SEKITAR “KAUM KIRI” – SIAPA & DIMANA MEREKA?

Kolom IBRAHIM ISA

Kemis, 26 Januari 2012

-----------------------------

SEKITAR “KAUM KIRI” – SIAPA & DIMANA MEREKA?

Menjelang Tahun Baru Imlek, ---- hari Minggu tanggal 22 Januari, 2012 yl, kurang-lebih lima- puluhan sahabat-sahabat Indonesia di Belanda mengadakan pertemuan di “Restaurant Lei Ping”, Amsterdam. Antara lain untuk menyambut TAHUN BARU IMLEK.

Pengertian di kalangan sementara orang Indonesia masih belum sama. Ada yang mengucapkan 'Selamat Tahun Baru Imlek, kepada yang bersangkutan'., dll. Maksudnya kepada teman-temannya yang turunan Tionghoa. Padahal Tahun Baru Imlek adalah HARI NASIONAL. Sama halnya dengan Tahun Baru yang sama-sama kita rayakan secara nasional.

Dalam cakap-cakap hari itu, hal ini diingatkan kembali. Sekarang ini, Tahun Baru Imlek, pengertiannya bukanlah 'Tahun Baru Ciné' . . . . . seperti 'tempo doeloe'. Terutama sejak jatuhnya Suharto, kita sama-sama merayakannya. Karena hari itu adalah HARI RAYA NASIONAL KITA.

* * *

Pertemuan sahabat-sahabat Indonesia itu, sudah menjadi kegiatan tukar-fikiran yang reguler. Kali ini memang dipadukan dengan menyambut datangnya “Tahun Naga”. Kami makan-bersama mi-goreng, kueh-ranjang dll, suguhan Siauw May Lie dan Azis Burhan. Banyak terima kasih kita ucapkan untuk suguhan itu.

* * *

Yang ingin dicakapkan di sini ialah ini: Dalam acara cakap-cakap hari Minggu yl itu, salah satu temanya adalah “TENTANG KAUM KIRI DI INDONESIA” Kebetulan aku diminta untuk memberikan pemahamanku mengenai tema tsb setelah berkali-kali berkunjung ke Indonesia. |Terutama setelah diskusi-diskusi dengan kaum muda di Indonesia yang menurut pemahamanku tergolong atau banyak berpandangan “Kiri”.

Hasil cakap-cakap itu mengarah pada kesimpulanku pribadi, bahwa ada beberapa faktor, mengapa KAUM KIRI BELUM MERUPAKAN SUATU KEKUATAN BERSATU YANG UTUH dan DIPERHITUNGKAN OLEH KAWAN MAUPUN LAWAN. Faktor-faktor yang menyebabkannya antara lain adalah:

1 - Jelas, dimana-mana marak grup-grup dan forum-forum serta organisasi-organisasi yang bisa dikatagorikan Kiri. Tetapi belum berhasil membuat suatu platfom atau forum dengan program besar bersama mengenai Indonesia, kini dan hari-depannya.

2 - Umumnya masih bersikap menantikn situasi “MOMENTUM” begelorannya gerakan dengan tuntutan yang progresif seperi ketika berkobarnya gerakan dan tuntutan turunnya Presiden Suharto, serta dilaksanakannya Reformasi dan Demokrasi, pada periode sekitar Mei 1998.

3 – Masing-masing grup, forum, organisasi masyarakat, bahkan parpol, dsb merasa dirinya yang paling besar, kuat, paling dulu, paling Kiri, serta paling benar. Maka menganggap dirinyalah yang harus jadi inti dari gerakan Kiri di Indonesia, karena merasa dirinya atau kelompoknyalah yang merupakan kekuatan politik dan massa dengan strategi dan taktik yang tepat.

4 – Terdapat perasaan iri dan cemburu di kalangan kaum Kiri. Seperti perasaan: “Mengapa dia,- – - bukankah seharusnya saya atau kami yang lebih dulu dan lebih mampu dsb.

Mengenai hal-hah yang dikemukakan diatas, berhubung masih mendengarkan pendapat tema-tema lainnya dan kurangnya waktu, maka masih belum sempat diadakan tukar-fikiran. Dimaksudkan akan dilanjutkan pada kali berikutnya.

* * *

Kok, pas sekali, tadi malam kuterima sebuah artikel yang ditulis oleh seorang profesor Australia: Katharine McGregor. Kukenal baik dia. Tahun lalu kami bertemu dan cakap-cakap panjang lebar di Perpustakaan Umum Amsterdam, OBA.

