PRAM TIDAK MEMBAKAR BUKU

Menanggapi Arya Gunawan dan Prahara Budaya dengan (Sedikit) Rinci

Arya, Jadi kapan sebenarnya Pram membakar buku seperti halnya Nur Mahmudi Ismail?

Sayang sekali Anda tak bisa menjawabnya dan justru berkelit dengan mengganti frase “Pram bakar buku” dengan frase “mendiamkan / menganjurkan membakar buku”.

Saya sudah menduga Anda tak bisa menjawabnya. Saya juga bahkan sudah bisa menduga Anda akan berkelit dengan mengganti frase “Pram membakar buku” dengan frase “Pram membiarkan/menganjurkan bakar buku”. Dugaan saya sepenuhnya presisi.

(Jujur, saya tidak yakin Anda akan mengganti frase “Pram bakar buku” dengan “Pram menganjurkan/mendiamkan pembakaran” jika saya tidak menantang Anda secara terbuka untuk berbicara mengenai perkara ini secara detail – kendati Anda bilang tulisan panjang Anda bukan karena untuk menanggapi tantangan saya).

Tapi sekadar mengingatkan, tulisan Anda (baik untuk mengkritik materi pernyataan sikap, menjawab Linda atau pun menjawab Aboeprijadi) jelas-jelas menyebutkan Pram “membakari buku-buku lawan ideologisnya”.

Dan itu dilakukan berkali-kali. Terus menerus dalam tiga tulisan Anda itu (dan baru diganti dengan “membiarkan atau menganjurkan pembakaran” dalam tulisan Anda yang terbaru setelah saya menantang Anda untuk menjawabnya dengan detail).

Kita tahu semua, seperti apa kelakuan Nur Mahmudi yang pernah Anda coblos dalam perkara ini. Dengan mudah saya bisa sebutkan kapan dan di mana kelakuan Nur Mahmudi itu terjadi. Itulah sebabnya saya menantang Anda secara terbuka. Saya jengah karena Anda terus menerus menyamakan apple to apple antara Pram dan Nur Mahmudi dalam soal bakar-membakar ini

Kita bisa berdebat soal selisih antara “membakar buku” dengan mendiamkan/menganjurkan pembakaran”. Tapi yang jelas, keduanya tidak persis.

Dengan terus-menerus mereproduksi frase “Pram membakari buku” (seperti terbaca jelas dalam 3 tulisan Anda: kritik untuk materi pernyataan sikap, jawaban pada Linda, dan jawaban pada Aboeprijadi), saya kahawatir Anda terpeleset pada “ommision of fact”. Karena Pram memang tidak membakar buku (sampai ada yang bisa membuktikannya).

Sayang bukan jika apa yang Anda sebut sebagai “memukul air di dulang terpercik wajah sendiri” ternyata berlaku pula pada Anda?

Jika memang tidak bisa membuktikan Pram membakar buku, janganlah katakan itu berkali-kali. Jika Anda hanya bisa membuktikan bahwa “Pram memberangus kebebasan berpikir” atau “mendiamkan pembakaran buku”, cukuplah Anda katakan itu saja dan tak usahlah menggunakan frase-frase berlebihan yang tak bisa dibuktikan koherensinya dengan kenyataan. Itu jauh lebih bertanggungjawab. Barangkali lebih “ilmiah”. Dan yang jelas itu jauh lebih “adil”.

Dengan terus-menerus mereproduksi frase “Pram membakari buku” pada saat sebenarnya Anda memaksudkan (dan hanya bisa membuktikan) “Pram memberangus kebebasan berpikir atau mendiamkan pembakaran buku”, Anda sama saja sedang mereproduksi jargon-jargon.

Tidak usah pula menyebut tantangan saya sebagai Agitprop seraya menulis dalam tanda kurung itu sebagai istilah PKI.

Apa pula itu maksudnya? Apakah Anda sedang mencoba membangun sebuah atribusi (diam-diam) buat saya sebagai orang yang berbahasa dengan nuansa PKI? “Tantangan berpolemik secara terbuka” tidak identik dengan Agitprop, apalagi dengan PKI. Organ-organ jaman behuela, tidak hanya PKI, biasa menggunakan istilah Agitprop, termasuk salah satu musuh besar PKI yaitu Partai Murba. Coba Anda baca Katalog Kepartaian Indonesia yang diterbitkan Kementerian Penerangan pada 1951. Janganlah mulai bikin-bikin atribusi dengan gaya stigmatisasi macam itu lah…. Biasa aja, dong!

Cara-cara Anda menyebut tantangan saya yang dinyatakan secara terbuka dengan menghubung-hubungkannya dengan “agitprop” dan “PKI” rentan membawa Anda pada laku stigmatisasi. Saya berprasangka baik Anda tidak sedang ingin membangun atribusi (diam-diam) bahwa saya “seperti PKI”, tapi cukup jelas, cara-cara macam Anda itu sering kita dengar sebelum 1998.

Jadi, Bung Arya, jika memang Anda tidak mampu membuktikan kapan dan di mana Pram membakar buku, tak usah pula Anda terus menerus mereproduksinya. Carilah parafrase/kalimat yang Anda anggap jauh lebih koheren dengan kenyataan dan yang dengan mudah pula Anda membuktikannya.

Kita tidak makin cerdas dan jernih menyikapi sejarah dengan mereproduksi terus-menerus jargon-jargon, seperti juga kita tidak bisa melawan lupa dengan cara begitu.

Orang harus membayar apa yang ia perbuat dan orang tak bisa diminta membayar apa yang tidak ia lakukan.

****

Arya,

Sekarang, mari kita omong-omong sebentar tentang buku “Prahara Budaya” yang disusun oleh DS Moeljanto dan Doktor Honoris Causa Dokter Hewan Taufiq Ismail.

Saya tidak apriori dengan “Prahara Budaya”, tapi saya tidak percaya begitu saja dengan buku “Prahara Budaya” dalam upaya memahami PKI-LEKRA-Pram.

Buku itu melulu diisi sisi keburukan PKI-LEKRA-Pram. Siapa pun yang pernah membaca buku “Prahara Budaya”, akan terjerat oleh kesan betapa ganas, bahaya, dan biadabnya PKI-Lekra-Pram. Propaganda Orde Baru tentang komunisme sebagai mahluk jahat seperti satu partitur dengan buku “Prahara Budaya”. Tidak berlebihan jika saya bilang buku itu disusun dengan cara propaganda, bukan dengan semangat ilmiah untuk menemukan “kebenaran”.

Jika ada orang yang bertanya pada saya buku apa yang berhasil membangun kesan betapa ganas dan berbahayanya Lekra-PKI-Pram, salah satu yang akan dengan tangkas saya sebutkan adalah buku “Prahara Budaya”.

Itu pula yang saya alami ketika membaca “Prahara Budaya” di awal-awal masa kuliah dulu. Kesan saya ketika itu, betapa jahat dan sama sekali tak ada nilai positifnya PKI-Lekra-Pram. Saya yang dibesarkan dalam kultur bahasa Indonesia yang baik dan benar ala Orde Baru, terperangah membaca artikel-artikel dari para pendukung PKI atau Lekra yang menggunakan gaya bahasa provokatif dan “gila-gilan”.

(Jadinya, saya pun tidak heran jika Arya Gunawan – yang juga dibesarkan dalam kultur pendidikan yang memuja bahasa Indonesia yang baik dan benar — menanggapi subjek postingan saya yang berjudul TANTANGAN TERBUKA BUAT ARYA GUNAWAN dengan memberi komentar sebagai tulisan “bernuansa agitprov” dan pada saat yang sama masih merasa perlu menulis dalam tanda kurung “ini tentu saja istilah PKI”. Karena saya menggunakan gaya bahasa bernuansa Agitprop yang merupakan istilah PKI dan dengan demikian saya -– secara tidak langsung — dianggap “bernuansa PKI”. Bah, macam mana pula kejernihan membaca sejarah dan melawan alpa dilakukan dengan gaya pukul rata macam begini, Bung?)

Belakangan, setelah saya membacai langsung koran Harian Rakyat (milik PKI), Bintang Timur (yang lembar budayanya, Lentera, dipegang oleh Pram), Abadi (milik Masjumi) atau Duta Masjarakat (milik NU) apalagi Indonesia Raja pimpinan Mochtar Loebis, saya baru sadar bahwa gaya bahasa macam itu memang menjadi “cara wicara” (type of speech) ketika itu. Gaya bahasa macam itu memang mencerminkan dengan baik semangat zaman ketika itu yang dipenuhi semangat berpolemik, tantang menantang, hantam menghantam.

Doktor Honoris Causa Dokter Hewan Taufiq Ismail dengan baik sekali membangun kesan bahwa bahasa itu sebagai cermin kepribadian ganas PKI-Lekra, yang ia sebut sebagai gaya bahasa “caci-maki” dan “propaganda”, tetapi pada saat yang sama Doktor Honoris Causa Dokter Hewan Taufiq Ismail juga menggunakan gaya bahasa yang tidak kalah agitatifnya, seperti “me

sin penyerangan untuk Manikebu”, dll.

Doktor Honoris Causa Dokter Hewan Taufiq Ismail tidak pernah menyebut-nyebut bahwa jika pun harus dicari orang yang dimintai pertanggungjawaban atas gaya bahasa yang agresif dan agitatif itu, Soekarno tidak bisa tidak tersangkut-paut dalam perkara ini. Soekarno adalah orang yang punya kemampuan membentuk “cara-wicara” dan gaya bahasa. “Prahara Budaya” tak pernah menjelaskan konteks ini secara jernih.

Arya benar bahwa “Prahara Budaya” memuat tulisan-tulisan langsung para pelaku sejarah ketika itu. Tapi, keberadaan tulisan para pelaku sejarah, tidak serta merta membuat “Prahara Budaya” menjadi cukup berwibawa untuk dijadikan rujukan memahami sepakterjang PKI-Lekra-Pram secara utuh dan proporsional.

Sebabnya, “Prahara Budaya” hanya memajang tulisan-tulisan para pelaku sejarah ketika itu dengan penyuntingan yang tidak begitu jelas teknik dan metodenya. Sementara pada saat yang sama, Doktor Honoris Causa Dokter Hewan Taufiq Ismail dan DS Moeljanto bisa dengan leluasa menuliskan kesimpulan, tafsir, dan pernyataan-pernyataan apa pun yang ingin ia suarakan.

Ini kentara, saya contohkan salah satunya, pada pengantar dia pada bagian kelima “Prahara Budaya” yang ia upayakan untuk bisa mencitrakan betapa para penyair Lekra memang menghamba pada Lenin dan Komunisme dan bahkan dianggap sudah tahu peristiwa 1 Oktober 1965.

Dia menyebut puisi penyair Mawie yang berjudul “Kutunggu Bumi Memerah Darah” yang dimuat pada Maret 1965 sebagai bukti (saya kutipkan tulisan Doktor Honoris Causa Dokter Hewan Taufiq Ismail) “karena rupanya dia sudah tahu sebelumnya”. Maksudnya, penyair Mawie dianggap sudah tahu bahwa akan terjadi pertumpahan darah pada 1 Oktober 1965.

Ini propaganda, saya kira, karena terlalu berlebihan menyebut Mawie tahu akan terjadi pertumpahan darah pada 1 Oktober 1965, apalagi Doktor Honoris Causa Dokter Hewan Taufiq Ismail tidak pernah menjelaskan argumen atas tuduhannya itu dalam sebiji kalimat pun. Dengan memvonis penyair Mawie sudah tahu peristiwa 1 Oktober 1965 jauh-jauh hari sebelumnya, kita dikesankan untuk percaya bahwa mereka semua memang terlibat, atau setidaknya, tahu.

Jika saja Doktor Honoris Causa Dokter Hewan Taufiq Ismail mau adil, dia harus katakan bahwa puisi dengan nuansa “merah-darah” tidak ada hubungannya dengan peristiwa 1 Oktober karena para penyair yang bersimpati dengan Lekra sudah terbiasa menggunakan metafora macam itu bertahun-tahun jauh sebelum 1965.

Itu bisa dibaca dari puisi Njoto berjudul “Merah Kesumba” yang diterbitkan pada Maret 1961 atau puisi Roemandung berjudul “Darah Merah di Wadjah Duka” yang ditulis di Pematangsiantar pada April 1958 dan diterbitkan Harian Rakjat pada 7 Juli 1962.

Sayangnya ini tak dimuat oleh Doktor Honoris Causa Dokter Hewan Taufiq Ismail di “Prahara Budaya”. Bukankah menggelikan jika mereka disebut tahu bahwa beberapa tahun ke depan akan terjadi peristiwa 1 Oktober 1965.

Saya dulu percaya bahwa setiap orang-orang Lekra memang terlibat dalam peristiwa 1 Oktober 1965, ya karena buku “Prahara Budaya” ini. Untung saja saya punya kesempatan untuk menelusuri sumber-sumber asli koran-koran pada zaman itu dan lebih teliti serta berhati-hati memamah “Prahara Budaya”.

Bagaimana dengan orang-orang yang tak punya akses pada sumber-sumber itu? Kasihan sekali jika mereka percaya bahwa para Mawie dan para penyair Lekra sudah tahu jauh-jauh hari peristiwa berdarah 1 Oktober 1965.

“Prahara Budaya” tidak cukup adil memberi tempat dan menggambarkan PKI-Lekra-Pram. Doktor Honoris Causa Dokter Hewan Taufiq Ismail dan DS Moeljanto hanya memajang tulisan-tulisan yang menggambarkan wajah seram PKI-Lekra-Pram dan menggiring pembaca untuk sampai pada kesimpulan itu dengan menerakan komentar-komentarnya sendiri.

Hanya dengan membaca “Prahara Budaya”, kita hanya akan mendapat cerita keganasan PKI yang menggerebek mesjid di Kanigoro tanpa akan pernah tahu bahwa PKI yang sama pernah membangun dan merehab belasan mesjid di Sumatera pada 1964. Hanya dengan membaca “Prahara Budaya”, kita hanya akan mendapat gambaran PKI-Lekra-Pram sebagai subyek-subyek yang membakari buku dan memberangus kebebasan berpikir orang-orang Manikebu (dalam istilah Pram) atau Manifestan (dalam istilah Wiratmo Soekito).

Hanya dengan membaca “Prahara Budaya”, kita tidak akan pernah menyadari satu hal penting: bahwa PKI-Lekra-Pram juga sepaham dengan Doktor Honoris Causa Dokter Hewan Taufiq Ismail dalam soal moralitas.

Belakangan saya membacai koran-koran lama, termasuk Harian Rakyat dan Bintang Timur. Salah satu hal yang baru saya sadari, dan tak akan pernah Anda sadari jika hanya membaca Prahara Budaya, adalah bahwa PKI-Lekra adalah organ yang getol sekali mengampanyekan soal moralitas, seperti juga Doktor Honoris Causa Dokter Hewan Taufiq Ismail di hari-hari belakangan.

