Twisting history

Ahead of November, almost all of people would always trace their history in accordance with their own interest. Unfortunately in addition to having explored their history, they have also often buried it or at least twisted it. All this was aimed at justifying their wrong acts in the past to pursue hero title as that happened recently.

M. Natsir before being promoted as a national hero, various reports had exaggeratedly been published as if all this was not a rebellion movement but solely a movement to criticize the central government. When the Revolutionary Government of the Republic of Indonesia (PRRI)/Charter of Common Struggle (Permesta) was no longer be considered as a rebellion movement, its leaders such as Natsir, Safruddin Prawiranegara and Soemitro Jojohadikusumo were not regarded as rebels but the critics of the central government. That is why, they were named as democratic figures opposed to Bung Karno that was considered as an authoritarian man.<>

There were such inconcistencies in the perception in nature. First, if the PRRI was the movement of criticism not the one of rebellion why did it involve opportunistic regional military leaders, use amounts of weapons and was conducted in forest, and was financed by breaking into Indonesian and foreign banks and get ammunition, military equipments as well as personnels from other countries?

Second, was not at the meantime a liberal democracy or parliamentary democracy regime in which the power was not in the hand of president but in parliament so that the criticism could be voiced in parliament because political parties of the rebels were also members of "Kontituante", House of Representatives and cabinet?

Third, if they claimed themselves democratic why was the criticism voiced by committing violence and even a series of assassinations?

As a result, as an authoritarian and centralistic figure, Bung Karno was considered as a target that should immediately be "killed" through various ways including weapons and opinion. Historians have commonly been of view that there has been such twisting of the nation's history, saying that those rebels made people suffering and there was a mass exodus of Minang inhabitants. Local economy and education got worse so that they had no self- confidence for decades. Those stirring up trouble to the nation and making people suffering have now been considered as the heroes of democracy and freedom.

At this point, Bung Karno was accused of being guilty and a serious crime so that he had to apologize to the rebels. As said by Secretary General of the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) Anis Matta recently that Bung Karno had done mistakes for sending Natsir, Syahrir, and so on to jail including Hamka. Whereas, Bung Karno would forgive them if they admitted doing mistakes. Unfortunately they did not. Some figures only such as Hussein and Simbolon that apologized and were forgiven for gently admitting doing a serious mistake by bearing arms against the government.

Bung Karno eventually did not forgive the PRRI rebels because they made a state within state. Bung Karno then fought against the PRRI after being allowed and supported by Bung Hatta. While Nasution and Ahmad Yani were in charge of military actions against the rebels.

Why was Bung Karno alone blamed? What about Bung Hatta that strongly fought against the rebels? Why did they not attack against Nasution that got the gun into action against the rebels and especially Ahmad Yani that was in charge of military actions against them? If Natsir and Syahrir were sent to jail, that was legally on track because in the meantime the state was in a military emergency so that military officers had the right to detain those being accused of being actors of subversion. Whereas Bung Karno had no such serious problems with them. For instance, ahead of the disbandment of both PSI and Masyumi, Bung Karno had invited the leaders of the two parties to the State Palace. Due to the absence of clarification either from Soekiman or from Syahrir, the two parties were then disbanded and their leaders remained in jail.

Actually the hero title given to anybody is reasonable enough especially for those having clearly devoted themselves and contributed to the nation like the figures above. Yet the twisting of history is one of other following problems. That is why what has been conducted in dealing with the reconciliation is forgiveness or forgiving their mistakes rather than forgetting their acts. History cannot be ignored for being able to lead to the same condition. That is the main.

Why did NU express its concern over the problem? Because NU strongly condemned the act of PRRI/Permesta and declared them as bughaat (rebellion). For that reason the government and all Indonesian people must fight against any rebellion as ever been committed by the PRRI/Permesta. If the PRRI/Permesta was no longer considered as a rebellion, the decision of both NU and the government was consequently considered wrong. Whereas the NU's decision was a logical thought and stand in the life of the state. As initiated by the government, NU has also called for the reconciliation aimed at forgiving their mistakes without ignoring historical reality. So far they have never apologized to the government and all Indonesian people because they have still felt their act was on the right track.

Unfortunately, the awareness of history within NU circles has remained low so that they could easily follow the historical "reports" of others. Instead of upholding their own historical facts, the NU circles have remained keeping silent upon the twisting of history as conducted by other parties.

Like the group of Imam Aziz in Yogyakarta (Central Java) that was considered by kiai (clerics) for upholding ex-members of Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) and tending to blame NU dealing with the 1965 event. Whereas at that time there were horizontal conflicts so that there were attacks against the two sides. PKI was not victim but actor. Fortunately it was then defeated. While in Jakarta, Lukman Hakim Syaifuddin has naively taken part in upholding PRRI and rehabilitating its figures whereas NU has strongly condemned the PRRI rebellion.

While NU's historicity that was the main actor in the November Revolution in Surabaya has been obscured by other parties. Ironically, NU has so far remained keeping silent. During the commemoration of the Heroes' Day recently, some figures and historians like Rosihan Anwar and Aminuddin Kasdi were interviewed. Unfortunately the two never mentioned the role of NU. Whereas the Surabaya's November battle came because of the Jihad Resolution issued by NU founding father Hadrotus Sheikh KH Hasyim Asy'ari and then stirred up through a local radio by Bung Tomo.

In addition, they have also obscured the man ripping the Dutch flag that was waved on the top of the Surabaya's Oranye Hotel. Whereas it was really clear and witnessed by many people that the man successfully climbing and then ripping the flag was Cak Arie, the member of the Surabaya's Ansor Youth Movement.

The historical facts have most of the time been twisted for having no such evidence. That is why the streamlining of history may only be conducted by presenting history's witnesses, archives, documents and various available artefacts. But the raising problem is that there have been many witnesses died, unkept archives and even a large number of important documents have been stolen by other parties. The pursuit of such old manuscripts as Malay, Java, Bugis, and so forth by other countries is the threat for the streamlining of history. Without history it is not possible for a nation to have self-confidence, identity and integrity.

By understanding history the reconciliation could easily and proportionally be conducted. It could not be conducted perfunctorily moreover for political negotiations. In the reconciliation, there should be a real truth rather than falsehood. That is why there should be involvement of court to determine the right and the wrong. From this they could expectedly apologize to each other.

At this point, the reconciliation should consist of both truth and justice because it could not be conducted by twisting history that leads to the obscure of mistakes and the justification of the mistakes. Rather, the reconciliation should be addressed by understanding and taking into account of the importance of honest and fair history. All this is aimed at creating a better national harmony and unity. (Abdul Mun’im DZ)