*IBRAHIM ISA - Berbagi Cerita
Rabu, 25 November 2009
-----------------------------------------*
*IMAGO SOEKARNO YANG DIKISRUHKAN*
'A MISLEADING IMAGE OF SOEKARNO', *Oleh Joesoef Isak *
(3)
== Pengantar I.Isa ==
Siaran ini adalah bagian terakhir (3) dari artikel penting JOESOEF ISAK
(18 Okt 1994), berjudul 'A Misleading Image of Soekarno'. Artikel tsb
ditulis sekitar kedatangan Ratu Beatrix dan Pangeran Clause ke Indonesia
(1995).
Teramat penting dalam bagian penutup artikelnya, Joesoef Isak, menulis
tentang sikap dan hubungan Sukarno sebagai pemimpin nasional Indonesia
dengan PKI. Kaitannya dengan situasi ketika itu, yaitu periode Perang
Dingin. Yang berpendirian bahwa: 'Bila kalian tidak bersama kami
(Barat), berarti 'kalian adalah musuh kami'.
Joesoef Isak mengungkapkan apa sebabnya terjadi perubahan sikap pimpinan
PSI (Soebadio-Sudjatmoko) terhadap Sukarno. Yang tadinya menentang
Sukarno, berubah menjadi mendukung Sukarno. Dijelaskan bahwa tujuan PSI
adalah untuk memisahkan Sukarno dari PKI. Sekali tempo, Soebadio pernah
berucap kepada (Joeseof Isak) sbb: Dulu itu, kami salah menentang
Sukarno. Itulah sebabnya Sukarno merangkul dan dirangkul PKI.
Selanjutnya kita (PSI) harus mendukung Sukarno dan bersama pendukung
Sukano melawan Suharto. Demikian Soebadio Sastrosatomo, pimpinan utama
PSI setelah Syahrir meninggal.
Joesoef selanjutnya mengungkapkan bahwa dalam menyusun DEKON, Deklarasi
Ekonomi, rencana strategis pembangunan ekonomi nasional Indonesia,
pakar-pakar ekonomi seperti Ali Wardhana dan Widjojo Nitisastro dari PSI
turut aktif ambil bagian. Jadi sudah sejak saat itu, orang-orang PSI
(tidak termasuk faksinya Prof Dr Sumitro Djojohadikusmo), mendukung
Presiden Sukarno.
Secara analitis Joesoef memperinci apa sebabnya pemerinah Belanda ketika
itu, dalam usaha memecah belah para pemimpin nasional Indonesia, memilih
memberikan dukungannya kepada Hata-Syahrir, teristimewa kepada Syahrir.
Tujuan Den Haag ialah untuk memencilkan kemudian menyisihkan Sukarno.
Silakan pembaca menelusuri lebih lanjut uraian Joesoef Isak.
Jusuf Isak menjelaskan mengapa tuduhan dan fitnahan Barat terhadap
Sukarno, khususnya Belanda, demikian gairahnya. Dan bahwa semua tuduhan
dan fitnahan tsb satu persatu dianalisis sehingga menjadi terungkap
ketidak-benarannya.
* * *
*A MISLEADING IMAGE OF SUKARNO < 3 > **
<**JOESOEF ISAK>* *
*
And all of this are just the plain facts, which we as a nation easily
remember, because what was happening was transparent, and could be
followed through the newspapers. What occured beneath the surface, was a
swarm of conspiracies of a different calibre. The fact that Sukarno in
such a situation was still able to govern, and we Indonesian people
could still speak proudly about "our own Indonesia", was a wonder.
Shouldn't the question arise, how did Sukarno, in such an intensely
conflicting situation, manage to keep Indonesia from starving to death?