Hanya membaca “Prahara Budaya”, kita akan kehilangan kesempatan untuk menyadari bahwa PKI-Lekra amat getol mengampanyekan anti buku-buku cabul, majalah-majalah cabul, film-film cabul, sastra cabul hingga pakaian-pakaian cabul.

Wakil CC PKI Njoto ketika pada 29 Desember 1954 naik mimbar di gedung bioskop Radjekwesi Bodjonegoro, Jawa Timur. Sebagaimana digambarkan Harian Rakjat edisi 5 Februari 1955, malam itu Njoto tak mengepit berlembar-lembar kertas pidato, sebagaimana Doktor Honoris Causa Dokter Hewan Taufiq Ismail lakukan di Taman Ismail Marzuki ketika berpidato ihwal Gerakan Syahwat Merdeka (GSM) atau pun di ruang auditorium UNY sewaktu menerima gelar Doktor Honoris Causa dalam bidang Pendidikan Sastra.

Njoto, malam itu, berbicara mengenai sikap PKI atas demoralisasi masyarakat, khususnya bagi anak-anak pelajar. Njoto bilang: “PKI menjokong setiap usaha jang akan memberantas demoralisasi, tidak sadja dikalangan peladjar, tetapi dikalangan manapun. Sekarang ini, tidak sedikit orang jang suka meremehkan pengaruh jg ditimbulkan oleh film2 tjabul, buku2 tjabul dan musik tjabul. Ibu2 dan bapak2, djuga guru2, lebih daripada saja tentu tahu betapa merusaknja barang2 tjabul itu bagi watak dan sifat anak2 kita. Pengaruh jang djelek itu sudah demikian meluasnja, sehingga tidak sedikit anak2 kita jang menanggalkan pakaiannja jg nasional, pakaiannya jang normal, dan lebih suka memakai tjelana jang saja sebut sadja ,,tjelana potlot”.”

Dalam usaha membendung keganasan “barang2 tjabul” itu PKI jauh lebih keras tindakannya. Njoto dalam pidato yang sama tak lupa berjanji merencanakan suatu mosi menuntut pelarangan segala sesuatu yang cabul kepada Parlemen. Ikatan Pemuda Pelajar Indonesia (IPPI) lantas memfasilitasi sarasehan besar “Demoralisasi Peladjar” yang digelar selama sepekan pada 27 Februari s/d 5 Maret 1955 di Jogjakarta.

Lekra cabang Jogja pernah membuat program melakukan sweeping atas pemakai baju-baju norak nekolim atau you-can-see. Bagi PKI dan eksponen Lekra, pakaian-pakaian cabul semacam you-can-see dan bikini, film cabul, sastra cabul, maupun majalah cabul bukan soal sepele. Ia adalah bagian dari arus revolusi kebudayaan yang mesti dibersihkan dari perikehidupan masyarakat.

Dan mereka konsisten dengan sikap penentangan itu. Ada sekira sepuluh tahun rentang antara pidato Njoto dan tindakan Panglima Daerah Angkatan Kepolisian X Jawa Timur di Surabaya, Drs Soemarsono, yang menyerukan bahwa “disamping terhadap lagu2 ngak-ngik-ngok sebangsa the beatle, rok n roll, AKRI akan mengambil tindakan tegas terhadap mode2 pakaian jang berbau nekolim”.

Pada 8 Juli 1961, Harian Rakjat bersikap keras terhadap film-film Amerika yang dianggap dipenuhi adegan mesum, seks dan mengajarkan kekerasan. Tulisan yang secara jelas menerangkan sikap PKI dalam hal tulisan dan tayangan seks dan kekerasan itu terpajang manis dalam judul “Hanja Menghendaki Sex dan Kekerasan”.

Majalah-majalah yang dianggap cabul seperti Playboy dirazia yang dalam bahasa kartun Harian Rakjat edisi 8 Agustus 1965 merupakan sampah-sampah berb

au Amerika yang sepantasnya dibuang. Sejalan dengan itu, Badan Kontak Organisasi Wanita Indonesia Djawa Timur (BKOWI) di Surabaya juga mengeluarkan pernyataan menertibkan peredaran buku-buku dan majalah yang tak sesuai dengan kepribadian nasional. Keluarnya pernyataan itu merupakan respons langsung dari beredarnya kisah-kisah bergambar saru nan mesum yang tak pantas dilihat, “Keluarga Miring” No 8, 9, 10 terbitan Semarang tahun 1965.

Standar moral PKI, dalam hal beginian, relatif keras. Soedjojono, pelukis yang oleh Claire H0lt dalam studinya tentang sejarah seni di Indonesia maupun dalam disertasi Farida Soemargono di Ecolo des Hautes Estudes en Scien Sociales (Paris) disebut sebagai penubuh gagasan realisme (sosialis) Indonesia dalam seni rupa Indonesia ketika ia bergelut di Jogjakarta pada akhir 1930-an hingga awal 1950-an (kurang lebih seperti posisi Pram sebagai penganjur realisme sosialisme dalam kesusastraan), sampai harus dipecat karena menolak meminta maaf dan ampun setelah ia berpoligami dengan menikahi istri mudanya yang bernama Rose Pandanwangi (sama bukan dengan Partai Bulan Bintang yang berazas Islam ketika memecat Zaenal Maarif gara-gara berpoligami?). Sikap Aidit tergolong keras dalam perkara moral macam beginian.

Apakah pernah Doktor Honoris Causa Dokter Hewan Taufiq Ismail mengakui “sumbangan” PKI-Lekra dalam perkara beginian? Apakah ada pengungkapan wajah lain PKI-Lekra dalam perkara beginian dalam buku “Prahara Budaya”?

Apakah Doktor Honoris Causa Dokter Hewan Taufiq Ismail kesulitan menemukan klping-kliping seperti itu? Saya pastikan tidak mungkin.

Jika Doktor Honoris Causa Dokter Hewan Taufiq Ismail dengan mudah menampilkan kliping-kliping tulisan yang dengan telanjang menganjurkan pengganjangan terhadap Menikebu, jika mau dia juga bisa dengan mudah menemukan dan menampilkan sikap moral PKI-Lekra dalam soal seks, gambar mesum, film porno dan kekerasan. Kampanye pengganjangan Manikebu sama banyaknya dengan pengganjangan bikini, playboy, film porno, buku cabul, majalah cabul (Anda akan menyadarinya jika menyambangi langsung koran-koran pada masa itu, terutama Harian Rakyat dan Bintang Timur).

Lantas kenapa yang beginian tidak diberi tempat dalam “Prahara Budaya”? Bagi saya, cukup jelas, “Prahara Budaya” memang diabdikan untuk menggelar kampanye untuk membangun citra yang buruk terhadap PKI-Lekra-Pram.

Apakah pernah orang-orang berpikir bahwa PKI-Lekra punya standar moral yang jelas dalam perkara kecabulan? Tidak bukan? Orang hanya tahu keburukan dan keganasan PKI-Lekra. Dan buku “Prahara Budaya”, bagi saya, adalah salah satu eksponen terpenting dari proyek besar stigmatisasi itu.

Buku “Prahara Budaya” memang tidak meyakinkan untuk menjelaskan keutuhan sepakterjang PKI-Lekra-Pram. “Prahara Budaya” baru meyakinkan dalam hal menggambarkan keburukan dan keganasan PKI-Lekra-Pram.

*****

Arya,

Saya menemukan kesejajaran sikap dan standar moral PKI-Lekra dengan polah Doktor Honoris Causa Dokter Hewan Taufiq Ismail hari-hari belakangan ini yang juga doyan betul mempropagandakan sikap anti-karya sastra cabul, novel cabul, film cabul dan majalah cabul melalui peristilahan (dengan gaya menggunakan akronim yang tidak beda dengan PKI-Lekra-Pram), macam SMS (Sastra Mazhab Syahwat), GSM (Gerakan Syahwat Merdeka) atau FAK (Fiksi Alat Kelamin).

Ketika ditanya soal penggunaan akronim-akronim macam itu, GM (dalam komentarnya atas Pernyataan Ode Kampung) berkomentar dingin: “Sepertinya akronim-akronim lagi naik daun sekarang.”

Bedanya, Doktor Honoris Causa Dokter Hewan Taufiq Ismail mengalasdasari dengan dalil-dalil kitab suci sementara PKI-Lekra mengalasdasari dirinya dengan dalil-dalil revolusi anti-Nekolim yang dimuntahkan dengan begitu bersemangat di banyak sekali kesempatan oleh Bung Karno.

Jika dulu Njoto atau Aidit atau PKI atau Lekra saling bajak-membajak dengan pemerintah c.q Soekarno untuk melakukan apa yang disebut GM sebagai “memberangus kebebasan berpikir”, itu pula yang sepertinya sedang diusahakan oleh Doktor Honoris Causa Dokter Hewan Taufiq Ismail yang datang ke Parlemen untuk meminta kurikulum 2004 yang menghilangkan kata PKI dalam peristiwa 1965 untuk dibatalkan, dalam kosa kata PKI: “diganjang”. (Untuk mengetahui keterlibatan Taufiq Ismail dalam upaya membatalkan kurikulum 2004 bisa dibaca di sini dan di sini)

Anda bisa membaca wawancara teman sekantor saya dengan sejawaran senior Anhar Gonggong yang menguak peristiwa di mana Doktor Honoris Causa Dokter Hewan Taufiq Ismail datang ke Parlemen memohon-mohon agar buku sejarah berbasis kurikulum 2004 dilarang dari peredaran. Kata Anhar Gonggong ketika itu: “Faktanya pemerintah lebih mendengar Taufiq Ismail daripada kami para sejarawan.” (komentar Anhar Gonggong selengkapnya bisa dibaca di sini)

Dari situlah asal muasal pembakaran buku pelajaran sejarah berbasis kurikulum 2004 oleh Nur Mahmudi Ismail, orang yang pernah Anda coblos dalam Pemilihan Umum di Depok tapi belakangan Anda mengaku mencabut mandat Anda padanya.

Pembakaran buku dimulai oleh sejumlah orang, termasuk Taufiq Ismail, yang menginginkan agar buku pelajaran sejarah berbasis kurikulum 2004 dihapuskan. Mereka, termasuk juga Taufiq Ismail, mengusahakan hal itu dengan banyak cara, termasuk mendatangi parlemen. Kebetulan parlemen banyak diisi oleh orang-orang yang memang alergi dengan segala macam yang berbau PKI. Kompak sudah. Klop betul.

Maka keluarlah pelarangan buku pelajaran sejarah kurikulum 2004 oleh Kejaksaan Agung. Berdasarkan itulah Nur Mahmudi membakar buku. Setelah itu, keluarlah pernyataan sikap menolak pembakaran buku. Setelah itu, Anda mengritik pernyataan sikap itu sebagai mengandung ommision of fact karena tidak mencantumkan pembakaran buku (yang katanya) dilakukan oleh Pram, seraya pada saat yang sama menyebut terus menerus buku “Prahara Budaya” yang disusun oleh Doktor Honoris Causa Dokter Hewan Taufiq Ismail, orang yang justru rajin menuntut pelarangan buku sejarah berbasis kurikulum 2004 yang jadi prolog alias asal muasal pembakaran buku oleh Nur Mahmudi.

Bagaimana bisa kita menganjurkan untuk melawan alpa dan ommision of fact dengan merekomen buku “Prahara Budaya” yang hanya menghadirkan sisi buruk PKI-Lekra-Pram seraya pada saat yang sama menghilangkan banyak hal penting dari sisi lain PKI-Lekra-Pram?

Lagipula, buku itu disusun oleh orang yang justru rajin menuntut pelarangan buku sejarah berbasis kurikulum 2004 yang kelak menjadi pangkal pembakaran buku.

Anda jangan lupa asal muasal sengkarut kelakuan Nur Mahmudi Ismail membakari buku. Karena pelarangan buku sejarah dan pembakaran buku pelajaran sejarah itu satu paket; sebab yang kedua tak mungkin terjadi tanpa kejadian yang pertama.

Apakah Anda menyebutkan peran Sang Penyusun buku “Prahara Budaya” dalam sengkarut pelarangan buku sejarah yang akhirnya berujung pada pembakaran buku sejarah? Tidak bukan?

Jika benar tuduhan Anda bahwa Pram membiarkan atau menganjurkan pembakaran buku, hal yang sama mesti Anda jelaskan di mana posisi Doktor Honoris Causa Dokter Hewan Taufiq Ismail dalam pelarangan buku sejarah yang akhirnya berujung pada pembakaran buku.
Itu baru adil namanya.

****

Arya,

Anda, seperti juga “Prahara Budaya”, tidak salah ketika menyebut adanya pembakaran buku yang tidak bisa tidak melibatkan PKI-Lekra-Pram, langsung atau tidak, berikut selisih derajat keterlibatan dan peran mereka masing-masing.

Perpustakaan USIS di Surabaya diserbu dan dibakar jam 18.30 pada 8 Desember 1964 dan diberitakan di Harian Rakjat pada terbitan 9 Desember 1965. Sebelumnya, pada 5 Desember 1964, mereka yang menamakan dirinya Front Pemuda, menyerbu gedung USIS dan lan

tas membakar buku-buku milik USIS di Jakarta.

Penyerbuan dan pembakaran itu dilakukan setelah mereka menghadiri Rapat Umum Setiawakan dengan Rakyat Kongo yang menolak invasi Amerika dan Belgia ke Kongo. Peristiwa ini kemudian diberitakan sebagai headline di halaman muka Harian Rakjat pada edisi Sabtu, 5 Desember 1964.

Pada hari yang sama dengan terbitnya Harian Rakjat dengan headline itu, nyaris semua surat kabar dI Jakarta juga memberitakannya. Harian Suluh Indonesia, Warta Bhakti, Duta Masjarakat, Sinar Harapan dan Bintang Timur memberitakan peristiwa USIS dan Rapat Umum Setiakawan dengan Rakjat Kongo dengan nada simpatik, sementara Merdeka (yang dipimpin oleh BM Diah, orang yang mendirikan Badan Pendukung Soekarnoisme) dan Berita Indonesia (yang didirikan salah seorang sahabat HB Jassin, Anas Ma’ruf, yang produktif menerjemahkan karya-karya Tagore, Steinbeck hingga Kabawata) bersikap antipati dengan penyerbuan dan pembakaran USIS itu.

Bagaimana sikap Lekra?

Saya belum menemukan pernyataan resmi Lekra ihwal penyerbuan dan pembakaran buku milik USIS. Yang saya temukan adalah sikap resmi Pmpinan Pusat Lekra yang menuntut penutupan USIS. Sikap resmi Lekra itu terbaca jelas di halaman muka (persisnya di pojok atas bagian kanan) Harian Rakjat dalam judul berita: “PP Lekra Dukung Tuntutan Warta Berita: Tutup USIS dan Pusat Kebudajaan AS”.

