Promoting Religious Minority Inclusion: Case Study of Program Peduli in Oi Bura Village

PROMOTING RELIGIOUS MINORITY INCLUSION CASE STUDY OF PROGRAM PEDULI IN OI BURA VILLAGE, WEST NUSA TENGGARA

This research published by The Asia Foundation through Program Peduli with the support of Australian Government in Indonesia. However, contents and opinions on this publication do not reflecting Australian Government views.

Executive Summary There is no doubt that social exclusion has multi-dimensional faces of social, economic, political and cultural dimensions. Its characteristics and causes of are complex. So too are the solutions. There is no single simple formula for programming for social change, and it is unlikely that by examining any single case study that a standalone, fit-for-purpose ‘model’ for promoting social inclusion and facilitating social change will emerge. Efforts to promote social inclusion should be grounded based on the contextual analysis on, the nature of social structure, the potential contribution of politics and political actors and the agential factors of the members of the groups, the role of institutions and importantly active engagement in the political process to drive changes.

Drawing the case from the Program Peduli in Oi Bura Village, Bima District, Nusa Tenggara, this study provides evidence on the history, social, political and economic structure contextualized the social exclusion in the village. The Program has made successful gains in achieving substantial outcomes in mobilizing social changes in vastly complex and dynamic settings and a relatively short period. It appears that much of the success was the result of a combination of the adaptive and locally relevant design of the Program Peduli and the capacity and the integrity the program team that enable the program to contextualize its agenda-setting with the realms of power dynamics, interest, and institutions that shape the social inclusion in the village.

1

Table of Content

Executive Summary

1

Table of Content

2

GLOSSARY

3

INTRODUCTION

4

THE LOCAL CONTEXT OF OI BURA VILLAGE 1. Geography, Demography, and Social and Economic Development 2. Multi-cultural society of Oi Bura.

3. The Discrimination Against Hindu Minority in Oi Bura.

7 7 10 12

16 1. Overview of Program Peduli 16 2. Peduli Program Objectives in Oi Bura Village and Implementing Organization 17 3. Program Activities 18 3.1. Building greater inclusion toward Hindu Minority group in the Oi Bura Village 18 3.2. Improving Access to Basic Service.

20 4. Program Outcomes 21 4.1. Improving social acceptance toward Hindu Minority Group 21 4.2. Strong coalitions of village champions.

22 4.3. Fulfillment of their legal identity and rights to properties and livelihood.

24 4.4. Mobilization of efforts to address Oi Bura’s Development Issues 24 4.5. Adoption of Oi Bura practices.

25

PROGRAM PEDULI OI BURA

REMAINING CHALLENGE: WEAK VILLAGE GOVERNANCE

27

CONCLUSION: LESSONS LEARNED

29

BIBLIOGRAPHY

32

2

GLOSSARY Akta Kelahiran : Birth certificate Bappeda

:

Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan (Development Planning Bureau)

BPJS

:

Badan Penyenlenggaran Jaminan Sosial or (the national provider agency for social security program).

BUMdesa

:

Badan Usaha Milik Desa (Village owned enterprise)

Disdukcapil

:

Dinas Kependudukan dan Catatan Sipil (Civic Registration and Citizenship Agency)

FUI

:

Forum Umat Islam (Islam Community Forum),

HGU

:

Hak Guna Usaha (Utilization Right)

KDLO

:

Kader Damai Lereng Oi Bura (Peace Cadres of Oi Bura)

KK

:

Kartu Keluarga (Family card)

KTP

:

Kartu Tanda Penduduk (Citizen Identity Card)

Lakpesdam

:

Lembaga Kajian dan Pengembangan Sumberdaya Manusia (Institute for Research and Human Resources Development)

MUI

:

Majelis Ulama Indonesia (Indonesian Council of Religious Scholars)

NIK

:

Nomor Induk Kependudukan (National Single Citizen Identification Number)

NU

:

Nahdlatul Ulama, the largest muslim association in Indonesia

NW

:

Nahdlatul Wathon (Nusa Tenggara Largest Muslim Association)

PBHI

:

Parisada Hindu Dharma Indonesia (Major Hindu Community Organization)

PKH

:

Program Keluarga Harapan (The Indonesian conditional cash transfer program for the poor)

Posyandu

:

Pos pelayanan terpadu (Integrated [health] service post)

Puskesmas

:

Pusat kesehatan masyarakat (community health center/clinic)

Surat Domisili

:

ToC

:

Interim Domicile Permit Theory of Change

3

INTRODUCTION Democratization process in Indonesia since 1998 has promised a strong democratic society to serve the fulfilment of rights to all citizen. Yet, with thousands of faith groups and more than 240 religions (aside from the six formal and recognized regions), Indonesia has inherited a high risk of inter-faith tensions. The country is witnessing that freedom of expressions, associations, and political participations – which are key tenets in democracy –do not always mean the widening space or minorities to embrace opportunities and access to rights. Rather, in many incidents, it has created wider space for dominant groups to control social values and to dictate what is acceptable in the social, political, and at times even private spheres.

Reports suggets that discrimination against religious minority group and religious conflict are escalating across the country (see Fauzi and Hilman 2015; Wahid Institute 2015; and Setara Institute 2017). Seemingly, cases of religious minorities versus dominant group tensions are no longer an anomaly. There were cases when religious minority are facing prosecutions, or experiencing difficulties in building their house of worship, or being evicted from their village. Aside from violence and intimidation as the worst occurrences, they frequently experienced stigmatization and barriers to access public services such as legal identity, education, health services, livelihoods, social welfare services, and state job opportunities (The Asia Foundation, 2016).

This study focuses on a social inclusion program for religious minority group implemented under Program Peduli, a Government of Indonesia program that has been performed by The Asia Foundation since 2014. Working for religious minority groups has been one of the six pillars implemented by the program1. The primary purpose of this study is “to identify the lessons from the implementation of Program Peduli and its approach and strategy in promoting social inclusion of the religious minority”. The chosen case study is the Hindu religious minority inclusion in Oi Bura village where discrimination occurred more silently and linked to the historical, social, political and economic context. This qualitative study draws both primary and secondary sources. The researcher interviewed 25 informants in the field. They included the Asia Foundation staffs, Lakpesdam NU staffs as the implementing organization, the village head and his apparatus, the beneficiaries of the programs at the community levels covering ordinary villagers (men/women), religious leaders, local government officials and inter-religious harmony communication forum members.

1

The program began in 2011 and was executed by the World Bank at the first phase. The Asia Foundation has managed the second period of the program since April 2014 and has been expected to conclude by 2018. This social inclusion program is expected as a route to poverty reduction in six targeted socially excluded groups (six pillars) which experience poverty. Aside from religious minority the other five include vulnerable children and youth, remote indigenous communities reliant on natural resources; discriminated religious minorities; victims of gross human rights violations; waria (transgender); and people with disabilities (The Asia Foundation 2016)

4

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK In a broad definition, social exclusion can be described as ‘a state in which individuals are unable to participate fully in economic, social, political, and cultural life, as well as the proses sustaining such a State' (The United Nation, 2016, p. 17). It blocks the disadvantages from various services available to members of a different societal group such as health, education, safety net programs, public infrastructures and facilities and even entailment of citizen rights in the form of equal treatments based on justices (Silver, 1994). Social exclusion is a potential contributor to deprivation and poverty, violation of human rights, insecurity and social conflicts. As a social phenomenon, social exclusion has many facets of contributors including race, skin color, ethnic, religion, caste, age, gender, labor structures, living standards, other identities or social status, that in the absent of affirmative governmental policies, vitalities some individuals or groups to be more advantaged as against others. Consequently, individuals or groups who belong to disadvantaged groups or underprivileged minority groups are at higher risk of economic, political and social discrimination, alienation, and disengagement.

