Tan Malaka deserves credit Donny Syofyan  ;    A lecturer in the School of Cultural Sciences at Andalas University

JAKARTA POST,  20 Februari 2014

                                                                                                                      

                                                                                         

                                                                                                                       

While we are happy knowing that remains of controversial leftist figure Tan Malaka were eventually found, bad news was not far behind. A book discussion on Tan, the philosopher and former exile, by renowned Dutch historian Harry A. Poeze was banned by Surabaya Police and the Islam Defenders Front (FPI). With the branding of Tan as a member of the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI), the discussion group was accused of being members of the now-defunct party in the East Java capital. It is no exaggeration to say that the ban clearly shows the decline of dialogue when it comes to handling dissenting opinions. As soon as dialogue stalls, the truth seeking process also comes to an end. Tan remains misunderstood due to his communist association. His speech at the Fourth Congress of the Communist International on Nov. 12, 1922 — “Communism and Pan-Islamism” — on the one hand displayed no rejection to Islam and explained his understanding of Pan-Islamism and its shifting role historically on the other. He wrote the piece before there was CIA with its Congress for Cultural Freedom tactic.  The dialogical approach is instrumental in prompting both the FPI and organizing committee of the book discussion to show respect for Tan’s persona, which is now gaining momentum following the excavation of remains believed to be those of the controversial figure. The absence of dialogue would only perpetuate Tan’s image of being an insurrectionist, whereas in fact he was also the country’s founding and revolutionary father along with Sukarno, Mohammad Hatta and Sutan Sjahrir.  Many misunderstood the tension between Tan and Sukarno-Hatta to be bound to the idea of communism. Whereas the friction was linked to Tan’s opposition to Sukarno’s negotiations with the colonizer regarding independence.  Thus, it is deceptive to claim that their discord was ideological by nature since distinct fighting strategies lent more color to their disagreement. The FPI would be better off rethinking its opinion of Tan’s contribution to this country. It can be done through adopting Buya Hamka’s notion of Tan, putting him alongside Muslim leaders — together with Sukarno, Hatta and HOS Tjokroaminoto.  Despite Tan’s involvement in the international communist movement, Hamka argued that he would not be easily be split from his Minang background as he grasped Islam, the Koran and surau (mosque) simultaneously. In addition, Tan is a victim of uncritical historical interpretation. Soeharto’s New Order regime has persistently demonized Tan for his leftist and radical thoughts; striking his name from the pages of history while he was in power.  Sukarno, while president, named Tan a national hero in 1963. The government preferred to name streets after Tan rather than activating biographical studies involving historians.  In a nutshell, the New Order propaganda categorized Tan as a “monolithic person” rather than a complex national character. It is very likely that the FPI’s debacle of fathoming Tan in a proportional manner cannot be separated from the Wahhabism school of thought which has tended to ignore the importance of looking up to historical heroes and sites.  The decision by Saudi Arabia to demolish key Islamic heritage sites, including Prophet Mohammed’s shrine, indicates that Wahhabism really pays much less attention to the history.  It is probable that some universities in Saudi Arabia do not have history departments with the main purpose of securing and preserving countless Islamic rites in Mecca and Medina. If any, where are Saudi Arabian historians’ voices against the kingdom’s decision to bulldoze the Prophet’s tomb? Despite the hullabaloo, the FPI should have high regard for Tan as a national hero by reading, criticizing and appreciating his thoughts and works. Letting any group of people discuss Tan’s books and ideas is intended to explore the controversial figure as he was.  His admirable personality would be an endless source of inspiration that class struggle, which is the very seed of communism, would end in an ironic manner.  Above all, banning of the book discussion will further put the idea of progress and democratic freedom on a corner because it blocks any research into Indonesia’s past that may correct the Soeharto-style brainwashing of the last decades. ●