Only a Storm in a Coffeecup:
An Interview with Pramoedya Ananta Toer1
Translated by Alex G Bardsley
Q: When the G30S affair2 took place, what was your position?
P.A.T.: My position then was just as one of the common people of Indonesia. Yes there are those who denounce me as a member of LEKRA, 3 an organization for People's Art of the PKI. Back then, I had been made an honorary member of LEKRA, an organization for people's art.
Q: What parties do you think were involved in the G30S affair?
P.A.T.: Each fundamental change that takes place in Indonesia has always had its external factor. From the Srivijaya era, [through] Majapahit, Dutch colonialism, [the occupation by] Japan, and up to the present, each revolution is sure to have its x factor. So the G30S affair had an x factor too. Our people, compared with the other peoples on the Asian mainland, are very backward, to the point of becoming a plaything [permainan] (sorry for putting it like that). Because of this, historically, Indonesia became known only after becoming a route for the merchant traffic from China to India and back.
Q: What did the map of the conflict that took place at the time look like?
P.A.T.: Don't ask who was involved. The problem began in 1963 as Indonesia conducted its [campaign of] Confrontation with Malaysia. The origin of this lay in Indonesia's independence. In post-World War II history there were two nations that pioneered national independence. Those two nations were Vietnam, on August 15, 1945, and Indonesia, on August 17, 1945--so only two days apart. Because of these two nations, consequently Asia and Africa flared up, wanting to be free. This worried Britain, because Malaysia itself was seething at the time, and [the Malaysians] moreover were pro-Indonesia as their teacher for independence. Britain was anxious about its life-line [sic] from London to Australia, that they could not allow to be cut off by a conflagration on the Malay Peninsula. Hence they transformed Malaya by means of giving independence to Malaysia--and it is not surprising if Indonesia had sympathy for Malaya. Indonesia opposed the formation of British Malaysia because if it were permitted, British live-imperialism [sic]4 would trouble Indonesia.
But Confrontation was considered by the foreign press to be a tactic of Soekarno's to make people forget the country's internal difficulties. These difficulties took the form of a boycott of Indonesia by the Western nations, since during its history, the West has always exploited people of color. (This has gone on from the beginning of the Navigations through the present.) As Confrontation increasingly endangered Britain, hostilities took place between Britain, together with its ANZUS allies,5 and Indonesia, along the length of the border in North Kalimantan. Fighting was conducted on land, at sea, and by air.
The G30S constituted an extension of the Confrontation with Malaysia. It so happened that British interests with regard to Malaysia in the matter of live- imperialism coincided with the interests of the US, the reason being the global strategy of the US to transform other states into its markets. In the same way the US came into conflict with the communist countries, because they refused to be made into markets for its goods. So the G30S uprising did not constitute a question of ideology.
Q: Meaning it was the same [kind of] occurrence as the PRRI, Permesta affair?6
P.A.T.: Yes it was almost the same as the PRRI, Permesta affair. The US and Europe became strong by seizing the property of people of color. For two centuries Negroes in the US were sucked dry [dihisap]. During the voyage to the US as many as 10% of the Negroes were killed in the ships that were carrying them to the US mainland. The Dutch exploited our people like that too. And many Indonesians died as a result of the various systems practiced by the Dutch. Because of that they're rich now. So the other day when Indonesia was discussing foreign debt, I said that Indonesia has no foreign debt. Instead they are the ones who took Indonesia's riches. I once wrote about this back in 1956.
In 1965 as the US was at the end of its rope in Vietnam, it did not want Vietnam's influence to spread south, so the US cut off that influence at the southern end of Vietnam. Meanwhile Indonesia was preparing a volunteer force that was being trained to face Britain on the Malay Peninsula. The number of volunteers being trained amounted to 40,000 men. It was to snuff out Soekarno's plans that the G30S was arranged, aiming to extinguish Soekarno's efforts to oppose British imperialism, to topple Soekarno at the same time, and also to dissolve the PKI. That was the reason for the murder of the generals discovered at Lubang Buaya [Crocodile Hole]. Right away Soekarno, Aidit, Soeparjo, got together at Lubang Buaya, you know that's odd. So in this business there had to be someone arranging it so it was easy to arrest them. After that the foreign press announced that Soekarno was involved in the G30S affair. This year the documentary archives of the US that will prove that the US was involved in the G30S affair will be opened, but the British documents have not been disclosed yet. So, the G30S of the PKI is really a British and US question. The US was in it to cut off the communist influence from the south, and Britain to preserve the boundaries of its imperialism. The G30S was, in my opinion, an incident that was just made into something big.