Considering the consequences of social exclusion, efforts to promote social inclusion as a converse affirmative action has risen in the recent decades. World Bank (2013, p.4) describes it as ‘the process of improving the ability, opportunity, and dignity of people, disadvantaged by their identity, to take part in society. (World Bank, 2013 pp.). The concept accentuates the process of ensuring the participation of all members of societies by removing barriers and facilitating inclusive and participatory decision making by equality and dignity. Various policy design has been widely introduced by policymakers, development institutions and civil society which include establishing regulatory and policy frameworks that promote social inclusion, facilitating the excluded group to benefit public expenditures, economic opportunities and access to services as much as other groups, promoting their political participation, increasing public institutions accountability to protect citizen’ basic human rights as important as tackling prejudice and changing behavior (DFID, 2005). In this vein, the Asia Foundation suggests that social inclusion is ‘the process of building social relations and respect for individuals and communities so they can participate fully in decision making, in economic, social, political, and cultural life, and have equitable access to and control over resources (to meet basic needs) to enjoy a standard of welfare considered decent within their society’ (The Asia Foundation 2016, p. 14). It also argues that ‘social inclusion furthers the ideals, values, and goals of freedom, equality, democracy, and recognition. Social inclusion has four corresponding end points: capability, distributive justice, participation, and human rights’ (The Asia Foundation, 2016, p. 14).

However, translating the concept of social inclusion into programs and activity is always challenging. Social exclusion has multi-dimensional faces of social, economic, political and cultural dimensions at all levels (Sen, 2000), subsists in different forms in different

5

spheres (Sen 2000; Mayes et al., 2001; and Atkinson et al., 2002). Its characteristics and causes of are complex. So too are the solutions, especially when recognizing that many forms of social exclusion are hardly identified. As such, there is no single simple formula for programming for social change, and it is unlikely that by examining any single case study that a standalone, fit-for-purpose ‘model’ for promoting social inclusion and facilitating social change will emerge.

Literatures tell us, as suggested by Gluery (1998), that in most cases social exclusion reflects the power dynamics which exist within a social structure. Hence, efforts to promote social inclusion should be grounded based on the contextual analysis on the agential factors of the members of the groups, the nature of the social structure, the potential contribution of politics and political actors and the role of institutions. This study follows the Asia Foundation’s conceptual underpinnings through Peduli program that, efforts to promote social inclusion should be grounded based on the contextual analysis on, the nature of social structure, the potential contribution of politics and political actors and the agential factors of the members of the groups, the role of institutions and importantly active engagement in the political process to drive changes (The Asia Foundation, 2016).

This study provides evidence on the complex social process that shape barriers for Hindu minority group to access public services such as legal identity, education, health services, livelihoods and social welfare services. The social processes involve historical roots, geographic and demographics condition, development policies, and political structure and power configuration. While this study also elaborates the success of the Program Peduli in Oi Bura in achieving more cohesive Oi Bura community and widening access to public services, it argues further that much of the success been the result of the nature of the program that recognizes the dynamic, highly nuanced and contextualized nature of sociopolitical relationships and translate them into iterative and adaptive way of programing to achieve outcomes.

6

THE LOCAL CONTEXT OF OI BURA VILLAGE

1. Geography, Demography, and Social and Economic Development Oi Bura Village was established in 2004 and one of 7 villages in Tambora sub-district, Bima District, West Nusa Tenggara Province. Together with Sanggar Sub District, the Tambora Sub-District is located on an enclave of Bima Regency in which Dompu Regency territory surrounds the two sub-districts' mainland. The village is situated 250 kilometers to the north-west of Bima and lies on the isolated and the on highest altitude (319 m above sea level) of the residential area of the North-Western Tambora Mount’s slope. It features a hilly type of parish with average temperatures around 23.5 °C and high chances of rainfalls in the most months.

Tambora Mount’s Slope

The village is enormous concerning geographic size yet not much populated. According to the village data, it occupies 4,430 hectares and has a population in 2016 of 1,347 (42.6% men and 57,4% women) comprising 355 households. The village administrative territory is surrounded by the Village of Kenanga (the capital of Tambora sub-District) in the North and West and Oi Saro Village (Tambora Sub-District) and Pancasila Village / Tambora Village (Pekat Sub-district of Dompu Regency) in the South. The upper end of the village (south-west) is the national forest and part of the Tambora Mountain Conservation Area. The village consists of three sub-village /hamlets namely Soi Bura, Jembatan Besi and Tambora Sub-Villages, each of which comprises three or four compounds or Kampung.

Oi Bura is gifted with various resources that supposedly potential for the village economic development. Its location at the nearest access to the peak of the tambora Mount that has fascinated tourists and visitors. The mount is also the interest of the local and international, volcanologist, archeologists, biologist, and many other scientists to study any aspect of the mount. The village also preserves many historical artefacts and

7

buildings heritages left behind by the Dutch Legacy of the coffee plantation and industry established in 1930. The coffee plantation also exists and currently managed by the community based on revenue sharing with the local governments.

Yet, the village has been underserved by the local authority and suffered severe disadvantages from the limited development programs for decades. Most of the villagers are poor in terms of economy. Their main livelihood depends on their coffee production that they harvest annually with total average income of no more than 15 million a year for each-hectare estate. Beside relaying on their coffee estate, some of them also grow corns, rice, and a number different fruits, some of them also rise livestock such as cattle, poultry, sheep’s and pigs (especially for Hindu community). A very small number of the villagers works as trader or in formal sectors.

Most infrastructure in terms of roads, public utilities including sanitation and water, and electricity supply were insufficient. To go to the village from Bima capital city, it requires around 5-6 hours driving to reach the Pancasila Village or Kenanga Village which are the main gate to enter the village. It needs additional 1 or 2 hours by trailing narrow and muddy paths for about 3- 6 kilometers by food or motorcycles. Beside motorbike, only four-wheels vehicles could pass the paths during wet season. The same situation also represents to road networks connecting each sub-village. No health service is available in the village. Villagers will need to go the center of sub-districts or Medindie (in Pekat Sub-District) to access the nearest Pusat Kesehatan Masyarakat - Puskesmas (community health center).

With regards to education, there are three state primary schools in the villages or one in each sub-village. Generally, their operation is very poor. For example in Tambora subvillage (the most isolated sub-village) the school only has a permanent teacher (public official) to teach as much as 75 students. Four honorary teachers help to run the school but they could not commit to full time tasks. In many occasions, there are only two teachers attend the school. Access to the school is also deprived by the road condition.

The school closes in the rainy condition due to problems of accessibility. No junior or high schools in the village. All junior high and high school students go to the school in neighboring villages and could only reach their schools in appropriate weather conditions.

Amid the limited development progress, the villagers have experienced greater sense of being disadvantaged compare to surrounding villages’ conditions, especially those under the administration of Pekat Sub-District, Dompu Regency. In the last decade, the local government of Dompu has progressively developed its territorial areas surrounding the Tambora Mount to exploit the economic potential of Tambora Mount. Villages under Dompu territory heve grown much vastly as center of services, trades, and tourism industries. While, these expansion benefit Oi Bura villagers specially to access health, education and economic opportunities, it has centered the circulation of economic activity in Pekat Sub-District especially the Pancasila and Medindie Villages. Meanwhile, Oi

8

Bura’s villagers are hardly able to partake as most of them are poor, uneducated, and have limited access and modality to compete. They even do not have alternative than selling their coffee plantation and other agricultural product through trade agents in Medindie that control the product prices. In tourism sectors, accommodation and transportations and tourist facilitation businesses to serve visitors to Tambora mount are dominated by some well-established business players in Pancasila and Medindie (Dompu Districts). Villagers even do not have access to work as tourism guards and have been blocked by motor rider associations in Pancasila to ride visitors to nearest tracking points of Tambora from Pancasila village (the main gate) and back. Ironically, the Oi Bura village has been affected most from environmental damage as a result of illegal logging activities which suspiciously involved actors from Pancasila and Medindie villages.

