A survey of events surrounding Manikebu. The struggle for cultural and intellectual freedom in Indonesian literature

K. Foulcher
A survey of events surrounding Manikebu. The struggle for cultural and intellectual freedom in Indonesian literature
In: Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 125 (1969), no: 4, Leiden, 429-465
This PDF-file was downloaded from http://www.kitlv-journals.nl
A SURVEY OF EVENTS
SURROUNDING "MANIKEBU"*
The Struggle For Cultural and Intellectual Freedom
in Indonesian Literature
I. The position of socialist realism: the opposing trends.
T
I n order to understand the struggle for cultural freedom in art
1^ and literature which came to a political climax in the events
surrounding the Manifes Kebudajaan (Manikebu) (1963), it is necessary
first of all to take a brief look at the development and character of the
social realist strand of modern Indonesian literature.
The revolutionary spirit in art and literature which appeared to
characterise Chairil Anwar and his generation was in no way a unified
rejection of the old and a common belief for the future. Indeed, when
Chairil died in 1949, and the dynamic influence of his personality was
removed from literary circles, the cohesion of the so-called Angkatan 45
fell apart. Writing as an expression of life and individuality, which
Chairil had been able to inspire through his own example, gave way
to the need to devise theories of art and creativity. An attempt was
made by those who had followed Chairil, known collectively as the
Gelenggang artists,1 to formulate his ideals into a declaration of belief,
the Surat Kepertjajaan Gelenggang, which was issued on 18th February,
1950. It was a proclamation of Chairil's concept of man as the only
universal reality (though not incorporating his belief in the vitality
of the life force). Its formulators declared themselves the rightful heirs
to world culture, and open to its influences in all national forms. As
* This is the first chapter of a thesis entitled " "Manifes Kebudajaan": The
Struggle for Cultural and Intellectual Freedom, and its Relation to Modern
Indonesian Poetry", submitted to the Department of Indonesian and Malayan
Studies, University of Sydney, as part requirement for the Degree of B.A.
(Hons.) 1968.
1 Jassin (1951, p. 11) mentions Gelenggang as a gathering of artists founded on
19th November, 1946 by Chairil Anwar. Rather than an actual organisation,
it was a spiritual bond existing among artists who used a supplement to the
periodical Siasat as their mouthpiece.
430 KEITH R. FOULCHER
Indonesians, they held themselves free to develop it in their own way,
with a continuing substitution of new standards for old ('revolution'),
and a constant search for universal man as the ultimate reality. They
added an acknowledgment of the reciprocal influences of the artist
and society, yet this was incidental to the concept of universalism which
underlined the whole document.
In the same year, the Lembaga Kebudajaan Rakjat (Lekra) was
formed on the initiative of D. N. Aidit, M. S. Ashar, A. S. Dharta
and Njoto, and the PKI officially entered the cultural arena. With the
doctrine of art as a political tool, Lekra approached those artists whom
Chairil's death had left without a standard of belief. The ideals of the
Surat Kepertjajaan Gelenggang were the first obvious target for attack.
For Lekra and its adherents, universalism bore in it the danger of
an alienation of art from society, and a tendency in the direction of art
for art's sake, which could only mean the sterility of art as a tool in
social reconstruction. An ever greater danger inherent in this 'outmoded'
and 'bourgeois' concept was the direct opposition it posed to the struggle
of the oppressed classes.
The first publication incorporating the views of the Lekra and
Gelenggang groups was Aoh K. Hadimadja's collection of polemics,
Beberapa Paham Angkatan 45 (Some Concepts of the 45 Generation).2
The social realist doctrine which Lekra proposed was here given
expression by Klara Akustia and Bakri Siregar. In his Kepada Seniman
Universil (To the Universal Artist), Klara Akustia equates the development
of literature with the Marxist doctrine of the class struggle:
Perkembangan kesusastraan adalah pertarungan kelas2 jang bertentangan
kepentingannja dilapangan kesusastraan; jang satu mempertahankan kekolotan,
jang lain mengusahakan kemadjuan. Semakin didjauhkan kesusastraan dari
masjarakat, semakin kuat kelas jang tak menginginkan adanja perubahan susunan
masjarakat dan semakin lemah kelas jang menginginkan terwudjudnja masjarakat
baru.3
For this reason, the universalism of the Gelenggang writers is dangerous,
as it allies itself with the anti-improvement class. The class struggle
must first be resolved before there can be any talk of universalism.
Therefore, literary activity must be directed at assisting the masses in
2 Aoh K. Hadimadja (1952).
3 'The development of literature is the conflict of classes with opposing interests
in the field of literature; the one defends conservatism while the other makes
an effort for progress. The further literature is removed from society, the
stronger is the class which does not want a change in the structure of society,
and the weaker is the class which desires the materialisation of a new society'.
{ibid., p. 89.)
EVENTS SURROUNDING "MANIKEBU" 431
their struggle to abolish class distinctions. Bakri Siregar develops this
concept in his Funksi-Tugas Kesusastraan (The Function and Duty
of Literature), where he proposes that a writer concerned with the
awakening of his people will devote his art to assist in that awakening.
For this he must make himself, a part of society, aware of its needs,
and awake to opportunities where his art can serve in society's development.
He clarifies these thoughts with a concrete example: A writer
contemplating a field of rice must look at it through the eyes of the
peasant whose family it has to feed. If there is enough rice, the peasant
is happy. It is the writer's duty to sing of the peasant's happiness in
such a way that it will stimulate his ardour for work and increased
production. The writer cannot speak of the beauty of the rice field
unless he is first assured it is sufficient for the peasant's needs.4
Boejoeng Saleh, writing in 1953, was of the opinion that the
publication of the previous year had not given adequate explanation
of the problem. In his article entitled Kearah Sent Berisi (Towards
Meaningful Art),5 he discusses the Marxist approach to literature and
its purpose. He rejects the formalistic approach to literature, which
concerns itself solely with the perfection of form, as a stage in decadent
bourgeois culture which aims to deprive art of its social function.
Similarly, any move in the direction of an 'international' art, which
for him means 'art for art's sake', is an attempt by the bourgeoisie to
protect itself from the powerful influence which the artist can have
on the struggle of the masses. (As shown in the French and Russian
revolutions). Indonesia must therefore be on guard against any attempt
to dissociate the artist from the People.
The most valuable, and most objective section of his article is his
discussion of engaged art and the reasons for its unpopularity. He
acknowledges that much of the work produced by engaged artists is
not art of a high quality, but denies that this as such is inherent to the
doctrine itself. He attributes the large proportion of inferior work to
the fact that many of the doctrine's adherents have written without
real conviction and possession of their ideas. On the other hand, they
may have had this conviction, but not the artistic talent necessary for
the transmission of these ideas into art. In this case they show themselves
to be nothing more than 'hawkers of ideas'.6 He himself is aware
of the danger of engaged art's degenerating into mere propaganda.
4 ibid., pp. SS-S7.
5 Boejoeng Saleh (1953).
6 ibid., p. 343.
432 KEITH R. FOULCHER
This is a thoughtful analysis, which shows an awareness of the problems
involved in understanding art.
With the financial and organisational backing of the PKI, Lekra
in the 1950's grew into a large and influential organisation propagating
the doctrine of socialist realism in art. At its first conference in 1959,
there was created a series of institutes (of literature, plastic arts, music,
dance, drama, film and science), offering guidance and assistance to
its members at a regional and local level. By May, 1960, there were
claimed to be about 200 branches, and in May, 1963, membership was
announced as 100,000.7 By the very nature of its doctrine, and its political
involvement, Lekra did not continue to oppose those who rejected
its ideals merely with the cultural polemics which followed its inception,
and hand in hand with its growth and the coresponding strength of
the PKI's influence in the later 1950's, went a suppression of freedom
for the artist and intellectual.8 Particularly stringent after the proclamation
of President Sukarno's political manifesto in 1959, and the
introduction of Guided Democracy, it took the form of 'yes-manship'
in political and intellectual circles, and a suppression of freedom of
speech and freedom of the press.9 There were attempts to oppose the
measures against intellectual freedom, but they were blocked by political
power. A case in point is the banning of Mochtar Lubis' newspaper,
Indonesian Raja, after its continued attacks on the Sukarno regime.
For various reasons not yet completely understood, a number of
writers during these years adopted the socialist realism line, and in
so doing made a sharp left-about-turn on the creative ideals they themselves
appear once to have upheld. Pramoedya Ananta Toer became
a member of the Central Leadership of Lekra in 1959,10 and became
one of its most vociferous, protagonists as his creative activity ebbed
to a close. Shortly before this time, Sitor Situmorang became head
of LKN (Lembaga Kebudajaan Nasional, cultural organisation of the
PNI), which moved steadily closer to Lekra's ideals after the formation
of Sukarno's NASAKOM concept in 1962. Others had travelled the
7 For background on Lekra's growth and organisation, see Donald Hindley
(1966), pp. 184-186.
8 For information on this period, see Wiratmo Sukito (stencilled). The article
was translated by Prof. A. H. Johns and circulated from the Australian
National University.
9 ibid., p. 3.
10 The facts concerning the details of Pramoedya's association with Lekra are
very obscure. My reference is an unpublished thesis by Asnidar Said, Tindjauan
Singkat atas Pengarang Pramoedya Ananta Toer dan Buku-Bukunja (Brief
Review of P.A.T. and his Books) (IKIP, Bandung, 1964).
EVENTS SURROUNDING "MANIKEBU" 433
same path, some perhaps attracted by the obvious material benefits
which allegiance to a financially sound, protector had to offer, some
probably with a genuine belief that in this way they were offering their
artistic capabilities as their contribution to the desperately-needed
social reconstruction.
Nevertheless, it should be stressed at the outset that post-war
Indonesian literary conflicts have never been a simple matter of I'art
engage versus I'art pour fart. As early as 1949, Achdiat K. Mihardja "
had expressed contempt for any elements still anachronistic enough to
be practising art for art's sake, and this is still, I believe, characteristic
of the Indonesian literary scene of today, regardless of any political
standpoint of the artist. Achdiat, who at that time was representing
the ideal opposed to Lekra and supported by the PSI, saw as the
writer's responsibility the task of liberating the souls of his people, that
they might interact as free individuals in a community. This he considered
an essential complement to economic, social, and political
liberation. While this concept may have altered among various artists,
and in accordance with changing times, the outright rejection of art
for art's sake has never really been questioned by any members of
the artistic community.
Even Sitor Situmorang could write objectively in 1963:
Sastra Indonesia adalah sastra jang ber"kebangsaan" Indonesia. Sastra Indonesia
tidak bisa lain dari pada sastra (kebudajaan) jang berakar sosial kedalam
bumi dan masjarakat Indonesia. Sifat sosialnja sastra sudah djelas. Pada achli
sedjarah dan kritikus sastra kita setjara umum selalu menghubungkan. sedjarah
sastra kita dengan sedjarah kebangsaan kita, mulai dari pandangan Marxis
sampai kepada pandangan jang non-politik, seperti jang diwakili oleh pandangan
H. B. Jassin.12
Speaking in Kuala Lumpur in 1965, in reply to an attack from the
Lekra group in Indonesia, Idrus explained clearly the rejection of art
for art's sake in favour of a more meaningful creative activity which
he named 'art for beauty'. He explained the concept as follows:
11 (in) Angkatan 45: Angkatan Chairil, Angkatan Merdeka (The Generation
of 45: Chairil's Generation, the Generation of Freedom), Pudjangga Baru,
Djakarta, 17 Aug., 1949 (translated by Raffel (1967), pp. 236-243).
12 'Indonesian literature is a literature having an Indonesian "nationality. Indonesian
literature cannot be anything else but literature (culture) with social
roots in the Indonesian soil and society. The social character of the literature
is clear. Our historians and literary critics in general always link our literary
history with national history, from the Marxist viewpoint to the non-political
view, as represented by H. B. Jassin'.
Sitor Situmorang, Sastra Indonesia Bukan Kelandjutan Sastra Melaju
(Indonesian literature is not a continuation of Malay literature), Basis, June,
1963, pp. 279-280.
434 KEITH R. FOULCHER
Antara ('Seni untuk Seni' dan 'Seni untuk Keindahan') itu terdapat perbedaan
antara siang dan malam, seperti djuga perbedaan antara wanita tjantik jang kita
biarkan melintas didalam kehidupan kita dan wanita jang kita sekap didalam
kehidupan kita, artinja jang kita peristeri. Jang satu jang kita biarkan melintas
itu hanja memuaskan mata kita sadja untuk seketika sadja, sedangkan jang lain
itu memberikan kejakinan kepada kita, bahwa ia akan memperkaja djiwa kita,
membantu kehidupan kita. Jang satu tjantik kosong, jang lain tjantik berisi, jang
satu beautiful, tapi jang lain beauty. Keindahan kosong, jang dangkal dan jang
seketika itu sadja, itulah hasil daripada "Seni untuk Seni", sedangkan keindahan
jang diberikan "Seni untuk Keindahan" adalah sesuatu jang memperkaja djiwa,
jang berisi, jang kekal, pendek kata jang berguna bagi manusia.13
The conflict has been rather, as Burton Raffel expresses it, a question
of 'this sort of awareness, this intensely communal feeling' as opposed
to 'an insistence upon certain prescribed forms of social awareness,
certain kinds of literary expression as opposed to certain other kinds'.14
Jassin, himself a member of the group which later came into head-on
political conflict with Lekra was, in the early years of its inception,
hesitant about the contribution which an art having the obligation to
educate, and increase the spirit of the people's struggle, could make
to the development of literature, but at the same time prepared to
acknowledge that the ultimate criterion for the validity of a work
of art was the honesty of its conceptor.15 On the side of the artists and
critics opposing Lekra, the basic issue has always been a defence of
the artist's rights as an individual having adequate freedom and means
of expression, and a recognition of the contribution he can make as an
individual to an art which is national, and at the same time, universal.
It is the common belief of those writers who opposed Lekra on its
inception and those who fought it during the political conflicts of the
early 1960's that art must serve humanity and not a political ideal.
While it is my intention to avoid, as far as possible, subjectivity in
13 'Between ('Art for Art's sake' and 'Art for Beauty') there is the difference
between night and day, or the difference between a pretty woman we let flash
by in our lives and a woman we lock up in our lives, i.e., whom we marry.
The one, whom we let flash by, is only satisfying to our eyes for a moment,
while the other gives us the conviction that she will enrich our minds, contribute
to our lives. The one is empty charm, the other is meaningful charm.
The one is beautiful but the other beauty. Empty beauty, which is shallow
and ephemeral, is the product of 'art for art's sake', while the beauty which
comes from 'art for beauty' is something which enriches the mind, which is
meaningful, eternal, in short, which has some usefulness for mankind'.
"Voice of Malaysia" interview with Idrus, Kuala Lumpur, 8-7-1964. Idrus was
replying to an attack by Adnan Basalaman in Bintang Timur, 10th May, 1964.
14 Raffel (1967), p. 140.
15 Jassin, Gema Tanah Air (Echoes of our Homeland), Djakarta, 1959, p. 13.
EVENTS SURROUNDING "MANIKEBU" 435
approach, I think it fair to say that Lekra, on the other hand, has
accepted the artist only in as much as his work contributes to the
political advancement of a socialist state.18 And whatever the motives
of the artists who did adopt this ideal, if we continue to regard them as
artists, it is difficult to understand the loss of individuality and decline
in artistic value in the works they produced, as well as the vehement
and narrow-sighted attacks they continued to level against the 'nonaligned'
writers of the 1960's grouped together around the literary
periodical Sastra, and defending their freedom as creative artists.
It is this conflict between the years 1961 and 1965 which represents
the climax of the problem, and for our overall understanding, requires
a more detailed discussion.17
II. Conflicts centred around Sastra (1961-1963); the pre-eminence
oj politics.
The periodical Sastra was first published in May, 1961, as a continuation
of Kisah, a short-story magazine which had ceased publication
in 1957. It was led by H. B. Jassin, M. Balfas, and D. S. Muljanto.
In the preface to the first edition, entitled Kisah Terbit Kembali (Kisah
Published Again), Balfas affirmed the determination of the editorial
staff to open the magazine's pages to every short story of sufficiently
high artistic value. He emphasised their conviction that art was not
bound to any one ideology.18 This was a declaration of continued
rejection of political standards in art, and at a time when Lekra was
already in a strong and influential position, represented a somewhat
daring counter-attack.
It was not long before the reaction was felt. Two short stories by
B. Sularto,18 in which the author attempts to portray basic human
conditions not bound to any ideology, were condemned by Bakri Siregar
as reactionary, 'tidak progressif dan anti buruh, tani, perdamaian, partai
16 I feel it is rather narrow-sighted, for example, to accept Sukarno's comments
on the individuality of the artist as shown in the varying styles exhibited in
the 1959 Lekra art exhibition (Hindley (1966), p. 342 (n. 28), also Aveling
(1967, p. 27) as evidence of Lekra!'s inability to repress individuality among its
members. Even if Sukarno's comments are those of an unbiased observer (?)
variations in style do not necessarily indicate freedom of belief and individuality
of the artist.
17 Most of the references to newspapers and periodicals in the ensuing sections
are known to me through the compilation by Taufiq Ismail and D. S. Muljanto
(1968).
18 Sastra, No. 1, Th. 1, May, 1961.
19 Tanah and Rapat Perdamaian, in Sastra, No. 5/6, Sept./Oct., 1961.
436 KEITH R. FOULCHER
dan menghina revolusi' ('not progressive, anti worker, peasant, peace,
the party, and showing contempt for the revolution').20 Pramoedya
Ananta Toer accused the stories appearing in Sastra of portraying the
bourgeois character, and of not giving any indication of the present
upheavals in society which were to put an end to the bourgeoisie as
the employer class.21 The poetry of Subagio Sastrowardojo, characterised
by the author's despair and confusion in society, was condemned
in turn, and the poet accused of representing a generation struggling in
its death agony before entering the grave.22
At the end of one year's publication, it was already clear that Sastra
and its supporters had entered the political as well as literary arena.
Jassin had been forced into answering accusations that Sastra and its
leaders were reactionary. Desperately, it seems, he had tried to defend
the original standpoint. In his report, Satu Tahun Sastra (One Year
of Sastra), he re-affirmed:
. . . kami tidak terikat pada salah satu partai atau program salah satu lembaga
kebudajaannja. Kami mengambil djalan kami sendiri dalam menentukan sikap
terhadap pemilihan nilai2 dan memperkembangkan kebudajaan baru sesuai dengan
haluan negara. Sikap itu ialah sikap seniman merdeka jang berdasarkan pertimbangan
akalbudi meranglcum seluasnja pengertian kemanusiaan.23
The Lekra attacks were extended to any writers outside its sphere
of influence, and a general attack on Islamic writers was launched
through accusations that Hamka's Tenggelamnja Kapal van der Wijk
was a plagiarism.24
In December 1962, Sastra announced its literary awards for the
year. Among those cited for awards were Motinggo Boesje, Virga
Belan and M. Poppy Hutagalung. Each of these three in turn rejected
the award, their letters of rejection appearing in the leftist daily, Bintang
20 in a lecture in Jogja, 1-10-1961.
2 1 in Gedjala Sebitah Skisma Dalam Tjerpen Indonesia Dewasa Ini (Symptoms
of a Schism in Present-Day Indonesian Short Stories), Lentera/'Bintang
Timur 3-8-62.
22 Said, in Harian Rakjat (HR), 8-9-62.
23 'We are not bound to any one party or the programme of any one cultural
institution. We take our own path in determining our attitude to the election
of standards, and in developing a new culture in accordance with the course
of the state. That is the attitude of the free artist based on common sense
considerations embracing the full extent of the concept of humanity'. Sastra,
No. 1, Th. 11, 1962.
24 See Buku "Van der Wijck" dalam Polemik ("Van der Wijck" in Polemics.),
Mega Bookstore, Djakarta, 1963, also Jassin (1954, augmented 1967 ed.),
pp. 64-71, Apakah Tenggelamnja Kapal van der Wijck Plagiatf (Is Tenggelemnja
Kapal van der Wijck a Plagiarism?).
EVENTS SURROUNDING "MANIKEBU" 437
Timur. Motinggo Boesje claimed he was rejecting the judgment of
Jassin,25 Virga Belan rejected Sastra itself as containing anti-revolutionary
literature,28 and Poppy Hutagalung claimed she had not
produced works which could be justified in the eyes of society.27
A further rejection of an award by Usamah was shown to be a forgery.
The writer himself denied the news of his rejection in a telegram to
Jassin. Later it was revealed that all but Virga Belan had made the
rejection on the intimidation of the Lekra organisation.28
In the same month, there was an attempt by Lekra and its associates
to foil the Musjawarah Pembentukan Badan Federasi Teater se-Indonesia
(All-Indonesia Conference for the Formation of a Federated
Theatre Body) in Jogjakarta. This too failed, and the conference
resulted in the formation of a Badan Pembina Teater Indonesia.
By now the conflict had become an all-out political battle. In a vicious
attack on Jassin and his 'followers' in March, 1963, Sitor Situmorang
claimed:
Ketekunan H. B. Jassin membuat dia berhasil, diluar perkembangan revolusi,
membangun sematjam mazhab, diluar segala proporsi. Ibarat satu tempat teduh
didaerah badai, mazhab ini menarik tendensi2 dan pribadi2 pengarang atau jang
merasa pengarang, mentjari perlindungan dari hirukpikuknja revolusi, meninabobokkan
diri dengan teori "universil-humanisme".28
Pramoedya Ananta Toer led a concerted attack on the followers
of universal humanism in a series of articles in his Lentera column of
Bintang Timur. He had already, in January 1963, delivered his paper
on Socialist Realism in Indonesian literature at a seminar at the
University of Indonesia, attended by representatives of Lekra and
non-Lekra groups, as well as students from the Faculty of Arts and
representatives of Sastra.
In June and July there was a lively series of cultural polemics
between Wiratmo Soekito and Sitor Situmorang in the magazine Warta
Dunia, Sitor defending Aspirasi Nasional dan Kesusastraan (National
Aspirations and Literature) against Wiratmo's Bukan Humanisme
25 Lentera/Bintang Timur (L/BT), 5-1-63.
28 Bintang Timur (BT), 10-2-63.
27 L/BT, 24-2-63.
28 Jassin (1967), p. 130.
29 'H. B. Jassin's perseverance has made him succeed in developing a kind of
school, outside the development of the revolution, and outside all proportion.
Like a haven in a storm, this school attracts the tendencies and personalities
of writers, or self-styled writers, to seek shelter from the tumult of the
revolution, and to lull themselves to sleep with the theory of "universal
humanism".' Suluh Indonesia, 13-3-63.
438 KEITH R. FOULCHER
Universil, Tetapi Budi Nurani Universal (Not Universal Humanism,
but the Universal Conscience).
III. The declaration of a Manifesto; the Manifesto seen in context.
By August 1963, the stage was set for the declaration of a Manifesto.
There seems to have been felt a need among many of the 'free' artists
for a common statement of belief to which they could openly declare
their allegiance and with which they could confront their enemies. The
evidence points to the actual formulation and declaration being a rather
hurried affair, yet it nevertheless had the support of a large number
of artists and intellectuals.
The debates and discussions prior to the actual formulation and
declaration of the Manifesto were in the hands of Wiratmo Soekito,
a Roman Catholic intellectual who for many years had been prominent
in intellectual and cultural circles, and who had written extensively on
literature and culture in various periodicals of the 1950's and 1960's.
A month before the declaration of the Manifesto, at the time of his
participation in the polemics mentioned above, he had effectively declared
himself aati-Lekra in an interview published in a popular magazine:
...jang tak boleh ditawar2 bagi seorang pengarang ialah kebebasan dan kegembiraan
batin, jang implikasinja ialah bahwa pengarang itu mengabdi kepada
kemanusiaan jang universil. Pengarang tidak bertanggung-djawab kepada penerbitnja
seperti didalam masjarakat kapitalis. Djuga tidak bertanggung-djawab
kepada pemerintahnja seperti didalam masjarakat komunis. Melainkan bertanggungdjawab
kepada masjarakat pembatjanja sebagai kemanusiaan jang universil
itu. Oleh karena itu dalam masjarakat kapitalis rintangan bagi pengarang adalah
tendensi komersil dari penerbitnja, sedang dalam masjarakat komunis adalah
tendensi otoriter dari pemerintahnja.30
Wiratmo Soekito completed the manuscript of the Manifes Kebudajaan
on 17th August, 1963, and after its examination and subsequent
approval by Gunawan Mohamad and Bokor Hutasahut, it was duplicated
and forwarded to prominent figures in the field of Indonesian
culture for examination and comment.31 In its broad outlines, the
30 ' . . . the indispensable conditions for a writer are freedom and inner joy, which
implies that the writer serves... universal humanity. The writer is not
responsible to his publisher, as in a capitalist society. Also he is not responsible
to his government as in a communist society. But he is responsible to the
society formed by his readers, as universal humanity. For that reason, in a
capitalist society, the obstacle for the writer is the commercial tendency of
his publisher, while in a communist society it is the authoritarian tendency
of his government'. Minggu Pagi, 7-7-63.
