PALMOILMAGAZINE, JAKARTA — When the state records land as its own, where does that leave communities that have lived there for centuries? The question continues to linger. Law, which should serve as protection, often turns into a barrier—separating citizens from one of their most basic rights: space to live.
In discussions on agrarian law, a familiar question repeatedly surfaces: to what extent does the state truly protect people’s land rights? The issue resurfaced recently when Grahat Nagara, a lecturer in Agrarian Law at the Jentera School of Law and a Senior Associate at Woods & Wayside International, unpacked the complex relationship between the state, the law, and society in land governance.
Grahat highlighted a recurring phenomenon he describes as “institutional overreach.” The term refers to forest areas that have long been inhabited by communities, yet are legally recorded as state land. “Many villages have existed there for generations, but under current regulations they are deemed illegitimate. In the end, people are treated as outsiders on their own land,” he explained during an online discussion attended by Palmoilmagazine.com in late July 2025.
According to Grahat, this condition is closely tied to how the state interprets the law. Political efforts to separate communities from their land have unfolded over long periods, through both regulation and administrative practice. Rather than accommodating social realities, agrarian law is frequently used as a tool to legitimize state control. “Community rights are never truly articulated. Formal legality is prioritized over facts on the ground,” he said.
Grahat further outlined three stages of state dominance in land affairs. The first is neglect, where communities are allowed to occupy land for years without clear legal status. The second is active denial, in which community rights are subtly rejected through legal instruments or seemingly neutral actors. The third stage is criminalization, when community activities on the land are legally challenged on the grounds of regulatory violations or alleged conflicts with state interests.
Also Read: Palm Oil Amid Black Campaigns and Misguided Policies
In his view, this process constructs a single narrative—that land inherently belongs to the state, while communities are merely “occupants.” This, he argued, runs counter to the constitution, which mandates that the state’s right to control land must be exercised to protect public welfare. “When that interpretation is narrowed, agrarian law becomes an instrument of power rather than justice,” Grahat stressed.
The controversy is further compounded by weak legal codification that fails to side with communities, leaving long-standing land conflicts unresolved and reinforcing structural inequality in land governance. (P2)