Meanwhile, the village government also seemes to the lack of effectiveness in addressing the local development problems. Most of the village program and budget were allocated to address infrastructure issues especially road and water pipe lines and the village administration office. While such orientation is understandable considering the poor condition of public infrastructure, the village seems not prioritizing program on basic services on the area of health, education, or citizen legal identity. From the total of around 1,2 billion village budgets in 2016 for example, around 360 million were for administrative budget, 582 million for infrastructure (including 92 million for village office building construction), 120 million for BUMD and 72 million for predominant Muslim religious activities. Only 9 million was allocated for village health-care center - Pos Pelayanan Keluarga Berencana Kesehatan Terpadu (Posyandu).

Figure 1. Oi Bura Location Oi Bura

9

2. Multi-cultural society of Oi Bura.

Oi Bura village is deceptively multi-cultural society. It is home to numerous different ethnic groups and religions. In the village, Bojo (Bima local ethnic), Sasak (Lombok), Bugis, Timorese, Javanese and Balinese together composite the community.

Timorese and Balinese Villager of Oi Bura

Beside the domination of Muslim community (92, 28%), Hindu accounted 6.36% while Christian and Buddhist accounted 1.19% and 0.15% respectively. Importantly, with the predominantly Moslem community, the village is the home for a major Hindu Temple. The temple was upon the invention of an ancient Hindu site backed to 16th century by a respected priest from Bali. The priest then constructed temple in 1984 and named it as Pura Agung Udaya Parwata Tambora. The temple was believed as one of a central temple that unified the broader Hindu community in Sumbawa Island. With this centrality, in 1995 when the transmigration program brought Hindu community Bali to some areas of Dompu and Bima nearby the Tambora mount, the temple was renovated into a decent and well-constructed temple.

The origin of Oi Bura’s plurality has been associated with coffee industries that brought people from different from different cultural backgrounds since the Dutch colonial era. In 1930, a private company under the protection of Dutch open as much as 500-hectare areas for coffee plantation and industry. As much as 1,000 workers and their families with different ethnicity and religious background especially Javanese, Timor, and Bugis and Lombok were relocated and forced to work for the coffee industry. The company then established four compounds within the areas to accommodate its workforce. The first was the central compound for main management office and central factory production called as ‘Besaran’ (Compound 1) which was dedicated to the upper and middle management (mostly European) and occupied the center of the estate. The other three compounds

10

were for the planting, growing, harvesting workers (local workers) that were in three different directions on the outer line of estate area, and were grouped based the ethnic origin. Javanese workers in Sumberejo (North / Compound 3), Timor Compound (South/Compound 2) for Timorese workers and Jembatan Besi (West / Compound 4) for mixed of Javanese Bugis and Lombok origins. From this coffee industry, the Dutch also expanded further 3,000-hectare areas, that currently known as Kenanga village for the housing and other economic activities. Following the country independence, the company sustained its existence until it close in the 1960s following the waning of the industry in the unstable political situation and decreasing productivity and market As the time went, the retired workers and their extended family with different ethnicity background resided outside the coffee estate especially in Kenanga village (the center of the sub-district) and the surrounding villages, including some villages in Pekat Sub District (currently under Dompu Districts). The local societal of Bima (which most muslim) and Lombok (Hindu and Muslim) also began to migrate to partake in exploring the established fertile area for their livelihood. At the same time, together with local community (Bima people) they then opened their own coffee plantation or worked in various economic sectors to benefit the fast growing of the coffee industry and economic activities.

In 1968, along with the increasing centralization of New Order era, the national government took over the 500 hectares of the abandoned coffee industry and plantation areas from the local government. The national government then granted permission to a private company called PT. Bayu Adji to revitalize the estate on behalf the national government. PT Bayu Adji however, could only manage as much as 150 hectares and left the rest of dedicated area unplanted. The Company also recruited around 200 new immigrant workers from Makassar, Timor, and Java for the reoperation. PT Banyu Adji experienced decrease of its productivity and finally closed in 2000. Beside Banyu Adji, there was also a national company operated to exploit the forest for wood industry called PT. Verner. The company was granted to exploit the national forest nearby the coffee industry which was also recruited workers from other regions. PT Verner contract ended by the end of 1990s.

In 2005, during uncertainty of the coffee plantation areas, the decentralization policy gave an opportunity for the local government to proliferate some villages which included the Kenanga village. The village was divided into two villages Kenanga Villages and Oi Bura Villages. Kenanga village occupied most of the previous sub villages in the lower land excluding Soi Bura Sub-Village that later become the origin of the Oi Bura Village. Apart from the preexisting sub-village of Soi Bura, the local authority opened two other subvillage to meet minimum requirements as a village. They reopened the abandoned 3 compounds (Kampung Jembatan Besi, Kampung Timor, and Kampung Banyu Urip) to accommodate the new resident that mostly former PT Banyu Adji workers and their families.

11

In arranging new residents, the local authority segregated the residential areas based on their ethnicity, religions and their relation to the coffee plantation, except in Soi Bura that already pre-existed with domination of Bima and Lombok Moslem entity. Jembatan Besi sub-district was dedicated to Muslim community with mixed of origins especially local Bima, Lombok and Bugis. Banyu Urip was for ex-plantation worker with Javanese Muslim backgrounds. Kampung Timor was dedicated for Sumba and Timor Islands ethnicities with Christian and Catholic backgrounds and were ex-plantation workers. However, since their population was too small and decreasing, other ex-coffee plantation worker with Muslim background were also placed and event dominated the population. In 2007, the village government opened a new terrestrial on the upper end of the village near preexisting Hindu Temple-latter called as Kampung Bali with around one-kilometer distance from the nearest previously established Kampung Timor. Different to other villagers in two other kampungs; most Kampung Bali residents were sourced directly Bali Island. Two Balinese families who had lived in another area in Bima also moved to the newly established field. In the area, the village government granted them residential and plantation lands and a shared coffee plantation for their livelihood as other villagers.

The above mentioned social, economy and political transformation indeed has resulted in the highly inclusive community of Oi Bura. It has allowed diverse community backgrounds to live together in the villages, providing modality for the villagers to embrace the cultural and religious diversity. It was suggested since the establishment villagers have been living in harmony notwithstanding the diversity and there has been no significant conflict among different believers 3. The Discrimination Against Hindu Minority in Oi Bura.

Notwithstanding the absent of conflict among different ethnicity and religious backgrounds within the community, there are indications that rather than the results of social acceptance and mutual understanding, the absent of the conflict were sustained more through appropriating boundaries of the social interaction among villagers. Informants in the field suggest that to maintain peace, villagers tend to limit their interaction with other believers to avoid miss perception. Therefore, they choose to keep an appropriate distance from other believers and maintaining peace. They often felt uncertain and had to behave carefully and appropriately to please the majority. They were also afraid to make a close friendship with the majority and preferred to avoid contact to lower the risk of being miss understood. In fact, this nature of relationship facilitated countinues some form secial exclusion that structurally provide barriers for Hindu community to fulfill their rights as other villagers.

