R.A .Kartini : Leter of Javanese Prince

From : Teacher

Father sent not to the government on the subyect of education. You must know that many of the ative rules rejoice at the actions of the government. The Javanese noble are in the favour of the government here and in the motherland , and everything possible is done to help them, and to make blossom to perfection.

The aristocracy sees with sad eyes how sons of the people are educated , and often even elevated to their ranks by the government because of knowledge , ability , and industry , Sons of the people go to European schools and honourable sons of the nobles. The nobles wish to have right for themselves alone , they alone wish to have authority and to make western civilization and enlightenment their own. And the government helps and support them in this . for it is to own advantage to do so.

As early as 1895 there was a decree that without the special permission of His Exellency the Governor – General no native child ( From six seven years learn Dutch would be admitted to the free grammar school for Europeans. How can a native child of six or seven years learn Dutch? He would have had to have a Dutch governess. Be for he is able to learn the Netherlands language , the child must first know his own language , and necessarily know how to read and write . it is only regents who do not have to ask permission for their families to go the European school ; most of the native officials are afraid of receiving a “ No” in answer to their request and therefore do nothing …..I remember well from my own school who knew as little Ducth as I , and I hardly knew any.

Father says ini his note that the government cannot set the rice upon the table for every Javanese , and see that he partakes of it. But it can give him the means by which he can reach the place where he can find food. That means is education. When the government provides a means of education for the people. It is as though it placed torches in their hands which enabled them to find the good road that leads to the place where the rice is served.

Father is very proud of his ancient noble race . but right is right an djustice is justice. We wish to equal the Eruropeans in education and enlightmnet . and the rights we demand for ourselves , we must also give to others. This putting of stumbling – blocks in the way of Tsar. Who while he is preaching peace to the world, tramples under – foot the good right of his own subjects. Measure with two measure. No ! The Europeans are troubled by many traits in the Javanese. By their indifference and lack of initiative. Very well , Netherlander , if you are troubled so much by these things why do you not do something to remedy the cause ? Why is that you not do something else besides an inclination for mischief.wich srings principally form stupidity and ignorance …..Here before you lie the innermost thoughts of one who belongs to that despised brown race . they are not able to judge us , and the things we do and leave undone.

Do they know us ? No, even as little as we know them ….

The Hollanders laugh and make fun of our stupidity , but if we strive for enlightenment , then they assume a defiant attitude to wards us . what have I not suffered as a child at school through the ill will of the teacher and of many of my fellow pupils? Not all of the teacher pupils hated us. Many loved us quite as much asa the other children. But it was hard for the teacher to give a native the highest mark , never mind how well it may have been deserved.

I shall relate to you the history of a gifted and educated Javanese. The boy had passed his examination and was number one in one of the three principal high school of java . both at Semarang, where he went to school , and at Batavia. Where the took his examinations , the doors of the best houses were open to the amiable schoolboy , whith his agreeable and cultivated manners and great modesty.

Everyone spoke Ducth to him, and he could express , himself in that language with distinction. Fress from this environment he went back to house of his parents. He thought it would he proper to pay his respect to the authorities of the place and he found himself in the presence of the Resident who had heard of him , and here it was that my friend make a mistake . He dared to address the great man in Dutch.

The following morning notice of an appointment as clerk to a controleur in the montains was sent to him . there the young man must remain to think over his “ misdeeds” and forget all that the learned at the schools. After some years a new controleur or possibly assistant controleur came : then the measure of his misfortunes was made to overflow. The new chief was a former schoolfellow , one who had never shone though his abilities. The young man , who had led his classes in everything, must now creep upon the ground before the one- time dunce , and speak always high Javanese to him , while he himself was answered in bad Malay. Can you understand the misery of a proud and independent spirit so humled ? And how much strength of character it must have taken to endure that petty and annoying oppression ?

But at last he could not stand it any longer he betook himself to Batavia and asked His Excellency the Governor _ General for an audience . it was granted to him. The result was that he was seat to Preanger . with a commission to make a study of the fice cultivation there. He made himself of service through the translation of a pamphlet on the cultivation of irrigated crops from Dutch to Javanese and Sundanese. The government presented him in school at Batavia. A teacher’s place was vacant ---- a teacher of the Javanese language be it understood ----- and his friends among the Javanese) did all in their power the secure this position for him. But without result . It was an absurd idea for a native to have European pupils who later might become ruling government officials , perish the thought! I should like to ask who could teach Javanese beterthan a born Javanese?

R.A .Kartini : Leter of Javanese Prince

From : Teacher

Father sent not to the government on the subyect of education. You must know that many of the ative rules rejoice at the actions of the government. The Javanese noble are in the favour of the government here and in the motherland , and everything possible is done to help them, and to make blossom to perfection.

The aristocracy sees with sad eyes how sons of the people are educated , and often even elevated to their ranks by the government because of knowledge , ability , and industry , Sons of the people go to European schools and honourable sons of the nobles. The nobles wish to have right for themselves alone , they alone wish to have authority and to make western civilization and enlightenment their own. And the government helps and support them in this . for it is to own advantage to do so.

As early as 1895 there was a decree that without the special permission of His Exellency the Governor – General no native child ( From six seven years learn Dutch would be admitted to the free grammar school for Europeans. How can a native child of six or seven years learn Dutch? He would have had to have a Dutch governess. Be for he is able to learn the Netherlands language , the child must first know his own language , and necessarily know how to read and write . it is only regents who do not have to ask permission for their families to go the European school ; most of the native officials are afraid of receiving a “ No” in answer to their request and therefore do nothing …..I remember well from my own school who knew as little Ducth as I , and I hardly knew any.

Father says ini his note that the government cannot set the rice upon the table for every Javanese , and see that he partakes of it. But it can give him the means by which he can reach the place where he can find food. That means is education. When the government provides a means of education for the people. It is as though it placed torches in their hands which enabled them to find the good road that leads to the place where the rice is served.

