Rezza P. Setiawan
Center for Religious and Cross-cultural Studies

Polarization is so pervasive that it touches almost every aspect of our lives, including the issues of religion, environment, social, politics, and economy. Thus, polarization cannot be viewed separately from other interrelated issues, which requires scholars to observe its many aspects in order to understand the phenomenon.

ICRS’ (un)conference titled “Polarization and its Discontent in the Global South: Mitigation Measures, Strategies, and Policies” was held on 24–25 April 2025 at Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta. The discussion invited four speakers from diverse backgrounds: Daniel Medina from the Institute for Integrated Transitions (IFIT), Colombia; Ana Carolina Evangelista from the Institute of Studies on Religion (ISER), Brazil; Nicholas Adams from the University of Birmingham, United Kingdom; and Nurhuda Ramli from IMAN Research, Malaysia; with Dicky Sofjan from ICRS and Globethics moderating the discussion. This article will present polarization not as an isolated entity but as a complex phenomenon in entanglement with many other intersecting phenomena by highlighting several talking points of the plenary session speakers.

The Many Limbs of Polarization

The moderator began the session by posing a question: “What is polarization?” In response to the question, Medina recognized the need for further development in conceptual understanding of polarization. He then proposed a definition of “polarization” as the prominent division of clustering views/beliefs in antagonistic boxes. Medina views polarization not as an isolated problem in itself, but as a “hyper-problem,” which he explained as a problem that complicates the other intersecting problems.

To further understand polarization as a hyper-problem, Medina and Evangelista presented cases of polarization from their own contexts in Colombia and Brazil, respectively.

The people of Colombia experience social fractures with the ongoing conflict between the ruling government and revolutionary forces led under the banner of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia; FARC). In this case polarization manifests through ideological conflicts, which are also entangled with issues of religion (Parisi & Ibarra Padilla, 2025), politics, and economy (Guáqueta, 2003), with the entangled polarization further stirring the complexity pot by becoming a psychosocial barrier against efforts toward peace (Villa-Gómez et al., 2024). All of these interrelated issues have amalgamated into decades of prolonged violent conflicts.

Brazilian people and their political affairs are also entangled with religious traditions that complicate polarization as well. Evangelista claims that the incorporation of Christian values in public policy creates polarization among the people, between the secular and the religious, between the Catholics and the Neopentecosts (Moreira, 2018; Segatto et al., 2022). One of the secular narratives against this shift is on how “religious businessmen” profit from such incorporation of religious affairs into public policy. This polarization resulted in the election of a candidate from a far-right party in the 2018 presidential election (Layton et al., 2021). From this case, one could see that societal polarization in religious realms is inevitably tangled with the social, economic, and political realms of Brazilian society.

These two cases demonstrate the contextually-specific nature of polarization in entanglement with other phenomena. What might cause severe polarization in one case might not matter as much in other contexts. Although, it might not be entirely absent from the specific case. Conflicts in Colombia are fueled mainly by their ideological differences, but are also related with other factors as well, including religion. Inversely, the influence of ideology in Brazil might not be readily-apparent, but it is still related nonetheless.

Whose Agenda is Being Served?

One implication of Evangelista’s description of the Brazilian case of polarization is that there are some people who become advantaged and others who become disadvantaged by the polarization. This is an important consideration that Adams also offered to the forum, which highlights the instrumental aspect of polarization that works as a tool for a specific agenda in a specific context. It then boils down to the question of whose agendas are served by the polarization.

Polarization was and is still used because it is structurally-rooted in Malaysia. The Malaysian constitutional foundation was constructed upon the British Empire’s colonial assumption of using division and polarization as their means to control its subjects. Ramli stated that Malaysian society was a very fluid society before British colonization. Then Ramli pointed out that this colonial legacy resulted in Islamic supremacy in a polarized society since the 1980s. This shift toward Islamic supremacy produces majority-minority discourses with the resulting hateful narratives among its society. This mode of governance created a system that serves the interest of one party at the expense of the others. The British imperial agenda was first served by polarization in the colonial era, which is unfortunately followed by the current Islamic rulers.

Following this matter, the question of who benefits from polarization, according to Adams, is more important than that of how “toxic” a polarization is. How one defines a problem through a specific differentiation would produce a specific discourse as well, which in turn would lead to a specific kind of response. For example, while Ramli views that the problem of polarization is coming from urban areas, Adams believes that cities are also the source of solutions against violent polarization. Evangelista also added that the solutions against polarization come  from below, from the lives of everyday people, to which Medina also stated that polarization would always be there and it does not grow in a vacuum, which makes the responsibility of guarding against violent tendency fall not only to one party but to everyone as part of the society.

Conclusion

There are two important assumptions in the discussion that would be helpful to better understand the phenomenon of polarization. First, polarization is a hyper-problem that complicates other problems. It cannot be viewed separately from other issues, but rather highlights the inseparability of one issue from the others. Polarization is not a singular entity that can be isolated, but a process that flows along with other phenomena. Second, polarization serves certain interests. Any question regarding the effects of polarization in society would need to pay close attention to who is benefitting from the polarization because those are the ones who would try to conserve the polarization.