12

Oi Bura Villager Having Morning Prayer

Spatial Isolation, as mentioned earlier, religious believers are socially and politically grouped and placed in different sub-villages and Kampong. Subsequently, the social grouping through spatial arrangement have structurally isolated Balinese from the rest community. Specifically, for Hindu community, there was prejudice based reasoning on why Hindu was accommodated in the village compare to the Christian and Catholic community. Beside the providing societal supports to the existed temple, the specified Kampung for Balinese also was intentionally arranged to isolate the Hindu community.

According to a well informant, in the period of sub-village of Tambora establishment, the village elites saw that the Hindu’s way of living has much different to the Muslim society.

This indication also is also reflected by the fact there is no questions about the compatibility of the other religious community such as Christian and Catholics in Kampung Timor. Catholic and Christian believers reside together with predominant Muslim community in Kampong Timur as they were unified by their status as ex-coffee PT. Banyu Adji workers, providing more acceptance to the Christian and catholic compare to Hindu community. At the same time village administration did not function well in facilitating the interaction of different religious faith in public spaces that might help the inclusion of Hindu minority in social interaction.Public meetings and participation in the village policy making have never been undertaken that limits the opportunity for different believers to interact in social and public matters.

Lack of social and political negotiation in the village due to unbalance power relation. Until recently, the village government were managed through informal relation among the head of village and officials and the community. The have been also power relation problem between the villagers and the village head that shape the high dependency and loyalty to the village head. All villagers see the village was the one who establish the village and as immigrants they feel indebted to the village-head for accommodating them in the village and giving lands and livelihood to the community. Hence, Village head ruled the village

13

without any oppositions and critical inputs. None of the villagers and the village government officials have courage to even speak negatively about the village head. And if they tried to so, there is narrow chance to win arguments as they are mostly uneducated.

The highly unbalance power relation between the villagers and village head affected even stronger for the Hindu Community who are factually new comers. Wayan, the neighborhood head of the Kampung said that he prefers to be passive in any village meetings or in informal communication with the head of the village to avoid conflict and to show his loyalty. The dependency and loyalty to the village head also occurred in the context of political event such as regent, legislatives and presidential elections, the Hindu community preferred to vote those were recommended by the village head.

Limited access to village development. It is reported that amid the limited capacity of the village development program to address massive development issues, most development programs run in the village were centralized to the predominated Muslim sub-village, especially Jembatan Besi, and Soi Bura sub-villages. Village Development programs in Tambora sub-village were insufficient, especially in the Kampung Bali. In Kampung Bali, most development activities are self-funding and carried out voluntary by the community.

They establish their own community center (Sanggar), kampung level temple, water pipe lines and their roads without supports from village budget.

There was also case when Hindu community felt being discriminated when they applied to obtain citizen identification through the village government official. The application was not followed up for an extended period without any clarification from the officials. Local informants reported, Hindu community in Oi Bura also used to experience various barrier to access civil right especially in obtaining of legal identity – the KTP identity card, the birth certificate (Akta Kelahiran) and the KK family card (Kartu Keluarga). A local informant from Hindu community also said that the official tends to burden Hindu community with various additional unnecessary documents and delayed the issuance process. There were also cases when they application is rejected without appropriate clarification and guidance.

Rejection from outside the village. More explicitly exposed discrimination against the Hindu community was continuous protest from a conservative muslim group outside the village on the existence of the Hindu Temple in Oi Bura. In 2010, there was a complaint of certain a muslim community in Pancasila Village suspecting that temple had used public spring for washing statues in their rituals. The complaint was based on the findings that their excessed flower from the ritual run through the water lines to public water reservioir of in Pancasila Village. In response to the conflict, the temple authority constructed concrete walls to cover the public spring and moved temple’s bath away from the site.

In 2013, questions about the Temple rose against following the renovation of the temple in 2010-2014. During the years the temple undertook expansion for a major event to

14

commemorate the 30 years anniversary of the temple as well as the 200th year of the Tambora mount eruption in 2015. The temple authority also planned to congregate wide range of Hindu community and their religious leaders from various temple in Bali and Sumbawa Island. The development was also supported by Bima regent who granted permission and awarding 2 hectares of land for the area expansion. Despite the relocation of the bath, the radical groups in Bima, led by FUI (Forum Umat Islam - Islam Community Forum), a known radicalistic group claiming to represent the interest of Islam, prolonged conflict based on unconfirmed issues that the Hindu was expanding the size of the temple to acquire the status of being The Biggest Temple in Asia. Against this backdrop, FUI provoked broader community, Muslim leaders and local authority to ban the development.

FUI pursued religious leaders in Bima such as Majelis Ulama Indonesia – (MUI) or Indonesian Council of Religious Scholars (the umbrella of Islamic organizations in Indonesia), Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) and Muhammadiyah (both the biggest Islamic organization in Indonesia) and Nahdlatul Wathon (NW) (the local influential Islamic organization) to sign a petition to recommend the closing of the temple. FUI also demanded local legislative to force local government canceling the temple permit.

The situation pledged the temple priest and Parisada Hindu Dharma Indonesia – PBHI (Hindu Religious Organization) of Bima to approach Forum Kerukunan Umat Beragama - FKUB (Forum for Religious Harmony), to facilitate conflict resolution including by conducting visits inviting muslim leaders from NU, Muhammadiyah, NW, MUI and FKUB to the temple for clarify the realm of the Temple. The visit was conducted without participation from FUI and MUI that refuse the invitation. Following the visit FKUB, NU and Muhammadiyah turned to supports the temple.

15

PROGRAM PEDULI OI BURA

1. Overview of Program Peduli Program Peduli is meant to improve social relations and fortify the social inclusion of a variety marginalized community. The program began in 2011 and was implemented by the World Bank at the first phase. The Asia Foundation has managed the second phase of the program since April 2014 and has been expected to conclude in 2018. Peduli is delivered as a partnership between The Coordinating Ministry of Human Development and Culture (Menteri Koordinator Bidang Pembangunan Manusia dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia -PMK), the Foundation and seven national civil society organizations (CSOs) acting as Executive Organizations (EOs) who provide sub grants to a further 72 CSOs working in 84 districts. In the implementation Peduli supports various activities that presumed as necessary to the creation of 5 elements in achieving goals in (1) establishing and empowering solidarity groups of marginalized groups; (2) facilitating community dialogue, often through cultural, social and sports events; (3) offering services and programming through community level volunteers; (4) bridging access to public services, with the support of district government; and (5) facilitating beneficiary groups to engage in local and village governance, particularly regarding village funds (The Asia Foundation, 2016).

From the above over-arching conceptualization, the program assumes that to route the way out of poverty for its targeted groups, the program aims to create three interlinked activity program outcomes. They are (1) Increased access to public services and social assistance which includes increased access to livelihoods assistance, health services, education services, social protection, and legal identity and justice services; (2) Increased fulfilment of human rights including increased sense of empowerment, civic participation, protection against violence and exploitation, and improved recognition and social acceptance of marginalized communities; and (3) Improved policy on social inclusion, encompassing sharing knowledge about social inclusion with policy makers, and ensuring that national and regional policy is responsive to the economic and social needs of marginalized individuals (The Asia Foundation, 2016). The program targets in six socially excluded groups (six pillars); (1) vulnerable children and youth; (2) remote indigenous communities reliant on 
natural resources;(3) discriminated religious minorities and holder of traditional/local belief

16

systems; (3) people with disabilities; (4) victims of gross human rights violations; and (6) waria (transgender) (The Asia Foundation 2016).

2. Peduli Program Objectives in Oi Bura Village and Implementing Organization In Oi Bura Village, Program Peduli was effectively implemented from November 2014 to October 2016. The program aimed to achieve “greater social inclusion of discriminated Hindu minority group in Oi Bura’ which focus on two primary outcomes “greater inclusion of Hindu Minority group” and “opened access to basic services for Hindu Minority group”.