Artikel profesor Australia itu berjudul: WHAT'S WRONG WITH COMTEMPORARY INDONESIA? Ada Masalah Apa Dengan Indonesia Dewasa Ini?. Katharine menceriterkan cakap-cakapnya dengan salah seorang aktivis Kiri Indonesia: HARSUTEDJO, nama lengkapnya adalah Harsono Sutedjo. Dimuat di majalah Australia, “INSIDE INDONESIA”, 23 Januari 2012. Sebuah majalah (quarterly )– kwartalan, mengenai Indonesia, rakyat, kebudayaan, politik, ekonomi dan lingkungan hidupnya. Inside Indonesia mula diterbitkan di Melbourne tahun 1983, oleh IRIP (the Indonesian Resources and Information Program (IRIP). Mudah, kok, bisa dicari di Google.com.

Menarik sekali tulisan McGregor itu. Karena, di situ ditulis tentang tinjauan ke masa lalu, oleh Harsutejo, seorang Kiri Indonesia, mengenai kariernya dalam politik, dan mengenai keadaan Indonesia dewasa ini. Harsutedjo menyebutkankan 'kekurangan-kekurangan' gerakan Kiri masa lampau, serta bagaimana sebaiknya sekarang dan selanjutnya.

* * *

Yang juga menarik dari nomor INSIDE INDONESIA kali ini, ialah kumpulan tulisan yang analitis dan kritis yang ditampilkan di situ, berjudul: WHERE IS THE LEFT?

Misalnya ada Edward Aspinall dengan tulisan berjudul WHERE IS THE LEFT?.Dimana Kaum Kiri Itu? Dikemuakan a.l. : Kadang-kadang tampaknya ada sedikit (saja) ruangan untuk politik progresif di Indonesia.

Satu lagi artikel Aspinall berjudul: STILL AN AGE OF ACTIVISM. Dengan pengantar: Politik-politik Kiri ter-fragmentasi, tetapi, yang mengherankan adalah, bahwa, ide-ide Sayap-Kiri : PUNYA PENGARUH.

Diikuti oleh tulisan Jeffrey Winters, berjudul: JALAN MENUJU KE PRSIDEN (PILIHAN) RAKYAT. Tulisan itu mengedepankan ide: Bila orang-orang Indonesia mau menemukan calon untuk melawan kaum oligarki, mereka harus mulai dengan melakukan pekerjaan organisasi sekarang ini.

Menyusul tulisan berjudul: LOCATING THE POWER OF LABOUR, Menemukan Kekuatan Buruh, oleh Benny Hari Juliawan. Dimulai dengan kalimat-kalimat ini: Kaum Buruh bukan merupakan kekuatan dominan dalam kehidupan politik, tetapi mereka itu jauh dari tak-punya-kekuatan.

Menyusul tulisan oleh Rianto Bachriadi, berjudul BERJUANG UNTUK TANAH -- Gerakan Sosial di pedesaan punya latar belakantg sejarah kaya di Indonesia. Dan mereka telah mencatat hasil-hasil penting dalam tahun-tahun belakangan ini .

Menarik bahwa penulisnya memulai tulisannya dengan mengingatkan bahwa dalam tahun 1953, DN Aidit yang ketika itu merupakan bintang muda yang sedang menanjak di PKI, mengajukan analisanya tentang masyarakat agraria Indonesia. Aidit mengatakan bahwa revolusi agraria harus merupakan hakikat dari revolusi demokrasi rakyat di Indonesia. Dalam kongres kelima partai setahun kemudian, PKI mensahkan analisa Aidit sebagai inti dari program agraria yang baru. Program tsb berseru kepada partai untuk membangun kekuatan massa di pedesaan, serta menjadikan perjuangan untuk landreform sebagai seruan utamanya, dengan menggunakan slogan “TANAH UNTUK KAUM TANI”.

Tulisan selanjutnya oleh Vedi R. Hadiz, berjudul “ISLAMISM YES, COMMUNISM NO!”. Didahului dengan kalimat-kalimat sbb: Islamisme semakin mengokoh di bagian-bagian dari Jawa

yang dulunya adalah benteng-benteng kaum Kiri.

Yang terakhir adalah tulisan Prof, Katharine McGregor, yang sudah dibicarakan di atas. Berjudul: “ADA MASALAH APA DENGAN INDONESIA DEWASA INI? “

* * *

Artikel-artikel yang disajikan oleh INSIDE INDONESIA itu, penting dan menarik sebagai bahan analitis yang kritis, untuk bahan pertimbangan bagi siapa saja yang berniat mengenal keadaaan kaum Kiri di Indonesia dewasa ini.