Thus, lingering questions remain, albeit transformed. Instead of merely asking “What is polarization,” one could also ask “How does polarization manifest in our specific context?” Instead of only asking about the solution to polarization, one should also remember to ask both “Who benefits from polarizations” and “Who is being disadvantaged?” To quote Adams, it is our task to provide the “distinctions that matter,” because from these distinctions we could transform the polarizations that matter the most to the most vulnerable.

Anthon Jason

“In our community, we have our own understanding of energy. For us, energy can mean land. Land is energy, forest is energy. Whereas for the current government, with its energy transition concept, energy is reduced to electricity. This impoverishes the meaning of energy”. A simple explanation arising from awareness of how knowledge can be polarized. How does this polarization relate to environmental justice?

This article aims to capture the ideas discussed in two discussion sessions on April 25, 2025, the second day of the Unconference entitled Polarization and Its Discontent in the Global South. The first session was a plenary session on the topic “Cross-Country Conversations on Polarization of Narratives and Environmental Justice,” moderated by Zainal Abidin Bagir (ICRS) with three speakers. The first speaker was Al Ayubi (Cerah Foundation, Jakarta), the second speaker was Ana Carolina Evangelista (ISER, Brazil), and the third speaker was Jonathan Smith (CRCS UGM, Yogyakarta). The second session was a parallel session in the form of group discussions continuing the discussion in the plenary session on the theme of Polarization and Environmental Justice in the Global South and facilitated by Samsul Maarif (CRCS UGM).

A Polarized World

The world today continues to be polarized. Humans and nature are interconnected, yet modernity and the interests of a select group have created a divide. At the outset, a group of people decided to separate themselves from nature, regarding nature as something unrelated to them. This group’s philosophy is that nature is a resource that can be utilized to the greatest extent possible for the benefit of humans. Thes groups continue to extract natural resources and cause severe environmental damage. When other groups attempt to impede this process, they are often viewed as hindering the advancement of human civilization.

Individuals who aim to prevent environmental damage are often local residents. They are often viewed as lacking in knowledge and expertise. Ultimately, they were separated from other humans who want to utilize nature. In the initial phase, humans establish a distinct separation from nature. Subsequently, they establish a distinct separation from other humans. In the initial phase, humans exploit and take advantage of nature. Subsequently, humans oppress and take advantage of their fellow humans. This phenomenon of human-nature polarization ultimately leads to a division among people themselves. This is a brief overview of the background of the theme of polarization and environmental justice, as explained by Samsul Maarif, ICRS Consortium Board Member, during the two-day unconference.

Paradoxically, research conducted by the Cerah Foundation and presented at the unconference indicates that Indonesian society is less polarized on the issue of environmental damage. This could have the possibility that the elite is consolidating their power to the point that they no longer consider the possibility of a different perspective. The absence of polarization toward the issue of environmental damage in Indonesia is likely attributable to the fact that this discourse is predominantly influenced by a select group of individuals, specifically the elites.

A Squeezed Knowledge Space, An Endangered Living Space

Meanwhile, research presented by Jonathan Smith from CRCS UGM discussed environmental polarization around narratives of green energy. The research was based on data from a participatory study with residents from 14 communities affected by geothermal energy projects in Indonesia. The Anthropocene global discourse encourages the transition of energy from fossil fuel sources, which is considered dirty and polluting the environment, to renewable energy, which is energy produced with less environmental pollution. Ironically, geothermal projects, which are seen as one type of renewable energy, have actually caused environmental damage as geothermal plants are built and operate in the living spaces of local communities.

Based on this research, Samsul Maarif, ICRS Consortium Board Member as well as a researcher who examines geothermal projects in a socio-cultural domain, argued that polarization is needed to achieve environmental justice. Polarization is needed to provide space for the presence of second opinions on geothermal projects that are considered green energy. So far, the living spaces of local communities affected by geothermal projects have been taken away without giving them space to speak. A research approach that gives space to local communities to represent their knowledge as it is, requires intellectual courage to recognize their expertise.

Through the research results to present an alternative narrative to green energy from this geothermal project, we can see polarization as a platform to oppose the hegemony of knowledge. The hegemony of knowledge can be very dangerous, especially when it is infiltrated by agencies to dominate, take advantage, and take away the rights to life of others.

Polarization, A Double-Edged Knife

So, do we need polarization? Is polarization a good or a bad thing? To answer this question, participants in the parallel session shared their opinions. First, we need to understand the definition of polarization as “us versus them” mentality. Polarization is a firm position marker, a line drawn to distinguish two poles that cannot be united. Furthermore, we must understand that all polarization has its own context.