Program Peduli supported Lakpesdam NU, an arm of Nadlatul Ulama (NU), the most significant religious, social organization in Indonesia, which has been known as an active campaigner of democratic, pluralist and multicultural values. In Bima Lakpesdam NU was well known as an organization that defended the existence of Oi Bura Temple against some conservative groups provocation that demand the temple closure. In 2014 when the conflict escalates in a higher level, Lakpedam NU clarified the realms of the temple and publish their findings to mediato counter the protest. Together with FKUB, Lakpedam NU consolidated religious leader’s coalition to reject supporting the protest. They also approached local legislative members and actors within the government in to deny pressures from FUI. As a result, radical group failed to consolidate support from major influential groups, leading to waning discontinuation of the conflict.

In 2014, Prior the program implementation, Lakpesdam NU undertook series of consultations with help from the Peduli Program team at the Asia Foundation to develop the theory of changes of the program. It was built upon the initial research on the complexity of the above-mentioned nature of social exclusion against minority groups and from there they designed the program to achieve (1) Greater inclusion toward Hindu Minority group in the Oi Bura Village and (2) Opened access to basic services for Hindu Minority group in Oi Bura. The two envisioned outcomes required Lakpesdam NU to build strong social recognition among people with different religious background in the village to advocate village and local government to fulfill civil rights of the villagers especially the Hindu religious minority group. Some challenged were also identified in the early period of the program especially the nature of powerful and dominating village powerful leadership and unbalance power relation between the village head the community member. They aalso underlined some pessimistic views from the village head and their apparatus about the benefit of the program as they saw that they’re their major problems are the lack basic public services, village infrastructures and economic developments which resulted in the poor condition of the villagers, not religious conflict.

17

3. Program Activities In general, there were seven types of activities implemented by Lakpesdam NU in the field, i.e. (1) Informal communication and lobbying influential actors, (2) seminar and workshop (3) training (4) public events (5) media campaign and (6) service delivery programs. Departing from the ToC and understanding of local historical, social and political context and power relation among different actors, Lakpesdam NU combined these types of activities to drive the designated outcomes as below: 3.1. Building greater inclusion toward Hindu Minority group in the Oi Bura Village Lakpedam NU activities to achieve the improved social acceptance were driven by an understanding that the lack of genuine acceptance from the predominant community toward Hindu Minority was the result from the lack of understanding among different believers. This factor forced different believers to substance distance between each other.

Also, the spatial arrangement that isolated Bali Kampung from the rest community burdened the interaction between Hindu community with other groups. Thus, Lakpesdam NU challenge was how to bring together the community promote social inclusion.

Lakpesdam was also aware that social exclusion is sensitive issues in the village. The village community felt to already embraced peaceful condition notwithstanding the diversity. They shared public goods such as school and water springs and had a collective sense of building solidarity as poor immigrants. The villagers including the village government apparatuses also firmly believed that their problem is access to development program which resulted in poor condition of the villagers, not a religious conflict. They instead concerned that the sustainment of poor condition of the villagers will pose the high risk to conflict among the villagers. As mentioned earlier, all villagers suffered severe problems due to the lack basic public services, village infrastructures and economic developments regardless of their religious backgrounds. Such situation signaled that over articulating “conflict and the existence of discrimination’ will politically sensitive it will raise resistance among the majority group.

Responding to the above challenges, the program team designed their activities to facilitate as much as opportunities for the villagers to communicate and interact and led them to drive the activity based on their interest. They also needed to package the program narrative into village development program rather than conflict resolutions in order meet to the interest of the local community actors. The program team should avoid any potential disagreement among the villagers and should consider seriously the inclusiveness of different community representations in all the activities.

As an initial modality, along before the program the program team had have close connection to the village head, Wahyudin. He was Asrul’s (Lakpedam NU - Bima Chapter Director) students at the University of Social and Political Institute of Mbojo - Bima.

Through this connection, Asrul obtained strong support from the village head at the first time he made contact. Support was also acquired from the Hindu Temple priest. The

18

priest support was based on the credential of NU long commitment to promoting religious tolerance and by the fact that Lakpesdam NU supported the Temple against a group of radical Muslim group (FUI) in the previous year.

Notwithstanding the support from the those two most influential actors, Lakpedam NU saw that such supports were not enough given the nature of the autocratic leadership of the village head. The program team needed to identify local actors who socially active and influential in the different community groups and consolidate them into champion coalitions for program implementation. In pursuing this, the program team asked the village head to appoint one of the most potential village apparatus to involve in the program technically. The village head then appointed Ayatullah which later known as the most knowledgeable and socially active apparatus in the village as well as the most trusted staff of the village head. With support from Hidayatullah, the program team mobilized knoen active youth representing the village, sub-villages governments and neighborhood level and religious background. There was 15 youth (1 women) identified which include three village apparatus, two Kampung heads, one school teacher, two women, two members of Kampong Hindu and other youth representing each eight existing kampungs in three sub-villages.

In the first six-month period, meetings, training and discussions and public event were designed to serve the most concerned issues within the community to be able to engage them and bring them together in various events. They included multi-stakeholder discussions involving the especially the identified champions (15-12 people). The program team also encouraged youth group to take the lead on the implementation of activities implemented in the early period of the program. Such activities include people with insufficient legal identity identification, tourism training, and Free Health Services.

Following these program implementation, Lakpesdam NU saw that the group of champions was ready to be brought into a stronger coalition for social inclusion program.

Lakpesdam NU approched this coalition building through a training how to mitigate conflict and conflict resolutions which lead let to the establishment of Kader Damai Lereng Oi Bura - KDLO (Peace Cadres of Oi Bura). KDLO establishment significantly reflected the effectiveness of the training in motivating the participants to become a peace building cadres and development chamipons for Oi Bura development. agent of change for their multicultural village. The training also has become the significant milestone in the existence of highly motivated and consolidated multi-ethnic peace and change agents in the village.

Following the establishment of KDLO, Lakpesdam then pushed forward the engagement of all cadre in the Program Peduli activities which focus on building social acceptance.

Various activities were implemented with the primary purpose to gather all the villagers in one place to interacts and develop mutual understanding. These activities included interreligious believer gathering such as "after harvest party' and Ramadhan breakfasting to

19

gather as much as community from different religious belief. They also held some culture festivals presenting different arts, fashion, and food performance from different ethnicity in the village. They also mobilize the community to hold a village product festival to promote their village products. Besides the gathering activities, Lakpesdam also facilitated them to conduct routine village discussion that they called Sekolah Politik Desa (Village Politic Discussion Forum) to discuss the village development issues. Various themes were discussed in the discussion forum including health, education, legal identity, village budgeting and programming, inter-religious tolerant and inclusive development.

Sekolah Kepemimpinan (Leadership Forum) as Part of Sekolah Politik Desa

3.2. Improving Access to Basic Service.

Tthe issue of lack of public service delivery was bound to the whole villagers irrespective of the religious background. Given the limited program coverage to deal with complex development issues in the villages, Lakpesdam focus was on legal identity provision. In the period, around 90% of the resident did not hold legal identity. The absent of their legal identity resulted in the uncertainty of their residential status and thair right status over residential and plantation land granted to them. Most of the residents’ status was granted through Surat Domisili (Interim Domicile letter) which is a weak legal basis. Most of them did not have updated of Nomor Induk Kependudukan – NIK (National Single Citizen Identification Number) and Kartu Keluarga – KK (family cards). Without this NIK and KK, supposedly most of the villagers did not become eligible to hold Birth Certification Documents and Kartu Tanda Penduduk (Citizen Identification) that prove their citizenships. Over time their issues had resulted in the feeling of uncertainty and vulnerability of the settlement regarding their rights over their house and lands not only for Balinese community but also to most of the village residents.