Remember then, we were not supported by a "Marshall-plan" after the
second world war, on the contrary, we were still involved in a five year
battle against the colonial rulers, who wanted to regain their colony
and who stubbornly tried to hold on to Papua, the west part of New
Guinea. Most crucial: Indonesia was one of the most stormy political
battlefields of the cold war era and Sukarno was at that time the most
prime target of both blocs. Was it so difficult to understand, why
Sukarno took the initiative to organize the third world countries into
an independent force, in order to form a united front of nonaligned
power against the conflicting world powers? According to Western cold
war ideology of that time, it was immoral and megalomaniacal.
Then let us bring forth all the various economic experts to tell us how,
in such a strained political situation, Sukarno was able to launch an
acceptable economic policy and to feed daily eighty million Indonesian
people?
Meanwhile, Hatta had indeed put distance between himself and Sukarno,
because as a strong anticommunist he did not succeed in moving Sukarno
away from the communists. As the great unificator of Indonesia, Sukarno
upheld the principle of the unity and totality of Indonesia. The
unification of all revolutionary forces was always consciously his
dynamic political motive. Therefore, Soekarno and Hatta were politically
estranged from each other, but this was played out in a respectable way,
between the two greatest Indonesian leaders.
The negative image of Sukarno by the Western people in general and by
the Dutch people in particular was caused in part by the tendentious
comparisons between Sukarno, and Hatta-Syahrir. Sukarno got the title of
dictator with all of the attendants negative adjectives, such as
agitator, megalomaniac, tyrant, etc. Hatta and Syahrir on the other
hand, were praised as unquestionable democrats. It was unthinkable that
Sukarno wanted to fight against the powerful West and that he nurtured
megalomaniac ideas about a world confrontation between the NEFO (New
Emerging Forces) and OLDEFO (Old Established Forces). Further, it was
completely incomprehensible, that he had not been able to appreciate the
"strings-attached" development aid from America ("go to hell with your
aid!") to fill the stomach of those hungry Indonesians and to realize
the economic fortification of the country.
Why didn't he just simply stand in the same ranks with the West?
Instead, he walked around with "megalomaniacal" ideas to establish a
more just world organization, in addition to the existing United
Nations. On the contrary, Hatta and Syahrir were great democrats with a
politician's inherent personal characteristics: solid, honest, and
rational, and they expressed themselves with a demure persona. These
perceptions in regard to Sukarno, Hatta and Syahrir were typical images,
and standardized references, which were taken as the truth.
Certain categories of writers used a criterion, never openly
acknowledged, but which was in fact the decisive guide in forming their
opinion about Hatta and Syahrir on one side, and Sukarno on the other.
The first were anticommunists, therefore it goes without saying that
they were sound and full of virtuousness; the other was not anti
communist and must therefore be approving of communism, and that was
definitely very wrong. Indeed. Hatta and Syahrir were clearly anti
communists and had been so since their years of study in Holland. Their
political attitude against communism proceeded in various domestic
political conflicts immediately after our independence in 1945. They did
everything to oppose the communists, and in some cases even to eliminate
them.
Sukarno, a nationalist like Hatta and Syahrir, was on the contrary, not
an anti communist. He had already recognized in an early arena of his
political career the importance of cooperation with the communists as
well as cooperation with all the other myriad forces in the Indonesian
social and political constellation. Unity above all! And that was then
the biggest sin of Sukarno. Not to be anticommunist meant thus to be a
fellow traveller of the communists! In particular, after the fall of
communism in the world and also in Indonesia, Sukarno was in every way
wrong and bad. Right now, all honours are presented to politicians, who
have been against Sukarno or communism; they receive official honorifics
such as "Maha Putera" (The Great Sons of the Country). When anti
communists make serious offences against the principles of democracy by
suppressing people of another opinion, they still are able to be
considered great democrats, because the people or political groups which
were eliminated were just communists or their sympathizers, something
less than fully human. This dividing line as a criterion is the very
essence of all analyses on Sukarno, and was in fact the accepted method
of dividing the "good" from the "bad" politicians. A real inheritance of
Mac Carthyism indeed. This stupid manner of analyzing is up to the
present time still valid among many journalists, professionals and
amateur politicians. Only a small stratum of university circles is
probably not yet infected by these cold war standards of categorizing
Indonesian matters and top political figures.