After understanding who is on either side in a polarized discourse, we need to understand who creates this polarization and which parties benefit from it. Then we can examine how polarization works. Polarization works by shifting the narrative. For example, the narrative about geothermal as green energy and the narrative of economic development. Polarization occurs when the “us versus them” relationship has a dynamic. In the case of environmental justice, polarization is needed so that a hegemonic narrative finds an opponent, a second opinion to force an option for the good of all parties, including the environment.

However, as the other participants state, we also need to pay attention to or place limits on polarization. For example, time is crucial in cases of polarization. Polarization that is maintained over a long period of time can turn into resentment. Especially when that polarization becomes entrenched into toxic or pernicious forms. Hence, one participant quoted a famous line from Mahatma Gandhi, “Life is not about waiting for the storm to pass but learning to dance in the rain”. Because life is time, and life must go on. We need time to talk, time to get consensus, and the growth of the people needs time. So, we must learn to dance in our lives. Dancing means that we must be able to make negotiative decisions when dealing with various actors, interests, or problems in the case.

In response, Jonathan Smith shared a reflection from his research with communities affected by geothermal projects. He said that the ability to dance also involves agency and power. The people who are having the experience of being affected by geothermal projects have limited power to respond, so we have to consider that as well. How can people dance when they are tied down? They may be able to dance, but they have limited power and resources to do so. It is at this point that academics, researchers and policymakers should play a role, a role that can be difficult but is important.

Next, another participant responded with a warning. In his field of international relations, in genocide studies, polarization acts as a warning system. The next step is extermination. Therefore, we must exercise caution and remain vigilant to prevent environmental genocide.

Our doctoral program, Inter-religious Studies (IRS), and master program Center for Religious and Cross-cultural Studies (CRCS) of postgraduate school Universitas Gadjah Mada has once again been ranked in the 51-100 range in the world in the Theology, Divinity, and Religious Studies cluster in the QS World University Rankings by Subject 2025. This is the third time the university has received this international recognition. Besides UGM, other universities in Indonesia that made it into the world ranking list are UIN Syarif Hidayatullah and Universitas Indonesia in the 101-150 world ranking range.

Dean of UGM Graduate School, Prof. Ir. Siti Malkhamah, M.Sc., Ph.D., IPU, ASEAN.Eng expressed her gratitude for this achievement. “We are very grateful and proud. This achievement is not only the result of the work of one study program, but the collective contribution of various study programs at our faculty and other faculties at UGM engaged in religious studies,” she said on Thursday (17/4).

Siti explained that some of the graduate school’s flagship study programs related to the Theology, Divinity, and Religious Studies cluster are the Inter-Religious Studies (IRS) doctoral program and the Religion and, Center for Religious and Cross-Culture Studies (CRCS) master program, both of which are held in English and have a strong international orientation. ‘The main advantages of these programs lie in the cross-disciplinary approach, the use of international languages of instruction, and research topics that are by the needs of the times and have a broad global impact,’ she added.

In the QS WUR by Subject assessment, four main indicators are used: H-Index, citations per paper, academic reputation, and graduate reputation. H-Index citations and citations per paper are measured based on lecturers’ productivity in indexed journals and collaboration with researchers from various institutions. Both indicators have increased, with H-Index points from 48.8 to 51 and citations per paper jumping from 64.3 to 82. ‘The reputation of our graduates is also strong with a very good and competitive acceptance rate in the world of work by occupying structural and strategic positions in various institutions,’ she added.

UGM is a pioneer in opening religious studies study programs in public universities in Indonesia. Since its establishment in 2000, the education provided is not only the theological study of religion but also combines it with social science and humanities approaches that make it superior.

The head of the IRS study program, Dr. Zainal Abidin Bagir, said that the strength of this study program lies in its seriousness in connecting the Tridarma of Higher Education. Researches by lecturers and students often target actual socio-religious issues such as community polarization, strengthening the capacity of religious instructors, ecological issues, and indigenous religions. ‘We collaborate a lot with coalitions of civil society organizations, often providing policy recommendations, and community assistance and development so that the knowledge developed not only contributes to international journals but also benefits the wider community,’ he said.

One of the other strengths that contribute to this ranking achievement is the international network that continues to be expanded. In the last two decades, the IRS and CRCS study programs have established partnerships with world-renowned universities such as Boston University, University of Leeds, Radboud University, and Florida International University. Not only in the form of collaborative research, but also cross-campus teaching, student exchange, and publishing international academic journals such as Studies in Interreligious Dialogue which is now based at UGM.

In the future, strengthening the quality of graduates and integration of the Tridharma of Higher Education will be a top priority with the continued development of fast-track master-doctoral programs and exploring double degrees with universities in Europe. Currently, it is in the process of refining agreements with the Netherlands, Germany, and Austria for double-degree programs that are expected to start this year. “World rankings are not our ultimate goal. What is much more important is to ensure that our scientific contributions continue to be relevant, down-to-earth, and become a bridge between groups in a plural society,” said Zainal.