Q: Meaning the military, in this case the Army, knew about it?
P.A.T.: I am not able to answer that because properly it is the archives that should answer. But I have a hypothesis, because from the start I have been a left- nationalist, and I experienced bitter times resulting from the behavior of my father who was also a left-nationalist, while others are included among the "true blue" ["bener"] like Nasution and Soeharto at that moment. I do not acquiesce [to this] because the conditions at that point were very bitter. What is important is that, in the question of the G30S, we not get to accusing the persons, but more importantly to "the why and the how" [sic]--like Untung, how could he manage to abduct Soekarno's generals. After all, those generals were loyal to Soekarno. Their being killed and Soekarno's being accused of being involved in the G30S means, right, that Soekarno staged a coup against Soekarno. What kind of logic is that? But till today it's still popular.
Q: How would you connect all this to the political constellation at this point, and with the issue of the succession in 1998?
P.A.T.: It will always be like that. The problem of succession ought not to be discussed now, it is a problem for the future and it is you all who will handle it. Don't follow the example of the people of the Soekarno era because they were not able to manage the conflicts they had. To the point that, to their deaths Soekarno, Hatta, Syahrir could not agree. Don't become the victims of conflict. Talking about the issue of the G30S reminds me: the Generation of '45, when resisting the Dutch, had weapons, while the younger generation today has nothing with which to face the militarism that nowadays is behind the multi-regional alliances and the US. It's different from the old days when [we] only faced the Dutch.
Q: So the issue of who was involved in G30S is not important till we answer "the why and the how."
P.A.T.: It's like this, all along the New Order has made up any old facts to support the current regime, so?
The G30S was not a rebellion but simply a coup. Only a storm in a coffeecup, because it was just an insignificant event--then it was discovered, then accusations surfaced. Like with Aidit who was accused of being the mastermind, why [was he] arrested and then killed, his explanation should have been checked first, why did he have to be killed? So the generals who were killed were generals who were loyal to Soekarno.
Q: What about the differences of opinion between the Army and Soekarno?
P.A.T.: That matter is rooted in the revolutionary period. During the revolution our political leaders saw that armed resistance could not possibly win the struggle... [text muddled...] against the Dutch, who were supported by the victor states of WWII. In that period, the army was already led by Nasution, a KNIL man.7 I don't think Nasution liked the masses being armed. Though actually the people had obtained their own weapons by attacking the Japanese. So during the revolution the army more often subjugated the armed populace than the Dutch. When the military were driven out of West Java and ran to Central Java and East Java, it was there, so they say, that they were victorious facing the red army of the PKI. Strange, isn't it, running from the Dutch in West Java, to mow down the people in Central and East Java. In fact, it was just a normal conflict. I admonish [berpesan] that we should manage conflict and not become victims of conflict. The ugly truth is, in Indonesia after you've been defeated, you're still demeaned for seven generations. I don't understand what kind of civilization that is.
Q: What is the historical interest of the New Order in the affair?
P.A.T.: Historically the New Order has profited from the affair. Even though publicly they revile the G30S, actually the New Order profited by it. They should be thankful, but because they are hypocrites, this is how it is.
Q: In political-economic matters?
P.A.T.: Well, they just knelt down to the big capitalists. At the time capital ruled the regional bosses, so they all gave in. It was people of color who in the end were the victims.
Q: What do you think caused the NEFO8 to fail?
P.A.T.: The NEFO failed because its time really had not yet come. That was because the white nations were still too strong, but Soekarno continued to push for the formation of the NEFO. The G30S took place according to plan, so all that would be affected and over with. But Soekarno was not so easy to overthrow. Finally Soeharto's creeping Coup managed to topple him. It was Soeharto you know who staged the coup. So he was the one who profited from it.
