The Murmur

Introduction
Greg Fealy and Greg Barton
  Nahdlatul Ulama, with a membership said to number around
35 million, is the largest Islamic organisation in Indonesia. It is
also, as Martin van Bruinessen has observed, without parallel in
the Islamic world as a genuinely mass-based organisation under
the leadership of ulama (religious scholars). Despite the
organisation's size and distinctiveness this is the first English-
language book on NU to be published.
  NU was founded on 31 January 1926 in Surabaya by a group
of eminent ulama (religious scholars), most of whom were
leaders of pesantren (rural Islamic boarding schools). Their aim
was to give organisational voice to the interests of traditional
Islam, and particularly the pesantren system. During the 1920s
many ulama felt concern over the rapid growth of Islamic
modernism and its success in attracting Muslims away from the
traditionalist sphere of learning and practice.
  NU's history can be divided into three broad phases: an initial
period as a socio-religious organisation; a middle period when it
functioned either as a political party or formal component of a
party; and most recently, its return to social-religious activities.
NU was founded as ajamiah diniah or religious organisation. Its
original constitution committed the organisation to a range of
religious, social, educational, and economic activities, including
improving communication between ulama, upgrading Islamic
schools, vetting texts for use in pesantren, and establishing
bodies to advance Muslim farming and trading ventures. NU grew
rapidly throughout the pre-war period. In 1933 it claimed a
membership of 40,000; by 1938 this had swelled to 100,000
spread across 99 registered branches. It also grew in
organisational complexity. In 1934, a youth wing was founded
under the name Ansor. Four years later, a separate women's
division, Muslimat NU, was formally established, along with an
educational institute, Lembaga Pendidikan Ma'arif. During this
period, it also set up a trading cooperative known as Syirkah
Mu'awanah.
  NU's involvement in political activities came gradually and
reluctantly. From the late 1930s, it joined with other Islamic
organisations in campaigning against colonial government
regulations which were seen as inimical to Islam. It also
supported the formation of GAPI (Gabungan Politik indonesia
or Indonesian Political Association) and its call for the
establishment of an Indonesian parliament in 1939. It was not
until 1945, however, that NU entered formal politics as an
organisational member of the Islamic party Masyumi. Increasing
frustration with modernist domination of Masyumi led to NU's
withdrawal from the party in 1952. It transformed itself into an
independent party and emerged as the third-largest contestant at
the 1955 general election with 18% of the national vote (only
4% behind the first-ranked party). NU maintained this level of
support at the following general election in 1971. It also
participated in every cabinet from 1953 to 1971.
  During the Sukarno period NU acquired a reputation for
political flexibility and accommodation. Throughout the 1950s
and early 1960s, NU reversed or modified earlier policies and
undertakings in order to maintain its position within the
government. The most notable of these was its acquiescence to
the dismantling of parliamentary democracy and introduction of
Sukarno's Guided Democracy from 1957 to 1959. Following the
attempted coup of 1965, NU joined with the army in the bloody
elimination of the Indonesian Communist Party, and supported
the rise to power of the New Order government under Major-
General Soeharto. Although it had expected to be a significant
partner in the new regime NU soon found itself a victim of the
New Order's de-Islamisation of politics. It became the target of
government restrictions and intimidation during the 1971
general election campaign and in 1973 was compelled to
amalgamate with three other Islamic parties to form the United
Development Party (PPP). During this period NU became a
major source of opposition to the government.
  NU's involvement in party politics ceased in 1984.
Increasingly marginalised within PPP and worn down by
government harassment, NU left the PPP and reverted to its
original socio-religious status. A new leadership team came to
power, the principal figures of which were Kiai Achmad Siddiq
and Abdurrahman Wahid. They proclaimed NU's return to the
khittah 1926, that is the strategy of activity set out by the
organisation's founding fathers, and embarked on a range of
community welfare and economic development programmes.
Relations with the government improved markedly after NU
agreed to its demands to accept the national ideology, Pancasila,
as the organisation's sole foundation.
  There have been surprisingly few studies made of Nahdlatul
Ulama. In the vast scholarly literature on Indonesia which
emerged from the 1950s and 1960s, there was not a single
article, monograph or doctoral dissertation devoted exclusively
to NU. This was in marked contrast to the quantity of writing on
other major social and political organisations such as
Muhammadiyah, Masyumi, the Nationalist Party and the
Communist Party. This lack of academic interest reflected the
ideological and intellectual preoccupations of scholars of
Indonesian Islam during this period. Most were either modernist
Muslims or western researchers who favoured investigating and
promoting those elements in Indonesian society which were seen
as'modem-minded', 'rational', and technically or professionally
skilled. Traditionalist Muslims, with their emphasis on classical
Islamic learning and observing cultural traditions, tended to be
regarded with scepticism and disdain. They were portrayed as
Politically naive and opportunistic, administratively inept, and
venal. For most scholars of this period, NU's traditionalist
leaders were dismissed as largely irrelevant to the task of
modernising Indonesia.
