Among the thousands of students and demonstrators gathering in Jakarta on October 28, one image stood out: a large red cross carried through the streets by members of the Perhimpunan Mahasiswa Katolik Republik Indonesia (PMKRI).

The symbol, approximately five metres tall, was inspired by Pesta Babi, a documentary by Dandhy Laksono examining large-scale development, plantation expansion and deforestation in southern Papua. According to Suara.com, the cross reflects a symbol used by Indigenous communities to mark customary territories and express opposition to encroachment upon their ancestral lands. Its red colour evokes blood, suffering, prayer and peaceful resistance.

The cross was more than a striking visual element in a student demonstration. It carried a message from communities whose struggles are often distant from the centres where political and economic decisions are made.

Its appearance in Jakarta raises a question that reaches beyond Papua: what happens when the pursuit of national development threatens the people whose lives and futures are affected by it?

The Political Meaning of Suffering

In Christian tradition, the cross is associated with suffering, sacrifice and the possibility of redemption. In the Jakarta demonstration, its meaning also extends into the political realm.

The cross represents people whose suffering might otherwise remain invisible. Its message is directed not only at corporations or government officials, but also at a wider public that may benefit indirectly from economic growth without seeing its consequences for distant communities.

The philosopher Emmanuel Levinas argued that encountering another person’s vulnerability creates an ethical responsibility. His thinking challenges us to see suffering not as an abstract statistic, but as a demand for a response.

From this perspective, the red cross confronts society with an uncomfortable question: can we celebrate progress while remaining indifferent to the suffering that may accompany it?

The question is especially relevant when the people affected have limited access to political influence, financial resources or national media attention. Their vulnerability does not make their interests less important. If anything, it increases the responsibility of institutions to ensure that their rights are protected.

The cross becomes a language of resistance precisely because ordinary language may not be enough to make distant suffering visible.

When Development Becomes a Question of Justice

The controversy also invites a deeper examination of the responsibilities of the state.

Governments have a legitimate role in pursuing economic growth, infrastructure development and employment. But these objectives cannot be treated as ends in themselves. The purpose of development should ultimately be to improve human lives.

Philosopher John Rawls argued that justice requires particular attention to those who are least advantaged. Applied to public policy, this principle demands more than calculating aggregate economic benefits. It requires examining who gains, who loses and whether those bearing the greatest costs receive adequate protection.

A project may generate substantial investment while imposing environmental damage or disrupting Indigenous livelihoods. If the benefits are concentrated while the costs fall disproportionately on vulnerable communities, economic success alone cannot settle the question of justice.

For President Prabowo Subianto’s administration, the challenge is to demonstrate that national development remains accountable to the people it is intended to serve.

Government failure is not necessarily defined by an absence of programmes or official action. It may also arise when policies inadequately protect citizens, when environmental consequences are underestimated, or when affected communities cannot meaningfully influence decisions that reshape their lives.

The relevant test is whether the state can prevent harm, respond to legitimate grievances, enforce the law and correct shortcomings when its policies fail to deliver their intended benefits.

A Test of National Unity

The timing of the demonstration adds another layer of significance. Youth Pledge Day commemorates Indonesia’s historic commitment to unity across ethnic, linguistic and regional differences.

Yet unity cannot mean that the concerns of some communities are subordinated to the priorities of others. Nor can national development be separated from the responsibility to protect the rights and dignity of citizens whose lands and livelihoods are affected.

The red cross brings Papua into the heart of Jakarta’s public conversation. It asks whether the suffering of Indigenous communities is regarded as a national concern or merely a local complication in the pursuit of economic growth.

A mature understanding of nationalism requires more than pride in national achievements. It requires a willingness to confront the costs of those achievements and to acknowledge when the interests of vulnerable citizens have been neglected.

Beyond the Symbol

The red cross should not be treated as proof of every allegation surrounding development in Papua. Specific claims require evidence, investigation and fair scrutiny. The same standard, however, must apply to official assurances about the benefits and consequences of development.

Ultimately, the significance of the symbol lies in the questions it forces into public view. Who has the authority to determine the future of ancestral land? What obligations does the state have toward communities facing environmental destruction? And can economic progress be considered genuine if it diminishes the dignity and autonomy of the people affected?

The red cross carried through Jakarta was a declaration of solidarity, but it was also a warning against a narrow understanding of progress.

A nation cannot measure its success solely by investment figures, infrastructure or the expansion of productive land. It must also consider what has been lost, whose voices have been excluded and whether the benefits of development serve the wider public.

When suffering becomes a language of resistance, it reveals a failure that goes beyond economics. It exposes the distance between the promise of progress and the lived experience of those who bear its costs.

The red cross asks us to confront that distance—and to reconsider what development, justice and national unity should truly mean.