The Enigma of Borders: Indonesian Context
The notion of borders first occupied my thoughts during several sea voyages across the Java Sea at the end of 2023 and the Dodinga Gulf at the close of 2022. My contemplations at that time might not have been culturally pertinent as I mused about the borders defining the realm of Ratu Kidul, the ruler of the southern seas of Java and Bali. In my layman’s perception of the ocean, those waters had no distinct borders. Everything is interconnected, forming a vast body of water linking all the lands in the world. While new laws may say otherwise, Ratu Kidul is a supernatural entity not constrained by such limits. Hence, as we navigate from the Southern Seas of Java and Bali, when does the queen’s authority diminish and give way, for instance, to the territory of other mystical entities like mermaids or water dragons? Regrettably, even in this article, I remain unable to address that question.
However, as a cultural being that has grown and internalised the rich heritage of the Indonesian Archipelago, I find my hesitations and challenges in elucidating the concept of “boundaries” quite understandable. This is especially true when delving into abstract notions like power. The tumultuous events leading up to the 2024 general elections, in my view, are also intricately linked to the question of boundaries and borders. The boundaries under scrutiny encompass legal, moral, and power dimensions — abstract concepts that echo the example I presented at the outset.
President Joko Widodo’s faction, including his son, Gibran Rakabuming, and Prabowo Subianto, rely on legal boundaries to justify their actions during the pre-election period. Conversely, the opposing group employs moral and power boundaries to articulate how these actions are deemed unjustifiable in the governance process. The challenge lies in the fact that all these boundary concepts used in the ongoing debates are inherently fluid, with one of them — legal — being an unfamiliar and foreign concept.
The communities of the Indonesian Archipelago are not accustomed to the notion of rigid and definitive boundaries. Concepts such as the boundaries of royal authority, which are expected to be precise and concrete in European thought, lack a tangible presence in the Indonesian Archipelago. The delineation of the Majapahit Kingdom, for instance, continually adapted based on the honour and dignity of its rulers, reflecting a dynamic understanding of boundaries. This pattern holds true for various other traditional kingdoms as well. During the classical period, power was not quantified by the extent of territory but rather by the size of the population. Conversely, the population had the autonomy to abandon a king and a power structure that did not serve their interests. From the dynamic nature of old Indonesian power, certain perspectives emerged, suggesting that the shift in power centres during the classical period (e.g. the moving of Mataram capital from central to east part of Java) might be linked to the empowerment of the people capable of breaking free from an oppressive power system.
People engage in migration because power dynamics are often intertwined with geographical conditions. The communities in the fertile central part of Java, for example, are directly shaped by geography, evolving into agrarian societies. The agrarian way of life introduces pauses in the farmer’s life cycle as their activities align with planting patterns. During these breaks — after planting and while awaiting the harvest — when there is minimal fieldwork, rulers have the flexibility to mobilise. This mobilisation can take the form of military activities, construction projects, or other tasks desired by the rulers.
The intimate connection between geographical patterns, lifestyle, and power dynamics creates a scenario where the last resort for the population is to leave those geographical conditions behind — resulting in migration. In this context, the failure to establish capitalist societies ultimately becomes a logical consequence. Migrating communities, to the extent possible, retain wealth, especially non-mobile assets. Land easily becomes a quasi-possession because all land is considered the property of the ruler. The formation of capitalist societies, therefore, can only flourish in port cities far from the seat of power. In the hinterlands, the ruler remains the sole force driving capitalist endeavours.
The evolving modern knowledge within post-colonial Indonesian educational institutions continues the legacy of the colonial education system. The upheld standards of scholarship align with European norms, defining a knowledge system termed “logical”. However, ideological conflicts surface when this foreign knowledge structure encounters abstract ideas that develop and become internalised by society. The communities of the Indonesian Archipelago, unfamiliar with rigid boundary concepts, clash with the scientific imperative and the contemporary drive to establish clear boundaries — geographical, legal, moral, and even the most abstract concepts.
In reality, such conflicts are most tangible and evident, as illustrated by the South China Sea dispute. China, an ancient civilisation, contends with post-colonial nations delineating their territorial boundaries through colonial concessions. Take Malaysia, for instance, which was once British Malaya. However, older political entities like the Sultanate of Malacca did not have boundaries akin to present-day Malaysia. Southeast Asia — and I assert this includes Thailand — is a series of nations whose borders are colonial constructs. When confronted with China, untouched by total colonialism and with boundaries not defined by European concessions, the clash of these two boundary concepts becomes apparent. China asserts historical claims based on their traditional maps, countered by neighbouring countries using colonial and modern boundary maps. Two ideas that cannot easily coexist.
In a distinct pattern, this clash of concepts is a continuous occurrence in Indonesia. When one party relies on purely legal arguments, defining boundaries without considering the fluctuations in societal concepts used as arguments by its opposition, ideological conflict ensues. The duality of concepts, epistemological hesitations, and various intellectual conflicts happening today are indirect residues of colonial constructions. Colonialism profoundly and at times inadvertently influenced the colonies.
