Research Proposal
Ethnic Conflict in North Sumatera, Indonesia
The Case of Dairi Regency, 1950– 2001
Budi Agustono
To be presented to the LIPI, Jakarta reading group 18 May 2004
Political change often led to regime change. Economic crisis and the waves of democratization that hit Indonesia have broken down New Order regime. The fall of
New Order regime was marked not only by the increasing of mass participation but also ethno religious violence, among others West Kalimantan (Jamie S. Davidson and
Douglas Kammen, 2002) in Maluku (Gerry Van Klinken, 2000; Niels Bubandt, 2001),
Poso, Central Sulawesi (Lorraine V. Aragon, 2001), whereas Aceh and Papua provinces desired to separate from Republic if Indonesia. It has been interesting that mostly ethno religious conflict occurring in the Indonesia’s peripheral regions (Jamie. S. Davidson,
2002).
Unlike some regions have been experiencing in ethno religious conflicts, in
North Sumatera, though its population are ethnically varied and competition of economic and political resources are relatively intense, has never occurred open ethnic conflict. It cannot be denied that after the collapse of New Order regime ethnic tensions in some regencies in North Sumatera province, due to the competition of economic and political resources, particularly after the implementation of decentralization, are rapidly increasing. One of regencies facing ethnic conflict in
North Sumatera is Dairi Regency. Before Dutch annexation Dairi, local people (
Pakpak) had a small scale, pre state political system (R.G. Coleman, 1983). The other ethnic groups (Toba Batak, Karonese, Simalungun, and Javanese) who were coming to this region called immigrants (Clark Cunningham, 1958). When the Dutch colonized
Dairi, it brought missionary activities. Unlike in Tapanuli Residency (North Sumatera) where Christian were spread by Germany missionaries, in Dairi missionary activities carried out by Toba Batak, which were facilitated by the colonial government. When
Toba Batak preached Christianity to Dairi, due to their education were much more better than Pakpak, Toba Batak did not use Pakpak language, but they used their own language. It was used in the churches, schools, and daily conversation.
In the 1950s Indonesia was implementing a form of liberal democracy
(Herbert Feith, 1962). In this period many political parties were established. At the time there were big four parties, the Indonesian Nationalist Party, Masyumi, Nahdathul
Ulama, and the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI). The liberal democracy not only brought political instability but also created regional rebellion in which some political party leaders and regional commanders cooperated to rebel against central government (
Barbara Harvey, 1977 ). In the 1950s there were four influential political parties in Dairi; the Indonesian Christian Party (Parkindo), the Indonesian Nationalist Party (PNI),
Masyumi, and Indonesia Communist Party (PKI). Ethnically, Toba Batak dominated
Parkindo, Karonese and Pakpak were PNI, Masyumi were Muslim Pakpak and some
Karonese, Toba Batak, and Dairi were PKI members. As in Simalungun, in Dairi political parties followed ethnic lines (William Liddle, 1970). In Dairi the Pakpak did not

participate in regional rebellion, because the leader of regional rebellion in North
Sumatera was Maluddin Simbolon, a regional commander of North Sumatera. He was a
Toba Batak. Parkindo supported regional rebellion against central government. In the
1958 there was an emergence of antagonism between groups loyal to the republic and their opponents. Pakpak represented the forces loyal to the nation in the 1958, while
Toba Batak were seen by Pakpak as rebellious. The regional rebellion heightened ethnic conflict between Pakpak and Toba Batak. As a result of ethno political tensions many
Pakpak were killed by the immigrants.
In the 1970s Toba Batak has become the important political and economic actors in Dairi. In the 1980s many Pakpak were receiving education in big cities all over the country. After completion their education they returned to their own regency and initiated to discuss their ethnic group backwardness, promote their group identity, cultural issues, and Toba Batak dominance over economic and political life. The wave of democratization, which was initiated in Indonesia in the 1990s (Anders Uhlin,1997;
Arief Budiman, 1999; Kees Van Dijk, 2001 ) has brought significant changes among
Pakpak. The implementation of decentralization (regional autonomy) has been strengthening Pakpak collective identity. Their ethnic consciousness was increasing and they have been redefining, reshaping and reconstructing their ethnicity and identity.
