The Trajectory of Indigeneity Politics Against Land Dispossession in Indonesia

Under the New Order authoritarian regime, the state endorsed terra-nullification of the customary territories had been the basis for the stipulation of state forest (hutan negara).After the fall of the General Suharto led regime in 1998 generated a new phase for the struggles of the customary groups in different parts of the archipelago. This article examines the rise of indigeneity and counter-hegemonic indigenous legal maneuvering spearheaded by Aliansi Masyarakat Adat Nusantara (AMAN) against ongoing land dispossession in Indonesia since the fall of New Order authoritarian regime which includes the indigenous mobilizations (strategy, organization and tactics) in the post-authoritarian country, including the avenue of new types of legal activism when it comes to the creative destruction of global capitalism today. It focuses on two modes of policy advocacy and campaign against land dispossession: (a) the production of the Constitutional Court Ruling No. 35/PUU-X/2012, a new legal landmark that establishes the constitutional norm of the citizenship status of Indonesian indigenous peoples (masyarakat hukum adat) as rights bearing subjects, and the owners of their customary territory; and (b) the National Inquiry on Indigenous Peoples' Rights held by the Indonesian National Human Rights Commission (Komnas HAM). The discussion describes The Colonialism of ‘State-Izing' Customary Communities' Territory, Contemporary Indigeneity Politics in Indonesia, Counter-Hegemonic Indigenous Legal Maneuvering, Judicial Review against The1999 Law No. 41on Forestry, National Inquiry on Indigenous Peoples' Rights, and Connecting Counter-Hegemonic Indigenous Legal Maneuvering with the Grassroots Struggles which focuses on Mobilizing at Multiple Scales. It is concluded from this article that the efficacy of legal struggles is very much depend on the capacity to connect with the grassroots mobilization by continuously promulgating the resurgence of indigeneity politics against the destructive impacts of corporatized state under the servitude of global capitalism, the indigenous movement constituents in Indonesia


INTRODUCTION
The systemic land dispossession in Indonesia prompted by the longue duree of legal machination back to the colonial era and pursued under the post-colonial state today. Under the New Order authoritarian regime, the state endorsed terra-nullification of the customary territories had been the basis for the stipulation of the so-called ³VWDWH IRUHVW´ hutan negara). It is a precondition to authorize forest commodification through the forest extractive license to state and private entities. The precariousness of the continuous dispossession and the opening-up of political opportunities after the fall of the General Suharto led regime in 1998 generated a new phase for the struggles of the customary communitiesin different parts of the archipelago. The establishment of Aliansi Masyarakat Adat Nusantara (AMAN/Indigenous Peoples' Alliance of the Archipelago) in 1999 provided a unified national movement platform for the localized and sporadic struggles to contest the state ignorance of their perennial claims. Since its early formation, AMAN  against ongoing land dispossession in Indonesia since the fall of New Order authoritarian regime. We examine indi-genous mobilizations (strategy, organization and tactics) in the post-authoritarian regime, including the avenue of new types of legal activism when it comes to the creative destruction of global capitalism today. After providing a brief contextual background on the state-izing FXVWRPDU\ FRPPXQLWLHV ¶ ODQGV DQG territories as well as the rise of indigeneity politics, the articledwells on indigenous mobilizations and their varied ways to articulate the demand for legal change toward property recognition over customary territories (wilayahadat) andagainstthe state controlled forest zone (kawasan hutan negara).
The chapter focuses on two modes of policy advocacy and campaign against land dispossession: (a) the production of the Constitutional Court Ruling No. 35/PUU-X/2012, a new legal landmark that establishes the constitutional norm of the citizenship status of masyarakat huku madat as rights bearing subjects, and the owners of their customary territory; and (b) the 1DWLRQDO ,QTXLU\ LQWR ,QGLJHQRXV 3HRSOHV ¶ Rights on their Territories in the Forest Zoneheld by the Indonesian National Human Rights Commission (Komnas HAM). We analyze the efficacy of these two legal activisms as the vehicle for the campaigning of land rights restitution for indigenous communities, and undoing the discriminatory categorization of Indonesian indigenous peoples. This articleis primarily based on first author involvement with the MasyarakatAdat ¶V PRYHPHQW LQ ,QGRQHVLD [ 100 ] since the early establishment of AMAN in various roles, including facilitating the first national congress in Jakarta in 1999 and recently as expert witness for the judicial review of TheLaw No. 41/1999 on Forestry.

