Act more, regret less: The Jakarta Post
JAKARTA – After months of troubling silence in the face of rising violence against religious minorities, Religious Affairs Minister Nasaruddin Umar has finally spoken out–expressing regret over the recent attack on a Christian prayer house in Padang, the capital of West Sumatra.
The incident, which occurred on the afternoon of July 27, saw a mob vandalize a facility being used for religious education, and the damage extended far beyond the building.
Children attending a class at the time were left with not only physical injuries but also deep psychological trauma. The images and testimonies from the scene speak volumes of the fear and insecurity now haunting religious minority communities in a province often cited as one of the least tolerant regions in this predominantly Muslim but diverse country.
In response to the attack, Nasaruddin has pledged to send a team to the city to investigate what he describes as a possible 'misunderstanding', emphasizing that the incident has 'tarnished the country's image' as a peaceful, tolerant nation.
Nasarudin, also the founder of an interfaith organization, Masyarakat Dialog antar Umat Beragama (Interfaith Dialogue Society), hopes that the attack will be the last of its kind. But hope and regret are no longer sufficient.
The Padang incident occurred barely a month after a similar attack in Sukabumi, West Java—another region frequently flagged by human rights groups as hostile to minority religious practices. In that case, a Christian youth retreat held in a private residence was violently disrupted by a local mob, resulting in similar destruction and intimidation.
Perpetrators of such acts often justify their behavior by claiming they are enforcing 'public order' regarding unauthorized religious gatherings. But such claims reflect a much deeper structural problem: in many parts of Indonesia, it is nearly impossible for religious minorities to legally establish formal houses of worship.
They are left with little choice but to gather in private homes or makeshift venues—settings that are then targeted under the pretext of legal or procedural violations.
This problem is rooted in the notorious 2006 Joint Ministerial Decree issued by the Religious Affairs Ministry and Home Affairs Ministry, which sets out onerous requirements for building a house of worship.
Religious groups must collect signatures from at least 60 people of different faiths and gain formal permission from both local authorities and religious affairs offices. In areas where religious intolerance is entrenched, this process is not just difficult; it is practically impossible.
The regulation has long been criticized as discriminatory and out of step with Indonesia's constitutional guarantees of religious freedom. Instead of facilitating coexistence, it empowers the majority to veto the rights of the minority. It fosters resentment, fuels social division and, as these recent incidents show, creates the conditions for violence.
These attacks are not the result of simple 'misunderstandings.' They are manifestations of a broken, biased system that fails to protect the rights of all citizens equally.
If the government is serious about preventing further attacks, it must move beyond statements of regret. It must act with urgency to dismantle discriminatory regulations, prosecute those who incite or commit violence and ensure that every citizen—regardless of religion—can worship safely and freely.
Nasaruddin's predecessor, Yaqut Cholil Qoumas, once promised to revise or revoke the 2006 decree, but his pledge went unfulfilled. Nasaruddin now has a critical opportunity to replace the policy with one that affirms, rather than restricts, religious freedom.
Law enforcement, too, must do its part. Those responsible for the violence in Padang, Sukabumi and elsewhere must face justice for breaching a basic human right.
As national leader, President Prabowo Subianto must also make his position clear. The right to freedom of religion and belief is protected by the Constitution. Defending that right should not be negotiable. Silence or ambiguity from the highest office only reinforces the perception—among both victims and perpetrators—that the state is absent, indifferent or even complicit.
