The enthusiasm of devout Muslim society to articulate their political aspirations through PPP is still high. This is especially true among the people in the villages, where PPP is still regarded as the Islamic political party. For Muslim villagers it is difficult to know about the current status of the party, since they do not have sufficient access to knowledge about political manoeuvring. This derives from their lack of active involvement in politics^[26]. In addition, the NU community in the villages, especially in Jombang, still think that PPP is identical with NU, since NU was the major force which nursed the birth of the party in 1973. At the time, PPP was the only party through which NU members could appropriately articulate their political aspirations. This perspective still exists, not only among those NU members who have insufficient access to politics, but also among those educated in Jombang. However, a change in attitude also occurred among Muslim villagers. External factors, especially the changing attitudes of their kiai, who since 1987 supported Golkar, have contributed to a change in the outlook of some devout Muslims.

It can be said that among the NU members in Jombang, two kinds of political perspectives developed after NU launched its “back to khittah” policy which influenced Muslims at the grassroots level. Firstly, there are NU kiai and members who contend that ‘back to khittah’ is an inappropriate policy. According to them, NU should continue to involve itself in politics. This view is held by a minority of kiai and their followers. It is shared by an insignificant number of members of the Tarekat Cukir. One kiai suggested that politics is like a vehicle to pursue what Muslims are struggling for. As there is no formal Islamic party in Indonesia, this group continues to articulate its political aspirations through PPP. Secondly, there are those who are satisfied with NU's return to being a socio-religious organisation as it was conceptualised by the ‘back to khittah’ policy. This group includes those NU kiai and members who perceive themselves to be active proponents of the policy. Members of this group hold different viewpoints about the implementation of the ‘back to khittah’ policy. In terms of their political affiliation, two tendencies have emerged. The first consists of those NU    kiai and members who continue to support PPP. Their continued support for the party is due to the fact that NU in essence did not prohibit its members from affiliating with this party. According to them, what NU did with its policy was to dissociate formally from PPP. But it allowed its members to affiliate with any political party, including PPP. The second group are those NU kiai and members who changed their support from PPP to Golkar. This group insists that support for Golkar is a necessity. This was indicated by their support of the penggembosan movement, a political manoeuvre to weaken PPP. In addition, they also made a decision, preceding the 1987 general election, to encourage NU members to support the government party^[27]. This group is supported by a few pesantren kiai and those kiai who hold formal local NU leadership. They usually refer to themselves as the ‘kelompok khittah’^[28].

In Jombang, the majority of the kiai who own pesantren follow the ‘back to khittah’ line. There are several reasons why they adopted this attitude. The most important one is the affiliation of the pesantren with NU which makes its kiai follow decisions made by NU^[29]. For these kiai, therefore, the application of the ‘back to khittah’ policy, which allows society (the NU's members and sympathisers) to affiliate themselves with any political party, is an important duty. They believe they should make their santri and NU members in general understand that NU is no longer formally part of PPP. This is a very difficult task because of the long established link with PPP.

Since there are two poles of interpretation of ‘back to khittah’ in terms of its implementation, this policy has produced a wider conflict in society. The attitude of most formal NU leaders in Jombang disappointed many kiai and NU members in general who still continued to support PPP. These NU leaders, supported by various local kiai, tried to weaken PPP by their politics of penggembosan. A pesantren kiai with wide influence in Jombang, Kiai Shohib Bisri, together with the head of Pesantren Tebuireng, Hajj Yusuf Hasyim, were among the four exponents well known as penggembos. Three of the four large pesantren in Jombang gave public support to the penggembosan and encouraged Muslims in Jombang to leave PPP in the 1987 general election. Another great pesantren in Jombang, the Pesantren Darul Ulum, had been supporting Golkar publicly since 1977 when Kiai Musta‘in defected to this party. Although the kiai of the three pesantren, Pesantren Tebuireng, Pesantren Denanyar and Pesantren Bahrul Ulum, publicly discouraged Muslims from supporting PPP in the 1987 general election, this did not mean that all their kiai adopted the same line. Kiai Syamsuri Badawi of the Pesantren Tebuireng, for example, was a PPP national candidate for parliament. Also among the kiai family in the Pesantren Bahrul Ulum, there was a PPP candidate for local parliament. Kiai Syamsuri Badawi's candidacy produced a reaction from the head of Pesantren Tebuireng, Yusuf Hasyim. But in this case Syamsuri Badawi was supported by his santri who had articulated their interests through PPP. The same held true of kiai in the  Pesantren Darul Ulum. Different political affiliations among kiai families produced hidden internal conflicts following the 1987 general election.

