Indigenous struggles in
46 International Viewpoint #324 September-October 2000
On the other hand, the same factors of change and process of development may not be accepted or resented by some indigenous groups or sections among them. This is especially so when those changes or development appear to be forced from above by the ruling elite in the state, and consequently cause what are per-
Southeast Asia ceived as disastrous effects on the indigenous people, such as undermining their economic resources and livelihood, and threatening their culture and religion. The
INDIGENOUS peoples in Burma, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines form a substantial number of the population.
SYED HUSIN ALI* indigenous people tend to resist these changes, some of which are considered to be undesirable onslaught on them by the state or national organisations. All these can be deemed as constituting the centrifugal forces which tend to draw away the
TN Burma, a third of her 40 million peo- or colonised their land. They have often ple is made up of a number of indige-
-nous groups. By contrast, Thailand has only about 550,000 indigenous people and Philippines has about 4.5 million. Malaysia, which is made up of a population of about 22 million, has around 1.8 million (less than 9 percent). Peninsular Malaysia probably has the smallest number; with only about 100,000, while the number is much bigger in East Malaysia, i.e. about 860,000 in Sabah and around 839,000 in Sarawak. The number is not available for Indonesia, where the situation is more complicated insofar as trying to distinguish the indigenous people from others, which are often considered as minority sub-ethnic groups. For example, are the Aceh, Bugis and Madura people to be categorised as indigenous or sub-ethnic groups?
The indigenous groups in each country are normally referred to as a single category by a common name. In the Philippines they are known as "Tribal Filipino", while in Thailand the term "Chao Khao" (hill tribes) has been used for more than three decades. Similarly, in Malaysia they have been called "Orang Asli" or lately "Orang Asal" (Aboriginal People). But each category in every country is inevitably made up of many different types or groups of indigenous communities, which are often distinguished or distinguishable from one another by others as well as by themselves on the basis of their differences in origin, language and culture.
The indigenous people are often historically recognised as the original or first inhabitants of the country that they settle. They have been influenced by different waves of people who have immigrated to been driven into the jungles in the hinterland or the hills. As a result, sections of them continue to this day to practice different forms of subsistence economy. They are close to the land, which is not only the primary source of their livelihood, but also forms an important basis of their culture, belief and also autonomous existence. But there are also other sections that have moved to the plains and learnt modern methods of agriculture, planting subsistence or commercial crops. As a result they have been drawn into and affected by the cash economy. Yet others have been driven away from their traditional land by colonisers or capitalists looking for profits from mining, plantations and commerce, and also by recent development activities of the state.
Two forces
There seems to be two types of forces acting on the indigenous communities, which we may describe as the centripetal and centrifugal. The opposite effects of these two forces can be seen among many indigenous people in various countries. The centripetal force tends to draw the indigenous community closer towards, or even into, the wider national or state structure. Economic, political, administrative, educational, social and religious changes tend to encompass or bring the indigenous communities closer to the rest of the population. In other words, the centripetal force has the effect of integrating or assimilating the indigenous communities into the national or state organisation. Some may see this as a natural process of development or state formation.
indigenous communities from the state or national structure and, in fact, sometimes lead them towards demanding autonomy or separation.
### Manifestations
We can identify different manifestations of the political effects and activities among the indigenous peoples resulting from these changes and development, especially those brought about from above, as follows:
(a) Armed or peaceful struggle to oppose the state and to demand a separate state or autonomy;
(b) Extra-legal actions to resist certain government development projects and encroachments by commercial groups on traditional territories;
(c) Formation of political parties to participate in the electoral political process in order to oppose government policies detrimental to the indigenous people and promote their general interests and welfare; and
(d) Cooperation with the power elite by participating in government, administration and political parties, in order to share power, protect interests of the indigenous peoples or even individuals.
In these political manifestations or activities, there are three observable tendencies. Firstly, the tendency to operate alone or independently as an indigenous group, without cooperating with other groups, either from among other indigenous groups or from the mainstream social groups in the country.
Secondly, to cooperate by forming alliances, coalitions or fronts with other indigenous groups or with mainstream
----- pull-quotes on this page -----
The antagonism towards the rulers in Among these were: to usurp political, eco-
International Viewpoint #324 September-October 2000 47
South China Seu
ACEH
SUMATRA INDONESIA
Tridiah
Ocean social groups, for purpose of strengthening their political position and bargaining power. Thirdly, the tendency for some groups to split up or divide owing to different political interests and orientations or even religious beliefs.
Armed struggles for separation or autonomy are still being carried out in Indonesia, Burma and the Philippines. In Indonesia, the struggles have existed for a long time in Aceh, East Timor and West Papua/Irian Jaya. In West Papua it is led by the Free Papua Movement (OPM). In the second half of the sixties and in 1977-78 there were intense conflicts between the Indonesian army and the OPM. Now the struggle is taking a non-violent turn.
