Freedom a prerequisite to rewriting history

By Asip Agus Hasani

YOGYAKARTA (JP): Historian Soegijanto Padmo places great trust in his fellow historians.

In the hands of historians and other members of society, the country could begin to construct a truthful and credible history, completely independent of what the government has presented.

"Historians uphold the truth above everything," says Soegijanto, who is a vice dean at the Faculty of Letters at Gadjah Mada University in Yogyakarta.

In the past, the role of scholars in the writing of the history of the 32-year New Order regime was often enfeebled and undermined, with errant historians threatened with imprisonment.

Anticipating greater demands for better historical perspectives, Soegijanto dissected his vision of the nation's history, and how it should be revised during an interview with The Jakarta Post in Yogyakarta.

Question: Many people have recently begun to challenge the official history of post-1945 Indonesia, especially the parts in which former president Soeharto was involved. Why have such controversies arisen?

Answer: In the writing of history there is a tendency to have two versions: the historian's and the ruler's.

The professional historians write historical literature and conduct research using standard academic norms. They must maintain objectivity and accuracy because that is their ultimate goal.

Meanwhile, there is a tendency that rulers, for example Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev who was a Soviet president (1960-1964, 1977-1982) have history written (in a way) which suits their interests.

In Indonesia, literature with real historical values is usually in the form of historical dissertations and scientific papers written by academics. These are very different from the history books written as part of government policy.

So, it is clear that historical literature that is the product of the New Order regime must be reinterpreted or revised, even on subjects like Boedi Oetomo, which is said to be a pioneer of the national movement.

Boedi Oetomo founder, who came from an upper middle-class background, emerged from a sophisticated education granted by the Dutch to the middle class as a political gift.

I have observed that the real pioneers were the santri (students at traditional Moslem boarding schools) in the villages and the preachers in the cities, such as those of the Syarikat Dagang Islam (The Islam Commerce Union), HOS Cokroaminoto, and H. Samanhudi.

Q: There is currently much debates over Soeharto's involvement in the Sept. 30, 1965 coup of the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI). Which is the right one?

A: The use of different sources of information can lead to various perspectives of history written from different angles.

In this case there are five versions. The first places PKI as the central figure in the movement, while the second puts then president Sukarno in the central figure.

These two versions are the ones which were explored and even manipulated to suit the interests of the Soeharto regime.

But there are other perspectives, including the (third) theory that the coup was a consequence of the United States' foreign policy.

The fourth perspective suggests that the PKI coup was linked to Britain's political intervention in East and Southeast Asia. Britain was then trying to block the flow of communism from the North.

The fifth theorizes that the coup erupted from an internal conflict in the Army.

During the New Order era, apart from exploitation and manipulation, only certain perspectives were explored in the five theories.

Q: How can we create history which prevents controversy? Should we combine various approaches?

A: It involves the process of establishing a rational and objective nation. To achieve this, we need to have freedom of

The objectivity of historical literature written by an autocratic government, which represses the freedom of expression, is highly dubious.

There is no room for corrective analysis because there is no dialog, while the writing of history needs dialog, freedom, and democracy.

Q: So the writing of history should be comprehensive?

A: Historical writing that is comprehensive and diverse is the manifestation of freedom of expression. The Soeharto regime was an autocratic one, the right version was that approved by the government.

Another example is the March 1, 1949 attack on Yogyakarta by the Dutch, which Soeharto claims to have initiated.

The real initiator, Sultan Hamengkubowono IX, never claimed that he was the initiator, but anyone in their right mind would know that the sultan was the then ruler of Yogyakarta who knew the ins and outs of the city.

Why didn't historians challenge this during the Soeharto regime? Because they sought safety and did not want to be labeled PKI.

Q: The government is currently planning to revise history as part of reviewing the curriculum. What do you think?

A: As far as details such as historical dates and places are concerned, there are no problems.

But when we come to the interpretation -- the "how and why" -- we have to be educative and not provocative. An interpretation of history cannot just highlight a figure or a group, but it must defend the truth to support the public interest...

Q: Do you think that the current account of history approved by the government must be revised?

A: Yes, it must. Even the standard national history books in the national library need some correction and clarification.

For example, in one edition, (former education minister) Nugroho Notosusanto wrote that president Sukarno impoverished our nation.

What is the basis of that? Was Sukarno ever corrupt? Did he ever make his children rich like Soeharto? No. So don't make personal judgments or let yourself be influenced by power.

Q: Who should take the initiative to revise history?

A: The government should finance the project. But professional historians must also be involved. Writing history must not be monopolized. Even journalists and the public can be part of the reconstruction and the revision of history.

Q: Can you cite an example that depicts the thin line between myth and history?

A: The New Order regime tended to manipulate history and create myths. Soeharto would often say we should not make a myth of him but he let himself be called the Father of Development, and claimed he was the country's most meritorious hero.