  It was not until the early 1970s that foreign scholars
Undertook serious study of NU. The writings of Ken Ward, Ben
Anderson and Mitsuo Nakamura did much to stimulate academic
interest in the organisation, as also did the work of emerging
traditionalist intellectuals such as Abdurrahman Wahid,
Zamakhsyari Dhofier, Choirul Anam and Arief Mudatsir (see the
select bibliography). The quantity and variety of research on
NU-related topics has grown rapidly since the mid-1980s. This
book is representative of the recent research on NU by non-
Indonesian scholars.
  The nine chapters in this volume are arranged in approximate
chronological order and span the period from the early
traditionalist organisations which preceded NU in the 1910s
through to 1995. The focus of all but two chapters, however, is
on the period from the late 1970s.
  NU congresses form the basis of four chapters. These
quinquennial congresses have supreme decision-making authority
within NU and their proceedings reveal a great deal about the
organisation's thinking and culture. They witness often frank
debate about its activities since the previous congress and
determine NU leadership and policy on a wide array of religious,
political and social issues for the ensuing five-year period. Given
NU's size and influence, congressional decisions frequently have
a significance that extends far beyond the organisation itself.
Unlike many other major Indonesian organisations, NU has
generally weIcomed outside observers to its congresses and
imposed few restrictions upon access to delegates or proceedings.
As a result, the authors of these chapters have been able to
observe the four congresses from 1979 at close hand.
There are several related themes and issues which recur
throughout the book. The first of these concerns the nature of
NU's political ideology and behaviour Critics have often accused
the organisation of being motivated by material and social
advancement rather than by religious principles. Various
contributors to this collection argue, however, that NU's
political outlook is greatly shaped by classical Islamic thought.
They consider the content of this classical heritage as well as
differences of opinion within NU over interpretation and
application- This discussion serves to explain NU's swings from
political pragmatism and accommodation to militancy and
idealism.
  A second theme concerns the nature of leadership and
distribution of power' within NU? An analogy is often drawn
between leadership of a pesantren and that of NU: just as the kiai
enjoys absolute authority within his pesantren so too are a
relatively small number of kiai said to dominate decision-making
in NU. Although few scholars would dispute the hegemony of
ulama, the more vexed issue is the degree to which NU's
leadership reflects the interests and aspirations of the broader
traditionalist community. There are three NU leaders who are
subject to close study in this book: Wahab Chasbullah, Achmad
Siddiq and Abdurrahman Wahid. Wahab and Abdurrahman, in
particular, have frequently been portrayed by their detractors as
autocrats who have imposed their will upon a reluctant or
uncomprehending mass membership. In examining the role of
these leaders, contributors have analysed their bases of power
and use of traditionalist concepts and symbols to attract support.
  The final theme is that of NU's response to social change and
modernity. Traditionalist Muslims have commonly been
portrayed as innately conservative and suspicious of change.
Adjectives used to describe NU have included kolot (old-
fashioned) and jumud (unbending, resistant to change). It is
apparent in many chapters of this book, however, that
traditionalists have adapted quickly and, at times, creatively to
changed social and political conditions. Considerable evidence is
adduced, moreover, to show that NU's attitudes to change and
modernity are not monolithic. Indeed, for much of the
organisation's history the struggle between reformist and
conservative streams has dominated its internal dynamics.
  In chapter one Greg Fealy examines the life and thought of
Kiai Wahab Chasbullah, a co-founder of NU and one of the most
influential traditionalist leaders of this century. In describing
Wahab's formative years, he identifies those elements which
typified the educational and career experiences of young
traditionalist ulama and those which deviated from them.
Particular attention is given to exploring the nature of Wahab's
authority within the organisation and the manner in which he
drew upon Sunni traditions of political quietism in leading NU
towards pragmatic and accommodationist policies during the
1950s and early 1960s.
  Andree Feillard analyses NU's political behaviour during the
transition from Guided Democracy to the Soeharto regime in the
mid- to late 1960s. She looks at the changing relationship
between army and NU, especially in the context of the
growing controversy over the formal role of Islam within the
emerging New Order political system. The divisions within NU's
leadership during this period are also closely examined.
  The two contributions by Mitsuo Nakamura deal with the
period from 1979 to 1984. His article on the 1979 Congress in
Semarang (chapter three) was originally published in 1981 and is
notable as the first scholarly account of an NU congress. In
addition to describing the proceedings and ambiance of this
congress, Nakamura analyses the relationship between NU's
political behaviour and its religious ideology. He is especially
interested in explaining NU's shift from 'opportunism' during
Guided Democracy to radicalism in the New Order. He argues
that the organisation's demeanour is contingent upon whether it
perceives general social and political conditions to be favourable
or antipathetic to Islamic values. Hence, NU cooperated with a
Sukarno regime which granted concessions to Muslims, but
opposed what it saw as the repressive and anti-Islamic aspects of
the Soeharto government. He also provides a reflective critique
of the prevailing academic bias against traditional Islam.
