Be Careful with History Politics
History gets noisy. Or historical accounts create noise among people. Commotion on this matter tends to escalate quickly because it is related to political power, ministries/agencies, and government bureaucracy.
/https%3A%2F%2Fkompas.id%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F09%2Fkompas_tark_26493041_53_1_1538021282.jpeg){kind=logo}
Azyumardi Azra
”When the past speaks it always speaks as an oracle; only if you are an architect of the future and know the present will you understand it” (Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Advantage and Disadvantage of History for Life, 1874).
History gets noisy. Or historical accounts create noise among people. Commotion on this matter tends to escalate quickly because it is related to political power, ministries/agencies, and government bureaucracy. The public views the source of the problem as the government\'s "history politics" by presenting a problematic "history".
There is almost always a contestation between the "official history" issued by state institutions or government officials that contain political motives and political ideology from the ruling regime or its cronies. When the ruling regime is very strong, such as during the New Order era, the public has no room to challenge the official history. President Soeharto was steadfastly firm with the history politics of elevating the status quo of power and ideologies such as Janur Kuning or "General Offensive of March 1".
Also read:
^ The Great Strides of Indonesia
However, now in the era of freedom – even though it is often seen as in the decline in recent times -- the public can shout their opposition and condemnation of the "official history" issued by the Education and Culture Ministry. Due to massive opposition through a number of media, this government institution was unable to impose the "official history". On the other hand, top officials hastened to declare that they would revise it; and would also lobby the angry religious elite.It should be, as emphasized about a century and a half ago by philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, which is quoted above, (presumably) when the past (history) speaks, it should always be allowed to speak like an oracle. History is an oracle, a wise person who becomes a wasilah (intermediary) toward virtue.
They utilize history researchers or people who claim or are claimed to be “historians” or those with history education to create historical fallacies.
However, rulers do not always allow history to become an oracle. This is not a mistake of history in itself. History can lose its wisdom when the rulers deliberately or negligently make mistakes or fallacies in the narrative of history. They utilize history researchers or people who claim or are claimed to be "historians" or those with history education to create historical fallacies.
Therefore, as Nietzsche emphasized, only if "you are the architect of the future and know the present, can you understand history as an oracle." He continued, only under those circumstances, you do not fall into "history writing error" and political commotion due to making "official history" that is not necessary.
Photo prints from Indonesia\'s historical archives from 1900-1942 were hung in the Jakarta National Archives Building, in a series of photo & graphic exhibitions "History of Indonesia Moves 1900-1942 (Revamped) Saturday (12/12/2020). This exhibition displays archival photos. which is owned by the KITLV (Royal Netherlands Institute of South Asian and Caribbean Studies) which tells of the progress of the Indonesian people during the national movement until before independence.
Complaints about history in the public domain of the country are now related to the two books whose writing and publication are sponsored by the Education and Culture Ministry. First, Indonesian History Dictionary: Volume I Nation Formation 1900-1950 (Directorate General of Culture, 2017) and second, Indonesian History Dictionary: Volume II Nation Building 1951-1998 (Directorate General of Culture: 2017).
Before talking about the issue of methodology and substance, it is not appropriate for the Education and Culture Ministry to give the title of the book in a “higgledy-piggledy” way: between the main title in Indonesian and English subtitles. There are no important and sensible reason to use English sub-titles. Are the sub-titles "Pembentukan Bangsa" (Volume I) and "Pembangunan Bangsa" less cool?
This is contradictory. The Education and Culture Ministry has a Language Development and Improvement Agency (Indonesian and local languages). The Education and Culture Ministry is better and more productive in arranging this language problem than implementing a noisy history politics.
Also read : Spreading “Virus” of Reading
What is the motivation for writing the books? With a good feeling, the writing of the two volumes seems to have been based on the desire to briefly present important figures in the history of Indonesia from the time of the nation\'s formation to the era of contemporary development. The figures related to this subject, which are published, consist of Indonesian figures as well as Dutch people during the colonial period.
There are also a limited number of terms or nomenclatures related to government bureaucracy; social, cultural and religious institutions; names of the organization or community groups; religious organizations and religious terms. There are also events that the writing team sees as important history events.
The criteria and parameters for selecting figures, terms, institutions or mass organizations to be included in this "dictionary" are unclear. There must be a methodology which, for example, includes objective criteria and measures that can be justified by the methodology of historical science and the substance of its historical value or significance.
The absence of a methodology causes the selection of entries to appear “as reminiscent of” the writers or editors. Many important figures of the nation, especially ulema and movement figures from NU (Nahdlatul Ulama), Muhammadiyah, HMI (Association of Islamic Students), and other mass organizations were not included. If the dictionary wants to explain "nation formation" and "nation building", those who enter must be freedom fighters of the nation; not colonial Dutch officials.
Illustration. History Books
On the contrary there are controversial names coming in. They include "left" (terroristic communists) and "right" (terroristic religious extremists) figures who violently betrayed the "nation formation" and "nation building". Likewise in the selection of nomenclatures, institutions, events with unclear criteria. Many important entities that played a significant role in the "nation formation" and "nation building" have been neglected.
Therefore, these two dictionaries have to be totally revised. The revision should not be simply patchy by adding important figures who had not yet entered. Or just exclude those who were too controversial as perpetrators of movements and actions against NKRI (Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia), Pancasila, UUD 1945 and Bhinneka Tunggal Ika.
Entry writers must be those who have historical education (historian by training), history enthusiasts, or writers who have written historical works. It should be avoided in determining entries and writing, the involvement of government officials and people who are not historians or do not work in writing history. It must be avoided the involvement of people in the writing team because of political considerations.
Also read: Missing the Reading Movement
The writing of a dictionary of Indonesian history should be classified into: first, a dictionary of biographical figures; second, the dictionary of institutions; third, a dictionary of events; and fourth, the dictionary of nomenclatures.
The biographical dictionary tradition was absent in the historiography of pre-colonial, colonial era, and Indonesian independence. Only in the last few years has the history of ulema of the Archipelago since the 16-17 century AD begun to appear.
Comparing the format of the biographical dictionary (English and Arabic) with the Indonesian History Dictionary volumes I and II, the biographies of figures in these two books is very weak methodologically and substantially. Most biographies do not contain basic data on the figures, such as years of birth and death, or education as is commonly found in the biographical dictionary genre or tarajim in other regions.
AZYUMARDI AZRA, History professor, Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University (UIN) Jakarta; Member of the Cultural Commission, the Indonesian Academy of Sciences (AIPI).
This article was translated by Hyginus Hardoyo.