Foto pembakaran buku macam itu tidak hanya bisa didapatkan dari buku “Prahara Budaya”. Foto yang sama bisa didapatkan pula, misalnya, pada koran-koran masa itu. Juga bisa ditemukan dalam memoar yang ditulis oleh Duta Besar Amerika pada periode itu, Marshal Green, yang berjudul “Indonesia: Crisis and Transformation 1965-1968” (yang edisi terjemahannya pernah diterbitkan oleh Grafiti).

Fakta itu terlalu telanjang untuk dilewatkan begitu saja, dan saya tidak pernah berniat menggelapkan fakta itu.

Saya tidak tahu kenapa para penandatangan pernyataan sikap menolak pembakaran buku tidak menyebutkan ini (satu misteri yang membuat kawan saya, Ikram Putra, penasaran bukan main!). Biarlah para penandatangan itu yang menjawabnya, karena saya memang tidak ikut menandatangani, kendati sikap saya jelas-jelas menolak dan melawan pembakaran buku berdasar dalih apa pun.

Tetapi, jika pun mau adil dan dengan semangat untuk membicarakan sejarah secara jernih dan proporsional, mesti dijelaskan secara fair juga posisi dan dalam skala apa keterlibatan mereka, dan tidak dengan serta merta memukul rata semuanya sebagai “para pembakar buku” seperti yang dipakai Arya dalam tiga tulisan sebelumnya, yang lantas diperbaiki frasenya ditulisan Arya yang terakhir.

Gaya pukul rata ini diadopsi dari “Prahara Budaya”. Kalau pinjam istilah anak sekarang, “Prahara Budaya” banget!

Dan juga jika mau adil, “Prahara Budaya” dan juga Doktor Honoris Causa Dokter Hewan Taufiq Ismail sebaiknya menjelaskan pula sikap moral PKI-Lekra-Pram dalam hal moralitas terhadap seks, pornografi dan kekerasan; hal ihwal yang belakangan juga digembor-gemborkan oleh Doktor Honoris Causa Dokter Hewan Taufiq Ismail. Karena itu satu paket.

Jika saja Doktor Honoris Causa Dokter Hewan Taufiq Ismail menyusun “Prahara Budaya” dengan cara seperti, misalnya, Vedi R. Hadiz dan David Bourchier ketika menyusun buku “Indonesia Politics and Society: A Reader”, saya barangkali bisa lebih menghormati “Prahara Budaya”.

Buku yang disusun oleh Vedi dan Bourchier itu berisi kliping-kliping tulisan atau artikel atau manuskrip yang dianggap bisa menggambarkan dan mewakili gagasan politik yang penting selama masa Orde Baru.

Berbeda dengan “Prahara Budaya”, buku tersebut hanya menyajikan kata pengantar panjang plus anotasi dan tidak mencampurbaurkan antara opini penyusunnya dengan bahan-bahan kliping yang ditampilkan. Pembaca bisa memilah dengan baik mana yang merupakan sikap penyusun dan mana kliping aslinya. Penyuntingan memang dilakukan, tetapi penyuntingan itu dilakukan dengan tidak banyak mengubah aslinya.

****

Arya,

Sekarang mari kita omong-omong sebentar mengenai hubungan Lekra dan PKI.

Saya mencoba mengerti jika Anda, dalam tulisan terakhir, menyebut Lekra sebagai organ PKI di bidang kebudayaan dan kesenian.

Tetapi, penyebutan Lekra sebagai organ atau alat PKI tidak sepenuhnya bisa menjelaskan bagaimana sebenarnya hubungan antara PKI-Lekra. Berhenti hanya dengan menyebut Lekra sebagai organ apalagi alat PKI, bagi saya, berpeluang menghilangkan banyak detail sejarah termasuk kompleksitas hubungan antara Lekra-PKI.

Bagi saya, detail sejarah seperti itu, mau tidak mau, mesti diikutsertakan jika kita memang ingin berbuat adil dan menyajikan sejarah secara proporsional. Detail seperti itu mesti dijelaskan jika kita ingin lolos dari jeratan ommision of fact. Berhenti dengan predikat “organ atau alat PKI” saja, bagi saya, rentan untuk terjebak pada gaya berpikir “pukul rata” yang kurang kondusif bagi upaya menebarkan pemahaman sejarah yang lebih proporsional dan koheren dengan kenyataan.

Dengan semangat mengeliminasi gaya berpikir pukul rata yang mudah membawa kita pada kubangan ommision of fact, saya mencoba membagi pengetahuan dan informasi yang saya ketahui mengenai hubungan antara Lekra dan PKI.

Semua orang tahu bahwa antara Lekra dan PKI punya hubungan yang khusus. Menjadi ommision of fact jika ada yang bilang bahwa Lekra dan PKI sama sekali tak memiliki hubungan apa pun. Kedekatan keduanya terlalu telanjang untuk dilenyapkan begitu saja.

Kedekatan antara PKI-Lekra dan kedekatan keduanya dengan Soekarno begitu jelas pada periode Demokrasi Parlementer. Unsur Soekarno ini penting karena sekuat-kuatnya PKI atau Lekra, mereka tak ada artinya tanpa Soekarno. Ketiga-tiganya sama-sama doyan mereproduksi jargon-jargon revolusioner, Manifesto Politik, Neo-kolonialisme dan imperialisme dan pada semangat pada revolusi yang dibayangkan akan mamupu membebaskan Indonesia dari feodalisme dan imperialisme.

Seperti yang ditunjukkan oleh Rex Mortiner dalam studinya tentang komunisme Indonesia pada masa Soekarno, kadang ucapan PKI, ucapan pengurus Lekra atau pun ucapan Soekarno hampir-hampir tak bisa dibedakan lagi. Faktor penting Soekarno ini tak dijelaskan dengan memadai oleh “Prahara Budaya”, seakan-akan Lekra-PKI sajalah pihak yang bertanggungjawab.

Tetapi seberapa dekat sih hubungan Lekra-PKI? Apakah sedekat antara Barisan Tani Indonesia (BTI) atau Pemuda Rakyat (PR) dengan PKI? Seberapa kuat jaring komando antara PKI dengan Lekra?

Yang saya tahu, sampai munculnya Pageblug 1965, Lekra “gagal dikomuniskan” oleh Aidit dan PKI. “Gagal dikomuniskan” di situ artinya Lekra tidak pernah menjadi organ milik PKI seperti yang Anda bilang di tulisan terakhir Anda. Hal yang sama berlaku juga pada Gerwani.

Upaya mengkomuniskan Lekra atau Gerwani biasanya dilakukan dalam kongres-kongres resmi organ-organ tersebut. Jika PKI gagal mengkomuniskan mereka secara resmi, PKI biasanya lantas membentuk sendiri organ-organ yang dia inginkan.

Karena itulah PKI akhirnya membuat Konferensi Seni dan Sastra Revolusioner (KSSR) yang akhirnya menjadi organ atau onderbouw resmi PKI. Karena Gerwani “gagal dikomunsikan”, maka PKI akhirnya membentuk organ resmi yaitu Wanita Komunis.

Lekra tidak pernah menjadi onderbouw resmi PKI sebagaimana BTI, PR, CGMI, atau SOBSI, atau kalau sekarang seperti Banser bagi PKB atau Gerakan Pemuda Ka’bah bagi PPP.

Bahwa ada orang-orang komunis di tubuh LEKRA, itu jelas dan terlalu telanjang untuk dilenyapkan. Salah satu simpul hubungan antara Lekra dan PKI paling telanjang terlihat dari keberadaan Njoto di Lekra. Njoto pula salah satu orang yang ikut menggodok pendirian Lekra.

Tetapi antara Lekra dan PKI bukannya identik. Perbedaan tajam antara keduanya bukan sekali dua muncul. Sejumlah tokoh Lekra menolak campur tangan berlebihan dari partai. Instruksi-instruksi Partai yang datang seperti sabda sangat se

ring menjengkelkan tokoh-tokoh kunci Lekra.

Puncak perbedaan itu ya ketika PKI berniat mengkomuniskan Lekra pada 1964. Njoto sendiri, yang pernah dijuluki Brother Number Two yang merupakan Wakil Ketua CC PKI, terlibat dalam penolakan itu. Njoto pernah bilang pada koleganya di CC PKI bahwa cukuplah dirinya saja yang ada di Lekra dan tak usah sampai mengkomuniskan Lekra.

Dalam salah satu perbincangan singkat antara Muhidin M Dahlan (rekan sekantor yang sedang meneliti koran-koran kiri di masa lalu) dan saya dengan Martin Aleida di gang menuju TIM, Martin sempat kurang lebih sempat bilang: “Seandainya PKI menang, orang-orang seperti Pram dan Njoto barangkali akan dihabisi oleh PKI.”

“Kami menolak. Saya juga menolak, karena tidak bisa, misalnya, seorang Pram diperintah menjadi merah. Begitu juga yang lain. Nggak bisa,” tegas Oey Hay Djoen, orang yang saya lihat datang pada malam terakhir kehidupan Pramoedya.

Orang-orang seperti Pram, Rivai Apin, atau Soedjojono terlalu kokoh untuk diperintah ini dan itu atau disuruh menulis dan melukis begini dan begitu. Dalam kata-kata Oey, “Mereka semua sudah harimau sebelum Lekra dibentuk.”

(Barangkali ini seperti Tan Malaka, yang kendati seorang komunis, tetapi cukup jelas ia tidak bisa diperintah semau-maunya oleh Komintern. Itulah sebabnya Hatta pernah mngeluarkan komentar yang terkenal mengenai Tan Malaka sebagai orang yang tulang punggungnya terlalu keras untuk membuatnya tunduk pada Stalin.)

Uraian yang sama bisa dibaca dalam tulisan Joebar Ajoeb berjudul “Mocopat Kebudayaan”. Joebar juga menegaskan rendah dan cairnya kendali PKI terhadap Lekra.

Jangan heran juga jika kita membaca memoar Kusni Sulang (yang sekarang menggunakan nama JJ Kusni), “Di Tengah Pergolakan: Turba Lekra di Klaten”, yang bingung bukan main kenapa penelitian kesenian yang dilakukannya kok bisa dipimpin oleh DN Aidit.

Kebingungan Kusni, pernyataan Oey dan Joebar, bisa menggambarkan bahwa hubungan PKI-Lekra tidak sesederhana dan semudah seperti antara induk-semang dengan anak-semang atau antara pimpinan dan bawahan atau antara partai dengan onderbouw resminya. Bacaan-bacaan saya itu membut saya mencoba tidak gegabah menggunakan kata-kata jargon seperti “Lekra adalah organ atau alat PKI”.

Stephen Miller, seorang sarjana dan peneliti dari Australia, penggambaran Lekra sebagai alat PKI tidak realistis karena seakan-akan ada jalur komando yang berasal langsung dari Moskow atau Peking melalui Politbiro PKI lalu diteruskan ke Pimpinan Pusat Lekra. Miller menyebutkan bahwa gaya “pukul rata” menyebut Lekra sebagai alat PKI dibangun secara sistematis dan dipertahankan dengan terus menerus oleh Orde Baru.

Keith Foulcher (”Social Commitment in Litterature and the Arts”) sendiri berkesimpulan bahwa Lekra bukanlah organ apalagi alat PKI. Foulcher menyebut Lekra memang sealiran politik dengan PKI. Sementara Saskia Wieringa (“Penghancuran Gerakan Perempuan di Indonesia”) mencoba menggambarkan kerumitan hubungan itu dengan menggunakan istilah “Keluarga Komunis”. Istilah Keluarga Komunis itu oleh Antariksa (“Tuan Tanah Kawin Muda: Hubungan Seni Rupa-Lekra”) disebut sebagai penggambaran yang lebih pas bagi hubungan-hubungan lentur daripada hubungan formal-organisatoris yang bisa diperintah semaunya.

Detail-detail seperti ini tidak akan pernah dapat kita temukan secara memadai dalam “Prahara Budaya”.

Dengan caranya yang tersamar, “Prahara Budaya” menulis PKI dan Lekra dengan cara “PKI/LEKRA”. Pilihan menggunakan tanda hubung “/” punya implikasi linguistik yang tidak sederhana karena tanda “/” bisa diartikan bahwa dua entitas yang dipisah oleh tanda “/” itu sama persis atau bahkan identik, ketimbang tanda hubung “—“ yang bagi saya relatif lebih bisa menggambarkan bagaimana PKI dan Lekra beriringan dalam sejumlah hal tapi keduanya tidak kembar identik.

PKI pernah ditulis dengan cara itu oleh Soe Hok Gie dalam studinya tentang Peristiwa Madiun 1948. Gie menulis “PKI/FDR” (Front Demokratik Rakyat). Tapi cukup jelas, FDR yang terdiri dari sejumlah partai-partai kiri pada waktu itu secara resmi memang mengabungkan diri kepada PKI yang waktu itu baru saja diambil alih oleh Musso yang baru kembali dari Sovyet. Pilihan Gie untuk menggandengkan PKI dengan FDR menjadi “PKI/FDR” bisa saya terima karena konteks dan argumennya begitu jelas dan tak mungkin saya tolak.

Saya tidak sedang membangun kampanye positif bagi Lekra, PKI, Pram. Saya hanya mencoba membagi detail yang saya ketahui dari bacaan-bacaan yang saya miliki. Karena bagi saya, membaca detail-detail seperti ini merupakan kerja yang satu paket dengan upaya kita bersama untuk melawan ommision of fact.

PKI dan Lekra dan juga Pram memang tak bisa cuci tangan dari kampanye menyingkirkan karya-karya para penulis Manikebu. “Prahara Budaya” dengan begitu bersemangat sudah mencoba menjlentrehkan soal ini.

Tetapi, tiap kali menyebutkan itu, kita mesti menambahinya dengan keterangan dalam tanda kurung sejumlah detail yang mesti diketahui supaya kita semua tidak terangsang untuk terus-menerus menggunakan gaya dan frase-frase penuh jargon yang mencerminkan gaya berpikir pukul rata.

Bagi saya, membuka diri pada detail-detail begituan memungkinkan kita untuk tidak secara enteng-entengan menggunakan gaya berpikir “pukul rata”, seperti ketika Anda menyebut tantangan terbuka saya sebagai bergaya Agitprop dan menekankan dalam tanda kurung bahwa Agitprop adalah “istilah milik PKI”, pada saat partai Murba dan partai lain sebenarnya biasa menggunakan istilah Agitprop.

Itulah sebabnya saya menantang Anda untuk berbicara secara detail mengenai apa yang oleh Anda reproduksi terus-terusan dalam 3 tulisan sebelumnya sebagai pembakaran buku yang dilakukan oleh Pram. Karena saya percaya bahwa upaya untuk lolos dari jeratan ommision of fact dan propaganda sejarah bisa dimulai, salah satunya, dengan berbicara secara detail mengenai perkara-perkara yang kontroversial. Mungkin melelahkan dan tidak semua orang mau dan punya waktu untuk berpikir dan membaca detail-detail seperti ini.