 

This article was originally translated from here

Rezza Prasetyo Setiawan

Decolonization is a collective effort that seeks to span many sectors, including the domain of law. On January 2, 2023, Indonesia legalized a new penal code (Undang-Undang nomor 1 Tahun 2023 tentang Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana) which will come into effect on January 2, 2026. The new penal code (hereinafter referred to as KUHP 2023) will replace Wetboek van Strafrecht (WvS), a Dutch-constructed penal code which has long been the foundation for Indonesian criminal law.

Indonesian politics of religion and the related issues of religious freedom in Indonesia are tightly linked to the old penal code. The controversial Article 156a on religious blasphemy is often used as a tool to criminalize religious minorities. Currently, the seventh chapter of KUHP 2023, which includes Articles 300 to 305, specifically regulates matters related to religion or belief. Thus, changes brought by this recodification of the penal code garnered attention on how it would impact Indonesian politics of religion, specifically in matters of religious freedom.

This called for the Indonesian Scholar Network for Freedom of Religion of Belief (ISFoRB), in collaboration with the Indonesian Consortium for Religious Studies (ICRS) and the Center for Religious and Cross-cultural Studies (CRCS) to join in the conversation. On January 23, 2025, ISFoRB, ICRS, and CRCS organized a soft launching for “Penafsiran Pasal 300–305 KUHP 2023”, an interpretation guidebook for law enforcers to better understand the aspects of human rights that are inherent to KUHP 2023. The soft launch was staged simultaneously in nine universities: Sekolah Tinggi Hukum Jentera; Universitas Gadjah Mada; Universitas Padjadjaran; UIN Bukittinggi; IAIN Kediri; IAIN Pontianak; Universitas Jenderal Soedirman; Universitas Jember; and Universitas Islam Bandung.

The event was organized with five speakers who engaged with the book: (1) Prof. Dr. Edward Omar Sharif Hiariej, S.H., M.Hum., (Eddy Hiariej) the Indonesian Vice Minister of Law; (2) Prof. Yohanes Priyana, S.H., M.H., from the Indonesian Supreme Court; (3) Dr. Desy Meutia Firdaus, S.H., M.Hum., from the Attorney General’s office; (4) Dr. Sri Wiyanti Eddyono, S.H., LL.M. (HR), Ph.D., from Universitas Gadjah Mada; and (5) Ivan Wagner, S.H., M.H., from LBH Kalbar, a Legal Aid organization in West Kalimantan province. Each speaker offered their responses to the guidebook from their own perspectives and contexts.

KUHP 2023 was written under the grand mission of decolonizing Indonesian laws. This mission is served through the four goals aimed by KUHP 2023: (1) recodifying the WvS; (2) democratizing criminal law; (3) consolidating criminal law; and (4) adapting and harmonizing the criminal law with the current development of law sciences in accordance to international values, standards, and norms. These goals set the frame from which all the articles, including Articles 300–305 should be understood.

However, legal interpretations are often driven by bad intentions toward ignorance and preference-based discrimination. Eddy Hiariej underlined that Articles 300 to 305 were included in order to protect minority groups. As mentioned before, Indonesian politics of religion are muddled with persecutions against religious minority groups, ironically, using laws that were historically designed to protect them as it concerns the original intent. Therefore, Eddy warned, these articles should be interpreted with protection for minority groups in mind, because loose and irresponsible interpretations of these articles would instead become a new tool for discrimination toward minority groups. Eddy proposes using this book as a guide to understand the original intent of the articles in KUHP 2023 for the protection of minorities.

Still, judges are always influenced by countless factors in carrying out verdicts. Claims of objectivity often ignore the subjective preferences of the judges. Yohanes Priyana observes that there are usually stark differences between judges’ decisions and how they are implemented in the field. One important factor, besides differences in interpretation toward the written laws, is the resistance from reactionary groups when certain decisions are given that do not align with the interests of these groups. For that matter, Desy Meutia Firdaus mentioned the importance of collaborating with experts on human rights issues in general and on the issue of freedom of religion or belief, specifically, so that the implementation of Indonesian criminal laws could suitably align with its aimed principles of human rights. This inclusion of experts on human rights perspectives will serve as a barrier that prevents arbitrary judgments that are influenced by personal preferences that might be discriminative against minority groups.

In order to achieve this vision of criminal laws that are justly driven by the principles of human rights, academic institutions should also supply the necessary expertise to support the law enforcement officers with their perspectives. Academic curricula should include the perspective of human rights, specifically in understanding the issues of freedom of religion or belief which revolves near the center of Indonesian political consciousness. Academic institutions could also provide training for law enforcers to understand the principles of human rights that are already infused within KUHP 2023 as its original intent so they could work with the appropriate sensitivity toward the social and religious contexts of Indonesian society.

Ivan Wagner then provided the floor with a concrete example from the province of West Kalimantan. Issues of religion collide with issues of ethnicity in his context, which polarizes the people. This tension between religion and ethnicity created fissures into which minority groups are prone to vulnerabilities posed by the majority groups. This context highlights the importance of having a more inclusive perspective toward law, which considers the sensitivity of local contexts.