I am very conscious of the existing differences between Sukarno, Hatta,
and Syahrir, but I remain respectful towards those three leaders, who in
spite of their different opinions were able to complement each other and
dedicate each in their own way their great services for the freedom of
our country and people.
On this very point lies the conflict between myself and all those other
writers, who have manipulated very consciously the differences among the
three leaders in order to besmirch and belittle Sukarno. The real
background of it was nothing else other than the fact that Sukarno had
"treacherously" cooperated with the communists and therefore it was
justified to knock him down. Such are the facts and it goes as simple as
that. It is indeed easy, and shows an acute shortsightedness, to
simplify the problems concerning Sukarno, as well as the complicated
political situation in Indonesia at that time.
Sukarno stood at that time in front of the choice to sell Indonesia to
the big international capital or to become a satellite of the
communistic eastern bloc. Whatever choice you would make, in order to be
able to govern properly, the opposition has to be broken. According to
Foster Dulles there was no middle-road. But Sukarno's political
conscience didn't let him carry out both options. The public seems
hardly to be aware, that the NON ALIGNED MOVEMENT, and all subsequent
concepts developed on a global scope (like OPEC, and the south-south
countries meetings) which today's world has to consider and of which
Suharto currently is the chairman, was the work of the same
megalomaniacal Sukarno! The deed had passed, but the result is there!
Visionary ideas are unfortunately no "instant meal". The results have to
be awaited a long time, in Sukarno's case in particular, because
everything was been broken off by mass-murders which were carried out by
the New Order forces of Suharto in 1965/1966. People like Snouck
Hurgronje, De Jonge, Beel and Luns said that Indonesia and the
Indonesians were not ripe for democracy. Sukarno seemed not to disagree
with them completely, as he had become wise by bitter experiences, at
least in regard to western concepts, such as the free market and the
free expression of opinions. So we were not yet as ripe as that. That's
why Sukarno looked for a form of democracy, which could reflect the
specifics of an Indonesian identity and character. He called his
experiment, in a term suitable to modern concepts on state : Guided
Democracy.
Were Sukarno just half as unscrupulous as Suharto, the situation would
have looked different. Sukarno would have made it much easier if he had
chosen the West: eliminating the communists (but is that democracy?),
and initiating a complete open door policy in relation to foreign
investments. Now, for the sake of our annual high economic growth
percentage, let us indeed not have any objection whatsoever to the
tragic low salaries of the workers! Compliments of the World Bank and
I.M.F. were surely guaranteed with that kind of economic policy, and
that is what probably was meant by "taking care of the economy", which
according Rudy Kousbroek, was greatly neglected by Sukarno. In
accordance with the accusation that Sukarno did not pay enough attention
to the country's economy, one probably completely forgets that in
1962-1963 (thus immediately after the end of the 12 long years of misery
caused by Joseph Luns and his New Guinea politics), Sukarno had decided
that political stability was sufficiently ripened for an profound
tackling of the economy; he was assisted in his plans by economic
experts like Ali Wardhana, and Widjojo Nitisastro, who later also played
a decisive role in the economic policies of Suharto. In the background
was the decision of the PSI of Syahrir (the Subadio-Sudjatmoko faction),
not the PSI-group of Prof. Sumitro, to cooperate with Sukarno to handle
the rebuilding of the country, politically and economically.
Do we still remember the DEKON, or Economic Declaration, the
complementary better half of MANIPOL, or Political Manifest? Sudjatmoko,
Ir. Sarbini and Ali Wardhana cum su'is were the brains behind those
concepts. Why was it not launched earlier, and how was it possible that
economic technocrats and the liquidated PSI wanted to cooperate with
Sukarno?