µ6WDWH-L]LQJ ¶ &XVWRPDU\ &RPPXQLWLHV ¶ Territory
The escalating legalized terra-nullification of the customary territories today goes hand in hand with the deepening commitment of the ruling elite to privilege the giant corporations and facilitate the formation ofa corporatized state of Indonesia 2 . Further-PRUH WKH VWDWH ¶V UHOLDQFH RQ LQVWLWXWLRQV DQG practices of natural resources extraction in accounting for the majority of revenues µHYRNH WKH FRQWLQXLWLHV IURP FRORQLDO WR postcolonial systems of multilayered exploitation and export to the center of the world-HFRQRP\ ¶ 3 . The ramifications of the µDEXVH RI SXEOLF UHVRXUFHV E\ UHQW-seeking HOLWHV ¶ LQ WKH HUD RI WKH FRORQLDO FDSLWDOLVW EDVW ,QGLD &RPSDQ\ 92& WR WRGD\ ¶V QHROLEHUDO µ,QGRQHVLD ,QF ¶ 4 explain the acceleration of the extractive regime as well DV WKH LQWHQVLILFDWLRQ RI WRGD\ ¶V DJUDULDQ crisis in the post-colony. mining. Therefore, the facts reiterate how the colonialism of power 7 is continuously in dialectical process with the accumulation by dispossession 8 as well as their positionality as development displaced people 9 . This is not necessarily a brand new phenomenon however, as history of capitalism begins with the transformation of land rights 10 .
The following brief overview of the transformation of the customary land and territories might attest to this argument. In 1602, the Dutch government established VereenigdeOostindischeCompagnie (VOC/ East India Company) with full authority to establish trading relations with the feudal kingdoms in the archipelago. The feudal system of land control, particularly in Java, was first embraced and then manipulated by the Dutch colonial regime in an attempt to reinforce their mercantilist imperial power. In 1799, the VOC was declared bankrupt and to recover the losses as soon as possible, the Dutch colonial regime introduced the Cultuurstelsel (Forced Cultivation System) and Large-scale natural resource concessions for the extraction of raw materials was perpetuated as key strategy of the extractive regime in Indonesia, pursued through the politics of territorialization by the state in order to control the population and their activities by creating geographical divisions which prevented access for certain groups while permitting or banning activities along such divisions of territory. There were essentially three stages of territorialization: (1) claiming all lands belonged to the state; (2) stipulating land boundaries determining as state-owned lands; and (3) creating programs whereby the forest was distributed LQ DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK LWV ¶ VFLHQWLILF IXQFWLRQV which in turn lead to the stipulation of the political forest, i.e. designation of boundaries between agricultural and forest land and state claiming over all forest land 13 . The politics of territorialization also led to the creation of an economic enclave system with large export-oriented plantation estates as the centers of colonial and post-colonial exploitation.
To facilitate this massive land appropriation, the Suharto regime adopted the colonial concept of political forest and combined it with the industrial forest 14 as the main means for gaining control over land and forest resources. In order to accelerate natural resource extraction, the government approved the Basic Forestry Law of 1967 and the revised The 1999 Law 13 3HOXVR 1 / DQG 9DQGHUJHHVW 3 µ*HQHDORJLHV No. 41on Forestry, which endorsed the emergence of forest capitalism aimed at sustaining lucrative global production and consumption to accumulate wealth from exploitation of primary forest for timber in Sumatera, Kalimantan, Sulawesi, and Papua islands. Withthemassive capital expansion to the rural frontiers, the resistance of the affected social groups is also escalating, particularly after the fall of Suharto. Down to Earth (2002) reported a study during the period of 1998±2001 documented over 800 arrests, over 400 cases of torture, and 12 deaths in connection to land conflicts with plantation sector alone.

