What next after Magsaysay controversy?

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.