The reason was that the PSI followed a new course in order to thwart the
relation between Sukarno and the PKI. According to PSI circles, there
were quite a sufficient number of army officers - except General Yani -
and also mysterious members among the PKI leadership, who had pretended
loyalty towards their own fatherland, their President, and towards their
direct superiors. Actually their royalty was directed somewhere else,
that is to say toward their own real employers, the "dalang" mastermind,
who worked with ingenious remote controls. The army and the PKI competed
at that time, to launch on behalf of Sukarno - but without his knowledge
- all sorts of manoeuvres for their own political benefit. The cold war
forces indeed succeeded in penetrating deeply into the Indonesian army
and the PKI, into individuals who let themselves be used as agents, and
therewith were able to manipulate Indonesia's internal problems.
Due to the events leading up to 1965, Guided Democracy did not get the
necessary time to develop itself and naturally still time less to
realize an economic policy, where results could be expected only after
the long term. One could easily and blindly believe that Sukarno was
never interested in economic matters. It is really too easy, whenever
you just want to slander Sukarno in all possible manners, to fall back
on this pet subject of the conservative press and quasi Indonesian
experts like Rudy Kousbroek.
Is it therefore not surprising, the wide spread misleading image in
relation to Sukarno in Holland? In fact, The Netherlands had already
lost Indonesia by making an inexcusable error when Dutch politicians put
their support to Syahrir in order to play him off against Sukarno. It
was tragically unlucky for The Netherlands, and also had unfortunate
effects for Syahrir himself. This error could actually be repaired in
the following years by the existing relations, but the opposite occured:
the Dutch government and the conservative press opened a systematic
offensive to discredit Sukarno by any means available.
The Dutch choice fell then on Sutan Syahrir. With his esthetic,
impressive and brilliant book "Indonesische Overpeinzingen" (Indonesian
Reflections) he had revealed his true character. Syahrir was
unquestionably a great freedom fighter. None-the-less he was as
intellectual and a politician, and culturally speaking more European, or
more accurately, more Dutch, than Indonesian nationalist, and therefore
he was not a man of the masses. He was a thinker, a man who was always
busy meditating politics. He would be a very suitable man of science, or
a worthy dean of a university. The choice of Syahrir meant that The
Netherlands drew only a few intellectuals and quasi intellectuals to
their circles, in any case, certainly not the Indonesian people.
Sukarno was surely no less intellectually formed, but he was, in the
first place, a man of the people. The choice of Sukarno meant a choice
for the heart and sympathy of the Indonesian people. Whether it is
considered pleasant or not in The Hague, it was Sukarno and nobody else,
who was the spokesman of the people's heart, "the extension of the
people's tongue" as he literally liked to call himself. I certainly do
not make the allegation that the choice of Sukarno after the second
world war would return the Indies safe and well to the lap of the
motherland. No, but The Netherlands could have won the heart of the
Indonesian people together with Sukarno, which would have been very
important for the foundation of a new kind of solid friendship between
the two sovereign states, which for centuries had cultural and
historical ties behind them. In my article about the then forthcoming
state-visit of Queen Beatrix to Indonesia, I wrote that the opportunity
in that direction had turned up again. Unfortunately, the heresy on
Sukarno is being continued in The Netherlands.
In closing, a simple wish: try to understand Indonesia of the time
before 1965, objectively, without prejudice, and certainly without a
Kousbroek pedantic air of knowing everything concerning Indonesian
matters, even better than Indonesians themselves. Against such
pathological prepossession, we are powerless.
Jakarta, October 1994
**Joesoef Isak**,
Prior to 1965, was a journalist, chief editor of the Indonesian
newspaper Merdeka, and the general secretary of the Association of
Afro-Asian Journalists. He was arrested without charge and detained as a
political prisoner without trial for about 10 years.
* * *
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
