“Babad Kampung”[1] From Yogyakarta: Unfinished Story of Contesting Identities and Creating Negotiation Space on The History of Urban Development

 By: Yoshi Fajar Kresno Murti[2]

 Abstract

 This paper aimed to discuss (1) the dynamics of kampong’s imagination as a form of identity; (2) the struggle of creating negotiation space amidst rapid city development through discourse on and practice of kampong in Yogyakarta. Kampongs in Yogyakarta have unique history and thus different definition from others in other cities in Indonesia. In addition, the word kampong, or kampung in Bahasa Indonesia, has endured shifts of meanings and refers to different definitions from time to time in its local language, Bahasa Indonesia, and through the history of post-colonial city. How is kampong defined and how is it used to define something? This paper provided three answers to the questions. First, the emergence of kampong at the beginning of the 20^th century has provided a frame for modern-colonial city. Kampong becomes the shadow of modern city, as it is defined as a ‘non-city’, ‘not part of the city’. Thus, kampong is actually a representation of city problem.  Second, kampong as a reality own varied, different faces, as shown by many researches on kampong conducted so far. Kampong does not actually exist in reality, but its image is always present to define something. Third, kampong is finally placed as a mark of cultural identity that is always on the move. Kampong is thus seen as ‘a way to take certain position, not merely an essence’[3], particularly when discussing urban matters and doing urban practices. How kampong becomes a way of positioning will be demonstrated by the works done by the urban kampongs in Yogyakarta.

 The First Layer: Kampong as the Shadows of Colonial-Modern City

Kampong, either realized or not, is always present within the daily vocabulary of ones using Bahasa Indonesia to communicate. The usage of the word is ranged in quite wider scale; in various categories of speaker and in quite varied perspective. Kampong is at least used to identify 3 matters: (1) the classification of person, as suggested by the phrase of “orang kampung”, kampong folks; (2) a name for certain place or settlement or a name for place of origin, as suggested by Kampung nJeron Beteng (nJeron Beteng, Javanese, literally means inside the fort, refers to the area inside the fort around the Sultan Palace, built in the past by the traditional kingdom of Yogyakarta), which refers to the settlement area inside the Beteng, or as suggested by the term of ‘kampung halaman’, home kampong; (3) an address for certain characters, refers to negative ones, as suggested by the term of “kampungan”, an attribute for impoliteness and improperness. Kampong has thus become a vocabulary to speak on identity; it is often used to define certain matters and to be defined as well.

There has not been clear evidence on where the word of kampung came from and the first time it was used[4]. The Dutch colonial government had nevertheless used the word to call native settlements[5] (bumiputera) in the early of 20^th century. The usage of the term had even been ‘legalized’, as appear in the name of “Kampoeng Verbetering”[6], a program held by colonial government, which was later, with almost similar logic changed into Kampong Improvement Program applied today. At that time, the urban development in Java had been in rapid pace, while native settlements also quickly grew. The native belonged to the lower class within the race based colonial class system. It was under such a context that the word ‘kampung’ was used by the Dutch Colonial Government.  The urban development in Java at that time was in line with the development of plantation industry that provided beneficial capital accumulation, which then resulted on the increase of industrialization and bureaucracy institutionalization. The development was embodied both in social life and physical infrastructures such as the establishment of social facilities, houses as well as public buildings. Both the number of populations and buildings in the cities increased quickly when the colonial government issued gementee policy to develop the existing settlements in all territories of The Dutch East Indies into kota praja, cities, in the early of 20^th century[7]. This had been the mark of the most dramatic development of the modern colonial cities[8] in the Indies. As part of the development, the settlements of the natives were defined as (urban) kampong. 