Father is very proud of his ancient noble race . but right is right an djustice is justice. We wish to equal the Eruropeans in education and enlightmnet . and the rights we demand for ourselves , we must also give to others. This putting of stumbling – blocks in the way of Tsar. Who while he is preaching peace to the world, tramples under – foot the good right of his own subjects. Measure with two measure. No ! The Europeans are troubled by many traits in the Javanese. By their indifference and lack of initiative. Very well , Netherlander , if you are troubled so much by these things why do you not do something to remedy the cause ? Why is that you not do something else besides an inclination for mischief.wich srings principally form stupidity and ignorance …..Here before you lie the innermost thoughts of one who belongs to that despised brown race . they are not able to judge us , and the things we do and leave undone.

Do they know us ? No, even as little as we know them ….

The Hollanders laugh and make fun of our stupidity , but if we strive for enlightenment , then they assume a defiant attitude to wards us . what have I not suffered as a child at school through the ill will of the teacher and of many of my fellow pupils? Not all of the teacher pupils hated us. Many loved us quite as much asa the other children. But it was hard for the teacher to give a native the highest mark , never mind how well it may have been deserved.

I shall relate to you the history of a gifted and educated Javanese. The boy had passed his examination and was number one in one of the three principal high school of java . both at Semarang, where he went to school , and at Batavia. Where the took his examinations , the doors of the best houses were open to the amiable schoolboy , whith his agreeable and cultivated manners and great modesty.

Everyone spoke Ducth to him, and he could express , himself in that language with distinction. Fress from this environment he went back to house of his parents. He thought it would he proper to pay his respect to the authorities of the place and he found himself in the presence of the Resident who had heard of him , and here it was that my friend make a mistake . He dared to address the great man in Dutch.

The following morning notice of an appointment as clerk to a controleur in the montains was sent to him . there the young man must remain to think over his “ misdeeds” and forget all that the learned at the schools. After some years a new controleur or possibly assistant controleur came : then the measure of his misfortunes was made to overflow. The new chief was a former schoolfellow , one who had never shone though his abilities. The young man , who had led his classes in everything, must now creep upon the ground before the one- time dunce , and speak always high Javanese to him , while he himself was answered in bad Malay. Can you understand the misery of a proud and independent spirit so humled ? And how much strength of character it must have taken to endure that petty and annoying oppression ?

But at last he could not stand it any longer he betook himself to Batavia and asked His Excellency the Governor _ General for an audience . it was granted to him. The result was that he was seat to Preanger . with a commission to make a study of the fice cultivation there. He made himself of service through the translation of a pamphlet on the cultivation of irrigated crops from Dutch to Javanese and Sundanese. The government presented him in school at Batavia. A teacher’s place was vacant ---- a teacher of the Javanese language be it understood ----- and his friends among the Javanese) did all in their power the secure this position for him. But without result . It was an absurd idea for a native to have European pupils who later might become ruling government officials , perish the thought! I should like to ask who could teach Javanese beterthan a born Javanese?

Sukarno, A Political Biography by J. D. Legge: nationalism revisited.

I don't read a lot of history, contemporary or otherwise, and when I do, it is usually in the area of political economy. In recent years, for instance, I have delighted at the scholarship and intellect of Eric Hobsbawm. But what always strikes me about history is how perfect our vision can be from the distance of time. Not so if you are closer, and so I can forgive J. D. Legge my single criticism of his book, Sukarno - A Political Biography, which is its lack of overview. Legge published the book in 1972 and so did not have the luxury of 35 years of clarifying hindsight that we have today.

J. D. Legge's biography charts the life and career of Sukarno in intricate detail. Particularly strong are the descriptions of the internal machinations and wheeler dealing amongst the Indonesian political elite. Sukarno is presented as one of the major political figures of the twentieth century. If anyone should doubt this, then recall that the terms "Third World" and "Non-Aligned", terms that structured our thinking about the world for decades and perhaps still do, would probably not have existed if Sukarno had not promoted them. The former arose out of the 1955 Bandung conference, which Sukarno hosted, and the latter out of continued initiatives involving the Indonesian president. Furthermore Sukarno's significance for the century is also underlined by the fact that the aftermath of the coup that ousted him led to the murder of 250,000 people, while the president himself was allowed to live out his last years and die a natural death. Legge stops short of laying the ultimate responsibility for these deaths at Sukarno's door, and neither can he be certain about the president's relation to the coup. True, he lost power as a result, but he did not lose his life. He lost most of his dignity, but remained such an esteemed figure after 50 years in politics that he retained at least a figurehead status up to his death.A point that Legge underplays, however, is the relationship between the nationalism that formed the basis of Sukarno's politics and the pragmatism that sought inevitably loose alliances to both define and promote it. One such Sukarno initiative in particular, NASAKOM, may have been responsible ultimately for precipitating the coup and even causing the slaughter.

Sukarno was almost as old as the century, being born in June 1901 in East Java. Legge makes an interesting point about his parents, who met in Singharaja, Bali, while his father was a teacher there. The father was Javanese, a member of the aristocratic priyayi class, but his mother was Balinese and not even a Muslim. I have visited Bali and Singharaja and East Java and can fully appreciate the fundamental differences, both cultural and religious, between these places. And yet, from this mixed parentage there was born a figure who consistently espoused nationalism as a defining ideology. But from the start, and perhaps because of his background, it was a syncretic nationalism that tried to create unity by bridging difference.

Initially, of course, this nationalism was defined via opposition to Dutch colonial rule. It was a nationalism that brought the young Sukarno into conflict with the authorities, led to periods of imprisonment and exile. Nothing strange here. The twentieth century is full of such figures who struggled against externally-imposed colonial rule. In the Second World War, Sukarno, like Laurel in the Philippines, collaborated with the Japanese. But whereas to the north Laurel was eventually disgraced by the association, Sukarno found himself in 1945 the president of an independent Indonesia. And here, perhaps is where the nationalist ideology became, out of necessity, essentially pragmatic.

