Six Decades of Supersemar: Historian Calls for Archives to be Opened

Sixty years after the issuance of the Letter of Instruction of Eleven March, or Supersemar, the controversy surrounding the meaning and origins of this document remains unresolved. The letter, often regarded as the beginning of the rise of the New Order regime, continues to raise a fundamental question: did Supersemar represent a transfer of power from President Sukarno to Suharto, or was it merely an order to stabilise the political situation that was later interpreted beyond its original intent?

Sri Margana, a historian at Gadjah Mada University, stated that Supersemar initially emerged as a response to the political upheaval following the 1965 incident. According to him, the letter was intended as an instruction to the military to stabilise the state during a precarious period.

However, over time, interpretations of the letter expanded far beyond its original purpose. In a state address on 17 August 1966, President Sukarno himself stated that he had issued orders to Suharto to secure the situation. Nevertheless, Sukarno also believed that the execution of this order exceeded its scope.

“In that address, Sukarno thanked [Suharto] for carrying out his orders. But he also judged the implementation to have overstepped the boundaries, as it was later interpreted as a transfer of power,” Margana said at the Building of Soegondo, Faculty of Cultural Sciences at UGM on Wednesday, 11 March.

Margana explained that what Sukarno meant by overstepping included the dissolution of the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) and the arrest of fifteen ministers from the Dwikora Cabinet. According to him, these actions were beyond the military’s authority.

“Dissolving a political party is the president’s prerogative, not the military’s. Therefore, these actions are considered to have exceeded the security mandate,” he said.

These steps subsequently accelerated changes in the national political configuration. The prohibition of the PKI, combined with strong public sentiment following the 30 September 1965 Movement, increasingly weakened Sukarno’s political position.

This situation reached its peak when the Provisional People’s Consultative Assembly (MPRS) rejected President Sukarno’s accountability address in 1967. This rejection marked the end of Sukarno’s rule and paved the way for Suharto to assume the nation’s leadership.

“That rejection became the endpoint of Sukarno’s administration. After that, power transferred and Suharto was appointed president in 1968,” Margana said.

Despite its decisive role in Indonesian political history, Supersemar presents a fundamental problem in historical scholarship: the original document has never been found. To date, only three different versions of the document exist, each originating from the State Secretariat, the Army Information Centre, and the Akademi Bangsa Foundation. These three versions are now stored in the National Archives of the Republic of Indonesia.

The absence of the original manuscript has fuelled various speculations. Some historians have even raised the possibility that the signing of Supersemar occurred under political pressure.

“Because the original archive does not exist, various interpretations have emerged, including the theory that the creation of the letter contained elements of coercion,” Margana said.

However, to date, according to him, there is no authentic evidence or direct admission from the figures involved that can confirm such claims.

For Margana, the controversy surrounding Supersemar is not merely a matter of the past. The event also serves as a reminder of how political crises can create opportunities for drastic changes in power.

He believed that a political situation marked by public unease, demonstrations, and dissatisfaction with government policies has the potential to create similar conditions if not responded to wisely.

“In situations of chaos, patterns of power seizure like those in the past could emerge again,” he said.

For this reason, he believed the state needs to seriously resolve Supersemar’s historiographical problems. The National Archives, as an institution with the authority over state archival matters, should be pushed to continue investigating the whereabouts of the original document.

According to Margana, clarity on this document is important in determining whether Supersemar was truly a transfer of power as interpreted during the New Order period, or merely a security instruction that was subsequently exploited for political purposes.

“It may have been merely a security order that was later executed excessively. Or there is the possibility that the letter was manipulated to gain access to power,” he said.

He also reminded the public to read history critically. According to him, many historical narratives formed during the New Order were singular in nature and did not allow room for other interpretations.

“History during that period was heavily influenced by state interpretation. For this reason, it needs to be reviewed critically, especially now that many accounts and documents have emerged,” Margana said.