What is means to be Pakpak became an important issues among Pakpak people. Since the 1998, after the collapse of New Order regime and the implementation of decentralization (regional autonomy) Pakpak desired to have new regency by demanding Dairi regency is divided into two regencies, Dairi regency and Pakpak Bharat regency. The establishment of Pakpak Bharat regency as a reflection of latent ethnic conflict between Pakpak and Toba Batak.
The Aim of Research
1. to analyze historically the causes of ethnic tension between Pakpak and Toba Batak,
1950 – 2001.
2. to explain economic, cultural, and political relations of both ethnic groups in the
1950 - 2001.
3. To shed light the resurgence of group identity and ethnic conflict between Pakpak and Toba Batak after the implementation of decentralization (2001).
Research questions
1. What are the sources of emergence of Pakpak’s ethnic consciousness?
2. What are the causes of increasing interethnic conflict in Dairi Regency?
3. How were the economic, social, and political relations between Pakpak and Toba
Batak in the 1950 – 1990s?
4. How were the competition for economic and political resources between PakPak and Toba Batak after the implementation of decentralization (2001)?
Theoretical Framework
Ted Robert Gurr (1970) defines relative deprivation is actor’s perception of discrepancy between their value expectations and their value capacity. Relative deprivation of a group of people means discrepancy between the expected and actual level of well being as consequence of a rapid deterioration of (mainly economic status of

the group compared either to earlier status or to another or other groups. Relative deprivation can be found behind many if not most protracted conflict. In other word relative deprivation as one of sources of ethnic conflict (Timo Kivimaki 2002, Timo
Kivimaki and Liisa Lakso, 1998). As outlined by David Brown (1994) there are two approaches on ethnicity; primordialist and situationalist. Primordialist seen ethnicity as culturally embedded group loyalty. Ethnic consciousness is thus seen as an ascriptive, communal allegiance which inherent in the particular linguistic, racial or religious attributes defining parameters of the group. The primordialist perspective asserts that people are naturally ethnocentric, exhibiting trust and preference for those of their own cultural group while feeling more distant from, and distrustful of, those of other cultural groups.
The situationalist approaches begins with the observation that individuals might be members of social and cultural group without necessarily recognizing them as conscious aggregation having ideological and political significance. It also depicts ethnicity as one resource among many which individuals may employ in their efforts to respond, pragmatically and rationally, to the environment. Ethnicity acts a political resource, promoting group cohesion and thereby facilitating the political articulation of both group and individual interest. The situationalist or instrumentalist approach is more dynamic because it stresses change, contextuality and competition among ethnic groups for resources. For intrumentalists, ethnic conflict in the modern era is not a consequence of the politicization of primordial needs, but a result of the mobilization of ethnic interests to obtain access to social, political and economic resources (Demet
Yalcin Mousseau, 2001; Cora Govers and Hans Vermeulen, 1997). In other words, instrumentalist approaches focus on the role of ethnic elites in mobilizing identities.
Leaders and political entrepreneurs use the emotional appeal of ethnic identity to mobilize mass support in a competition for state power, resources, and private interests
(Paul R. Brass, 1992; Jacques Bertrand, 2003). In relation to these approaches, this study will combine relative deprivation and instrumentalist approaches to analyze ethnic conflict in Dairi regency.
Research Strategy
1. Ethnic conflict in Dairi, especially after the eruption of regional rebellion in the
1958, was directly related to development of the national politics. This study will historically be analyzing the economic, social, and cultural, and relations between
Pakpak and Toba Batak.
2. It examines distribution of local power and provincial government policies on economic and political aspects in the 1950 – 2001.
3. It explains the increasing of Pakpak identity, their ethnic consciousness, and ethnic conflict in democratization era, mainly after the implementation of decentralization
(regional autonomy)
Method
This study will be historical analysis and process tracing the causes of ethnic hostilities and conflict between Pakpak and Toba Batak from 1950 - 2001. This research will start with bibliographical research. The bibliographical research will be done at the University of Helsinki libraries (Finland), Nordic Institute of Southeast Asian

Studies (NIAS) Copenhagen, Denmark and by visiting number of relevant libraries and research centers. Books, academic thesis, research report, other relevant articles will be acquired. Archives, documents, individual documents are important for this research and will be obtained at National Archives and National Library in Jakarta, Medan, and Dairi.