As an ideology, nationalism claims it expresses a single identity or culture, often defined by language or religion. And this despite the fact that there are almost no nations that actually display the homogeneity that the ideology assumes. It thus has the capacity to become an exclusive force in direct contradiction to its stated aim. Thus nationalism inevitably is an ideology that is easiest to define and promulgate by opposing what it is not, rather than defining precisely what it is. We only have to think of the agendas of the so-called nationalist parties and movements in contemporary Europe, and how they crystallize around opposition. In Britain, we have the United Kingdom Independence Party, UKIP, which is nationalist because it opposes the European Union. And we have the National Front, nationalist because it opposes immigration. The list could be a long one. So nationalism often must be defined in relation to what we are not, rather than via what we are.

If you live in a country subjected to colonial rule, it is surely easy to define nationalism around concepts of independence and self-government. One these things have been achieved, however, the focus that defined the nationalism is removed. If it is to continue as an ideology for an independent nation, it must change, one option is for it to be elevated to state-worship, almost to the status of a national religion. The North Korea of Kim Il Sung was this route in extremis. But in a country as vast as Indonesia, the social conformity this route requires could never have been achieved.

So Sukarno took the other route that can sustain nationalism as a state ideology, which was expansionism, coupled with attempts to create coalitions across political ideology and religion. The expansionist tendency led to the incorporation of West Irian into Indonesia. It also led to Sukarno's opposition to the establishment of a Malaysian Federation and thus to several years of war in Borneo. It might be argued the same need for expansion to bolster nationalism led, under Suharto, to the invasion of East Timor. The point here is that the external positions are adopted in order to define internal political identity.

As well as promoting an external focus, alliances and coalitions must be erected internally to create at least a semblance of unity. Sukarno's NASAKOM was such an attempt, an initiative to unite Nasionalisme, Agama and Komunisme, Nationalism, Religion and Communism. And so the Indonesian Communist Party, the PKI, was part of an equation whose result was always going to be a problem, given the ubiquity of the cold War and the proximity of China. When we consider the difficulty of creating unity out of such an admixture, we then appreciate the need for nationalism to retain its external focus. No nationalist agenda can cut across ideological differences that are global. In Sukarno's case, effectively the Cold War won. The internal tensions had to be resolved and, in Indonesia's case, it led to military action, the slaughter of 250,000 communist sympathisers and anyone else who got in the way, and the emergence of an initially pro-Western government under Suharto.

But despite this unsatisfactory end for Sukarno's nationalism, J. D. Legge reminds us of his achievements. Modern Indonesia came into being under Sukarno's leadership and vision. The politics of the region and of the century were influenced by him. And he was leader of one of the world's most populous countries for over two decades. Certainly he was a great figure, but, because of his use of syncretic nationalism, he was not a contributor to political thought and so, perhaps, his influence died with him. J. D. Legge's Sukarno - A Political Biography is a superb, scholarly and measured account of this life and career.

Sukarno, A Political Biography by J. D. Legge: nationalism revisited.

I don't read a lot of history, contemporary or otherwise, and when I do, it is usually in the area of political economy. In recent years, for instance, I have delighted at the scholarship and intellect of Eric Hobsbawm. But what always strikes me about history is how perfect our vision can be from the distance of time. Not so if you are closer, and so I can forgive J. D. Legge my single criticism of his book, Sukarno - A Political Biography, which is its lack of overview. Legge published the book in 1972 and so did not have the luxury of 35 years of clarifying hindsight that we have today.

J. D. Legge's biography charts the life and career of Sukarno in intricate detail. Particularly strong are the descriptions of the internal machinations and wheeler dealing amongst the Indonesian political elite. Sukarno is presented as one of the major political figures of the twentieth century. If anyone should doubt this, then recall that the terms "Third World" and "Non-Aligned", terms that structured our thinking about the world for decades and perhaps still do, would probably not have existed if Sukarno had not promoted them. The former arose out of the 1955 Bandung conference, which Sukarno hosted, and the latter out of continued initiatives involving the Indonesian president. Furthermore Sukarno's significance for the century is also underlined by the fact that the aftermath of the coup that ousted him led to the murder of 250,000 people, while the president himself was allowed to live out his last years and die a natural death. Legge stops short of laying the ultimate responsibility for these deaths at Sukarno's door, and neither can he be certain about the president's relation to the coup. True, he lost power as a result, but he did not lose his life. He lost most of his dignity, but remained such an esteemed figure after 50 years in politics that he retained at least a figurehead status up to his death.A point that Legge underplays, however, is the relationship between the nationalism that formed the basis of Sukarno's politics and the pragmatism that sought inevitably loose alliances to both define and promote it. One such Sukarno initiative in particular, NASAKOM, may have been responsible ultimately for precipitating the coup and even causing the slaughter.

Sukarno was almost as old as the century, being born in June 1901 in East Java. Legge makes an interesting point about his parents, who met in Singharaja, Bali, while his father was a teacher there. The father was Javanese, a member of the aristocratic priyayi class, but his mother was Balinese and not even a Muslim. I have visited Bali and Singharaja and East Java and can fully appreciate the fundamental differences, both cultural and religious, between these places. And yet, from this mixed parentage there was born a figure who consistently espoused nationalism as a defining ideology. But from the start, and perhaps because of his background, it was a syncretic nationalism that tried to create unity by bridging difference.

