What next after Magsaysay controversy?

By Ariel Heryanto

SALATIGA, Central Java (JP): The older generation, which has shown its merits in the country's development and has been privileged to enjoy the boons of the New Order, has left a number of debts to the younger generation.

It is not only a huge foreign debt but also a debt of clear and truthful cultural history during the transitory period from the Guided Democracy in late 1950s to the arrival of the New Order in mid 1960s.

The controversy over the 1995 Magsaysay Award to writer Pramoedya Ananta Toer is just a ripple in the ocean of historical problems. The violent ongoing debate over the issue has not yet touched on the essentials of the problem. The crucial issue is not about those who raise their voice the highest, nor about those who draw the most supporters. It is more about what the debate can contribute to Indonesian society, particularly to its younger generation.

When the Magsaysay award presenting ceremony is over, the debate is likely to abate. The core of the problem may remain under the surface only to explode again at other times. Before the fundamental problem is understood, there is little hope for dialog that will give a wisdom of knowledge to the post New Order generation.

This article will identify three basic problems without the pretense of answering them. The first concerns historical reality, the second touches on doctrines and norms and the third takes a look at our community's current condition as offering a base for productive intellectual dialog.

What did really happen in Indonesian art and culture circles in the mid 1960s, particularly in Java? This is the first historical problem. The scale of importance of this problem for the post New Order generation far exceeds, for instance, a momentary need to understand the 1995 Magsaysay debate.

We are grateful that the Magsaysay debate has helped to unveil some historical facts. Pramoedya Ananta Toer has been accused of involvement in the campaign of creative and intellectual repression. Is that true? If so, what did Pramoedya actually do? When, where and how? Why did it happen?

Since the mid 1960s Pramoedya has become a controversial figure in Indonesia but not as an individual. He has always been associated with the left leaning People's Culture Institute (Lekra) and the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI). Therefore, a study on the history of the inner workings of Lekra and its connection with the PKI is absolutely necessary. When and where did Pramoedya represent Lekra? Where did he act in a private capacity? The suspicion on Pramoedya needs clearer specification.

Pramoedya has been accused of involvement in book burnings spearheaded by Lekra. This has been refuted by Pramoedya. However, there is a more profound accusation that has led to debates. Pramoedya might not have been directly involved in those actions or he might not have justified them, but some of the Manifesto members -- which opposed the campaign of suppression -- have found fault with him for not having tried to prevent the attacks against the artists being accused of anti-revolution and anti-Manipol Usdek (the then political jargon).

The accusation implies that Pramoedya had not only the obligation but also the power or authority to stop the attacks towards the Cultural Manifesto intellectuals. The next question is therefore: Is the assumption correct? How far did Pramoedya's authority and power go at that time? In an interview, Pramoedya said that what he had done was only debate with the Cultural Manifesto people. He added he had no authority to prohibit or repress any artist and that it was the authority of the attorney general's office.

Although Pramoedya only debated with words, these words were sufficient to ignite repressive measures toward Lekra's foes, or so the Manifesto members believed. This was made possible due to the weak and vulnerable position of the Manifesto people. They were not political opponents on a par with Lekra. Therefore, Pramoedya's steps should be placed in the then national political historical context, said some of Lekra's enemies and victims.

However, Pramoedya has voiced a similar claim. He said he entered into debates using harsh words due to the overwhelming pressure of the situation. He admitted he had come to the defense of president Sukarno who was under threat of world imperialism forces. Pramoedya placed his steps in a global political context. So, what are the contextual boundaries which are more valid? Who were really in command? Who were weak and menaced? To what extent were the strengths and weaknesses of each side at that time?

While many questions have not been answered, we are also confronted with a number of problems regarding ideologies, norms, ideals and values. For example, what actually are the doctrines referred to as "Socialist Realism", Communism and Marxism?

