktif warisn budaya, inWwi-eMusi, pwjumpn Flores etnik.

i, " r r r -

- * Lsdurer of Archeology Depa-t, Faculty of Cuitwal Sciences, Gadjah Mgda Unhrersity Ywyakerta.

Humaniota, Vd. 23, No. 2 Jun12011: 113-124

The awakening of the Indonesian collective identities in the middle of the twentieth century was the idea of nationalism, an expanding consciousness of a Shared experience of Dutch colonialism and the heavy struggle for freedom. This notion was obviously a political concept to overcome and at the same time to resist humiliation of the Dutch colonial oppressor. In Indonesia the nationalism movement was started around 1908 by a small number of lndonesian students who were searching for higher education in the Netherlands. Mostly, they were the sons of the middle and high classes of Javanese noblemen (pn'yayd, sons of entrepreneurial rich merchants of West Sumatera, Indonesian pilgrims to Mekka, some young elite lndonesian people who were the product of limited Dutch colonial education and a few people of pure Dutch descent who thought lndonesian as their real home. Inevitably, they shaped an lndonesian nationalism that was manifested in a selfdefined collectivity and the cohesive power derived from specific solidarity; a sense of unity of all lndonesian people beyond religious affiliation, ethnic, race and f& island boundaries (Elson, 200823-21).

In 1942 the Indonesian nationaliit movement experienced a big impact of World War 11. The Dutch colonial administration surrendered to the Japanese miliiry victory on the 8*of March 1 942. The Japanese freed Sukamo and Hatta-two prominent Indonesian nationalists-from the Dutch exile punishment. Furthermore, the Japanese military promoted a huge number of lndonesian nationalists and political leaders to Japanese administration work, particularly to develop propaganda activities supervied by Japan, such as radio broadcasts, editing newspapers, mass insbucbion and fihns. Thbwark gave a chance to lndonesian nationalists in practicing the networking and communication equipment, which were later very useful to manage connection with the international world (Elson, 2008:9&101).

On the of August 1945, by the time Indonesian nationalists knew from radio, that the Japanem surrendered to the Allied f m , the lndonesian nationalist movement accelerated to its peak. In the m i n g of August IF 1945, SukamGtnd~apportedbymanyprominent lndonesian nationalists- decked the establish- ment of 'Negara Republik Indonesia' a free state of lndonesian Republic (Elson, 2008: 1 1 1-1 1 3; Ricklefs, 2008:247; Vickers, 2005:95).

Today, lndonesian nation-state in a geo- graphical sense is an archipelago which is de- ployed between continental Asia and Australia, stretches from Sumatera Island to Papua Is- land. In addition, this nation state consists of more than 17,000 islands, 931 distinct ethnic groups, dimerent religion, language and cul- ture (Sammeng, 1997:76; Koentjaraningrat, 1997: 1 04).

THE INDONESIAN W O N STATE PROJECT OF 'IMAGINED COMMUNITY'

In order to strengthen national unity and to construct a national ideology, the lndonesian nation-states provided their people with an 'organizational culture' or 'political institution' -the meaningful ways of life in all aspects of human activities, i.e education, politics, economics, ideology, social, religion, entertainment-. Being able to maintain its p d i l instEtutiwwi is important for the nation, since it can be used to signify that this nation is capable to deve!op institutionally integrated societies (Herb, 1 999:lO-11; Kyrnlicka, 2001 :250).

Furthermore, in building a compelling vision of national identity, Indonesian state emphasizes a glorious past with terntory imagination, specific triumph and sacred heroes. As Ross (j1007) and other scholars (Byme, 2008: 154-1 57, Harrison and colleagues, 2008:4-5) argue, in this prooess, the government with its power and authority invents, reinvents an3 mates history by attachihg meaning to tangible-saaed artifacts, monurner?ts, sites and landscapes- and intangible -national history, language, religious celebration, nation day commemoration and collective memory-cultural heritage (He&, 1 999: 1 7-24).

Tular Sudamadi, Love A& : Love Me Nd: The F l m w Struggle in The / W a n Nation State Project of Nation Unity

This lndonesian nation state designed by lndonesian nam and e l i lndonesian state offkern, a sense to construct an 'Imagined Community' a society where people may never know and meet e a l other or even have not a shilled similar past history, but but in theiicognitiQn exists a recent political desire of the image of their community (Anderson, 1991 5 7 ; Wood, 200532-3).

Such a single unity nation imagination was clearty seen in the lndonesian state effort to reinvent Sriwijaya and Majapahii kingdom. The ancient kingdom of Srivijaya located in Palembang, Sumate~a was founded 700 AD. This kingdom was an exemplar of the first lndonesian nation embryo, dnce its territory was stretched from Surnatera to Malay Peninsula, ruled by a Malay race -a majority of lndonesian race today- and became the transshipment centre in Southeast Asia. However, the most prominent model of lndonesian ancestor grandeur was Majapahit kingdom. This kingdom emerged around 12 AD, in Tmwulan, East Java and was founded by Raden Wljaya a Javanese ethnic. From East Java region, Majapahii expanded its boundaries by regularly conducting expedition to conquer

E other region. As a result, this kingdm controlfed territory as wide as lndonesian region today (Surnadio, 1992). Moreover, lndonesian state took Pancasila -the state ideology- and constructed its nation jargon 'Bhinneka Tunggal Ika9 -unity in diversity- for fostehng unitary lndonesian nation state.