3 1 My notes on the actual recording of events are taken from D. S. Muljanto
(1967).
EVENTS SURROUNDING "MANIKEBU" 439
Manifesto was to be a declaration of a concept of national culture which
did not place any one ideology over another, and an explanation of
the ideals which had to form the guidelines of a national cultural policy.
On 23rd August a meeting was held in Djalan Raden Saleh, Djakarta,
attended by the following thirteen Indonesian artists, writers, and
cultural figures: Trisno Sumardjo, Zaini, H. B. Jassin, Wiratmo Sukito,
Bokor Hutasahut, Gunawan Mohamad, Bur Rasuanto, A. Bastari
Asnin, Ras Siregar, Djufri Tanissan, Soe Hok Djin (Arief Budiman),
Sjahwil, D. S. Moeljanto. Gunawan Mohamad led the discussion, and
Wiratmo Soekito was given the opportunity to explain to those present
the meaning, target and formulation of the Manifesto. In the ensuing
debate, the discussion of universal humanism figured prominently. In
answering the questions of Trisno Sumardjo and H. B. Jassin on the
concept, Wiratmo explained:
"Kebudajaan sebagai pernjataan hidup manusia mempunjai tendensi2 Universil,
jaitu Universil dalam arti bahwa kebudajaan itu bukan hanja untuk satu bangsa
sadja, tetapi untuk semua bangsabangsa. Dan disamping itu bukan hanja untuk
satu angkatan sadja, tetapi untuk semua angkatan. Meskipun demikian harus
ditegaskan bahwa kebudajaan itu mempunjai titik-tolak dan titik-tolak itu adalah
titik-tolak nasional. Saja menjetudjui sepenuhnja utjapan Dag Hammerskjoeld
bekas Sekretaris Djenderal PBB jang meninggal dunia dalam tahun 1961 jang
mengatakan, bahwa kita harus menekankan kepentingan Nasional, tetapi kepentingan
Nasional itu harus ditingkatkan niveau-nja kearah kepentingan Internasional".32
In answer to a question by Bokor Hutasahut, he explained their
relationship with the Angkatan 45:
" . . . Lahirnja Manifes kita adalah djuga penilaian terhadap Angkatan '45 inklusif
penilaian LEKRA atas Angkatan ' 4 5 . . . Angkatan '45 sebagian besar tidak
mempunjai militansi. Meskipun pada dasarnja gagasan2nja tjukup bermutu. Namun
harus dikemukakan bahwa tidak seorangpun dari mereka itu mempunjai wawasan
tentang kebudajaan apabila dilihat setjara psychologis dan ilmiah... Manifes ini
lahir sebagai re-generasi dengan kondisi2 objektif jang baru pula".33
32 "Culture as a fact in human life has universal tendencies, that is, universal
in the sense that culture is not just for one nation, but for all nations. And
besides that, not only for one generation, but for all generations. Nevertheless
it must be stressed that culture has a starting point, and that is the national
starting point. I am in full agreement with the former Secretary-General of
the UN, Dag Hammerskjoeld who died in 1961, when he said that we must
emphasise national interests, but that those national interests must be raised
to the level of international interests", {ibid., p. 158).
33 " . . . The birth of our Manifesto represents an evaluation of the 45 Generation,
inclusive of the evaluation of Lekra on the 45 Generation. . . . T o a large
extent the 45 Generation did not possess militancy. Although basically their
concepts were of sufficient quality. Yet it must be brought out that not one
of them possessed an insight into culture when viewed psychologically and
scientifically. . . . This Manifesto was born as a re-generation with new
objective conditions", (ibid.)
440 KEITH R. FOULCHER
The meeting concluded with a resolution to accept the Manifesto as
the basis for further investigation and simplification, to be carried out
by a committee of six members of the meeting. This committee, led by
the artist Zaini, met the same day in the same place, and at the end
of its discussions, formulated the Manifesto into three parts: the actual
declaration, its explanation, and a list of books incorporating the
"literature of the Pantjasila".
On the following day (24th August), Bokor Hutasahut read the
report of the committee's findings to the full meeting. It was received
with acclamation, and the signing of the document as it stood by the
following twelve members of the meeting represented its first official
acceptance: H. B. Jassin, Trisno Sumardjo, Wiratmo Sukito, Zaini,
Bokor Hutasahut, Gunawan Mohamad, Bur Rasuanto, Soe Hok Djin,
D. S. Moeljanto, Ras Siregar, Djufri Tanissan, A. Bastari Asnin.34
Finally two resolutions were passed, affirming that the Manifesto
could no longer be altered in its principles and that the Manifesto
itself did not a priori give birth to any cultural organisation.
The full text, incorporating the declaration, explanation and history
of events leading to its inception, was first published in Sastra, No. 9-10
1963 and in the newspaper Berita Republik, 19th October, 1963.
It should at this point be noted that the Manifesto was in itself only
one specific reaction to the political climate. It represented a systematic
formulation of writers opposed to Lekra, yet it did not represent a
united front of all those artists included in this group. There were
other artists and intellectuals who had come together in study groups
before the declaration and who considered that a Manifesto which, by
its very nature and the very language it employed, declared open
political conflict on Lekra, was not the only, nor the most effective
method of opposition. Some, indeed, felt that their cause would be
served better by a more concrete effort towards work and action than
by the declaration of a Manifesto.
One of these was D. A. Peransi, who had formed a study group,
'Modernisasi', some time before the formulation of the Manifesto.35
It was attended on its inception by Soedjatmoko, Rosihan Anwar,
Gunawan Mohamad, Soe Hok Djin, students and youth leaders.
34 The actual number of original signatories has become confused, owing to
publications incorporating the subsequent signatures. The text I have included
in the Appendix contains a slightly different list of signatures.
35 The following notes represent a summary of information obtained in conversation
with D. A. Peransi. (Djakarta, 18-1-68.)
EVENTS SURROUNDING "MANIKEBU" 441
Soedjatmoko addressed the group's first meeting, and urged the young
leaders who composed it that they should above all not lose confidence
in themselves. He advocated rationalism in discussion and comparative
studies of modernisation in other parts of the world, in order for them
to understand the present situation and how it had come about. Some
of the members of the group (among them Wiratmo Sukito and
Gunawan Mohamad) rejected this approach in favour of immediate
and direct action. The group split, and it was this faction, feeling "the
need for political action, which headed in the direction of the Manifesto.36
The remainder of the group, holding to the guidelines set down by
Soedjatmoko, considered the political situation and President Sukarno
to be merely a phenomenon in the process of modernisation which
Indonesia was experiencing. For this reason they did not consider the
political situation a necessary hindrance to their continued development.
So it was that they continued to reject the Manifesto in principle.
Thus, to a certain extent, Manijes Kebudajaan represents only one
aspect of the situation, and must be seen in the context of a broad
frame of suppressed intellectual activity current in society. It should
not be imagined that it was the only reaction to the political domination'
of art.
IV. Reactions to the Manifesto.
Reaction to the Manifesto was immediate and violent. Attacks from
Lekra members were directed primarily at the concept of 'universal
humanism', which they had always rejected, and which was interpreted
purely in the context of the present political situation. 'Universal
humanism' meant support for the enemies of the revolution. At the
beginning of November, Bakri Siregar declared:
Terhadap estetikanja kaum "humanisme-universil" jang meniadakan garis
pemisah antara kavvan dan lawan revolusi, kita tidak punja persamaan-persinggungan:
dia adalah lawan kita, jang setjara tegas kita ganjang, karena dia
mengabdi pada lawan revolusi, dibelakang segala mat jam kedok dan variasi
istilah, antaranja kedok demi-estetika.37
38 It was probably at this point that Wiratmo Sukito and his colleagues became
involved in the proposed liason with SOKSI (Central Organisation of Socialist
Workers of Indonesia). See Wiratmo Sukito (stencilled), p. 6.
37 'With the aesthetics of the "universal humanism" group, who deny the dividing
lines between friend and foe of the revolution, we have no similarity or
contact: they are our enemies, whom we will resolutely crush, because they
serve the enemies of the revolution, behind all kinds of masks and variations
of term, among them the mask of 'in the name of aesthetics'.' (in a report
of the plenary session of LESTRA/Lekra, Surabaja, 3-11-63.)
442 KEITH R. FOULCHER
Virga Belan claimed that it was not only the concept which had
to be fought, but in addition its supporters had to be destroyed and
all trace of them removed from Indonesia.38 Rejection of the concept
was even reported from the Surakarta head of IKAT (Ikatan Kekeluargaan
Anggauta Tentara - League for Family Spirit Among Army
Members), who declared that universal humanism as proposed in the
Manifesto did not belong in the revolutionary spirit which had to be
possessed by troops of the People's Army.39
A conference of artists belonging to the Lekra-LKN group in Medan,
North Sumatra, on 30th January, 1964, declared its joint intention to
crush the Manifesto and the Malaysia concept.40 Clearly, the Manifesto
was considered a political issue. The concept of 'universal humanism'
was dubbed reactionary, because it was anti-Manipol. Sastra still
asserted that its confrontation was a literary and cultural one, which
was aimed not at individuals, groups, or the state, but at a principle.
As the conflict was a matter of principle, they had no alternative but
to continue their creative activity. Still holding to its original declared
belief that art was not bound to any political ideology, it had, in 1963,
included poetry by Dodong Djiwapradja, one of the prominent social
realist poets. In a letter to the editors, the poet had expressed his
objection to the inclusion:
Dalam madjalah Sastra no. 9/10 - Th. Ill - 1963 pada halaman 21 dst.nja sdr.
telah memuat sadjak saja "Pasir Putih, Pantai Sanur". Saja berkeberatan atas
pemuatan sadjak tsb. Keberatan saja itu pada pokoknja didasarkan atas hal2 sbb.:
Bahwa sadjak saja itu tidak tjotjok untuk madjalah saudara jang sudah mempunjai
pendirian politik a la "Manifes Kebudajaan" dan a la "KKPSI".41
'KKPSI' (Konperensi Karyawan Pengarang se-Indonesia - All-
Indonesia Writers' Conference) took place in Djakarta early in March,
1964, to coincide with the Conference of Afro-Asian Writers being
organised by Lekra. The leftist press had attacked it from when the
plans were first announced, and an attempt was made by Lekra and
its associates to thwart it by means of a general boycott. Nevertheless,
with the backing of Nasution and the Army, the conference was a
38 (in) Sekali lagi tentang Humanisme Universil (Once again on the subject of
Universal Humanism), Berita Indonesia (BI), 10-11-63.
39 Warta Bhakti (WB), 27-2-64.
40 Harian Harapan (Medan), 3-2-64.
41 'In Sastra, No. 9/10 - Th. I l l - 1963, p. 21 f., you included my poem, 'White
Strand, Sanur Beach'. I object to its inclusion, and my objection is based
fundamentally on the following grounds: That poem of mine is not fitting
for your magazine, with its political standpoint a la "Cultural Manifesto" and
a la "KKPSI".' (Published in HR, 23-2-64.)
