Heroism, nationhood key elements in promoting national unity<\/p>\n
By Mochtar Buchori<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): November 10 is a day for commemorating and
\nhonoring our fallen heroes. On this particular day in 1945,
\nfreedom fighters -- in Surabaya particularly, and in East Java in
\ngeneral -- had rejected an ultimatum issued by the 5th India
\nDivision of the British army in Surabaya to lay down their arms
\nand surrender to the Allied Forces Netherlands East Indies, which
\nwanted to help the Netherlands East Indies Civil Administration
\nto establish its authority over East Java. The ultimatum was
\nignored, and armed clashes broke out immediately.<\/p>\n
In this tense situation, a legendary figure, Bung Tomo, arose.
\nIt was his famous fiery and passionate speeches which kept the
\nfighting spirit of the freedom fighters constantly high
\nthroughout the entire Surabaya military campaign. Incited by Bung
\nTomo's speeches, which were broadcast throughout the country,
\nfreedom fighters from all over the country poured into Surabaya
\nto help their overpowered comrades in battle. Bung Tomo was seen
\nat the time as a real hero by the masses.<\/p>\n
It was those who fell in this campaign whom we first
\nconsciously perceived as our national heroes. Very soon
\nthereafter, other freedom fighters who gave their lives in other
\nbattles during the period of physical revolution were also looked
\nupon by the public as heroes. At the end of the revolution, every
\nperson who participated in whatever manner in the revolution and
\ncame back alive was also considered a hero. The word \"hero\" was
\nno longer preserved only for the dead, but for the living as
\nwell. An interesting issue arose during later phases of
\nIndonesian history. If one was a hero during the revolution, but
\nlater committed an act which was considered \"treason\", was he
\nstill a hero? Are those heroes from the past who later joined the
\nPRRI, Permesta, and any of those parapolitical organizations of
\nthe PKI also entitled to retain their titles as heroes? And what
\nabout those heroes from the revolution who later became corrupt?
\nAre they still heroes? This is an interesting issue, which has
\nnever been debated in public, resulting in a kind of divergence
\nbetween the public and the government regarding the meaning of
\nthe word \"hero\".<\/p>\n
What is a \"hero\"? According to one dictionary, a hero is a
\nperson noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose,
\nespecially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life. It
\nis with this meaning that we use the word \"hero\" in expressions
\nlike \"heroes of the forgotten wars\" or \"heroes of the silent
\nwars\". Another meaning of \"hero\" is a person prominent in some
\nevent, field, period, or cause by reason of his or her special
\nachievements or contributions. This meaning is conveyed, for
\nexample, in expressions like \"the heroes of medicine\" or \"heroes
\nfor the cause of human rights\".<\/p>\n
To me, it is a very interesting coincidence that Heroes Day,
\nNovember 10, follows immediately after Youth Pledge Day, October
\n28, in our calendar. It is as if we are reminded by history to
\nkeep our sense of heroism alive to preserve and promote the unity
\nof our nation. We are constantly reminded by current events in
\nother parts of the world that national unity cannot be taken for
\ngranted. Just because we have been an independent nation for 51
\nyears, it does not necessarily mean that our sense of national
\nunity today is the same as it was in 1945.<\/p>\n
Our national unity depends, of course, on our sense of
\nnationhood. Do we really perceive ourselves as one nation, or do
\nwe perceive ourselves more as the sum of a number of ethnic,
\nreligious and cultural entities?<\/p>\n
According to one analysis, the sense of being \"we\" in any
\nnation can come from four factors: a shared language, a shared
\nreligion, the proud ownership of some special political idea, or
\nthe memory of shared horror (from The Shape of the World in The
\nEconomist, December 23, 1995, p. 20). In the case of many
\nnations, this sense of being \"we\" comes from various mixtures of
\nthese factors. But we should also not forget that there are some
\nfactors among these four that can also become the source of
\nnational division. Language has divided Quebec practically into
\ntwo nations. This is also the case in Belgium. The hatred in
\nBosnia is rooted both in difference of religion and in the shared
\nmemory of long-ago frontier wars between culture areas.<\/p>\n
The important question to ask in this regard is whether or not
\nat any particular moment we still have this feeling of being
\n\"we\". This \"we\" feeling fluctuates, changes from to time. Every
\ntime we watch an Indonesian badminton team compete against a team
\nfrom another nation in a world championship match, for instance,
\nour sense of nationalism, our sense of being \"we\" swells very
\nstrongly. On the other hand, in a crowd watching a fashion show
\nor an automobile show, I think is difficult to generate this
\nsense of being \"we\".<\/p>\n
There are thus factors in our life that promote our sense of
\nnationhood, but there are also factors that impair and even
\ndisrupt it. Our being a nation which is ethnically, religiously,
\nand culturally pluralistic is a factor that can promote or erode
\nour sense of being a nation. We can learn from Senator Moynihan
\nin this regard, who described very clearly in his book
\nPandemonium (Oxford University Press, 1993) that ethnicity is a
\nvery important factor in the lives of many nations. Based on his
\nanalyses of events in many parts of the world, he maintains that
\n\"Far from vanishing, ethnicity has been and will be an elemental
\nforce in international politics.\" He stated that \"ethnic pride
\ncan be a source of dignity and stability, if only its legitimacy
\nis accepted\". The dynamic of ethnic conflict can, according to
\nSenator Moynihan, be \"understood, anticipated, and moderated\".<\/p>\n
What is a \"nation\"? Walker Connor defines a \"nation\" as \"a
\ngroup of people who believe they are ancestrally related.\" On the
\nbasis of this definition, the important question about any nation
\nis not what it is, but when it is. Nation formation is a process,
\nnot an occurrence or event. Events are easily dated, whereas
\nstages in a process are not. The delay between the appearance of
\nnational consciousness among sectors of the elite and its
\nextension to the masses can, in some cases, stretch into
\ncenturies.<\/p>\n
Let us, on this particular day, reflect about the state of our
\nnationhood at this stage of our history, and let us look for ways
\nwhich can strengthen our national unity in the face of new
\nchallenges that very soon will beset our nation.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/heroism-nationhood-key-elements-in-promoting-national-unity-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}