In short, lndonesian nation shared h ion b legitimize a specific tenibry and state existence via the golden age history of one particular ethnic group. Since Indonesia is&tedofmanyethnic groups and each ethnic group eagerly adds their rde in the formation history of the hdonesian nation state glorious past, thus the consbudion of lndonesian collective memoriss on nation W i n g is highly contested andh&@g struggles ovarwhoseodlectivemerorieswillbemted, remembered and preserved and whose collective memories will be erased and forgotten.

BeingintereSBedinthewayinwMchtndrxre- sian mtkm-state maintaining project of cxxwdw nation hmmgcsneity and confomdty, and giving immediate interest to acknowledge its wide diversity of languages, cuCkrrtrs and religious practices. I intend to focus on the F b m wian - a small island in east IndorWb- which makes daims to rights and muroes on the MS of bekmging to the Indonesian nation-sb@. Tw related probtemsam under deeply emmiidleration. First of all, the way in which F lom pBople manage their multiples citizenship both as indigemus Rorenese, tmd~ dt)sens, and as int-1 mmunw. Further, I will questions to what extend does Indonesian nation state boundaries marginalize the Florenese, how dots Rms sode#y perceive the lndonesian nation-state 6nd are they willing to participate in lndonesian nation building? Secondly, I will examine the F l m s%rt&es overwho h a s h rightto representthe tndonesian nation past and whose ethnk gfmp glottws past will become institutionalited.

FLORENESE FEATURE For more than a half winkcry, F I m Island is

part of the Indonesian nation state. According to historical evidence, this island got its name from Portuguese saibrs, 'Qbo de Flores', which indicated the cape ofthe most eastern peninsula of the island (Abdurachman, 2008:69-60). Hawever, aaordhg to oral t r a d i i of i n d m Florenese-who live in Sika, Fdita and s u r r o u n d i i ~ ~ i ~ v v i r s ~ ' N L s a a Nipa', an island of dragon, following the shape of Flores island (Orinbao, 1969:114-167).

From a geographical perspecdive, Fbres Island is part of the Lesser ~ur ida Island archipelago and li between 8O S and.. Il0 S latitude, 11 6.P E and 125.50 E longitudes (Nurini, 1985: 1-8). Rugged mountains, inaccessible buftes, deep canyons and gravel plains represent a very substantial part of the island. About half of the island is composed of volcanic mountains with many active craters. Among them are Ebu Lobo (2149 m), Ine Rie (2200 m) and Ine Lika (1159

Humaniore, Vd. 23, No. BJuni2011: 113'124

m). The main range runs the length of the Wnd somewhat south of the center. As a result, the southern part is steeper and mom mountainow than the northm. The hQh& point is the Poco Renakah (2408 m), soubast of Ruteng In the western part of Flores. Eastwards attitudes decrease gradwtty (Anon, 1945:47).

The rugged and mountainous topogmphyof Flores and the effects of different historical influence have helped wab and perpeituaEe great cultural diiersity. C3enerally speaking, in Flores Island at least four or five different population groups can be distinguished in mountain and coastal regions (Lewis, 1988:7; Anon, 1945:86). In the large western part of the island live the Manggarai, who have long been subject to Maccasan influences. Thus, many Manggaraians show Macassan and Buginem 'Proto-Malay' physical characteristics (Kunst, 1942:l; Bellwood, 1978: 30; Erb, 1999:65-69). The Ngadha live immediately east of the Manggarai and they settled around tb Ine R i volcano. As mountain people, the Ngadha and the culturally related Nage of the Mbai and Keo district appear to have been rather isolated. Both groups tend to be mare 'Melanesian' in appearance. The Ende and Lio people occupy central mores. The 'puresf Lio group is f o w l east of Ende, whereas around Ende itself the Ua have inter- with Maccasan and Bughese. The Sikka group and Lamtub lDve In the eastern part of Flores, especially in the region of Ni i , Sikka and Karigag, (Kunst, 1942:l-2).

FLORENESE IDENTFM Diierent with the

for whom ethnidty same, the Florenese incorporate the ethnicity of significant number of indigenous Flores inhabitants, such as the Manggaraian, the Ngadha, the Nage, the Keo, the Li i and the Sikka. Thus, among themselves, the Flomnese differentiate their ethnic identity according to the region or village in which they were born. It is also worth noting, that they usually identify themselves by name, but when identifying

can recall through recitation (Sudarmadi, 1999: 178-1 83). each ethn'i: $pup b hBk own myth, thoueands oif such myths are preserved amng the ethnic groups & r m . It is no wonder, that dhe right to daim &ni@ idrwrtity and ancestral land in Flores Id& L highly contested. However, in F lom laland king Florenese is unattractive choice for the Fbms indiinowpsople, since ttxtyfear that W n such a more broad ethnic identity, they witl exdtdde and marginalize from their mom resbkted origin ethnic identity.

While land continued to be a primary ecoMmdcresourcefortheethnicgnmc~~sIn~, a w s s and mtrd to the tand reside in h elder and the highest rank of the ethnic group. With time, an inwaadng m b e r of new mmbm and lacking land foi farming resuftd in the welfare dedine of Flores people. The collapse of theair Mitional l i v e l i i and a firm c0-t kwn the lndonesian nation-state to guarantee economic and social well-being af the Florenese had challenged young Floreneseand the lowest strata of the Flores ethnic groups to migiate.