Words alone will not prevent the next attack. Only decisive, meaningful action will.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Asia News Network
21 hours ago
- Asia News Network
Act more, regret less: The Jakarta Post
August 4, 2025 JAKARTA – After months of troubling silence in the face of rising violence against religious minorities, Religious Affairs Minister Nasaruddin Umar has finally spoken out–expressing regret over the recent attack on a Christian prayer house in Padang, the capital of West Sumatra. The incident, which occurred on the afternoon of July 27, saw a mob vandalize a facility being used for religious education, and the damage extended far beyond the building. Children attending a class at the time were left with not only physical injuries but also deep psychological trauma. The images and testimonies from the scene speak volumes of the fear and insecurity now haunting religious minority communities in a province often cited as one of the least tolerant regions in this predominantly Muslim but diverse country. In response to the attack, Nasaruddin has pledged to send a team to the city to investigate what he describes as a possible 'misunderstanding', emphasizing that the incident has 'tarnished the country's image' as a peaceful, tolerant nation. Nasarudin, also the founder of an interfaith organization, Masyarakat Dialog antar Umat Beragama (Interfaith Dialogue Society), hopes that the attack will be the last of its kind. But hope and regret are no longer sufficient. The Padang incident occurred barely a month after a similar attack in Sukabumi, West Java—another region frequently flagged by human rights groups as hostile to minority religious practices. In that case, a Christian youth retreat held in a private residence was violently disrupted by a local mob, resulting in similar destruction and intimidation. Perpetrators of such acts often justify their behavior by claiming they are enforcing 'public order' regarding unauthorized religious gatherings. But such claims reflect a much deeper structural problem: in many parts of Indonesia, it is nearly impossible for religious minorities to legally establish formal houses of worship. They are left with little choice but to gather in private homes or makeshift venues—settings that are then targeted under the pretext of legal or procedural violations. This problem is rooted in the notorious 2006 Joint Ministerial Decree issued by the Religious Affairs Ministry and Home Affairs Ministry, which sets out onerous requirements for building a house of worship. Religious groups must collect signatures from at least 60 people of different faiths and gain formal permission from both local authorities and religious affairs offices. In areas where religious intolerance is entrenched, this process is not just difficult; it is practically impossible. The regulation has long been criticized as discriminatory and out of step with Indonesia's constitutional guarantees of religious freedom. Instead of facilitating coexistence, it empowers the majority to veto the rights of the minority. It fosters resentment, fuels social division and, as these recent incidents show, creates the conditions for violence. These attacks are not the result of simple 'misunderstandings.' They are manifestations of a broken, biased system that fails to protect the rights of all citizens equally. If the government is serious about preventing further attacks, it must move beyond statements of regret. It must act with urgency to dismantle discriminatory regulations, prosecute those who incite or commit violence and ensure that every citizen—regardless of religion—can worship safely and freely. Nasaruddin's predecessor, Yaqut Cholil Qoumas, once promised to revise or revoke the 2006 decree, but his pledge went unfulfilled. Nasaruddin now has a critical opportunity to replace the policy with one that affirms, rather than restricts, religious freedom. Law enforcement, too, must do its part. Those responsible for the violence in Padang, Sukabumi and elsewhere must face justice for breaching a basic human right. As national leader, President Prabowo Subianto must also make his position clear. The right to freedom of religion and belief is protected by the Constitution. Defending that right should not be negotiable. Silence or ambiguity from the highest office only reinforces the perception—among both victims and perpetrators—that the state is absent, indifferent or even complicit. Words alone will not prevent the next attack. Only decisive, meaningful action will.
Straits Times
2 days ago
- Straits Times
Israel's Ben-Gvir says he prayed at Al-Aqsa mosque compound
