Debate on Pramoedya

Debate on Pramoedya

I was surprised to read the statement published in Kompas on
Aug. 6, 1995, by 26 artists/authors opposing the choice of
Pramoedya Ananta Toer for the winner of the Magsaysay literary
award.

First, it is really surprising why our authors have endlessly
debated the same subject, whereas they are paying no attention to
the greater and more urgent problem i.e. "what is the future of
our national culture?" This question is left unanswered. So the
public seem to be unable to follow the "honorable" writers.
Should the case become a polemic, the debate must be carried out
in a transparent way. In other words, each argument should be
supported by clear facts, and not by reprimanding comments, as
quoted in Kompas: "We fear that the Magsaysay award to Pramoedya
at the same time implies that the Magsaysay Award Foundation is
paying him for assaulting and suppressing freedom of creativity
from the early 60s up to mid-60s in Indonesia."

Second, it would be much better if the public were given the
opportunity to listen to a dialog or debate between the two
conflicting parties. Through an open debate, the public would be
able to perceive the problem proportionately. The younger
generation would learn from the open dialog how to enrich their
democratic life and attitude in the quest for truth. Also in the
50 years of Indonesia's independence, the younger generation will
find the momentum to reflect on what the previous generation has
done right or what it has done wrong, and try to find the best
solution to future problems and challenges.

I wish that the honorable writers would not dwell merely on
the issue of the literary award. Great writers of the caliber of
Pramoedya and Mochtar Lubis were not writing with the intention
of winning an award, but they wanted to contribute to the effort
of solving humanitarian problems by means of literary work
without resorting to sensational statements.

Third, it further surprises me that the role of Pramoedya is
always regarded as uncommendable during the age of Guided
Democracy, in which creativity was oppressed. If this is true,
then we should also consider the role of many of the
writers/artists during the occupation of the Japanese military
regime in World War II. When seen from the humanitarian point of
view, the atrocities of the Guided Democracy is nothing compared
to those of the Japanese regime during World War II.

ASHOKA SIAHAAN

Jakarta