THE BROSOER SIKAP HIDJRAH PSII AND DAFTAR OESAHA HIDJRAH
In the Brosoer sikap hidjrah PSII and Daftar oesaha hidjrah pamphlets, Kartosuwiryo focused at length on the origins and aims of the noncooperation policy. He first identified its roots in Tjokroaminoto’s decision to withdraw from the Volksraad in 1923, and then labelled all subsequent attempts to join any colonial representative body or to cooperate with the Dutch as manifestations of an ‘accommo- dationist’ approach; he referred explicitly to Salim and Soekarno. Notably there was no reference to the Indian Khilafat’s movement constitution, drafted in 1919.
as the darul Islam, an ideal Islamic state. This transition was a priority in the party’s political platform, and could only be made possible as a result of jihad. To realize the pan-Islamic project was as important as the Islamization of Indonesian politics (as opposed to its Westernization), the education of Indonesian Muslims or the establishment of contacts with other Muslim communities outside of the archipelago. Ultimately, Kartosu- wiryo declared that PSII was neither communist nor fascist and inspired by neither Arabism nor ‘Indonesianism’, as its foundation was only Islam.
The Sikap hidjrah pamphlet, arranged in two parts, was published under Kartosuwiryo’s signature in September 1936 following deliberations by the Party’s 22nd Majelis Tahkim. The Sikap hidjrah was conceived as a new manual for all members of the party, who had the duty to understand and implement the ‘Supreme Directives’ of the party’s non-cooperation. Abikoesno and Kartawinata admitted that its content might have sounded like ‘new stuff’ to readers, yet they nevertheless were confident that it would rapidly become an exemplary model for Islamic politics. The pamphlet aimed at illustrating the religious foundations of the party’s noncooperation policy by focusing on the theology and history of the Prophet’s migration as much as on its political implications. However, Dutch officials saw the pamphlet in isolation from its context, claiming it was purely the outcome of Muslims’ unwillingness to cooperate with kafir (infidel) rule.
The first part of the pamphlet is mostly concerned with laying the historical and theological foundations for the second part. It begins with the events surrounding Muhammad’s migration from Mecca to Medina in 622, before considering the following eight years of his leadership, the structure of the first Islamic institutions in Medina and the political outlook of this first ‘Islamic state’.
Throughout most of the first part, the discussion does not stray from standard theological teachings. However, at the end of each section, Kartosuwiryo skilfully connects these principles to PSII’s politics. In explaining the relations between the Creator and His creatures (khalik and makhluk), for example, Kartosuwiryo argues that it is because of this strong and enduring relation that Islam offers directions in all aspects of life: both in this world and in the afterlife, to individuals as well as communities, one nation and the whole of humanity, for glory in this world and happiness in the next. In short, all the rules needed for internal and external conduct can be found in Islam, from the smallest to the biggest.
In this way, the Qur’an and the Prophet are portrayed as the models of behaviour in social and economic life.
As humans can be divided into three categories depending on their proximity to God, so can the history of PSII be organized in this same way: first, the party had a ‘materialistic’ existence (hidup hissy)48 from its establishment in 1912 until the Madiun congress of 1923. Then, the expulsion of communist members had ensured a deeper concern for the afterlife (hidup ma’nawy). But it was not until the 1930 congress in Yogyakarta that the PSII shifted its focus from ‘pure action’ to ‘belief’. The party had subsequently promoted the further elevation of the party to a life freed of material concerns and in perfect harmony with Islam (hidup ma’any).
The main engine behind this shift - from focusing on a materialistic existence to rooting itself in pure belief - is identified in members’ adherence to Islamic precepts, fear of God, faith in Allah and His One-ness, and complete surrender (tawakkal Allah). This surrender, however, must not translate into inertia, but rather should result in isti’anah (the act of seeking help) and istiqamah (knowledge that help will come from God), thus instigating istitha’a, or the power and willingness to act. In political terms, this meant that party members would abide by God’s laws, involving themselves in the anti-colonial struggle and believing in the sole efficacy of not cooperating with the Dutch.