Initially, of course, this nationalism was defined via opposition to Dutch colonial rule. It was a nationalism that brought the young Sukarno into conflict with the authorities, led to periods of imprisonment and exile. Nothing strange here. The twentieth century is full of such figures who struggled against externally-imposed colonial rule. In the Second World War, Sukarno, like Laurel in the Philippines, collaborated with the Japanese. But whereas to the north Laurel was eventually disgraced by the association, Sukarno found himself in 1945 the president of an independent Indonesia. And here, perhaps is where the nationalist ideology became, out of necessity, essentially pragmatic.

As an ideology, nationalism claims it expresses a single identity or culture, often defined by language or religion. And this despite the fact that there are almost no nations that actually display the homogeneity that the ideology assumes. It thus has the capacity to become an exclusive force in direct contradiction to its stated aim. Thus nationalism inevitably is an ideology that is easiest to define and promulgate by opposing what it is not, rather than defining precisely what it is. We only have to think of the agendas of the so-called nationalist parties and movements in contemporary Europe, and how they crystallize around opposition. In Britain, we have the United Kingdom Independence Party, UKIP, which is nationalist because it opposes the European Union. And we have the National Front, nationalist because it opposes immigration. The list could be a long one. So nationalism often must be defined in relation to what we are not, rather than via what we are.

If you live in a country subjected to colonial rule, it is surely easy to define nationalism around concepts of independence and self-government. One these things have been achieved, however, the focus that defined the nationalism is removed. If it is to continue as an ideology for an independent nation, it must change, one option is for it to be elevated to state-worship, almost to the status of a national religion. The North Korea of Kim Il Sung was this route in extremis. But in a country as vast as Indonesia, the social conformity this route requires could never have been achieved.

So Sukarno took the other route that can sustain nationalism as a state ideology, which was expansionism, coupled with attempts to create coalitions across political ideology and religion. The expansionist tendency led to the incorporation of West Irian into Indonesia. It also led to Sukarno's opposition to the establishment of a Malaysian Federation and thus to several years of war in Borneo. It might be argued the same need for expansion to bolster nationalism led, under Suharto, to the invasion of East Timor. The point here is that the external positions are adopted in order to define internal political identity.

As well as promoting an external focus, alliances and coalitions must be erected internally to create at least a semblance of unity. Sukarno's NASAKOM was such an attempt, an initiative to unite Nasionalisme, Agama and Komunisme, Nationalism, Religion and Communism. And so the Indonesian Communist Party, the PKI, was part of an equation whose result was always going to be a problem, given the ubiquity of the cold War and the proximity of China. When we consider the difficulty of creating unity out of such an admixture, we then appreciate the need for nationalism to retain its external focus. No nationalist agenda can cut across ideological differences that are global. In Sukarno's case, effectively the Cold War won. The internal tensions had to be resolved and, in Indonesia's case, it led to military action, the slaughter of 250,000 communist sympathisers and anyone else who got in the way, and the emergence of an initially pro-Western government under Suharto.

But despite this unsatisfactory end for Sukarno's nationalism, J. D. Legge reminds us of his achievements. Modern Indonesia came into being under Sukarno's leadership and vision. The politics of the region and of the century were influenced by him. And he was leader of one of the world's most populous countries for over two decades. Certainly he was a great figure, but, because of his use of syncretic nationalism, he was not a contributor to political thought and so, perhaps, his influence died with him. J. D. Legge's Sukarno - A Political Biography is a superb, scholarly and measured account of this life and career.

Sukarno, A Political Biography by J. D. Legge: nationalism revisited.

I don't read a lot of history, contemporary or otherwise, and when I do, it is usually in the area of political economy. In recent years, for instance, I have delighted at the scholarship and intellect of Eric Hobsbawm. But what always strikes me about history is how perfect our vision can be from the distance of time. Not so if you are closer, and so I can forgive J. D. Legge my single criticism of his book, Sukarno - A Political Biography, which is its lack of overview. Legge published the book in 1972 and so did not have the luxury of 35 years of clarifying hindsight that we have today.

J. D. Legge's biography charts the life and career of Sukarno in intricate detail. Particularly strong are the descriptions of the internal machinations and wheeler dealing amongst the Indonesian political elite. Sukarno is presented as one of the major political figures of the twentieth century. If anyone should doubt this, then recall that the terms "Third World" and "Non-Aligned", terms that structured our thinking about the world for decades and perhaps still do, would probably not have existed if Sukarno had not promoted them. The former arose out of the 1955 Bandung conference, which Sukarno hosted, and the latter out of continued initiatives involving the Indonesian president. Furthermore Sukarno's significance for the century is also underlined by the fact that the aftermath of the coup that ousted him led to the murder of 250,000 people, while the president himself was allowed to live out his last years and die a natural death. Legge stops short of laying the ultimate responsibility for these deaths at Sukarno's door, and neither can he be certain about the president's relation to the coup. True, he lost power as a result, but he did not lose his life. He lost most of his dignity, but remained such an esteemed figure after 50 years in politics that he retained at least a figurehead status up to his death.A point that Legge underplays, however, is the relationship between the nationalism that formed the basis of Sukarno's politics and the pragmatism that sought inevitably loose alliances to both define and promote it. One such Sukarno initiative in particular, NASAKOM, may have been responsible ultimately for precipitating the coup and even causing the slaughter.

Sukarno was almost as old as the century, being born in June 1901 in East Java. Legge makes an interesting point about his parents, who met in Singharaja, Bali, while his father was a teacher there. The father was Javanese, a member of the aristocratic priyayi class, but his mother was Balinese and not even a Muslim. I have visited Bali and Singharaja and East Java and can fully appreciate the fundamental differences, both cultural and religious, between these places. And yet, from this mixed parentage there was born a figure who consistently espoused nationalism as a defining ideology. But from the start, and perhaps because of his background, it was a syncretic nationalism that tried to create unity by bridging difference.