As Indonesian government hundred trans- migration programs around 1970s, many norenese were resettled--state-spon- and self-motivated- to the less densely Indoridan- state lslrihds, such as Sumatem, K a f i k ~ n , Su&si and Papa. Atthe same time, indusqi- alhationin ~ a v a a t t r a c t e d f % m m i & ~ ~ ~ b labor in big Javdnese cities, i.e., Jakarta, Bandung and surd~ya. Being uPIgdmaW -ap proximately %% dwal h s popufatbn gpadu- ate from elementaryschoo1-, unskilled fafmer of

Tular Sudamdi, Love h4e, Love Me Not: me Flmnese S~N& in The /M&R Nation State Project of N a h Unity

modern wet rice cultivation technology --the FlCmmeanedrylandf8rmerm~inain farming techniques-, physics& different appear- ance -black skin, curling hair, flat nose, and Chrisr tian on the basic ground of religion (Graham, 2008:124-127; Tirtosudarmo, 2006: 139-141 ; Sudarmadi, 1999:54-5S), the b n e s e became a migrant of an Indonesian ethnic minority group, second class citizenship with low rank of sucio- economic level. Irrespective oftheir different eth- nic groups, spoken language and cultural cus- tam, they were not considered as Orang !@adha', 'Omnmljl Mmggam?, or 'Orang W, but 'they were called 'Orang Flcrres'. When asked about this improper ethnic name and inequality on social-

- economic realms, the Florenes believed that -as a migrant-, they had no choice but to accept sub- ordinate positions outside their Flores territory. However, as time passed by, many Florenese migrant beoome more educated, richer and able to negotiate their multiple identities -indigenous Flores ethnic group, the Florenese and Indo- nesian-.

In the early 1980s, the world demand of palm (Uaeis) oil increased rapidly. Malaysia as the biggest oil palm producer opened new palm pfantations to fulfill the world oil market needs. As demand for plantation workers began to exceed the Malaysian's labor supply, the Malaysian government recruited oontrad labarem fbm neighboting country. &sing athcted to their migrant family success stories in Sabah, the Florenese migrated to Sabah, Waysia, and took plantation jobs, which were offered by the Mlrsysian government (&ahham, 2008: 11 5 1 18; Tiudamo, 2006: 144-148).

Away frcrm home, migrant S w b m a vvlorkf of marginalization. &sicarlly, 3abah authority classifies the Ftoremse as 'Orang TCW (limor ethnic groups) or 'BwW Indon' (Mue-collar workers from Ind-n nation- state), since majority of them wwk as umkiltd fabor plantation -coolies in colonial era tern. Their Catholic religion a b places them in a minority religion, since Moslem is the dominant digion in Sabah. Fortunately, the Fbnese migration to Sabah is organized via familial and

kimtlip1lgfWDrt<s--mFkKene58~has already been estabbhed since 18fSO in Sabah-, as these links and networks are internally strengtfrenad and externally broadsncad, they retain and sustain social, p d i l anel econmb relationship with other Flores migrants outside Sabah and their 'Flcms' anastral land. Such processes allow Flores migrants to weld and maintain wltural boundaries of their adgin and s e m t , while at the mtimbuii identities that cross geographic, cuitwgf and political borders. According to B m h and colleagues this symptom shows an embryo of transnational community (Basch, Sch4Jer and Blanc, 1 9946; Tirtosudarmo, 2006: 146,148).

THE FLORENESE IN THE INDONESIAN NATION STATE BOUNDARES

After lndonesian independence was proclaimed, Flora bland was joined together in Nusa Tenggara Timur province Under the Indonesian natimsba; the Florenw broaden their boundaries in a new institutbnal setting. In addition, they hsdrrights and obligation in o political pallidpation, economic development as equal members alongside other Indonesian ethnic group.

In the same way, by bringing the Fkxenese. into lndonesian nation state bokmdary, t h Indonesian govemmt incorgorates Flores people trarndary inaa e unified boundary visisn of the Indonesian nation, 'Imaginary Community'. As many scholars argue, such nation &ate b o u n d a r y f u n c t i o n s ~ i n s ~ ~ ~ c 9 n t r d ~ its people, its collective identity's territories, especially by refwing to codes af c~lladiw identity idaas, events and places- sin& capes of collective identity are constructed and contested, thus boundary construction js a process of classifmition and identification of gender, religian, ethnicity, modernism and education into two cabga-bs -similar or diiemt- in which, mechani;4;$oflgcl~sion and exclusion are create$. used dr&nted (Herb, 19%: 17- 24; Kaglan, 1~%:131'1-%& 37-38; E d ~ r ~ tat. al., 2002: 19-20; Cooper, XK15:72; Jesse and William,

Humniore, Vd. 23, No. 2 Juni2011: 113-124

2005:4-5; Cruz and Tuyll, 2009:16; 2009223-224).

It is no wonder, that to be granting the 8Uus of homogeneity and belonging to the maticma1 m u n i t y , ths Flwenese must fulfill ifidmesfan nation state criteria -'indudedr or 'excluded'- on religion, ethnicity, gender, language, sociai, economic and political view. By using such classification, the lndonesian government fmlatesan indusion andexdusimmwhanism of citizenship and territory. However, .this Indonesia's project of nation boundary not only creates unity, but also constructs hierarchy, particularly on formulating first dass and axand dass tndonesincljti#tnshii,wttii isdearlyseen in its legislation and practices.

Take the example of I- govemment criteria of traditional ethnic groups: living in hinterland region or at the heart of the jungle, far away from metropolis and out: of reach of state authority. They are considered as 'primitive' or marginal ethnic groups, who are d i i m t from mjaity of modem Indonesia ethnic groups. As a result, these minority ethnic groups are treated as secondclass &ken of Indonesian nation and are excluded from modern members of Indonesian. Such practices can be traced back to the Dutch colonial dassification on Southeast Asian ethnic& especially of small group people, laGkingdecwwrmicmouroesandremoteplace$, a kind of hill tribes, slash and burn pmhktoric agriculturalists and stone-age community (Anderson, 1 99gz321; FtosaEda, 2003:l-2).

