Hongsok Lee
The large-scale plantation agriculture that began in the colonial era is still practised in the Indonesian archipelago, although the management has changed to large-scale agricultural companies. Colonial plantations in the Dutch East Indies relied heavily on the unfree labour of colonial workers. There are two common explanations for why this was the case. First, because colonial power was absolute, and second, because of the colonialists’ belief that only coercion could free the “lazy natives” from their idleness (Li 2017, 249). Even in today’s Indonesia, indigenous smallholders experience inequality due to the overwhelming difference in capital compared to large-scale agricultural companies. The “lazy natives” frame, used by Western colonialists in the Indonesian archipelago, has also been used by Indonesians since the New Order era to discriminate against indigenous people. Another problem with modern large-scale plantation agriculture is the problem of monoculture, which leads to ecosystem destruction and a lack of biodiversity. These are the challenges facing the Dayak Benuaq community in Kalimantan today.
The presenter at the Wednesday forum, October 9, 2024 forum was Gilang Mahadika. He researched the relationship between a large agricultural company Lonsum and Dayak Benuaq smallholders in Kalimantan, the problems of biodiversity caused by monoculture, and the role of religion in these conflicts and the resolution. PT PP London Sumatra Indonesia Tbk, known as Lonsum, was founded in 1906 as a plantation company based in London. It started its first plantation near Medan, Sumatra, and became part of the Indofood group in the 2000s. Lonsum’s estates are located in Sumatra, Kalimantan, Java and Sulawesi, and it operates 12 palm oil mills in Sumatra and Kalimantan (Lonsum, “At a Glance”). In the 1990s, Lonsum began land clearing in the Dayak Benuaq community area and built a base camp for oil palm workers to stay in. The community considered this as a violation of their customary rights and protested by occupying the company’s base camp, which resulted in the death of a protester.
Some of the community members interpreted the tragedy religiously and wanted to end it with a healing ritual (Beliatn). They also decided to use a totem (Bloontakng) as a symbol of reconciliation between the community and the company. The Dayak Benuaq smallholders are also working to restore biodiversity through gardening on the plantations. The presenter argues that monocultures and violence are intertwined, and emphasizes that the indigenous community does not follow the monoculture/violence schema. Their actions can be understood as a religious struggle against modern capitalist agriculture, which marginalizes humans and nature and seeks to profit even through violence. The healing ritual and the totem are evidence of their religious struggle. Through these acts, the Dayak Benuaq are not only addressing the immediate environmental and social damage caused by monocultural practices, but they are also contesting a broader system of exploitation. In this struggle, religion serves as both a moral and practical guide, offering a path to restore balance between the spiritual, social, and ecological realms. By invoking traditional rituals and symbols, the Dayak Benuaq resist the commodification of land and life, seeking instead a more holistic and sustainable approach to agriculture and human interaction with nature. This religious struggle, grounded in their indigenous worldview, offers a powerful critique of modern capitalist agriculture, which often views nature and human communities as mere resources to be extracted and exploited, regardless of the social and environmental cost.
Issues of indigenous community, human and nature, human rights, and human dignity are key research topics of ICRS, and Gilang Mahadika’s work is linked to these interests. The religious struggle of the Dayak Benuaq community to address problems of violence and monoculture provide a good insight into how religion can contribute to solving the problems facing modern society.