Although the effort to discourage Muslims from supporting PPP was successful, as shown by the fact that PPP lost four seats in the 1987, a large number of former PPP supporters continued to support the party. In the 1992 general election, PPP even regained a half of the seats it lost in the 1987 general election. The penggembosan thus did not destroy the Muslim community's attachment to PPP. The question is why do a large number of the Muslim community in Jombang continue to support PPP, despite the views of some great pesantren kiai and of NU leaders? The answer to this question has two aspects. The first relates to the view of kiai and NU activists who see themselves as the conveyors of the ‘back to khittah’ policy. The second relates to the pattern of political awareness of the umma, or at least of its leaders. The first can be seen through people's actual political practice, while the second can be understood from the political goal that underlies such awareness.

From the first aspect, it seems that there is ambiguity in the attitude of some kiai, which not only confuses the umma, but also makes them suspicious of the kiai's encouragement to leave PPP. The action suggested by the ‘back to khittah’ policy has been blurred by these kiai's request that the umma support Golkar. At the same time, Muslim society's perspective on the difference between PPP and Golkar did not change significantly. The encouragement of some pesantren kiai to leave PPP thus did not receive a good response, since anti-PPP sentiment was interpreted as pro-Golkar. This impression derives from the fact that most efforts to weaken PPP were accompanied by encouragement to support Golkar; and those NU leaders who left PPP became Golkar supporters. This encouragement was seen by Muslims as political deviation from what was envisaged by the ‘back to khittah’. Muslims therefore used the phrase ‘NU-Golkar’ to refer cynically to those who claimed to be practising the ‘back to khittah’ policy, but in fact deviated from it, since they asked people to support Golkar.

A second aspect relates to the identification of PPP with Islam^[30]. For the devout Muslim community which has been articulating its aspirations through the Islamic party for some time, PPP remains the first choice. The change in the basics of this party, from Islam to Pancasila, did not influence their perception of the party. PPP is hence still popular among Muslim society in Jombang because it is still regarded as the Islamic political party. The arguments provided by those who have remained loyal to PPP seem more rational than those offered by members encouraging them to leave the party, even though the latter include some kiai and NU leaders. For the kiai who are still inclined to support PPP, the party is still composed entirely of Muslims, even though the party is no longer Islamic. In an informant's opinion, the party, in terms of its history, has always strived for the interests of Muslim society. He maintained that “such effort is not performed by other political parties”. For these reasons, it is logical that people deeply concerned with the interests of Islam would support PPP, since it constitutes a medium to realise Islamic ideas. An activist in Muslimat (an independent organisation of NU members' wives) who frankly stated her support for PPP told me that Muslims who are eager to struggle for the sake of their religion are unlikely to articulate their interests or give their support to a party other than PPP, since other parties, historically, not only have non-Muslim components as their members, but also have never shown any desire to struggle for Muslim society. Hence it would be very hard for Muslims who join them to articulate their ideas or interests. The informant suggested further that to be political, or in her words “to struggle through politics”, is the most important ways to struggle for religion, since there is no other better way.

Despite some threats made by government officers that disadvantaged PPP, the support of Muslim members in some villages and their desire to articulate their aspirations through the ex-Islamic party, PPP, were impressive. The encouragement of some kiai to leave PPP did not prevent them from voting for this party. The invitation of an NU charismatic leader who came to villages in Jombang, suggesting that villagers leave PPP and condemning those who did not, did not get a significant response^[31].

For Masrurah, a member of Muslimat in a district of Ngoro, PPP now is not different from PPP before the government introduced the 1985 act which forced all organisations to use only the Pancasila as their ideological base. In her opinion, despite this secular base, PPP is still similar to an Islamic political party, since the goal pursued by this organisation is still the same. According to this activist, the ends are more important than the azas (stated formal ideological base) because they are the core of the struggle. Since those who hold the leadership of PPP are still Muslims, it is evident that one should still support this party. As a wadah (lit. container) or institution, she further explained, PPP is Islamic. A Muhammadiyah member I met in a large mosque in Jombang held the same opinion. He told me that he had been a PPP supporter for a long time and felt surprised when Muslims in Jombang changed their support to Golkar. In his opinion, Indonesian Muslims have to support PPP. He felt it would be sinful to vote for another party. When I asked him whether there is any difference between PPP now and before 1985, he replied ‘no’. In his opinion PPP is currently the only Islamic political party in Indonesia.

