Leah Avery February 2013

Candi Borobudur: The Role of National Buddhist Monuments in Muslim Indonesia

This analysis will draw upon Kopytoff and Appadurai (1986) to explore the social life and cultural biography of the largest Buddhist monument in the world. Candi Borobudur, or Borobudur Temple is located in Central Java, Indonesia. Since its conception in 8th century AD, Borobudur Temple has gone through periods of construction, pilgrimage, celebration, neglect, rediscovery, restoration, and re-branding. These periods have coincided with events and trends in the archipelago of Indonesia. It is in this way that Candi Borobudur in a sense tells not only its own biography but that of wider Indonesia as well.

Part 1: An Early Biography of Borobudur In juxtaposing the life stages of Borobudur temple with key historical and political events in Indonesia, we are able to understand the role of national Buddhist monuments in Muslim Indonesia, as well as deepen knowledge regarding the historical, social and political trends in past and present Indonesia. As Errington says in her article Making Progress on Borobudur: An Old Monument in a New Order: an object's meaning is not located in a single moment of its history. What an object is may change in the course of time, as it changes hands and contexts (1993: 32). Furthermore, Errington quotes Fisher (1975) in saying the life of things is in reality many lives (Fisher 1975 in Errington 1993: 32). In 800 AD, during the Sailendra dynasty reign, Borobudur was built in the tropical Kedu Valley in Central Java, Indonesia. At the time, the people of the area were heavily influenced by

Buddhist and Hindu influence from India. Borobudur was built under orders of the ruler as an act of piety and devotion, to be a sanctuary and meditation place for monks. Some Buddhologists and historians of old Java have also speculated that Borobudur, shaped like a cosmic mountain, was built partly in an effort to help stabilize the sometimes shaky world (Central Java is an earthquake zone), since sacred mountains in myths of the area are believed to do just that (Errington 1993:36). The 100 foot tall monument is experienced by walking clockwise throughout over 500 Buddha sculptures through 6 square levels and 3 circular levels on the ascent to the top stupa. This ritual symbolizes Buddhas journey through the worlds of Kamadhatu (desire), Rupadhatu (forms) and Arupadhatu (formlessness) and is depicted upon the walls on over 1500 pictorial panels. Borobudur was intended to be a shrine or stupa for Lord Buddha, a meditation tool (yantra) for those seeking enlightenment and a place for Buddhist pilgrimage. Its purpose, however, slowly shifted through the 13th to 16th centuries as the political and cultural life of Indonesian people slowly shifted eastward towards Islam (Errington 1993:33). As the Indonesian archipelago adopted Islam, the Buddhist Borobudur temple fell abandoned for over 300 years, to be grown over by the jungle and forgotten about, save for the oral histories and myths which persisted. When Indonesia fell to British and then Dutch rule, a general named Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles heard of the massive, mythical and allegedly cursed Borobudur monument, and sent a team into the jungle to uncover it in 1817 (Hiroi 2009:34). Water and moss had badly damaged the monument during its period of abandonment. Minimal restoration work was conducted during this time to make the site suitable mainly for European tourists. During this time Borobudur was conceptualized by the colonists as a romantic ruin, an example of the antique (Errington 1993: 33). During the next hundred years or so [Borobudur] lived as a fairly minor and fairly inaccessible tourist attraction and archeological site in a state of near collapse (ibid). Local people slowly started using the space again from the time of its first uncovering, but its use was limited by the Colonists conception and use of the site, as well as the fact that very few Indonesians in the region identified as Buddhist.

Colonists disrespected the site by building a tea tent on top of the main shrine (ibid). During this time many of Borobudurs Buddha heads and carved panels were stolen and sold to museums and private estates (Errington 1993:44). The temple accepted visitors until 1835 , at which point full scale restoration was first conducted during the early 20th century by the East India Company (Dutch authorities) (Hiroi 2009:34). This restoration was part of the Dutch regulation of Indonesian cultural properties and was never completed, as the global economic recession, the end of World War II, and changing perceptions of colonialism forced the Netherlands to grant Indonesia Independence in in 1949. The cultural biography of Borobudur continues through the various stages of Indonesian development, showing how one object can be imbued with, and reflect such powerful political, economic, social and cultural importance.

Part 2: Post-Colonial Political and Religious Considerations of Borobudur Temple In the book The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective by Arjun Appadurai, Igor Kopytoff writes a chapter entitled: The Cultural Biography of Things: Commoditization as Process (1986). Kopytoff states that in every society, there are things that are publicly precluded from being commoditized this applies to much of what one thinks of as the symbolic inventory of a society: public lands, monuments, state art collections, the paraphernalia of political power, royal residences, chiefly insignia, ritual objects, and so on (1986:73). Despite being a public item, Borobudur in post-colonial Indonesia is marketed as a national cultural unifier, acts as a control mechanism of Buddhism, and is commodified as a national revenue-creating tourism site. Kopytoff asserts that power often asserts itself symbolically precisely by insisting on its right to singularize an object what these monopolies clearly do, is to expand the visible reach of sacred power by projecting it onto additional sacralized objects (ibid). This section of the paper will demonstrate how, in its controlling and marketing of Borobudur and other Buddhist and Hindu

