LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

      This volume . . . has its beginnings in my detention in a prison of the republic and concerns the resulting judicial process. Therefore it is rather abstract and theoretical, tending toward the polemical. Here I deal with such questions as my philosophy of life, the nature of the state, the Persatuan Perjuangan, negotiations between Indonesia and the Netherlands, and so on. All this is part of my defense against the “charge” that has been made against me (see the official statement).

      This volume can in no way be a complete defense, since it appears that the office of the public prosecutor, which has the “right” to press charges, is unable to present a clearly formulated accusation. A clear and systematic defense naturally cannot be prepared on the basis of a “charge” that is still being awaited and is only a matter of speculation. This volume, then, is not intended as my defense, but should be seen rather as material for a defense that is as yet unformulated. (Volume III, p. 3)

      In advancing his own defense, Tan Malaka is selective in his choice of matters to discuss and what lines of argument to follow. Does this purposeful and partisan intent make the work any less valuable as a primary source? I believe not. My research into the events described has found a high degree of accuracy in his depiction of events. His polemics are always presented clearly as his own interpretation or opinion. Tan Malaka’s account is not diminished by his being an actor in the events described, with a vital concern for their outcome. On the contrary, this very involvement and passion make the work such a valuable contribution to our understanding of the process of the revolution.

      As Marxist Historiography

      By 1947-1948, although many people and organizations had declared themselves to be Marxist in orientation or origin, a Marxist historiography had not yet developed in Indonesia. It might even be said that Indonesian historiography of any form was still in its formative stage. Before the war a colonial historiography, viewing Indonesia’s history through the prism of the colonial power’s “civilizing mission” and “modernizing influence” had dominated the official educational system, and the countervailing influence to such an interpretation came only from regional histories (predominantly in traditional chronicle form), historical fiction, and personal or family histories.

      It was not until 1938 that a book declaring itself to be a “history of Indonesia” was published: Zainoeddin Saleh and Anwar Dusky’s Ringkasan sedjarah Indonesia (Padang: Express, 1938). In spite of its title, this book was criticized at the time as being so firmly in the mold of colonial history “that a reader might reasonably ask whether it was written by a foreigner.”¹⁶

      During the Japanese occupation, Sanusi Pane’s Sedjarah Indonesia appeared, the first three volumes published in 1943 and the fourth in 1945. Together with Prijono’s Sedikit tentang sedjarah Asia Timoer Raja dan Sedjarah Tanah Djawa and Muhammad Yamin’s books on two Javanese heroes, Gadjah Mada: pahlawan persatuan nusantara and Sedjarah peperangan Dipanegara: pahlawan kemerdekaan Indonesia, Sanusi’s works represented the first antidote to the Dutch colonial perspective. The new rulers found acceptable images of past glory in the kingdoms of Java and in the subsequent 350 years of colonial Dutch oppression punctuated by failed rebellions in various parts of the archipelago; and there was an implied greatness to come with the overthrow of the colonial power.¹⁷

      But a Marxist view of the history of Indonesia, discussing classes in terms of either their origin or their conflicts, was most certainly not permitted, even less so by the Japanese than the Dutch colonial power with all its exorbitante rechten (extraordinary powers). It was in secrecy that Tan Malaka wrote his treatise Madilog (materialisme, dialektika, logika), fear of its discovery being the main reason for his move out of Jakarta in mid-1943 (Volume II, p. 154). As to his intention in writing Madilog, which he described as “a bridge to the philosophy of the western proletariat” (p. 13), prominent Indonesian historian Mohammad Ali commented,

      It was because he wanted to put his imprint on the process of mental change in his people that Tan Malaka wrote Madilog as the basic exposition of his philosophy, which he also formulated in a booklet Pandangan hidup (Way of Life). What Tan Malaka offered was Materialism-Dialectics-Logic or dialectical materialism as an outlook on life, so that Indonesian man could free himself from a cosmocentric world.¹⁸

      Within the next few years a number of histories appeared, concentrating on the nationalist movement and the revolution: L. M. Sitorus, Sedjarah pergerakan kebangsaan Indonesia (1949); A. K. Pringgodigdo, Sedjarah pergerakan rakyat Indonesia (1950); and Muhammad Dimyati, Sedjarah perdjuangan Indonesia (1951). With the exception of Sitorus, there was no attempt to analyze the forces in motion on a national or international scale. Sitorus utilizes a wide canvas, though his text runs only to sixty-six pages. Beginning with a chapter on the meaning and function of the study of history, he concentrates on the prewar nationalist movement, giving the viewpoint of the PKI; only in the last six pages does he discuss, and necessarily rush through, the Japanese occupation and the revolutionary period up to November 1948 (with no mention at all of the Madiun Affair).

      It was Tan Malaka’s role to articulate what I believe to be the first Indonesian Marxist view on the evolution of Indonesian society, up to and including the nationalist movement and its culmination in the physical struggle for independence. Of course, it must be stressed that Indonesian Marxists, Tan Malaka included, had commented on Indonesian history even before 1920 and that analyses of the nationalist movement had been made through the 1920s and 1930s. Tan Malaka’s own perspective on the early stages of the movement was articulated in great detail in Massa actie, written in 1926.

      In the late 1930s a Dutch historian (S. J. Rutgers) and a Russian historian (A. Guber) cooperated on publishing the first overall Marxist approach to Indonesian historiography. Entitled simply Indonesië, Volume I appeared in 1937 and Volume II some ten years later, at the same time that Tan Malaka was writing From Jail to Jail. Tan Malaka makes no reference to this work, and it is highly unlikely that he would have seen a copy, since it was suppressed in Indonesia by the colonial authorities.

      From Jail to Jail comprises in large part Tan Malaka’s observations on the course of human history. Some sections are viewed through the prism of his own experiences. Others are expressed as a retelling of historical events, such as the Philippine revolution and the Sejarah Melayu. Still other sections stand as discrete expositions of the theory of historical materialism, as in the introductory sections of Volume III. Tan Malaka presented his paradigm of historical materialism as follows:

      With Marx and Engels’ identification of the cause or condition for change in human society, the history of humanity changed from being the product of chance or destiny without cause or clear direction to one with an origin, a direction, a cause, and consequences. With this change, history was lifted from the world of mystery to that of reality, and society could now be studied intellectually. (Volume III, p. 32)

      Applying this tool of analysis to recent Indonesian history, Tan Malaka summarizes his position:

      1. Prior to the proclamation, the environment and society of Indonesia, through the intervention of Western society, technology, and modern organization, had established a sociopolitical, productive, and distributive system that could be termed a Dutch colonial capitalist society (thesis);

      2. Within the womb of Dutch imperialist society, views developed that conflicted with those of that colonial capitalist society. In essence, they were directed toward establishing a new society using all the instruments of technology and Western science for production, a society based on mutual assistance and distribution as well as freedom and equality among the human beings and nationalities of this world (antithesis); and

      3. With the proclamation of 17 August, the people and pemuda began to act to put into practice this view of establishing a new world and society on this, our part of the earth (synthesis). (Volume III, p. 43)

      It is clear from this schematic presentation that Tan Malaka took the view that “Indonesia” existed prior to the proclamation of independence. Indeed, he uses the concept “Indonesia” even when speaking of prehistoric days. On the other hand, however, he could say, “The true Indonesian nation

Скачать книгу