In the midst of Indonesian pluralities, there will be many cases, with a vast diversity of specific contexts, on which the implementation of KUHP 2023 will be tested. ISFoRB, ICRS, and CRCS have offered their first move toward understanding Articles 300 to 305 in KUHP 2023 from the perspective of human rights. This ongoing project in decolonizing Indonesia’s criminal code through KUHP 2023 represents a historic moment in the country’s legal history, which will reshape how religious freedom is performed in Indonesia. To ensure the protection of marginalized groups, the legal system has to be responsive to the evolving human rights landscape. By fostering a legal framework that champions equality, Indonesia can become a model for a flourishing diversity of religions and beliefs.

Hendrikus Paulus Kaunang

Indonesia is currently facing a range of challenges that threaten its social and economic stability. Since the end of 2024, numerous events have pushed societal life to one of its lowest points in recent years. From a national leadership crisis, constitutional and legal manipulation, the weakening of the Rupiah, rising unemployment due to mass layoffs, to escalating political and social tensions, all have led the nation down a dark path, filled with uncertainty about a better future. The dream of Indonesia Emas (Golden Indonesia) 2045 seems more like a utopia when viewed against today’s circumstances. The terms Indonesia Gelap (Dark Indonesia) and Indonesia Cemas (Anxious Indonesia) are not mere expressions of pessimism, but rather a stark reflection of the crumbling foundations of national life, brought about by the capability of those in power who, ironically, emerged from a democratic process that is increasingly losing its meaning and integrity.

Amid this era of challenges and uncertainty, 2025 presents Indonesia with a rather unique and rare moment—where major religious celebration from several faith communities are celebrated in close succession: Nyepi (Hindu) on March 29, Eid al-Fitr (Muslim) on March 31 and April 1, and Easter (Christian) on April 20. Religious holidays are much more than just ceremonial events for people who follow their faith and are citizens of the state. These are spiritual moments that revive hope and the desire to create a better future—deeply significant opportunities. Genuine introspection and a reevaluation of one’s prior failings during life’s journey are the seeds of this optimism.

Christians across the country have just commemorated Easter. For me, this moment offers a timely opportunity to strengthen social ties, foster unity across different groups, and revive a sense of solidarity that may have faded due to problems caused by elites who focused more on their own political ambitions. Easter is not merely a religious celebration—it is also a chance to rebuild the bonds of togetherness among the diverse elements of society.

In Christian tradition, Easter symbolizes resurrection, hope, and renewal after suffering. I believe these values are highly relevant to an Indonesia currently grappling with political, economic, and social crises. Easter can serve as a time for communities to reflect, renew their commitment to humanitarian values, and build stronger social solidarity. This aligns with the view that shared norms and values—maintained by all layers of society—are vital in forming stable social cohesion (Durkheim, 1893).

Easter can also be interpreted as a chance to revive social capital, which in recent years has significantly eroded, leading to increased polarization within society. Social capital—which includes mutual trust, cooperation in public programs, and interpersonal connectivity—plays a key role in maintaining social harmony. In times of economic hardship and widespread uncertainty, cultivating critical awareness and engaging in community activities can serve as a first step toward restoring a sense of solidarity. This celebration can also help rebuild trust between groups and promote collective efforts to bring about positive change.

Furthermore, Easter contributes to revitalizing the spirit of togetherness, or Gemeinschaft (Tönnies, 1887), within communities. In a society increasingly divided by political, economic, and cultural differences, Easter presents an opportunity to deepen emotional and personal bonds among individuals. Collective activities that often accompany Easter—such as church services, solidarity actions for vulnerable groups, and other social initiatives—help strengthen social ties based on mutual care and cooperation. This reminds me of Soekarno’s idea in the book Di Bawah Bendera Revolusi (2016), where gotong royong (mutual cooperation) is described as a social foundation that awakens the people’s power. When religious communities and society at large engage in social action during Easter, it becomes a real expression of organic solidarity that can serve as a foundation in the midst of our current multidimensional crisis.

The Easter season is also an occasion for bolstering moral awareness in society.  Greater compassion, empathy, and a united effort for positive change can be inspired by the values of sacrifice, justice, and resurrection inherent in the Easter story.  Easter’s moral message serves as a reminder to everyone of the significance of maintaining truth and justice in social and political life amid escalating social injustice, corruption, and inequality.

In 2025, amid the many challenges Indonesia faces, the overlapping of significant religious festivities offers a precious chance to bolster unity and social cohesion during this multifaceted crisis. With the spirit of togetherness, social engagement, and the noble values exemplified by Nyepi, Eid al-Fitr, and Easter, society is urged to strengthen inter-group cooperation, defuse potential conflicts, and reinforce the bonds of national integration amid our diversity. Specifically, Easter serves not only as a religious observance but also as a social movement opportunity—an occasion to reaffirm solidarity amid a complex and fragmented reality. In a time of economic downturn, social unrest, and a political atmosphere that frequently diminishes hope, Easter emerges as a symbol of resurrection—a summons to rise and reconstruct a future for Indonesia that is more equitable, dignified, and promising.