Being a hinterland community, Flores ethnic groups have a mark of second dass Indonesian citizenship and face problems of exclusion, marginalization, and $-nation firrm the lndonesian state oppression. WhBn the lndonesian nation-statewas prodaimeCl in 1 W, Flores Island was immediately ocarpisxd by the Australian allied troops. Shortly after, the Australian allied handed on Flores to the Durn armies and its civil administration ( N l a ) . Irr 1946, the Dutch promoted the State of East Indonesia and Flores Island was part of this state. Indeed the majority of the Florenese supported the Republic in the blood revolution against Dutch

iocal lesdm ambiguity in Inevitably, the Florenese gt r e p r m e f ~ b ~ ~ b W hdone During the Old Order govemment to present day lndmasiin instihrtion, f\AK) FlOreneSe-Frans Seda and JaGob Nuwawea- got ministry position. Under the New Order regime -almost 32 years-, none of the Nusa Tenggara T m r Province govenrors were Florenese.At the national level, no Florenese obtained general positions armies. They were absolute1 and subordinated from lndonesian nation-state political discourse.

The lndonesian nation-state idea of modemism also marginalized Fkwenese people, since they were categorized as isdated ba%bnal and l ~ n g 'prehitory' ethnicgroups. From the early of 1930s to 1980s, both Dutch Colonial institutions and the lndonesian government f o r m the Florenese to abandon their megafi vibges in the up hills and to build moclem settlemts in the low land, which are dose to the asphalt mad. In addition, the Florenese primithPe methods of huntergathem for living and slash-bum culthrert- ion are supposed unproductiveand deWmt@ the environment. Thus, the Javanese wet rice agriculture method and modem plantation are considered the best (Sudarmadi, 1999; Mhar, I w8).

From 1980 to 1 rocketed to its peak, ment) was the ultknate ideology Bo trmsfcm In- donesian traditional agriculture, wd&y to inch- trial modem society lished infrastructure mw-, puMc public transporta.tion an$ devdoprnent broug Florenese modernity. govsrn'"e'' in fact were inces. Thus, th& of other Indonesian reiterated.

As the Indonmian statk -de~%$opmnt l t x q u l d t h a ~ ~ ~ r e n e s ,

Tutar Sudannadi, Love W, Love A h Nst: The F h n ~ s e Slnrggk in The Indonesian Nation State Project of Naflon Untty

such state efforts to bring modemhtim are welcomed and appreciated. Neverthe=v the Flores villagers criticize and am cynical of WE government program. In their point of view, the government modernization programs are inshcerityand untruthfd In 1 9 8 0 t h e m n t promised to launch wt-rioe agrScultuml modem methods, such as developing inigation system, introducing new rice seed strains, reducing fertitizers and pesticides price. In fact, the government pmmbs ofsud? programwere not fully kept. The irrigation project only focused on hnggarai region, the m b s e e d strains were not prqmly distiibuted and the piice of FeKtiliirs and pestiddm are increased each year. It is atso knportmttonote,thatFtomese~dovefarmers * s u f f ~ f r o m T ~ S u m s ~ . . of the state dove W i g . From 1989 to 1998 Tmy enterprise bought doves from Floremse fanners a half of normal c h s prize and sold ~ c o m m o d i t y t o t h e ~ k c i g ~ i n d u s t r i e s at fm times the prize paid to the Fiorenese farmers ( V ~ ~ B I S , 2005186). Thusthe Flotenese discontent increased during the N9W Order, particularly to the way in which the state rules

1 acass to resources and economic benefit of nation*

While Flwes ethnics groups were oppressed : and lowred to a marginal and wb-ordinate

saciety, the r e m t wave of Javanese self- motivated migration to Fkms esdated rapidly ~ 1 9 9 O . ~ J a ~ ~ , n o t 0 n l y added more ibdem population but also started b gain economic business benefit in Flores. To mme extent, the Javanese Moslem migrant axmanic domination incraased the Rmnese frustration and hatred. In this case, the Florenesa

furhwwidencle of sosial vioJeme and M i g W confld (Tule, 2000:fB; Eanda, 2001 5).

Recently, F l o ~ e s e become mom mobile than a decade before, their migrations also represent bmder spatial pattern. Being guided by theirfanrili, who hadpreviously rn Indonesian neighboring countries, the joined their abroad families and worked as unskilled laborer. Since Indonesian gowmment is notorious in corruption, collusian and nepotism matters, exploitation and oppmsian of f%mnes migrant mfs from the beginning to the end of the migration process. In addition, the I- officials also fail in the support system - free training skill, temporary shelter and appropriate regulation- and migrant worker probstbn (Hugo, 2008:61436; Ti-, 2aW3:141-144). Once again, Flores migrants were neglect& and ignored by the Indonesian state. I js a rcasult,

ts prefer to enkitr their rnig~ant. Indeed, they

m a l l that the way they migrate breaks the, law, but it is cheaper, faster and safer Wile operating through kinship relation.

As the lndonesian state "Keterbukaann Refonnasi paradigm to a great l e w reach the Florenes, such state efforts to bring @lbmmati- zation, good governam, decenMmtion and globalization are welcomed and appreciated. However, at the same time the f l o w people re- tain a sense of desperation, h o p e m s and unworthy sine they feel, the Indonesian nation state is dassifi €hem as second class citizen, igrxxing them and they are suffering from Inds>. nesian state inequality.At the heart, the have a cynical view of government pt-cgams.

