Indonesia is Us
“We Indonesian People hereby declare Indonesia\'s independence.” (Jakarta 17-8-’45, Representatives of the Indonesian People).
To the outer world, proclamation celebrated the fact of being “we” (kekamian), Indonesia, as a nation. We were against the foreign colonialist powers. We were independence fighters, ordinary traders, the educated and housewives, from various ethnicities and religions.
Inside, the proclamation also celebrated the fact of being “us” (kekitaan) as a united nation. To the outer world, we became us the Indonesian nation. Inside, we formed us as Indonesia, regardless of ethnicity, religion or social identity.
For nearly a century, the awareness of being Indonesian was divided by citizenship politics of the Dutch colonial government. The residents of the Dutch East Indies were divided by law into three groups: Europe (including Japan), inlander (indigenous people) and Foreign Eastern (including Arabs, India, Pakistan and China). Not all people held the same position.
With the proclamation, we turned down being divided according to ethnicities, religions, social strata and ideological political affiliations. It was enough that the politics of division weakened Indonesia and allowed for it to be colonized for a long time. The boundaries damaged nationhood, which is otherwise celebrated inclusively.
Evolution of awareness of the nation
In the second half of the 19th century, there was a shift of “newspaper domination” in the Dutch East Indies. If previously it was controlled by Western people, at that time the Chinese started to influence the industry. In 1910, Sin Po was born, a Malay newspaper belonging to the Chinese in Jakarta. It was the first newspaper that published the text of the national anthem “Indonesia Raya”, complete with its musical notation, written by WR Supratman, two weeks after the Youth Pledge. It was spread across Indonesia.
This newspaper promoted the use of the word Indonesia, instead of the Dutch East Indies. Deliberately, the use of the word inlander was not used in the newspaper because it denigrated the Indonesian people as the lowest social strata in the archipelago.
Journalist Liem Koen Hian, who founded the Indonesian Chinese Party in Surabaya, in his political speech (1929) criticized the so-called superiority of Chinese blood. “It can be said that there is nearly no nation that has pure blood,” said Liem, who was also a politician. In a different speech (1932), Liem expressed his thoughts about the term indonesier (Indonesian people). “If a half blood, no matter where they come from, feels and thinks like an indigenous indonesier and is willing to carry out responsibilities to the nation he loves as his motherland, he can refer to himself as an indonesier.”Journalist Liem Koen Hian, who founded the
Indonesian Chinese Party in Surabaya, in his political speech (1929) criticized the so-called superiority of Chinese blood.
In 1944, after the large-scale defeat of the Japanese military by the Allied troops, the Japanese rulers hoped for the support of the Indonesian people in further war. The Indonesian people were expected to be ready to fight against the Allied troops if they attacked Indonesia to defeat the Japanese. As compensation for support and if Japan won in the Great East Asia War, Indonesia was promised independence.
On March 1945, on the birthday of the Japanese Emperor, the Investigating Committee for Preparatory Work for Indonesian Independence (BPUPKI) was formed. The task of the committee was to study and prepare to establish a free Indonesian state. The number of members of the committee founded by the colonial rulers was 62 people, including four Chinese: Liem Koen Hian, Oey Tiang Tjoei (journalist), Tan Eng Hoa (legal graduate) and Oey Tjong Hauw (chairman of the Chinese descendant party, son of sugar conglomerate).
As part of his magister thesis (1967), Fuad Hassan, an Indonesian scholar, discussed “we” and “us” as the two key words of the collective togetherness mode in general. Being we (kekamian) is an exclusive collectivity, while being us (kekitaan) is an inclusive collectivity. At that point, there appeared existential tension between kekamian and kekitaan.
The pronominal distinction was not usual in both the ancient and modern languages. However, it did not mean that other nations did not realize the distinction conceptually. Each person in the mode of togetherness experiences existential tension. The best solution is not either-or, because without “us” there will not be “we.” Being kekitaan does not mean the fusion of the identity of being kekamian. Kekamian has to be the framework of kekitaan.
Revision of the awareness of the nation
When it was published in 1975, the textbook of the Indonesian National History (6 volumes) compiled by Et al, the chairman of the Armed Forces (ABRI) History Center, mentioned that, among BPUPKI members, there were “4 people of Chinese descent and an Arab group and a man of the Dutch offspring group” (VI.17). Two figures being mentioned as part of the latter groups were AR Baswedan and PF Dahler.
In the fourth edition of the book (1984), published when Notosusanto was the Education Minister, the phrase “people of the Chinese group” was completely missing and as its replacement was the phrase “people of the Arab group and the Dutch offspring group.” Indonesian history textbooks were later revised, with the missing phrase never again mentioned.
The politics of being indigenous denies the long history of the evolution of the awareness of the nation.
However, Indonesian continued to move on. The evolution of the awareness of the nation is seen in the amendment of the 1945 Constitution, which omits the phrase “indigenous Indonesian person” as a required title for the Indonesian president. The amendment is based on the awareness of modern nationalism, which is based on the anthropological fact that there is no one who can claim to be an indigenous Indonesian person. The Indonesian person, Liem said, is about having a strong feeling of being part of the nation; someone who is able to “feel and think” like an Indonesian person.
From the strong feeling of being an Indonesian person, there appears the love of the Motherland. For anything we love, it is impossible for us to damage it, bad-mouth it or be indifferent. By loving the Motherland, we will strive for something good for our nation. State administrators (statesmen) who love their Motherland will not corrupt the state money. Politicians who love their Motherland will not bring into it inner conflicts in the community.
Since the beginning of modern Indonesian history, Indonesian nationalism has been inclusive in nature. The Indonesian nation today is the continuation of such inclusive nationalism. The politics of being indigenous denies the long history of the evolution of the awareness of the nation. The term inlander was used by the Dutch colonial rulers to denigrate the Indonesian people.
Since the beginning of modern Indonesian history, Indonesian nationalism has been inclusive.Indonesia today is the continuation of inclusive nationalism. The politics of being native (pribumisasi) denies the long history of evolution of the awareness of the nation. The term inlander was used by the Dutch colonial rulers to degrade the Indonesian people. How could it be used as a term for tribal superiority?
Nations that had been colonized and did not become advanced are done with the primordial identity conflict. The back doors of the nation have been tightly closed to encourage the revival of the primordial conflict. The nations that have not and are finding it difficult to go forward are those who celebrate the state of being (kekamian) with revisionism of the awareness of the nation.
Proclamation, which is celebrated every year, optimizes the welfare of the free nation. Without the mode of being us (kekitaan) without limits, Indonesia Incorporated will only be a dream. Our enemy is not the same children of the nation, but political corruption, and short-sighted thought that hinder the nation’s efforts to move forward.
YONKY KARMAN
Lecturer of School of Philosophy Theology, Jakarta