Initially, of course, this nationalism was defined via opposition to Dutch colonial rule. It was a nationalism that brought the young Sukarno into conflict with the authorities, led to periods of imprisonment and exile. Nothing strange here. The twentieth century is full of such figures who struggled against externally-imposed colonial rule. In the Second World War, Sukarno, like Laurel in the Philippines, collaborated with the Japanese. But whereas to the north Laurel was eventually disgraced by the association, Sukarno found himself in 1945 the president of an independent Indonesia. And here, perhaps is where the nationalist ideology became, out of necessity, essentially pragmatic.

As an ideology, nationalism claims it expresses a single identity or culture, often defined by language or religion. And this despite the fact that there are almost no nations that actually display the homogeneity that the ideology assumes. It thus has the capacity to become an exclusive force in direct contradiction to its stated aim. Thus nationalism inevitably is an ideology that is easiest to define and promulgate by opposing what it is not, rather than defining precisely what it is. We only have to think of the agendas of the so-called nationalist parties and movements in contemporary Europe, and how they crystallize around opposition. In Britain, we have the United Kingdom Independence Party, UKIP, which is nationalist because it opposes the European Union. And we have the National Front, nationalist because it opposes immigration. The list could be a long one. So nationalism often must be defined in relation to what we are not, rather than via what we are.

If you live in a country subjected to colonial rule, it is surely easy to define nationalism around concepts of independence and self-government. One these things have been achieved, however, the focus that defined the nationalism is removed. If it is to continue as an ideology for an independent nation, it must change, one option is for it to be elevated to state-worship, almost to the status of a national religion. The North Korea of Kim Il Sung was this route in extremis. But in a country as vast as Indonesia, the social conformity this route requires could never have been achieved.

So Sukarno took the other route that can sustain nationalism as a state ideology, which was expansionism, coupled with attempts to create coalitions across political ideology and religion. The expansionist tendency led to the incorporation of West Irian into Indonesia. It also led to Sukarno's opposition to the establishment of a Malaysian Federation and thus to several years of war in Borneo. It might be argued the same need for expansion to bolster nationalism led, under Suharto, to the invasion of East Timor. The point here is that the external positions are adopted in order to define internal political identity.

As well as promoting an external focus, alliances and coalitions must be erected internally to create at least a semblance of unity. Sukarno's NASAKOM was such an attempt, an initiative to unite Nasionalisme, Agama and Komunisme, Nationalism, Religion and Communism. And so the Indonesian Communist Party, the PKI, was part of an equation whose result was always going to be a problem, given the ubiquity of the cold War and the proximity of China. When we consider the difficulty of creating unity out of such an admixture, we then appreciate the need for nationalism to retain its external focus. No nationalist agenda can cut across ideological differences that are global. In Sukarno's case, effectively the Cold War won. The internal tensions had to be resolved and, in Indonesia's case, it led to military action, the slaughter of 250,000 communist sympathisers and anyone else who got in the way, and the emergence of an initially pro-Western government under Suharto.

But despite this unsatisfactory end for Sukarno's nationalism, J. D. Legge reminds us of his achievements. Modern Indonesia came into being under Sukarno's leadership and vision. The politics of the region and of the century were influenced by him. And he was leader of one of the world's most populous countries for over two decades. Certainly he was a great figure, but, because of his use of syncretic nationalism, he was not a contributor to political thought and so, perhaps, his influence died with him. J. D. Legge's Sukarno - A Political Biography is a superb, scholarly and measured account of this life and career.

Sukarno, A Political Biography by J. D. Legge: nationalism revisited.

I don't read a lot of history, contemporary or otherwise, and when I do, it is usually in the area of political economy. In recent years, for instance, I have delighted at the scholarship and intellect of Eric Hobsbawm. But what always strikes me about history is how perfect our vision can be from the distance of time. Not so if you are closer, and so I can forgive J. D. Legge my single criticism of his book, Sukarno - A Political Biography, which is its lack of overview. Legge published the book in 1972 and so did not have the luxury of 35 years of clarifying hindsight that we have today.

J. D. Legge's biography charts the life and career of Sukarno in intricate detail. Particularly strong are the descriptions of the internal machinations and wheeler dealing amongst the Indonesian political elite. Sukarno is presented as one of the major political figures of the twentieth century. If anyone should doubt this, then recall that the terms "Third World" and "Non-Aligned", terms that structured our thinking about the world for decades and perhaps still do, would probably not have existed if Sukarno had not promoted them. The former arose out of the 1955 Bandung conference, which Sukarno hosted, and the latter out of continued initiatives involving the Indonesian president. Furthermore Sukarno's significance for the century is also underlined by the fact that the aftermath of the coup that ousted him led to the murder of 250,000 people, while the president himself was allowed to live out his last years and die a natural death. Legge stops short of laying the ultimate responsibility for these deaths at Sukarno's door, and neither can he be certain about the president's relation to the coup. True, he lost power as a result, but he did not lose his life. He lost most of his dignity, but remained such an esteemed figure after 50 years in politics that he retained at least a figurehead status up to his death.A point that Legge underplays, however, is the relationship between the nationalism that formed the basis of Sukarno's politics and the pragmatism that sought inevitably loose alliances to both define and promote it. One such Sukarno initiative in particular, NASAKOM, may have been responsible ultimately for precipitating the coup and even causing the slaughter.

Sukarno was almost as old as the century, being born in June 1901 in East Java. Legge makes an interesting point about his parents, who met in Singharaja, Bali, while his father was a teacher there. The father was Javanese, a member of the aristocratic priyayi class, but his mother was Balinese and not even a Muslim. I have visited Bali and Singharaja and East Java and can fully appreciate the fundamental differences, both cultural and religious, between these places. And yet, from this mixed parentage there was born a figure who consistently espoused nationalism as a defining ideology. But from the start, and perhaps because of his background, it was a syncretic nationalism that tried to create unity by bridging difference.