As Muhammad and his followers had left Mecca and migrated to ensure the supremacy of justice over evil, and of monotheism over polytheism, so Partai Sarekat Islam Indonesia had to seek happiness (falah) and victory (fatah) by pursuing its own hijrah and starting a new era. It is on these reflections that part two of the pamphlet is opened, explaining how in this context Mecca is not a dot on the map of the Middle East, but instead represents the metaphorical situation of oppression and ignorance that can be found in every kampong and country of the world, and thus a situation that needs to be (figuratively) abandoned in favour of Medina- 
Indonesia, where the law of God rules and the ummah is happy and victorious.
Where the second part surpasses the first is in its focus on PSII’s strategies and aims. Above all, the hijrah to Medina-Indonesia - and hence to an Islamic state - is marked by three steps: jihad, iman (faith) and tauhid (unity). This path is well trodden, as it places Kar- tosuwiryo in an intellectual and strategic tradition that connects al- Ghazali (1058-1111), Ibn Taymiyyah (1263-1328), Hasan al-Banna (1906-49), Abu ‘Ala Maududi (1903-79), Sayyed Qutb (1906-66) and contemporary Islamist militants. As mentioned in the Preface, I see Kartosuwiryo’s radicalization as a development strictly correlated with domestic political and social dynamics. However, it would be erroneous to consider developments in Indonesia in isolation from events occurring in the Middle East. I will explore this point further in the next section.
Kartosuwiryo dedicates several pages to explaining the meaning of jihad, iman and tauhid, making generous use of Qur’anic quotations and bringing forward their practical implications for the political struggle. Having established that in the Qur’an there is no hijrah without jihad, Kartosuwiryo is careful to explain that the ‘positive’ struggle is the jihad of the tongue and the heart (the jihad al-akbar, led by iman), and not that of the sword - the jihad al-asghar, defined instead as negative and destructive. The Program djihad partij, or ‘programme of action’, issued by the Yogyakarta congress in 1930, should therefore be understood as a ‘progamme of the greater jihad’.
Reconnecting with the earlier discussion of the relation between God and His creatures, Kartosuwiryo blames the West for severing the ties linking religious duties to believers’ daily activities, thereby breaking the unity of religion and politics (agama dan kerajaan) and shifting the hijrah unto the realm of ‘ibada (worship). Nevertheless, Kartosuwiryo emphasizes that the jihad ubudiyah, based on faith in unity, has to be complemented by the jihad ijtima ’iyah which embodies the social, economic and political dimensions of hijrah and jihad, and represents the foundation of PSII. Politically it calls for Islamic politics; economically, for cooperatives and selfreliance (for which Kartosuwiryo uses the Indian term swadeshi); and socially, for the benefit of public interest (maslaha).
The last section of the pamphlet is fully dedicated to the party’s agenda, which is summarized as ‘achieving the implementation of the laws of God, on the way of God, because of God’. In essence, this agenda was the implementation of sharia law and the creation of a society in which it was possible for all Muslims to conduct fully Islamic lives.
What had been generally defined as ‘Islamic politics’ was expounded in three clear points: the propagation of Islamically interpreted knowledge and politics amongst PSII members in particular and amongst Muslims in general; the establishment of relations with Muslims across the world to work towards the realization of pan-Islamism as the unity of the Islamic ummah; and the dissociation of PSII actions from colonial bodies and policies.
The Daftar oesaha hidjrah, printed in 1940, complemented the Sikap hidjrah by illustrating the anticipated Program djihad partij. This short pamphlet laid out the necessary steps for the transformation from ‘Mecca-Indonesia’ to ‘Medina-Indonesia’, a goal that could only be achieved through jihad. Weaving together the threads laid out in the past decade, Kartosuwiryo argued that PSII should direct its efforts towards improving the status of the Indonesian population (meaning the natives) by expanding the reach of the dar-ul-Islam and thus widening the constituency of the Muslim society. Loyal only to God, and thus dedicated to the implementation of sharia on an individual (shakhsiyah) as well as a social (ijtima’iyah) level, the party and the members of this Islamic society were committed to pursuing pan-Islamism - here also referred to as ‘the unity of Islam and oneness of God’ (al-ittihad-oel-Islam dan wah- danijat Allah)50 beyond the borders of the Indonesian archipelago, implementing sharia law, and reuniting agama dan dunia (religion and government), the link between which had been severed by Western colonial domination.