Humaniom, Vol. 23, No, 2Juni2011: i13-124

THE FLORENESE STRUGGLE IN THE INDONESIAN GOVERNMENT PROJECT OF NATION UNITY

The lndonesian govemment project of nation unity need collective memory to share imagined past and to offer a future dream. In modem nation state, collective memory is invented, established, transmitted, maintained and renew through tangible and intangible hentage (Byrne, 2008: 154- 157,162-1 63; Lowenthal, 1998:31; Hanison, et. All, 2008:4-5). Thus, the establishment and control of national heritage has long been a prime responsibility of lndonesian state officials, and the practice of many aspects of cultural heritage has become closely related to a monopoly of national governments.

As a system which was typically state-run, the heritage reflects the govemment point of view concern its time and spatial context. These assumption and co-ordinates of power centralized by the state, are inhabited as natural - given, timeless, true and inevitably (Graham et.al., 2000a; Graham et. al., 2000b; Hall, 2008:219- 221). In such point of view, heritage was seen as a thing, an entity that can be lost and was available to preservation, just such as monuments, old places and objects - a property that belonged to the nation - The implication was that the accumulation of the heritage and the preservation of labor in acquiring it came to be seen as a form of cultural capital of the nation. In that respect the nation state seems to regard the heritage it possesses in the form of cultural capital as god given (Anderson, 1991 ; Byme, 2008: 158-1 59).

It should not be surprising that in 1992, the lndonesian Cultural Objects Heritage Act was passed by lndonesian govemment to replace the 'Monumenten Ordonansi'from the Dutch lndies government. By launching this act, the authority of lndonesian Archaeology Service research and preservation had played a significant role in establishing the lndonesian heritage objects of nation cultural pride (Atmosudiro and Nugrahani, 2002:51; Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, 1992).

As a result, the elite state has the right and power to control the nation past representation and institutionalizes collective memory (Natzmer, 2002:161-179). Indeed, it is their duty to select

whose cultural heritage will be included or excluded from the nation state project of nation unity. For such reason, cultural heritage must be dedicated to expose national identtty and to raise national dignity. It is no wonder that primary aim of lndonesian government cultural heritage management is to construct homogeneity among ethnic groups and to create illusion of the lndonesian nation glorious past.

Such lndonesian nation pride illusion policy was clearly seen in the New Order era, espe- cially when lndonesian state supported Suharto's wife 'Siti Hartinah' to launch an ambitious project Taman Mini Indonesia lndah (Beautiful Miniature of Indonesia). This project was finished on 2 P April 1 975 and occupied approximately 100 hect- are (Taman Mini Indonesia lndah Pmfil2009). As a small-scale representation of Indonesian region, this park consisted of 26 traditional houses from 26 lndonesian Provinces (Tarnan Mini Indonesian lndah Anjungan Daerah 2009), and 8 hectare ar- tificial lake, in which a small-scale lndonesian archipelago were depicted, 15 museums, hotels, and recreation facilities (Taman Mini Indonesia lndah Fasilitas, 2009).

lndonesian Ministry of Education also played a key role in producing historically rooted narra- tive about the lndonesian nation state and effec- tively used public schools to broadcast such nar- ratives. The sixvolumes, Educatian Ministrycorn- missioned 'Sejarah Nasional Indonesia' (Indone- sian Nation History), -launched in 1980s- provided a detailed description of the lndonesian nation- state history from the prehistory time to present day. In this project lndonesian state worked hard to mobilize its resources and to forge a strong shared imagined national identity.

Further, I also noted that the lndonesian state uses Javanese cultural hentage to transmit nation cultural core. The reasoning goes like this. First, the state use Majapahit kingdom -Javanese kingdom- to represent lndonesian nation greatest history sequence, particularly 'proto-Indonesian' nation period. Second, this kingdom narrative functions as a reminder that the lndonesian ancestor -Javanese ethnic- in the past time is capable to organize central power control over

Tular Sudamdi, Love Me, Low Me Not: The Florsnese Stnrggle in T h ibdonea Nation State Pny$ct of Nation Unity

vast region. Indeed, this delineation offers a straight relation between an Indonesian natSons shared identity in the present and one in the past, which is construded to meet Fec#nt needs rather than to mimr historical reality. It also attempts to legitimate Javanese ethnic domination over the Indonesia marginal ethnic groups.

Indeed, this cultural heritage practice supports the development of Indonesian nation collectiie memory to weid national identity. However, when this collective memory is associated with the cultural heritage of major ethnic group, it marginalizes, subordinates, denies and oppressing ethnic cultural heritage diversity (Lindholm, 1993:21-25; Cattel and Climo, 2002:35-36; Colombijn, 2003:338; Graham, Asworth, and Tunbridge, 200527).

While collective memory of major ethnic group resists in the nation glorious past by manipulating its cuttural heritage represmhtion, minor ethnic groups struggle to attach their collective memory into the nation state cultural heritage main stream, Such inclusion and exclusion of ethnic cultural group on cultural heritage representation can be observed in the Indonesian state cultural hetitage management.

Certainly, Flores ethnic group cultural heritage management is a good example of this phenomenon. While Flores cuJtural heritage has w i v e d professional recognition as one of the high significance of lndonesian nation cultural heritage (Lewis, 1988; Cole, 1997; Moarwod et.al, 1998; Erb, 1999; Sudarmadi, 2000; Molnar, 2000), the Indonesian National Archaeological Research Centre research in Flores (Sukendar, 1984; Nanik, Arnbary and Awe, 1984) described Flores cultural heritage as the product of prehistory people. Thus, Indonesian state archaeology placed Fbrenese cultural Mtage in primitive stage, ancient t m i i i a l life style and might not act as a stimulus for creating Yhe Indonesian nation modernity'.