 

Reference:

1. Durkheim, É. (1893). The division of labour in society. Free Press.

2. Tönnies, F. (1887). Community and society (C. P. Loomis, Trans.). H. F. & G. Witherby.

3. Soekarno. (2016). Di Bawah Bendera Revolusi. Yayasan Bung Karno.

Written By: Anthon Jason

The agrarian conflict in Sikka Regency, Flores, involving PT Kristus Raja Maumere (Krisrama)—a corporation owned by the Catholic Diocese of Maumere—has emerged as a pivotal case for analyzing the interplay of religion, power, and land rights in postcolonial Indonesia. This conflict, which has garnered national attention since January 2025, represents a complex intersection of colonial legacies, religious authority, indigenous rights, and economic development. While the Catholic Church has historically positioned itself as an advocate for social justice, its role as a landowner and economic actor in Flores exposes contradictions between spiritual mission and neoliberal praxis.

As highlighted in the discussion hosted by the Coalition for Freedom of Religion/Belief (KBB) Indonesia on March 21, 2025, which was held online and featured three key speakers: Made Supriatma (ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute researcher), Tamara Soukotta (Radboud University academic), and Zainal Abidin Bagir (ICRS Director). The discussion raises fundamental questions about the ethical responsibilities of religious institutions in land disputes. The moderator emphasized that this issue “is still ongoing and very dynamic,” noting that it involves “a company owned by a diocese engaging in oppressive practices against indigenous communities”. This article synthesizes perspectives from three experts who participated in the KBB-led discussion, focusing on three dimensions: the historical roots of church-controlled land conflicts, coloniality and structural violence in “development” paradigms, and the weaponization of blasphemy laws against agrarian activists.

Dutch Colonial Foundations and Post-Independence Transitions
Made Supriatma, a researcher at ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, traced the conflict to Dutch colonial land management systems. He explained that his interest in the issue began during research in Eastern Indonesia in 2020, when he discovered “a major conflict in eastern Flores between the church and communities, particularly regarding land ownership”. This conflict, he noted, has “continued for years, perhaps centuries,” with historical roots in “former Dutch plantations that were later transferred or purchased by the Church”.

The researcher revealed a disturbing connection between land disputes and political violence: “When I investigated the origins, I found links to sites of massacres in 1965, in several villages that supported communists. These were actually related to former Dutch plantations that were later transferred or purchased by the Church and then occupied by communities”. This historical context reveals how contemporary land conflicts in Flores are entangled with Indonesia’s broader history of political violence and colonial dispossession.

After Indonesia’s independence, the Catholic Church acquired former Dutch plantations through Hak Guna Usaha (HGU) permits, ostensibly to fund clerical education. However, these acquisitions ignored indigenous ulayat (customary) rights. As Bli Made noted: “The Church purchased these plantations with substantial funds to finance the Diocese and educate priests”. This historical dispossession created generational poverty, forcing many Flores residents to migrate to Malaysia as stateless laborers.

Demographic Pressures and Migration Patterns
The conflict must be understood within the context of severe demographic and geographic pressures in Flores. Bli Made explained: “The pressure between population and land ownership in Flores is immense, which is why many people from Flores migrate, especially to Malaysia. Human trafficking rates are very high”. He further highlighted the plight of stateless Indonesians: “Most shocking is that many Indonesian citizens are not recognized as citizens because they were born outside Indonesia. There are communities of Flores people, quite large in number, in North Kalimantan who are essentially stateless”.

This migration pattern demonstrates the direct consequences of land scarcity and agrarian conflicts in Flores. Bli Made noted that these communities maintain their “Flores culture and Catholic traditions” even in diaspora, creating continuity with their homeland. The situation was further exacerbated when “several years ago, there was a tsunami and an island had to relocate to the mainland, and some of these people are among those living on the HGU land now managed by PT Krisrama”.

Critique of Church’s Approach
The Catholic Church’s transformation into a corporate entity, exemplified by PT Krisrama’s coconut plantation, reveals a paradox: a spiritual institution adopting colonial-capitalist models. Bli Made criticized the theological justification behind naming the corporation “Kristus Raja Maumere” (Christ the King), arguing it commodifies religious symbolism to legitimize land monopolization: “The name itself is cynical because it’s a limited company. For me, they should find another name. Why use ‘Christ the King’?”

Bli Made offered a pointed critique of the Church’s handling of the conflict, particularly its recent actions: “A few days ago, the church asked its congregants to come work in the plantation with hoes. This is outrageous”. He was especially troubled by the use of blasphemy laws: “What’s making me angry is not just that the Catholic Youth Group reported residents—who may legally be illegal, as court decisions also say they’re illegal—for blasphemy. From what perspective are they committing blasphemy?”

