Genocide, Political Violence, Human Rights Series. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2015. xv, 231 pp. (Maps, illustrations.) US$55.95, cloth. ISBN 978-0-8135-7410-3.
What is missing from the discussion of violence as one of the crucial problems in East Timor, as Douglas Kammen points out in his book, is the relationship between the recurrent mass violence over long periods, the local targets who are the object of this violence, and the perpetrators of it (4). A lack of attention to this relationship leads to the dominance of narratives of the colonial powers, i.e., the Portuguese, the Dutch, and Indonesia, and even the local elites after a series of national uprisings in 2002 and 2012. The relationship also leads to the quest for East Timorese nationalism that emerged in the early 1970s, particularly during the Indonesian occupation.
In order to provide a more balanced approach to understanding the violence in East Timor, Kammen focuses more on grassroots perspectives and experiences than have previous authors.
Through the Maubara case, Kammen brilliantly shows how local stories describing the lives and roles of certain figures who were highly contentious in their relations with the colonial power and their fellow villagers can be used to explain why a recurrence of conflict happened in three different contexts and times but in only one particular area.
In the first two chapters, Kammen explains the situation in Maubara, through its early history, political dynamics, and interaction with the external powers who became its rulers. The arrival of three strangers from Suai Loro, locally known as Loro Lio (Sun Lords) marked not only the onset of a local elite power struggle but also, and more importantly, the bringing of order to Maubara’s local conditions, which had for years been characterized by anarchy. The descendants of Loro Lio faced a potential rivalry with the local population, and this rivalry shaped the way they interacted with the newly arrived Portuguese and the Dutch, as either collaborators with or opponents of the colonial power (33).
There are two theories as to why mass violence became a recurring feature in Maubara. The narratives provided by the colonial powers in their historical records offer the first explanation. From the Portuguese perspective, the Portuguese made several attacks on Maubara following Dutch moves to exert influence in north-central Timor through collaboration with a local ruling family, the Doutels from Guguleur (48), and other rulers. These battles provided the historical background for Portuguese attempts to rule Maubara by treating its local rulers as unitary actors, rather than competing actors themselves involved in a power struggle. From the Dutch perspective, a series of agreements, such as one made in 1795 (58), failed because some leading families in Maubara had collaborated with the Portuguese. Even when there was no external involvement, some leading Maubara families were in conflict with one another, which led to violence at the expense of the local population.
In chapter 3, Kammen further explains how the Portuguese dealt with competing actors among Maubara’s local elites who were struggling for power. After the colonial powers signed a treaty handing over the kingdom of Maubara to Portuguese administration (75), the area became a source of long-standing conflict among several groups: ruling families and Hakka traders against the Portuguese; local inhabitants against Hakka interlopers; rival families of Guguleur and Vatuvou; and certain individuals. Kammen points out that the colonial power’s practice of indirect rule over Maubara’s population did not result in thorough obedience, but instead was a major factor in destabilization.
Chapter 4 discusses in greater depth the resistance that took place in Maubara when prominent families formed a short-term alliance with the Dutch against the Portuguese colonial administration in order to control trading networks. However, a fragmented effort and the different interests of the actors in this rebellion, such as the spiritual figure Maubete, Hakka merchants, and African soldiers who had deserted from the Portuguese army (93), resulted in an inability to stage a full-scale attack on the Portuguese military.
The rebellion in 1893 had several consequences, as discussed in the book’s chapter 5, such as providing a pretext for the Portuguese to exert their full armed control over Maubara, particularly under Governor Forja; the introduction of new colonial approaches to local administration and forms of direct taxation; and also local marginalization (105) through mandatory labour service and tributes.
Chapter 6 focuses on another critical juncture in East Timor’s history of recurrent mass violence. After the Indonesian army invaded East Timor in 1975, they began to manipulate the interests of competing parties, including those in Maubara. In addition, the history of various responses by the East Timorese to external powers and internal chaos led the Indonesian government to gradually reinforce its military capabilities to defeat the nationalist party Fretelin and to fully control the area from 1975 to 1998. In its colonial governance, Indonesia employed the same approach as had previous colonial powers—appointing individuals based on traditional authority, which in turn exacerbated a long-standing conflict between elite families in Maubara and other areas (141).
In chapter 7, Kammen discusses how violence served as a means for local and national actors to respond to local history and meaning based on a national struggle for independence and reconstruction, including how local inhabitants position themselves in their newly formed country. Violence, which shaped the way locals interacted with states and others, was more severe in the waning days of the Indonesian administration. The roles of Indonesian militias and local supporters of independence in Maubara reflected long-standing local divisions. These divisions reinforced the previous limitations of fragmented actors—both elite and grassroots—in responding to the competing interests of the colonial powers and local actors (161).
By focusing on the role of certain actors, this study provides scant discussion of how institutional factors contributed to the recurrent mass violence in Maubara. The cultural values of the East Timorese in Maubara played merely a peripheral and complementary role in these actors’ behaviours. Instead, as violence was one characteristic in Maubara’s societal interaction, each ruling family and the locals had their own arrangements, norms, and values for dealing with communal violence, based on community principles. That these approaches were not consistent with competing interests led to violence.
Across the board, this book provides advanced insights into how to promote grassroots traditions as counter to national narratives of local history. This book is highly recommended for scholars with an interest in ethnic and mass violence in Southeast Asia, a region that to some extent still wrestles with post-conflict mass traumatic memory.
Hipolitus Yolisandry Ringgi Wangge
Marthinus Academy, Jakarta, Indonesia
pp. 415-417