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox JERUSALEM - Israel's far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir visited the flashpoint Al-Aqsa mosque compound in Jerusalem on Aug 3 and said he prayed there, challenging rules covering one of the most sensitive sites in the Middle East. Under a delicate decades-old "status quo" arrangement with Muslim authorities, the Al-Aqsa compound is administered by a Jordanian religious foundation and Jews can visit but may not pray there. Videos released by a small Jewish organisation called the Temple Mount Administration showed Mr Ben-Gvir leading a group walking in the compound. Other videos circulating online appeared to show Mr Ben-Gvir praying. Reuters could not immediately verify the content of the other videos. The visit to the compound known to Jews as Temple Mount, took place on Tisha B'av, the fast day mourning the destruction of two ancient Jewish temples, which stood at the site centuries ago. The Waqf, the foundation that administers the complex, said Mr Ben-Gvir was among another 1,250 who ascended the site and who it said prayed, shouted and danced. Israel's official position accepts the rules restricting non-Muslim prayer at the compound, Islam's third holiest site and the most sacred site in Judaism. Mr Ben-Gvir has visited the site in the past calling for Jewish prayer to be allowed there and prompting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to issue statements saying that this was not the policy of Israel. Mr Ben-Gvir said in a statement he prayed for Israel's victory over Palestinian militant group Hamas in the war in Gaza and for the return of Israeli hostages being held by militants there. He repeated his call for Israel to conquer the entire enclave. The hillside compound, in Jerusalem's Old City, is one of the most sensitive locations in the Middle East. Suggestions that Israel would alter rules at the compound have sparked outrage in the Muslim world and ignited violence in the past. There were no immediate reports of violence on Aug 3. A spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas condemned Mr Ben-Gvir's visit, which he said "crossed all red lines." "The international community, specifically the US administration, is required to intervene immediately to put an end to the crimes of the settlers and the provocations of the extreme right-wing government in Al-Aqsa Mosque, stop the war on the Gaza Strip and bring in humanitarian aid," Mr Nabil Abu Rudeineh said in a statement. REUTERS
Straits Times
3 days ago
- Straits Times
In Delhi and New York, Hindu right wing lines up against NYC mayoral candidate Mamdani
NEW YORK – Two days before New York City Democrats went to the polls to select their mayoral nominee in June, a plane flew over the Statue of Liberty trailing a banner attacking the race's front-runner Zohran Mamdani. 'Save NYC from global intifada,' it read in letters five feet high. 'Reject Mamdani.' The banner, seemingly aimed at the city's Jewish voters, touched on the campaign's most charged foreign policy issue: Mr Mamdani's criticism of Israel . But the group behind it wasn't Jewish or Israeli. Its members are Indian American Hindus, who accuse Mr Mamdani of pushing an anti-Hindu and anti-Indian agenda. For years, Mr Mamdani has assailed the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a populist whose political ideology inextricably links nationalism with Hinduism at the expense of the country's Muslim minority. Mr Mamdani called the prime minister a 'war criminal' in May. Previously, he lobbied to stop Mr Modi from visiting New York, and demanded that a state assembly member return campaign contributions from Indian Americans whom he characterised as 'Hindu fascists'. While campaigning for the state assembly in 2020, Mr Mamdani attended a demonstration in Times Square at which a group protesting the construction of a Hindu temple on the site of a one-time mosque in India chanted, 'Who are Hindus? Bastards!' Mr Mamdani has never publicly condemned those remarks, and his campaign initially declined to comment when asked about them, among other matters. Later in the video, Mr Mamdani says he is there to fight for an India that is 'pluralistic' and 'where everyone can belong regardless of their religion'. After this story's publication, Ms Zara Rahim, a senior campaign adviser, said in a statement that Mr Mamdani 'rejects rhetoric targeting Hindus' and attended the 2020 protest to 'stand against right-wing nationalism' in India. She added that Mr Mamdani's mother is Hindu, and that the religion 'is a meaningful part of Zohran's life'. Now, Mamdani is within striking distance of becoming the city's first Muslim and first person of South Asian heritage to become mayor, and he finds himself on the receiving end of attacks by an army of Mr Modi supporters , both in India and the United States. The efforts reveal how sectarian politics in Delhi can affect an election in New York. In India, attacks on Mr Mamdani blare from pro-Modi news outlets across millions of TVs and smartphones. In the United States, Indian American groups, some with direct ties to Mr Modi and his governing Bharatiya Janata Party, are taking a more subtle approach – raising money for Mr Mamdani's opponents. 'There were simultaneous campaigns by India-based Hindu nationalists and U.S.