Heroism, nationhood key elements in promoting national unity

Heroism, nationhood key elements in promoting national unity

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): November 10 is a day for commemorating and
honoring our fallen heroes. On this particular day in 1945,
freedom fighters -- in Surabaya particularly, and in East Java in
general -- had rejected an ultimatum issued by the 5th India
Division of the British army in Surabaya to lay down their arms
and surrender to the Allied Forces Netherlands East Indies, which
wanted to help the Netherlands East Indies Civil Administration
to establish its authority over East Java. The ultimatum was
ignored, and armed clashes broke out immediately.

In this tense situation, a legendary figure, Bung Tomo, arose.
It was his famous fiery and passionate speeches which kept the
fighting spirit of the freedom fighters constantly high
throughout the entire Surabaya military campaign. Incited by Bung
Tomo's speeches, which were broadcast throughout the country,
freedom fighters from all over the country poured into Surabaya
to help their overpowered comrades in battle. Bung Tomo was seen
at the time as a real hero by the masses.

It was those who fell in this campaign whom we first
consciously perceived as our national heroes. Very soon
thereafter, other freedom fighters who gave their lives in other
battles during the period of physical revolution were also looked
upon by the public as heroes. At the end of the revolution, every
person who participated in whatever manner in the revolution and
came back alive was also considered a hero. The word "hero" was
no longer preserved only for the dead, but for the living as
well. An interesting issue arose during later phases of
Indonesian history. If one was a hero during the revolution, but
later committed an act which was considered "treason", was he
still a hero? Are those heroes from the past who later joined the
PRRI, Permesta, and any of those parapolitical organizations of
the PKI also entitled to retain their titles as heroes? And what
about those heroes from the revolution who later became corrupt?
Are they still heroes? This is an interesting issue, which has
never been debated in public, resulting in a kind of divergence
between the public and the government regarding the meaning of
the word "hero".

What is a "hero"? According to one dictionary, a hero is a
person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose,
especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life. It
is with this meaning that we use the word "hero" in expressions
like "heroes of the forgotten wars" or "heroes of the silent
wars". Another meaning of "hero" is a person prominent in some
event, field, period, or cause by reason of his or her special
achievements or contributions. This meaning is conveyed, for
example, in expressions like "the heroes of medicine" or "heroes
for the cause of human rights".

To me, it is a very interesting coincidence that Heroes Day,
November 10, follows immediately after Youth Pledge Day, October
28, in our calendar. It is as if we are reminded by history to
keep our sense of heroism alive to preserve and promote the unity
of our nation. We are constantly reminded by current events in
other parts of the world that national unity cannot be taken for
granted. Just because we have been an independent nation for 51
years, it does not necessarily mean that our sense of national
unity today is the same as it was in 1945.

Our national unity depends, of course, on our sense of
nationhood. Do we really perceive ourselves as one nation, or do
we perceive ourselves more as the sum of a number of ethnic,
religious and cultural entities?

According to one analysis, the sense of being "we" in any
nation can come from four factors: a shared language, a shared
religion, the proud ownership of some special political idea, or
the memory of shared horror (from The Shape of the World in The
Economist, December 23, 1995, p. 20). In the case of many
nations, this sense of being "we" comes from various mixtures of
these factors. But we should also not forget that there are some
factors among these four that can also become the source of
national division. Language has divided Quebec practically into
two nations. This is also the case in Belgium. The hatred in
Bosnia is rooted both in difference of religion and in the shared
memory of long-ago frontier wars between culture areas.

The important question to ask in this regard is whether or not
at any particular moment we still have this feeling of being
"we". This "we" feeling fluctuates, changes from to time. Every
time we watch an Indonesian badminton team compete against a team
from another nation in a world championship match, for instance,
our sense of nationalism, our sense of being "we" swells very
strongly. On the other hand, in a crowd watching a fashion show
or an automobile show, I think is difficult to generate this
sense of being "we".

There are thus factors in our life that promote our sense of
nationhood, but there are also factors that impair and even
disrupt it. Our being a nation which is ethnically, religiously,
and culturally pluralistic is a factor that can promote or erode
our sense of being a nation. We can learn from Senator Moynihan
in this regard, who described very clearly in his book
Pandemonium (Oxford University Press, 1993) that ethnicity is a
very important factor in the lives of many nations. Based on his
analyses of events in many parts of the world, he maintains that
"Far from vanishing, ethnicity has been and will be an elemental
force in international politics." He stated that "ethnic pride
can be a source of dignity and stability, if only its legitimacy
is accepted". The dynamic of ethnic conflict can, according to
Senator Moynihan, be "understood, anticipated, and moderated".

What is a "nation"? Walker Connor defines a "nation" as "a
group of people who believe they are ancestrally related." On the
basis of this definition, the important question about any nation
is not what it is, but when it is. Nation formation is a process,
not an occurrence or event. Events are easily dated, whereas
stages in a process are not. The delay between the appearance of
national consciousness among sectors of the elite and its
extension to the masses can, in some cases, stretch into
centuries.

Let us, on this particular day, reflect about the state of our
nationhood at this stage of our history, and let us look for ways
which can strengthen our national unity in the face of new
challenges that very soon will beset our nation.