Itulah yang termuat dalam buku sejarah kurikulum 2004, yang memaparkan detail lima versi mengenai siapa sebenarnya otak peristiwa 1 Oktober 1965. Ini bagus saya kira. Sayangnya, kurikulum 2004 ini lantas dilarang menyusul desakan banyak pihak, termasuk Taufiq Ismail. Dan dari pelarangan itulah pembakaran buku menjadi dimungkinkan.

Jika saja Anda mengritik pernyataan sikap dengan menggunakan kalimat (misalnya) “kenapa pembakaran perpustakaan USIS oleh organ-organ yang berafiliasi dengan PKI” tidak dimasukkan, saya tentu tidak akan pernah menantang Anda untuk berbicara secara detail. Tapi karena tiba-tiba Anda memilih untuk “mengaburkan” kenyataan sejarah yang kaya detail itu dengan frase-frase bergaya pukul rata seperti “Pram membakari buku-buku lawan ideologisnya”, maka muncullah saya untuk menantang Anda berbicara secara detail.

Pernyataan GM bahwa penting untuk mengakui kesalahan dan meminta maaf pada kesalahan yang diperbuat, bagi saya, lebih tepat disodorkan pada mereka-mereka yang terlibat dan menjadi pelaku sejarah, entah itu GM, Taufiq Ismail, Ajip Rosidi, Kusni Sulang, Hersri Setiawan, Martin Aleida, dll. Urusan merekalah itu mau mengakui dosa, meminta maaf atau meminta ampun atau apa pun yang mereka maui. Kita juga tidak bisa memaksa.

Saya tidak ada urusan dengan itu karena tugas generasi sekarang bukan mengurusi orang-orang tua yang kadang menjengkelkan dan terus menerus mereproduksi dendam di antara mereka sendiri (seperti yang ditunjukkan oleh Ajip Rosidi ketika mengungkit-ngungkit kelakuan AS Dharta di harian Pikiran Rakyat pada saat Dharta baru saja meninggal beberapa bulan silam, yang langsung disambut dengan tulisan pelaku sejarah lainnya, Martin Aleida).

Jika Anda menyebut rekonsiliasi, saya tentu saja tidak akan ikut-ikutan karena saya tidak be

rkonflik dengan siapa pun. Rekonsiliasi itu ya urusan mereka yang memang berkonflik dan mungkin masih saja membawa dendam hingga masa tuanya.

Tugas generasi sekarang, barangkali saya atau Anda atau siapa pun yang memang berminat, adalah membicarakan sejarah penuh dendam dan sengkarut itu dengan cara yang jernih, membuka diri pada banyak detail, dan mau menerima tafsir lain dari yang kita percayai.

Kita tidak perlu menunggu rekonsiliasi dan saling peluk-pelukan nan mengharukan dari orang-orang tua kita itu untuk bisa mengambil sikap dan pendirian dengan cara yang jernih dan logis terhadap sengkarut ini.

****

Arya,

Saya sepakat dengan Anda dalam hal melawan alpa dan melawan ommision of fact.

Untuk perkara anti pembakaran buku dan penolakan ommision of fact, saya setuju dengan Anda tanpa perlu saya tahu apakah Anda pengagum atau pembenci Pram, apakah Anda pembaca karya-karya Pram atau bukan, apakah Anda menamai anak keduanya dengan mengadopsi nama fiksi buatan Pram atau Borges atau siapa pun. Itu semua gak penting bagi saya.

Jika Anda mengajak saya untuk terlibat dalam upaya melawan alpa dan ommision of fact, saya dengan senang hati ikut bergabung, tapi tentu saja saya tidak akan merekomendasikan “Prahara Budaya” jika saya ditanya buku apa yang bisa menjelaskan secara utuh dan proporsional peran PKI-Lekra-Pram.

Jika pun saya menyebutkan buku “Prahara Budaya”, pada saat yang sama saya akan menyebutkan buku Antariksa berjudul “Tuan Tanah Kawin Muda: Hubungan Seni Rupa-Lekra”, buku Keith Foulcher berjudul ”Social Commitment in Litterature and the Arts” atau bukunya Saskia Eleonora Wieringa yang berjudul “Penghancuran Gerakan Perempuan di Indonesia” dan tulisan-tulisan para aktivis Lekra (seperti Kusni atau Hersri Setiawan) sebagai buku-buku pembanding.

Ini bukan sikap apriori seperti yang Anda tuduhkan pada Tossi atau Coen H Pontoh atau Budi Setiyono hanya karena mereka menyarankan Anda bersikap kritis terhadap “Prahara Budaya”. Saya sampai pada sikap seperti ini terhadap “Prahara Budaya” setelah saya membacanya dan membandingkannya dengan sumber-sumber lain.

Doktor Honoris Causa Dokter Hewan Taufiq Ismail boleh-boleh saja menulis apa saja yang ia percayai dan yang ingin ia percayai. Kita tidak bisa dan tak boleh melarangnya seperti juga saya tak bisa dan tidak akan pernah melarang buku “Prahara Budaya”. Tapi saya pun boleh mengambil sikap untuk tidak memercayai begitu saja “Prahara Budaya”, satu anjuran yang sudah disampaikan oleh Budi Setiyono dan Coen H Pontoh, yang sepertinya tidak begitu Anda simak dengan baik-baik.

Tentu saja saya bisa salah. Tentu saja saya bisa meleset. Tentu saja saya bisa keliru. Salah/meleset/keliru bukan hal tabu dalam polemik, yang tabu itu justru berdusta dan menutup-nutupi apa yang kita ketahui sebagai kenyataan dan kebenaran.
Arya, semoga kita selalu diberkahi sikap adil sejak dari pikiran.

Salam hormat,

Zen Rachmat Sugito (orang yang Anda bilang menggunakan bahasa “bernuansa Agitprop” yang kata Anda merupakan “istilah milik PKI”)