EVENTS SURROUNDING "MANIKEBU" 443
success, and the Afro-Asian Conference was never held. In its place,
Sitor Situmorang led the organisation of a film festival, which was
attended by President Sukarno. The KKPSI was discredited by
Sukarno, and his statements in support of Communist China were
seen as a reaction to KKPSI's repudiation of the participation and
leadership of the PKI.42
What may once have appeared a safety-valve for Manikebu, the high
importance placed on the official state ideology of Pantjasila, was now
no longer valid. Hesitantly, its supporters had declared themselves
followers of Manipol, but refused to commit themselves to the new
concept of NASAKOM. This was sufficient basis for a continuation
of the attack by Aidit, in March, 1964:
Sekarang ini ternjata ada golongan jang dikenal umum sebagai "kaum
Manikebu", jang merasa berhak berbitjara tentang "revolusi" tanpa menjebut
Manipol, jang merasa tjukup menjatakan dirinja pendukung Pantjasila tanpa
mendukung Manipol, dan baru setelah diganjang dari kiri dan kanan, mereka
memproklamisasikan dirinja sebagai "pendukung Manipol". Tapi mereka tetap
berkepala batu tidak menjatakan persetudjuannja pada Nasakom. Padahal persoalannja
sederhana sekali: setudju Pantjasila harus setudju Manipol, dan setudju
semuanja ini harus setudju Nasakom".43
The Moslem cultural organisation, Lesbumi, remained a hesitant
onlooker:
P. P. Lesbumi (Lembaga Budaja Muslimin Indonesia) beranggapan, bahwa
"Manifes Kebudajaan" tersebut belumlah setjara sempurna mengungkapkan landasan2
ideal jang dapat dipergunakan oleh para pengarang Indonesia dalam
pengadjarannja (pengabdiannja?) kepada Revolusi Indonesia dan dalam beberapa
hal memberikan kemungkinan untuk penafsiran2 jang mengaburkan tudjuan
Revolusi Indonesia.44
4 2 See Wiratmo Sukito (stencilled), p. 5.
4 3 'It is now evident that there is a cluster commonly known as the "Manikebu"
group, who feel they have a right to talk about "the revolution" without
mentioning Manipol, who think it is enough to declare themselves supporters
of Pantjasila without supporting Manipol, and only after pressure from left
and right proclaimed themselves "supporters of ManipoF'. But in their continued
obstinacy they will not express their agreement with Nasakom. Whereas
the matter is very simple: if we agree with Pantjasila we must agree with
Manipol, and agreeing with all this we must agree with Nasakom'. (HR, 22-3-64.)
44 'The central leadership of Lesbumi (Indonesian Moslem Cultural Organisation)
is of the opinion that this "Cultural Manifesto" has not yet fully expressed
the bases of the ideals to be used by Indonesian writers in their service to
the Indonesian Revolution, and in a few matters does offer possibilities for
interpretations which obscure the aim of the Indonesian Revolution'. (Penilaian
Lesbumi Sekitar "Manifes Kebudajaan" (Lesbumi's Evaluation of the Cultural
Manifesto), Djakarta, 9-3-64.)
For the sake of objectivity, it should also be noted that in the same report,
and in the same hesitant manner, Lesbumi deplores the slanderous accusations
made against the Manikebu signatories.
444 KEITH R. FOULCHER
On 15th April, 1964, a report was tabled in Djakarta, purporting
to be an examination of all the attacks on Manikebu since its declaration
in the previous year, and a reply to them by the Manifesto supporters
themselves.45 It tables the attacks under two headings:
1. Manifes adalah "kontra-revolusi", karena
a) "anti" atau "memusuhi" Nasakom
b) "Segan" menggunakan kata dan konsepsi revolusioner dan rakjat
c) "mengaburkan" lawan dengan kawan
d) merupakan "reaksi" atas gagasan Ganefo
e) mengumandangkan freedom to be free
f) hendak "menandingi" Manipol.
2. Manifes adalah "hipokrit" atau "munafik", apa alasannja tidak
diterangkan.46
The report charges that the attacks on Manikebu as anti-Nasakom
are based on a dishonesty which intentionally confuses issues and
concepts. The text of the explanation of Manikebu is quoted repeatedly
to refute the other attacks. The essence of the report is a restatement
of non-committal to a political ideology, yet the conflict has by now
long been political, and the report itself reads as a political document.
V. Banned by Presidential decree.
Clearly, the political left considered the Manifesto and its adherents
a danger to the national struggle, and had used their influence to impart
this fear to the President. For on 8th May, 1964, the following
Presidentical decree was issued, banning the Manifesto:
"Kami, Presiden Republik Indonesia, Panglima Tertinggi Angkatan Perang,
Pemimpin Besar Revolusi, dengan ini menjatakan bahwa, demi keutuhan dan
kelurusan djalannja Revolusi dan demi kesempurnaan ketahanan Bangsa, apa jang
disebut "Manifesto Kebudajaan" jang disingkat mendjadi "Manikebu" dilarang.
Sebab2 larangan itu ialah karena Manifesto Politik Republik Indonesia sebagai
pantjaran Pantja Sila telah mendjadi garis besar haluan Negara dan tidak
43 Hasil penjelidikan team-research manifes kebudajaan. Manifes-Phobi, Motif
dan Targetnja, Kekurang-Matangan dalam Ideologi. (Results of Team Research
Investigation of the Cultural Manifesto; Manifesto Phobia, its Motive and
Target - Immaturity in Ideology). Djakarta, 15 April, 1964. (typewritten).
48 'The Manifesto is "counter-revolutionary", because:
a) It is "anti" or "hostile to" Nasakom.
b) "reluctant" to use the words and concepts "revolutionary" dan "people".
c) "blurs the distinction" between friend and foe.
d) represents a "reaction" to the Ganefo concept.
e) echoes "freedom to be free".
f) wants to "stand on a par" with Manipol.
The Manifesto is "hypocritical", for reasons unexplained', (ibid., p. 3.)
EVENTS SURROUNDING "MANIKEBU" 445
mungkin didampingi dengan Manifesto lain, apalagi kalau Manifesto lain itu
menundjukkan sikap ragu2 terhadap Revolusi dan memberi kesan berdiri disampingnja,
padahal demi suksesnja Revolusi, maka segala usaha kita, djuga dalam
lapangan kebudajaan, harus kita djalankan diatas rel Revolusi menurut petundjuk2
Manipol dan bahan Indoktrinasi Iain2nja".47
Two days after the decree, Jassin and others forwarded a letter of
apology to the President, pledging obedience to the ban.48 Nevertheless,
this did not decrease the ardour of the leftist press, which, feeling itself
in possession of the victory laurels, wasted no time in declaring its
support for the ban. Harian Rakjat took the decree as a stern warning
from the President that any activities not on the rails of the Revolution
would immediately be crushed by those with political power.49 Bintang
Timur described the ban as proof that Manikebu was a threat to the
course of the Revolution in the field of culture.50 Warta Bhakti added
its voice to the approval of the ban, insinuating that the Manifesto had
been an attempt by banned political parties to keep alive their influence
in the field of culture.51 On the previous day, it had included a report
of the first Dies Natalis of Bakri Siregar's Akademi Sastra dan Budaja
'Multatuli' ('Multatuli' Academy of Literature and Culture). On this
occasion, Njoto, one of the founders of Lekra, and by now a prominent
PKI figure, had been invited to deliver a lecture on 'The Concepts
of Multatuli52 and Modern Democratic Literary Movements'. This
provided another ideal opportunity for an attack on Manikebu. He
discussed Multatuli as a revolutionary democrat, not a nationalist, yet
47 "I, President of the Republic of Indonesia, Supreme Commander of the Armed
Forces, Great Leader of the Revolution, hereby declare that, in the name of
the uniformity and straight road of the Revolution, and the complete defence
of the Nation, the so-called "Cultural Manifesto" (abbreviated to "Manikebu")
is banned.
The reasons for the ban are that the Political Manifesto of the Indonesian
Republic as a product of the Pantjasila has already become the
broad lines of National direction and cannot possibly be accompanied by any
other Manifesto, particularly if that other Manifesto shows a hesitant attitude
towards the Revolution, and gives the impression of standing aloof from it,
whereas in the interests of the success of the Revolution, all our efforts, also
in the field of culture must be on the rails of the Revolution in accordance
with the guidance of Manipol and other materials of Indoctrination."
4 8 An English translation of the letter appears in Raff el (1967), p. 263.
4 9 Editorial, HR, 11-5-64.
50 Editorial, BT, 11-5-64.
5 1 Editorial, WB, 11-5-64.
52 "Multatuli" is the pseudonym of Douwes Dekker, whose book attacking the
colonial government, Max Havelaar (1860), has always been held in high
regard in Indonesia.
446 KEITH R. FOULCHER
a rejector of universal humanism, because in speaking of the oppressors
and the oppressed, he had denied the equal status of men. If he were
still alive, declared Njoto, he would certainly be anti-Mamikebu:
"Kita sajangkan Multatuli terlalu tjepat pergi; tapi bersjukurlah kaum manikebuis,
karena kalau Multatuli masih hidup, pastilah Manikebu tidak akan berusia
lebih dari 24 djatn".53
The political implications of the Manifesto as it was seen by the Left
were brought out in an address by Armunanto, Indonesian Ambassador
to Czechoslovakia, to Indonesian students in Prague.54 The Manifesto
was seen as an attempt to divert from Manipol in the field of culture,
which bore in it the dangers inherent to a world-view placing its stress
on individualism. The declaration of the Manifesto was in this way
a direct and organised attack on Manipol, which consistently denounced
individualism as the greatest enemy of socialist awareness and the
idea of gotong-rojong.
The initial declarations of support for the ban were followed by a
call for Jassin's dismissal from his position as lecturer at the University
of Indonesia, and a general purging from educational institutions of
all counter-revolutionary elements. There was full support for the ban
and Jassin's dismissal from the leftist student organisations, Madjelis
Mahasiswa Indonesia (Indonesian Students' Council), Gerakan Mahasiswa
Nasional Indonesia (Indonesian National Students' Movement)
and the Panitia Aksi Mahasiswa Ibukota Mengganjang Manikebu
(Djakarta Students' Action Committee to Crush Manikebu). A full
programme for the establishment of control in institutes of higher
education was proposed by Berita Indonesia:
Tugas revolusioner pertama, me-Manipol/Usdekkan semua Perguruan Tinggi.
Baik negeri maupun swasta. Dengan djalan indoktrinasi2. Disamping itu diadakan
pengawasan chusus terhadap pelaksanaan kuliah2 Manipol/Usdek ditnasing2 Universitas/
Perguruan Tinggi.
Tugas revolusioner kedua, merentjanakan dan menjelesaikan UU-Perguruan
Tinggi. Sebagai dasar atau pegangan dalam membimbing dan mengembangkan
Perguruan Tinggi dalam arti jang luas. Membimbing dan mengembangkan dasar
dan haluan negara dalam Perguruan Tinggi pada umumnja.
Tugas revolusioner ketiga, mulai dari sedikit mengadakan pembersihan dari
unsur2 partai terlarang, unsur2 kontra-revolusi, unsur2 musuh (Belanda), unsur2
intrig dan subversi, unsur2 jang memusuhi konsepsi2 Presiden, jang ternjata
masih tampak djelas gedjala2nja dalam Universitas2 negeri. Masih ada kuliah2
53 "We regret that Multatuli has passed on prematurely; but the Manikebuis
thank God for it, because if Multatuli were still alive, Manikebu would
certainly not last any longer than 24 hours". (WB, 10-5-64.)
54 Reported extensively in BT, 12-5-64.
EVENTS SURROUNDING "MANIKEBU" 447
jang diberikan setjara tertulis maupun lisan oleh tokoh2 jang linearecta berlawanan
dengan konsepsi2 Bung Karno, sehingga membingungkan dan mengatjaukan
mahasiswa2.55
Within a short time, Jassin had been dismissed (or 'retooled'), and
a general purge was underway.56 The second edition of Sastra for 1964,
which proved to be the second-last edition, appeared with its leading
article Mamifes Tidak Mati (The Manifesto is not Dead) completely
blacked in. On the surface, the battle was over and the Manifesto and
its supporters were crushed. Unofficially, the movement was continued
underground. Interestingly enough, since it indicates a basic unity of
aim, the split occurring among the study groups which had led to the
declaration of the Manifesto was to all intents healed. The two groups
now worked together underground as one. There were regular meetings
and interchange of views and reports.57
The complete domination of art by a political ideal, which the banning
of Manikebu officially brought into reality, can be clearly seen in Aidit's
collection of reports presented to the National Conference of Revolutionary
Literature and Art, held in Djakarta on 28th August, 1964.5S
The supporters of Manikebu were condemned as enemies of the
people's struggle:
Menurut kaum Manikebuis, se-djelek2 manusia, misalnja Tengku Abdul Rachman
dan Lyndon Johnson, masih bersinar 'tjahaja Ilahi' didalam dirinja, masih
ada segi2 baiknja. Oleh karena itu orang2 sematjam itu djangan dimusuhi, malahan
harus diselamatkan.
55 'The first revolutionary duty is to place all institutes of higher education, both
state and private, on the lines of Manipol-Usdek. Through indoctrination. In
addition special supervision of the implementation of lectures on Manipol-
Usdek in each University or educational institution must be organised.
