continuation of
LIBERATING OUR COLONIAL MINDSET
(c) Indonesia should critically screen all colonial laws, adopting the progressive ones while throwing the regresive ones overboard, using the people's welfare and not the ruler's interests as its main criteria of selection; (7)
(d&e)Indonesia should abolish all forms of discrimination based on racial, religion, gender, or political conviction, e.g.:
(g) Indonesia should re-install the maritime powers outside Java, and not sacrifice them on behalf of favoring the agriculture powers in Java;
(h) Indonesia should seriously lay the groundwork of a federalistic state and devolve the power from the old capital (Jakarta) towards the regions, and also devolve power from the new metropole (the CGI, especially the USA/World Bank, Japan and Germany) to a genuinely elected parliament. (10)
If we still have serious disagreements on all those eight points, we have to ask ourselves, what are then the substantive differences between the "colonial" Dutch East Indies and the "independent" Indonesia? Or is Indonesia only a "new society" in an "old state" ? Or in a more popular language, old wine in a new bottle ?
Contemporary Challenges
This leads us then into the contemporary challenges, which are the legacy as well as the "hang-overs" of the 1945-1950 independence struggle:
(I). Defining who we are as a nation-state: is Indonesia a continuation of the former East Indies Dutch colony, a completely new nation-state in the making, or a newborn Java-based empire (Majapahit, or Mataram)?
(II). Defining whom do we consist of as citizens of that nation-state: are we a multiracial and multicultural agglomeration of peoples ? Or are we a single people (satu bangsa) undergoing a process of homogenization under a dominant culture, a dominant religion, and a dominant state philosophy ?
(III). Defining the means with which we rule ourselves: are we going to allow ourselves to be ruled continuously by a homogenizing and self-serving elite, which glorify the supremacy of the armed resistance in the independence struggle to legitimize civilian domination by the military as well as to justify the collusion of the former freedom fighters with their Chinese gun-runners ? Or, do we have to create a completely new Government ethos?
If the latter is the case then we have to demystify the glorification of the ksatria -- or warrior -- culture that is believed to have kept us intact as a nation from various external threats, by exploring other contributing factors which have lead us to (political) independence, as well as exploring other strands in the independence struggle which did not make it.
For instance, we have to explore the "100% merdeka" strand of Tan Malaka, which aimed at political independence from a "foreign" power with the liberation of the people from their own political and economic oppressors, who had been the agents of Dutch colonialism. We also have to explore the more peaceful means of liberating the masses from poverty and isolation from the global community through education, health and economic efforts, which were endeavoured by Muhammadiyah, Taman Siswa, and other civilian organizations. In the mean time, we also have to explore and appreciate the independence fighters on the diplomatic front, and not continuously blame them for yielding too easily to the Dutch demands, as we often read from the literature written by contemporary dwi-fungsi aplogists for the Indonesian regime.
Now, if we do not glorify the armed resistance in the independence struggle, and see their role as important as the peaceful resistance through economic and diplomatic means, then we should also terminate the collusion of business and politics, the "illegitimate child" (anak haram) of the armed guerilla struggle, (11) especially since it deprives the majority of the Indonesian and East Timorese peoples from the full benefits of the Indonesian revolution.
My answers to those questions are probably already obvious for those who are aware of my political trajectory under the New Order regime, having experienced major shifts in the nation's political culture, and having personally grown up -- biologically as well as intellectually -- in Java, Kalimantan, Sulawesi, Irian Jaya, the Netherlands, the USA, and currently in Australia.
First of all, I do not see Indonesia as the rightful heir and thereby a continuation of the Dutch East Indies, nor as a newborn Java-based empire. Indonesia is becoming, as well as will become, what its peoples wanted it to become, even if that means a reformulation of the old Dutch East Indies borders -- which have already been violated -- with the consent of most Indonesian intellectuals, since 1975.