-based Hindu groups, pushing the idea that he would be an anti-Hindu candidate,' said Mr Raqib Naik, director of the Center for the Study of Organized Hate, a watchdog group that tracks Islamophobia online. Despite such attacks, Mr Mamdani has found passionate support among many South Asians in New York. Younger, working-class, Muslim and liberal South Asians including Hindus are energised by the possibility that New York could have its first South Asian mayor, even if some Indian Americans think his views are anti-Hindu. Mr Mamdani won by large margins in some neighbourhoods with sizeable South Asian populations, and he captured 52 per cent of all first-choice votes cast in majority-Asian neighbourhoods. New York City's roughly 447,064 South Asian residents are an important pool of voters, but they are hardly a monolithic bloc, and it is hard to predict the effect some degree of Hindu opposition might have on Mr Mamdani's electoral chances. (Between 2023 and 2024, the Pew Research Center estimated that Hindus make up 2 per cent of New York's metropolitan population, and other survey data places the number of Hindu adherents in the city at close to 80,000.) New York is America's largest city and financial capital, affording its mayor an outsize role on the world stage. As Mr Mamdani prepares for the general election and tries to reassure moderate Democrats that he is a viable contender, he is also facing the ire of a party machine a world away. One of Mr Mamdani's main criticisms of Mr Modi concerns his role in 2002 as leader of the Indian state of Gujarat during sectarian riots. Mr Modi has been accused of failing to slow or stop violence that left hundreds dead, most of them Muslims. In the aftermath, Mr Modi faced sanctions by the United States and at one point was denied a visa to visit. Backlash to Mr Mamdani's remarks has come from the top in India. A BJP national spokesperson Sanju Verma recently called Mamdani a 'Hinduphobic bigot' and 'a rabid liar'. The BJP's talking points have been amplified to a global audience by a network of pro-Modi outlets and influencers. One anchor at a pro-Modi television network recently called Mr Mamdani a 'part-time revolutionary, full-time Modi baiter'. Another announcer said Mr Mamdani associated 'with Pakistani lobbyists in the United States', suggesting that the candidate would promote the interests of India's longtime rival. According to data reviewed by The New York Times and compiled by The Center for the Study of Organized Hate, in the weeks between June 13 and June 30, more than 600 posts criticising Mr Mamdani were uploaded to X from known right-wing accounts in India and global profiles associated with Hindu nationalism, some with hundreds of thousands of followers. Professor Rohit Chopra of Santa Clara University, who studies Hindu nationalism, said Mr Mamdani's Muslim identity and sharp criticism of Mr Modi have been enough to 'discredit him among Indian Americans while also being played to maximum effect for political capital within India'. His parents' backgrounds have provided additional ammunition for the Hindu right. Mr Mamdani, 33, was born in Uganda, but his father is from Gujarat, Mr Modi's home state, where hundreds of people, many of them Muslim, were killed in riots in 2002. His mother, filmmaker Mira Nair, is a doyenne of India's progressive left. In the United States, the distrust of Mr Mamdani among some Hindus has motivated on-the-ground political action, and those efforts have been supercharged by diaspora groups' close ties to Mr Modi and his party. The Gujarati Samaj of New York, an Indian cultural centre in Queens with about 4,000 members, exemplifies the U.S. groups that are in close contact with Mr Modi and are actively supporting Mr Mamdani's opponents. Samaj members visited Mr Modi in India in February and remain 'in touch' with him, speaking to him 'directly', the group's president Harshad Patel said. In July, members held a fundraiser for Mayor Eric Adams, the incumbent running against Mr Mamdani as an independent. In 2023, Mr Adams shared a stage with Mr Modi at the UN's International Yoga Day. Mr Satya Dosapati, the founder of the Indian Americans for Cuomo PAC, which paid for the aerial banner over the Statue of Liberty, previously led protests against the University of Pennsylvania when Mr Modi was dropped as a speaker there in 2013. The Hindu American Foundation, whose members maintain relationships with the Indian government and which is the largest Hindu advocacy organization in the United States, was cofounded by Dr Mihir Meghani, who wrote a Hindu nationalist essay adopted by the BJP. The foundation has not taken a public position on Mr Mamdani's campaign, but its director Suhag Shukla attacked Mr Mamdani in an online post as 'an entitled, dilettante' and said in a statement that he has used 'demonising rhetoric' against Hindus. Other former and current leaders of the foundation have also criticised the candidate online. Mr Mamdani, now running in a general election and seeking a broader base of support, said recently that he would 'discourage' using the controversial phrase 'globalise the intifada,' which inspired the banner over the Statue of Liberty. Many see the statement as a call for violence. The question remains whether Mr Mamdani will similarly temper his criticism of Mr Modi as November's vote approaches. He declined a request to be interviewed for this article. Since the clip of Mr Mamdani calling the prime minister a war criminal went viral among Hindu voters, Mr Mamdani has been less vocal about Indian politics. NYTIMES