On a Roll: Pramoedya and the Postcolonial Transition

Keith Foulcher
The University of Sydney


It has become almost an orthodoxy in writing on the life and work of
Pramoedya Ananta Toer to refer to a period of change, if not reversal, that takes place
in Pramoedya’s ideological outlooks in the second half of the 1950s. Prior to this
time, Pramoedya is generally seen as an exponent of ‘universal humanism’, the liberal
and individualistic cultural ideology of the loose association of writers, artists and
intellectuals often referred to as the ‘Gelanggang group’ or the ‘Angkatan 45’, the
generation of the revolution in Indonesian literature. Following his visit to China in
late 1956, a shift in Pramoedya’s allegiances is seen to take place. From this time, he
forswears his earlier role as an ‘unattached intellectual’ (Farid n.d: 5) and pursues a
commitment to a party-political definition of the role of art and literature in the life of
the nation. This changed outlook ultimately leads to Pramoedya’s key role as a
spokesman for the left in the bitterly-fought cultural polemics of the early 1960s.
The signal for the turning point is usually found in the autobiographical short
story, Sunyisenyap di Siang Hidup of June 1956. Here Pramoedya gives full rein to a
sense of disillusionment and futility, as he details the failure of the story’s protagonist
to find a decent standard of living for himself and his family and a meaningful role for
his writing in the life of the community and the nation. Visiting China as a guest of
the Chinese Writers’ Federation only four months after the publication of this story,
Pramoedya is usually presented as finding an antidote to his disillusionment in the
purposeful existence and the material sufficiency of the writer in Mao’s China. He
returns home committed to replicating the Chinese model, through cultural and
political engagement in Indonesia.
The main outlines of this view of Pramoedya’s literary biography were laid
down initially in the writing of the Dutch historian and critic of Indonesian literature,
A. Teeuw. In his influential Modern Indonesian Literature of 1967, the first booklength
survey of Indonesian literature to be published in English, Teeuw wrote: ‘In
this story [Sunyisenyap di Siang Hidup] the writer seems to have reached a stage
where he is ready to replace his dreams with action – he has reached this stage
because of his embitterment with the world around him, and also because of this
disappointment at the futility of his own life, at the failure of his writing and the
insufficiency of his humanity’ (Teeuw 1967: 178). Later, in 1975, these words are
quoted in part as background to the story in the introduction to Harry Aveling’s
translation of examples of Pramoedya’s early writing, A Heap of Ashes (Toer 1975).
Here again, 1957 is seen as the year Pramoedya switches his ideological allegiances.
Closer to the present, the most detailed and carefully-researched study of
Pramoedya’s career in this period yet to appear, Martina Heinschke’s 1996 article,
‘Between Gelanggang and Lekra: Pramoedya’s Developing Literary Concepts’,
comes to a much more nuanced, but essentially similar conclusion: ‘Thus, prompted
primarily by his own experiences of the marginal role of literature in society and of
economic exigencies, Pramoedya resolved the disparity inherent in his earlier concept
2
of literature between social commitment and the autonomy of art in favor of
commitment’ (Heinschke 1996: 169).1
In Indonesia itself, the collective trauma of 1965 and Pramoedya’s perceived
‘terrorising’ of those writers and intellectuals who rejected the programmatic
expression of social commitment in the years before 1965, meant that the literary
climate during the New Order years remained steadfastly unconducive to any
considered assessment of Pramoedya’s prolific outpouring of writing from the period.
The dominance throughout the New Order period of the H B Jassin ‘school’ of
literary criticism meant that Pramoedya’s perceived ‘betrayal’ of the ideal of literature
and art untainted by politics remained firmly entrenched as critical orthodoxy. As
Stephen Miller and Dorothy Meyer have noted, even the sympathetic obituaries, both
by Indonesians and outsiders, that followed Pramoedya’s death in April 2006, found
difficulty in talking about this aspect of Pramoedya’s career in any other terms (Miller
and Meyer 2006).
It is likely that any major reconsideration and redrawing of the lines of
Pramoedya’s early career will need to await the completion of the large scale literary
biography of Pramoedya that is currently being undertaken by Hilmar Farid in
Jakarta. Indications are that Farid’s planned work will be the first comprehensive
literary biography of any Indonesian writer to date, telling the full story of
Pramoedya’s life and career through the kind of detailed research of oral and written
sources that has never before been attempted in the field of Indonesian literary history
and criticism.2 Meanwhile, however, the publication in 2004 of Menggelinding I, a
collection of 58 literary works and essays by Pramoedya in the period between 1947
and 1956, makes an important contribution to the field of Pramoedya studies. It offers
readers and observers of modern Indonesian literature an easily-accessible and
fascinating window on the young Pramoedya, and a useful corrective, in some ways,
to the force of received opinion about his intellectual and creative development.3 It
reminds us that we are dealing here with the thinking of a young man who, like the
rest of his generation, has already lived through periods of great historical upheaval
and change. (Pramoedya was born in 1925, so in the period covered by the collection,
he was aged between 22 and 31.) We see him dealing with a wide range of foreign
influences, especially from the West, and writing prolifically as he works through a
kaleidoscope of ideas and approaches to the realities of life as a creative writer in a
postcolonial nation. By focussing on particular aspects of his writing, it is possible to
emphasise different aspects of the range of ideas and positions he is exploring, even,
perhaps, to point out possible anomalies in his thinking. Undeniably, however, there
are the lines of a consistently evolving understanding of the nation and its literary life,
and of the hugely significant place of the one in the nature and existence of the other.
1 Even more direct was the statement by Hong Liu, in his important article published along with that of
Martina Heinschke in Indonesia: ‘After the end of 1956, Pramoedya changed from a detached writer to
an active fighter; his universal humanism was replaced by devout socialist realism’ (Liu 1996: 135).
An earlier indication of the same sense of ‘change’ is signalled in the title of the PhD thesis by Savitri
Scherer, From Culture to Politics: The Writings of Pramoedya Ananta Toer (Scherer 1981).
2 An indication of the range and style of Farid’s work may be gleaned from his unpublished paper,
‘Pramoedya dan Historiografi Indonesia’ (Farid n.d.).
3 Although the collection includes some previously unpublished literary works and essays, the bulk of
its contents have already been studied by researchers like Heinschke and Scherer. Bringing together
such a large collection in a single volume, however, Menggelinding I offers a wider range of readers
the opportunity to form their own views of Pramoedya’s development during this period.
3
To see these lines of consistency, it is sometimes necessary to lay aside the
centrality of some of the works that dominate the received understanding of
Pramoedya the writer during this period. For example, the stories collected in the
canonical Cerita dari Blora of 1952 are indeed great and lasting works, now firmly
entrenched as milestones in Indonesian literary history. However they do not
represent the full range of the positions and outlooks emerging out of Pramoedya’s
experience of the Indonesian revolution. Similarly, while Sunyisenyap di Siang Hidup
may be the fullest and most striking single work dealing with Pramoedya’s sense of
alienation from the condition of postcoloniality in 1950s Indonesia, it does not stand
alone, and it does not mark a radical shift from a range of positions already articulated
in his thinking from the early 1950s. The period after Pramoedya’s China visit in
1956 does indeed mark a distinct new chapter in his literary biography; but just like a
chapter in a novel, or even a good academic thesis, its bases are already being laid in
the chapters that precede it.
It is some inkling of how these chapters need to be written that Menggelinding
I provides. It suggests that maybe it is time to revise the standard picture of the
development of Pramoedya’s writing that begins with novels like Perburuan and
Keluarga Gerilya and the stories of Cerita dari Blora and progresses through the
post-independence disillusionment of Bukan Pasar Malam and the despair of
Sunyisenyap di Siang Hidup to the 1957 resolution of a personal and artistic crisis, or,
as some sources would have it, a betrayal of his earlier ideals. It adds weight to the
‘alternative’, but perhaps more essential Pramoedya, that would begin with Di Tepi
Kali Bekasi, progress through the non-anthologised short stories and essays such as
those included in this collection, before moving on to the novel Korupsi and the
stories of Cerita dari Jakarta and the post-1957 ‘shift’.4 This would highlight a more
consistent pattern of development, one that does not dismiss the significance of
Pramoedya’s 1956 visit to China, but one that places the visit in proper perspective,
avoiding the need for the sense of a ‘betrayal of ideals’ that is implicit in much of the
existing writing on Pramoedya’s early development. In what follows here, I aim to
sketch out the contribution that the Menggelinding I collection makes to this
‘alternative’ reading.
The period covered by the essays and short stories under discussion here is
backgrounded by some important developments in Indonesian literary history: the
declaration of the Surat Kepercayaan Gelanggang in 1949 and the formation of
LEKRA in 1950, the debates on a ‘crisis’ in literature that began to surface as early as
1951 (Teeuw 1967: 140) and, in the full glare of these debates, the Amsterdam
symposium on modern Indonesian literature in June 1953.5 In Pramoedya’s personal
biography it includes his visit to the Netherlands in the second half of 1953, an
experience which is known to have left a largely negative impression on him
personally, but which his essays of the time suggest was also the source of some
intellectual ambiguity, an ambiguity that fed into the mix of ideas working themselves
out in Pramoedya’s mind at this time. The legacy of the West figures constantly in
4 In a 1993 essay, I suggested that Pramoedya’s early fiction did indicate somewhat contradictory bases
for the development of his novelistic oeuvre, most notably apparent in the contrast between his first
novel, Di Tepi Kali Bekasi, and the much better-known Keluarga Gerilya that soon followed it (see
Foulcher 1993).
5 This symposium, to be discussed below, was organised by the Sticusa (Stichting voor Culturele
Samenwerking) the Dutch Foundation for Cultural Cooperation, which later figured in Pramoedya’s
contribution to the cultural polemics of the 1960s. It was most likely the first international seminar to
be held on the topic of modern Indonesian literature.
4
Menggelinding I, both as an irritant and an inspiration, and if we are to understand the
development of Pramoedya’s thinking, it is important to give due consideration to
both.
Pramoedya’s ‘stories from Jakarta’
In writing on modern Indonesian literature, it has only been in fairly recent
times that Pramoedya’s 1957 collection, Cerita dari Jakarta, has begun to draw
critical attention and acclaim. Prior to Benedict Anderson’s highlighting of the
qualities of two of these stories in an essay of 1984 (Anderson 1990: 219-223), the
subsequent attention given to extracts from the collection in a special Pramoedya
edition of Indonesia in April 1996 and the eventual translation of the whole collection
into English in 1999 (Toer 1999), these stories tended to remain the shadow of the
Cerita dari Blora collection.6 Yet with a few exceptions, both collections are
contemporary with the earliest period covered by the contents of Menggelinding I, the
beginning of Pramoedya’s creative writing in the early years of the national
revolution. This contemporaneity of the two short story collections is important,
because if Pramoedya’s literary biography is reckoned solely in terms of their
publication dates, his writing would be seen to move from the ‘universal humanist’
themes of Cerita dari Blora in 1952 (such as the evocative recollections of childhood
and the denunciation of war and the human suffering it brings) to the much more
bitter and satirical social themes of Cerita dari Jakarta in 1957 (the ironic parody of
the ‘Indo mentality’ and the cruel self-centredness of the ‘new priyayi’, for example).
In fact, Menggelinding I would tend to confirm that it is the biting irony of the Cerita
dari Jakarta that is the better guide to the way Pramoedya saw the relationship
between social commitment and literature at the very beginning of his career as a
creative writer. In the additional ‘stories from Jakarta’ included in Menggelinding I,
some of them written when he was a 22-year old ex-guerrilla fighter working on
behalf of the Republic in Dutch-occupied Jakarta, Pramoedya begins his denunciation
of the Indonesian nation for its failure to channel the revolutionary aspirations of its
youth. As a citizen of independent Indonesia four or five years later, he looks around
him and sees only squalor, and a betrayal of the Indonesian people by their leaders.
Implicit in the irony is the need for an alternative path to nationhood, maybe even the
‘completion’ of a failed revolution for national independence.
These themes start to find expression in some of Pramoedya’s very first
writing. The short story Si Pandir is dated January 1947. Its context is the pemuda
resentment at the Army’s ‘regularisation’ of the guerrilla units (lasykar) that
comprised the Badan Keamanan Rakyat in the early months of the Indonesian
revolution,7 and it indicates that Pramoedya’s sympathies at this time lie
unambiguously with the experience of betrayed revolutionary youth. It tells the story
of Eduard (‘Edu’), a 17-year old Menadonese youth, fighting with guerrilla forces
6 In his 1967 comments, Teeuw had been quite dismissive of the Cerita dari Jakarta stories, describing
them as ‘nearly all stories about people and things in Djakarta, mostly gloomy things and tragic people
which in themselves are indeed good enough to affect us emotionally, but in Pramudya’s hands do not
have the extra emotional force which would stamp them as genuine works of art’ (1967: 175).
Referencing Anderson in his 1993 book on Pramoedya’s writing, however, he described the now most
famous story in the collection, Jongos + Babu as a ‘prachtige verhaal’ (‘magnificent story’) (Teeuw
1993: 169).
7 This detail apparently refers to the reduction in lasykar numbers that began in late 1946, following an
ordinance by the State Defence Council (Dewan Pertahanan Negara) designed to formalise the defence
of the new republic (see Cribb 1991: 121-2).
5
outside Jakarta, who, in the story’s opening paragraph, receives a letter from his sister
urging him to return home to Jakarta to visit his sick brother.
On his receipt of the letter, Edu’s comrades remind him of his duty to the
cause, and in the face of this peer pressure, he tears up the letter in front of them. But
he is tormented by thoughts of his mother struggling to care for her two younger
children in Jakarta (his father was killed fighting the Japanese in Kalimantan), and
without telling his comrades, he asks for leave and sets out for home. Reunited with
his family, he is now under pressure to stay. His mother begs him not to return to the
fighting – after all, he has only just begun SMP, and must think of his future. But Edu
says he must be prepared to give his life to the cause, and he shares this idealism with
his little brother, Hans, who pleads from his hospital bed to be taken to the front when
he is older. Edu returns to his unit, and lives the life of a brave freedom fighter. Come
the ‘army reorganisation’, however, he is demobbed, and sent home in sorrow.8 His
mother now urges him to take up the cause of serving Indonesia in a different way, by
completing his education. ‘Be like your sister,’ she says, ‘don’t add to the ranks of
your country’s uneducated.’
Edu returns to school, but he has no aptitude for formal education, and he is
quickly dubbed ‘Si Pandir’ (‘The Dunce’) by this teachers. He himself comes to
believe he is stupid, dim-witted and unable to turn his brain to anything but carrying
out orders. But his spirit keeps flying free, returning to the scenes of battle. He yearns
for this freedom, but the end of the story sees him left sitting alone in the schoolyard,
bemoaning his inability to learn, his stupidity. The idealism that gave birth to the
nation thus finds no reward in the civil society it has helped bring into being: by
choosing to show the freedom fighter as a victim of the institution of formal learning,
the authorial voice in the story counterposes spirit and order, and finds the latter
wanting. Just two years on from the declaration of independence, it is as though the
revolution is being closed down by a ‘false’ normality. The revolutionary youth is
deprived of his self-belief by a social order that is out of touch with his historical
circumstances.
A similar fate befalls an Indonesian seaman in another story from the first half
of 1947, Terondol (Toer 2004: 42-45). In this case, a former Dutch East Indies sailor
who has learned to fight against colonialism through his experiences in Australia,
returns home to Jakarta to build a new life as a nationalist, not an employee of the
Dutch. His personal life is in ruins (his wife has married another man in his absence
and the gifts he has brought her and his children from Australia (‘the Mecca of the
Pacific’) remind him of his loss) but he resolves to fight on, giving up the hope of
personal happiness in favour of service to his homeland. Recovering from TB, he
does all he can to find work as a ‘pegawai Republik’. The job never eventuates,
however, and with his TB returned and his hopes and possessions gone, he dies in
sorrow and destitution, another victim of the nation’s inability to channel the idealism
and the will to contribute of its erstwhile defenders.
Perhaps more directly recognisable as a companion to the 1957 Cerita dari
Jakarta than stories like Si Pandir and Terondol is the 1952 story, Kampungku.9 For
readers of Pramoedya, the opening paragraph strikes an immediately familiar tone:
8 This aspect of the story represents the autobiographical element that is present in so much of
Pramoedya’s writing of this period (see Teeuw 1967: 165).
9 This story was included in the second edition of Cerita dari Jakarta in 1963, though it is not part of
the original 1957 collection. It was translated by Sumit K Mandal in Indonesia 61, April 1996.
6
Kawan, engkau sudah pernah dengar nama kampungku, bukan? Kebun Jahe
Kober – 500 meter garis lurus dari istana. Dan engkau pun sudah tahu juga,