Kampong had emerged from urban development in the 20^th century. It was born when people had already thought on modern city. Kampong, thus, became a shadow hanging on the mind of urban planners and authorities when thinking about the cities or when planning on cities development. According to the imagination of modern urban planning, the image of kampong was attached to ‘something’ that did not belong to the city. It became a shadow as well as provided a frame for  the concept of ideal city, as kampong referred to troublesome area[9], even fearsome one. In addition, kampong referred to native settlements with unhealthy, unhygienic condition. Therefore, it represented an entity that should be fixed, controlled and made to be healthy. Kampong was considered to be troublesome and full of troubles, according to the idea of modern-colonial city in the past, even until these recent days.

 The development of modern cities in Java had revealed that the city was an abstraction, while the kampong was a reality. It was impossible to omit kampong when discussing and imagining the city, while it was similarly impossible to release the grip of the city when immersing with kampong reality. Problems occurred when abstract imagination was fitted forcefully into reality.  When the imagination of modern city was forcefully fitted to the reality of kampong, the real one was always considered as trouble. Kampong is the representation of troubles existing within the image of ideal city (for example: unhygienic, insecurity, irregularity, et cetera). As a result, kampong demolitions, both in physical and non-physical levels occurred from the past until nowadays.

 The Second Layer: Kampong as Identity Vocabulary

Kampong, in reality, has varied characteristics. Many field studies conducted in many urban areas in Java had revealed the variation. In certain period of time, kampongs experienced changes. In short, almost all of the studies did not find satisfactory definition of kampong. Kampong is not entirely a spatial or community unit, or neighboring network unit. Its definition is fluid.

 Kampong is generally understood as a ‘lower class settlement area in urban environment’ (Echols & Shadily, 1992, 258). To refer to an urban settlement with poor inhabitants, kampong cannot fully meet the criteria. Krauss, in his early study, defined kampong as a settlement of which inhabitants belonged to lower social-economic status. Their houses were those of below standard. If elite segments did exist, they would settle in the side of main road and had a little contact with kampong people[10]. This definition is loose, as it does not specifically point to special characteristics of a ‘community’. John Sullivan attempted to make clear definitions by raising the idea of ‘orang dalam’, insiders, and ‘orang luar’, outsiders, to classify those living inside alleys and on the side of the road. Although the ‘outsiders’ live in the side of the road, their social contacts are less varied than the ‘insiders’[11]. Jellinek attempted to enrich the spatial and social interaction limits suggested by Sullivan by raising the idea of ‘sense of community’, a phenomenological reality when “They consider themselves as a union because they live so close to each other, so that they cannot avoid to have function as a union.”

 According to Evers and Korff, kampong as a community cannot be categorized as corporate community, because the existing social ties are of neighborhood relations[12]. Within this neighborship, there is always high pressure to be good neighbors, to preserve togetherness, harmony, peace, or usually expressed with the word ‘rukun’, harmonious (Sullivan 1992:106). Yet, it is doubtful to define kampong with the word ‘harmonious’, ’peaceful’, ’solidarity’, ‘togetherness’ and ‘gotong royong’ (literally means working together), as well as other jargons of social harmony, as they were often imposed to prevent and control the potentials to revolt against injustice, as Murray (1994:78) stated : “The social harmony as the living reality is interpreted as intended fatalism.” Murray also added that, ”Kampung is not an entity that can plan ‘strategy’ but a community of individuals that adjust themselves to urban situation. Day by day, more individual come to work together and to adjust themselves (Murray 1991:61 via Evers and Korff, 2002)”. Yet, according to its empirical and spatial realities, such community cannot be described into official definitions, let alone legal definition (Murray,1994:24 dan 78). According to Evers and Korff (2002:409):“A kampung is too wide for a formal organization or a union”. For Jellinek (1991:26), kampong inhabitants are merely a group of houses in certain alleys or street. In this case residential tie is more important than other ones. Kampong inhabitants, whose windows of their houses face the same street and meet regularly every morning, then form certain network (Bremm, 1988:52 via Evers dan Korff, 2002:409).

