Reinforcing Indonesian National Identity Based on Inclusiveness of Pancasila as a Way to Deal with the Identity Politics in Indonesia

History recorded that since the beginning of its independence, Indonesia has faced the problem of identity politics based on ethnicity, religion, race, and even ideology. It was only during the New Order that the Suharto regime succeeded in controlling identity politics by making Pancasila the only principle of society and organisation. However, at the same time, Suharto used Pancasila as a tool to perpetuate his power by monopolising the definition of national identity based on Pancasila. So, any form of interpretation that does not follow the views of the state is considered subversive. Under Suharto, Indonesia's national identity based on Pancasila became an exclusively national identity. After Suharto's fall, identity politics strengthened again and led to conflicts between ethnic and religions. It proved that repressive measures are not appropriate for dealing with identity politics. What is, then, the appropriate way to deal with identity politics in Indonesia. This article discusses John Titaley's socio-historical perspective as a discourse to deal with identity politics in Indonesia. Based on a socio-historical perspective, Indonesia is a reality with two identities: the one is a primordial identity before Indonesia was formed; the second one is the Indonesian national identity based on Pancasila, which was formed based on the agreement of all groups with their respective primordial identities. So, the nature of Indonesia is in its diversity, not homogeneity. Based on this socio-historical perspective, the most appropriate to deal with identity politics in Indonesia is by reinforcing Indonesian national identity based on the inclusiveness of Pancasila as initiated by the founding fathers of Indonesia