The standpoint of the Muslimat and Muhammadiyah members seems to represent the common view of the umma at the grassroots level. Their piety has helped them maintain their ideals in regard to Islam and they articulate these through PPP. However, the view that PPP is the Islamic party because its leaders are Muslims raises a problem since few PPP leaders^[32] at the national level base their actions on Islamic ideals. The activist I interviewed was very aware of this problem, but suggested that such misconduct is only found with a small number of leaders. The majority of the leadership in PPP is still Islamic, which means also that the wadah, that is PPP, is Islamic. Since the wadah remains Islamic, it is still necessity to support and vote for this party. The existence of some bad leaders, as shown by their opportunistic attitudes, does not necessarily mean that the party as a whole is bad. “It is like a rice field damaged by pests”, Masrurah said, “We do not need to abandon the ricefield but to kill the pests”.

Masrurah is one among other Muslimat members who continue to support PPP. However, she is one of the few who can frankly express this attitude. Most activists or leaders feel reluctant to show their support for the party, since the level of encouragement to leave the party from the main stream of the Muslimat is also so great. They are afraid of being humiliated, since activists joining PPP are condemned widely by those NU leaders supporting the penggembosan. Only highly influential kiai, such as Kiai Khoerul Anwar, the leader of Tarekat Cukir, dared to express their outright support for PPP. One may ask why they should feel reluctant if in daily social life PPP is still popular. The reluctance among some Muslimat activists to express their support openly for PPP derives from the formal authority of the Muslimat leadership, which largely opposed PPP. The formal Muslimat leadership is dominated by the power of those oriented towards the mainstream of the NU leadership in Jombang and Indonesia in general who favoured leaving PPP. This situation was related to the organisational structure of NU and its well known leaders, who by that time were inclined to support Golkar and oppose PPP. Some top NU leaders, from the national level down to the district level, encouraged NU members to leave PPP and accused those activists who did not of being hypocritical. This indicates that those NU activists opposing PPP took an offensive position, since NU was structurally or organisationally outside PPP. There emerged a feeling of discomfort among NU activists who expressed their support for PPP since the PPP opponents in NU were dominant and controlled   its political discourse, so that PPP supporters did not have a chance to defend their position.

The initial disappointment of Muslims in Jombang with PPP resulted from the standing of the NU representatives in the PPP national leadership^[33]. They were either organisationally or individually disadvantaged by other PPP members from the MI component. Some active NU members who executed the penggembosan program were thus included in what is called barisan sakit hati (the sick heart brigade). The ‘back to khittah’ policy was used by this group as a medium of revenge, provoking an unpopular situation for PPP. This revenge was not confined to those activists of PPP from organisations other than NU, but also applied to supporters of NU itself. The variation in political orientation in the post-khittah era has thus had a negative effect on the unity of NU. Not only do some NU members differ in their political aspirations, but these differences are characterised by open conflict.

The conflict in some villages in Jombang is creating new types of social groupings in the NU society there. There are groups of NU-PPP who continue to support PPP, of NU-Baru or NU-Golkar, inclined mostly to support the government party, and of NU-Neutral, that is those NU members who do not care about other people's political affiliation. It needs to be emphasised here that all groups nominally accepted the introduction of ‘back to khittah’ policy. However, there is a different emphasis in regard to their political preference. The members of NU-PPP  realise that their affiliation and support for PPP is in line with the ‘back to khittah’ policy, while members of NU-Baru, especially its leaders who mostly hold positions in the NU local leadership, not only regard their support for Golkar in line with the policy but also regard other groups as deviating from it. They feel that they are the only conveyor of the ‘back to khittah’ policy. The conflict which occurred between them and members of NU-PPP originated from this NU-Baru perspective. The third group is more modest in its performance. They do not show an emotional affiliation with any political party. They are not involved in the conflict.

These groupings have established new social patterns, as can be seen in the pattern of their religious activities. While it is evident that the divisions are not so absolute that a member of an NU family supporting Golkar is not allowed to form a social relationship with an NU family supporting PPP, it is important to note that there is an awareness in the minds of these people of the differences between them due to their respective political orientations. For this reason, it is common for a member of NU-Baru to be uncomfortable in attending a pengajian (religious gathering) held by an NU member who supports PPP, and vice versa. In some villages in Jombang there exist different pengajian, since they are administered by groups of NU's activists with different political orientations. Those NU members supporting PPP have a ‘Seloso Wage’^[34] gathering, while those of NU-Baru, favourably disposed toward Golkar, hold pengajian on ‘Seloso Pon’. In addition, there are other pengajian held by NU members, who are openly affiliated to Golkar. This kind of pengajian, however, falls outside formal NU activities, since it is organised by Golkar, and people call it pengajian-Golkar ^[35].