 The researches mentioned previously had revealed efforts to define kampong. There have been many studies and writings on the subject, both the ones focusing on kampong and those discussing the matter as part of other topics. The citing of several studies on kampong in this paper, as those by Krauss, Sullivan, Jelinnek, Muray and Korff and Evers, was not aimed to debate on whether their arguments on kampong are right and wrong or not. On the other hand, it was aimed to reveal the varied dimensions of definitions on kampong as a reality. Kampong did not exist and it could not be accurately defined. Yet, it was always presents  in the modern vocabulary as a very flexible word that could be used by any party to construct his/her identity, interest and ‘the other’ within the contestation of modern urban space.

 The Third Layer: Kampong as “a way to take position, not essence”[13]

As soon as ones were involved in the effort to determine limitations for the definition of kampong in Yogyakarta, they would surely become confused, as the limits changed from time to time and were varied in different places. Yet, it could be said that one of the basis to determine the limitations was the development of Yogyakarta Palace (Kraton). The community living inside the Palace area (negara agung) lived on tanah lungguh, the land owned by the Palace, coordinated by Bekel[14], an officer appointed by the palace to coordinate a group of community in a settlement area to work on the tanah lungguh. The privilege to manage and own the tanah lungguh had been a controversy and getting more complicated, although when conflicts on this land occurred, negotiation spaces were always available. The unclear land status in Yogyakarta had created a ‘grey area’ that reduce the pace of global land speculation as well as to increase the already varied ways of land confiscation by state apparatus when land conflict happened.

 The settlement areas in Yogyakarta were not formed on the basis of territory in the beginning but more by (1) the familial connection among the royals, as symbolized by the establishment of nDalem, or the house of the royal family, for example Suryowijayan, Dipowinatan, Pugeran, Sosrowijayan, et cetera. (2) similar profession as abdi dalem , or the palace maids and helper, as shown by the establishment of several kampongs such as Musikanan, Gamelan, Pandean, Gemblakan, Mijen, Wirobrajan, et cetera. (3) certain specialty of territory, such as  Nagan, Panggung, Taman, Segaran, etc. The naming of settlement areas referred to certain tie that based the establishment of the kampong in question. For example, naming of certain settlement area or place with ‘Suryawijayan’ actually referred to the people’s bound to the Palace’s high ranker named Suryowijoyo. Yet, ethnic based segregation that had become the characteristic of colonial city also emerged in Yogyakarta as shown by the areas named Pecinan (where the Chinese lived) or Sayidan (the Arabic). Still, the main orientation was the Palace. In the early of 20^th century, the Dutch Colonial Government built Kota Baru, an enclave in the middle of the city.

 During the Japanese occupation, neighborship based settlements were re-organized massively into a territorial based ones called Azazyookai and Tonarigumi. During the era of revolution (1945-1950), Azazyookai and Tonarigumi were not dismissed but their names were changed into Rukun Kampung (RK) and Rukun Tetangga (RT) as legalized by Regional Law No. 9/1960, which was amended by Regional Law no.7/1970[15]. Rukun Kampung had thus represented the merge of communal traditional community and institutional territorial based connection in one bowl of modern city. Yet, as happened to other cities in Indonesia along with rapid urbanization, Rukun Kampung was tied with certain connections, such as (1) the similarity of home village, and thus familial relationship among its residents (2) the similarity of profession, for example tricycle driver community, street vendor community (3) the similarity of fate among its residents, for example the community of land confiscation victims, et cetera. The varied connection within Rukun Kampung had resulted on varied dynamics. Yet, the fact that Rukun Kampung blended community and territorial connections had based the daily interaction in the area.