Bahan-bahan itu semuanya dalam bahasa Inggris. Dalam siaran ini tidak diterjmahkan. Karena bahasa Inggris cukup dikenal dan dikuasai oleh yang berpendidikan umum dan masyarakat Indonesia peduli politik dewasa ini.

* * *

Di bawah ini dilampirkan tulisan lengkap Prof Katharine McGregor:

“WHAT IS WRONG WITH CONTEMPORARY INDONESIA“

By Katharine McGregor, Monday, 16 January 2012

Harsono Sutedjo, an old leftist looks back at his career in politics, and at the state of Indonesia today

* * *

Between 1965 and 1968 half a million Indonesians were killed by the military and

civilian vigilantes and hundreds of thousands imprisoned without trial. The

purpose of this violence was to eliminate the Indonesian left which had wanted

to introduce socialism to Indonesia. The repression targeted not only members of

the PKI (Indonesian Communist Party) and affiliated organisations, but also

Sukarno supporters from the Indonesian Nationalist Party and the military.

It is thus hard to generalise about the political views of the broad spectrum of

people targeted in this violence, including those who survived the killings or

imprisonment. Nevertheless, asking the survivors to reflect on the state of

contemporary Indonesia is one way we can gauge what was lost from Indonesia’s

political life with the destruction of the left, and to look for continuities

between earlier and contemporary periods of political struggle. In this article

I explore the opinions of one former political prisoner about contemporary

Indonesia in order to assess what is left of the Indonesian left.

A life in politics

Harsutejo (Harsono Sutedjo) was born in the late 1930s in Wlingi East Java. His

mother was an illiterate farmer who managed an aunt’s rice farm. Although she

remained illiterate for life she always stressed the importance of education to

Harsutejo. His father was a sugar factory employee who frequently challenged his

Dutch boss. He was detained and imprisoned by the Dutch for his activities in

the leftist organisation, Sarekat Rakyat (People’s Association) and by the

Japanese for his involvement in the underground resistance to Japanese rule. On

the second occasion, he was dragged from the bedroom in their family home,

stripped naked and kicked in front of the family. The violence of this arrest

triggered in Harsutejo feelings of revenge towards colonialists, but also a

rejection of violent methods.

When the Japanese period (1942-45) ended his father was released and joined the

struggle against the Dutch. Many important figures in the independence struggle

(1945-1949) visited Harsutejo’s house when he was a young boy. He was surrounded

by talk of politics. When his father was pursued by the Dutch, the family fled

to the mountains and lived with another family. Harsutejo worked as a courier

for the revolution and witnessed much violence during this period.

In 1953, Harsutejo joined his first organisation, IPPI (Indonesian High School

Students and Youth Association). Although IPPI discussed some national issues

such as the struggle for the ‘return’ of Western New Guinea (now known as Papua)

to Indonesia, his participation in IPPI focused on cultural activities. In 1957,

he joined Pemuda Rakyat (People’s Youth), a youth organisation affiliated with

the PKI. He continued to be involved in cultural productions like poetry

reading, choirs and ensembles as a means of promoting the organisation.

Harsutedjo read widely as a child and he was the only member of his family to

complete a university degree. When he began his degree in cultural history at

Airlangga University in Malang he joined the student organisation CGMI

(Indonesian Student Movement Centre). Again he was involved in cultural

activities, but also in protests against the Dutch refusal to surrender the

territory of Western New Guinea to the Republic. He recalls being part of a

crowd that surrounded a Dutch school in Malang and told the students and staff

to go home. By the late 1950s, the Indonesian government had nationalised all

Dutch assets and also began to expel Dutch nationals. CGMI activists protested

against the Vietnam War and against nuclear weapons. They connected Indonesian

struggles to those in similar countries at the time.

After graduating and becoming a lecturer at Airlangga, Harsutedjo joined HSI

(Indonesian Graduates’ Association). Like the other organisations he had joined,

it opposed imperialism and feudalism and promoted socialism as the best

political system. One of their greatest concerns was that Indonesia would become

‘just a puppet state to be used by others’. By the mid-1960s, as President

Sukarno leaned increasingly to the left, Harsutedjo recalls that most radicals

were convinced that Indonesia would become socialist, or at least implement an

Indonesian form of socialism.

Harsutejo was conscious of challenges from conservative groups to all the

left-aligned organisations he joined. Yet ‘we felt a sense of strength and that

the government was on our side’. Like many other members of mass organisations,

Harsutejo was unprepared for the violent assault following the Thirtieth

September Movement event. He stated that ‘no-one imagined it would be so bad.’

