Leaving the big question hanging<\/p>\n
Emmy Fitri, The Jakarta Post\/Jakarta<\/p>\n
--------------------------------------
\nApakah Soekarno Terlibat Peristiwa G30S?
\n(Was Soekarno involved in G30S?)
\nKerstin Beise
\nOmbak, Yogyakarta
\nSeptember 2004
\n494 pp
\n-------------------------------------------<\/p>\n
Is it really relevant to know if the country's founding
\npresident, Sukarno, was connected to the abortive coup of
\nSeptember 1965?<\/p>\n
Or, to put it more finely, is it useful to unearth the facts
\ntoday about what has been carefully buried for almost 40 years?<\/p>\n
Is it worthwhile to do so for a nation whose people have shown
\na pronounced disinclination to look back on the past, especially
\nif they have cushy lives today?<\/p>\n
The problem is that if we continue to swallow the half-truths,
\nour own concept of self and national identity will eventually
\nbecome as confused and flawed as our dubious history.<\/p>\n
The truth will set us free, yes. At the very least, we should
\nlearn not to repeat past wrongdoings, although there is no
\nguarantee that would happen.<\/p>\n
The regime of Sukarno's successor, Soeharto, made sure that
\nall references to the coup laid the blame squarely with the
\nIndonesian Communist Party (PKI).<\/p>\n
The official line has always been that the killing of six army
\ngenerals and one officer was part of PKI's plot to overthrow
\nSukarno's fragile administration.<\/p>\n
All the official textbooks painted Soeharto (then an army
\nlieutenant colonel) as a hero in taking control amid the turmoil,
\n\"doing the right thing\" in snuffing out the communist \"threat\".<\/p>\n
Even though dissenting opinions about the nature of the coup
\ncould be heard abroad shortly after it happened, few here dared
\nquestion the official version during Soeharto's 32-year rule.<\/p>\n
That opportunity only came after May 1998, when Soeharto
\nstepped down from power, even though succeeding governments, wary
\nof this deeply divisive and inflammatory issue, have chosen to
\nsteer clear of rewriting the official version.<\/p>\n
Beise is another to step into the fray today, trying to
\nascertain if Sukarno (she uses the old spelling of his name)
\nmasterminded a sham coup in a desperate attempt to hold onto
\npower, only to see his plan spiral out of control.<\/p>\n
The German, a visiting student at state-run Hasanuddin
\nUniversity in Makassar, compares the works of different authors
\non Sukarno.<\/p>\n
It's a who's who of Indonesianists past and present: Roeslan
\nAbdulgani, Benedict Anderson, Arswendo Atmowiloto, Ladislav
\nBittman, Arnold Brackman, H.W. Brackman, Frederick Bunnel,
\nCentral Intelligence Agency, Robert Cribb, Harold Crouch, B.
\nDahm, Anthony Dake, Herbert Feith, Basuki Gunawan, Hardi, Helen
\nLouise Hunter, Donald Hindley, Sulastomo, Widjanarko and
\nSophiaan.<\/p>\n
This is a meticulously researched study in compiling the
\ndifferent views, but she does not offer any shocking findings.<\/p>\n
She acknowledges this herself in the introduction to the work.<\/p>\n
\"This book is meant to offer a study and an approach to the
\nvaried sources writing about the G30S, and does not ambitiously
\nwant to reenact the incidents into a clear one.\"<\/p>\n
Despite its scholarly merits (she wrote it, in flawlessly
\ncorrect Indonesian, as part of her history thesis, a feat in
\nitself), it's not meant for bedtime reading.<\/p>\n
Commendably, she does offer an opinion on the leadership
\nqualities of Sukarno, whose fall from grace (sad and ailing, he
\nended up living under house arrest in Bogor until his death in
\n1970) made him a figure of sympathy to many Indonesians.<\/p>\n
\"Soekarno's behavior after the coup did not prove that he was
\ninvolved or not, but it showed how irresponsible he was as a
\nleader,\" Beise writes.<\/p>\n
\"Soekarno did not clearly make decisions to put an end to the
\nbloodbath after the coup and although not overtly, Soekarno was
\nseen like an opportunist.\"<\/p>\n
Sukarno is long gone, leaving those positive and negative
\nlegacies from his life and leadership. But the dead are usually
\nforgiven for their past indiscretions.<\/p>\n
The few living players and witnesses know what really happened
\non that fateful night in September, with the most prominent
\nexample, Soeharto, enjoying a quiet retirement here in the
\ncapital. And he is not telling.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/leaving-the-big-question-hanging-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}