 In 1989, Yogyakarta was the latest city in Indonesia that applied The Ministry of Internal Affair’s decree No.7 on Rukun Tetangga and Rukun Warga establishment, which were announced on 13 October 1983[16]. In order to get better control to the people, the New Order government changed the Rukun Kampung into Rukun Warga, which was coordinated by Kelurahan, an area unit comprised of many Rukun Warga led by a Lurah. Kelurahan had become the most basic area for Golkar’s mass and political consolidation. Golkar, the government party at that time, was the back bone of the New Order. By this change, the blend between community based connection and territorial one that had happened dialogically within the Rukun Kampung had been structurally transformed into a single connection, administrative territorial one. At that moment, the state had entered kampong in Yogyakarta. The city authority began to discriminate kampong as the opposite of the city in the kampong-city dichotomy. Demolitions to crowded settlements in the bank of city river in Yogyakarta had increased afterwards. The most phenomenal demolition threat in the history was experienced by Code Kampong in 1980s[17].

 The banishment of Rukun Kampung in Yogyakarta was the moment when kampong had physically grown rapidly and become crowded. The kampong area had politically become the site for mass mobilization and controlling development stability under Kelurahan. Economically, kampong had also been the place for ordinary people to survive in subsistent, informal ways against the pressing city development which was prettily wrapped by the frame identity politics, economic growth and political control (floating mass).

 After the 1998 national crisis, global pressure to social living had increased. The government provided less fund allocation for kampong physical development, yet self-help kampong development rose. The city had become the main instrument to increase regional income, while purchasing power was low, unemployment rate increased, more and more people went to the street to conduct informal economic activities and thug organizations emerged. The pressure of land speculation increased also increased. Rice fields were massively at lease, to be transformed into settlement areas and business area was uncontrollable. Many space conflicts and land confiscations occurred, as happened to Tungkak and Gajah Wong kampong, for example. In addition, sectoral conflict also happened, for example by the prohibition of street musicians operating in Beringharjo market. The 2006 earthquake in Yogyakarta also changed the city’s physical and social landscape. One of the results was the emergence of land certification ‘movement’ that directly increased global land speculation.

 Interestingly, Yogyakarta was awarded as the only city in Indonesia that succeeded to handle slum areas in 2005. In addition, Yogyakarta gained the predicate of City of Tolerance not only in national level but also in international one. The city mayor of Yogyakarta had also enacted the Kampong Based City Development Program in 2005 as the basis for sustainable development in the city. Kampong seemed now to be put in special place within the present frame of Yogyakarta city development, after 15 years had passed since Code Kampung demolition threat that was successfully handled by the residents of the kampong in questions with the aid of activists (Father Mangunwijaya and his colleagues). At the same time, the issue of Yogyakarta as special province that had special privilege to manage its land and cultural assets (including to have special government structure) had been lively debated until nowadays.

 Up to this point, this unfinished paper must be ended. There are surely many data, cases, analysis, experiences, and assumptions that have not been verified and thus put into systematic order. Yet, this paper aimed to reveal that it was always tempting to define kampong – as well as city – as a rigid entity. The rigidity of meaning often emerged when we saw kampong through dichotomy perspective. For example, by seeing the relation of city and kampong as colonizer and victim, center and periphery, modern and traditional, ideal and non-ideal, et cetera.  Also when we see city - kampong relation through romantic perspectives: kampong as the representation of the living, the authentic, the traditional, the spontaneous, while the city as the death, the artificial, the modern and the contemporary. By placing kampong not in the frame of dichotomy and romanticizing the city and the urban, it is possible to generate a more varied, fluid meaning and perspective, which then produces a more representative abstraction on urban matters at present and in the future. In other words, kampong is the mark of cultural identity that is always on the move; kampong is “(merely) a way to take position, not essence”[18].

 References will follow

Foot Note:

[1]          Babad Kampung (Kampung Tales) is a terminology intentionally used in this paper to show that kampong as an imagination and vocabulary had experienced long history, like a Babad (Tales). In addition, Babad Kampung is also a case study the writer aims to discuss. Babad Kampung is a program on writing the history of kampong the writer and his colleagues conducted in 9 kampongs in Yogyakarta in 2008 (The Yogyakarta Cultural Festival 2008).