The second revolutionary duty is to plan and implement laws for the higher
institutes. As a basis or a guide in leading and developing higher institutes
in the broad sense. Leading and developing the basis and direction of the state
in higher institutes in general.
The third revolutionary duty is to organise a purge, in a small way at
first, of the elements of banned parties, counter-revolutionaries, enemies (Dutch),
intrigue and subversion, elements hostile to the President's concepts, the
symptoms of which are still clearly visible in state universities. There are
still lectures given in written and oral form by figures who stand in direct
opposition to the concepts of Bung Karno, so that they confuse and disturb
the students'. (Editorial, Berita Indonesia, 19-5-64.)
56 For information on this period, told from personal experiences, see True
Story of an Indonesian Student (no author named), stencilled by the Department
of Indonesian Languages and Literatures, Australian National University.
57 See note 35.
58 Aidit, (1964).
448 KEITH R. FOULCHER
Demikianlah tjara mereka mengebiri adjaran Manipol agar Rakjat tidak
mengenal dan tidak melawan musuh2nja.59
The artist now had to master the party's policies before he could
produce art which would serve the People:
. . . politik adalah panglima... untuk mengerti inti aspirasi2 Rakjat pekerdja,
sastrawan2 dan seniman2 harus mengetahui, bahkan harus menguasai politik
Partai. Sastra dan seni hanja akan bisa mendjadi sendjata jang ampuh ditangan
Rakjat, djika sastrawan dan seniman mampu memadukan politik jang tepat
dengan ketjakapan artistik.60
Moreover, the writer's creativity was to be limited to an artistic
view of the thinking of the masses, expressed in such a way that it
could be understood and used by the masses:
Kalau kita ambil persoalannja setjara hakekat, sastrawan dan seniman revolusioner
sebagai djuru-bitjara massa melewati 'bahasa artistik' hendak menjampaikan
suatu konsepsi, suatu expresi pemikiran dalam pembajangan artistik dari massa
kepada massa. Kalau apa jang kita sampaikan itu tidak bisa dimengerti oleh
kader ataupun massa, tidak ada artinja kreasi itu sebagai sendjata artistik
ditangan Rakjat.61
A brochure was published on 8th May, 1965, by those involved in
the illegal underground movement, to commemorate the first anniversary
of the banning of the Manifesto.02 It expressed a view that their
struggle was not dead, and outlined the framework for victory. Although
at the time they could hardly have forseen. it, victory was effectively
won only a few months later, with the abortive coup of September 1965
and the dissolution of the PKI on 12th March, 1966. Sukarno's letter
of 11th March, in which he formally handed over power to General
Suharto, signalled the end of an eight-year period of intellectual op-
50 'According to the Manikebids, the worst of mankind, for example Tengku
Abdul Rachman and Lyndon Johnson, still have within them the shine of the
'divine glow', they still have their good side. For this reason such people
must not be fought, but must even be saved.
This is how they emasculate the teachings of Manipol so that the People
do not recognise and oppose their enemies', {ibid., p. 17.)
60 ' . . . Politics is the commander... to understand the essence of the working
People's aspirations, the writer and artist must be informed on, in fact, must
have mastered the politics of the Party. Literature and art will only be able
to become an invulnerable weapon in the hands of the People, if the writer
and artist is able to fuse exact policy with artistic ability', {ibid., p. 53.)
01 'If we take the problem in its essence, the revolutionary writer and artist as
spokesmen of the masses through 'artistic language', wants to convey a concept,
an expression of thought reflected artistically from the masses to the masses.
If what we convey cannot be understood by the cadres or the masses, the
creation has no meaning as an artistic weapon in the hands of the People'.
{ibid., p. 52.)
62 Wiratmo Sukito (stencilled), p. 6.
EVENTS SURROUNDING "MANIKEBU" 449
pression,63 and brought into the open once again the supporters and
the ideals of Manikebu.
VI. Birth of a Generation?
Nevertheless, in the ensuing period, the tie which had bound literary
and political activities remained to all appearances unbroken. In the
activities of the student bodies KAMI and KAPPI calling for the
downfall of the Sukarno government, Indonesia saw the awakening
of a new generation, collectively termed the Angkatan 66. It was a
generation which pledged itself to the promotion of justice and truth,
the purging of all corrupt and anti-freedom elements in whatever field
they were still apparent. In its original form, the new generation showed
itself in the student demonstrations and riots which shook Indonesia
in early 1966. It is understandable that the young writers who themselves
had been engaged in a battle on a political level for cultural and
intellectual freedom should feel an immediate affinity with their student
compatriots, and feel themselves the literary 'spokesmen' of the new
generation. So it was that in the context of the student uprisings,
there appeared publications, specifically a few collections of. poetry,64
honouring the struggle of the students, and expressing their ideals in
a literary form, in such a way that they would be immediately understood
and appreciated by any who chanced to read them.
A cultural standpoint of the new generation was formally declared
with a symposium on the spiritual renaissance of the Angkatan 66,
held at the University of Indonesia, from the 6th to 9th May, 1966.65
As distinct from the Angkatan 45, the new generation saw themselves
as seekers, not only of freedom in the political sense, but freedom as
a basic human condition. They are vitally concerned with the sufferings
of their fellow man, his right to freedom, and truth, justice, and responsibility.
In addition, they declared themselves possessors of a deep
83 ibid., p. 7.
64 Tirani (Tyranny), by Nur Fadjar (Taufiq Ismail).
Benteng (Fortress), by Taufiq Ismail.
Mereka Telah Bangkit (They have Arisen), by Bur Rasuanto.
Perlawanan (Opposition), by Mansur Samin.
Pembebasan (Liberation), Abd. Wahid Situmeang.
Kebangkitan (Resurgence), by five students of the Faculty of Arts, University
of Indonesia.
65 The following notes on the cultural standpoint are a summary of a report
of the symposium in Kesaksian (bulletin of the Indonesian Council of Churches),
May, 1966.
450 KEITH R. FOULCHER
religious sensitivity which sees God in concrete form as an individual.
Culture, in their view, is directly related to these ideals, because
it is not seen as a theoretical matter, but a concrete reality. In fact,
culture represents life as it is lived day by day. It is formed by man's
reaction to his environment, and means 'change', 'advancement'. The
planning of a rice-field is as much a part of culture as the planning
of a painting. Culture means man's adapting the world of nature into
his own life. In this process man himself is changed, and in becoming
aware of the unlimited possibilities of his existence, is moving in the
direction of freedom and completion. In this freedom man experiences
the presence of God. It is God Who plants in men the longing for
truth, justice, and eventual completion. The domination! of culture by
politics has to be rejected, because it means a curtailment of freedom
as this basic right of man.
The first to declare Angkatan 66 a literary generation was H. B.
Jassin, with his article published in August 1966.66 Taking the 'poetry
of the demonstrators' as its manifestation, he included as its members
those writers aged about 6 in 1945, who during the 1950's had published
work in various literary periodicals, and who, in 1966 and the years
preceding, were interpreting in their work the ideals expressed in the
Angkatan 66 symposium.
His suggestion in no way received the unanimous approval of other
observers. Satyagraha Hoerip07 objected primarily to the use of the
term Angkatan 66. He pointed out that the ideals of the Angkatan 66
received their first expression in the Manikebu of 1963, and from this
time on were current among creative writers whose ages covered more
than the generation Jassin described. However, in 1963, the ideals
were expressed not only in poetry, but also in prose and other creative
works. For this reason he indicated his preference for the term Angkatan
Manifes or at least, Angkatan 63.
Aoh K. Hadimadja88 objected to Jassim's omission of regional
literature from his compilation. He sees the ideals of the Angkatan 66
revealed in Sundanese literature long before the time of the student
uprisings.
The most penetrating analysis of Jassin's periodisation has been
made by Drs Rachmat Djoko Pradopo.00 Until now, he has been the
66 Jassin, (1966).
67 Satyagraha Hoerip,. (1966).
68 Aoh K. Hadimadja, (1967).
69 Rachmat Djoko Pradopo, (1967).
EVENTS SURROUNDING "MANIKEBU" 451
only commentator to realise that if a literary generation is to' be born
of the new spirit, the proof of its existence must be found in the
literature itself. That is, the new literature must be strong enough to
live in itself. If its existence can only be shown by linking it to the
social and political conditions contemporary with its production, then
not only does it not exist in its own right, but in this case is denying
the essential beliefs on which it purports to be founded. A literature
does not evidence a belief in humanity and freedom of the individual
by stating these terms in capital letters with the bravado and political
involvement of the social realists. Literature which serves humanity
in the way which the conceptors of Manikebu envisage does not have
to make an open declaration of such beliefs, for once they are absorbed
and interpreted by the individual artist, they live in the literature as
the very basis of the creative activity, and are recognisable as such.
The new generation purports to be one which rejects external control
of art, but this being so, we will not recognise it in the poetry of the
spokesman for the student uprisings.
The concern of most Indonesian writers of this decade (the actual
dating to me seems unimportant) has been a broad statement of beliefs
rendered necessary (in the eyes of many artists) by the political and
social conditions. The literature has largely been a reflection of the
struggle for intellectual and cultural freedom, and as such, has not
existed in its own right. I fully agree with Pradopo when he says
that Angkatan 66 in literature is at present merely a possibility.70
To a certain extent, what we have so far observed represents the
ideological basis for a new generation. If in the decades to come these
ideals are absorbed and interpreted by individual artists in their work,
then, and only then, will we be able to speak of a new generation. In
that event, we will look back on the writers who were involved in the
political and social developments of the 1960's as their ideological
forerunners.
Nevertheless, it is important to note that there have been writers
this decade who have not felt the need, or not had the opportunity, for
political involvement of any kind. Their art has remained removed
from politics, and 'free' in the truest sense, i.e. absorbed in the basic
universal realities of life.
Sydney KEITH R. FOULCHER
70 ibid., p. 168.
452 KEITH R. FOULCHER
REFERENCES
Aidit, D. N., Dengan Sastra dan Seni jang Berkepribadian Nasional Mengabdi
Buruh, Tani dan Pradjurit (Serving the Worker, Peasant, and the Soldier
with Art and Literature of a National Character), Jajasan 'Pembaruan',
Djakarta 1964.
Aoh K. Hamidjaja, Beberapa Paham Angkatan 45 (Some Concepts of the 45
Generation), Tintamas, Djakarta 1952.
idem Daerah dan Angkatan 66 (Generation of 66 and the Daerah), in Horison,
Th. II, No. 2, Febr. 1967, pp. 58-60; 63.
Aveling, Harry G., Indonesian Literary Conflicts, in Dissent, Spring 1967, pp. 25-30.
Boejoeng Saleh, Kearah Seni Berisi: Sekitar Soal Tendens (Towards Meaningful
Art; Concerning the Problem of Tendency), in Indonesia IV, 6/7, 1953,
pp. 337-344.
Hindley, Donald, The Communist Party of Indonesia - 1951-1963, Berkeley and
Los Angeles, 1966.
Jassin, H. B., Angkatan 45 (45 Generation), Jajasan Dharma, 1951.
idem Kesusasteraan Indonesia Modern Dalam Kritik dan Esei I (Modern
Indonesian Literature in Criticisms and Essays - Vol. I), Gunung Agung,
Djakarta, 1954 (latest augmented edition, 1967).
idem Angkatan 66 - Bangkitnja Satu Generasi (Angkatan 66 - Rise of a
Generation) in Horison, Th. I, No. 2, Agustus 1966, pp. 36-41.
idem Kesusastraan Indonesia Modern Dalam Kritik dan Esei IV, 1967.
Muljanto, D. S., Lahirnja Manifes Kebudajaan (Birth of the Cultural Manifesto),
in Horison, Th. II, No. 5, Mei 1967, pp. 158-159.
idem and Taufiq Ismail, (Compilers) Dokumen-Dokumen Tentang "Manifes
Kebudajaan" (Documents Concerning the Cultural Manifesto), Djakarta,
25th February 1968 (typewritten).
Rachmat Djoko Pradopo, Penggolongan Angkatan dan Angkatan 66 Dalam Sastra
(The Classification of Generations and the Generation of 66 in Literature),
in Horison, Th. II, No. 6, Djuni 1967, pp. 165-168.
Raffel, Burton, The Development of Modern Indonesian Poetry, State University
of New York Press, 1967.
Satyagraha Hoerip, Angkatan 66 Dalam Kesusastraan Kita (The Generation of 66
in Our Literature), in Horison, Th. I, No. 6, Des. 1966, pp. 188-189.