In response to the issues Lakpesdam worked directly with KDLO. Lakpesdam roles were lobbying and facilitating Dinas Kependudukan dan Catatan Sipil or Disdukcapil (Civic

20

Registration and Citizenship Agency) to conduct on-site services while Kader Oi Bura updated data of residents with no incomplete legal identity data and mobilized the villagers to apply for documents. After series of meetings including on-site dissemination, Disdukcapil conducted on-site services September 2015. As much as 215 KK (Family Cards), 181 Birth Certificate, 70 married certificates and 68 Citizen Identity Cards were issued. Specifically for KK, the 215 issued KK has made all 355 households have obtained KK and therefore confirming their NIK as the basis of their citizenship. The issuance 181 birth certificate allowed all Kampung Bali resident to obtain birth certificate.

In the implementation, a number of applications could not be issued due to various anomalies of villagers’ documents. Disdukcapil then followed up the anomalies by providing exceptional service in the Duckcapil's office with help from Kader Oi Bura which later contributes to the intents connection between Disdukcapil and Kader Oi Bura.

In addition to the provision of legal entities, Lakpesdam NU also push further the program activity to demand local and provincial government to address various development issues in the village which were beyond the program scope. In doing so, Lakpesdam NU undertook two strategies. Firstly, they ensure that as much as local government official were involved in various activities such as village product festivals, tourism guide training, free health check service. The program team intentionally did this to draw as much as policymakers' attention to the problem in Oi Bura. Secondly, Lakpesdam NU worked with media especially KAHABA (online mainstream media) to publish not only limited to Peduli activities in the village but also any issues emerged in the villages.

4. Program Outcomes At most after almost two years year of the program implementation (November 2014 – October 2016), There have been emerging social changes resulted from the Program Peduli that led to not only the improvement of social acceptance to the Hindu minority groups but also the social and economic development for the whole village residents.

4.1. Improving social acceptance toward Hindu Minority Group One significant breakthrough for improving social cohesion in Oi Bure has been the increasing mutual-understanding among Oi Bura community on the uniqueness each religious teaching. This allows greater respects and social interaction among different believers. They recognize their neighbor, great and talk each other. Member of different believers also has started interacting socially and economically. They trade goods including food products without significant barriers. Hindu minority group come together with neighbors in regular community gatherings such as weddings and funerals, and local community works such as Kampung facility construction. Informants from Hindu community suggest that they also are now recognized as valued and contributing citizens especially with their active involvement in farmer’ group that enable them to share their skills on cultivating lands.

21

Muslim of Oi Bura Invites Villagers from Other Religion Having Iftar at Ramadan

One most cited example by informants is that currently is Hindu, and Christian and Muslim believers no longer hesitate to visit each other in day to day life or various religious events.

They eat food served by their neighbor, reflecting the existance of genuine trust among them. There are also new social practices that in community events, religious events or personal parties such as wedding parties, different believers are brought together to come and even share foods. "It is common now that when Hindu family host wedding party, they ask their Muslim neighbors to cook the food that will be dedicated to Muslim visitors," said Sulaiman, the head of Kampung Tambora.

4.2. Strong coalitions of village champions.

As mentioned earlier the program engaged directly with a group of village champions that consolidated through KDLO consisting of as much as 25 people (6 women) representing village apparatus, kampung leaders, young activists from various religious background and activity background. They indicated an improved capacity in driving changes during the program implementation. After the program, they sustain their existence as an active coalition to through continue promoting inclusive society and advocating further various development progression in Oi Bura. Informants from the field study indicate that they have been able to act as a trusted channel to facilitate people to people connection among different groups and mediate any emerging conflict among different groups. They maintain their communication through social media especially mobile phone and WhatsApp application and hold an informal meeting to share information or issues risen from the community. According to Sulastri, one of active cadres, among 25 cadres at least 15 cadres are active to communicate and report various issues and information. Sulastri also claims that member of the KDLO has been become ‘the first channel' for their

22

neighbors to raise questions, report issues or ask helps for any issues resulting in a much openness of the community about their daily issues and feelings. Especially with regards to inter-religious relation, KDLO members has put their primary function to mitigate any issues involving different believer that potentially arise from daily interaction. In most cases, according to Sulastri, villagers prefer to talk to the member of KDLO lived nearby whenever they have concerns about their neighbor.

Some cadres have also evolved as a village activist that actively worked to for the villagers living conditions. Sulastri for example, benefiting from her widening networks with the local government service providers during the program, she has dedicated herself actively to help the villagers to obtain legal identities and access government social security programs. She has facilitated the villagers to access Program Keluarga Harapan – PKH (The Indonesian Conditional Cash Transfer Program) for poor families, health insurance and education insurance through the Social affairs agency. Sulastri who since January 2017 worked part time in Health Unit Sub District office in Tambora Sub-District also made extra efforts register Oi Bura community to get free health service from Badan Penyenlenggaran Jaminan Sosial or BPJS (the national provider agency for social security program). Meanwhile, Putut, a member of KDLO representing Hindu communities, has widened his role to involve in the village developments. He has been able to interact with village head to provide input on the potential agricultural development and negotiating economic access of transportation business (motorbike-ride) for Oi Bura village and Tambora Mount visitors. For the latter, Putu negotiated an agreement with Pancasila motor-rider to allow Oi Bura villager to take back visitors from Oi Bura village which is the main gate to Tambora Mount.

Similar activism also performed by Hayat (the leader of KDLO who was also village government official). He consolidated 12 youth from different religious background to set up a tourism guide so that the villagers could guide tourist and earn economic benefits.

He has also employed his role as village apparatus to bridge the villagers with the village government. In 2017 for example, he found that some Muslim villager could not obtain birth certificate due to the unavailability of their parent marriage documents, he pushed the head of the village to allocate village to invite the Religious Affair office to proceed Isbath Nikah (Legal Marriage Declaration), to allow the issuance of the birth certificates.

He also opened information about the Village budget and program through displaying a big banner explaining the list of budgets and their program allocation in the wall of front village office lobby. Recognizing the importance of their role, the Head of villages is also considering the institutionalization of the cadre into a more organized organization which function to supports the village government programs and policy to improve the village condition.

23

4.3. Fulfillment of their legal identity and rights to properties and livelihood.

As mention earlier Program Peduli helped the villagers to acquire legal documents such as NIK and KK, Birth Certificate and KTP which grant the village full right over their legal citizenship.

Legal Documentation Service for Oi Bura Villagers

With the proof of citizenship, since 2016 the government formalized the resident right over the coffee plantation to a formal Hak Guna Usaha or HGU (Utilization Right) certificate, allowing the absolute protection of their rights to manage the shared plantation (1 hectare each household). On the land granted outside the coffee plantation (residential and plantation land), there has also been progressing from the local government to issued ownership certificate which started from the issuance of Surat Pembayaran Pajak Tanah or SPPT (Land Tax Payment Letter) which was the first document needed to obtain the land certificate. The neighborhood head of Kampung Bali, Wayan, and a Christian Villagers, Piet, reported that many the resident had obtained such letter indicating that shortly they will acquire their full right over the land they occupied. According to Kampung Timor Head, Sulaiman, the provision of the legal identity for the villagers has meant "Freedom" and Independence" for the villagers, as since it guarantees the full right over their citizenship and livelihood."

4.4. Mobilization of efforts to address Oi Bura’s Development Issues ‘Without Lakpesdam NU, no policymakers would ever have heard about Oi Bura, and the village would have remained from local development programs abandoned', said Samsurijal, the sub-head of Village Development of Bima District. Similar expressions also were voiced by some informants in the village, recognizing that emergence of the various development process in Oi Bura following the implementation of Program Peduli.

24

Lakpedam NU campaign on the village development issues through media and lobbying policymakers at the district levels has allowed increasing attention of village development issues. A direct response for example that intensification of law enforcement against illegal logging after Lakpesdam NU publish the massive occurrence of the case reported the issue through media. Following the publication, local police and local military offices under the coordination of Forest Department at of West Nusa Tenggara Barat intensified their monitoring and law enforcement against illegal logging which led to significant decrease of illegal logging incidents. The was also a publication about a damaged bridge that blocked the access of the villages. The report was responded by the Disaster Management Agency of Tambora District to construct a new bridge to give access to the villagers.

Since 2017, there has been a routine health check for the villagers including newborn and infant immunization held by the Tambora Community Health Centre (Pusat Kesehatan Masyarakat – Puskesmas). It was expected that a new health center will be established in the village in 2018. To date (November 2017), various infrastructure development was being implemented, such as two bridges and asphalt-based road construction networks to connect the Tambora Sub-District to the Kenanga Village and to connect all Kampung from the lowest Kampung (Soribura Kampung) to Bali Kampung and the Temple that settles at the upsets village area. Also, the Education Agency of Bima is also recruiting ten new teachers with public official's status to fill the teacher shortage in three primary schools in the village. These progressions indicate the increasing attention of the various policymakers to the current development of Oi Bura villages that part of it was attributed by the Peduli Program.

4.5. Adoption of Oi Bura practices.

Following the Program Peduli in Oi Bura, there is a sign of the district government to scale up the Oi Bura program in government policy and programming. Since 2016, taking the lesson learned from the legal identity services directly in the villages, the Citizen Administration Agency conducted intensive visits to many remote area villages starting in 2016 to provide such services. At the macro level, in September 2016, the district government asked Lakpedam NU Bima to facilitate a coordination meeting involving various agencies at the district level to address the development issues of disadvantages villages. Lakpesdam with support from The Asia Foundation also invited the representative from the Coordinating Ministry of Human Development and Culture and the ministry of Village and Disadvantages Areas to build the district government commitment to accelerate development of the disadvantage village. There was an agreement signed between Lakpesdam NU and the District Head, to establish a multistakeholder a task force to design specified programs in the disadvantages villages.

Following this agreement in 2017, under the coordination of Badan Perencanaan

25

Pembangunan- Bappeda (Development Planning Bureau) and the Village Development Unit, a task force was established to recommend programs and policies. To the time of this study, the task force was working on synchronizing the Local Medium Development Plan to give more focus and the disadvantaged villages development. Through Program Peduli, Lakpesdam also supported this initiative through facilitating seven villages in Tambora District (including Oi Bura villages) to introduce more participatory and inclusive villages’ medium development plan documents.

26

REMAINING CHALLENGE: WEAK VILLAGE GOVERNANCE

As indicated earlier the Program Peduli has resulted in significant changes that lead to not only the social inclusion of the previously discriminated group oh Hindu but also the progression of social, economic development of all village inhabitants. However, finding from the field study indicates that that Program Peduli did not effectively leverage the social acceptance into inclusive policy in the village, leading to the existing silent discrimination against the minority group.

The local policy-making process in the village remains highly dependent on the village head. Participatory process has not yet occurred providing the limitation for the community to influence development process, especially for religious minority groups.

Understandably, considering the poor condition of public infrastructure most of the village program budget was for infrastructure development especially road and water pipelines and establishing the village administration office. Ironically though, as exemplified in the 2016 village budget documents, a significant amount of budget was allocated to served only Muslim Community activities (in the case of religious activity funds). From the total of around 1,2 billion 2017 village budgets, for example, 72 million was to finance Muslim religious activities, while only 9 million was allocated for village health-care center - Pos Pelayanan Keluarga Berencana-Kesehatan Terpadu - Posyandu (Community Health Service Post). In Kampung Bali, most development activities are self-funding and carried out voluntary by the community. They establish their community center (Sanggar), kampung level temple, water pipelines and their roads without financial supports from village governments. In 2017, there was a plan for asphalt road development to connect Kenanga Village (The capital of Tambora Sub-District)) to the upper end of the village, where the Kampung Hindu and the Temple located. To be able to implement this plan, the Temple and Hindu community were asked to contribute through mobilizing charity from Sumbawa extensive Hindu community networks. Otherwise, the road development would not reach the temple.

Discrimination against Hindu community also remains in education sectors. Because of the limited teacher available in the three schools, the delivered subject was only Islamic religion with a policy that students from another believer are not required to attend to get marked on the Islamic religion subjects subject. Christian and Catholic students are get marked for their religion subject which is based on the evaluation given by their Churches.

Hindu students, however, do not have such privilege; there is no alternative for the student to formally learn about Hinduism and to get marked on Hinduism subjects.

Programmatically, the program team was well informed on the opportunities created by a vast improvement of village financial capacity to carry out village development as a consequence of the issuance of Law No. 6/2014 on Village that increased village budget and authority in planning and budgeting. The Law also mandated that in allocating the

27

budget and program the process should be undertaken through a participatory process, providing regulatory room to public participation in the process. Lakpesdam NU responded to this institutional change was limited providing a training to KDLO on village planning and budgeting. However, Lakpedam NU did not follow the training by assist the community to demand the implementation participatory planning and budgeting. Some factors limited Lakpedam NU program team to do so. Firstly, the program team had lack of orientation to directly involved in influencing local politics. Lakpesdam strategy to promote social inclusion in Oi Bura is orientated to establish peace and avoid conflict.

Lakpesdam NU saw that with the autocratic nature of leadership, promoting participatory planning and budgeting will lead to vertical conflict between the village head and the community. Secondly, Lakpedam team also has lack of experience in advocating village local budgeting and planning. Non- of the program team had sufficient experience in advocating village planning and budgeting. Importantly, Lakpesdam NU was burdened by the program time frame. Since the program in Oi Bura ended by the end of 2016, which was the first year of the Village Law implementation, the team did not have not enough time and momentum to intervene the local budgeting process.

28

CONCLUSION: LESSONS LEARNED

It appears that Peduli Program’s success in Oi Bura was the results of a combination of three key factors that allowed the program team to effectively deliver the program. First, flexibility and locally contextualized program design. Program Peduli has put significant attention to facilitating social change through an iterative and adaptive approach to be able to address the dynamic and highly contextualized nature of sociopolitical relationships which shape the social exclusion. Therefore, for each site, the program design was formulated in a way that facilitates a flexible, adaptive, and locally relevant strategies for result oriented program. Before the program, Program Peduli team invested time and funds to work with Lakpesdam NU team to build a holistic understanding of the local conditions. The team undertook series of consultations with local stakeholders to gather insights on the social and political context that shapes interreligious relation in Oi Bura. Based on these deepening insights on the local context then The Asia Foundation and Lakpesdam NU established the Theory of Changes (ToC) constituting a versioned goal and the contributing outcome that route to the goal. Only the goal and the intermediate outcome where set in the ToC and used as the management tools to plan, monitor and evaluate the program implementation, hence focusing on results, not the activities. There was no prescribed activities or strategies, allowing Lakpesdam NU to contextualize their activities based on their deepening understanding on the local situation and relevant solutions in the field.