Contemporary Indigeneity Politics in Indonesia
Despite the grim portrait of the ongoing accumulation by dispossession, it would be a serious flaw to neglect the perseverance of WKH VXEDOWHUQ LQ µRIIHr[ing] a local and indigenous (and therefore culturallylegitimate) way of questioning the violence RI WKH SRVWFRORQLDO GHYHORSPHQWDO VWDWH ¶ 15 . The indigenous movement in Indonesia, which is primarily germinated from the local resistance against the accumulation by dispossession 16 from their customary lands and territories, substantiates this line of WKRXJKW 7KH ORQJ SUHFDULRXV µWULVXODRI GLVSRVVHVVLRQ ¶ 17 , i.e. massive capital intervention, centralization of power, and 15  imposition of values, for more the three decades under Suharto authoritarian centralistic power provided shared aspirations among the separate customary groups in their struggle for recognition over their territorial sovereignty in different parts of archipelago. This is particularly the case with customary groups in the Outer Islands, especially in Sumatra, Sulawesi, Kalimantan and Papua, where approximately two-thirds to three-quarters of the land in the rural frontiers of these regions are under the jurisdiction of the Forestry Department.The expropriation of customary communities from their lands and territories positioned theconstant disputes withextractive industries and large-scale development projects related to mining, forestry, plantations, transmigration, dams and tourism, as well as the fortress conservation.
In facing the long repressions of the militaristic corporatized state apparatus under Suharto regime, the customary groups, who mostly rely on forest resources and swidden agriculture, continued to challenge the natural resource extraction companies and local authorities usurping their lands. In West Kalimantan, the DayakSimpangpeople have resistedpalm oil development and logging concessions on their customary lands.In East Kalimantan, DayakBentian foughtagainst logging companies clearing their forests and thereby ruining theirrattan gardens. In Central Sulawesi, the risingprotests against the government plan to build a hydro-electric power station in the LoreLindu National Parkled to the abandonment of the project. In the same region, the Katu people managed to reclaim their customary territory which had been allocated as part of the LoreLindu National Parkbased on their arguments of indigenous rights.
In many of these local resistances, women played important roles in mobilizing series of direct actions at the grassroots OHYHO ,Q ODWH ¶V D JURXS RI ZRPHQ OHG by NaiSinta from Sugapa Village, North Sumatra, opposed PT IntiIndorayonUtama(now PT Toba Pulp Lestari), a pulp and paper company who was granted the permit to convert a local forest into a timber plantation.In East Nusa Tenggara province, AletaBaun from Netpala Village led the local resistance against a mining companysince 1996. In Papua, Mama Yosepha led the struggle of the Amungme people against the state supported dispossession and oppression by the Freeport multinational mining company. The magnification of localized direct actions and protests against the precarity of state endorsed dispossession and the opening up of political opportunities after the fall of Suharto provided a strong basis for a nationally coordinated social [ 104 ] movement through the declaration of Indigenous Peoples Alliance of the Archipelago (AMAN). The establishment of AMAN is expected to address three key issues that the localized struggles of masyarakatadathave EHHQ IDFLQJ L H ³D ODFN RI JXDUDQWHHV IRU LQGLJHQRXV SHRSOHV ¶ ODQG ULJKWV SUR-capital policies of resource management; and involvement of the military in resource FRQIOLFWV´ 6DQJaji, 2007). Such a situation called for a wider-ranging movement that goes beyond local boundaries driven by permanent organizational forms with institutionalized and democratic leadership. Initiated by AMA Kalbar, JKPP and JAPHAMA,this congress was organized by the local and regional coalitions of customary groups, with the support of the environmental, human rights and agrarian activists.After the first AMAN congress in Jakarta, the regional groups was thrived even further, for instance the establishment AliansiMasyarakatAdat Sulawesi Tengah (Alliance of Adat Communities of Central Sulawesi, AMASUTA) on 16±20 May 2000, which then facilitated the formation of local masyarakatadat alliances at subprovincial level, including the Aliansi Masyarakat Adat Togian (AMAT) in the Togian islands and the DewanAdatMasyarakatDondo (DondoAdat Com-munity Council, DAMD) in Toli-Toli.