Initially, of course, this nationalism was defined via opposition to Dutch colonial rule. It was a nationalism that brought the young Sukarno into conflict with the authorities, led to periods of imprisonment and exile. Nothing strange here. The twentieth century is full of such figures who struggled against externally-imposed colonial rule. In the Second World War, Sukarno, like Laurel in the Philippines, collaborated with the Japanese. But whereas to the north Laurel was eventually disgraced by the association, Sukarno found himself in 1945 the president of an independent Indonesia. And here, perhaps is where the nationalist ideology became, out of necessity, essentially pragmatic.

As an ideology, nationalism claims it expresses a single identity or culture, often defined by language or religion. And this despite the fact that there are almost no nations that actually display the homogeneity that the ideology assumes. It thus has the capacity to become an exclusive force in direct contradiction to its stated aim. Thus nationalism inevitably is an ideology that is easiest to define and promulgate by opposing what it is not, rather than defining precisely what it is. We only have to think of the agendas of the so-called nationalist parties and movements in contemporary Europe, and how they crystallize around opposition. In Britain, we have the United Kingdom Independence Party, UKIP, which is nationalist because it opposes the European Union. And we have the National Front, nationalist because it opposes immigration. The list could be a long one. So nationalism often must be defined in relation to what we are not, rather than via what we are.

If you live in a country subjected to colonial rule, it is surely easy to define nationalism around concepts of independence and self-government. One these things have been achieved, however, the focus that defined the nationalism is removed. If it is to continue as an ideology for an independent nation, it must change, one option is for it to be elevated to state-worship, almost to the status of a national religion. The North Korea of Kim Il Sung was this route in extremis. But in a country as vast as Indonesia, the social conformity this route requires could never have been achieved.

So Sukarno took the other route that can sustain nationalism as a state ideology, which was expansionism, coupled with attempts to create coalitions across political ideology and religion. The expansionist tendency led to the incorporation of West Irian into Indonesia. It also led to Sukarno's opposition to the establishment of a Malaysian Federation and thus to several years of war in Borneo. It might be argued the same need for expansion to bolster nationalism led, under Suharto, to the invasion of East Timor. The point here is that the external positions are adopted in order to define internal political identity.

As well as promoting an external focus, alliances and coalitions must be erected internally to create at least a semblance of unity. Sukarno's NASAKOM was such an attempt, an initiative to unite Nasionalisme, Agama and Komunisme, Nationalism, Religion and Communism. And so the Indonesian Communist Party, the PKI, was part of an equation whose result was always going to be a problem, given the ubiquity of the cold War and the proximity of China. When we consider the difficulty of creating unity out of such an admixture, we then appreciate the need for nationalism to retain its external focus. No nationalist agenda can cut across ideological differences that are global. In Sukarno's case, effectively the Cold War won. The internal tensions had to be resolved and, in Indonesia's case, it led to military action, the slaughter of 250,000 communist sympathisers and anyone else who got in the way, and the emergence of an initially pro-Western government under Suharto.

But despite this unsatisfactory end for Sukarno's nationalism, J. D. Legge reminds us of his achievements. Modern Indonesia came into being under Sukarno's leadership and vision. The politics of the region and of the century were influenced by him. And he was leader of one of the world's most populous countries for over two decades. Certainly he was a great figure, but, because of his use of syncretic nationalism, he was not a contributor to political thought and so, perhaps, his influence died with him. J. D. Legge's Sukarno - A Political Biography is a superb, scholarly and measured account of this life and career.

Patriotisme Dan Islam

Pendahuluan.

Pada tulisan kali ini penulis berada dalam semangat menyambut hari kemerdekaan negara. Telah lama penulis cuba mencari titik pertemuan antara semangat cintakan Negara, tanahair, bangsa dan agama menurut pandangan Islam. Sejauhmanakah ianya boleh dipertemukan serta dijadikan aspirasi bersama demi menyemai nilai ubudiyyah dalam memperketakan persoalan bangsa dan semangat kebangsaan.
Melihat banyak penulisan penulisan daripada tokoh reformis Islam antarangsa seperti karya Syed Qutb, Abu A'la Al maududi, Dr Abdullah Azzam, Hassan An Nadwi, Ramadhan Al Buti dan ramai lagi berkenaan persoalan perjuangan kebangsaan dan bezanya dengan perjuangan ubudiyyah yang berunsur teologi Islam seolah menenggelamkan lagi hasrat penulis untuk menelusuri persoalan ini. Namun ada beberapa hujah yang sedia penulis sajikan dan diharap ianya menjadi suatu persektif baru dalam menilai soal kebangsaan, nasionalisme dan patriotisme.
Mengapa perlu Patriotisme?
Akhir-akhir ini kita melihat senario masyarakat Melayu khususnya sebagai 'tuan' asal Malaysia bumi bertuah ini kelihatan luntur patriotisme. Persoalannya apakah patriotisme. Mengapa pejuang patriotisme perlu diagung-agungkan? Patriotisme dan nasionalisme sebenarnya mempunyai suatu kuasa luar biasa yang boleh mengundang kekuatan yang istimewa. Penulis melihat bagaimana semangat pelatih tentera udara Amerika Syarikat memasuki 'skuad eagle' Britain di UK dalam usaha membinasakan tentera Jerman yang menguasai majariti Eropah semasa Perang Dunia 2. Bagaimana sikap semangat Hitler seorang prebet tentera Jerman yang berucap soal bangsa Jermen , nilai kebangkitan Jerman, penghapusan kuasa Yahudi secara bersemangat di seluruh Jerman yang akhirnya kita telah maklumi implikasinya. Bagaimana patriotisme tentera Britain mematuhi arahan Winston Churcill untuk mempertahan tanah Melayu semasa diserang mendadak oleh pihak Empayar Jepun. Bagaimanakah kelompok 'tanpa' aqidah ini boleh mengambil alih nilai jihad yang sememangnya menjadi kuasa istimewa umat Islam? Inilah kuasa bangsa (nation). Persoalan lagi bolehkah kita memperjuangkan bangsa?
Nasionalis,Qaumiyyah dan Assobiyyah…..



