Veteran Indonesia observer Audrey Kahin has written a concise biography of one of the country's most prominent Muslim activists and politicians in the twentieth century: former Masyumi party leader Mohammad Natsir (1908–1993). Although she notes that Natsir considered his engagement with Islamic history and philosophy as his key lifetime occupation, Kahin admits that she lacks the competence to deal with this aspect of Natsir's life, focusing instead on his political career. For this she relies on meetings and interviews with Natsir, his relatives, and close associates since the late 1960s, as well as her late husband George Kahin's encounters dating back to the 1940s.
Presenting a largely straightforward linear account of Natsir's life, Kahin's narrative revolves around four questions: first, the apparent contrast between his early intellectual broadmindedness and evident confidence in the merits of a political system shaped by Western ideas of democracy and his later conservative and at times even anti-cosmopolitan attitude. This brings up the second question: whether Natsir's significance lies primarily in his role as an early independence leader or as a critic of Suharto and his New Order regime. Third, after gaining increasing international recognition from the 1960s onwards, did Natsir see the shortcomings of Islamic thinking originating in the Middle East and its limited value in the multiethnic and multireligious context of Indonesia? And finally, to what extent did his evangelical and missionary organisation the Dewan Da'wah Islamiyah Indonesia (DDII) play a role in breeding Muslim radicalism in Indonesia.
Originally from the Minangkabau region of West Sumatra, Natsir's formative years were shaped by the combined exposure to the colonial state education system, the relatively egalitarian politics of Minangkabau internal self-governance and the Islamic learning provided through local private initiatives as a counter force to the perceived incursions of Christian missionary activity under the aegis of the Dutch colonial administration. A bright student, Natsir managed to gain access to the best education available to native Indonesians. However, although he qualified for higher education in law or economics, under the influence of early mentors such as Ahmad Hasan, one of the founders of the literalist Muslim reformist organisation Persatuan Islam (Persis), Natsir decided to work in Islamic education instead. While he was also influenced by other figures such as Sarekat Islam leaders Haji Agus Salim and Tjokroaminoto, Natsir's own political views were tempered by his secular education. At the same time, he disagreed with Sukarno's admiration during the 1930s for Turkey's Ataturk, arguing that Islam formed a unifying factor for the Indonesian nation.
Natsir entered politics during the Second World War. Details of Natsir's own political views are sketchy because his writings of that time are largely restricted to official documents. The picture that emerges is one of loyal collaboration with Sukarno, but closer ideological links to figures such as fellow Sumatrans Hatta and Sjahrir who got him his first government appointment. Natsir also was one of the founding members of Masyumi, which became the largest Islamic political party in the early independence years. However, as an umbrella for a wide variety of Muslim organisations it was prone to internal divisions and rifts between traditionalists and radical literalists, with moderate reformists under Natsir trying to bridge these differences. Serving as minister of information during the revolutionary years, Natsir worked closely together with Hatta to try and restrain radical Muslim politicians such as Kartosuwirjo and his Darul Islam (DI).
The 1950s form the crucial decade in Natsir's political life, and encompassed both its highest point as the first prime minister of independent Indonesia as a unitary state (1950–1951) and his dramatic decision in 1957 to join civilian and military rebels founding a renegade alternative republic on Sumatra and Sulawesi in protest against the increasingly authoritarian behaviour of President Sukarno. From the start, Natsir was hard-pressed to keep the Islamic political bloc together, confront economic problems and unrest, while simultaneously dealing with Sukarno's mercurial antics. Holding strong religious convictions and actually preferring a decentralised political order, Kahin notes that as prime minister, Natsir loyally ‘aimed at maintaining a unified and independent Indonesian state that held a respected place in the world community’ (p. 89). After leaving office, Natsir continued to lead Masyumi. Although he failed to keep the traditionalist Nahdlatul Ulama on board, while also facing difficulties with ‘fundamentalists’, he managed to lead the party to victory in 1955 — the last free elections until 1999. However, he was not able to translate this triumph into political capital. Instead, he found himself challenging Sukarno's attempts to turn the Pancasila doctrine into an overarching political and ethical philosophy, which Natsir saw as jeopardising the Muslim way of life. Once this turned into an open confrontation, by 1957 Natsir's position in Jakarta became so precarious that he opted to join a loose alliance of Masyumi politicians and renegade officers on Sumatra.
The political metanarrative overtakes biography in Kahin's account of Natsir's role in that rebellion, and in the subsequent chapters on the years in the jungle (1958–61); his imprisonment, which continued into the early New Order years (1961–67); and his attempt to return to politics under Suharto. Once this option was cut off, Natsir changed his strategy, establishing the DDII as a vehicle to use ‘preaching as a way to engage in politics’, in contrast to the way Masyumi ‘used politics as a way to preach’ (p. 168). Whereas Suharto treated him as a nonentity in spite of the latter's positive international interventions on behalf of Indonesia, Natsir's prestige abroad soared, in particular in Malaysia, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. While this international networking provided access to generous financial support, it was also a liability once early protégés such as Abdullah Sungkar and Abu Bakar Ba'asyir became associated with violent Muslim extremists. Here Kahin is at pains to underscore Natsir's continued commitment to peaceful activism, pointing out his affinity with Pakistan's Abu A'la Maududi rather than the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood ideologue Sayyid Qutb.
Although he was an iconic figure in postcolonial Indonesia, Audrey Kahin notes that Natsir's career was marked more by disappointment than success; the highlights being his six months as prime minister and Masyumi's election victory. His lengthy career as a Muslim activist also seems to have come full circle: from his involvement in developing Islamic education as a means for Muslim emancipation in the final decades of Dutch colonialism to his prominent role in the DDII, which also focuses on the intellectual and moral formation of young Muslims. While the early Natsir's intellectual borrowings were broader than those of his older persona, Audrey Kahin insists that — contrary to the image created by some observers of contemporary Islam in Indonesia — Natsir did not compromise on his insistence that democracy is the most suitable form of governance for a pluralist country like Indonesia, stressing that his notion of ‘Islamic democracy’ remained closer to Western models of representation than conceptualisations of ‘Eastern democracy’ along the lines of Sukarno's Guided Democracy.