Previous studies on Dairi will critically also be studied. In addition, writing on cultural and social issues produced by Dairi based cultural institutions will be also included in this study. Depth interview would be conducted with political party functionaries, community leaders, religious leaders (1950s), former local legislatures and local government officials, community leaders, religious leaders, civil society organizations, social organizations, and youth organizations (2001) of both ethnic groups. All data will be analyzed in historical and sociological analyses.
Bibliography
Aragon, Lorraine V. “Communal Violence in Poso, Central Sulawesi: Where People Eat
Fish and Fish Eat People” in Indonesia No. 72, October 2001.
Brass, Paul. Language, Religion, and Politics in India. London: Cambridge University
Press, 1974.
Brass, Paul. Ethnicity and Nationalism: Theory and Comparison. London: Sage
Publication, 1991.
Bertrand, Jacques Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict in Indonesia. United Kingdom:
Cambridge University, Press, 2004. .
Brown, David. The State and Ethnic Politics in Southeast Asia. London: Routledge, 1994
Bubandt, Nils, “Malukan Apocalypse: Themes in the Dynamics of Violence in Eastern
Indonesia,” in Inggris Wessel and Georgia Wimhofer (ed.) Violence in Indonesia.
Hamburg: Abera, 2001.
Budiman, Arief, Barbara Haley and Damien Kingsbury (ed.). Reformasi: Crisis and
Change in Indonesia. Monash: Monash Asia Institute, 1999.
Castles, Lance. The Political Life of A Sumatran Residency: Tapanuli 1915 – 1940. New
York: Yale University. 1972.
Colleman, Robert Griffin. Pakpak Batak Kin Groups and Land Tenure: A Study of
Decent Organization and Its Cultural Ecology. Ann Boor: Zeeb Road, 1983.
Davidson, Jamie S (2002), “Decentralization Authoritarianism: Democratizing and
Ethnic Cleansing on Indonesia’s Periphery, Attached at www.indopubs.com.
Davidson, Jamie S and Douglas Kammen.”Indonesia’s Unknown Wars and the Lineages of Violence in West Kalimantan,” in Indonesia, Number 73, April 2002.
Dijk, Kess Van. A Country in Despair: Indonesia Between 1997 and 2000. Leiden:
KITLV. 2001.
Gurr, Rober Ted. Why Men Rebel. New Jersey: Priceton University Press, 1970.
Horowitz, Donald. L. The Deadly Ethnic Riot. Berkeley: University of California Press,
2001.
Govers, Cora and Hans Vermeulen. The Politics of Ethnic Consciousness. London:
McMillan Press, 1977.
Kipp, Rita Smith. Dissociated Identity: Ethnicity, Religion, and Class in an Indonesian
Society. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1996.
Klinken, Gerry Van. ”The Maluku Wars: Bringing Society Back in,” in Indonesia.
Number 71, April 2001.

Kymlicka, Will. Multicultural Citizenship. United States: Clarendon Press, 1995.
Malley, Michael. Regions: Centralization and Resistance.” in Donald K. Emmerson
(ed.). Indonesia After Soeharto: Polity, Economics, Society Transition, New York:
Armon, 1999. .
Mousseau, Demet Yalcin, “Democratizing with Ethnic Divisions: A Source of Conflict?” in Journal of Peace Research, Vo. 38. No. 5, 2001.
Snyder, Jack. From Voting to Violence: Democratization and Nationalist Conflict. New
York: WW. Norton& Company, 2000.
Uhlin, Anders. Indonesia and the Wave of Democratization: The Indonesian Pro
Democracy Movement in a Changing World. Copenhagen: Curzon Press, 1977.
Varshney, Ashutosh. “Nationalism, Ethnic Conflict and Rationality, “ in American
Political Science Association: Perspective on Politics, No. 1 (March), 2003.
Varshney, Ashutosh, “Ethnic Conflict and Civil Society: India and Beyond,” in World
Politics No. 53, 2001.