Kebanyakkan umat Islam menggelarkan semangat kebangsaan sebagai Assobiyyah tanpa melihat maknanya yang sebenar. Rasulullah pernah menyatakan bukan daripada kalangannya sesiapa yang menyeru kepada Assobiyyah. Dan Rasul juga menegaskan tiada assobiyyah di dalam Islam. Rasul kemudian menjelaskan makna sebenar assobiyyah adalah membantu, menolong, menggembeleng tenaga atas nama kezaliman dan kemungkaran. Inilah definasi yang tidak diperjelaskan. Perkataan nasionalis berasal daripada perkataan 'nation' yakni bangsa. Dalam istilah arabnya ialah qaum atau qaumiyyah (nasionalisme). Memperjuangkan bangsa dalam sesebuah Negara bolehkah digelar sebagai assobiyyah? Sekiranya penduduk Palestin dan Afghan yang terkenal dengan nilai warisan bangsa mereka mempertahankan Baitul Muqaddas dan tanah afghan atas nama agama dan negara. Bolehkah digelar sebgai assobiyyah? Inilah permasalahan umat Islam sehingga hari ini kita melihat nilai sesebuah negara, jatidiri bangsa Islam di Malaysia (yang majoritinya Melayu) kian merosot.



Menurut tokoh terkenal politik Islam negara Dr Burhanuddin Al Helmi, beliau menegaskan perkaitan sikap kebangsaan sebagai wataniyyah (kenegaraan). Inilah takrifan yang sebetulnya. Cintakan bangsa sebenarnya adalah cintakan Negara. Cintakan Negara adalah dengan menerbitkan nilai keadilan menurut Islam dengan berasaskan nilai kenegaraan tadi. Inilah paksi dalam membina sesebuah Negara.



Mengapa sesetengah ulama' menentang Nasionalis?



Sebenarnya menghapuskan semangat kebangsaan adalah bermula apabila British mula menyemai semangat anti kerajaan Turki Usmaniyyah kepada negara-negara umat Islam yang bernaung di dalamnya. Kerajaan ini dihasut, diporak peradakan serta dituduh Turki sebagai punca kemelesetan intelek, sosiobudaya serta ekonomi umat Islam. Lantaran itulah Sultan Turki melancarkan gerakan kempen Pan Islam (kempen sokongi semula Usmaniyyah) yang didokongi juga oleh Muhammad Abduh serta Jamaluddin Al Afghani.



British menjajah secara 'devide and rule' (pecah dan perintah). British menyemai semangat kepuakan (komunalisme) dalam bangsa Sham sehingga menerbitkan negara Jordan,Syiria, Palestin, Lubnan dan Israel. Mereka memecah belahkan Mesir daripada kesultanan Turki dengan menimbulkan kembali peradaban Firaun walaupun telah lama bangsa Mesir melupakan bahasa asal mereka (Qibti) setelah hegemoni Islam membawa bahasa Arab sebagai lingua franca Islam. British juga menyemai dualisme dalam system pendidikan dimana terjadinya ras-ras masyarakat yang terdiri daripada golongan berpendidikn British dan tradisi kaum setempat. Ini meningkatkan jurang diantara ras berkenaan. Hal ini dibuktikan dengan terjadinya beberapa system pendidikan berasingan di Malyasia. Sebagai contoh silibus Revolusi China 1911 digunakan oleh semua warga China yang dibawa ke Malaysia.



British juga menyemai sikap chauvinis (gap dan jurang ekslusif) dikalngan penduduk tempatan melalui sosio ekonomi. Sikap British yang memanjakan Melayu melalui latihan kerja makan gaji menyebabkan Melayu terpaksa 'mengampu' Jepun semasa ketiadaan tuan mereka da ini mengheret sejarah Malaya ke kancah yang lebih berat dengan bangsa lain.



Melalui system pendidikan juga British menyemai rasa saying kepada tamadun 'jahiliyyah' yang mungkin ada seperti tamadun Firaun di Mesir, Tamadun Budhha Sanskrit di Tanah Melayu serta Tamadun Kalinga, Maghda (Asoka) dan Arya kepada rakyat India Dinasti Islam Moghul. Sistem pendidikan ini ada baiknya sekiranya pengajaran dapat diambil, namun ketaksuban yang menjadi topic utama dalam pengkajian sejarah. Hal inilah yang amat ditentang oleh ulama' reformis Islam.



Imam Hassan Al Banna melihat Islam boleh bergerak lebih jauh lagi. Islam boleh menjangkau benua dan bangsa. Namun beliau masih menekankan konsep Islam, tanahair dan kuasa sebagai punca kekuatan Islam. Islam agama kuasa. Islam agama yang perlu diperluaskan melebihi aspek ubudiyyah semata-mata. Islam bukan agama teokrasi seperti Hindu dan Buddha. Kerana itulah ideology nasionalisme ala barat amat di tentang hebat sekitar 1950an sehinggalah 1980an.



Bolehkah mencintai tanahair?



Rasulullah adalah contoh individu yang terlalu sayangkan kota kelahirannya. Baginda menitiskn air mata apabula meninggalkan kota tersebut semasa berhijrah. Nabi Ibrahim pernah berdoa untuk negeri Mekah dengan doanya di dalam surah Al Baqarah ' Wahai Tuhanku, jadikanlah negeri ini aman makmur'. Adakah dengan cintakan negara kita akan melupakan agama? Aqidah adalah segala-galanya dalam perjuangan. Lantaran itulah Baginda Rasul juga menentang ayah saudaranya sendiri. Saidina Abu Bakar pernah membunuh anak kandungnya Abdul Rahman (kafir) yang berperang dengannya di medan Badar. Begitu juga pembunuhan Al Jarrah oleh anaknya Abu Ubaidah yang berpihak kepada Rasulullah dalam peperangan Badar. Rasa kebangsaan yang membawa kepada penafian keagungan Allah akan terjatuh ke lembah assobiyyah. Hal inilah yang menjadi larangan sebenarnya.