monuments as tourist attractions, the post-colonial, independent Indonesian government is memorializing and controlling the Buddhist, Hindu, and animist traditional past of Indonesia, therefore proliferating the dominance of Islam, the unity of the nation, and the current modern political economics in the state. Following the Second World War, Indonesia achieved independence from the 300 year long colonial occupation in 1949 under President Sukarno. Sukarno implemented the 5 guiding principles of Independent Indonesian politics and culture known as pancasila. Pancasila includes the belief in one of the legitimate religions (Islam, Catholicism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Judaism), civilized and just humanity, unity of Indonesia, democracy, and social justice. During the reign of Sukarno, Borobudur was in the midst of an unfinished renovation by the Dutch colonizers. In 1970, Sukarnos military staged a coup against him and a general named Suharto took over office. In the transition from Sukarno to Suharto, extreme violence was enacted in an effort to extinguish wealthy strongholds and communist influence in the country. This violence resulted in the massacre of an estimated 500,000 people, most of whom were wealthy Buddhist, Chinese Communist people. This massacre is a national secret, and the cultural and religious repercussions continue to reverberate in Indonesia (Hefner 2000). The use of Borobudur as a cultural unifier (and not a Buddhist pilgrimage cite) is one reverberation of this violence and persisting tension. The new Suharto independent government regarded Borobudur as an important national cultural symbol (ibid). Borobudur was branded as a historical, cultural icon for Indonesian people. The religious aspect was underplayed and emphasis remained on the tourism value and role of cultural unifier. With the help of UNESCO and the international community, restoration work became a national project (ibid). Two large-scale restoration projects were undertaken in this partnership between 1975-1982, and 1983-1989 (ibid). The first phase of the restoration project was concerned with physical reconstruction, while the second phase was weighted toward making a zoning system and the construction of an archaeological park in order to make cultural preservation and tourism

development compatible (ibid). In order to zone a tourism park, villagers were forced off the land and the new Taman Wisata Candi Borobudur dan Prambanan (Tourism park of Borobudur and Prambanan Temples) was enclosed to preserve, control, and make money off of the sites. In his article Heritage Tourism and Cultural Policy, Hiroi frames the tension of politics, ethnicity, and religion as it pertains to state efforts to brand Borobudur temple. He states that The Indonesian government seems to have been somewhat successful in its efforts to promote Borobudur since the number of domestic tourists has grown. In 2003, while the number of international visitors was no more than around 600,000, the number of domestic tourists reached over 2,070,000 (Fatimah, Kanki and Adishakti 2006). The number of visitors dramatically decreases during Ramadan [the annual month of Islamic fasting and reverence], which indicates that the Buddhist stupa Borobudur has become recognized and accepted as an example of Indonesian culture among many Indonesian Muslims. This is a significant point because in the past religion was a sensitive issue, especially due to tensions between the politically dominant Muslim Javanese and the economically dominant Buddhist Chinese Indonesians. Although it is obvious that no historical relationship exists between the Chinese Indonesians and the Borobudur temple, the Indonesian government has promoted Borobudur as a cultural and not as a religious site, and has prohibited Borobudurs use for religious purposes (except Waisak celebrations[which is an annual Buddhist holiday]) (Hiroi 2009: 36). Today, Borobudur continually undergoes routine maintenance funded primarily by the Indonesian government. Although Suharto is no longer in power and the democratically elected Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) is in currently in power, the 5 national points of Pancasila guide Indonesian politics. Likewise, Buddhist and Hindu temples such as Borobudur temple continue to be branded as symbols of national cultural unity, and not primarily as sites of religious pilgrimage and enlightenment, as Borobudur was first intended to be. We can see in the strategic use of Borobudur throughout its cultural biography that it was utilized in strategic political, economic, social and cultural ways which varied according to the agenda

of dominant forces at particular moments in Indonesian and global history. During the Sailendra dynasty, Borobudur was constructed as a shrine for Lord Buddha, to provide enlightenment for the majority Buddhist inhabitants of the region, and to be a beacon for religious pilgrimage for people near and far. When the political and cultural center of Indonesia shifted towards Islam, Borobudur lay abandoned for centuries until uncovered and utilized for colonial recreation. Post-colonial, Independent Borobudur found itself as a key player in an effort to unify the Indonesian nation, highlighting certain qualities in its branding of Borobudur, and obscuring some realities and national secrets

Works Cited Errington, Shelly 1993. Making Progress on Brobudur: Old Progress in a New Order. Visual Anthropology Review. 9(3): 32-59. Fisher, Philip 1975 "The Future's Past." New Literary History 6 (3): 587-606. Hefner, Robert W. 2000. Civil Islam: Muslims and Democratization in Indonesia. Princeton University Press: New Jersey. Hiroi, Iwahara 2009. Heritage Tourism and Cultural Policy in Indonesia: The Impact of National Culture on Tourism Development in Borobodur. Japanese Society of Cultural Anthropology. 10: 29- 41. Kopytoff, Igor 1986. The Cultural Biography of Things: Commoditization as Process, Chapter 2 in The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective by Arjun Appadurai. Cambridge University Press UNESCO 2013. Borobudur Temple Compounds. UNESCO World Heritage Centre 1992- 2013. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/592.