The first author observed AMAN since its early foundation in the First Congress of Indigenous Peoples of the Archipelago (KMAN) in mid-March 1999 in Jakarta. As the executive committee of Agrarian Reform Consortium, one of the organizations supporting the congress, the first DXWKRU IDFLOLWDWHG D VHVVLRQ ZKHUH $0$1 ¶V motto was clearly articulated: "If the state does not recognize us, we do not recognize the state" 19 . The motto concisely and precisely represents the problematic and contingent relation of indigenous people to the state, and formulates that the prime FDXVH RI WKHLU VXIIHULQJ H[SHULHQFH L H µWKH denial of the existence of customary communities as part of the citizens of the 5HSXEOLF RI ,QGRQHVLD ¶ DV HODERUDWHG IXUWKHU in A0$1 ¶V VWatement of fundamental views asfollows:µ,Q WKH SROLWLFDO DIIDLUV WKH customary institutions regulating the Indigenous Peoples were devastated by the imposition of local and rural government agencies applied uniformly to the whole region by the Regional Government Law No. 5/1974 andVillage Government Law No. 5/1979. The forced concept of 'desa YLOODJH ¶ KDV FDXVHG WHQVLRQV DQG FRQIOLFWV in the communities that already have its own autonomous system of traditional governance. The customary territories were split and merged into new units, which politically demonstrated the lack of recognition of customary institutional autonomy in managing the internal and external affairs.
In the legal affairs, the concept of state control over land, water and natural resources has become a powerful tool to eliminate the sovereignty of Indigenous Peoples. There are various laws, such as The 1960Law No. 5, The 1967Law No. 5, The 1967, basing itself on the concept of the State Right to Control which is a form of power of the State to take over the sovereignty of indigenous peoples over land and natural resources. The holders of this Right to Control, in this case is the central government, in practice, are issuing decisions that open up opportunities for the occurrence of serious human rights [ 105 ] violations. Under the militaristic New Order regime, Indigenous Peoples have suffered direct violence, intimidation and torture, even to eliminate the lives of Indigenous Peoples especially when Indigenous people struggle for sovereignty and against state and private projects.
In the economic affairs, the rich land and natural resources of Indigenous Peoples has been the object of government and investors to run gigantic projects. Without any consultation, the government gave the rights for corporations and other management bodies who are foreign to Indigenous Peoples. Various laws, such as The 1960Law No. 5, The 1967Law No. 5, The 1967, have made it easier for private entities to take the land and exploit the natural resources belonging to indigenous peoples. On the other hand, the sovereignty and the rights of indigenous peoples to land and natural resources were taken over by the state and private sectors. Hostile concepts VXFK DV µVWDWH ODQG ¶ RU µVWDWH IRUHVW ¶ KDYH become a powerful tool to abolish Indigenous sovereignty over land and natural resources.
In the socio-cultural affairs, a variety of indigenous knowledge belonging to Indigenous Peoples have been harassed, removed and stolen. The understanding and control of Indigenous Peoples to natural resources has been destroyed by policies imposing uniform socio-cultural life. Indigenous knowledge in the management of Indigenous Peoples lives were disregarded as by the so called modern sociocultural.
Indigenous women are among those who suffered the most from political, economic and socio-cultural repressions above. Indigenous women suffer from the increased workloads due to loss of land and natural resources, as well as direct violence in the form of harDVVPHQW DQG UDSH ¶ (Fundamental Views of First AMAN Congress 1999).
