17 jULI 2005.
[wanita-muslimah] IBRAHIM ISA dari BIJLMER -REPONSE JASPER VAN DE KERKHOF, 17 JULI 2005..doc
Sun, 17 Jul 2005 20:28:19 -0700
IBRAHIM ISA dari BIJLMER
17 Juli 2005.
Jasper van de Kerkhof,
Response to Ibrahim Isa dari Bijlmer
Pengantar IBRAHIM ISA:
Di bawah ini adalah tanggapan felllow reserach Jasper van de Kerkhof dari
International Institute for Asian Studies, Leiden, Belanda (IIAS Newsletter -
+37, 2005), yang ditulisnya sebagai response terhadap tulisan Ibrahim Isa,
mengenai masalah "HARI KEMERDEKAAN INDONESIA". Tanggapan Ibrahim Isa yang
diresponse oleh Jasper van de Kerkhof dimuat di media ini pada tanggal 10 Juli
2005, berjudul SEKITAR "HARI KEMERDEKAAN INDONESIA 17-08-1945", --"Bagaimana
Seorang Pakar Mengingkarinya".
Mengenai 'kekurangan' analisis Kerkhof sekitar peranan tentara (ABRI), dalam
pengambil-alihan perusahaan Belanda pada tahun 1957/1958, titik soalnya
terletak (dalam responsenya ia bikin lebih jelas lagi), terbaca dalam kalimat
sbb: (kuitipan) - " The role of the ABRI in the intermidiate aftermath of the
takeover of Dutch firms, however, should not be exaggerated".
Padahal justru pada saat itulah ABRI mengambil langkah yang menentukan, yaitu
dengan pasti menancapkan kekuasaan tentara
Jadi bukan pada Periode Revolusioner, seperti disarankan oleh Kerkhof. Seperti
kutulis dalam tanggapanku, tentara dengan lihay telah memanfaatkan
berlangsungnya SOB. Dengan sendirinya, suatu langkah/tindakan ABRI yang begitu
penting bersifat nasional, menyeluruh dan menentukan, tidak mungkin dinyatakan
sebagai sesuatu yang "exagerated", yang "berkelebihan", seperti apa yang
disarankan oleh Jasper van de Kerkhof.
Berikut ini adalah repons pakar Belanda Jasper van de Kerkhof.
Jasper van de Kerkhof:
The double role of the military (dwifungsi) as guardian of Indonesia's
territorial integrity and as a key element of the country's economic structure
has indeed been a defining characteristic of independent Indonesia. The
economic function of the Indonesian military had its roots in the revolutinary
era (1945-49) but gained memontum after the expulsion of Dutch enterprise in
1957/1958. Under Suharto's new order, the interlocking of economic and military
power reached unprecedented levels. The role of the ABRI in the intermidiate
aftermath of the takeover of Dutch firms, however,should not be exaggerated.
Although the local military commanders after the workers'actions almost
immediately took control of Dutch companies, day-to-day administration fell
mostly on the few Indonesians who had already obtained staff positions under
Dutch management. Also, a select number of Dutch managers continued to function
as 'advisors' until in mid-1958 they too decided that there was no longer any
future for them in Indonesia.
After the takeovers and the formal nationalization of Dutch enterprise in
December 1958, it became apparent that the military was the only organization
with sufficient status and managerial capacity to run the expropriated Dutch
firms. This, however, was a gradual process that was not completed until the
early 1960s. It therefore falls outside the scope of my article.
The debate on the date of Indonesian independence reflects differences in the
historiographical traditions of Indonesia and the Netherlands. The first dates
Indonesian independence back to the Sukarno-Hatta proklamasi of 17 Agustus
1945, whereas the latter argues that Indonesia only became independent after
the Dutch recognition of Indonesian sovereignty on 27 December 1949. Since the
Republic Indonesia was party of the RTC-treaty that transferred sovereignty
from the Netherlands to Indonesia, the connfusion concerning Indonesia's date
of independence is understandable. In general, the international literature
supports the view the Indonesia's independenct in history began in 1945.
Decolonization, however, is more than a change of flags. It is a protracted,
complex and often painful process of emancipation of the former colony and
withdrawal of the former mother country. Apart from the political dimension,
this process also has cultural, socio-economic and often racial dimensins.
Accepting the Sukarno-Hatta proklamasi as the start of Indonesia's independent
history, therefore, should not obscure the fact that the Dutch continued to
dispute Indonesian sovereignty throughout the Revolutinary Period. This was not
a triviality, since the Dutch occupied a large proportion of Indonesian
terrritory, especially after their two large military operations in 1947 and
1948/49. Consequently, there were de facto limitations to Indonesian
sovereginty in the Revolutionary Period. This was not a trivility, since the
Duitch occupied a large proportion of Indonesian territory, especially after
the two large military operations in 1947 and 1948/49. Consequently, there were
de facto limitations to Indonesian sovereignty in the Revolutionary Period.
My article deals with Dutch enterprise in independent Indonesia in 1950's.
Their (privileged) position was defined at the RTC (1949) which led to Dutch
recognition of Indonesian sovereignty. It is therefore justifiable to regard
the transfer of sovereignty in 1949, rather than its proclamation in 1945, as
the starting point in discussing the performance of Dutch companies in
independent Indonesia. In addition, there is little point in discussing the
performance of Dutch companies in Republican-controlled areas in 1945-49 as
they only resumed
operations after the territories where they were located were restored to Dutch
control as a resuslt of the two military actions.
Jasper van de Kerkhof, International Institute of Asian Studies, Leiden, The
Demikianlah reponse Jasper van de Kerkhof terhadap tanggapan saya, yang
berkisar pada masalah "HARI KEMERDEKAAN INDONESIA", dan mengenai peranan ABRI
dalam transfer perusahaan Belanda ke tangan Indonesia pada tahun-tahun
Dari response Jasper van de Kerkhof, jelas bahwa, ia masih tetap mengelak untuk
dengan jelas mengakui kenyataan bahwa "HARI KEMERDEKAAN INDONESIA" adalah pada
tanggal 17 Agustus 1945. Memang haknya untuk bersikap demikian. ***