The subordination and Flwems den$px~tion is also rhetorically stated by Indonesian government and it is historically rebred to the ancient lontar text 'Negamkertagama' from

Mrrjapahii kingdom.hrrling to this ancljent text, Flwes was conquered by Majapahii and became a Majapahii's vassal since then. Considered as hinterland ethnic group and in an attempt to avoid exdusim, the Florwese used their myth of origin to attach to Indonesian state project sf nation unity. The son of the last local king of Ngadha region narrated the migration of the N p d b from the west to Ngadha land. Thei~amstor started the journey from Sina and crossed Selo, when they arrived at Jaw One -the present Java Island-; they stayed and married the women frPKn Jawa One. Then the offspring of the former ancestor migrated to Raba, and from this place they movd to Sumba. After that, the Jawa meze their founding ancestor lineage continued the migration to Flores (Sudarmadi, 19$Xk6Q-61).

Throughout Indonesia govemmd project of 'Sejamh Nasional Indmb' text book;, Indone- sia nation state formation appear8 ta b a rep- sentation of Java as a center of Indmwian state authority and also as dominance ethnic group. To counter such critique, Indonesitan government launches a project of mgional-histoty writing, in which mimKlty ethnic groups can recant and add their contribution in the Indonesian nationhod history (Atkinson, 2003:135-137). While Florenese are positioned as primitive ethnic groups -prehistory period- in Sejamh N-al Indonesia- official govemmnt tad book-, thls state project of regional-history offers the Flores people to indude their contribution in the nation culture core, particularly in the modem history of Indone- sian Independence. 'Sejarah Perlawanan terhadap Imperiglisme dan MdoniaIim di Nuse Tenggem Timut' (Kopong, 1983) and 'Sejamh K m k i t a n Nasional D8emh Nusa T m m Timut' (Widyatmika et. all., 1979) are fa5uIted fromgovemment pqe&ofre@md histay. H w ever, these text book publicatians am not pub- lished for purchase mm, timy only for local Flores public schod edwa&n, As re-

Borobudur cu and Mam e r s i n e a r l y S d . l o d m g ~ ~ m ~ ~

Humanbra, Vd. 23, No. 2 Jud W7: IlW23

liths, Flores local history and marginal Flores eth- nic groups local kingdom.

CONCLUSION The lndonesian Republic nation state was

founded in 1945. It consists of many islands, vari- ous ethnic groups, multiple languages and reli- gious diversity. In order to consider itself a na- tion, the lndonesian founding fathers and state elites imagine a shared past, which may function as a myth of national unity for the heterogeneous lndonesian nation. This myth refers to a starting point in the glorious past of Sriwijaya and Majapahit kingdom. Following this myth of Indm nesian imagined community, the lndonesian state launched the Pancasila ideology and the motto 'Bhinneka Tunggal Ika' or unity in diversity. Actu- ally, the mainstream nation buikling can be termed 'Nation State Project' and it is aimed to transform its heterogeneous population into a homo- geneous Indonesia nation.

Establishing an lndonesian nation state on the basis of an imagined glorious past has lent legitimacy to shape an lndonesian nation state boundary. Furthermore, such a boundary defines the lndonesian nation state tenitorywith a specific geographical region, ethnic group affiliation, the right to access natural and cultural resources, to guarantee justice and equality for its citizen, and to maintain religious practices. In fact, such boundaries acts as the lndonesian government mechanism of 'included or excluded' on the lndonesian nation state status.

To create clear-cut conceptual boundaries between inside and outside Indonesian nation state, the lndonesian government develops project of 'Nation Unity'. This project works on collective memory of lndonesian nation imagined past. Using tangible and intangible heritage to invent, transmit, manipulate the past in the present, then the lndonesian state maintain to weld lndonesian nation unity. However, because the lndonesian nation state project whose main purpose is to justify its boundary claim and to homogenize its citizen is built on a glorious past and cultural heritage of major ethnic groups, mimx

ethnic groups feel themselves to be tnargi~ l i i by the lndonesian nation state. In such a case where minor ethnic groups are treated as subordinate, they may struggle to attach in the lndonesian nation government project of nation unity.

Finally, In this article I delineate the Flores people, Nusa Tenggara Timur (NTT) Province, struggle on the Indonesian stab projecZ of a single unity nation. With considerable insight, the Florenese might accept the fact, that the lndonesian nation state categorizes them as a second class lndonesian citizen and also as isolated traditional and living 'prehistory' ethnic groups. This is also dear from the lndonesian government unwil'ngness to assert the Fkmnese cultural heritage on the lndonesian state project of lndonesian nation imagined community. However, the Florenese participation in the transnational migration-migrants who moving back and forth between at least hrvo countries- might challenge their identity and social existence in the lndonesian nation state project of nation unity.

REFERENCES

Abdutashman, Pararnita R 2008. 6unga Angin Pbrtugis di Nusantara: lejak-jejak Kebudayaan Portugis di Indonesia. Jakarta. UP1 Press.

Anderson, Benedict. 199 1. Imagined Communities: Refiection on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: veno.

. 1998. The Spectre OfComparisons: Nationalism, Southeast Asia and the World. L0ndon:Veno.

Anon. 1 945. "Soemba, Soembawa, Flores". Allied Geographical Seaion SWIM Special Report. 83. USA. pp. 1-111.

Atkinson, Jane Monnig. 2003. 'Who Appears in the Family Album". In Ronaldo, Renato (4%) Cultural Citizenship in Island Southeast Asia. California: University of California Press. pp. 1 34- 1 6 1).

Atmosudiro, S. and Nugtahani, D.S. "Dua Dinas Purbakala (1975 -Sekam@". In Aanosudiro, Sand N-, D.S. (eds.). MenupakJejak Arkdogi Imbnesia.Jakarta MU: 3 Boob. pp. 49- 122.