The establishment of AMAN generated a unified collective action frame to strengthen the visibility of the customary group suffered from the appropriation of all or part of their customary forests due to the licenses and concessions for the extraction of timber production and natural resources as well the conservation and ecosystem restoration issued by Ministry of Forestry. Thus for customary communities, AMAN does not only serve as a good ally to articulate their position and concerns, but also provides a frame, a stage, resources, network, and political leverage by which customary communities could strategically use the rubric of masyarakatadat in their everyday struggle over land, resources and territory. AMAN has positioned itself as a driving force for the common struggle of indigenous peoples to enforce the customary rights, existence and sovereignty to regulate itself in fair and sustainable manners to govern their territories.
Through high-profile strategies, AMAN leaders have managed to make use of the changing political spaces within which they work, and succeeded to develop effective networks within indigenous SHRSOHV ¶ RUJDQL]DWLRQV DW UHJLRQDO DQG international levels. When the political atmosphere in Indonesia moved to introduce more democratic decentralization governance, AMAN leaders developed workable mechanisms to seize local political opportunities, which include advocating for [ 106 ] local regulations to recognize and protect FXVWRPDU\ FRPPXQLWLHV ¶ WHUULWRULHV DQG bringing customary leaders to become local parliament members.

Counter-Hegemonic Legal Maneuvering
This section will discuss the two creative modes of policy advocacy to counter land dispossession spearheaded by AMAN: (a) to submit judicial review against few articles in the Law number 41/1999 on Forestry; (b) to arrange the National Inquiry into Indigenous 3HRSOHV ¶ 5LJKWV RQ WKHLU 7HUULWRULHV LQ WKH Forest Zoneheld by the Indonesian National Human Rights Commission (Komnas HAM). Each mode becomes an effective reference for social movement activism to articulate indigenRXV SHRSOHV ¶ ODQG FODLP and to produce effective policy changes. The first one is about legal formulas, and the second one is more complex because of the arrangement involve ethnographic inquiries on 40 (forty) land grabbing cases, and seven public hearings in different places within which testimonies of the victims of land grabbing present their story, and the relevant parties are also invited to present their views.

Judicial Review against The Law No.41/1999 on Forestry
For indigenous people in the forested regions of Indonesia, the Forestry Law is deemed as the most immediately threatening laws, as it terra-nullifies their agroforestry KROGLQJV RU UHVHUYHG DUHDV DV µHPSW\ ¶ DQG µDEDQGRQHG ¶ ODQG DQG RXWODZHG WKHLU swidden cultivation system 20 . AMAN is 20  In his expert testimony before the constitutional court, the first author elaborated the two main mechanisms in pursuing the legal machination by which masyarakatadatare dispossessed. Firstly, SHRSOH ¶V ODQG DUH FDWHJRUL]HG DV 6WDWH /DQG (Tanah Negara) or State Forest Zone (KawasanHutan Negara), this categori-]DWLRQ LV LQGHHG D FDVH RI µVWDWH-L]LQJ ¶ FXVWRPDU\ FRPPXQLWLHV ¶ ODQGV DQG WHUULWRU\ (negara-isasitanah-tanahdanwilayahadat). Secondly, through this categorization the ministers, governors, or district heads deploy their legal authority to allocate the land for business entities through license (izin). When the license holder decides to work on the ground, to transform their licenses become concession, they exclude forcefully SHRSOH ¶V DFWXDO DFFHVV WR WKH ODQG E\ WKH KHOp of bureaucracy and police, or sometime military, through the exercise of state ³PRQRSRO\ RI YLROHQFH DQG GHILQLWLRQV RI OHJDOLW\´2 1 . Then, in its turn they start to change the land use to produce global commodity through a capitalistic mode of production, and deploy the State penal [ 107 ] SRZHU WR FULPLQDOL]H WKH H[LVWLQJ SHRSOHV ¶ access to their land, resource and territories in the area, which are already under the legal control of corporate entities. These tactics DUH RIWHQ XVHG WR GHQ\ ORFDO SHRSOH ¶V ODQG claims or to transfer control over land, natural resources and territories into the hands of these giant corporations for their projects/concessions. They also exclude local people from, or limit their access to, land, natural resources and territories (Rachman 2012).