Harto was a KNIL man and a Mangkunegaran man as well. So was Nasution. When people were in trouble and being exiled he was comfortably taking his salary. I have the right to talk like this because I'm embittered about why for up to 14 years my freedom was taken, and [why I] was forced to labor for 10 years. I have the right to know and I'm trying to find out [the facts of] the matter.
Q: Do you think the publication of the book, Respect for Those Who Deserve It by Manai Sophian, provides enough information?
P.A.T.: For me of course not. But I'm glad that there is an Indonesian who dares to state [her?his?] opinion based on reliable material. That's already some sort of progress. Usually Indonesians do not dare because of the heavy consequences, prison or teror.9 But this is a brave gesture.
P.A.T.: So if the issue is the G30S, and the problem of Confrontation as the starting point is not addressed, for me it is ZERO. It's bunk. Because in the sequence [of events] there was an external factor that determined things.
Q: You mentioned before that the Army had a role in the affair?
P.A.T.: The Army actually has had a role since the time of the revolution. And conflict occurred between the military and the politicians.
Q: Did the Army make a profit from capital in regard to this, especially in connection to US capital that entered Indonesia?
P.A.T.: Well, only the top folk. I'm not accusing anyone, you know. You've been to Cibubur and seen the generals' homes, right? Extraordinary houses. How big are their salaries, eh? Just their fences could cost tens of millions [of rupiah]. I think with their salaries they couldn't even buy cars. By what they pay in taxes, you may see how much their salaries are.
Q: Here it is. One of the hypotheses says that one of the positive sides of the Army at the time was that all possible force was not used. So that, if they wanted, once the military had control there could have been a government by military junta.
P.A.T.: It wasn't like that. At the time Soekarno was strong, even a part of the armed forces was on his side, like the Air Force and the Navy.
Q: But wasn't it the Army that was strong then?
P.A.T.: Strong because they were on land, yes. You have to remember that Soekarno was the man who unified the peoples of Indonesia without spilling so much as a drop of blood, to form a nation-state. On that account he was stronger than the military. If he had struck at Soeharto's KNIL clique in the military, it is not impossible that disintegration would have occurred, because the frontier provinces would have stood on their own as states and would surely have been supported by the capitalist countries, and after that Indonesia would have broken apart like the Soviet Union today. And if it broke up Java could not survive. So if Java really wanted to survive it had to export two things, humans with hoes and humans with guns, so it exported killers. So the hypothesis of your professor is not completely true and doesn't fit the facts.
Q: How many became victims as a result of the G30S affair?
P.A.T.: That's it, the New Order government doesn't want, is not willing even to establish a commission. It was Soekarno who formed a fact-finding commission, to research the number of victims. But in the field, the military side always gave a uniform answer, responding so-and-so many and asking that the PKI be dissolved. But when the inhabitants were asked, the number could be 10 to 20 times greater.
Q: How many do you think?
P.A.T.: Hey, I don't really have the right to answer that.
Q: But according to Domo (Sudomo) it was about a million.
P.A.T.: That is the cost of establishing the New Order, and don't forget, to bring the nation and state of Indonesia into being Soekarno shed not a drop of blood.
Q: Is there a possibility it was more?
P.A.T.: I think it was more, since the killed continue [to be killed]. In '69, when I was about to be dispatched to Buru, I was put on Nusa Kambangan, in one of the jails called Karang Tengah. There I had the chance to read a signboard: complement, 500 odd men, 200 odd dead. That's half. It was written down, I read it. Later on Buru, how many of my friends were killed there? Fortunately I took notes, but only up to '78. By '79 I didn't take notes any longer. Still they continued to be killed, and not just in prison, there were many killed outside of prison. In East Timor, one third of the inhabitants have been killed. What kind of nation...?
Q:...That's a fact?
P.A.T.: Yes it's a fact! If you don't believe it, take a census. In Aceh, the governor himself has said, "the number of inhabitants has declined." That is the governor of Aceh himself. Sadly I didn't clip it.