Second, the capacity and integrity of implementing organization. Even though Lakpesdam NU chapter in Bima was established in 2013, it has invested a great deal of reputation in defending the Oi Bura Temple against the continues efforts of radicalism group to deny the temple existence. From this advocacy, Lakpesdam NU have built wide range of district networks at the district level, including the local politician, the regents, high official in bureaucracy, religious leaders and media and used the networks, in addition to the core strength of Lakpesdam NU religious leader networks. The investment was reinforced father with sufficient allocation of the program team. When forming its program management team, Lakpesdam NU put greater emphasis on the capacity of their team to drive social changes in Oi Bura Village. Lakpesdam NU set their preference on those the commitment to the Program Peduli value, had activist backgrounds.

The program was managed by a team with combination of activism, journalism and community organizing skills with strong link with local actors or had strong communication and lobbying skills. Lakpesdam NU-Bima employed Asrul Rahman (Asrul) (the head of Lakpesdam NU – Bima) as program Manager. He was a local activist and local university lecture and had exercise his activism in various Lakpesdam NU advocacies in Bima. He was also the leader of Lakpedam Advocacy in defending Oi Bura Temple, and had connected to local religious leaders and local government agency and local media). Two other team member was Rahmat Hidayat (the

29

Secretary of Lakpesam NU Bima and program officer of the program) and Abdul Haris (community organizer) who were also a lecture and Persatuan Mahasiswa Islam Indonesia- PMII (Indonesian Islamic Student Association) activist at the University of the Social and Politic Institute of Mbojo Bima and had worked with Asrul in defending Oi Bura Temple. In 2016 following Asrul decision to pursue his study in Jakarta, Lakpesdam NU then recruited two new program staff, Agus Sriawan (Agus) and Ady Supriadin (Ady) and appointed Abdul Haris as Program Manager. Agus had experience with political activism and had a close connection with the Bima Regent and local bureaucrats while the later was PMII activist who worked for a local media (KAHABA) with extensive networks with local journalists. With such local team capacity and the assistance and supervision from Lakpesdam NU headquarter, the team composition provided modality for Lakpesdam NU in constructing locally led development and in consolidating local actors to promote social inclusion in the field.

Third, the ability of the program to response local dynamic and work through strategic champions. The program team had capacity to contextualize their program based on their profound insights and understanding on the realms of power dynamics, interest, and institutions that shape the social inclusion in the village. One example is in the case when Peduli packaged the program into more service-oriented programs to all villagers instead of specifically for Hindu Minority and their decision to delay in discussing social exclusion issues in the early program. These decisions were made based on their iterative learnings on the micro politics that over articulating “conflict and the existence of discrimination’ will politically incorrect as it will raise resistance among the majority group.

Hence, in building social interaction for better recognition of the minatory groups, the program team should connect the activities with the village common interest of real development issues and inferred the social inclusion agenda. In fact, most of the activities implemented were themed as social gatherings, service provisions and discussion with focus on village development. Yet, through engaging villagers from different religious background, the program facilitated interaction among different group, build understanding and eventually build a sense of social cohesion acceptance among them.

Importantly, Lakpedam NU could identify local actors, their power and interest. It allowed them to build constructive interaction among different actors of interest and brokering them to mobilize coalition for changes based on their shared interest. Lakpesdam strategy to work with ‘moderate level of Kader Damai Lereng Oi Bura also reflects their understanding of power-relation among stakeholders in the village. As mentioned earlier, they avoided to rely only upon ‘principal leader' (the village head) and preferred to approach ‘mid-level champion' who directly interact with the community in day to day life.

Lakpedam NU team also took account seriously the diverse background of the identified champions to enable the coalition to represent different groups and interests. Following this Lakpesdam then drive the champions to work for the interest of all rather than for specific groups. Finally, Lakpesdam was also able to connect various influential actors in the district governments to the village champions that led to better communication and coordination in finding solutions for the complex problem in the village.

30

In sum, evidence from Oi Bura tells us that history, social, political and economic structure contextualized the social exclusion in the village. Program Peduli is Oi Bura has made successful gains in achieving substantial outcomes in mobilizing social changes in vastly complex and dynamic settings and a relatively short period. Its outcomes also reach beyond the targeted by providing necessary conditions to pathways broader development programs in the villages through the deepening social cohesions in the village, increasing access to citizen identification documents not only to previously marginalized groups. It worth recognizing that that much of the success was the result of a combination of the adaptive and locally relevant design of the Program Peduli and the capacity and the integrity the program team that enable the program to contextualize its agenda-setting with the realms of power dynamics, interest, and institutions that shape the social inclusion in the village.

31

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Atkinson, A B, Cantillon, Marlier, B & Nolan, B 2002. Social indicators: The EU and social inclusion, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Collinson, S (ed) 2003,’Power, livelihoods and conflict: case studies in political economy analysis for humanitarian action’, Humanitarian Policy Group (HPG) Report 13, Overseas Development Institute, viewed 27 October 2017, available at http://www.odi.org.uk/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinionfiles/289.pdf Gore, C & Figueiredo, J B 1997, 1997. ‘Social exclusion and anti-poverty policy: A debate’, Research Series, no. 110. International Institute for Labour Studies Research and United Nations Development Programme, International Labour Organisation.

Holden, L. D & Basjir, W. W, 2016, Program Peduli snapshot: April 2016, The Asia Foundation, Jakarta Lakpesdam NU 2014, ‘Laporan narasi teori perubahan: Agama dan kepercayaan minoritas penganut Hindu di Kecamatan Tambora, Kabupaten Bima, Nusa Tenggara Barat’, Program Peduli Document: Lakpesdam NU Bima, unpublished Lakpesdam NU 2015, ‘’Most significant change stories”, Program Peduli Document: Lakpesdam NU Bima, unpublished Mathieson, J, Popay, J, Enoch, E, Escorel, S, Hernandez, M, Johnston, H & Rispel, L 2008, Social Exclusion: ‘Meaning, measurement and experience and links to health inequalities - A review of literature’, Background Paper, no. 1, WHO Social Exclusion Knowledge Network.

Mayes, D Berghman, J & Salais, R 2001, Social exclusion and European policy, Edward Elga, Cheltenham.

Sen, A 2000, Social exclusion: concept, application and scrutiny. Social Development Papers, no. 1, Asian Development Bank, Manila.

Silver, I 2007, ‘The process of social exclusion: the dynamics of an evolving concept’.

Working Paper, no. 95. Chronic Poverty Research Centre.

The Asia Foundation 2016, Understanding social exclusion in Indonesia: A meta-analysis of Program Peduli’s theory of change documents, The Asia Foundation, Jakarta The Department for International Development (DFID) 2005, ‘Reducing poverty by tackling social exclusion, A DFID policy paper, the Department for International Development, UK

32

United Nations 2016, Leaving no one behind: the imperative of inclusive development, Report on the World Social Situation 2016, United Nations, New York, viewed 26 October 2017, available at http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/rwss/2016/full-report.pdf.

World Bank 2013. Inclusion Matters: The Foundation for Shared Prosperity (Advance Edition), The World Bank, Washington D. C. Young, I M 2000, ‘Five faces of oppression’, in ADAMS, M (ed.) Readings for Diversity and Social Justice. Routledge, New York pp. 37 – 63 Ali-Fauzi and Hilman (2015), Religious Minorities in Indonesia: Persecution and Prospect for Better Protection, East Asia Forum Quarterly Wahid Institute (2015), Laporan Pemantauan Kebebasan Beragama dan Berkeyakinan di Indonesia, Monitoring Report on Religious Freedom and Belief in Indonesia, Jakarta Setara Institute (2017), Laporan Situasi Kebebasan Beragama/Berkeyakinan, Report on Religious Freedom and Belief Situation

33