Although there has been a change in the central government, which is now more democratic, OPM is nowhere near achieving its aim of gaining freedom for Papua. Traditional land belonging to the indigenous people continue to be ravaged by logging or mining companies, without paying any compensation.
East Timor, with a population of about 750,000 people, is divided into more than 30 distinct ethnolinguistic groups, with one language, Tatum, serving as lingua franca. When the Portuguese practically abandoned East Timor, the Indonesian military, with the cooperation of the leadership of two pro-integrationist parties, UDT and APODETI, occupied the ex-colony in 1975. Freedom fighters, led by Fretilin, mounted the struggle against the cruel and repressive Indonesian military rule. This struggle united almost all the people, except for those who supported the military regime.
Jakarta was further intensified among sections of the Christian populace in East
Timor because they regarded the centre of power in Jakarta as being predominantly
Muslim. Nevertheless, the East Timor liberation struggle was fundamentally a non- religious struggle supported by the majority. The Indonesians, as well as the
Americans and Australians, were interested in East Timor mainly because of its wealth in natural resources, particularly petroleum.
### Struggle in Aceh
Now that the East Timor struggle for independence is almost over, Aceh is beginning to take centre stage. But it is not getting as much international attention as East Timor did.
Although Aceh, as part of Indonesia, has been independent for more than half a decade, yet a large section of the people there consider themselves to be internally colonised by Jakarta. Much of the wealth from the natural resources of Aceh benefits mainly the powerful in Jakarta. At the same time during the 1988-98 there have been more than 7,000 reported cases of human rights violations by the Indonesian army, including 5,000 killings, in Aceh. These events coincided roughly with that period when armed insurrection in Aceh was being stepped up. The Free Aceh Movement (GAM) which is leading the insurrection was formed in 1976. In Aceh, where more than 98 percent of the population is Muslim, Islam constitutes a very strong moving force among the majority of people. A large number of strict Muslims considered the previous military regime in Jakarta as being unIslamic, if not heretical. They may have difficulties now since a respected Muslim leader leads the government and the military role has been much reduced. Further, GAM itself is facing leadership and organisational problems.
In Burma, there has been a long history of military power and legal force being used to control and dominate the various indigenous communities. This ignited the struggle for increased autonomy from the centre, with each of the indigenous group, like the Shan, Rakhina and Kayin, having its own insurgent movement. The central leadership since the early sixties seemed to have carried out all kinds of strategies that could only cause dissatisfaction and restlessness among the indigenous peoples.
Southeast Asia * nomic and social power of the indigenouspeoples; to forcefully regroup them into fenced "strategic hamlets"; and to carry out policies or programmes that resulted in internal colonisation and ethnocide. In order to strengthen their struggle the indigenous peoples formed a front in 1976, which later joined the National Democratic Front (NDF).
Political organisations associated with the Arakan (ALP), Chin (CNF), Karen (KNU), Kachin (KIO), Kayan (KNLP), Lahu (LNO), Mon (NMSP) and Wu (WNO) were in the NDF. These are political parties, but since under the military regime there is no electoral process and repression has been severe, they are forced to resort to armed struggle. The objective of this front is not to form a separate or autonomous state for each indigenous community, but "to establish a genuine Federated States of Burma including a Burman State based on equality, liberty, social progress and right of self-determination." In spite of the democracy protests of 1988 and the great electoral victory of the NLD over the SLORC military regime a couple of years later, the generals refused to concede power. Instead they detained hundreds of the victorious NLD leaders, including Aung San Suu Kyi. Thousands of students, monks and politicians fled to indigenous territories controlled by the NDF. They formed a Democratic Alliance of Burma (DAB) to continue waging armed struggle to achieve the above objective.
The Philippines
In the case of the Philippines, although many indigenous groups have been involved in armed struggle against the central government, it is the Moro movement in the south that appears to enjoy the limelight. The Moros have been Muslims since the 13th century. Although the Spaniards managed to colonise the Philippines, it was not successful in subjugating Mindanao, which still has a big Muslim population. Much later, the Americans succeeded in doing so. The Americans recognised the Moro people as "distinct from the Filipino and treated them as wards". They opened the islands to capitalist ventures in plantation and commerce. While some Muslim factions welcomed and cooperated with the American colonial enterprise, others who felt deprived and humiliated by it
48 International Viewpoint #324 September-October 2000
* Southeast Asia joined the forces of liberation. After the Americans left, the struggle continued, but this time against the power at the centre.