[2]          For more than 13 years, the writer has been working on kampong and urban issues. From 2000-2008 he had worked on the same issues with Yayasan Pondok Rakyat (People's Shelter Foundation). In 2009, together with his colleagues, he managed Yogyakarta Kampung Field School (YKFS). He works as freelance architect and a researcher in Indonesian Visual Art Archive (IVAA), Yogyakarta.

[3]   Melani Budianta, Representasi Kaum Pinggiran dan Kapitalisme, Kalam 14th edition, Yayasan Kalam, Jakarta, 1999, p. 48.

[4]   Wikipedia online mentioned that “It is possible that the word kampung was taken from Portuguese: campo, a camping shelter. In Cambodia, kompong is used to name a district or even a province. Kampung in Acehnese is gampong, while in Minang is kampuang. Kampung is usually abbreviated for Kp (in Indonesia) or Kg. (in Malaysia). See http://ms.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kampung, accessed on 11 January 2010.

[5]   The paper had unfortunately not studied further on the colonial archives and documents on kampong in the beginning of 20th century.

[6]   The source for Kampoeng Verbetering in this paper is not from archive but from books, such as “Gedenboek van Nederlandsch Indie 1889 – 1923” via Johan Silas, “Perjalanan Panjang Perumahan Indonesia Dalam dan Sekitar Abad XX” 2005, p. 10-11. Also see C. Fasseur “Cornerstone and Stumbling Block: Racial Classification and The Late Colonial State in Indonesia” in Robert Cribb (editor), 1994, p. 31-56. Also see Amir Karamoy, “Program Perbaikan Kampung, Harapan dan Kenyataan” in Prisma No. 6/XIII, Jakarta, 1984.

[7]   Staatsblad van Nederlandsch-Indie over het Jaar 1906 (Batavia: Landsdrukkerij, 1907) via Joko Suryo, Transformasi Masyarakat Indonesia dalam Historiografi Indonesia Modern, STPN Press, Yogyakarta, 2009, p.125.

[8]   Modern city in this case refers to area arrangement based on modern knowledge on urban planning, which is applied by modern institutions (policy, administration and bureaucracy).

[9]   Compare to Abidin Kusno’s analysis on kampong discourse and materialization that were considered problematic but at the same time provide a frame for the emergence of Jakarta middle class. Abidin Kusno, Ruang Publik, Identitas dan Memori Kolektif Jakarta Pasca Suharto, Ombak,Yogyakarta, 2009, p. 62-66.

[10] G. Krausse; 1975; p. 7, in  Alison J. Murray, Pedagang Jalanan dan Pelacur Jakarta, LP3ES, Jakarta, 1994, p.. 24.

[11]             John Sullivan, Back Alley Neighbourhood: Kampung as Urban Community in Yogyakarta, Monash University, Australia, 1992, p. 44

[12]                   Hans-Dieter Evers & Rudiger Korff, Urbanisme di Asia Tenggara, Yayasan Obor Indonesia, Jakarta, 2002, hal. 408.

[13] Ibid, Melani Budianta.

[14] See PJ Suwarno,  Dari Azazyokai dan Tonarigumi ke Rukun Kampung dan Rukun Tetangga di Yogyakarta (1942 – 1989), Penerbitan Universitas Sanata Dharma, Yogyakarta, 1995, p. 4. The book mentions the specialties of the kampongs in Yogyakarta in regard to the establishment of kemantren and the naming of the kampong by The Hamengku Buwono IX, the Sultan of Yogyakarta after Indonesian Independence on 17 August 1945.

[15] Ibid, P. J. Suwarno, p. 1-2.

[16] Ibid, P. J. Suwarno, p. 2-3

[17] The most complete reading on the threat of Code Kampung demolision, see Darwis Khudori in Menuju Kampung Pemerdekaan, Yayasan Pondok Rakyat, Yogyakarta, 2002.

[18] Ibid, Melani Budianta