THE botched stunt at the United Church of Christ of the Philippines (UCCP) Haran Compound last July 23, 2015 that Representative Nancy Catamco tried to pass off as a "rescue" mission only underscored how "awkward" a subject the Manobos of Talaingod must be for mainstream institutions like government.
Tanya Murray Li (2008) used the phrase "awkward subjects" with respect to the highlanders of Sulawesi and the difficulties they posed to conservation agencies, both government and non-government.
In the case of the Talaingod Manobos, the notions of "awkward" as difficult to deal with, inconvenient or embarrassing, and necessitating caution seem to apply.
This is not the first time that the Manobos led by the Salugpungan Ta Tanu Igkanugon has called attention to the problems of militarization and encroachments into their ancestral domain. On April 3, 2014 more than 1,300 Manobos from Talaingod, Davao del Norte evacuated their homes and lands to avoid being caught in the operations of the 60th Infantry Battalion and 4th Special Forces. Around 900 of the evacuees proceeded to the UCCP Haran Compound in Davao City. They went back to Talaingod months later and only after the intercession of the Davao City local government and non-government organizations. Twenty-one years ago in 1994 Salugpungan resisted the efforts of the company Alcantara and Sons or Alsons to expand their Integrated Forest Management Agreement (IFMA) into Manobo territory. And June this year, 700 Talaingod Manobos again trooped to Davao to protest the closure of the schools operated by Salugpungan because of the non-issuance by the Department of Education of a permit to operate for school year 2015-2016, but which the Manobos suspect is related to the militarization agenda.
In the minds of those who do not take kindly to protest actions, these Talaingod Manobos come across as a troublesome lot who are difficult to deal with. Never mind if the Talaingod Manobos are actually demonstrating behaviors that befit empowered people: critical mindsets that are able to connect daily experiences with larger social realities, the ability to collectively mobilize to argue their case before the public, and the readiness to sacrifice to seek redress and make contributions to social change. These are the same traits that organizers and development workers endeavor to cultivate in other marginalized communities, why are they suddenly objectionable when displayed by the Talaingod Manobos?
The Talaingod Manabos and their actions seemed to have caused embarrassment to the sensibilities, particularly the delicate nose of Representative Nancy Catamco. She was quoted to have said to the Manobos in a dialog "Panguli na mo kay baho na kaayo mo diri" (You should go back to your homes because you already stink here), and cast aspersions on the integrity of Lumad leaders because "leaders should not leave their communities". Rep. Catamco was so moved by her objective of rescuing Bai Bibiyaon Ligkayan Bigkay, whom the Representative claimed wanted to already go home and was being held against her will, that Catamco who heads of the House Committee on Indigenous Peoples and Cultural Communities had to bring in the Regional Police Safety Battalion, Women's Children's Protection Desk, Davao City Police Office and San Pedro Police Precinct on a rescue mission.
Perhaps Rep. Catamco wanted to be seen as a caring and responsive legislator, which seems to fit the diwata (goddess) image that she allegedly cultivated. Instead she will be remembered as the legislator who led what could be construed as illegal entry and an assault into a private compound that ended up injuring 15 people, and who got a resounding dressing down from Bai Bibi, the very woman leader she wanted to rescue.
It would seem from the actuations of Rep. Catamco and the personnel from the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) and the National Commission on Indigenous People (NCIP) who filed the blotter report that got the police involved that the preferred non-embarrassing image is for the Manobos to be back in their areas, patiently waiting for assistance.
Never mind if the Manobos left their homes and lands in the first place because they did not feel secure, and because they wanted an important matter resolved. A DSWD official was quoted as saying, perhaps to justify their role in the "rescue", that the Manobo children were being exploited because they should be in schools and not in the evacuation centers, conveniently forgetting that the 700 Lumads were precisely protesting the closure of schools.
Another preferred non-embarrassing image is that of the exotic Lumads trotted out during festivals to draw in tourists--in full indigenous attire and ready to perform their dances and rituals.
These non-embarrassing images seem to fit what Tanya Murray Li (2008) termed as the "right kind of natives" that many groups intentionally and unintentionally produce and perpetuate.
What underscores the "rescue" mentality is the thinking that the Talaingod Manobos are merely being used (ginagamit) by the Left to advance their agenda. This does a disservice to the Lumads, and betrays the arrogance of those who entertain the idea. The view that the Talaingod Manobos are being used is premised on the ultimately derogatory mindset that the Lumads do not know what they are doing, and that they are ignorant and gullible.
Far from it, the Talaingod Manobos are acting from a grounded and historical understanding of their situation and the options available to them. The Talaingod Manobos and other Lumads know from long experience that when they are "out of sight", then they are out of the minds of government and society. Hence, if they have to ally with other groups to embarrass government and society into action-to, pun intended, raise up a stink, to jolt as it were-then so be it.
But it is also important that groups that endeavor to support the Lumads do so from a position that believes in the integrity of Lumadnon agenda and action, and not misrecognize these as just appendages and mere proofs of a larger struggle.
In that sense, the aspirations of the Talaingod Manobos have to be responded to with caution, not in the spirit of being wary, but with the attentiveness and thoughtfulness that recognize the complexities and even contradictions of the beliefs and interests involved.
If all that mainstream institutions can offer to the Lumads are ill-conceived and self-serving stunts, then may the Talaingod Manobos and other Lumads continue to be awkward subjects and may they steadfastly refuse to fit the convenient molds in which the disrespectful mainstream prefers to put them.
Email feedback to magszmaglana@gmail.com