bukan? Got-gotnya diselubungi tai penduduk kampung. Memang kemarin pak
lurah sudah jatuhkan perintah: tak boleh lagi berak di got. Dan reaksi pertama
ialah: seorang tetanggaku memberakkan anaknya di got orang lain, bukan di
gotnya sendiri. Dan di malam hari demikian juga halnya dengan orang-orang
yang sudah dewasa. (Toer 2004: 89)
Friend, you’ve heard the name of my kampung, haven’t you? Kebun Jahe
Kober – 500 metres in a straight line from the presidential palace. And you
know all about it, don’t you? Its drains are covered in the shit of its residents.
Our local headman did recently bring down an order: no more shitting in the
drains. And the first reaction was: one of my neighbours had his child shit in
someone else’s drain, not in his own. And once night fell, all the adults did the
same.
The squalor announced here with an ironic tone of pure normality is the setting for a
story of life (and more importantly, death) amid the overcrowded conditions and fetid
canals in the kampungs of Jakarta – all within the shadow of the presidential palace,
the symbol of Indonesia’s so recently-proclaimed nationhood. It is a story of untimely
and preventable deaths, the frequency with which the angel Gabriel visits the laneway
in which the narrator lives.10 One of his neighbours is a typesetter who dies in great
pain after a failed operation to treat the poisoning of his pancreas by his work
exposure to lead: fifteen days earlier Gabriel also took the man’s baby, dead of an
attack of typhus that goes untreated. Death is rampant in this kampung, the result of
ignorance and corruption, while religion remains out of touch with human suffering:
the kampung boys race each other to beat the mosque drum to mark each death,
‘because the kiais have promised them rewards in the afterlife for this service’. Along
the way, the narrator places the blame firmly at the government’s door:
Kalau pembunuhan dengan senjata dihukum oleh pemerintah, pembunuhan
karena kebodohan dan kemiskinan tidak dilarang dikampungku, sekalipun
pembunuhan itu dikerjakan atas anak sendiri. Ini keadaan biasa dan barangkali
juga sudah selayaknya begitu.
While the government punishes killing with guns, killing that comes out of
ignorance and poverty is not forbidden in my kampung, even when people kill
their own children. This is the normal course of events, and maybe that’s the
way it is meant to be.
Finally, the proximity of the narrator’s kampung to the presidential palace is
reaffirmed, with an added barb directed at the implied reader:
10 In the second volume of his Nyanyi Sunyi Seorang Bisu, published in 1997, Pramoedya made it clear
that this story is also based on personal experience. Describing the circumstances of his life in 1950, he
refers to ‘Kebon Jahe Kober’ as the former name of Tanah Abang I, ‘300 metres from the Gambir
palace’ (Toer 1997: 174, 180). It was where his first wife was living when he was released from prison
at the end of the Revolution, and the poverty and squalor described in the story mirrors Pramoedya’s
recollections of his first visit to her in the kampung (Toer 1997: 177-178).
7
Beginilah keadaan kampungku dengan jibrilnya yang giat. Dan engkau,
kawan, suatu kali boleh juga datang ke kampungku. Kampungku pun bisa jadi
kampung turis yang akan mengayakan jiwa. Dan mencarinya pun tidak susah,
karena tiap orang di Jakarta tahu di mana istana negara berdiri. Lima ratus
meter garis lurus di sebelah barat daya, di sanalah kampung berdiri megah
menentang para dokter dan para teknikus. (Toer 2004: 97-98)
This is what things are like in my kampung with its busy gabriel. And you, my
friend, you should come and see it for yourself some time. It might even
become a tourist kampung, enriching the souls of visitors. And it’s not hard to
find, because everyone in Jakarta knows where the state palace stands. Five
hundred metres in a straight line to the southwest, that’s where the kampung
stands in all its glory, facing off against the doctors and technicians.
For the tourist, all this is ‘surprising’; for the kampung residents, however, it is
everyday reality. When the mosque drum announces another death, they merely look
at each other and ask, ‘Who was it who died?’ (‘Siapa sih yang mati?’) Someone
replies, ‘It’s that what’s-his-name,’ (‘si Polan’), and a sense of mutual understanding
settles on the conversation (‘Dan kemudian percakapan ditutup oleh saling
mengerti’).
The bleak view of the nation’s inability to lift its citizens out of poverty,
ignorance and despair is not conveyed here through personal reflections on the life of
the writer, as is the case with Sunyisenyap di Siang Hidup four years later. The bitter
irony has not yet given way to Sunyisenyap’s emotional frustration and despair,
though it is arguably much darker in tone. Yet stories like Kampungku, published in
magazines in the early 1950s, make it clear that the betrayal of revolutionary idealism
and the urgency of the need for social change were themes that were present in
Pramoedya’s writing from its inception. There is not yet any sense of how change is
to be effected, but even at this stage, it is hard to see this writing as ‘detached’ in the
manner, say, of Idrus, or as searching for the ‘universal’, as H B Jassin’s
understanding of ‘universal humanism’ urged upon Indonesian writers. By contrast,
Pramoedya’s writing is contextualised in local realities and the urgency of Indonesia’s
material needs.
The view from the Netherlands
Kampungku was published in Mimbar Indonesia in July 1952. In the
following year, Pramoedya again used the story’s characteristic style of ironic
observation and conversational address to the implied reader in a much lighter
context, that of a travel report entitled Kapal Gersang, a wry description of his
shipboard companions and their interactions on the long voyage between Jakarta and
Amsterdam (Toer 2004: 142-155).11 Pramoedya and his family arrived in the
Netherlands to begin a six-month residency sponsored by Sticusa on 15 June 1953,
just before the Foundation’s symposium on modern Indonesian literature was held in
Amsterdam on 26 June of the same year. The symposium was addressed by two
prominent Indonesian writer/intellectuals, Sutan Takdir Alisjahbana and Asrul Sani,
11 The ‘lighter’ tone would again appear to have been shaped by personal experience. In Nyanyi Sunyi
Seorang Bisu, Pramoedya recalled how enjoyable he had found the voyage (Toer 1997: 192).
8
while Dr Sam Udin, who was about to take up a post with the ILO in Geneva,
attended at short notice in place of a third (unnamed) speaker who was unable to
attend. Dutch participants included a youthful Hans Teeuw, recently returned from
four years in Indonesia and already installed as Professor of Comparative and General
Linguistics at the University of Utrecht, along with another two Dutch professors who
were to play an important part in Pramoedya’s life, Han Resink and Wim Wertheim.
Pramoedya was present at the symposium, and one of his first essays written in the
Netherlands was a report on this meeting and a personal engagement with the views
he had heard expressed there. The title of his essay, Mencari sebab-sebab:
Kemunduran Kesusastraan Indonesia Modern Dewasa Ini indicates that it was the
speakers’ contributions to the debates then taking place in Jakarta on a perceived loss
of energy and output among Indonesian writers that sparked Pramoedya’s attention.
The topic appears to have been most directly addressed in the long and
comprehensive discussion by Asrul Sani, entitled De Indonesische letterkunde als
spiegel van de maatschappij (Indonesian literature as a mirror of society). Echoing
views already put in Jakarta, Asrul suggested in his talk that the energy of the
Indonesian revolution had become lost in political posturing, and a sense of unease at
what people saw emerging around them had come to pervade the social and cultural
life of independent Indonesia’s cities. Most provocatively, he suggested that the core
of the problem lay in the loss of the revolutionary blurring of the distinction between
urban and rural culture. In independent Indonesia, urban culture had alienated art from
life, in a way that did not occur in the world of the village; for writers of literature,
this meant that there was a need to escape the influence of Western forms and
Western literary trends, and recapture their indigenous roots, working out a secure
basis on which they could begin dialogue with the West (Sani 1953:823).
In the Sticusa reports of the discussions which followed each of the
presentations to the symposium, Pramoedya’s name does not appear as one of the
respondents to the views expressed by each of the speakers.12 However in his essay
reporting on the symposium, which was published in Siasat on 19 July 1953, he
emerges as one of its most vociferous critics. Dismissing the Indonesian contribution
as the voice of ‘salon intellectuals’ who take their own condition as representative of
the whole, he sees the symposium overall as contributing only to the growth of an
uprooted intelligentsia who have little to contribute to the condition they are
identifying. He does not appear to reject the analysis itself, agreeing that the
unravelling of the revolutionary spirit that previously united outlooks and endeavours
in Indonesia has led to a general ‘spiritual confusion’, a cacophony of individual
pursuits without a common purpose. But unlike Asrul Sani, he does not feel the need
to be offering solutions, suggesting that the confusion may be the reflection of a lack
of opportunities to gather and order energies, that will resolve itself in time. Likewise
the decline that has been identified in the production of literature may simply mean
that writers are taking stock and gathering their forces, and should not be taken to
mean that they are ‘not working’. In this climate, the important thing is the
‘reconstitution of the spirit’, presumably the spirit of revolution.13
12 A whole issue of the Sticusa digest, Cultureel Nieuws Indonesië 1953 (nr 30), is devoted to the texts
of each of the presentations and the discussion which followed, in which contributors are named
individually. In his later memoirs, Pramoedya confirms his silence in the discussions at the seminar
(Toer 1997: 196).
13 The fact that Pramoedya and his family were living on the same floor of an Amsterdam house as
Asrul Sani and his wife in 1953 (Toer 1997: 173) serves as a reminder that the printed word is only a
9
In his response to both Asrul Sani and Takdir Alisjahbana, Pramoedya appears
to reject the idea that it is confrontation with the West and the loss of roots in an
‘indigenous’ (Asrul) or ‘Eastern’ (Takdir) heritage that lies behind the so-called
malaise affecting post-independence Indonesian literature. Indeed, in another, more
personal, essay of the time Berkenalan dengan Utuy T Sontani, he specifically denies
that it is a ‘Western pessimism’ that is affecting Indonesian writers. Acknowledging
that Sontani appears to be the epitome of a spirit of pessimism among Indonesian
writers, Pramoedya nevertheless asserts very strongly that this ‘pessimism’ is not a
Western import, but the result of the ‘idiocy’ which Indonesian writers see around
them (‘ketololan keliling’). Whereas in the West the spirit of pessimism is the result
of economic factors and a shrinking in opportunities for action on the part of writers
and intellectuals, in Indonesia it is a response to the ‘stupidity’ of the ‘majority of
Indonesians’ and their focus on self-satisfaction. Sontani himself despairs at the
absence of any intellectual curiosity among Indonesia’s leaders – they live in fine
houses without any books in them – and Pramoedya expresses his agreement with this
assessment. It is this situation that makes Sontani look ‘paralysed’ and withdrawn into
his ‘Sundanese-ness’; all he can do in the face of his despair is to retreat, into a study
of world literature and a focus on his family (Toer 2004: 193-197).
The subject of ‘Western pessimism’ emerges again in another important essay
of 1953, Pramoedya’s report of his interview with Professor Wertheim, again on the
topic of the literary ‘malaise’ and its causes (Prof. Dr. Wertheim tentang
Kesusastraan Indonesia Modern, Kegagalan kesusastraan Indonesia modern:
kegagalan revolusi). In this essay, Pramoedya reports that Wertheim agrees with the
notion of a malaise or crisis affecting modern Indonesian literature, and sees it as the
result of a pessimism that is an unconscious outcome of a loss of faith in the
revolution, ‘translated’ in the works of Idrus, Achdiat and Utuy. (Even the optimism
of Keluarga Gerilya, Wertheim tells the novel’s author, is an individual, rather than a
collective, optimism.14) In Wertheim’s view, Indonesian writers have no reason to be
adopting this ‘Western’ pessimism: in contrast to Holland, which has now played out
its role in history, a great future lies before Indonesia, and its writers should play their
part in giving expression to the will and the feelings of its people. Wertheim uses
Mexico as a positive role model for Indonesian writers: the energy of its writers and
their expression of the aspirations of its people show that the literature of a new state
does not need to be propagandistic to fulfil its historical role. For this reason,
Wertheim approved of Asrul Sani’s presentation to the Amsterdam symposium,
seeing it as indicating one way out of the circularity that was continuing to lock
Indonesian writers into dead-end responses to their historical circumstances.
An interesting aspect of aspect of the views Wertheim expressed to
Pramoedya on the situation of Indonesian writers concerned the question of language,
and the difficulty of using Indonesian as a language of literature. Wertheim himself
was born and lived his early life in St Petersburg, and in an suggestive analogy with
Indonesia, he told Pramoedya that for this reason, Russian, not Dutch, was his
‘language of family, of intimacy’. This meant, he said, that literature in Russian was
still more meaningful to him than literature in Dutch. In the Indonesian case, writers
who were not themselves from Malay-speaking areas experienced great difficulty in
partial record of the personal and intellectual exchanges of that time (or, indeed, of any other time and
place).
14 A decade later, Pramoedya would make the same criticism of his own novel, in his 1963 seminar
paper, Realisme Sosialis dan Sastra Indonesia.
10
producing literature that spoke of the emotional life. Those who succeeded in
producing literature in Indonesian did so only through their stylistic strength. ‘Style’
was their only recourse when they did not (yet) have the ability to articulate in
Indonesian the nuances of their inner lives, something that for them was still only
possible in a regional language (Toer 2004: 286-295).15
As Tony Day has shown, the notion of the language of family, the ‘bahasa
keluarga’, later surfaced in Pramoedya’s own writing on language and literature (Day
2002). It lay at the heart of a series of five articles under the title Penilaian Kembali
Kesusastraan Daerah/Klasik, which Pramoedya published three years later,
coincidently at the time of his visit to China in late 1956 (Toer 1956). His ongoing,
and later more vociferous, commitment to Indonesian as the language of national
consciousness makes it difficult to determine precisely the ultimate impact of
Wertheim’s notion of the ‘language of family’ in Pramoedya’s thought world.
However in my view, this surfacing of the question of language is indicative of an
important overall trend in Pramoedya’s essays from the Netherlands in 1952, which is
a growing attention to the social context of literature and literary production. This, I
believe, is what sets Pramoedya’s writing apart from the more formalist approaches to
literary criticism emerging out of the ‘universal humanism’ of the period, and lays the
conceptual foundation for his later move into a politicised understanding of the needs
and responsibilities of writers in a newly emerging nation such as Sukarno’s
Indonesia.
In Kesusastraan Sebagai Alat, first published in July 1952, a year before
Pramoedya arrived in the Netherlands, this understanding of literature as a social
product was already becoming clear. In this essay (Toer 2004: 222-231), Pramoedya
expresses unequivocally his belief that literature is given meaning in its ‘use’ for a
particular purpose, which may be quite independent of a writer’s aims and intentions.
In this sense, a work of literature is an ‘instrument’ or a ‘tool’ (‘alat’) – something
with a material existence. In an anticipation of the struggle a decade later between
LEKRA figures and their political mentors in the PKI, however, Pramoedya argued
that acknowledging literature’s material existence in this way was a separate matter
from the recognition that literature as a social product could also be ‘manipulated’
(‘diperalat’) for political propaganda purposes. Interestingly, his domestic
illustrations of this phenomenon – which made literature limiting to the writer and not
challenging to society – were the magazine literature both of the Japanese Occupation
and contemporary Java (‘which sings of the greatness of government officials, with
the bupati as the epitome of idealism’). Internationally, the example was literature
under Maoism. In Pramoedya’s view, Mao’s dictum that ‘literature and art must serve
the people, especially the workers, peasants and soldiers’ placed an expectation on the
writer that was no different from saying that a waiter in a restaurant had an obligation
to satisfy his customers. In other words, the writer produces the social product which
is literature. The ‘use’ to which it is put in society is determined by forces outside the
act of production itself.
At first sight, it may appear that this clear rejection of the Maoist notion of
literature’s social function confirms the conventional view of a ‘reversal’ in
Pramoedya’s attitudes after 1956. It is likely, however, that what is happening at this
point in Pramoedya’s development is rather the beginning of an engagement with
debates within socialist thought, rather than a liberal humanist distancing from them.
15 Note also the comments on this essay by Scherer (1981: 137). Farid (n.d.: 4) comments that the
meeting between Pramoedya and Wertheim at this time was the beginning of a life-long friendship.
11
In one of his essays from the Netherlands, Ada Humanisme di Oranje Nassaulaan-5
dan: Komunisme Telah Mati Bersama Lenin (Toer 2004: 198-204), Pramoedya gave
extensive coverage to a talk by Henk van Galen Last, an editor of the Dutch journal
Libertinage, to a meeting held to discuss the subject of humanism, organised by Aoh
K Hadimadja as a follow-up to the Sticusa Amsterdam literary symposium.
Pramoedya describes Van Galen Last as arguing that communism was an expression
of humanism, but that communism itself had died along with Lenin, leaving the
present-day Soviet Union under the control of nihilists with no belief in anything.
Pramoedya notes that Van Galen Last’s views show the influence of Ter Braak’s
opposition to totalitarianism, indicating that he himself is engaging with Western
ideas, and the ‘big picture’ debates and discussions that characterised Western
European thought of the time.
Another essay of 1953, Definisi Keindahan Dalam Kesusasteraan (Toer 2204:
173-179), adds to this picture of Pramoedya’s engagement with those aspects of
Western thought of the time that are distancing literature from both the Romantic
heritage and the formalist direction in modernist literary criticism. In this essay,
Pramoedya argues that the ‘classical’ or ‘romantic’ association of literature with
beauty, something ‘acquired in school’ (and hence not seen here as a part of
indigenous Indonesian literary heritage), needs to be questioned. In the modern world,
he says, literature has a function broader than just ‘beauty’, as it now takes on
concerns that cannot be subsumed under the notion of ‘beauty’, such as ‘justice,
humanity, morality, even nationalism’. Drawing on a range of Western examples,
such as Steinbeck’s Tortilla Flat, and Richard Wright’s Black Boy, Pramoedya
suggests that the literary climate now inhabited by modern writers (and here
Indonesian writers are clearly part of a world community) is characterised by a ‘bitter
realism’ (‘realisme pahit’), that does not offer the reader ‘beauty’ but a confrontation
with the world ‘as it is’. Clearly, what is happening here is a growing sociological, or
even materialist, understanding of literature. The modern world, as Pramoedya
perceives it, gives literature both its context and its meaning.
Lines of engagement
The range of ideas and positionings which Pramoedya was articulating in his
essays of 1952 and 1953 were applied most directly to an engagement with the
Indonesian literary debates of the period in Offensif Kesusastraan – 1953, published
in Siasat in March 1953 (Toer 2004: 163-172). This essay was Pramoedya’s reply to
an ‘offensive’ against the literary ‘malaise’, which he believed had been launched by
the Gelanggang group in an end of year radio address on the state of Indonesian
literature by H B Jassin in 1952. In his address, which Pramoedya says had attracted a
lot of attention, Jassin had argued that in order to protect the ‘purity’ (‘kemurnian’) of
a literary work, the writer must always maintain a clarity of thought and feeling in
regard to himself, his surroundings and his society, to guard against a confusion and
blurring of his standards.16 To Pramoedya, this notion of the ‘pure artist’ failed to
acknowledge the reality of the writer’s material circumstances, and posed a notion of
social responsibility that was divorced from any real social context. In a prequel to his
views on the Amsterdam symposium some three months later, Pramoedya dismissed
the concern with the literary ‘malaise’, arguing that a period of preparation, struggle
16 Given the unquestioned masculinist bias of the Indonesian literary world at this time, the gendered
pronoun seems appropriate here.
12
and assessment was all a part of the creative process. Foreshadowing also his rejection
of ‘Romantic’ notions of art and beauty in Definisi Keindahan Dalam Kesusastraan,
Pramoedya suggested as well that Jassin’s separation of the ‘pure artist’ from the
rough and tumble of society meant denying Indonesian writers the right to pursue a
decent material interest, and condemning them to a sequestered life like that of ‘the
Bronte sisters’.
To this point, there is a clear cross-over and consistency of ideas and
approaches in the way Pramoedya brings his intellectual development to bear on the
Indonesian literary debates of 1953 in this essay. However something less
‘intellectual’ but perhaps no less consistent with Pramoedya’s later career also makes
itself strongly felt in this essay, that is, the highly personalised ad hominem direction
with which Pramoedya pursues his differences with Jassin and the Gelanggang group.
Taking strong exception to what he sees as Jassin’s ‘hobby’ of constructing his own
images of those writers he finds wanting in some way and then proceeding to destroy
them, Pramoedya is at pains to expose Jassin as himself a ‘failed writer’ who, having
no creative reputation of his own, is intent on destroying the reputation of the writers
he is critiquing. The narrowness of Jassin’s world, Pramoedya asserts, means that he,
of all people, has no business in calling genuinely creative writers to account in the
way that he does. So far so good, perhaps, but there is a nasty sting in the tail of
Pramoedya’s criticism:
Tetapi ini dapat dimaafkan kalau diingat bahwa daerah perjalanan Jassin
sangat terbatas: kantor, rumahnya sendiri, rumah Balfas dan rumah-rumah
mereka yang ia tidak kenal tetapi yang ia suka mampir sebentar untuk
membuktikan bahwa ia pun punya jenis sebagai makhluk. (Toer 2004: 167)
But this can be pardoned, if we remember how limited Jassin’s range of
movement is: the office, his own home, Balfas’s home and the homes of those
he doesn’t know but whom he is in the habit of dropping in on, just to prove
that he is a sexual being.
The essay concludes in similar fashion:
Dan dengan ini offensif Jassin dijawab, disambut.
Dan dengan ini fokkerij kesusastraan Jassin telah bubar!
Dan dengan ini, adieu kritikus H B Jassin! (Toer 2004: 172)
And herewith Jassin’s offensive is answered, given a response.
And herewith Jassin’s literary animal breeding farm has had its day!
And herewith, farewell to the critic H B Jassin!
The inclusion of Balfas’s name in Pramoedya’s description of the narrowness of
Jassin’s world offers a clue to what lies behind this ugly parodying of Jassin and his
literary ‘fokkerij’: both Jassin himself and Balfas, another member of the Gelanggang
group, had by this time both published critical remarks of Pramoedya’s writing,
finding it lacking by the criteria of the formalist, and ‘universal humanist’ approaches
to literature. Indeed, in her study, Scherer suggests that Pramoedya’s Offensif
Kesusastraan – 1953 owed as much to his fury at Balfas’s December 1952 assessment
of Keluarga Gerilya and Mochtar Lubis’s Jalan Tak Ada Ujung as examples of
‘weak’ novels that illustrated their writers’ lack of skill in controlling their material,
13
as it did to Jassin’s own ‘offensive’ of the same month (Scherer 1981: 134-135,
Heinschke 1996: 158).17
The nature of Pramoedya’s response, and his personalising of the debate at
this point, emerges again, though in more muted form, in another essay of 1953,
Sumber Cipta Dalam Kesusastraan (Toer 2004: 214-221). On this occasion,
Pramoedya is responding to an article by Hamka, in which this well-known and
highly-regarded pre-war author had suggested that while contemporary writers might
initially find themselves attracted to influences from outside Indonesia like the writing
of Hemingway and Steinbeck, in the end no writer of any character would want to be
a mere ‘follower’ (‘Pak Turut’). Perhaps seeing himself as one of those writers
Hamka was implying were ‘lacking in character’, Pramoedya launched into an
extended refutation in his reply, arguing that the sort of influence Hamka was
referring to was not something ‘evil’; in fact, for a writer, ‘filling the empty spaces in
one’s soul is a necessity and a joy, and something always ongoing’. The context here
was again the idea of a literary ‘malaise’, and Pramoedya once more argued against
any suggestion that the ‘decline’ which others were perceiving in Indonesian literature
at the time, like the allegations of ‘pessimism’, was the result of Western influence.
Only if a artist stops searching does he become ‘sluggish’ (lesu), because he is
imprisoning himself within limits he himself has created. Implicitly, this is the state of
mind Pramoedya identifies in Hamka:
Sekalipun Hamka yang telah beranak biak takkan mungkin memiliki juga
seluruh perasaan, pemikiran dan perasaian seorang anak sekolah menengah.
Macam-macam kekosongan ada di jiwa tiap orang. (Toer 2004: 216)
Even Hamka, who [is of an age where he] has reproduced his own kind, can’t
possibly have all the feelings, thoughts and perceptions of a high school
student. Various forms of emptiness exist in the spirits of everyone.
As is the case with Pramoedya’s attack on Jassin (and arguably would remain
the case in the much more heated climate of the 1960s), it is not so much the ideas
Pramoedya is advancing here, as the language he chooses to express them in that can
be seen as reducing an intellectual debate to an ad hominem assault. Jassin does not
have an emerging ‘school’ of literary critics around him, but an ‘animal breeding
farm’; the narrowness of his world encompasses his visits to those who allow him to
‘prove that he is a sexual being’. Hamka is not ‘middle aged’ but has ‘reproduced his
own kind’;18 he should be aware that he can’t command the whole range of
experience of any ‘high school student’. If the seeds of Pramoedya’s intellectual
development are beginning to grow in these essays, so too, perhaps, are the emotional
responses that would later be held so strongly against him.
17 Balfas’s criticism appeared in an article entitled ‘Apa Sebab Kurang Roman?’, published in Siasat on
14 December 1952. In another reminder of the ‘informal’ counterpart to the printed word, however,
Pramoedya also recorded, long after Balfas’s death, the following anecdote from 1950: ‘M. Balfas,
dalam suatu pertemuan tak disengaja, mengatakan padaku: Kau sudah bukan menulis lagi, Pram, kau
berak.’ (Toer 1997: 186). The context is Pramoedya’s attempt to make a living out of writing, but if
Pramoedya’s recollections are correct, he was not the only one to engage in offensive language.
Perhaps here the distinction between the written and the un-written comes into play, to Pramoedya’s
disadvantage.
18 The term ‘beranak biak’ is in fact normally confined to descriptions of animal behaviour (cf.
beranak pinak).
14
It remains clear even amid the invective, however, that if the lines of a cultural
politics between ‘left’ and ‘right’ are taking shape in the exchanges between
Pramoedya and those he perceives as opponents, there is no sense in which the ‘left’
viewpoint is associating the ‘right’ with a negative ‘West’. The association of the left
with anti-imperialism and anti-Westernism has become so pervasive since the era of
the Cold War that it is important not to lose sight of the fact that in the Indonesian
literary and cultural debates of the 1950s and 60s, there was a shared commitment to
modernity along Western European lines that overrode the sharpening lines of
political engagement and conflict of the period. In literary terms, this openness to
influence from the West is clear in Pramoedya’s engagement with Hamka on behalf
of those writers, like himself, who find ‘spiritual nourishment’ in the work of writers
like Hemingway and Steinbeck (or, in fact, the countless other Western writers whose
names appear in Pramoedya’s essays of this time).19 And a brief consideration of
those essays in which Pramoedya records his observations of Dutch society during his
time in the Netherlands in 1953 leaves no doubt that his attraction to, and even
admiration of, Western European modernity is not confined to matters of literature
alone.
‘Much better than in Indonesia’
A striking example of the way his observations in the Netherlands gave Pramoedya a
sense of the urgent need for the development of modern social attitudes and
institutions in the new Indonesia occurs in the opening paragraph of an essay entitled
Famili Tanus yang Buta:
Terlepas dari perhitungan politik atau apa pun juga, sistem pendidikan di
negeri Belanda jauh lebih baik daripada di Indonesia. Bahkan orang-orang
cacad, yang kini di Indonesia boleh dikatakan hanya mungkin hidup dari
kasihan orang belaka, atau setidak-tidaknya mempergunakan kekurangannya
sebagai alat untuk mencari penghasilan, di negeri kecil ini pun mempunyai
hak untuk mendapat didikan yang selayaknya, sehingga dengan demikian
dalam kehidupan mereka tidak merasa rendah daripada anggota-anggota
masyarakat yang lain. (Toer 2004: 180)
Regardless of any political considerations, [it must be said that] the education
system in the Netherlands is much better than in Indonesia. In this small
country even disabled people, who these days in Indonesia can be said to be
dependent on people’s pity for their survival, or, at the very least, to exploit
their disability as a means to obtain an income, have the right to a decent
education. This means that they don’t feel inferior to other members of society
as they go about their lives.
In this essay, Pramoedya’s interest in the variety of human experience leads
him to reflect on the value of modern education and learning as a means of enriching
19 As an aside, it may be noted that the explorations in European literature of this time that may have
been the source of what is now the most well-known title among Pramoedya’s novels. In a 1957 essay,
Keadaan Sosial Parapengarang Indonesia, Pramoedya referred to a translation by Rivai Apin of Saint
Exupéry’s 1939 novel, Terre des Hommes. Rivai’s Indonesian version was entitled Bumi Manusia
(Toer 2004: 524). One wonders whether Pramoedya or Rivai recalled this earlier usage when
Pramoedya’s Bumi Manusia appeared in 1980.
15
the inner life, something he sees as denied to so many people in Indonesia. Elsewhere,
the Dutch example serves to provoke critical responses in him to the attitudes of the
Indonesian people themselves, and the need for a change in a mindset that inhibits the
growth of independence and self-reliance. In Perusahaan-Perusahaan Mahasiswa
Belanda, for example, he begins with a comment on the need for material and
financial sufficiency as a precondition for the pursuit of education and skills. In
Indonesia, he says, many students without an income can be found sitting around
(‘bercokol’) in government offices, contributing just a fraction of their energies in
return for full pay , and leaving work all the time with ‘classes’ as their excuse. Just as
is the case with the earlier example of the condition of disabled people, this situation
compares very poorly with what Pramoedya has observed in the Netherlands:
Di Nederland, golongan mahasiswa tidak minta dimanjakan, dan mereka pun
tidak mempunyai kesempatan untuk bermanja. Karenanya pula mereka
kelihatan lebih bebas, dan dari golongan yang tiada berpenghasilan nampak
sikap mereka yang mendasarkan perjuangan hidup mereka pada kekuatan diri
sendiri. (Toer 2004: 186)
In the Netherlands, university students don’t ask to be indulged, and neither do
they get the chance to indulge themselves. And for that reason they seem more
independent. As a group in society without an income they show an attitude of
looking to their own resources to sustain their livelihoods.
The essay describes a range of self-help enterprises which students in Dutch
universities have founded, and the sorts of activities and incomes they generate.
Pramoedya’s concluding comment again looks unfavourably at the contrasting
situation in Indonesia:
Dan yang mengagumkan ialah, bahwa perusahaan mereka ini bukanlah
bersifat main-main dan hanya mengharapkan bantuan pemerintah melulu,
karena bantuan yang demikian tidak segampang itu bisa diterima seperti
halnya dengan di Indonesia. (Toer 2004: 192)
An the amazing thing is that these enterprises of theirs are not just fronts
designed to attract government support, because this sort of support isn’t
easily accessible, as is the case in Indonesia.
The question of independent initiative, rather than a reliance on government
support, is also an issue for arts practitioners. In Galerie Le Canard, Sebuah
Gelanggang Kesenian yang Menarik (Toer 2004: 257-262), Pramoedya looks at the
positive role being played by ‘this arena of modest circumstances with such a grand
name, Galerie Le Canard’ in extending knowledge and understanding of all forms of
the Indonesian arts among the Dutch public. Noting that in Europe there is a ‘greater
sense’ of art as part of the totality and indwelling character of a nation, he applauds
the existence of this Amsterdam gallery, as both an educative body and a forum for
avant-garde artists ‘from all competing streams and groups’ to put forward their ideas
and display their work. Just as in the case of student enterprises it is ‘amazing’ that
there is no expectation of government support, so too is it ‘strange’ that initiatives
such as the Galerie Le Canard are completely self-supporting, and receive no
government subsidies. In this case, public support sustains the initiative financially,
16
something that Pramoedya recognises as unimaginable in Indonesia at this time. For
this reason he looks to the Indonesian government, or one of its agencies like the
National Culture Council (BMKN), to take the initiative in recognising the role of art
in the life of the nation and to fulfil the unquestionable need for similar solidly-based
institutions to be established in Indonesia.
One case where government intervention in the Netherlands is seen to point to
what needs to be done in Indonesia concerns the writing of national literary history. In
Perkembangan Prosa Indonesia, Titik Pangkal dalam Kesusastraan Indonesia (Toer
2004: 246-250), Pramoedya ponders the need for a proper Indonesian literary history,
a study of the links in the chain, the continuities and new discourses that go to make
up the evolution of the nation’s modern literature. A Dutch example of what is needed
and what can be done is the appearance of a 532 page history of the 19th century
literary journal De Nieuwe Gids, the active life of which spanned no more than 5
years. (Pramoedya notes that the journal is of significance for Indonesia, because it
was the mouthpiece of the [18]80s movement, which is seen to have introduced the
idea of modern ‘form’ to the pre-war generation of modern Indonesian poets.) This
particular study was made possible through a subsidy from the Dutch Ministry of
Education and Culture, and Pramoedya concludes his essay by looking forward to a
time when the sorts of understandings that made this history possible in the
Netherlands will also become common practice in Indonesia. Earlier on, however, he
had noted that present day conditions in Indonesia are not conducive to the writing of
this kind of detailed, careful study. Significantly, and perhaps for the first time in
these essays, he locates the reason for these conditions in the ‘decay and
disintegration in all forms of life brought about by the constellation of party political
life thus far’. In other words, if the social institutions and personal outlooks
characteristic of Dutch modernity are clearly pointing out the need for equivalent
practices in Indonesia, there is a suggestion here that a party political system also
derived from Western Europe might not be the best way to foster these practices in
independent Indonesia.20
Confronting the challenge
One of Pramoedya’s last essays written in the Netherlands is an intensely
personal reflection, closing this chapter in his writing in the same way that Kapal
Gersang, his wry description of people and circumstances on the voyage from Jakarta,
had opened it up. This time, however, the tone is highly emotional and inward
looking, rather than detached and externally focussed. Suatu Pojok di Suatu Dunia is
an autobiographical reflection on the love of a father for his children, occasioned by
his farewelling of his wife and two children as they set out before him on the return
voyage to Indonesia. Perhaps here, in his emotional life, we find a more ‘Javanese’
Pramoedya, declaring he is not ashamed to weep repeatedly for the loss of his
children:
20 The admiration Pramoedya felt for the achievements of Dutch modernity, viewed as independent of