Bli Made questioned the Church’s theological consistency: “Why can’t the church be humble? Why can’t it practice low-key theology? In my view, what’s most important is understanding and finding a solution”. He proposed alternative approaches: “Why not resolve this by saying, ‘Okay, you can build houses within a certain distance, but let’s work together. Let’s create cooperation.’ The church could do community development, just like it provides pastoral guidance to its congregants”.

Bli Made suggested practical solutions: “Maybe these people are workers. Maybe we could give them some land to grow vegetables so they can eat, and the church can also take care of them. You guard our coconut plantation, hopefully you can also work in our coffee plantation”. He emphasized that “everything could be good, a win-win solution. Why isn’t this being done? Why must the church be so arrogant, violating even its own teachings? Why must the church prioritize power?”

Church’s Moral Authority and Responsibility
The conflict raises questions about the Church’s moral authority in Flores. Bli Made noted: “I know Flores people are very good Catholics. What priests say, especially what the Bishop says, is something they will follow”. This creates a power dynamic that could be used constructively or destructively. He expressed concern about potential escalation: “What I worry about is that in the field, residents who are considered illegal settlers, land squatters, will face escalation, increasing tensions that could lead to killings, because both sides are heated”. Bli Made urged Church leadership to reconsider its approach: “The Bishop of Maumere must think hard and replace the priests who are directors of the company with better people”.

Eventually, the researcher also suggested engaging civil society: “Why not ask for help from Catholic NGOs, Catholic CSOs, or people in CSOs who are Catholic? There are many Catholics in CSOs. Why not ask for their advice on how to handle this, how to gather these people not as enemies of the church but as assets—well, not assets, because if our foundation is cooperative, humans shouldn’t be viewed as assets but as partners who can progress together”.

Tamara Soukotta: Development Violence, Between State, Church and Indigenous Peoples
Tamara Soukotta, an academic affiliated with Radboud University and Erasmus University Rotterdam, provided a critical analysis of the agrarian conflict in Flores through the lens of coloniality, structural violence, and development paradigms. Her insights offer a nuanced understanding of how historical power structures continue to shape contemporary social, political, and economic relations, particularly in the context of development projects. Tamara’s arguments are rooted in theoretical frameworks that challenge conventional narratives of progress and modernization, revealing the inherent violence embedded within these processes

Theoretical Framework: Modernity/Coloniality/Decoloniality
Tamara, applying a modernity/coloniality/decoloniality framework, deconstructed the conflict as a manifestation of enduring colonial power structures. She framed her presentation as “an invitation to learn together, especially for those who still view this case from a purely legal perspective”. Tamara emphasized that “development violence is still strongly based on paradigms of colonialism and racism”.

She explained the theoretical underpinnings: “Modernity/coloniality/decoloniality analysis emerged from Latin America but similar thinking exists elsewhere under different names. It developed in parallel with liberation theology”. This framework distinguishes between modernity (what appears beneficial) and its hidden underside: “Modernity or Western modernity is something we see as good and visible because it’s made to be visible, but underneath is violence—violence made invisible so that modernity appears good”. Tamara identifies three interconnected mechanisms of coloniality in the Flores conflict:

Epistemic Racism: The systematic dismissal of indigenous land management systems by both the Catholic Church and the Indonesian state. This reflects what she terms “the categorization of colonized peoples as less human,” a logic rooted in Iberian Catholic colonialism that justified the expulsion of Jews and Muslims and later informed racial hierarchies in colonized territories.
Structural Violence: The framing of evictions as “development,” where bulldozers and armed forces destroy homes. Soukotta critiques this as “violence made invisible under the guise of bonum communis (common good).”
Religious Co-optation: The use of theological narratives (e.g., naming corporations Kristus Raja) to legitimize land grabs, which she calls “a replication of colonial-era exploitation.”

Church and State in Development: Perpetuating Colonial Structures
Tamara argued that development paradigms perpetuate colonial power structures: “As a paradigm, development was created during decolonization, when European nations left their colonies. Development continues Quijano’s colonial matrix of power”. This includes: 1. Formation of subjectivity through education and schools. 2. Control over gender and sexuality through schools and religious institutions. 3. Exploitation of land and resources by the state and capitalist economic systems. 4. Authority, especially state authority

At the center of this matrix is knowledge, racism and capital. Tamara states “Racism is an integral part of development, development must be racist because otherwise, there would be no one we feel needs to be developed”. This perspective challenges conventional understandings of development as inherently beneficial.

Tamara emphasized the historical role of both church and state in perpetuating colonial structures: “The Catholic Church of Rome as a political and economic institution existed before the nation-state and was involved in violence that was later followed by colonialism and the nation-state”. She traced the origins of racial hierarchies to religious persecution: “The history of racism or the birth of the concept of race is related to the expulsion of Jews and Muslims from the Iberian Peninsula, where the Catholic Church in Spain was directly involved”. This historical pattern continues in contemporary conflicts: “The Church reproduces state violence, including continuing land grabbing or land violence, opening opportunities for horizontal conflict or, if I want to be clearer, provoking horizontal conflict by mobilizing or attempting to mobilize congregants to control disputed land”.

