Freedom a prerequisite to rewriting history<\/p>\n
By Asip Agus Hasani<\/p>\n
YOGYAKARTA (JP): Historian Soegijanto Padmo places great trust
\nin his fellow historians.<\/p>\n
In the hands of historians and other members of society, the
\ncountry could begin to construct a truthful and credible history,
\ncompletely independent of what the government has presented.<\/p>\n
\"Historians uphold the truth above everything,\" says
\nSoegijanto, who is a vice dean at the Faculty of Letters at
\nGadjah Mada University in Yogyakarta.<\/p>\n
In the past, the role of scholars in the writing of the
\nhistory of the 32-year New Order regime was often enfeebled and
\nundermined, with errant historians threatened with imprisonment.<\/p>\n
Anticipating greater demands for better historical
\nperspectives, Soegijanto dissected his vision of the nation's
\nhistory, and how it should be revised during an interview with
\nThe Jakarta Post in Yogyakarta.<\/p>\n
Question: Many people have recently begun to challenge the
\nofficial history of post-1945 Indonesia, especially the parts in
\nwhich former president Soeharto was involved. Why have such
\ncontroversies arisen?<\/p>\n
Answer: In the writing of history there is a tendency to have
\ntwo versions: the historian's and the ruler's.<\/p>\n
The professional historians write historical literature and
\nconduct research using standard academic norms. They must
\nmaintain objectivity and accuracy because that is their ultimate
\ngoal.<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, there is a tendency that rulers, for example Leonid
\nIlyich Brezhnev who was a Soviet president (1960-1964, 1977-1982)
\nhave history written (in a way) which suits their interests.<\/p>\n
In Indonesia, literature with real historical values is
\nusually in the form of historical dissertations and scientific
\npapers written by academics. These are very different from the
\nhistory books written as part of government policy.<\/p>\n
So, it is clear that historical literature that is the product
\nof the New Order regime must be reinterpreted or revised, even on
\nsubjects like Boedi Oetomo, which is said to be a pioneer of the
\nnational movement.<\/p>\n
Boedi Oetomo founder, who came from an upper middle-class
\nbackground, emerged from a sophisticated education granted by the
\nDutch to the middle class as a political gift.<\/p>\n
I have observed that the real pioneers were the santri
\n(students at traditional Moslem boarding schools) in the villages
\nand the preachers in the cities, such as those of the Syarikat
\nDagang Islam (The Islam Commerce Union), HOS Cokroaminoto, and H.
\nSamanhudi.<\/p>\n
Q: There is currently much debates over Soeharto's involvement in
\nthe Sept. 30, 1965 coup of the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI).
\nWhich is the right one?<\/p>\n
A: The use of different sources of information can lead to
\nvarious perspectives of history written from different angles.<\/p>\n
In this case there are five versions. The first places PKI as
\nthe central figure in the movement, while the second puts then
\npresident Sukarno in the central figure.<\/p>\n
These two versions are the ones which were explored and even
\nmanipulated to suit the interests of the Soeharto regime.<\/p>\n
But there are other perspectives, including the (third) theory
\nthat the coup was a consequence of the United States' foreign
\npolicy.<\/p>\n
The fourth perspective suggests that the PKI coup was linked
\nto Britain's political intervention in East and Southeast Asia.
\nBritain was then trying to block the flow of communism from the
\nNorth.<\/p>\n
The fifth theorizes that the coup erupted from an internal
\nconflict in the Army.<\/p>\n
During the New Order era, apart from exploitation and
\nmanipulation, only certain perspectives were explored in the five
\ntheories.<\/p>\n
Q: How can we create history which prevents controversy? Should
\nwe combine various approaches?<\/p>\n
A: It involves the process of establishing a rational and
\nobjective nation. To achieve this, we need to have freedom of<\/p>\n
The objectivity of historical literature written by an
\nautocratic government, which represses the freedom of expression,
\nis highly dubious.<\/p>\n
There is no room for corrective analysis because there is no
\ndialog, while the writing of history needs dialog, freedom, and
\ndemocracy.<\/p>\n
Q: So the writing of history should be comprehensive?<\/p>\n
A: Historical writing that is comprehensive and diverse is the
\nmanifestation of freedom of expression. The Soeharto regime was
\nan autocratic one, the right version was that approved by the
\ngovernment.<\/p>\n
Another example is the March 1, 1949 attack on Yogyakarta by
\nthe Dutch, which Soeharto claims to have initiated.<\/p>\n
The real initiator, Sultan Hamengkubowono IX, never claimed
\nthat he was the initiator, but anyone in their right mind would
\nknow that the sultan was the then ruler of Yogyakarta who knew
\nthe ins and outs of the city.<\/p>\n
Why didn't historians challenge this during the Soeharto
\nregime? Because they sought safety and did not want to be
\nlabeled PKI.<\/p>\n
Q: The government is currently planning to revise history as part
\nof reviewing the curriculum. What do you think?<\/p>\n
A: As far as details such as historical dates and places are
\nconcerned, there are no problems.<\/p>\n
But when we come to the interpretation -- the \"how and why\" --
\nwe have to be educative and not provocative. An interpretation of
\nhistory cannot just highlight a figure or a group, but it must
\ndefend the truth to support the public interest...<\/p>\n
Q: Do you think that the current account of history approved by
\nthe government must be revised?<\/p>\n
A: Yes, it must. Even the standard national history books in the
\nnational library need some correction and clarification.<\/p>\n
For example, in one edition, (former education minister)
\nNugroho Notosusanto wrote that president Sukarno impoverished our
\nnation.<\/p>\n
What is the basis of that? Was Sukarno ever corrupt? Did he
\never make his children rich like Soeharto? No. So don't make
\npersonal judgments or let yourself be influenced by power.<\/p>\n
Q: Who should take the initiative to revise history?<\/p>\n
A: The government should finance the project. But professional
\nhistorians must also be involved. Writing history must not be
\nmonopolized. Even journalists and the public can be part of the
\nreconstruction and the revision of history.<\/p>\n
Q: Can you cite an example that depicts the thin line between
\nmyth and history?<\/p>\n
A: The New Order regime tended to manipulate history and create
\nmyths. Soeharto would often say we should not make a myth of him
\nbut he let himself be called the Father of Development, and
\nclaimed he was the country's most meritorious hero.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/freedom-a-prerequisite-to-rewriting-history-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}