Q: What about Litsus?10
P.A.T.: What? For security? Whose security, really? I don't know, I still don't feel secure today. Wherever I am I feel wary. What's more, they say "endangering the state." Those accusations. The state you know has its elements: people, territory, government. Which is it? It's just crap, people [saying] the state is endangered in all kinds of ways. Latent communism. Maybe for the people who get killed it is the ones in power who are dangerous. In Buru, how many times was I beaten up by the military? And by military whose age was about that of my umpteenth child.
(The book Prahara Budaya [The Cultural Tempest] which was recently published, reheated the discussion between the two poles of the Cultural Manifesto and the Institute for People's Art (LEKRA). The book is considered a monumental "straightener of history." Sadly the discussion welcoming the publication of the book has not personally involved Pram, who has a direct interest in it. He has not in fact been given the opportunity to deliver a defense through the dialogues [taking place] in a number of forums. Pram tells a bit about his "intellectual dispute" with the Cultural Manifesto):
P.A.T.: When I was arrested, the NU11 paper, Duta Masyarakat accused me of stealing books from the National Museum. Up to today, "communist," "PKI member," all kinds of names. On what evidence? And I can't defend myself. The problem is that during the Old Order period there was a polemic with the Manikebu group, who were sponsored by the military. The charge is I banned their books, they were "terrorized." We all had the same weapon you know, the pen. What "terror"? Didn't we all have pens? No answer back then. Even now the accusations, ever more vulgar, don't deserve a response. The latest was in Republika. Written by several types (2 years ago). I tried to respond but it wasn't published, even though I went there myself. Because of that when Balairung published an interview with me, I was stunned. What, did they dare?
Q: How about the role of the military?
P.A.T.: Of course it's arranged like in Latin America. (Q: --Like in Chile?) It's the same wherever. With the military in power there isn't any democracy, so the people and natural resources can be more easily exploited by the United States. Just recently, there was something written about: "Why couldn't Kennedy come to Indonesia?" To keep him from coming to Indonesia, he was killed. The CIA at the time was headed by Allan Dulles who was fired by Kennedy. Allan Dulles had connections to the wife of the Dutch prime minister, who [together] were the king and queen of oil. And Kennedy was a friend of Soekarno's. He wanted to come to Indonesia, to talk with Soekarno about the possibility of working together to explore for oil in Irian Jaya. Irian's oil is the best in the world. So to prevent his cooperating with Soekarno, he was killed. So there was an intrigue between Allan Dulles and the Dutch prime minister.
Q: If you think that capitalism is not the ideal, what's the alternative?
P.A.T.: Nowadays what is valuable, capital or humanity? Pick one. The point is that as long as humanity is valued, humans have to have a place in the world. There are some who say that's socialism, communism, social democracy. People can say what they want, what is important is that humans have to have a place.
Q: Any advice for our friends in Jogja?
P.A.T.: In this life of ours, there is only one thing we have, and that is courage. If we do not have that, then what good is this life of ours?
_______________________________
1. Interviewed by Amalinda, in Sintesa: "Indonesia (c)Emas," no.10, VIII, 1995. My thanks to Ben Abel for showing this to me.
2. Gerakan 30 September, the so-called September 30th Movement, (1965).
3. Lembaga Kebudayaan Rakyat, the People's Cultural Association. Not kesenian (art), but I suspect Pram's "error" is intentional.
4. The term seems to suggest an imperialism that is not "neo-," because the old imperialism never passed away.
5. Australia, New Zealand, and the US.
6. Pemerintah Revolusioner Republik Indonesia, Perjuangan Semesta: Revolutionary Government of the Republic of Indonesia, Total Struggle (late 1950s).
7. Koninklijk Nederlansch-Indisch Leger: Royal Netherlands-Indies Army.
8. The Newly Emerging Forces.
9. Terrorizing harrassment.
10. Penelitian khusus: Special investigation (or "special attention").
11. Nahdlatul Ulama: Association of Islamic Scholars.
Translation ©1996 Alex G Bardsley