Of the various pengajian groups that mark the three different political orientations, only the first two are worth discussing. Not only are they characterised by open conflicts, but they also derive from the same source, that is NU. On the historical side, the ‘Seloso-Pon’ gathering is older and held in almost all districts of Jombang. It was originally formed when PPP was still an Islamic political party. This gathering was used by NU members in PPP to communicate with NU members at the grassroots level. Since NU constituted the main component of this political party, this religious activity was thought of as the pengajian of PPP. After the ‘back to khittah’ policy was launched in 1984, the pengajian was taken over by NU-Baru activists. These NU-Baru supporters, who constitute the main stream in NU, and, in practice, are sympathetic to Golkar, feel justified in having such pengajian, since they were originally established by NU. This situation has resulted in some conflict in those villages in Jombang, where most of the Muslim population are supporters of PPP.

The efforts of this NU-Baru group to take over the pengajian forum was usually achieved by holding another pengajian at the same place and time as the NU-PPP's. Armed with this pretended effort to coordinate and strengthen the unity of the NU's members, this group was successful in taking over the forum of the ‘Seloso-Pon’ gathering. But due to the strong feelings of discomfort among PPP supporters at the grassroots level in sitting together with NU-Baru supporters, the former established another pengajian forum which is held at ‘Seloso Wage’.

It seems that the aversion of the PPP supporters derives from their view that NU-Baru do not practise Islam in their political lives. The former deem the latter to be kurang berprinsip (do not have strong principles), especially in relation to their actions to weaken the party. A kiai, who was a former leader of PPP in Jombang, is critical of the NU-Baru group's active collaboration with the government. In his opinion, no basic religious principles sustain their political attitudes. While the NU members supporting PPP have established another pengajian forum, the more aggressive group in this conflict is the NU-Baru group. It was the latter that usually tried to disturb the former, thinking they had the right to disturb the religious activities of the former^[36].

In brief, it is evident that the ‘back to khittah’ policy has intensified internal conflict in NU. Although the existing conflict in villages in Jombang does not often come to the surface, its vibrations are felt by all members of society. It seems that NU members at the grassroots level, or even those NU activists from the regency down to the village level, are not ready to accept the reality of the differences in political orientation that exist in their midst. The most visible expression of these differences is the pengajian forum. In addition, we can see the division through the existing patterns of relationships between kiai of these different groups. NU in Jombang, which happens to be administered by the NU-Baru supporter group, never invites kiai, let alone NU activists, who support PPP. Hence, the NU's activities in Jombang, according to an informant, constitute the activities of what is called NU-Baru. On the other hand, the activists and the kiai, who support PPP have other activities, including religious ones, conducted by the tarekat, which they do not want the former to be involved in. The activities of tarekat in Jombang may be a good example of how religious activities previously provided for all NU members are now conducted by a limited number of people from a particular group.

In addition, the internal conflicts occurring within NU are also brought into the realm of the family. An NU PPP supporter, whom I interviewed, for example, asked me to lower my voice when I was discussing the conflicts within PPP with her in her house due to her anxiety about being heard by her brother who happens to be a member of the NU-Baru. The possibility of such intra-familial conflict is a new phenomenon within NU. Nevertheless, different from what occurred in the 1950s. In the 1950s the family determined the ideological orientation of its members, so that it was very rare for a conflict to emerge in a family (see Geertz, 1960)^[37]. What usually occurred was a conflict between families. This situation was sustained by the fact that the ideological demarcation lines between Islamic and non-Islamic groups or between sub-groups within Islam itself, such as the difference between NU and Muhammadiyah, were very clear-cut. Once the head of a family joined an organisation, all members of the family^[38] would adopt the same ideological orientation. A conflict between a member of one family and a member of another family would bring all members of both families into it because each family was united in its ideological orientation. What I found in present day Jombang, however, is very different. The boundaries of ideological orientation of the Javanese are not as sharp as in the past, since NU itself has given religious legitimacy for its members to join or affiliate with any political organisation. This openness has allowed NU members to struggle for Islam through a better organisation^[39]. In the past, the correct ‘better organisation’ in a worldly sense was not necessarily the preferred option. Any organisation also had to be religiously legitimate. Accordingly, in present day Jombang it is not rare for different ideological orientations to give rise to conflict among family members. Unlike the situation in the past when the political orientation of the head of a family would be adopted by the whole family, the political orientation of the head of the family may now be challenged by family members with different political affiliations or opinions.