The Constitutional Court Decision, MK 35/PUU-X/2012, which partially accepted the judicial review of Forestry Law No. 41 of 1999, is an important landmark in the struggle of indigenous people for the recognition of their rights, as it corrects the colonial living legacies of domeinverklaring by explicitly declaring that the indigenous forest is not state forest. The court decision is an embodiment of the aspiration of the IRXQGLQJ IDWKHUV WR PDLQWDLQ³ WKH DELOLW\ and skill of the Indonesian nation in maintaining the traditional land rights systems, as demonstrated by the legal arrangement in 21,000 villages in Java, 700 Nagari in Minangkabau, the composition of the Negeri Sembilan in Malaya, as well as in Borneo, in the land of Bugis, in Ambon, in Minahasa, and so forth. The fundamental compositions of these structures are so powerful that it cannot be torn down by influence of Hindu, the influence of feudalism, and influence of the Europe- Thus the Constitutional Court has declared a "correction" for the status ofindigenous peoples as "right bearing subject", the owners of customary territory. Constitutional Court ruling opens the possibility to change the route of the chronic, structural and widespread agrarian conflicts throughout Indonesian archipelago, and more than that opens the door for a variety of efforts to uncover discrimination against indigenous peoples. After the Constitutional Court's decision on case No. 35/PUU-X/2012, the biggest challenge now is to make potent ways that the erratum manifests in government institutional practices.

1DWLRQDO ,QTXLU\ LQWR ,QGLJHQRXV 3HRSOHV ¶ Rights on their Territories in the Forest Zone
Following the Ruling of the Constitutional Court No. 35/PUU-X/2012, various efforts made by AMAN constituents to ensure the immediate implementation of constitutional correction of state policy on the territorial rights of indigenous people in forest. The 1DWLRQDO ,QTXLU\ LQWR ,QGLJHQRXV 3HRSOHV ¶ Rights on their Territories in the Forest Zoneis one part of the efforts to strengthen the argument and policy initiatives for accelerating the implementation of the mandate of the Constitutional Court Ruling and structural resolution of agrarian conflict. The prime cause is a lack of legal certainty and full recognition of the indigenous people rights and territory in the forest area by the state, which generates structural agrarian conflicts in forest areas and requires fundamental change of the political Edisi III, Jakarta: Sekretariat Negara Republik Indonesia,1995.
[ 108 ] paradigm on natural resources management, as well as national policies reform related to the management of natural and agrarian resources.
The National Inquiry is a breakthrough methodology for approaching the issue of human rights violations and formulating policy recommendations. The inquiry is very important because it becomes a way to approach and contribute to the settlement of complexity of the dispossession of indigenous people in Indonesia. It is an exclusive tool of the Human Rights Commission to examine systemic human rights violations in the midst of the Ministry of Forestry denial and reluctance to implement the Constitutional Court ruling. It was conducted as part of the activities to fulfill the mandate of the Commission in a transparent way and involving the public, and includes public evidence of witnesses and experts, and directed toward the investigation of a systemic pattern of human rights violations and the identification of recommendations for solving the violations. AMAN and the indigenous people movement constituents fully supported the National Inquiry, where AMAN was actively involved in this process, especially providing data, and together with other civil society organizations conducted extensive research.
The inquiry included data and information gathering, study and examination of cases, public hearings and dialogues with government and company officials. The Inquiry involved public hearing held openly in seven regions (Sumatra, Java, Bali, Nusa Tenggara, Sulawesi, Kalimantan, Maluku and Papua) presenting more than 40 (forty) cases related to plantation companies, forestry companies, and conservation areas. The cases revealed the expulsions, restrictions on access, discrimination, violence due to the criminalization of indigenous territories.