Banda, Matildis Maria 200 1 . "Rabies dalam Realitas Kebudayaan dan Realitas Fiksi". Onpublish Poper. Bogor: Asosiasi Tradisi Lisan. pp. 1 - 19.

Tuiar Sudamdi, Lorn Me, Love Me Not: The FkKenese Stnrggie in 7?m Indonesian : Nation State Ptvject of Nation Unity

Basch, L., Schiller, N.G. and Blanc, C.S. 1994. Nation Unbound: Transnational projects, Postcolonial Predicament and Deterritormlised Nation-State. Pennsyhmnia: Gordonand M.

Belwood, Peter 1978. Man Conquest of the Pacific. Auckland: Wtlliam Collins PubHsher.

Byme, Denis 2008. "mas asocial Action". In Graham F.etal.(eds).TheHer~Reclder.LondonandNew Ywk: WIedge, pp. 149- 173).

Cattel, Maria G, and Climo, Jacob J. 2002. "Meani% in Social Memory and History: Anthropological Penpeceives". In Climo, Jacob J. and CatteJ, M a G . (Eds.). Social Memory and History: Arithropological kqxctiw. Walnut Cmek, California: Altamira Ress.

ultural Heritage Tourism: The Villagers Penpeabe A Case from Ngada F W . In Tourism cmd Heritage Management. Ed. Wiendu

Un iv rws i t yRess .Y~h

. "Whenhrekmthingtoimagine Nas, b, Pesoon Gerard

and Jde Rivke (eds.). Fra&ng IndonesMn Realities: Essays in Symbolic Anthropbgy in Honow of Reimar Schefbld. Leiden: KlTLV P m . pp. 333- 370).

Coaper, F d e r k k 2005. G4oniuh in Questbn: Theory, Knowlede. History. Califomk U n i i of C a l i i i a

Cruz, Laura and Tuyll, Hubert F! m. 2009. "Introduction Boundaries Real and Imagined". In. wan, Benjamin, Carbon Marybedr and Cnn, Laura (eds.). Bwmk~ries and Their Meanings in the History of- Netherlands. Leiden: Koninklijke BriU NV. pp. I - 1 1.

Deparcemen Pendidikan dan Kebdap~ . 1992. Undang- U h g Cigar bdap Nomor 2 Tahun 1992.

Eder, IUaus, et.al. 2002. GI* IdenWes in Action: A Sociological Approach to Ethnicity. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Limited.

Elsen, RE. 2008. The I& oflnibnesh: A Histay. New Yok Cambridge University Press.

€rb, Maribeth. 1999. The Manggaramns: A Guide to :, ~TroditionaI L@#e. Singapom: Times Ediions.

-, Penelope. 2008. "Land, Labour and Liminality: Florenere Vlvbman at Home? and Abrd". In Graham, Penelope (ed.) Horizons #Home: Nation, Gender and Migmncy in Island Southeast Asia. Victmia: Monash

Institute. pp. 1 13- 1 3 1. B., AEhWMth, G 1.. and T-, J.E. 2000a.

ational Identity" In Graham, B., Tunbridge, J.E. (4s). A Geography

ure and Economy. London:

. 2000b. "Heritage and the Scale: the National". In Graham, B,, Ashworth, G J.. and T i , , J.E. (eds). A Geography ofHeritcrge: Power, Cuhure and Economy. London: Amdd

. 2 0 0 5 . ? h e U s e s a n d A b u s e s o f ~ . In Corsane, G. (4). Heritage, Muaeumscmd Galleries: an Introductory Reader. London and New York: Roudedge, pp. 26-37.

Hall, Stuart. 2008. "Whose Heritage? Un-setding The Heritage', &imagining the post-nation". In Graham Eetal.(eds).7'heHerirageRMdcr.LondonandNew York: Routledge, pp.2 19-228.

Harrison Rodney, et. al. 2008. "Heritage, Memory and Modernity", In Graham E et al. (eds). The Heritage Rwder. London and New York: Routledge, pp. I - 1 2).

Herb, Guntram H. 1999. "National Identity and Tenitory" In Herb, Guntram H. and Kaplan, David H. (eds) Nested Identities: NcrtionaIism, Territory, and Scale. Lanham: Rowman and Littiefield Publishers, Inc. pp. 9-30.

Hqo, G m . 2008. Vion in Indonesia: Resent Trend and I r r r p l i " . In Graham, Pembpe (ed.) Horizons of Home: Nation, Gender and Migrancy in Island Southeast Asia. Victoria: Monash Asia Institute. pp. 45-70.

Jesse, Neal G. and W d l i , Kristen I? 2005. Identity and Institutions: Conflict Reduction in Divided Societies. New Y& State Universii of New York.

Kaplan, David 1999. 'Tenid Identities and Gwgmphii Scale".GMaamH.andKaplan,DavidH.(eds)Nested Identities: Notforwlkm, k i m , and Scak. Lanham: Rowman and Wd P u b l h , Inc. pp. 3 1-49.

Kopong, Elias. 1983. Sejarah Porlawanan terhadap Imperialisme dan Kolonialisme di Nusa Tenggara rrimrr.~RoyeklnvrrntarlsaridanDokomerp.tari Sejarah Nasional, Direktorat Sejarah dan Nilai T r a d i , Depertemen MWikandan Ksbudayaan.

Kurrst, Jaap. 1942. Music in Flores: A Study of the Vocal and Instrumental Music among the Tff6es Lhring in Flores. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

Koentjaraningrat. 1997. "Anthropologkal Aspeck of Cultural Tourism". In Tourism and Heritage Management. Ed. W d u Nutyantl. Gadfah Mada Univwsity Press. Yogyakarta. pp. 10 1 - 104.