Indigenous Communities and Territorial Rights
A crucial element in Tamara’s analysis is the recognition that indigenous communities predate both church and state: “Indigenous communities existed long before the birth of the nation-state and the arrival of the Catholic Church, both in Flores and elsewhere worldwide”. She emphasized that “territory is an integral part of indigenous communities, whether occupied or not. Every indigenous community has territory with or without state recognition”.

This raises fundamental questions about recognition: “If indigenous communities existed before the state, do they need state recognition to become indigenous communities with rights to territory?” Tamara connected this to broader issues of agrarian reform, which she views as “a matter of social, political, economic, cultural, and even epistemic justice—who has the right to generate knowledge about whose land this is”.

Tamara’s application of decolonial theory offers a methodological framework for scholars. By analyzing how “coloniality exists everywhere in our daily practices”, scholars can identify and challenge colonial continuities within religious institutions. This approach requires recognizing that “solidarity is born from shared suffering” and centering marginalized voices in academic discourse. Her final call to true solidarity action echoed Pramoedya’s famous phrase: “Fair in thought before action “. Of course, to be able to be fair from the mind has the prerequisite that we have to dismantle the coloniality embedded in our minds. Only then can we build a truly liberatory futures.

Zainal Abidin Bagir: Blasphemy Laws as a Tool of Repression and the Interconnectedness of Human Rights
Zainal Abidin Bagir, Director of the Indonesian Consortium for Religious Studies (ICRS), provides an in-depth analysis of the agrarian conflict in Flores by highlighting two main points. The first argument focused on how blasphemy laws are used as a tool to silence resistance to evictions. The second and equally significant argument centered on the interdependence of religious freedom and socioeconomic justice. Zainal challenged the artificial separation of rights categories, asserting that religious liberty cannot exist in isolation from land rights, cultural identity, and economic equity. His argument dismantled the notion that religious freedom operates independently from material conditions. His perspective links the issue of religious freedom to other human rights, especially land rights, which are at the core of this conflict.

Blasphemy Law as a Tool of Repression
Zainal begins by criticizing the use of blasphemy laws in this conflict. He explained that these laws are often not used to protect religion, but rather as political tools to silence criticism and resistance. In the context of Flores, the blasphemy law was used by certain groups to attack activists fighting for indigenous peoples’ rights to their land. He cited the case of Cece Geliting, a transgender woman who became a symbol of resistance to evictions by PT Krisrama. Cece was reported for blasphemy after posting a satirical cartoon depicting a priest riding an excavator. Zainal states, ” Often with blasphemy issues, religion is not the main issue, but a tool to achieve other goals. In this case, the law was used to restrict freedom of expression and silence criticism of the eviction.”

Zainal emphasized that the use of such laws creates fear among indigenous peoples and activists. He said that these actions not only violate the right to freedom of expression but also undermine the essence of religious freedom itself: “When land rights are violated, religious freedom becomes meaningless. Religious freedom cannot be separated from other basic rights.” In his view, the blasphemy law has become an effective instrument for those in power to maintain the status quo and suppress marginalized groups. This shows how religious issues are often manipulated for certain economic and political interests.

Indivisibility of Human Rights: Land Rights as Prerequisite for Religious Freedom
Zainal’s second argument centered on the interdependence of rights, challenging the artificial separation of religious freedom from socioeconomic justice: “Religious freedom cannot exist in a vacuum. When people lose their land—their source of livelihood and cultural identity—their ability to practice faith freely is inherently compromised.” This perspective reframes religious freedom as a holistic right contingent on three pillars:

Land as Sacred Space: Indigenous rituals, ancestral veneration, and communal worship in Flores are intrinsically tied to specific territories. Dispossession severs spiritual connections to land.
Livelihoods as Prerequisites for Practice: Poverty caused by land loss forces communities to prioritize survival over religious observance.
Cultural Identity as Foundation of Belief: When state or corporate actors erase indigenous cosmologies (tanah sebagai ibu), they simultaneously erase the spiritual frameworks that sustain religious practice.

Zainal presented his critique of the relationship between religion and power in Indonesia. He emphasized that the issue of religious freedom cannot be separated from other issues such as agrarian justice and human rights: “We cannot separate religious freedom from the broader socio-economic context. Land rights are a prerequisite for true religious freedom.” The separation itself is actually a legacy of colonialism. Dutch missionaries packaged spirituality as separate from land, which is how they justified colonization and took our land. Decolonizing religious freedom means rejecting this false divide.

Through his two main arguments, Zainal provides a critical perspective on how the agrarian conflict in Flores reflects the complex power dynamics between religion, the state and indigenous peoples. He asserts that solutions to these conflicts require a holistic approach that integrates principles of social justice with respect for the basic rights of indigenous peoples. Zainal’s statement reminds us that religious freedom cannot stand alone without socio-economic justice. In the context of Flores, the struggle of indigenous peoples to defend their land is an integral part of realizing true religious freedom.