The findings from the series of regional public hearings showed individual and collective human rights violations against indigenous peoples, with indigenous women and children in the most vulnerable position. The problems were wide-ranging and often unresolved, including but not limited to: unclear and overlooked boundaries of LQGLJHQRXV SHRSOHV ¶ WHUULWRULHV RYHUODSSLQJ licenses; manipulation of licenses by the government and companies; unresolved legal cases brought against defendants for various forms of violence against, criminalization and systematic crimes against indigenous peoples; the bias and consolidated use of military and private security guards by corporations; and a lack of just, thorough and multi sector conflict UHVROXWLRQ 7KH &RPPLVVLRQ ¶V FRQFOXVLRQV also noted that all cases also contained significant internal conflicts fostered by companies and governments in order to take advantage of community divisions.

Mobilization at Multiple Scales
,Q DGGLWLRQ WR H[DPSOHV RI $0$1 ¶V UROHV LQ the two examples of counter-hegemonic indigenous legal maneuvering presented above, the localized struggles of indigenous communities and indigenous organizations that are members of AMAN are increasingly involved in land reclaiming, either by reoccupation and other direct confrontation and negotiation actions with regard to contested land and natural resources with business entities production and conservation authorities. For many consti- [ 109 ] tuents of indigenous movements who are mostly residing in remote regions, AMAN helps them to ensure their struggles against expropriation of their lands and territory expand beyond the border of their villages to reach the district offices, even Jakarta. Through these agrarian conflicts, AMAN members develop their repertoires in indigenous mobilizations (strategy, organization and tactics) in confronting the concessionaires, local and central bureaucracies supporting those concessionaires, the security apparatus (official and unofficial ones) guarding the concessions, and the rent-seekers involved in this cycles of structural agrarian conflict. With more than 200 community members, 20 provincial regional branches, and 81 district offices spread throughout the Indonesian archipelago, AMAN is in JRRG SRVLWLRQ WR ³PRELOL]H DW PXOWLSOH scales, targeting laws and institutions of state power at the same time as organizing WKH JUDVVURRWV´ 3HOXVR $ILII 5DFKPDQ 2008: 377). The legal victory at national level inspired masyarakatadat movement constituents to accelerate campaign for local regulation at the district level on recognition of indigenous peoples rights over their territories, such as in Bulukumba District, South Sulawesi and in Malinau District in East Kalimantan.
At the grassroots level, in responding to Constitutional Court Ruling on hutanadat,masyarakatadatacross the Indonesian archipelago initiated selfimplementing actions through plangisasi, acolloquial term for placing a placard or banner up,in their respective indigenous territories, both in the production forest and conservation areas. For example, those installed by residents Pandumaan-Sipituhuta in HumbangHasundutan Regency,North6XPDWUD ³$QQRXQ-cement: Traditi-onal Forest of Pandumaan and Sipituhutais no longer under State )RUHVW ´$0$1 PHPEHUV DOVR FRQGXFWHG participatory counter mapping in their respective custo-mary territories which in many cases have been granted by the state as concession areas for extractive industries. The customary groups in Muara Tae, East Kalimantan, planted trees in palm oil plantation as the counter-conduct to reclaim their hutanadat which have been deteriorated by the plantation companies. In Pattallassang, Gowa district, South Sulawesi, the masyarakatadatin that village agreed to require every newly-wed couple in that village to plant at least ten trees, not only to preserve their customary forest and territory as critical component of their means of production, but more importantly as an attempt to promote the resurgence of customary values and institutions within their community.
These examples demonstrate the struggles of the masyarakatadat to transform the spirit of recognitions of their rights, restoration of their citizenship and state deterritorilization, as reflected in the Constitutional Court Ruling, into organized collective actions to reclaim their lands and territories. In light of the massive capital expansion to rural frontiers for production of global commodities, such initiatives can be interpreted as part of the attempts to cope with the limits of recognition and distribution politics in the context of masyarakatadat movement against neoliberal state governance in Indonesiathat tended to transform a political maneuver into technical measures, for instance the procedure to define the indigenous peoples criteria as the precondition of granting rights. In that