In 1968 the Mindanao Independence Movement (MIM) was formed and together with it Moro national consciousness was manifested in the open. The Philippines armed forces were involved in terrorising and evicting Moros from their ancestral land. At the same time together with some fanatical Christian groups, they carried out "search and destroy" operations. MIM was led by traditional Muslim leaders who were suspicious of the expanding Christian influence in Mindanao, and so their struggle was influenced by religion. Three years later, the MNLF was formed under the leadership of Nur Misuari. This was a leftist nationalist movement, which quickly launched a militant liberation struggle for the setting up of Moroland (Bangsamoro).
A breakaway group set up the Moro Islamic Liberation Movement (MILF), as the MNLF was beginning to negotiate with the centre for autonomy. After the autonomous state of Mindanao was established with Misuari as head, the MILF gained greater support for its armed movement to form an Islamic state in southern Philippines. Presently, it has a contender in the form of the smaller Abu Sayyaf group, which has been in the news lately. Now, the Islamic element is very much in the fore in the struggle against the central ruling elite, which is perceived to be dominated by Christians. This is the reverse of the situation in East Timor.
The Malay situation
Malaysia is not devoid of the tradition of armed struggle, for it had its share especially following the advent of Portuguese and British colonial rule in the early sixteenth and late nineteenth century respectively. In the nineteen fifties and sixties, after the declaration of Emergency and the banning of political parties and unions which were fighting for independence through legal means, there was an armed insurrection largely by Chinese (but also with some Malay and Indian participation), led by the Communist Party.
Owing to the pressure from the British military, helped by the local police and military forces, made up largely of Malays, as well as troops from other British colonies, the insurrectionists had to withdraw into the jungles. There they managed agar HAM
MEA to get support from groups of Orang Asli.
To break the insurrection, the colonial government carried out a strategy of resettling these indigenous peoples into a number of confined areas around what were called "forts" or "posts". They continued to be neglected, exploited and poor. To win their hearts and minds, in 1961 the government officially introduced the term Orang Asli to refer to them collectively. At the same time an Aboriginal Peoples Act was enacted purportedly with the objective of guaranteeing them some rights. An Orang Asli Affairs Department (JHEOA) was formed presumably to "protect" the Orang Asli as its "wards"
A development strategy was initially devised to give them land for agriculture and also to provide services to improve their health and education. Later, the policy of integration was introduced, which was actually aimed at assimilating them into the mainstream Malay social group and culture. It also included proselytising programmes among the Orang Asli and schooling their children to convert them to Islam. Politically, they were given the right to vote.
Although the development efforts carried out under the JHEAO had some positive results, yet the Orang Asli did not consider them satisfactory. Not enough land was given to them. In fact, ironically, various companies and the government transgressed more and more of their ancestral land areas, with all types of projects. The state is always perceived as protecting the interests of big capital whenever there are conflicts or issues involving the takeover of traditional land. As a result, a good number of Orang Asli communities have been forcibly displaced or evicted from their land.
Measures to alleviate poverty and government allocations for the same have always been negligible. In fact, at present more than three-fourths of the Orang Asli are still living below poverty line, about five times the national average.
### Power
Politics is about power, which history has shown can be achieved through the bullet or the ballot. In the above general survey, we see that indigenous peoples in Asia have or are still experiencing both. Different conditions have given rise to different situations. It appears that the more undemocratic and repressive the central power; the more revolutionary the forms of struggle against it become. There are armed struggles still being waged by indigenous peoples in Southeast Asia, to liberate themselves and to change their political environment within a separate state or as part of the existing but transformed political entity. There are also extra-legal forms of resistance, protracted or sporadic, planned or spontaneous, to fight against political and economic measures taken by the government or big business groups, which affect the livelihood of the indigenous peoples as well as undermine their cultural and spiritual lives. At the same time the indigenous peoples also have the experience of political processes that involve elections and political parties. In Sabah and Sarawak, they have their own parties and participate in elections regularly.
Indigenous politics is not all about majority-minority or rich-poor relationships only. What move people, including the indigenous peoples, are not merely common political and economic interests. Equally strong are the forces related to their shared beliefs and values. These common interests and shared values can have centripetal effect to unite them within their own group and also across various, racial, ethnic or indigenous boundaries. But, of course, any attempt by any ruling elite to force, in a dictatorial and undemocratic manner, any sectarian interest or value, will only cause the centrifugal effect, resulting in disunity and disintegration. All these can determine the nature of politics generally, not just electoral politics, among the indigenous people. *
This is an edited version of a much longer paper presented at a Workshop on Indigenous Peoples' Experience with Electoral and Party Politics, in Sabah, East Malaysia, 14-16 July 2000. * President, Parti Rakyat Malaysia (Malaysian Peoples Party) and formerly Professor of Anthropology and Sociology, Malayan University. Among his many books are his prison memoirs, Two Faces: Detention Without Trial (Insan: Kuala
the podium. Even in old age he was a for-
International Viewpoint #324 September-October 2000