  Nakamura's second contribution (chapter four) complements
the first. It focuses on the three critical events of the early
1980s: the 1982 crisis surrounding Idham Chalid's leadership; the
1983 National Ulama Conference; and the 1984 NU Congress in
Situbondo. Nakamura also analyses the formulation and
intellectual foundations of NU's pemulihan Khittah 1926, the
restoration of NU's founding program of social and religious
activity, and considers the organisation's plans for using
pesantren as launching points for village-level socio-economic
development activities.
  In the fifth chapter Greg Barton provides a translation of and
introductory remarks upon the writings and statements of Kiai
Achmad Siddiq, NU's rais am from 1984 to 1991. Siddiq was a
major force behind the organisation's shift from political to
community-oriented activities in the early 1980s. The chapter
contains excerpts from his seminal 1979 work Khitthah
Nahdliyah and also a series of interviews published in 1985 under
the title Islam, Pancasila and Ukhuwah Islamiyah. The topics
covered include the role of ulama in NU and Indonesian society,
traditionalist attitudes towards tawassuth (middle way) and
ijtihad (personal interpretation), and the relationship between
Pancasila and Islam.
  The first of Martin van Bruinessen's contributions (chapter
six) examines the NU Congress. He offers a detailed
description of the internal politics surrounding the re-election of
Siddiq and Abdurrahman Wahid before considering the debate
over policy issues. As part of the latter discussion, he looks at
the differing definitions of and approaches to NU's 'social
concerns' (syu'un ijtima'iyah) agenda, including attitudes to
banking and rural development strategies.
  In the following chapter, van Bruinessen analyses broader
religious and intellectual changes in traditional Islam. He
challenges the stereotype of immutable traditionalism, arguing
that it has a demonstrated capacity for evolution and
innovation. The defining elements of NU's doctrine and
devotional practises are described and the author notes the
growing convergence between traditional and modernist beliefs.
Van Bruinessen is particularly concerned to examine ways in
which notions of the past and tradition are used by reform-
minded traditionalists to bring about change in NU. He looks at
the reformulation of the khittah by Achmad Siddiq and a new
generation of leaders as well as the renewed emphasis upon issues
such as community dialogue, social justice and economic
development.
  Chapters eight and nine focus on the thought and career of
Abdurrahman Wahid. Greg Barton provides a brief biographical
overview of Abdurrahman's early life before analysing his
writings and intellectual development during the 1970s and early
1980s. Barton asserts that Abdurrahman can only be fully
uderstood as a committed religious thinker, and not simply as
an activist and leader. He argues that Ahdurrahman's writings
throughout this period display a consistent conviction that
Islam, if rightly interpreted and applied, is essentially liberal and
progressive, and that reform and adaptation must be the ongoing
Concern of Islamic communities.
  Douglas Ramage brings a political science perspective to his
analysis of Abdurrahman Wahid's philosophy and approach to
political issues in the early 1990s (chapter nine). He
concentrates on three key issues: democratisation, religious
tolerance and Pancasila. Ramage deals with Abdurrahman's
objections to the government's use of Islam and Pancasila to
entrench its own legitimacy and sets out his aspirations for a
Pluralistic, 'de-confessionalised' Political culture in Indonesia. He
examines Abdurrahman's critique of ICMI as an organisation
with sectarian tendencies and also his involvement in Forum
Demokrasi. This raises fundamental questions about the formal
position of Islam and NU in the Indonesian state and the
direction of political reform.
  The final chapter deals with the controversial 1994 NU
congress at Cipasung and the bitter repercussions of the
following year. Greg Fealy places these events in the context of
the growing uncertainty over Presidential succession and the
future of the New Order regime. He reviews Abdurrahman
Wahid's first two terms as NU chairman and his deteriorating
relationship with President Soeharto. The alliance between anti-
Abdurrahman forces within NU and sections of the government,
army and ICMI is closely analysed. Fealy concludes that
Abdurrahman's victory reaffirmed NU's independence from the
government and its potential to influence the transition to a
post-Soeharto era.
  The editors wish to acknowledge the assistance of the Centre
of Southeast Asian Studies at Monash University, and its
Research Director, Professor David Chandler. The genesis for
this book was a conference in September 1991 called
Contemporary Trends in Indonesian Islam which was organised
by Greg Barton and sponsored by the Centre. Papers presented at
this conference by Martin van Bruinessen, Mitsuo Nakamura and
Greg Barton have formed the basis for three chapters of this
collection. We are also grateful to Martin van Bruinessen for his
helpful suggestions when the project was in its formative stages.
Finally, we would like to thank our colleague Natalie Mobini-
Kesheh for proofreading the text and Daniela Mariani, the
Monash Asia Institute's Publications Officer, for her technical
advice and patience in helping us prepare this manuscript.