Wiratmo Sukito, The Struggle for Intellectual Freedom in Indonesia, 1957-1965
(A.N.U.) (stencilled).
EVENTS SURROUNDING MANIKEBU 453
Appendix
"MANIFES — KEBUDAJAAN"
— KAMI, para seniman dan tjendekiawan Indonesia dengan ini mengumumkan
sebuah MANIFES KEBUDAJAAN, jang menjatakan pendirian,
tjita-tjita dan politik kebudajaan Nasional kami.
— Bagi kami kebudajaan adalah perdjoangan untuk menjempurnakan
manusia. Kami tidak mengutamakan salah satu sektor kebudajaan
diatas sektor kebudajaan jang lain. Setiap sektor berdjoang bersamasama
untuk tudjuan kebudajaan itu sesuai dengan kodratnja.
— Dalam melaksanakan kebudajaan Nasional kami berusaha mentjipta
dengan kesungguhan jang sedjudjur-djudjurnja sebagai perdjoangan
untuk mempertahankan dan mengembangkan martabat diri kami
sebagai bangsa INDONESIA ditengah-tengah masjarakat bangsa-bangsa.
— PANTJASILA adalah falsafah kebudajaan kami.
Djakarta, 17 Agustus, 1963.
H. B. Jassin
Trisno Sumardjo
Wiratmo Soekito
Zaini
Bokor Hutasahut
A. Bastari Asnin
Bur Rasuanto
Soe Hok Djin
D. S. Moeljanto
Ras Siregar
Goenawan Mohamad Hartojo Andangdjaja
Sjahwil
Djufri Tanisan
Binsar Sitompul
Taufiq Ismail
Gerson Poyk
PENDJELASAN MANIFES KEBUDAJAAN
I. Pantjasila Sebagai Falasafah Kebudajaan
DALAM PENGERTIAN KAMI JANG BERSUMBER DALAM HIKMAH PANTJASILA,
kebudajaan bukanlah kondisi objektif, apalagi hasil sebagai barang mati.
Dalam pengertian kami kebudajaan adalah perdjoangan manusia
sebagai totalitas dalam menjempurnakan kondisi2 hidupnja. Kebudajaan
Nasional bukanlah semata-mata ditandai oleh "watak nasional" melainkan
merupakan perdjoangan nasional dari suatu bangsa sebagai
totalitas dalam' menjempurnakan kondisi2 hidup nasionalnja. Predikat
kebudajaan adalah perdjoangan dengan membawa konsekwensi2 jang
mutlak dari sektor2nja.
Sepenuhnja pengertian kami tentang kebudajaan seirama dengan
Pantjasila karena Pantjasila adalah sumbernja, sebagaimana Bung
Karno mengatakan: "Maka dari itu djikalau bangsa Indonesia ingin
supaja Pantjasila jang saja usulkan itu mendjadi suatu realiteit, jakni
djika kami ingin hidup mendjadi satu bangsa, satu nationaliteit jang
merdeka, jang penuh dengan perikemanusiaan, ingin hidup diatas dasar
permusjawaratan, ingin hidup sempurna dengan sociale rechtvaardigheid,
ingin hidup sedjahtera dan aman, dengan ke-Tuhan-an jang luas
454 KEITH R. FOULCHER
dan sempurna, djanganlah lupa akan sjarat untuk menjelenggarakannja,
ialah perdjoangan, perdjoangan dan sekali lagi perdjoangan". (Lih.
Bagian III: Literatur Pantjasila).
Maka pengertian Kebudajaan Nasional adalah perdjoangan untuk
memperkembangkan dan mempertahankan martabat kami sebagai bangsa
Indonesia ditengah-tengah masjarakat bangsa2. Djadi Kepribadian
Nasional jang merupakan implikasi dari Kebudajaan Nasional kita
adalah apa jang oleh Presiden Soekarno dirumuskan sebagai "Freedom
to be Free", sehingga kebudajaan Nasional kita digerakkan oleh suatu
Kepribadian Nasional jang membebaskan-diri dari penguasaan (itjampurtangan)
asing, tetapi bukan untuk mengasingkan diri dari masjarakat
bangsaZ, melainkan djustru untuk menjatukan diri dengan masjarakat
bangsa2 itu setjara bebas dan dinamik sebagai persjaratan2 jang tidak
dapat ditawar bagi perkembangan jang pesat dari Kepribadian dan
Kebudajaan Nasional kita jang pandangan-dunianja bersumber pada
Pantjasila.
Kami ingin membuktikan bahwa sebagai falsafah demokrasi Pantjasila
menolak sembojan "The End justifies the Means" (Tudjuan
menghalalkan tjara), sehingga sebagai falsafah demokrasi Pantjasila
adalah humanisme kulturil jang pengedjawatannja harus kami perdjoangkan
dalam setiap sektor kehidupan manusia. Sembojan a-kulturil
"The End justifies the Means" tersebut jang tidak mengakui perbedaan
antara tudjuan dengan tjara, mengakibatkan orang menudju tudjuan
dengan menjisihkan pentingnja tjara mentjapai tudjuan itu.
Demikianlah umpamanja dibidang pentjiptaan karja2 kesenian dimana
orang lebih mementingkan aspek propagandanja daripada aspek keseniannja,
adalah tjontoh pelaksanaan dari sembojan "The End justifies
the Means" sebagai suatu sembojan jang bertentangan dengan Pantjasila.
"The End justifies the Means" — apabila orang mengemukakan
apa jang bukan kesusastraan sebagai kesusastraan, apa jang bukan
kesenian sebagai kesenian, apa jang bukan ilmu-pengetahuan sebagai
ilmu-pengetahuan dsb.
Perkosaan seperti itu bukanlah tjara insanijah, melainkan tjara
alamiah. Perkosaan adalah mentah sedang pentjiptaan karja mengalahkan
kementahan dengan tjara manusia untuk mentjiptakan dunia
jang damai. Kesenian sebagai pentjiptaan karja manusia akan abadi
hanja apabila bukan sadja tudjuannja adalah kemanusiaan, tetapi djuga
tjaranja adalah kemanusiaan, dan itulah implikasi jang paling hakiki
dari Pantjasila sebagai falsafah demokrasi jang kami perdjoangkan
setjara prinsipiil.
Adapun bahaja bagi kebudajaan jang paling mengantjam datangnja
dari wilajahnja sendiri, tetapi jang terang ialah bahwa sumber pokok
dari bahaja tersebut terletak dalam ketjenderunganZ fetisj sebagai
ketjenderungan non-kreatif. Adapun ketjenderungan tersebut manifestasinja
tidak hanja dalam pendewaan, melainkan terdapat djuga dalam
persetanan sebagai umpamanja kami kenal dalam wilajah kesenian.
Sebagaimana fetisj'2 itu bermatjam-matjam, demikian pulalah kesenian
fetisj. Sebagaimana terdapat fetisjisme dari djiwa-pelindung disamping
EVENTS SURROUNDING "MANIKEBU" 455
fetisjisme dari djiwa-pendendam, demikianlah terdapat kesenian jang
mengabdi kepada djiwa-pelindung dengan memberikan sandjungan2
setjara berlebih-lebihan, disamping kesenian jang mengabdi kepada
djiwa-pendendam dengan memberikan fitnahan2 setjara berlebih-lebihan
pula. Tidak djarang terdjadi bahwa kedua matjam kesenian fetisj itu
mempunjai pretensi "kesenian revolusioner", tetapi dalam halnja demikian
maka kesenian fetisj itu kita namakan kesenian dengan pengabdian
palsu.
Kesenian kreatif, berlawanan dengan kesenian fetisj, tidak mentjari
sumbernja dalam fetisj 2 melainkan dalam dirinja sendiri, sehingga
dengan ini kami menolak fetisjisme dalam segala bentuk dan manifestasinja.
Kesenian kreatif jang kami perdjoangkan dengan menjokong
Revolusi tidaklah bersumber dalam fetisjisme dari djiwa-pelindung,
sebaliknja dengan mengkritik penjelewengan2 dari Revolusi tidaklah
pula bersumber dalam fetisjisme dari djiwa-pendendam. Kami tidak
memperdewakan Revolusi karena kami tidak mempunjai pengabdian
palsu, sebaliknja kamipun tidak mempersetankan Revolusi karena kami
tidak pula mempunjai pengabdian palsu. Tetapi kami adalah revolusioner!
Kami tidak lebih daripada manusia lainnja, direntjanakan namun
merentjanakan, ditjiptakan namun mentjiptakan. Itu sadja dan tidak
mempunjai pretensi apa2. Kamipun tidak akan merasa takut kepada
kegagalan2 kami sendiri, karena kegagalan2 itu bukanlah achir perdjoangan
hidup kami.
II. Kepribadian dan Kebudajaan Nasional
DAIAM DUNIA KESENIAN INDONESIA DIKENAL ISTILAH "HUMANISME UNIVERSIL".
Tafsiran kami mengenai istilah itu adalah sebagai berikut:
Apabila dengan "humanisme universil" dimaksudkan pengaburan
kontradiksi antagonis, kontradiksi antara kawan dengan lawan, maka
kamipun akan menolak "humanisme universil" itu. Misalnja sebagaimana
jang dilakukan oleh Nica dahulu, dimana diulurkan kerdjasama
kebudajaan disatu fihak, tetapi dilakukan aksi militer dilain fihak.
Sebaliknja kami menerima "humanisme universil" apabila di-maksudkan
bahwa kebudajaan dan kesenian itu bukanlah semata-mata nasional,
tetapi djuga menghajati nilai2 universil, bukan semata-mata temporal,
tetapi djuga menghajati nilai2 eternal.
Apabila dengan kebudajaan universil itu jang dimaksudkan bukan
kondisi objektif, melainkan perdjoangan manusia sebagai totalitas dalam
usahanja mengachiri pertentangan antara manusia dan kemanusiaan,
maka kami menjetudjui adjakan untuk meneruskan kebudajaan universil
itu, karena dengan demikian kebudajaan universil itu merupakan
"kekuatan jang menggerakkan sedjarah", dan itu sepenuhnja sama
dengan fikiran kami bahwa kebudajaan universil itu adalah perdjoangan
dari budi-nurani universil dalam memerdekakan setiap manusia dari
rantai2 belenggunja, perdjoangan jang memperdjoangkan tuntutan2
Rakjat Indonesia, karena Rakjat dimana-mana dibawah kolong langit
ini tidak mau ditindas oleh bangsa2 lain, tidak mau dieksploitir oleh
456 KEITH R. FOULCHER
golongan2 apapun, meskipun golongan itu adalah bangsanja sendiri;
mereka menuntut kebebasan dari kemiskinan dan kebebasan dari rasatakut,
baik jang karena antjaman didalam-negeri maupun jang karena
antjaman dari luar-negeri; mereka menuntut kebebasan untuk menggerakkan
setjara konstruktif aktivitas sosialnja, untuk mempertinggi
kebahagiaan individu dan kebahagiaan masjarakat; mereka menuntut
kebebasan untuk mengeluarkan pendapat, jaitu menuntut hak2 jang
lazimnja dinamakan demokrasi. (Lihat Bagian III: Literatur Pantjasila).
Djadi "humanisme universil" djanganlah menjebabkan orang bersikap
"indifferent" (atjuh tak atjuh) terhadap semua aliran (politik),
sehingga dengan "humanisme universil" orang harus tolerant terhadap
imperialisme dan kolonialisme. Kami tetap menarik garis pemisah
setjara tegas antara musuh2 dan sekutu2 Revolusi, antara musuh2
dan sekutu2 kebudajaan,-tetapi ini tidak berarti bahwa kami mempunjai
sikap sektaris dan chauvinis, karena sikap jang demikian itu adalah
djustru mengaburkan garis pemisah tersebut.
Musuh kami bukanlah manusia, karena kami adalah anak manusia.
Musuh kami adalah unsur2 jang membelenggu manusia, dan karenanja
kami ingin membebaskan manusia itu dari rantai2 belenggunja. Dalam
perlawanan kami terhadap musuh2 kami itu kami tetap berpegang teguh
pada pendirian dan pengertian bahwa sedjahat-djahatnja manusia namun
ia masih tetap memantjarkan sinar-tjahaja Illahi, sehingga konsekwensi
kami ialah bahwa kami harus menjelamatkan sinartjahaja Illahi tersebut.
