What next after Magsaysay controversy?<\/p>\n
By Ariel Heryanto<\/p>\n
SALATIGA, Central Java (JP): The older generation, which has
\nshown its merits in the country's development and has been
\nprivileged to enjoy the boons of the New Order, has left a number
\nof debts to the younger generation.<\/p>\n
It is not only a huge foreign debt but also a debt of clear
\nand truthful cultural history during the transitory period from
\nthe Guided Democracy in late 1950s to the arrival of the New
\nOrder in mid 1960s.<\/p>\n
The controversy over the 1995 Magsaysay Award to writer
\nPramoedya Ananta Toer is just a ripple in the ocean of historical
\nproblems. The violent ongoing debate over the issue has not yet
\ntouched on the essentials of the problem. The crucial issue is
\nnot about those who raise their voice the highest, nor about
\nthose who draw the most supporters. It is more about what the
\ndebate can contribute to Indonesian society, particularly to its
\nyounger generation.<\/p>\n
When the Magsaysay award presenting ceremony is over, the
\ndebate is likely to abate. The core of the problem may remain
\nunder the surface only to explode again at other times. Before
\nthe fundamental problem is understood, there is little hope for
\ndialog that will give a wisdom of knowledge to the post New Order
\ngeneration.<\/p>\n
This article will identify three basic problems without the
\npretense of answering them. The first concerns historical
\nreality, the second touches on doctrines and norms and the third
\ntakes a look at our community's current condition as offering a
\nbase for productive intellectual dialog.<\/p>\n
What did really happen in Indonesian art and culture circles
\nin the mid 1960s, particularly in Java? This is the first
\nhistorical problem. The scale of importance of this problem for
\nthe post New Order generation far exceeds, for instance, a
\nmomentary need to understand the 1995 Magsaysay debate.<\/p>\n
We are grateful that the Magsaysay debate has helped to unveil
\nsome historical facts. Pramoedya Ananta Toer has been accused of
\ninvolvement in the campaign of creative and intellectual
\nrepression. Is that true? If so, what did Pramoedya actually do?
\nWhen, where and how? Why did it happen?<\/p>\n
Since the mid 1960s Pramoedya has become a controversial
\nfigure in Indonesia but not as an individual. He has always been
\nassociated with the left leaning People's Culture Institute
\n(Lekra) and the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI). Therefore, a
\nstudy on the history of the inner workings of Lekra and its
\nconnection with the PKI is absolutely necessary. When and where
\ndid Pramoedya represent Lekra? Where did he act in a private
\ncapacity? The suspicion on Pramoedya needs clearer specification.<\/p>\n
Pramoedya has been accused of involvement in book burnings
\nspearheaded by Lekra. This has been refuted by Pramoedya.
\nHowever, there is a more profound accusation that has led to
\ndebates. Pramoedya might not have been directly involved in those
\nactions or he might not have justified them, but some of the
\nManifesto members -- which opposed the campaign of suppression --
\nhave found fault with him for not having tried to prevent the
\nattacks against the artists being accused of anti-revolution and
\nanti-Manipol Usdek (the then political jargon).<\/p>\n
The accusation implies that Pramoedya had not only the
\nobligation but also the power or authority to stop the attacks
\ntowards the Cultural Manifesto intellectuals. The next question
\nis therefore: Is the assumption correct? How far did Pramoedya's
\nauthority and power go at that time? In an interview, Pramoedya
\nsaid that what he had done was only debate with the Cultural
\nManifesto people. He added he had no authority to prohibit or
\nrepress any artist and that it was the authority of the attorney
\ngeneral's office.<\/p>\n
Although Pramoedya only debated with words, these words were
\nsufficient to ignite repressive measures toward Lekra's foes, or
\nso the Manifesto members believed. This was made possible due to
\nthe weak and vulnerable position of the Manifesto people. They
\nwere not political opponents on a par with Lekra. Therefore,
\nPramoedya's steps should be placed in the then national political
\nhistorical context, said some of Lekra's enemies and victims.<\/p>\n
However, Pramoedya has voiced a similar claim. He said he
\nentered into debates using harsh words due to the overwhelming
\npressure of the situation. He admitted he had come to the defense
\nof president Sukarno who was under threat of world imperialism
\nforces. Pramoedya placed his steps in a global political context.
\nSo, what are the contextual boundaries which are more valid? Who
\nwere really in command? Who were weak and menaced? To what extent
\nwere the strengths and weaknesses of each side at that time?<\/p>\n
While many questions have not been answered, we are also
\nconfronted with a number of problems regarding ideologies, norms,
\nideals and values. For example, what actually are the doctrines
\nreferred to as \"Socialist Realism\", Communism and Marxism?<\/p>\n
Who has been proven wrong and needs to be opposed in this
\ncountry? Is it the practice of repressing human rights and
\ncreative freedom? Some wrongdoers? An organization? Or a number
\nof isms or concepts? Are all things one, similar and congruent?