its politics and its practice of colonialism, remained with him all his life, perhaps to the discomfort of
some admirers of his postcolonial credentials. In his 1997 memoirs, he wrote, with disarming
frankness: ‘Negeri Belanda memperlihatkan padaku bagaimana indahnya masyarakat yang teratur,
bagaimana setiap jasa dihargai dan bagaimana setiap orang berhak mendapatkan penghidupannya.
Dalam hal ini Belanda adalah seorang guru yang terlalu baik, dan Indonesia murid yang tidak baik.
Aku pikir dalam waktu tiga ratus lima puluh tahun Indonesia tidak cukup belajar dari dia’ (Toer: 1997:
205).
17
Dan aku merasa bangga punya sentimen kekeluargaan demikian. Terutama
sekali ini terasa, di kemudian hari sewaktu keadaan menjadi berubah dan
bergeser, dan yang menyebabkan anak-anak itu begitu jauh daripada
kehidupanku, seperti di tempat asing, di tempat yang tak nyata, tak di atas
bumi dan tidak duniaku ini.
Namun, betapapun juga yang terjadi, tak adalah yang dapat membatalkan ayah
bagi anaknya, dan anak bagi ayahnya. (Toer 2004: 360)
And I felt proud to have such a strong sense of family. I [will] feel this
especially in the future, when circumstances have changed and shifted, and
moved my children so far away from my own life, as though in a foreign land,
somewhere unreal, not part of this earth, or my own world.
Yet whatever might happen, there is nothing that can annul [the importance
of] a father for his children, or of children for their father.
Once Pramoedya himself has returned to Jakarta, in early 1954, this tone of
personal intimacy is replaced by a clarity of thought and approach being brought to
bear on the question of literature and social commitment in postcolonial Indonesia.
These two concerns – the business of being a writer and the task of nation-building –
are never separate in his thought; the challenges are clearly defined and the responses
are unwavering. There is a sense of having moved on from questions of ‘crisis’ or
‘malaise’, and while the West remains a source of energy and example, both in terms
of literary modernity and the institutions of a modern society, there is a growing
confidence about the role of literature and its writers in the realities of their own
social context.
These themes are all strongly present in a long essay from 1954 entitled
Perjuangan Kesusastraan Indonesia Yang Lalu dan Yang Akan Datang (Toer 2004:
321-340). Here, the questions addressed at the Amsterdam symposium of the previous
year, and the expectations of foreign observers of Indonesian literature – including
those of Wertheim – are dismissed as irrelevant to the essential challenge confronting
Indonesian literature at the time. Westerners, Pramoedya says, ask the wrong
questions, like ‘Where is the Indonesian literature that portrays the Japanese
Occupation?’ or ‘Why does Indonesian literature not have an Indonesian style?’,
whereas the essential – and still unanswered – question confronting Indonesian
literature is how ‘to create the Indonesian person (‘manusia Indonesia’) and give
colour and structure to his/her life (‘memberi warna dan corak kehidupannya’).21 It is
in this ‘local’ engagement and focus, which means writing about ‘self and nation’
(‘masalah-masalah diri/bangsanya’) that Indonesian literature will acquire its
‘international’ quality, without its writers needing to concern themselves with the
21 The juxtaposition here is instructive, just as much for our contemporary practice. The questions
Western observers bring to bear on Indonesian literature tend to reflect an outsider’s perspective and a
search for writing that interprets Indonesia to the world. For Indonesian writers and commentators, on
the other hand, the acts of writing and debating continue to be driven by an insider’s engagement with
the building of a national culture.
18
question of whether what they write will be acceptable or not to the international
world.22
The attention to the local requires a sense of active commitment on the part of
the writer to the nation and its concerns. Pramoedya appears sympathetic to those
‘many writers’ who ended up being ‘wounded’ by their times, ending up
disappointed, with a suspicion and mistrust of their own society, a reference to the
times of perceived crisis. But in an anticipation of what was to become a standard
critique on the part of LEKRA figures, his sympathy does not extend to the pioneer of
the post-war Indonesian short story, Idrus. In the views he expresses here, Pramoedya
regards Idrus as having ended up beholden to his own suspicions, rather than being
able to find good will in his heart towards his surroundings. As a result, in his famous
and controversial story, Surabaya, Idrus produced a reactionary statement about a
society in motion, trying to find a new morality.23
The increased focus here on the local, and the essential nexus of self and
nation still does not lead Pramoedya to abandon the Western example. In fact, in
acknowledging that his argument is emphasising the social function of literature, he
draws on the examples of Multatuli, Ehrenburg, Tolstoi and Zola to illustrate that
commitment, if it is undertaken with ‘good will and honesty’ does not preclude the
lasting quality of literature that is entwined with social issues. However the basis in
the local must be solid. Pramoedya asserts that it is not surprising that many writers
are deracinated from their own traditions, and find themselves swallowing bits of
Western philosophy that aren’t always beneficial to their own development or that of
the nation. Almost as though he is revisiting his mistrust of Asrul Sani’s ‘return to the
village’ call at the Amsterdam symposium, he calls for a recovery of indigenous
character, agreeing that there is a need for writers to escape the big cities and get to
know the regions (Toer 2004: 336). The ‘literary modernity’ which Pramoedya is
defining here is very close to what would later become standard LEKRA thought and
practice: there is no turning away from the example of Western modernity itself, but
in its Indonesian application, modernity must be grounded in a real understanding of
Indonesia’s social and cultural needs.
The positive aspects of the Western example surface again in an unusual
context in Kesusastraan Kristen di Indonesia, an essay written at the end of 1955 and
published in Star Weekly in January 1956 (Toer 2004: 361-367). Acknowledging that
one of the effects of the meeting between Europe and Indonesia has been to make
Christianity a part of present day Indonesia’s heritage, Pramoedya here calls on
Christian publishers to cease producing texts for the Christian community alone
(‘antara kita’) and encourage Christian writers to enter into engagement with society
at large, on the basis of Christian morality. Interestingly, it is Graham Greene (The
Matter of the Affair) and Alan Paton (Cry, the Beloved Country) that Pramoedya uses
as examples of the benefit to a wider community of this kind of engagement.
Referring to a number of publications by Christian publishers in Indonesia,
22 Interestingly, Pramoedya’s example of a work that achieves this ‘eternal’ quality through its focus on
‘matters of the self and the most national’ (‘masalah-masalah diri serta yang paling nasional’) is
Cervantes’ Don Quixote. This, he says, also explains why the works Chairil Anwar wrote ‘with
honesty’ are those that contain universal value (‘mengapa tulisan-tulisan Chairil yang dibuatnya
secara jujur mengandung nilai universal’) (Toer 2004: 326).
23 An extended comment on both Idrus and Chairil Anwar (Toer 2004: 327) also anticipates the later
LEKRA view that while both were successful writers who succeeded in filling the creative vacuum of
their times, Idrus’s works were of doubtful benefit to his nation and society, while Chairil was
sometimes too absorbed in his petty personal issues and difficulties. ‘Self and nation’, it appears, had
always to be considered as a single entity.
19
Pramoedya also mentions a translation of Dickens’ A Christmas Carol as an example
of a book that speaks to a much wider readership than the Christian community alone.
But indicating that his earlier focus on the local does not discount the importance of
an ‘international’ outlook among Indonesian readers of literature, he disapproves of
the translator’s adaptations of the original to suit Indonesian conditions. This,
Pramoedya says, is patronising to Indonesian readers (Toer 2004: 365).
Related to this last point is the argument put forward in another essay of this
period, Tentang Matapelajaran Kesusastraan di Sekolah (Toer 2004: 514-521). Here
Pramoedya calls for a Westernised approach to the study of literature in schools and
universities, resting on the idea of individual creativity with language, and moving
away from the older idea that links ‘sastra’ with a mastery of ‘beauty’ in language. As
such, the essay recalls the 1953 Definisi Keindahan Dalam Kesusasteraan discussed
above, in which Pramoedya called for an understanding of the ‘bitter realism’ of
modern literature and an abandonment of the linkage of literature and beautiful
language that was something ‘acquired in school’. Here, as throughout the essays of
this period, and in line with the views of both right and left in the Indonesian literary
world of the time, there is a commitment to a progressive and sophisticated modernity
as the basis for a modern Indonesian literary culture. It is in this context that his call
for Indonesian writers to ‘return to the regions’ and focus on ‘local’ realities needs to
be understood: the ‘Indonesian person’ is to be a creation of a forward-looking
modernity and not a return to past traditions. In cultural terms, the ‘West’ is not the
enemy, however much the political dimensions of the Western presence still remain a
question to be addressed.
An important essay that draws together some of these lines of argument and
anticipates the focus on their wider political context in Pramoedya’s next phase of
development is Tendensi Kerakyatan Dalam Kesusastraan Indonesia Terbaru (Toer
2004: 455-461). Once again, the starting point here seems to be a reconsideration of
Asrul Sani’s contribution to the 1953 Amsterdam symposium. Just as Asrul called for
a return to the village, while himself remaining a part of the city after his return to
Indonesia, Pramoedya says, many young writers are following a tendency to write
about people of the desa, while still not moving beyond the confines of the city
themselves. This is as much true of LEKRA writers as it is of non-LEKRA, making
both camps no more than ‘tourists’ in their approach to writing about Indonesian rural
life. Indonesia does not yet have an Ignazio Silone, who has shown himself capable of
entering into the inner life and struggles of the Italian peasantry, an indication that
Indonesian writers need to be better aware of their own condition. In Pramoedya’s
view, those like Asrul Sani, who have made the call for a return to the village from
the perspective of modern Europe, are unaware that they are merely picking up on a
European problem, the acknowledgement that city life ‘ala Western Europe’ has
failed. This ‘failure’ lies in the dependency of the European city on services and trade
for its economic existence, without any anchors in the land, the source of life’s
essentials. Indonesia’s cities are heading in the same direction, to be sure, but at this
historical juncture, they are no more than heterogeneous groups of villages made up
of people with an overall village mentality. Understanding this situation means that
Indonesian writers ought to avoid equating their own historical circumstances with
those of Western Europe. In Indonesia, the struggle is to avoid becoming ‘tourists’, to
look towards a time when modern writers will emerge from the peasantry itself, or
when there is no longer any distance between ‘peasant’ and ‘non peasant’, an
emancipation of the peasantry in a sociological sense:
20
Tendensi kerakyatan dalam kesusastraan Indonesia ini kelak barangkali akan
berhasil gemilang, tetapi bukanlah hal itu karena pidato Asrul Sani dalam
simposium kesusastraan Indonesia di Amsterdam yang menganjurkan
‘kembali ke desa’, juga bukan karena Lekra secara ideologis beroperasi di
daerah ini. Hasil ini akan tercapai apabila sifat-sifat turisme itu hilang, timbul
pengarang yang dilahirkan dari kalangan petani sendiri, atau bila
perkembangan sosiologis berhasil dapat menghapuskan jarak antara golongan
petani dan yang bukan. Artinya, apabila telah terjadi emansipasi petani dalam
pengertian sosiologis! (Toer 2004: 461).
Indonesian literature’s tendency to identify with the people may have a
shining future, but it won’t be because of Asrul Sani’s call at the Amsterdam
symposium on Indonesian literature for a ‘return to the village’. Neither will it
come from Lekra’s operations in the village out of ideological convictions. It
will be achieved when the tourism characteristics disappear, and writers
appear who were born from the ranks of the peasants themselves, or when
sociological developments succeed in wiping out the distance between peasant
and non-peasant. That is, when there has been an emancipation of the
peasantry in a sociological sense!
Clearly, in Pramoedya’s mind at this time, there is no contradiction between
drawing positive lessons from European modernity, the leitmotif of so many of the
essays discussed here, and being fully engaged in Indonesia’s historical
circumstances. In Tendensi Kerakyatan... the issue still seems to be that it is European
modernity that can point the way out of the ‘village mentality’ of Indonesia’s urban
population, towards an enlightened understanding of what needs to be achieved in
Indonesia. Perhaps in the spirit of Wertheim’s words to Pramoedya in 1953, the point
is that Indonesia can still build its own future in a spirit of optimism, something
Pramoedya sees as being achieved on the twin basis of a modern spirit and a clear
sense of historical circumstances. To some extent, there is an intellectual tension
between these two poles, because Indonesia’s ‘historical circumstances’ as a
postcolonial nation logically require a ‘modernity’ that is not beholden to the colonial
legacy. This, I would suggest, is the point of Pramoedya’s intellectual, cultural and
political development in the period leading up to his first visit to China, in October
1956.
In his study of Chinese influence on Pramoedya, Hong Liu (1996: 129)
describes an animated series of discussions between Pramoedya and a range of
Chinese writers and cultural officials, that introduced Pramoedya to the Chinese
version of socialist realism during his travels in China. Knowing what we do about
Pramoedya’s thinking at this time, it is not hard to imagine how the Maoist blend of
optimism, a modern spirit and historical awareness might have left him with a positive
impression (over-riding the misgivings he had expressed in one comment in his
Kesusastraan Sebagai Alat of 1952) of the Chinese literary doctrines and their
potential adaptation to Indonesian conditions. Far from a reversal in his attitudes and
beliefs, the progression to a heightened political understanding of the place of
literature in Indonesia’s broader project of nation-building, which Pramoedya brought
back from China in 1956, can be seen as a logical progression in the broad outlines of
his thinking up to this time. At some point, he had to part company with the political
legacy and contemporary presence of the West in postcolonial Indonesia. China
21
provided a model for how this could be done without closing the door that had been
initially opened by the West, towards a progressive and enlightened modernity.
Taking off
The Indonesian verb ‘menggelinding’, chosen by the authors as the title for
their collection of Pramoedya’s stories and essays between 1947 and 1956, means ‘to
roll along’ or ‘get moving’; a secondary meaning is ‘to taxi (of an aircraft)’ (Stevens
and Schmidgall-Tellings 2004: 308). As I hope to have shown, their choice of a title is
an apt one. It conveys the sense of a gathering of strength prior to take off, not the
change of course which earlier commentaries on Pramoedya’s literary biography have
tended to see in his identification with the political left in the period between 1957
and 1965. Regardless of history’s ultimate judgement of how Pramoedya played out
that commitment in Indonesia’s years of anti-imperialist and revolutionary
nationalism, it is time now to recognise that his early adulthood was a period of great
intellectual excitement and exploration, which in large part followed the lines of an
internal consistency and logical development. The young Pramoedya was ‘on a roll’,
gathering momentum as he moved forward through the challenges of life as a writer
in a newly independent nation. The written record made available through
Menggelinding I offers us an insight into his journey.
Bibliography
Anderson, Benedict. “Sembah-Sumpah: The Politics of Language and Javanese
Culture.” In Benedict Anderson, Language and Power: Exploring Political
Cultures in Indonesia, 194-240. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press,
1990.
Cribb, Robert. Gangsters and Revolutionaries: The Jakarta People’s Militia and the
Indonesian Revolution 1945-1949. North Sydney: Allen and Unwin, 1991.
Day, Tony. “Between Eating and Shitting: Figures of Intimacy, Storytelling and
Isolation in Some Early Tales by Pramoedya Ananta Toer.” In Clearing a
Space: Postcolonial Readings of Modern Indonesian Literature, edited by
Keith Foulcher and Tony Day, 213-36. Leiden: KITLV Press, 2002.
Farid, Hilmar. “Pramoedya dan Historiografi Indonesia.” Unpublished paper, n.d.
Foulcher, Keith. “The Early Fiction of Pramoedya Ananta Toer, 1946-1949.” In
Text/Politics in Island Southeast Asia: Essays in Interpretation, edited by D M
Roskies, 191-220. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Center for International
Studies, 1993. [Southeast Asia Series no. 91]
Heinschke, Martina. “Between Gelanggang and Lekra: Pramoedya’s Developing
Literary Concepts.” Indonesia 61 (1996): 145-69.
Liu, Hong. “Pramoedya Ananta Toer and China: The Transformation of a Cultural
Intellectual.” Indonesia 61 (1996): 119-42.
Miller, Stephen and Dorothy Meyer. “The Politics of Culture.” Inside Indonesia 88
(2006): 14.
Sani, Asrul. “De Indonesische Letterkunde als Spiegel van de Maatschappij.”
Cultureel Nieuws Indonesië, no. 30 (1953): 817-25.
Scherer, Savitri Prastiti. “From Culture to Politics: The Writings of Pramoedya A.
Toer, 1950-1965.” PhD Thesis, Australian National University, 1981.
Stevens, Alan M and A Ed Schmidgall-Tellings. A Comprehensive Indonesian-
English Dictionary. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 2004.
22
Toer, Pramoedya Ananta. “Penilaian Kembali Kesusasteraan Daerah/Klasik.” Mimbar
Indonesia, 39-43 (1956).
———. A Heap of Ashes, edited and translated by Harry Aveling. St Lucia:
University of Queensland Press, 1975.
———. Nyanyi Sunyi Seorang Bisu II. Jakarta: Lentera, 1997.
———. Tales from Djakarta: Caricatures of Circumstances and their Human Beings.
Ithaca: Southeast Asia Program, Cornell University, 1999.
———. Menggelinding I. Jakarta: Lentera Dipantara, 2004.
Teeuw, A. Modern Indonesian Literature. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1967.
———. Pramoedya Ananta Toer: De Verbeelding van Indonesië. Breda: De Geus,
1993.