Secondly, the Indonesian society as I see it, should not be seen as a single people, but as an agglomeration of peoples, consisting of different races, different ethno-linguistic groups, different historical heritages, different religious and political convictions, who all strive for the right to be treated as citizens with equal rights before the law. Hence, the 1945 constitutional limitation that only "indigenous" Indonesians could become president should be abolished. Likewise, standard practices or the current predominant belief
(d&e)Indonesia should abolish all forms of discrimination based on racial, religion, gender, or political conviction, e.g.:
- Indonesia should not favor one particular ethnic, religious or professional group to the presidential seat and other important bureaucratic and military posts, while discriminating other ethnic, religious, or professional groups; (8)
- the "brown" rulers should not exploit the masses of their own race by using economic intermediaries from different races;
- Indonesia should not discriminate one religion over another, or even on set of belief systems (e.g. the monotheistic Semitic religions) vis a vis other belief systems, including polytheist Hindu and other natural religions, non-theist Buddhism, as well as atheism; (9)
- Indonesia should not deprive anybody from the political, economic, and cultural arenas based on their present or past political convictions;
(g) Indonesia should re-install the maritime powers outside Java, and not sacrifice them on behalf of favoring the agriculture powers in Java;
(h) Indonesia should seriously lay the groundwork of a federalistic state and devolve the power from the old capital (Jakarta) towards the regions, and also devolve power from the new metropole (the CGI, especially the USA/World Bank, Japan and Germany) to a genuinely elected parliament. (10)
If we still have serious disagreements on all those eight points, we have to ask ourselves, what are then the substantive differences between the "colonial" Dutch East Indies and the "independent" Indonesia? Or is Indonesia only a "new society" in an "old state" ? Or in a more popular language, old wine in a new bottle ?
Contemporary Challenges
This leads us then into the contemporary challenges, which are the legacy as well as the "hang-overs" of the 1945-1950 independence struggle:
(I). Defining who we are as a nation-state: is Indonesia a continuation of the former East Indies Dutch colony, a completely new nation-state in the making, or a newborn Java-based empire (Majapahit, or Mataram)?
(II). Defining whom do we consist of as citizens of that nation-state: are we a multiracial and multicultural agglomeration of peoples ? Or are we a single people (satu bangsa) undergoing a process of homogenization under a dominant culture, a dominant religion, and a dominant state philosophy ?
(III). Defining the means with which we rule ourselves: are we going to allow ourselves to be ruled continuously by a homogenizing and self-serving elite, which glorify the supremacy of the armed resistance in the independence struggle to legitimize civilian domination by the military as well as to justify the collusion of the former freedom fighters with their Chinese gun-runners ? Or, do we have to create a completely new Government ethos?
If the latter is the case then we have to demystify the glorification of the ksatria -- or warrior -- culture that is believed to have kept us intact as a nation from various external threats, by exploring other contributing factors which have lead us to (political) independence, as well as exploring other strands in the independence struggle which did not make it.
For instance, we have to explore the "100% merdeka" strand of Tan Malaka, which aimed at political independence from a "foreign" power with the liberation of the people from their own political and economic oppressors, who had been the agents of Dutch colonialism. We also have to explore the more peaceful means of liberating the masses from poverty and isolation from the global community through education, health and economic efforts, which were endeavoured by Muhammadiyah, Taman Siswa, and other civilian organizations. In the mean time, we also have to explore and appreciate the independence fighters on the diplomatic front, and not continuously blame them for yielding too easily to the Dutch demands, as we often read from the literature written by contemporary dwi-fungsi aplogists for the Indonesian regime.
Now, if we do not glorify the armed resistance in the independence struggle, and see their role as important as the peaceful resistance through economic and diplomatic means, then we should also terminate the collusion of business and politics, the "illegitimate child" (anak haram) of the armed guerilla struggle, (11) especially since it deprives the majority of the Indonesian and East Timorese peoples from the full benefits of the Indonesian revolution.
My answers to those questions are probably already obvious for those who are aware of my political trajectory under the New Order regime, having experienced major shifts in the nation's political culture, and having personally grown up -- biologically as well as intellectually -- in Java, Kalimantan, Sulawesi, Irian Jaya, the Netherlands, the USA, and currently in Australia.
First of all, I do not see Indonesia as the rightful heir and thereby a continuation of the Dutch East Indies, nor as a newborn Java-based empire. Indonesia is becoming, as well as will become, what its peoples wanted it to become, even if that means a reformulation of the old Dutch East Indies borders -- which have already been violated -- with the consent of most Indonesian intellectuals, since 1975.
Secondly, the Indonesian society as I see it, should not be seen as a single people, but as an agglomeration of peoples, consisting of different races, different ethno-linguistic groups, different historical heritages, different religious and political convictions, who all strive for the right to be treated as citizens with equal rights before the law. Hence, the 1945 constitutional limitation that only "indigenous" Indonesians could become president should be abolished. Likewise, standard practices or the current predominant belief