\nWe do not need to put a fire to a warehouse to kill one mouse
\ninside, except if the whole warehouse is a big nest of mice.<\/p>\n
It was said that the art works by Lekra artists were bad
\nbecause they followed the Socialist Realism doctrine. They were
\nalso considered villainous politically because they had joined
\nLekra and hence communism. And, so it was also said, communism
\nwas evil because it had its origins in Marxism.<\/p>\n
It is very probable that Lekra members would not have fully
\nrejected such a description. They declared they were followers of
\n\"Cultural Realism\", Communism and Marxism all together, like
\nthose who say they are loyal to the 1945 Constitution and
\nPancasila today. The difference is, the Lekra people did so with
\na feeling of pride. Their opponents gave a similar description of
\nthem with the intention of vilifying them. Each side gave a
\ndifferent meaning to Socialist Realism, Communism and Marxism.
\nBut both sides shared the opinion that those concepts
\nautomatically formed one whole.<\/p>\n
Can we without much ado just believe such opinions? We should
\nbe able to study whatever concept there is in terms of its ideas,
\ndoctrines or ideals. We should be able to do so irrespective of
\nwhether this concept has taken shape in history or just stopped
\ndead in rhetorics, irrespective of those who have claimed to have
\nfollowed it and whether they truly succeeded in following the
\ndoctrine.<\/p>\n
We can criticize a concept. We can also criticize somebody's
\nactions irrespective of the concept of his adulation. Those two
\ncriticisms differ. In the various stories on Lekra, both are
\noften intermingled. If there was a Lekra member who had acted
\ncruelly, we should proceed to find out whether he was cruel
\nbecause he was a Lekra member? Was the same quality of cruelty
\nevenly distributed among Lekra members? Are such cruelties non-
\nexistent or rarely found in non-Lekra groups?<\/p>\n
Just how far Lekra carried out the doctrine of Socialist
\nRealism still needs probing. If Lekra was flawed, how far was the
\nflaw coming out of the adopted doctrine? What was the doctrine
\nexactly? What was the difference between Socialist Realism and
\nSocial Realism? What was its connection with Communism and
\nMarxism? Why did not all followers of Marxism agree with
\nSocialist Realism?<\/p>\n
In past decades young Indonesian intellectuals may have been
\naddressing that kind of intellectual questions, apart from
\npractical political conflicts. If they are now prevented from
\nassessing the intellectual works of their predecessors and taking
\nup debates with them, what is the political and ethical basis for
\nthe ban? More so if the party preventing the debates is fond of
\ncondemning various repressive concepts.<\/p>\n
If such matters can be openly discussed in Indonesia, who is
\nentitled to be involved? Who is in a position to do so now that
\nformer Lekra members are marginalized in the New Order political
\nstage? Furthermore, they often become the object of discussions
\nby their former enemies not only in ideas but in personal
\nexperiences. This would give rise to significant ethical
\nquestions.<\/p>\n
Nevertheless, encouraging development in the current political
\nclimate has taken place in recent months. The government has
\nfreed a number of political prisoners. The ET code (former
\npolitical detainee) on identity cards has been abolished. In the
\nlate 1980s the government jailed three Yogyakarta youths for
\npossessing banned Pramoedya novels. Now old literary works of the
\nwriter have reappeared and are widely circulated. In 1988 Suara
\nPembaruan daily was reprimanded for publishing a letter to the
\neditor sent in by Pramoedya. Now a close-up of Pramoedya has made
\nthe cover of Forum Keadilan magazine and an in-depth interview
\nits main report.<\/p>\n
Are we ready to welcome an open dialog on the history of
\nLekra? In order to reply to this question, we have to take into
\naccount the growth of political awareness in the society.
\nDisappointment of the status-quo and certain policies has
\nelicited violent reactions from the young. The reactions are not
\nall prejudice towards the government but also sympathy for
\nwhoever is marginalized or critical of the government. Sympathy
\nshown to Pramoedya in the Magsaysay controversy is a case in
\npoint reflective of this undercurrent.<\/p>\n
The very repression of Pramoedya and Lekra is responsible for
\nthe growing sympathy toward Lekra and Pramoedya. It is
\nunfortunate that such overwhelming sympathy is of no help to
\nsetting up a critical dialog on the history of Lekra. And so too
\nthe burning resentment among some intellectuals of the New Order.<\/p>\n
The writer is lecturer at the post-graduate program at the
\nSatya Wacana Christian University.<\/p>\n
Window: Although Pramoedya only debated with words, these words were
\nsufficient to ignite repressive measures toward Lekra's foes, or
\nso the Manifesto members believed.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/what-next-after-magsaysay-controversy-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}