Maka kepertjajaan jang kami kumandangkan ialah bahwa manusia
adalah machluk jang baik, dan karena itulah maka kami bertjita2 membangunkan
suatu masjarakat jang kuat tjenderung kearah masjarakat
manusia jang baik itu, sesuai dengan garis2 Sosialisme Indonesia.
Dengan begitu teranglah sudah posisi kami terhadap masaalah
"humanisme universil". Kami menampilkan aspirasi2 nasional, jaitu
pengarahan2 kepada pembedaan diri ditengah-tengah masjarakat
bangsa2 bagi merealisasi kehormatan, martabat (dignitas), prestige dan
pengaruh, tetapi kami ingin mendjaga agar supaja pengarahan2 tersebut
tidak menudju kearah kesombongan nasional dan chauvinisme dalam
segala bentuk dan manifestasinja. Adapun implikasi dari aspirasi2
nasional ini ialah bahwa bangsa Indonesia sebagai suatu bangsa mempunjai
kebebasan untuk mengembangkan kepribadiannja, artinja bangsa
dapat terus-menerus menjesuaikan diri dengan perkembangan disekitarnja,
tetapi tjaranja adalah unik dan dinamik. Untuk dapat mempunjai
sifat dinamik inilah maka bangsa Indonesia sebagai bangsa harus mempunjai
kesenian sebagai sektor kehidupan kebudajaan, jaitu kesenian
jang sepenuhnja merupakan pantjaran kebebasan, kesungguh-sungguhan
jang sedjudjur-djudjurnja.
in. Politisi dan Estetisi
Dalam dunia kesenian Indonesia djuga dikenal istilah "realisme
sosialis". Menurut sedjarahnja, penafsiran tentang realisme sosialis itu
ada dua matjam:
EVENTS SURROUNDING "MANIKEBU" 457
Jang pertama: Realisme Sosialis langsung merupakan kelandjutan
dari konsepsi kulturil Josef Stalin. Dalam tahun2 30-an dengan berkembangnja
fetisjisme moderen dengan Stalin sebagai suatu fetisj,
barang pudjaan jang seakan-akan mengandung suatu kekuatan gaib,
maka kebudajaan Rusia terantjam dengan amat mengerikan. Dengan
Stalin maka metode kritik seni adalah deduktif, artinja konsepsinja
telah ditetapkan lebih dahulu untuk "menertibkan" kehidupan kesenian
dan kebudajaan. Tjiri pokok pada kesenian jang telah "ditertibkan"
itu ialah adanja konsepsi jang sama dan sektaristis mengenai kritik seni.
Itulah sebabnja maka djiwa objektif jang berpangkal pada budi-nurani
universil tidak selaras dengan realisme sosialis, sehingga kami menolak
realisme sosialis dalam, pengertian itu, dimana dasarnja ialab faham
politik diatas estetik.
Jang kedua: Realisme sosialis menurut kesimpulan kami dari djalan
fikiran Maxim Gorki, jang dipandang sebagai otak dari realisme-sosialis
itu, jakni bahwa sedjarah jang sesungguhnja dari rakjat pekerdja tak
dapat dipeladjari tanpa suatu pengetahuan tentang dongengan kerakjatan
jang setjara terus-menerus dan pasti mentjiptakan karja2 sastra
jang bermutu tinggi seperti Faust, Petualangan Baron Munchaussen,
Gargantua dan Pentragruel, Thyl Eulenspiegelnja Coster, dan Prometheus
Disiksa karja Shelly, karena dongengan kerakjatan kuna purbakala
itu menjertai sedjarah dengan tak lapuk-lapuknja dan dengan tjaranja
jang chas.
Disitu sebenarnja Gorki telah menggariskan politik sastra jang
berbeda dengan realisme sosialis ala Stalin, karena pada hakikatnja
Gorki telah menempuh politik sastra universil. Sesungguhnja politik
sastranja itu bersumber dalam kebudajaan tidak sebagai suatu sektor
politik, melainkan sebagai induknja kehidupan politik jang searah
dengan garis Manifes ini.
Berdasarkan fenomena2 sedjarah maka seorang ahli sedjarah mengatakan
bahwa kebudajaan dari suatu periode adalah senantiasa kebudajaan
dari kelas jang berkuasa. Akan tetapi sedjarah djuga mengadjarkan
bahwa djustru karena tidak termasuk dalam kelas jang berkuasa maka
orang berhasil membentuk kekuatan baru. Dan politik, sebagai kekuatan
baru jang terbentuk ditengah-tengah penindasan kekuatan lama, merupakan
faktor positif jang menentukan perkembangan kebudajaan dan
kesenian. Sebagaimana terdjadi di Perantjis, sedjarah mengadjarkan
bahwa kekuatan jang dibentuk oleh burdjuasi revolusioner adalah
kekuatan jang menentukan dalam melawan penindasan monarki mutlak.
Tetapi sajang, bahwa alan kreatifiteit jang menjala-njala bersama-sama
kekuatan baru itu mendjadi padam setelah kekuatan bordjuasi revolusioner
itu mendjadi sempurna. Bahkan kekuatan politik jang sempurna
itu merintangi kebudajaan dan kesenian. Penindasan baru jang dilakukan
oleh kelas baru itu dibidang kesenian dan kesusastraan chususnja
telah menjebabkan timbulnja suatu kekuatan baru dengan lahirnja
Angkatan 1830 jang mula2 dipelopori oleh Victor Hugo dan kemudian
dilandjutkan oleh Theophile Gautier.
458 KEITH R. FOULCHER
Maka dapatlah kami mengambil kesimpulan bahwa faham politik
diatas estetik jang merumuskan bahwa politik adalah primair dan
estetik adalah sekondair, dilihat dari sudut kebudajaan dan kesenian
adalah suatu Utopia. Sebab faham itu djikalau dilaksanakan dengan
djudjur hanja akan memupuk dan menghasilkan perasaan2 keketjewaan,
djikalau dilaksanakan dengan tidak djudjur akan dapat merupakan
tipu-muslihat kaum politisi jang ambisius.
Sebagai realis kami tidak mungkin menerima setiap bentuk Utopia
karena kami menjadari bahwa dunia ini bukan sorga. Karena berfikir
setjara dialektik maka kami mengakui kenjataan2 bahwa lingkungan
sosial kami senantiasa mengandung masalah2, dan setiap tantangan
jang kami djawab akan menimbulkan tantangan baru. Oleh karena itu
kami tidak pernah berfikir tentang suatu djaman, dimana tak ada
masalah lagi, karena setiap fikiran jang demikian itu adalah terlalu
"idealis" dan karenanja tidak ilmiah. Pekerdjaan seorang seniman
senantiasa harus dilakukan ditengah-tengah dunia jang penuh dengan
masalah2, analog dengan pekerdjaan seorang dokter jang senantiasa
harus dilakukan ditengah-tengah dunia jang penuh dengan penjakit2.
Apabila dunia ini sudah sempurna tidak perlu lagi adanja seniman.
Oleh karena itu faham jang merumuskan bahwa politik adalah primair
dan estetik adalah sekondair tidak memahami realisme karena apabila
kekuatan politik telah mendjadi sempurna maka tidak perlu lagi kesusastraan
dan kesenian, tidak perlu lagi estetika. Seandainja pada suatu
ketika kekuatan politik jang dibentuk itu telah mendjadi sempurna,
maka masalah apakah jang akan dibahas oleh kesenian revolusioner
jang sebagai estetik murni baru mulai sesudah itu? Tidak lebih dan
tidak kurang daripada masalah jang dibahas oleh kaum esteet, jaitu
mereka jang mempunjai faham estetik diatas politik, sehingga bersifat
bordjuis.
Tidaklah berlebih-lebihan kiranja apabila kami mengambil kesimpulan
bahwa faham politik diatas estetik itu tidak memberikan tempat
kepada estetik sebelum pembentukan kekuatan politik mendjadi sempurna,
sehingga selama djangka waktu pembentukan kekuatan politik
itu tidak ada persoalan tentang estetik, sedangkan faham estetik diatas
politik hanja dapat dilaksanakan apabila mendapat sandaran kekuatan
politik jang sempurna pula.
Maka kami dapat menarik kesimpulan selandjutnja, bahwa kedua
faham kesenian tersebut mengandung kontradiksi2. Berbeda dengan
itu adalah faham kami, jaitu faham jang tidak mengorbankan politik
bagi estetik, tetapi sebaliknja, tidak pula mengorbankan estetik bagi
politik, karena pengorbanan tersebut tidak menundjukkan adanja dinamika,
dan didalam hal tidak adanja dinamika maka fungsi estetik murni
adalah suatu imperialisme estetika. Dalam kondisi ini maka transformasi
revolusioner dari negara kapitalis kearah negara sosialis tidak akan
mengubah pula setjara revolusioner kondisi2 kulturilnja. Berlawanan
dengan itu kami menghendaki perobahan kondisi2 kulturil itu setjara
revolusioner menudju kearah masjarakat sosialis Pantjasila.
Menurut kejakinan kami maka masjarakat sosialis Pantjasila jang
EVENTS SURROUNDING MANIKEBU 459
kami perdjoangkan setjara kulturil-revolusioner itu adalah suata keharusan
sedjarah Jang tidak dapat dihindarkan oleh siapapun, tetapi
terutama oleh kami sendiri.
Demikianlah PENDJELASAN MANIFES ini diumumkan: —
H. B. Jassin
Trisno Sumardjo
Wiratmo Soekito
Zaini
Bokor Hutasahut
Gaenawan Mohamad
Djakarta, 17 Agustus, 1963.
A. Bastari Asnin
Bur Rasuanto
Soe Hok Djin
D. S. Moeljanto
Ras Siregar
Hartojo Andangdjaja
Sjahwil
Djufri Tanissan
Binsar Sitcmipul
Taufiq Ismail
Gerson Poyk
terdiri dari:
1. BUNG KARNO:
2. BUNG KARNO:
LITERATUR PANTJASILA
"Nasionalisme, Islamisme dan Marxisme".
"Pidato Lahirnja Pantjasila".
3. DR. H. ROESLAN ABDULGANI : "Manipol-Usdek, Pidato Radio".
4. WIRATMO SOEKITO:
5. HARIAN SEMESTA:
"Peranan Institusi2 dalam memperkembangkan
Sosialisme Kreatif".
"Realitas kelas dan persoalan sosial".
460 KEITH R. FOULCHER
T r a n s l a t i o n *
CULTURAL MANIFESTO
We, the artists and intellectuals of Indonesia, herewith proclaim a
Cultural Manifesto, which states our standpoint, ideals, and policy
of a National culture.
For us culture is the struggle to perfect mankind. We do not
emphasise one cultural sector more than another. Each sector strives
together with the others, moving towards the goal of culture in
accordance with its individual character.
In putting into practice a National culture we endeavour to create
with the utmost sincerity, as the struggle to maintain and develop our
own status as the Indonesian nation among the community of nations.
Pantjasila is our cultural philosophy.
Djakarta, 17 August, 1963.
H. B. Jassin A. Bastari Asnin SjahwU
Trisno Sumardjo Bur Rasnanto Djufri Tanissan
Wiratmo Sukito Soe Hok Djin Binsar Sitompul
Zaini D. S. Moeljanto Taufiq Ismail
Bokor Hutasahut Ras Siregar Gerson Poyk
Goenawam Mohamad Hartono Andangdjaja
EXPLANATION OF THE CULTURAL MANIFESTO
I. Pantjasila as a Cultural Philosophy
On our interpretation, which has its source in the wisdom of
Pantjasila, culture is not an objective condition, still less a product
as a static thing.
On our interpretation culture is the struggle of mankind as a totality
to perfect the conditions of their lives. A National culture is not solely
characterised by a "national identity" but rather it represents the
national struggle of a nation as a totality to perfect the national con-
* The difficulties associated with the comprehension and translation of the actual
text of the Manifes have been numerous. The particular copy of the text here
quoted was received in Kuala Lumpur, 1967, by M. Balfas, from Taufiq Ismail,
one of the signatories to the document. The translation attempts to clarify to
some extent the complicated syntax and terminology employed by the formulators,
and secondly, some typographical errors found, or presumed, in this
particular text. Both aspects may be further corrected by the formulators
themselves, or by one familiar with their original intention. For the purposes
of this translation, I have preferred to keep as close as possible to the text
in hand. The reader may be referred for another translation to H. Luethy,
Indonesia in Travail (Congress for Cultural Freedom, New Delhi, 1966). This
is a fairly elaborate English paraphrase, which expands and clarifies the sense
of many passages, rather than an actual translation.