In his view, they should have been better prepared for such an attack.

Harsutejo was arrested in Malang in 1965 and imprisoned for six months. He fled

to Surabaya and then Jakarta so as to avoid the pernicious monitoring the

Suharto regime imposed on former political prisoners. After assuming a new

identity and cutting all family ties, Harsutedjo worked in a foreign bank for

two decades.

Staying steady

In an interview in Bekasi I asked if and in what sense he considered himself

representative of the Indonesian left. He responded that he defined himself as a

leftist in that he was ‘anti- establishment, anti-feudal, anti-capitalist and

anti-bureaucratic’. In short, he is for the people and opposes anything that

does not support the people’s interests.

He stated that his basic political views had not changed throughout his life,

but he now believed that the way to communicate these ideas should be more

moderate. ‘I am probably different to others who think that socialism can be

implemented just as we learned in the past. In the Soviet Union it failed.

Suryono a former journalist for Harian Rakyat (People’s Daily) said in the

Soviet Union the communist party ran the country, but he did not meet one

communist.’

Harsutedjo began to have hesitations about the Soviet Union as a model for

Indonesia in the 1950s, when he learnt about the violent repression in Poland

and Hungary. As for China as model he noted, ‘In the People’s Republic they said

they would build communism, they have developed a lot but in the end there is a

big gap between the rich and the poor.’

Reflecting on the Indonesian left in the 1960s Harsutejo comments that ‘our

methods were too extreme, our language was too strong, it had no nuance. We

conceptualised things in black and white’. In this rare critique from a former

activist, Harsutejo recalls the dogmatic nature of politics in the mid 1960s as

those of the left called for a ‘retooling’ of people who were not sufficiently

anti-imperialist or anti-feudalist.

Our methods were too extreme, our language was too strong, it had no

nuance. We conceptualised things in black and white.

When asked to compare the pre-1965 period with today’s Indonesia, Harsutedjo

commented that ‘the gap between the rich and poor was not so pronounced, while

we spoke of capitalist bureaucrats this referred largely to the military and

civilians’. He feels that there was a greater sense of social conscience after

independence, perhaps because the people were more spirited. From independence

onwards there were united efforts, for example, to eradicate illiteracy.

During the Suharto era, Harsutedjo observed the escalation of capitalism in

Indonesia from within the system. Working in a foreign bank, an institution that

symbolises modern capitalism, he was sometimes frustrated as to how he could

achieve change in society. He studied banking laws and attempted to ensure the

bank’s policies were fair with regard to Indonesian interests.

After the fall of Suharto in 1998, Harsutedjo began to publish works about his

experiences and about his political views. In 2010 he published a book,

Dictionary of the New Order’s Crimes: Love your Homeland and Your Nation.

Although the book is focused on the New Order it traces not only the crimes of

that regime, but also its enduring legacies. In it, Harsutedjo provides a

comprehensive catalogue of all the problems he sees today in Indonesian society

and the need for a stronger sense of nationalism. Some key themes of the book

are environmental exploitation, foreign ownership of Indonesian assets and the

neglect of human rights, including the rights of the poor.

From red to green

Harsutedjo explains that for him ‘loving one’s country means protecting and

safeguarding the land and water that we own and all that grows and lives in it,

all flora and fauna and all water and sea as well as the air above it and its

people’ (p. 5). He expresses great regret that Indonesian leaders do not seem to

value these things as evidenced by the 2002 ‘loss’ to Malaysia of the two

islands of Sipadan and Ligitan at the border of East Kalimantan. According to

him, the two islands were handed over because of a regime that ‘prioritised its

own power and its own pockets’. More small islands have been and will continue

to be lost and to sink because of ‘the greed of giant investors’. According to

Harsutedjo ‘They collude with the regime to steadily steal the coral, the sand

and to dig up the mangrove trees which have for thousands of years guarded and

preserved our seas and our land’ (p. 5).

The illegal sale of timber, sand and soil at low prices to Singapore is evidence

that Indonesians have already sold their homeland’ (p. 5). Throughout his

dictionary Harsutedjo lists many other cases in which Indonesia’s economic

sovereignty has been compromised such as through the sale of mining and oil

concessions to foreigners. In our interview, Harsutedjo stated that ‘compared to

the Sukarno era there is now more foreign exploitation, but also national

exploitation’. He gives the example of the privatisation of water for use in

rice fields and of drinking water.