Sebenarnya takrifan Negara selalunya dikaitkan dengan bangsa sesebuah negara. Kerana itulah istilah negara bangsa selalu digunapakai dalam pengistilahan sesebuah negara. Istilah nasionalis pada asalnya boleh disebut sebagai wataniyyah iaitu cintakan negara dan tanahair. Ianya mula dieksploitasi oleh Negara-negara eropah untuk menghasilkan ideologi nationalisme yang berunsur chauvinis dan assobiyyah sempit.



Setiap negara selalunya bertuankan bangsa yang sememangnya terpecah daripada keturunan Nabi Nuh yang pelbagai warna kulit dan cara hidup. Cara hidup bangsa ini terjadi lantaran adaptasi, sosialisasi, dan pengaruh persekitaran, geografi, suhu serta pemakanan. Pengiktirafan Al Quran terhadap penciptaanNya iaitu kepelbagaian bangsa juga disebut di dalam Al Quran. Kerana itulah istilah patriotisnya bagi sesebuah negara adalah bangsa yang memulakan tamadun, membuka Negara serta menguasai majariti negara tersebut.



Hal ini boleh diperhatikan daripada saranan Hassan Al Banna mengenai konsep agama perlu didirikan dengan kuasa. Kuasa pula hanya akan muncul lantaran adanya Negara, tanah dan paksi untuk manusia tinggal.



Rasulullah pernah menyatukan bangsa Aus dan Khazraj dengan baitul Aqabah serta melantik beberapa naqib daripada bangsa-bangsa ini demi menyatukan dan memudahkan usaha dakwah melalui pemimpin bangsa. Rasulullah pernah memutuskan hukuman kepada Bani Quraizhah (Yahudi) selepas peperangan ahzab (akibat pengkhianatan suku ini) dengan menyuruh Saad bin Muaz (seorang Ansar) yang sebelum ini ditugaskan menjaga hubungan dengan suku Yahudi ini. Pengiktirafan menurut bangsa ini menunjukkan manipulasi bangsa untuk agama amat perlu. Manipulasi untuk kegemilangan agama. Inilah yang dituntut sebenarnya.

Kita boleh melihat bagaimana bangsa Quraisy yang terkenal dengan kebengisan telah diiktiraf oleh sebahagian ulama' siasah muktabar syarat bangsa Quraisy sebagai salah satu kriteria untuk menjadi khalifah umat Islam. Bukankah bangsa Quraisy tidak mewakili umat Islam hari ini? Inilah hujah dimana ciri dominasi menjadi salah satu syarat untuk memegang tapuk pemerintahan. Dalm hal ini kita melihat Malaysia didominasi dan dibuka oleh Melayu. Jadi kuasa pemerintahannya demi melihat kelangsungan pelaksanaan Islam memerlukan bangsa Melayu kuat, unggul, berjatidiri serta memegang kuasa. Namun ianya boleh dinafikan sekiranya bercanggah dengan nilai aqidah dan syariat. Tetapi ianya hanya pemerintah Melayu tidak beragama Islam. Jadi disini penulis kuat berhujah bahawa bangsa asal sesebuah negara perlu diacukan menurut Islam serta diberi kuasa pemerintahan. Bangsa asal perlu berkemandirian dan berdayasaing.(definasi Melayu adalah Mula-Yu iaitu memulakan proses perbandaran) Hal inilah menyebabkan parti politik Islam seperti Hizbul Muslimin, PAS serta parti kebangsaan/sosialis/Islam seperti PKMM memperjuangkan jatidiri Melayu seiring dengan parti bangsawan/nasionalis seperti UMNO (PERKEMBAR) dan SEBERKAS. (Dalam ruangan lain, penulis akan menyediakan perbahasan politik kiri dan kanan serta sumbagannya kepada Islam di Malaysia)



Pandangan Dr Burahanuddin Al Helmi.

Beliau memandang kebangsaan sebagai alat bukannya tujuan. Untuk memajukan syariat Islam di Tanah Melayu, bangsa majoriti Islam perlu diperkasakan. Ini dilakukan secara komprehensif dan bersepadu melalui kesedaran intelek, ekonomi, beragama secara syumul serta menyedari hakikat kolonialisme yang sememangnya tidak akan berguna selamanya kepada nusa dan bangsa. Beliau ada menyatakan politiknya dan PKMM adalah tidak berunsur chauvinis iaitu sempit, assobiyyah, zalim dan menyalahi syariat. Dan ianya juga bukan bersifat cosmopolitanisme iaitu terlalu meluas dan terbuka sehingga hilang ciri-ciri asal sesebuah bangsa.
Beliau menyatakan sesebuah negara bermula dengan bangsa yang memulakan negara tersebut, bangsa pula dibina daripada tubuh diri (individu) dan individu berguna pula bermula dengan iman dan Islam. Jadi Islam adalah punca kekuatan negara manakala kekuatan negara pula memberi natijah kepada kekuatan agama pula. Inilah sifir yang digunakan oleh pemimpin nasioanalis Islam sekitar 50an dahulu.
Beliau juga sensitif dengan kebangkitan bangsa Melayu. Beliau selalu menyatakan kekuatan dan kemajuan Melayu hanya terubah dengan usaha mereka sendiri. Agama Islam tidak akan kuat di Malaya tanpa adanya kekuatan Negara Islam. Negara Islam tidak akan terhasil dengan tiadanya individu yang kental beraqidah dan beriman dengan Allah.