Kymlica, WIII. 200 1. Pditia in the Vernacular: Nationalism, Multiculturalism and Citizenship. Oxford: Oxford Urlivdty Press.

Legene, Susan. 2009. "Dwinegeri-Mtkidtural'mand the Colonial Past (or. The Cultwal Borders of being Dutch)". In Kaplan, Benjamin, brkDn Marybeth and Cnn, Laura (Eds.). BouMfaris and Their Meanings in

Humaniora, W. 23, No. 2 Juni2011: 113-124

the History of The Netherlands. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV: pp. 223-249.

Lewis, E.D. 1988. hopk of the Source: The Social and Ceremonial Order of Tana Wai Brama on Flores. Dordrecht: Foris P u b l i .

Lindholm, Helena. 1993. "A Concjeptuirl Diwiod"' In. Lindhdm, Helena (Ed.). Ethnicity and Natjondism: Formation of Identity and Dynamics of Conpict in the I 990s. G0teh-g Nordic Network of Ethnic S t u d i i pp. 1-39.

Lowemhal, D. 1998. The Heritage C~sade and the Spoils ofHistory. Cambridge: Cambridge U n M ~ t y Press.

Molnar, Andrea K. 2000. Grandchildren of the- Gage Ancestors: Social organization and Cosmolagy among the Hogo Sara ofFlores. Leiden: KnrV Press.

Morwood, Mike J. et.al.1998. "FitrdlSger of Stone Tools and Fossils on the East Indonesian Island of Flores". Nature (392). pp. 1 A- 176.

Nanik, H., Ambary, Hasan M., Awe, Rokhus D. 1984. "Laporan Peneliitian Arkeologi Wdoka, Kabopaten M-, Flores". Berita Acnelition Arkeobgi (30). Jd<arta: Proyek M i a n Purbakala

Natzmer, Cheryl 2002. "Remembering and Forgettiw Creative Expression and Reconciliation in Post- Pinochet Chile". In Climo, Jacob J. and Cad, Maria G. (Eds.). Social Memory and History: Anth-ical kqnxtks. Wnut Creek, California. Altarnira Press. pp. 161-179.

Nwini, Rachmat. 1985. Geqgrafi tMqa dakrm Wilayoh kmbongunan Dwmh Nusa T w r a T m r . Jakartx

M i i k a n dan Kebud9yaan. Orinbao, Sareng F! 1969. Nusa Nip : Nama Riburn' Nusa

Flores. Ende: Penerbii Nusa Indah. Riddefs, M.C. 2008. A History $Modern lndonesio Since

C. 1200. New Yo&. Mgrave Macrnillan. Roddo. Renato. 2003. "Introduction: The &Kdsrs of

Bekm@q Nation and Citizen in the Hintelads". In Ronaldo, Renato (ed.) tultwal Citirenship in k n d Southeast Asia. California: University of C a l i i i Press. pp. 1 - 15.

Sarnrneng, A.M. 1997. Balancing Tourirm Dewkpmt and Heritage Consewation. Burism and Heritage Management. Ed. Wendu Nurymti. Giadjah Mada Univenity Press. Yogyakarta. pp. 7590.

Sumadio, Barnbang. 1992. lndDsrodEa M. Jakarta: M a i Putaka.

Sukendar, Haris. I Sunmi di Florss dan Timor, Nusa urn. Bsrita knelltian Arkeobgi (29). Jakarta: M i Pt~rhkah

Sudamwdi, Tular 1993. '9rh -of the Ngad)w: A Megdtthic Cubre in CerrCral Flores, Indonesia". Master Theris. Amidah The Urdvetsiy of New Errgtand. Unpublish.

. 2000. "Strategi Pengembangan Potensi Kepariwisataan Perkampurgan Megditik Bemi di Kab- Ngda, Flores". Internal Report. Y w am Lembaga Penel i i Unhr&as Wjah Mada Unpublished.

Tarnan Mini Indonesia lndah Anjungan Daerah 2009. Me-Ikon Anjungan. TMll PesoM lidom& online. http://www.tamanmini.com/index.php? modul =anjungan.

Taman Mini Indonesia lndah Fasilitas 2009. lblqwmn. TMII Perona Indonesia online. http:/twww.m-mini. ~~ndex.php?modul=fariiitas.

Tarnan Mini Indonesia lndah Profil 2009. %jarah. TMll Pesona Indonesia online. httpJtm..tamanmini. com/~ndex.php?rnodul= pdl&cat=PSe@ah.

Tirtosudarrno, Riwanto 2006. "In the Margin of a Border- land: The Ram Community betwen Nunukm and Tawad"' In Horstntarm, Alesrandw and Wad& Reed L (eds.) Centering the Margin: Agency and Nclr- rative in Southeast Asian Borderland. Oxford: Berghahn Bodes. pp. 135- 152.

T* Philipus. 2000. "Religious W i and a Culture of Tolerance: Paving the Way for Reconciliation in Indonesia". Antropolagi Indonesm. (24) 63. pp. 92- 108.

Vikers, Adrian 2005. A History ofModern Indonesia. New York: Cambridge U M i h.

Widyatmika, Munandjar et. all. 1979. SdprOh IQhghtan N&onal Daerah Nusa Enggam Timur.Jsdcarta: Rpyek h d i t i ~ dan KhdapWl Daerah Pusat Penelitian Sejarah dan Budaya, Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebodayaan.

Wood, Michad. 2005.Officiol History in Modern Indonesia: New Order krceptions and Counterviews. Leiden: Koninklijke Mll, NV