EVENTS SURROUNDING "MANIKEBU" 461
ditions of life. The attribute of culture is struggle, bringing full consequences
from all its sectors.
Our interpretation of culture is exactly in line with Pantjasila,
because Pantjasila is its source, and as Bung Karno says: "Therefore,
if the Indonesian people desire Pantjasila which I have proposed to
become a reality, that is, if we wish to live as one nation, a free nationality,
full of humanitarianism, wish to live on the basis of consultation,
wish for a perfect life with social justice, wish for a prosperous and
peaceful life, with a belief in God which is extensive and complete, do
not forget that the condition for its execution is struggle, struggle, and
once again struggle." (See Part III: Literature of the Pantjasila.)
So our understanding of National Culture is the struggle to develop
and maintain our status as the Indonesian nation among the community
of nations. Therefore, the National Identity, which is implicit in our
National Culture, is what President Sukarno formulated as "Freedom
to be Free", so that our National Culture is motivated by a National
Identity which liberates itself from foreign domination (interference),
not in order to isolate itself from the community of nations, but rather,
in fact, to join with those nations in a free and dynamic way — the
indisputable conditions for the rapid development of our National
Identity and Culture with its world view based on Pantjasila.
We would like to prove that as a democratic philosophy, Pantjasila
rejects the slogan "The End Justifies the Means", so that as a democratc
philosophy, Pantjasila is cultural humanism, the implementation
of which we must strive for in every sector of human life. This a-cultural
slogan "The End Justifies the Means", which does not acknowledge
the difference between end and means, results in people striving for the
end while ignoring the importance of the means of achieving the end.
Thus, when in the field of creating works of art, the propaganda
aspect is emphasised above the artistic aspect, we have an example of
the implementation of the slogan "The End Justifies the Means", a
slogan which conflicts with Pantjasila. "The End Justifies the Means" —
when people present that which is not literature as literature, that
which is not art as art, that which is not science as science, and so on.
Such a violation is not in accord with human conduct, but rather
in accord with the law of the jungle. Violation is a crude state, whereas
creative work overcomes crudity in a humanistic way in order to create
a peaceful world. Art, as human creativity, will be eternal only when,
not only is its aim humanism, but also its means are humanistic. That
is the most essential implication of Pantjasila as a democratic philosophy,
for which we strive as a basic principle.
The danger which poses the greatest threat to our culture comes
from within itself, but it is clear that the main source of that danger
lies in the tendencies towards fetishism as a non-creative trend. That
tendency manifest itself not only in deification but also in diabolisation,
as, for example, we are familiar with in the field of art. Just as those
fetishes are of varying kinds, so too is fetish art. Just as there is found
the fetishism of the defending mentality besides the fetishism of the
462 KEITH R. FOULCHER
maligning mentality, so there is found art which serves the former by
giving exaggerated flattery, as well as art which serves the latter
by presenting an exaggerated calumny. It often happens that both
these types of fetish art have pretensions of being "revolutionary art",
but in such cases we call that fetish art 'art with false loyalty'.
Creative art, contrary to fetish art, does not seek its source in
fetishes, but rather within itself. So with this we reject fetishism in all
its forms and manifestations. Creative art, for which we strive in
upholding the Revolution, does not have its source in the fetish of the
defending mentality; on the other hand neither does the criticism
of deviations from the Revolution stem from the maligning mentality.
We do not deify the Revolution, because we have no false loyalty; on
the other hand, we do not diabolise the Revolution, for the same reason.
But we certainly are revolutionary!
We are no better than other men, planned yet planning, created yet
creating. That is all, and we have no pretensions. Nor are we afraid
of our own failures, because those failures are not the end of our
life struggle.
II. National Identity and Culture
In the world of Indonesian art, the term "Universal Humanism"
is well known. Our interpretation of that term is as follows:
If by "universal humanism" is meant the obscuring of antagonistic
contradictions, contradictions between friend and enemy, then we will
reject that "universal humanism". For example, the actions of the
former Netherlands Indies Civil Administrationi, where on the one
hand cultural co-operation was proposed, but on the other hand military
actions were carried out.
On the other hand we accept "universal humanism", if it means that
culture and art are not merely national but also alive with universal
values, not just temporal, but also alive with eternal values.
If universal culture is understood not as an objective condition, but
rather as the struggle of mankind as a totality in its efforts to bring
to an end the conflict between man and humanity, then we approve of
the invitation to continue universal culture, because in this way, universal
culture constitutes "a force which motivates history". That is fully in
accord with our thinking that universal culture is the striving of the
universal conscience to free every man from his shackles; the strife
which fights for the demands of the Indonesian people, because people
everywhere in the world neither want to be oppressed by other nations,
nor exploited by any groups at all, even though these groups may be
of their own nation. They demand freedom from poverty and fear,
whether it comes from a threat within their country or from outside.
They demand freedom to motivate their social activity in a constructive
way, to raise the happiness of the individual and of society; they demand
freedom to express opinions, that is to say, they demand the rights
usually called democracy. (See Part III: Literature of the Pantjasila).
Therefore "universal humanism" must not make people indifferent
EVENTS SURROUNDING "MANIKEBu" 463
to all (political) trends, to the extent that with "universal humanism"
people must be tolerant about imperialism and colonialism. We still
draw a clear line between enemies and allies of the Revolution, between
enemies and allies of Culture, but this does not mean that we have
a sectarian and chauvinistic attitude, because such a stand would actually
blur the line of distinction.
Our enemy is not mankind, because we are men. Our enemy is the
elements which shackle man, and that is the reason we desire to free
man from his chains. In our opposition to our enemies we always
adhere to the standpoint and concept that however wicked a man is,
he still radiates the glow of the divine, and consequently, we must
rescue that divine light.
The belief we procaim is that men are good creatures, and so our
ideal is to build a society heavily disposed towards humanity (which
is good), along the lines of Indonesian Socialism.
This makes our position clear with regard to the matter of "universal
humanism". We advance national aspirations, that is, directives towards
self-identification among the community of nations — for the realisation
of respect, dignity, prestige and influence, — but we would guard
against these directives' leading to national arrogance and chauvinism
in all its forms and manifestations. The implication of these national
aspirations is that the Indonesian people, as a nation, have freedom
to develop their identity; that is, the Indonesian people can constantly
adapt themselves to the development around them, but in a unique and
dynamic way. In order to be able to possess this dynamic quality,
Indonesians as a nation must have art as a sector of cultural life;
that is to say, art which fully represents the product of freedom, of
utmost sincerity.
III. Politics and Aesthetics
In the world of Indonesian art, the term "socialist realism" is also
well-known. According to its history, there are two interpretations of
socialist realism.
First: Socialist realism as a direct continuation of Joseph Stalin's
cultural concept. In the thirties, with the development of modern
fetishism, with Stalin as a fetish, an object of worship apparently
incorporating a mystic power, Russian culture was subjected to a
terrifying threat. Under Stalin, the method of artistic criticism was
deductive, that is, its conception was predetermined to "control" cultural
and artistic life. The principal characteristic of "controlled" art
was the existence of an identical and sectarian concept concerning
artistic criticism. That is why the objective spirit which is based on
a universal conscience is not in harmony with socialist realism. So we
reject socialist realism in that sense, where its basis is the concept
of politics above aesthetics.
Second: Socialist realism as we derive it from the thoughts of Maxim
Gorki, who was regarded as the intelligence behind socialist realism,
464 KEITH R. FOULCHER
that is, that the true history of the working people could not be studied
without a knowledge of their folklore, which continuously and surely
brings. into being literary works of high quality, such as Faust, The
Wanderings of Baron von Munchhaussen, Gargantua and Pantagruel,
Coster's Thyl Eulenspiegel, and Shelley's Prometheus Tortured, because
the ancient folklore goes hand in' hand with history without becoming
obsolete and in a very special way.
Actually Gorki there outlined a literary policy (approach to literature)
in contrast to socialist realism a la Stalin, because essentially Gorki
had taken a universal literary policy. In truth, his literary policy has
its roots in culture, not as a political sector, but as the mainspring of
political life, which is in accordance with the line of this manifesto.
Based on historical phenomena, a historian states that the culture
of one period is always the culture of the ruling class. Nevertheless,
history also teaches that precisely because of exclusion from the ruling
class, people succeed in forming a new force. And politics, as a new
power created in the midst of the oppression of the old power, constitutes
a positive factor determining the development of culture and
art. As happened in France, history teaches that the force which was
created by the revolutionary bourgeoisie, was the determining force
in opposing the oppression of the absolute monarchy. Unfortunately,
this creative elan which flared up with that new power, was extinguished
after the power of the revolutionary bourgeoisie became complete. In
fact, the complete political domination restricted culture and art. New
oppression which was perpetrated by the new class in the field of art
and literature in particular, had caused the emergence of a new power
with the birth of the 1830 Generation, which was originally pioneered
by Victor Hugo and then continued by Theophile Gautier.
So we can come to the conclusion that the concept of politics above
aesthetics, which postulates that politics is primary and aesthetics
secondary, seen from the angle of culture and art is a Utopia. Because
if that concept is carried out honestly, it will only foster and produce
feelings of dissatisfaction, and if not carried out honestly will represent
the guile of ambitious politicians.
As realists we cannot possibly accept any form of Utopia, because
we are aware that this world is no paradise. Because, thinking dialectically,
we acknowledge the fact that our social circles always possess
problems, and every challenge we answer will give rise to a new challenge.
That is why we never think about a time when there will be
no more problems, because every such thought is too "idealistic" and
therefore unscientific. The work of an artist must always be carried
out in a world full of problems, parallel to the work of a doctor, which
must always be done in a world full of diseases. When this world
becomes perfect there will no longer be a need for artists. That is why
a concept which formulates that politics is primary and aesthetics
secondary does not understand realism (reality), because when a political
power has become supreme, literature and art are no longer necessary,
EVENTS SURROUNDING "MANIKEBU" 465
nor is aesthetics. Supposing at some time the political power formed
has become complete: then, what problems will be examined by revolutionary
art, which only after that begins to deal purely with aesthetics ?
Not more and not less than the matters which are discussed by the
aesthetes, that is, those who hold the concept of aesthetics above politics,
therefore displaying a bourgeouis quality.
It seems not exaggerated if we draw the conclusion that the concept
of politics above aesthetics does not give a place to aesthetics before
the formation of the political power becomes complete, so that during
the period of time of the formation of that political power, there are
no problems touching aesthetics, while on the other hand, the concept
of aesthetics being superior to politics can only be put into practice
when it also has the support of a complete political power.
We can therefore conclude further that both those afore-mentioned
concepts of art contain contradictions. Differing from them is our
concept, namely, a concept which does not sacrifice politics for aesthetics,
but on the other hand, also does not sacrifice aesthetics for politics,
because such sacrifice does not indicate the existence of dynamism, and
in the case of the absence of dynamism, a pure aesthetic function is an
aesthetic imperialism. In this condition, the revolutionary transformation
of a capitalist country into a socialist country will also not revolutionise
its cultural conditions. In opposition to that we desire a revolution of
cultural conditions in a revolutionary manner, striving for the socialist
society of Pantjasila.
We are convinced that the socialist society of the Pantjasila for
which we are fighting in a revolutionary cultural way, is a historical
necessity, which cannot be prevented by any one at all, least of all
by ourselves.
Thus the explanation of this Manifesto is published.
Djakarta, 17 August, 1963.
H. B. Jassin
Trisno Sumardjo
Wiratmo Sukito
Zaini
Bokor Hutasahut
Goenawan Mohamad
A. Bastari Asnin
Bur Rasuanto
Soe Hok Djin
D. S. Moeljanto
Ras Siregar
Hartono Andangdjaja
Sjahwil
Djufri Tanissan
Binsar Sitompul
Taufiq Ismail
Gerson Poyk
PANTJASILA LITERATURE
consists of:
1. BUNG KARNO:
2. BUNG KARNO:
3. DR. H. ROESLAN ABDULGANI
4. WIRATMO SOEKITO:
5. HARIAN SEMESTA:
"Nasionalisme, Islamisme dan Marxisme".
"Pidato Lahirnja Pantjasila".
"Manipol-Usdek, Pidato Radio".
"Peranan Institusi2 dalam memperkembangkan
Sosialisme Kreatif".
"Realitas kelas dan persoalan sosial".