Who has been proven wrong and needs to be opposed in this country? Is it the practice of repressing human rights and creative freedom? Some wrongdoers? An organization? Or a number of isms or concepts? Are all things one, similar and congruent? We do not need to put a fire to a warehouse to kill one mouse inside, except if the whole warehouse is a big nest of mice.

It was said that the art works by Lekra artists were bad because they followed the Socialist Realism doctrine. They were also considered villainous politically because they had joined Lekra and hence communism. And, so it was also said, communism was evil because it had its origins in Marxism.

It is very probable that Lekra members would not have fully rejected such a description. They declared they were followers of "Cultural Realism", Communism and Marxism all together, like those who say they are loyal to the 1945 Constitution and Pancasila today. The difference is, the Lekra people did so with a feeling of pride. Their opponents gave a similar description of them with the intention of vilifying them. Each side gave a different meaning to Socialist Realism, Communism and Marxism. But both sides shared the opinion that those concepts automatically formed one whole.

Can we without much ado just believe such opinions? We should be able to study whatever concept there is in terms of its ideas, doctrines or ideals. We should be able to do so irrespective of whether this concept has taken shape in history or just stopped dead in rhetorics, irrespective of those who have claimed to have followed it and whether they truly succeeded in following the doctrine.

We can criticize a concept. We can also criticize somebody's actions irrespective of the concept of his adulation. Those two criticisms differ. In the various stories on Lekra, both are often intermingled. If there was a Lekra member who had acted cruelly, we should proceed to find out whether he was cruel because he was a Lekra member? Was the same quality of cruelty evenly distributed among Lekra members? Are such cruelties non- existent or rarely found in non-Lekra groups?

Just how far Lekra carried out the doctrine of Socialist Realism still needs probing. If Lekra was flawed, how far was the flaw coming out of the adopted doctrine? What was the doctrine exactly? What was the difference between Socialist Realism and Social Realism? What was its connection with Communism and Marxism? Why did not all followers of Marxism agree with Socialist Realism?

In past decades young Indonesian intellectuals may have been addressing that kind of intellectual questions, apart from practical political conflicts. If they are now prevented from assessing the intellectual works of their predecessors and taking up debates with them, what is the political and ethical basis for the ban? More so if the party preventing the debates is fond of condemning various repressive concepts.

If such matters can be openly discussed in Indonesia, who is entitled to be involved? Who is in a position to do so now that former Lekra members are marginalized in the New Order political stage? Furthermore, they often become the object of discussions by their former enemies not only in ideas but in personal experiences. This would give rise to significant ethical questions.

Nevertheless, encouraging development in the current political climate has taken place in recent months. The government has freed a number of political prisoners. The ET code (former political detainee) on identity cards has been abolished. In the late 1980s the government jailed three Yogyakarta youths for possessing banned Pramoedya novels. Now old literary works of the writer have reappeared and are widely circulated. In 1988 Suara Pembaruan daily was reprimanded for publishing a letter to the editor sent in by Pramoedya. Now a close-up of Pramoedya has made the cover of Forum Keadilan magazine and an in-depth interview its main report.

Are we ready to welcome an open dialog on the history of Lekra? In order to reply to this question, we have to take into account the growth of political awareness in the society. Disappointment of the status-quo and certain policies has elicited violent reactions from the young. The reactions are not all prejudice towards the government but also sympathy for whoever is marginalized or critical of the government. Sympathy shown to Pramoedya in the Magsaysay controversy is a case in point reflective of this undercurrent.

The very repression of Pramoedya and Lekra is responsible for the growing sympathy toward Lekra and Pramoedya. It is unfortunate that such overwhelming sympathy is of no help to setting up a critical dialog on the history of Lekra. And so too the burning resentment among some intellectuals of the New Order.

The writer is lecturer at the post-graduate program at the Satya Wacana Christian University.

Window: Although Pramoedya only debated with words, these words were sufficient to ignite repressive measures toward Lekra's foes, or so the Manifesto members believed.