A
ban that never was: Beyond the headlines
Ariel Heryanto ; A professor at the School of Culture,
History and Language at The Australian National University, Canberra;
Author of Identity and Pleasure: The Politics of
Indonesian Screen Culture (2014)
|
JAKARTA
POST, 10 November 2015
Challenges to the New
Order’s official lies and propaganda surrounding the 1965 political turmoil
and the subsequent killings of approximately 1 million citizens have a long
history, dating back decades before the downfall of the New Order government
in 1998.
These
counter-narratives have taken on a wide range of forms, including artistic
works of various media and materials.
Therefore, it is
inaccurate and unfair to suggest — as some do — that certain films or novels
in the recent past have broken the silence on the taboo of the 1965 killings.
Such claims can spread widely across the globe, when presented in English, to
audiences with little or no knowledge of Indonesia.
The progress of
efforts, often greatly difficult, made by many Indonesian and non-Indonesian
people, to unearth and expose this forbidden topic may feel slow for some.
However, achievements have been substantial and the desire to seek some kind
of response, including a state apology to the victims, reconciliation,
retribution or rehabilitation, persists.
One of the latest and
most significant achievements in these efforts is the upcoming International
People’s Tribunal on Indonesia 1965, in The Hague, the Netherlands, on Nov.
10-13. Regardless of the actual outcome and the future impacts of the
tribunal, the fact that such an event can take place at all is extraordinary.
It marks a new watershed and represents a most important step toward
redressing the serious crime that took place half a century ago.
The Netherlands also
hosted what appears to be the largest and most comprehensive among the many
conferences in 2015 dedicated to commemorating the 50th anniversary of the
1965 killings.
Held in Amsterdam, the
two-day conference (Oct. 1-2) discussed new findings, insights and questions about
the past killings, with a global comparative perspective and with a keen eye
on the meaning of the past violence in the present day.
Sponsored by leading
institutions — Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies (NIOD),
Royal Netherlands Institute of Southeast Asian and Caribbean Studies (KITLV)
and the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) — the conference
featured a good combination of very senior and leading experts in the field
of study as well as some of the best among the brightest younger generation
scholars.
There was also a good
balance of Indonesians and non-Indonesians. It was the most productive and
inspiring gathering on the topic I have seen in decades.
If there is anything
to be mildly regretted about the conference and the tribunal, it would be the
fact that all these important events did not take place in Indonesia and it
did not operate in Indonesian.
After all, the issue
matters first and foremost to the millions of Indonesian people. Under the
ideal circumstances, Indonesians residing in Indonesia would enjoy the
greatest space in most, if not all, engagements on the issue.
The reasons why the
ideal is not the reality should be obvious to us all. Resistance to open and
critical discussion in Indonesia, in 2015, remains strong among members of
the ruling elite and some social groups.
Apparently, for the
same reasons (distance, language and resistance), the tribunal in The Hague
has not received as much coverage as it deserves in the Indonesian media,
while the conference in Amsterdam barely got any mention at all.
Ironically, one recent
gathering that has generated a flurry of media campaigns and controversy is
the Ubud Writers and Readers Festival (UWRF 2015). It is ironic, because the
festival was never meant to be a forum for primarily discussing the 1965
killings. But the irony does not stop here.
The rest of this note
will take a closer look at the case, as it throws some light on how the
discourse of 1965 could have its unexpected twists and turns. Things are not
always what they may appear to distant observers.
UWRF 2015 took place
in an Indonesian town. However, being an international event, English was the
language of the festival. Key speakers, participants, programs, topics of
discussions and any potential impact arising from the whole event were never
intended to be primarily for, or exclusively about, Indonesia.
This year’s UWRF enjoyed
generous coverage in English mainstream media, especially in Australia, and
on social media, for weeks and in two rounds.
First, before it
opened on Oct. 28, there was a flurry of international outrage and
condemnation directed against the Indonesian government and the Balinese
local authorities. It followed the organizers’ cancelations of a few items in
the program that dealt with 1965 violence and land reclamation in Bali.
The decision was made,
subsequent to, and in line with, verbal intimidation from local police who
demanded that the festival refrained from discussing “politics”, and stay
focused on “culture”.
No official ban was
issued. When confronted with international pressure, the local police denied
any responsibility for the cancelations. Notwithstanding this, “ban” and
“censorship” have been used liberally in the titles of most media reports.
Not long after being
relieved of the police threat, the UWRF faced a burst of criticism from local
observers, activists and those whose panels had been canceled at the last
minute. To many of the latter, the UWRF was too meek when threatened by the
local police.
Second, soon after the
festival was over, there was another series of media coverage and another
irony. This time, instead of outrage and condemnation, we read jubilation and
self-congratulatory notes from the festival’s key participants.
As if to disapprove
the criticism from local activists, central to their main message was that
various panels in fact discussed the sensitive topic of 1965 and the
environment.
There were no
disruptions or retaliation from the police. The heroic stories of “defiance”
demonstrate not a triumph over a ban, but that there was never a ban in the
first place.
Plenty of significant
deliberations on the 1965 violence have been taking place across the
archipelago, occasionally with real, or the threat of, violence and
disruptions.
Most of these stories
are accessible only to those who speak Indonesian or one of the nation’s
ethnic languages. They remain outside the world’s radar, until someone tells
the world, in English, in compelling ways. ●
|
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar