Kolom IBRAHIM ISA
Kemis, 28 April 2011
---------------------------
GUGATAN KONTRAS Sekitar PEMINDAHAN MAKAM Letkol HERU ATMOJO Dari TAMAN PAHLAWAN KALIBATA
Setiap hati nurani insan mana di bumi ini, yang tidak berang dan memprotes keras tindakan sewenang-wenang, diluar batas kemanusiaan tanpa banding dalam kebiadabannya, yang dilakukan fihak militer Angkatan Darat terhadap almarhum Letkol Heru Atmdojo dan keluarganya.*
Negara ini, Negara Republik Indonesia, adalah berkat perjuangan jutaan rakyat Indonesia. Negara ini memiliki UUD, Lembaga-lembaga Hukum, Legeslatif dan Eksekutif yang seyogianya harus bertanggungjawab pada rakyat. Tindakan Angakatan Darat yang sewenang-wenang terhadap almarhum Letkol Heru Atmodjo dan keluarganya, merupakan tantangan frontal terhadap lembaga-lembaga hukum dan konstitusionil R.I. Tantangan terhadap rasa keadilan dan kebenaran!*
Tepat sekali penolakan KontraS memprotes Angkatan Darat dan menuntut klarifikasi.
Yang menjadi tanda-tanya besar ialah: BAGAIMANA SIKAP PRESIDEN SBY terhadap kesewenang-wenangan fihak Angkatan Darat tsb. Juga terhadap Presiden SBY harus diajukan protes dan klarifikasi. Bukankah beliau, Presiden Republik Indonesia, yang harus memikul tanggungjawab paling besar dalam kasus ini.
Di bawah ini dipublikasikan SURAT KONTRAS, seperti disarankan oleh
Yati Andriani atas nama KontraS.
* * *
Rekan - Rekan yang baik,
Dibawah ini saya kirimkan surat KontraS tentang penolakan dan permintaan
klarifikasi, peninjauan ulang dan koreksi soal pemindahan makam Almarhum
Letkol (Pnb) Heru atmodjo dari Taman Makam Pahlawan (TPM) Kalibata, surat ini ditujukan kepada Panglima TNI, Angkatan Udara Republik Indonesia (AURI), Penerangan Umum TNI AD dan Garnisun Jakarta.
Barangkali penting kalau semua organisasi yang peduli terhadap ini juga
mengirimkan surat penolakan dan klarifikasi dan sejenisnya ke individu dan instansi yang saya sebutkan diatas. hal ini bukan hanya soal Alm Pak Heru semata, tapi kebenaran yang masih harus kita dorong... jika tidak berhalangan, pada 10 Mei mendatang akan dilaksanakan ritual 100 hari meninggalnya Almarhum, di Bangil/Pasuruan jika ada kawan - kawan yang
berminat datang, pihak keluarga meminta siapa saja namanya dan berapa orang?
terimakasih
salam
Yati Andriyani- KontraS
* * *
No :217 /SK--KontraS/IV / 2011
Hal : *Pemindahan Makam (Alm) Letkol (Pnb) Heru Atmodjo *
Kepada Yang Terhormat,
Panglima TNI Republik Indonesia
*Laksamana TNI Agus Suhartono*
Cq:
Kepala Staf Angkatan Udara RI (AURI)
Dinas Penerangan Umum TNI AD
Kepala Staf Garnisun Jakarta
Di- Tempat
* * *
Dengan Hormat,
Kami, Komisi untuk Orang Hilang dan Korban Tindak Kekerasan (KontraS)
mempertanyakan pemindahan pemakaman jenazah Almarhum (Alm) Letkol (Pnb)
Heru Atmodjo dari Taman Makam Pahlawan (TPM) Kalibata.
Alm Heru Atmodjo adalah penerima Gelar Bintang Gerilya karena perjuangannya di masa perang kemerdekaan. Semasa hidupnya Alm Heru Atmodjo juga pernah bertugas dalam pembebasan Irian Barat dan Penumpasan pemberontakan PRRI/Permesta dan DI TII.
Sebagaimana informasi yang kami dapatkan, pemindahan ini dilakukan secara terpaksa oleh keluarga karena adanya aksi unjuk rasa Gerakan Umat Islam Bersatu (GUIB) di kantor DPRD, Jawa Timur pada bulan Maret. Unjuk rasa ini diantaranya menolak pemakaman Alm Heru Atmodjo di TPM Kalibata, dengan alasan keterlibatan Alm Heru Atmodjo dalam Gerakan 30 S/PKI. Tidak lama setelah unjuk rasa ini, sekitar tujuh orang anggota Tentara Angkatan Darat(TNI AD) mendatangi pihak keluarga dan meminta keluarga memindahkan Jenazah Alm dari TPM Kalibata.
Berdasarkan permintaan tersebut, dengan terpaksa pihak keluarga dengan
didampingi Angkatan Udara Republik Indonesia (AURI), pada 25 Maret 2011,
sekitar pukul 23.00, secara diam --diam melakukan pemindahan makam Jenazah ke Tempat Pemakaman Umum (TPU) Bangil, Sidoharjo, Jawa Timur.
Berdasarkan pada keterangan diatas;
Pertama,
kami mempertanyakan alasan legalitas pemindahan pemakaman ini, karena Alm Sebagai pemegang Gelar Bintang Gerilya berhak untuk dimakamkan di Taman Makam Pahlawan, sebagaimana diatur dalam Peraturan Pemerintah (PP) No 35 Tahun 2010 Tentang Pelaksanaan Undang -- Undang No 20 tahun 2009 Tentang Tanda Gelar, Tanda Jasa, Dan Tanda Kehormatan, pasal 78 ayat (2) huruf d Penghormatan dan penghargaan sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) untuk penerima Gelar dapat berupa: pemakaman di Taman Makam Pahlawan Nasional" * sehingga apabila terjadi pemindahan makam Jenazah Alm maka seharusnya melalui keputusan hukum yang setara, baik dengan dengan keputusan hukum pemberian Gelar Bintang Gerilya maupun keputusan hukum yang dikeluarkan untuk pemakaman di Taman Makam Pahlawan.
Kedua,
kami mempertanyakan kaitan antara TNI AD dengan Gerakan Umat Islam Bersatu (GUIB) karena TNI AD terkesan mengakomodir desakan kelompok tersebuttanpa mengedepankan akuntabilitas hukum yang semestinya. Karena pemberianGelar Bintang Gerilya dan Keputusan Pemakaman di Taman Makam Pahlawan telahdidasarkan pada seleksi yang ketat dan mekanisme hukum yang ada.
Ketiga,
Terkait dengan dugaan keterlibatan Alm Heru Atmodjo dalam
peristiwa G 30/S PKI, tidak bisa hanya didasarkan pada stigma, kecurigaan dan desakan pihak -- pihak tertentu. Tetapi harus dilihat dalam fakta sejarahyang proporsional dan menyeluruh. Dan dalam hal ini Alm. telah membantahtentang keterlibatannya dalam G 30 S/PKI. Lebih jauh dari itu sampai saat ini belum ada proses pengadilan yang **fair** dan jauh dari intervensi politik ataupun upaya pengungkapan kebenaran terhadap mereka yang dituduhkan terlibat dalam peristiwa G 30 S/PKI.
Berdasarkan hal-hal diatas, kami meminta Panglima TNI RI, Kepala Staf
Angkatan Udara RI Dinas Penerangan Umum TNI AD, Kepala Staf Garnisun Jakarta dapat mengambil tindakan -- tindakan dibawah ini:
1. Memberikan penjelasan yang sebenar --benarnya baik secara lisan atau tertulis mengenai pemindahan Makam Alm. Heru Atmodjo. Mengenai hal ini kami berharap Panglima TNI dan seluruh jajaran terkait dapat melakukan pertemuan dengan KontraS (untuk tempat dan waktu kami serahkan kepada Panglima TNI)
2. Dilakukannya peninjauan ulang dan koreksi terhadap pemindahan Jenazah Alm Heru Atmodjo dari TPM Kalibata
3. Menghormati mekanisme hukum dan prinsip -- prinsip HAM dalam mengambil keputusan, khususnya berkenaan dengan Penghargaan Bintang Gerilya dan hak Alm untuk dapat dimakamkan di TPM Kalibata.
4. Mendorong upaya -- upaya pengungkapan kebenaran dalam peristiwa yang
terjadi pada 30 September maupun dampak dari peristiwa tersebut terhadap
jutaan warga negara yang kehilangan hak -- haknya sebagai warga negara.
Jakarta, 27 April 2011
Badan Pekerja,
Haris Azhar, SH MA, Koordinator KontraS
Kontak Person: Yati Andriyani; 0815 8666 45 99 Daud Beureh; 081807732559
Yati Andriyani, Head of Division Impunity Watch Commission for The Disappeared and Victims of Violence (KontraS) Jl. Borobudur 14 Menteng Jakarta 10320 INDONESIA
* * *
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Monday, April 25, 2011
“DE NJAI”
Kolom IBRAHIM ISA
Senin, 25 April 2011
-----------------------------
“DE NJAI”
(-- 1 --)
Sub-Judul diatas itu, adalah sebagian dari resensi “Historisch Niewsblad” mengenai buku “DE NJAI” (Het concubinaat in Nederlands-Indië) – (Sistim selir/gundik di Hindia-Belanda). Ditulis oleh Reggie Baay, Amsterdam 2008. Baru tiga tahun terbit (1959) buku itu sudah mencapai cetakan kelima. Tiga bulan pertama sejak terbit dalam tahun 2008, buku Reggie Baay tsb sudah empat kali dicetak. Suatu petunjuk bahwa buku tsb bisa dikatakan termasuk 'best seller'. Mengapa? Barangkali seperti dikatakan, --- topik mengenai masalah “NYAI”, di Nederland, tergolong 'hal' yang LAMA DIDIAMKAN. Yang bersangkutan, yang terlibat, maupun fihak 'resmi' sangat enggan membicarakannya.
* * *
Menurut penerbitnya, “Athenaeum – Polak & Van Gennep”, Amsterdam, topik ini menyangkut sejarah “Njai”
Bisa jadi karena keberaniannya mengadakan pendobrakan menulis tentang masalah yang dalam waktu panjang dianggap 'tabu'. Bisa juga karena kebenaran apa yang ditulisnya itu, s.k. Nasional Belanbda 'Het Parool', menamakan buku Reggie Baay, sebagai “MONUMEN CILIK” yang ia bangun untuk 'NJAI'.
Logis! Karena Reggie Baay adalah keturunan INDO. Limapuluh persen lebih darah yang mengalir ditubuhnya, adalah DARAH INDONESIA. Bapaknya Indo. Neneknya orang Jawa dari Solo.
* * *
Sedikit tentang Reggie Baay (1955).
Ia tergolong historikus generasi muda Belanda. Ia menempuh studi Bahasa dan Sastra Belanda di Universitas Leiden. Di situ ia melakukan spesialisasi sastra kolonial dan pasca-kolonial. Sebagai redaktur majalah Indische Letteren (1985-2005) R. Baay menyiarkan banyak artikel di bidang sejarah kolonial dan sastra kolonial.
Dalam tahun 2006 Reggie Baay menerbitkan roman dengan warna-otobiografis berjudul “MATA SOLO”. Sebuah sejarah dari seorang bapak Indo, dilihat dari mata putranya. Roman ini sudah mencapai cetakan ketiga.
Dalam tahun 2008 terbit bukunya 'NJAI: -- SISTIM SELIR/GUNDIK DI HINDIA- BELANDA”. Buku Reggie Baay merupakan sebuah studi mengenai sejarah seorang 'nenek-moyang', seorang selir Bumiputera dari seorang Eropah di Hindia-Belanda yang kolonial.
Buku Reggie mengenai NYAI, banyak dampaknya. Boleh dikatakan sebagai 'penerobosan terhadap sebuah tabu'. Baru dua minggu terbit terus keluar cetak-ulang. Buku tsb terus saja dibicarakan panjang-lebar di seluruh Belanda. S.k, nasional NRC-Handelsblad (Rotterdam) menilainya sebagai “Buku yang tak boleh tidak harus dimiliki mengenai masa-lampau kolonial kita”. Sedangkan s.k.nasional 'De Volkrant' menanggapi a.l.: 'Sebuah studi bagus dan terperinci mengenai halaman yang boleh dibilang belum pernah ditulis'. S.k. Trouw menambahkan bahwa buku itu adalah suatu penelitian sejarah yang berbobot yang ditulis tidak secara akademis.
Menurt keterangan penerbitnya sesudah cetakan kelima, telah terbit edisi Indonesia. Ini menarik! Karena mengenai ini tidak terdengar berita dari, misalnya. Erasmus Huis Jakarta, perwakilan KITLV (Jakarta) atau bahkan dari KB Belanda di Indonesia.
Belum lama juga telah terbit buku Reggie Baay berjudul “POTRET DARI SEORANG NENEK-MOYANG: Gambaran Mengenai Nyai di Hindia-Belanda”. Semacam jilid dua dari bukunya yang sedang kita bicarakan ini DE NYAI
Dalam sebuah semi-pamflet, Reggie menulis -- IK BEN – AKU ADALAH. Meruypakan theatermonoloog mengenai identitas Indo. Dikisahkannya tentang MITOS TENTANG IDENTITAS NASIONAL. Sebuah tulisan berkobar tentang identitas. Sebuah nyayian indah berisi kemarahan, keputus-asaan dan harapan. Demikian dinyatakan oleh Toneelgroep De Appel.
* * *
Dalam kata pengantar bukunya “De Njai” yang kita bicarakan sekarang ini, Reggie Baay a.l.menulis sbb:
“NYAI MOEINAH”
Mengenai nenek saya dari garis bapak hingga waktu belakangan ini, samasekali tak kuketahui apapun. Ayah saya, selama hidupnya, hanya sekali saja secara sambil lalu, dan sumir, menceriterakan sesuatu mengenai keberadaan nenek saya itu. Dari kata-kata ayah itu bisa saya simpulkan, bahwa nenek saya itu orang Jawa yang lahirnya kira-kira sekitar tahun 1900.
Ketika ayah saya meninggal (1998), umurnya 79. Ayah adalah seorang Belanda-Indo. Seseorang, dimana suatu konfrontasi antara orang Eropah, eks-kolonial, dan orang Indonesia eks-jajahan, mengambil bentuknya. Itulah, ayah saya. Ia tergolog generasi yang setelah mengalami penderitaan semasa pendudukan Jepang atas Hindia-Belanda, dan masa perjuangan kemerdekaan kaum nasionalis Indonesia, merasa terpaksa membangun hidup baru di Nederland. Itu terjadi pada tahun 1950.
Sebagaimana halnya banyak korban perang yang tak mau omong, ia tutup mulut mengenai bagian yang tak nampak mengenai hidupnya.. Tampaknya ia selalu mengarahkan pandangannya semata-mata ke depan. Di situ tidak ada penjelasan panjang-lebar mengenai masa lampaunya. Ia tidak bicara mengenai masa itu. Pada masa lampaunya yang tak nampak itu, termasuk juga, ibunya yang orang Jawa itu, yaitu nenek-biologis saya. Meskipun saya mendesaknya, megenai nenek saya itu, ayahku tidak mau bicara.
Ayah meyakinkan saya, bahwa mengenai ibunya itu, ia juga tidak tahu apa-apa. Tak ada cerita, tidaka ada foto-foto, samasekali tak ada kenang-kenangan. Lebih celaka lagi, bahkan namapun tidak ada.
* * *
Sampai pada waktu meninggalnya ayah. Ketika membereskan rumah lama, saya temukan sebuah copy bertulis tangan, yaitu sebuah dokumen istimewa. Sebagian dari teks dokumen tsb berbunyi sbb:
Hari ini, pada tanggal 20 Oktober 1926, menghadap di depan saya, Emile Klein, ambtenar luarbiasa dari Djawatan Cacah Jiwa di Seragen, disebabkan terhalangnya hadir ambtenar biasa yang dinas, Louis Henri Adriaan Baay, bertempat tinggal di Surakarta, yang menjelaskan pada saya, bahwa di Surakarta pada 11 September 1919 pada jam setengah enam sore, telah lahir seorang bayi laki-laki . . . dan yang kemudian menyatakan kepada saya, bahwa ia mengakui bahwa bayi itu sebagai anaknya.
Kemudian datang menghadap saya sseorang wanita Bumiputera bernama Moeinah, kelihatannya berumur 25th , penganggur, bertempat tinggal di kota Solo Djenkiloeng, yang menurut fasal 28 dari Burgerlijke Wetboek, menyatakan kepada saya menerima baik pengakuan tsb.
Ini adalah sebuah fragmen dari pengakuan seperti halnya begitu banyak telah dibuat di Hindia-Belanda yang kolonial. Orang Eropah yang muncul di situ dan mengajukan permintaan untuk pengakuan, adalah kakék saya. Bayi itu adalah bapak saya wanita Bumiputera itu adalah ibu saya.
Dokuen itu adalah satu-satunya bukti yang nyata mengenai eksistensinya. Tak lama setelah lahirnya bapak saya, ia (ibunya itu) disuruh pergi (dikembalikan ke kampungnya), agar memberikan tempat pada seorang wanita Eropah. Beberapa tahun kemudian, begitulah bisa dibaca dari akte tsb, Moeinah diambil lagi untuk masalah yg bersangkutan pengakuan anaknya. Setelah itu segala sesuatu dilupakan.
Itu adalah nasib malang banyak wanita Bumiputera, yang ketika itu adalah njai, adalah selir/gundik yang sudah ditakdirkan demikian. Bahwa hal itu merupakan pengalaman traumatik bagi ibu dan anak, bisa tampak dari kenyataan bahwa bapak saya tidak pernah ingin maupun bisa cerita tentang itu, dan bahwa hanya setelah meninggalnya bapak saya, barulah ketahuan bahwa ia memiliki sebuah tindasan (copy) akte mengenai pengakuannya. Hal ini menunjukkan betapa mendalamnya pengaruh sistim selir/gundik itu dalam kehidupan seseorang. Ini menambahkan dimensi-ekstra, bilamana disadari, bahwa saat ini ada kira-kira 800.000 orang tinggal di Nederland yang akar mereka berasal di Hindia-Belanda. Di luarnegeri(Nedederland) masih ada 100.000 orang lagi yang punya akar, asal-usulnya di Indonesia.
Dari 900.000 orang ini, menurut dugaan, sepertiga punya nénék-moyang Asia di keluarga mereka. Dan daerah kelompok ini sejumlah besar tampaknya ada dalam situasi seperti halnya bapak saya dan saya: mengenai wanitanya, menyedihkan sekali, sering sedikit sekali yang diketahui.
Diketemukannya akte pengakuan (halmana diperlukan untuk membenarkan keberadaan anak itu) dengan tambahan bukti tentang keberadaan ibunya, memberikan perasaan pertama kalinya pada saya, sesudah bertahun-tahunlamanya, bahwa yang amat tak dikenal itu, memang kenyataannya pernah hidup. Tiba-tiba ia memperoleh nama, sebuah nama Jawa yang amat sederhana. Dengan itu akhirnya ia memperoleh kontur. Sejak saat itu saya memerlukan sesuatu, untuk memberikan gambaran kongkrit mengenai dia, dan melihat wajah dan potretnya.
Dokumen itu, segera menimbulkan macam-macam pertanyaan. Dia asalnya dari mana? Bagaimana keadaan hidupnya selanjutnya? Kemudian bagaimana ia meninggal? Dan apakah dia, setelah ia disuruh pergi, kemdian masih kawin lagi dengan laki-laki Bumiputera? Dan dengan laki-laki baru ini apakah dia punya anak? Kalau demikian apakah di sekitar Surakarta banyak setengah oom dan setengah tante yang tak dikenal, saudara-saudara sepupu laki-laki dan perempuan, yang adalah bagian dari keluarga saya? Juga lebih banyak lagi pertanyaan pribadi yang mencuat: Apa ada kesamaan saya dengan mereka-mereka, cucu-cucunya, karena satu turunan itu? Dan apakah saya mirip ibu saya?
Tetapi pertanyaan yang paling penting, tentu, adalah- dia itu siapa. Siapa Nyai Moeinah. Dan nyai-nyai lainnya itu siapa mereka itu?
Nénék-biologis saya, begitu tampak dari akta, umurnya kira-kira 25th, ketika ia tinggal di wisma residen di Sragen (Surakarta) resminya. Artinya menurut undang-undang orang Eropah, ketika ia pisah dengan bayinya. Umur itu didasarkan atas dugaan kasar oleh ambtenar yang bertugas ketika itu. Ayah saya pada bulan Oktober 1926 berumur 7 tahun Jadi ketika Moeinah melahirkan, -- ia berumur 18 tahun, atau, barangkali lebih muda lagi. Andaikta ia benar 18 tahun, maka ia lahir kira-kira 1901, di suatu tempat di daerah Surakarta. Tetapi, ia itu berasal dari lingkungan yang bagaimana? Dan bagaimana ia sampai (terjerumus) ke sistim selir/gundik dengan seorang Eropah muda?
Sunday, April 24, 2011
THE AFRO-ASIAN SPIRIT IS STILL ALIVE
Kolom IBRAHIM ISA
Sunday, 24 April, 2011
-----------------------
56 YEARS AFTER . . . - THE AFRO-ASIAN SPIRIT IS STILL ALIVE
Today, 24 April, 56 years ago, at Bandung, Indonesia, a HISTORICAL GATHERING OF AFRO-ASIAN NATIONS FOR FREEDOM, INDEPENDENCE, for Solidarity in the Common Struggle Against Colonialism and Imperialissm for Peace, was closed with great success! The Afro-Asian nations and countries of today are still confronted with the task of consolidating their independence, building an independent national economy, and continue with develoment and progress along the path of independence and self-reliance.
* * *
The first *Asian--African* or *Afro--Asian Conference*---popular known as the *Bandung Conference*---was a meeting of Asian and African states and regions, most of which were newly independent. The meeting was the first of its kind, conducted in a common open discussion, based upon common interest. Free of the Big Powers that until then control the world. There were twenty nine countries participated at the Bandung Confeerence. ^ The conference was organized by Indonesia, Burma, Pakistan, Ceylon and India. Indonesia's Secretary General of the Minsitry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia, Ruslan Abdulgani was secretary general of the Copnference.
The conference's declared aims were to promote Afro-Asian economic and cultural cooperation and to oppose colonialism, or neo-colonialism. The conference was an important step toward the devellopment of of the NON-ALIGNED MOVEMENT , which still exist today.
* * *
Notes published below may give the readers a bird's-eye-view on the idea and aspirations behind the Afro-Asian Conferenc 66 years ago.
Sixty-six years ago, a significant hitorical/political event took place at Bandung, Indonesia. The First Afro-Asian Conference -- f i r s t of its kind in the history of the two continents -- was held from 18 -- 24 April 1955.
A significant and historical document was unaninously adopted: THE TEN BANDUNG PRINCIPLES OF PEACEFUL CO-EXISTENCE.
The meeting constituted a great impetus to the national independence struggle of the Afro-Asian peoples and countries. Asserting themselves as an independentt force, they are neither allied to or a substitute of the Western Bloc, nor the Eastern Bloc countries. This Afro-Asian independent political movement that started at Bandung (1955) developed 6 years later, into a formal political movement called THE NON ALIGNED MOVEMENT (Belgrade, 1961).
* * *
The conference reflected what they regarded as a reluctance by the Western powers to consult with them on decisions affecting Asia in a setting of Cold War tensions; their concern over tension between the People's Republic of China and the United States; their desire to lay firmer foundations for China's peace relations with themselves and the West; their opposition to colonialism, especially French influence in North Africa and French colonial rule in Algeria; and Indonesia's desire to promote its case in the dispute with the Netherlands over western New Guinea (Irian Barat)
SOEKARNO,the first president of the Republic of INDONESIA, portrayed himself as the leader of this group of nations, naming it NEFOS (Newly Emerging Forces).
CHINA played an important role in the conference and strengthened its relations with other Asian nations. Having survived an asassination attempt by foreign intelligence services on the way to the conference, the Chinese premier,ZHOU EN LAI, displayed a moderate and conciliatory attitude that tended to quiet fears of some anticommunist delegates concerning China's intentions.
Later in the conference, Zhou Enlai signed on to the article in the concluding declaration stating that overseas Chinese owed primary loyalty to their home nation, rather than to China -- a highly sensitive issue for both his Indonesian hosts and for several other participating countries.
A 10-point "Declaration on Promotion of World Peace and Cooperation," incorporating the principles of the UNO was adopted unanimously:
1.Respect for fundamental human rights and for the purposes and principles of the charter of the United Nations
2.Respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all nations
3.Recognition of the equality of all races and of the equality of all nations large and small
4.Abstention from intervention or interference in the internal affairs of another country
5.Respect for the right of each nation to defend itself, singly or collectively, in conformity with the charter of the United Nations
6.(a) Abstention from the use of arrangements of collective defence to serve any particular interests of the big powers
(b) Abstention by any country from exerting pressures on other countries
7.Refraining from acts or threats of aggression or the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any country
8.Settlement of all international disputes by peaceful means, such as negotiation, conciliation, arbitration or judicial settlement as well as other peaceful means of the parties own choice, in conformity with the charter of the United Nations
9.Promotion of mutual interests and cooperation
10.Respect for justice and international obligations.
* * *
The Final Communique of the Conference underscored the need for developing countries to loosen their economic dependence on the leading industrialized nations by providing technical assistance to one another through the exchange of experts and technical assistance for developmental projects, as well as the exchange of technological know-how and the establishment of regional training and research institutes.
The United States of America, through its Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, shunned the conference and was not officially represented. However, Representative Adam Clayton Powell (D-N.Y.) attended the conference and spoke at some length in favor of American foreign policy there which assisted the United States's standing with the Non-Aligned. When Powell returned to the United States to report on the conference, the House of Representatives honored him for his contributions.
The conference of Bandung was preceded by the Bogo Conference (1954) and was followed by the Belgrade Conference (1961), which led to the establishment of the Non Aligned Movement. In later years, conflicts between the nonaligned nations eroded the solidarity expressed at Bandung.
To mark the fiftieth anniversary of the Conference, Heads of State and Government of Asian-African countries attended a new Asian-African Summit from 20-24 April 2005 in Bandung and Jakarta . Some sessions of the new conference took place in Gedung Merdeka (Independence Building), the venue of the original conference. The conference concluded by establishing the New Asian-African Strategic Partnership (NAASP).
* * *
Origins of the Non Aligned Movement:
Independent countries, who chose not to join any of the Cold War blocs, were also known as non aligned nations.
The term "non-alignment" itself was coined by Indian Prime Minister Nehru,, during his speech in 1954 in Colombo, Sri Lanka. In this speech, Nehru described the five pillars to be used as a guide for Sino-Indian relations, which were first put forth b Chinese Premier Zhou En-lai called Pancha Sheel, these principles would later serve as the basis of the Non-Aligned Movement.The five principles were:
Mutual respect for each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty
Mutual non-aggression
Mutual non-interference in domestic affairs
Equality and mutual benefit
Peaceful co-existence
A significant milestone in the development of the Non-aligned movement was the 1955Bandung Conference, a conference of Asian and African states hosted by Indonesian president SUKARNO, has give a significant contribution to promote this movement. The attending nations declared their desire not to become involved in the Cold War and adopted a "declaration on promotion of world peace and cooperation", which included Nehru's five principles. Six years after Bandung, an initiative of Yugoslav Presiden Tito led to the first official Non-Aligned Movement Summit, which was held in September 1961 in Belgrade.
At the Lusaka Conference in September 1970, the member nations added as aims of the movement the peaceful resolution of disputes and the abstention from the big power military alliances and pacts. Another added aim was opposition to stationing of military bases in foreign countries.
he founding fathers of the Non-aligned movement were:
SUKARNO OF INDONESIA,NEHRU OF INDIA and YOSEP BROZ TITO OF YUGOSLAVIA, GAMAL ABDEL NASSER OF EGYPT, KWAME NKRUMAH OF GHANA. Their actions were known as 'The Initiative of Five'.
* * *
The Asian-African Conference at Bandung in 1955
The Asian-African conference held in April 1955 was an important milestone on the road to the formation of the non-aligned movement six years later
The Pre-Bandung Era
The new spirit of anti-colonialism and co-operation between newly emerging states received a boost at the Asian Relations Conference of 1947 held in India. The future prime minister of Ceylon Mr. S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike spoke of the conference being the "beginning of something much greater-a federation of free and equal Asiatic countries, working not merely for our own advantage but for the progress and peace of all mankind". This was the common aspiration of the main participants of this conference.
Ceylon played a vital role in organizing the conference of the Colombo Powers in 1954, where the holding of an Asian-African conference of emergent countries were discussed for the first time. Indonesian Prime Minister Dr. Sastromidjojo was the chief exponent of this idea. "Where do we stand now? We, the people of Asia, in this world of ours today?" was the question he posed at the gathering. At this time, the principals of mutual co-operation and non alignment with the two power blocs were popular policies in many newly emerged nations. But a more cohesive agreement between these states was envisioned by the exponents of these ideas.
On December 28-29, 1954, another conference was held at Bogor, Indonesia, as a prelude to the larger conference to be held the following year. This was to decide upon whom to invite for the Bandung conference and to agree on an agenda. The conference was to be held on April 18-24, 1955.
Participants of the Bandung Conference
Many independent nations in Asia-numbering 23-took part in the conference, including Indonesia, India, Ceylon, Burma, Peoples Republic of China (PRC) and Pakistan. Both the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and State of Vietnam were represented but Republic of China (Taiwan) was not. The two Koreas were not represented either. Meanwhile, there were 6 African nations including Egypt, Sudan, Ghana and Ethiopia. These nations were not a cohesive group with similar agendas. They included allies of both power blocs and also nations advocating non alignment.
The participation of the PRC was vital because of several factors. She was hostile towards the West and clearly was an ally of the Soviet Union. But she was the most populous country in the world and had traditional ties with many Asian nations. Premier Zhou En-lai had survived an assassination attempt on his way to the conference by the sheer chance of changing his plans and visiting Burma at the last moment to meet Burmese, Indian and Egyptian leaders, thus missing the plane he intended to travel. Despite the fact that there were several pro-Western nations at Bandung, the Chinese were quite conciliatory in their attitude, may be intending to bolster their international image by being so. To a large extent they succeeded and it contributed to lessen the diplomatic isolation of the PRC over the next few years.
Main Points of Discussion
There were three committees appointed to discuss the political, economic and cultural affairs. The discussions focused on important matters such as economic and cultural cooperation, human rights and right to self-determination, promotion of world peace and international cooperation. The promotion of a foreign policy based on the Panchaseela Principles agreed upon by China and India was an important development in the conference.
At the end of the conference, despite the differences, all countries agreed upon a 10 point declaration on promotion of world peace and cooperation. Incorporating the principals of the United Nations Charter, it focused on respect to fundamental human rights, territorial integrity and equality of all nations, the right of the nations to defend themselves, non involvement in power blocs, settlement of international disputes through peaceful means and mutual cooperation among nations.
After Bandung
Even though some participants remained allied to the power blocs, the non-aligned policy in foreign affairs enjoyed widespread support among the newly emerging nations. This ultimately led to the birth of the non aligned movement (NAM) in 1961.
In 2005, a second Bandung conference was held to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the first conference.
* * *
*The illusion of Afro-Asian solidarity?: Situating the 1955 Bandung Conference*
*
And how could the Bandung Conference not be significant? Bandung convened only ten years after World War II ended and the United States emerged as the world's superpower. It was during this period that the goals of the 1944 Bretton Woods Conference ---including the International Monetary Funds and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (now known as the Worldl Bank---began to be institutionalized. And of course it was the beginning of the Cold War. A political period whose moniker was coined by financier and White House insider Bernard Baruch, the "Cold War" came to signify the struggle between the first world of the west (which included the US, Canada, Western Europe, Japan, Australia and New Zealand) and the second world of the east (comprised of communist Soviet Union and its Eastern European allies). As we know, the Cold War was anything but cold for the majority of humanity given that non-European countries were forced to carefully negotiate their relationships with both the west and the east and too often were treated as collateral damage. Many territories of course were engaged in fierce decolonization battles and others were faced with the challenge of trying to develop as autonomous nations in an era that was strategically transitioning to a global neo-colonial framework.
It was in this context that a third world emerged. While the term Third World was an analytical concept coined by the economist Alfred Sauvy in the August 14, 1952 edition of the French magazine /L'Observateur/, it meant much more to those who convened in Bandung with the hopes of creating what would later become the Non-Algined Movementr, which was initiated by India, Indonesia, and Yugoslavia in 1961. The Non-Aligned Movement was an effort to neither align with the first world or the second world. Its participants continue to meet today, even during an era of globalization that is certainly marked by alignment or at least a lack of neutrality. A great deal of attention has been given to what Martin Luther Kingg Jr.,. would describe in his tribute to W.E.B. du Bois as the United States' obsession with communism. Yet less material is available about how the US engaged non-alignment. As such, an exploration into the Bandung Conference gives us a brief glimpse into this topic.
Not surprisingly, the US did not take well to neutralism and saw it as similar to aligning with the enemy or being ready to do as much. As if to foreshadow a contemporary quip heard 'round the world, the US government believed that you're either for it or against it. And so it was within this context that twenty-nine African and Asian nations convened in Bandung, Indonesia in an effort to denounce colonialism and what they termed "racialism," maintain neutrality, promote economic and cultural cooperation, and critique nuclear weapons. In doing so, participants of Bandung were issuing a mighty challenge to the both the west and the east, a challenge that has great significance and meaning for the many of us who did not or could not attend Bandung but who can identify with its goals.
The significance and meaning of Bandung, then, makes it difficult to intervene in the conversation about the conference, to speak in a way that troubles the gathering, or at least explores it from a slightly different angle. I have often been accused of being at best, negative, and despite what some may think, I am not going out of my way to live up to this image. But I want to take on the challenge, as daunting as it may be, to reevaluate Bandung. After all, our forum today is less about celebrating Bandung but more about commemorating its memory by interrogating Black-Asian coalition, which has become a hegemonic and institutionalized impulse in the 21st century. And so I will try to engage in the dual task of both describing Bandung and evaluating it in the process.
In April 1955, twenty-nine African and Asian nations came together in Bandung, Indonesia for a gathering of non-aligned colored nations to discuss issues of economic and cultural cooperation as well as the threat of nuclear weapons and the need for world peace. Yet only six out of the twenty-nine countries formally represented at Bandung were African nations or regions: Egypt, Ethiopia, the Gold Coast (now Ghana), Liberia, Libya, and Sudan. Out of these six African countries, a third was of the Arab world and the Gold Coast and Sudan were not yet independent. The Central African Federation, which was comprised of what is now present day Zimbabwe, Zambia and Malawi, would have been the seventh African country but could not attend because it was still engaged in a struggle of decolonization. Thus, despite its emphasis on "Afro-Asian" solidarity, the majority of Sub-Saharan Africa was not present at Bandung.
Moreover, the location of Bandung, Indonesia was not incidental to the gathering given that Indonesia was one of the five countries that organized and ran the Bandung Conference. Actually, all of the organizing nations that also played key roles at the conference were of Asia: Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Burma (now Myanmar), and Ceylon (now Sri Lanka). In 1953, the Indonesian Prime Minister delivered a statement to the Indonesian Parliament encouraging cooperation between Africa and Asia. In 1954, the Prime Minister of Ceylon invited the heads of the other Asian nations who would eventually become the Bandung organizers to a meeting in Colombo, Ceylon to discuss an Afro-Asian Conference. Based on the proceedings of the Columbo meeting, the five Asian nations began to discuss the possibility of a gathering with other African and Asian nations. The Columbo Powers, as they were dubbed, met in Bogor, Indonesia at the end of 1954 to plan what would eventually be the Bandung Conference, a process that involved determining who would be invited. At the time, the majority of Africa was still colonized and therefore, not "inevitable," so to speak, given that the emphasis was on independent nation status.
One of the most controversial decisions from the organizers was to not invite either the United States or the USSR. Also not invited were South Africa, North Korea, South Korea, and Israel. No European countries formally participated, with the exception of Turkey, whose racial identity was not yet European in a pre-European Union era.
The decision to not invite the United States of course rankled the US government, especially Secretary of State John Foster Dulles. Publicly the White House attempted to appear ambivalent about and even disinterested in Bandung. But behind the scenes, the US government was concerned about the possibility that Bandung would make it difficult for the US to maintain control over, or contain the spread of communism through Africa and Asia. If countries were to become self-determined and become a non-aligned bloc, it might mean that they will either be at best uncooperative with the US government's efforts to contain communism or at worst might align themselves with the Soviet Union.
Indeed, despite today's tendency to describe the coming together of "people of color" as inherently revolutionary, it does not appear that the US government was convinced that Africans and Asians were steadfastly united in some primordial sense of brotherhood. Rather, research suggests that the White House was more concerned with what they anticipated to be certain Asian countries' efforts to make participants look to the east and away from the west. In other words, it appears that the White House was not too concerned with a real possibility of solidarity between Africans and Asians. Rather, evidence suggests that the US really feared that certain Asian countries were using the platform of solidarity in order to achieve Asian self-determination. This of course would undermine US and Western interests in controlling the Asian region and its people. Further, the specter of Asian nationalism and regional cooperation was driven by the specter of cooperation between Asia and the USSR. Ostensibly, the US worried that the platform of Afro-Asian solidarity was really a ruse to turn the Black and Asian worlds into what can crudely be labeled "communist dupes" vis-à-vis a strategic discourse of self-determination and anti-colonialism.
To be sure, its fear of a communist takeover at Bandung revealed the White House's racist arrogance and white western superiority towards both Africans and Asians. But this racism must be understood in relation to the context of the Cold War and particular racial ideologies associated with Africa and Asia. The US was mainly concerned about losing the non-western world to a developing pan-Asian nationalism and what appeared to be a growing cooperation among emerging independent Asian nations with each other and the USSR, as apparent in its particular anxiety over the newly formed Peoples' Republic of China and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam.
Conversely, White House discussions of Bandung do not reveal a great deal of anxiety over the possibility of a self-determined Africa and its role at Bandung, although future research may unearth more important insight into this area. But overall, most research suggests that the US was not too concerned about losing Africa and Asia to Africans but rather was afraid of losing both regions to Asia and the USSR.
While the possibility of widespread African decolonization and independence of course threatened the sensibilities of the US---particularly its pro-segregationists---it was one that reflected its racist belief that Africans and African Americans were incapable of self-actualization and self-determination. Hence the White House's concern that Asian countries would dupe other participants at Bandung to go red and therefore initiate a worldwide communist struggle in which Black Africans would be controlled by Asia or the USSR. In other words, the US was threatened by the specter of Asian nationalism and Asian-USSR control over Africa.
The US government's preoccupation with Asian nationalism is congruent with their vehement denial of white supremacy in general because it suggested that Blacks had no legitimate reason to rebel or to side with Asians and that Asians were getting Blacks "riled up" about racism in order to win them over to an Asian version of communism. As Thomas Noer demonstrates, white supremacists in the US believed that Africans and African Americans were incapable of self-determination or self-governance and therefore believed that Blacks were constantly vulnerable to being used by others for their own (communist) agendas. In some cases, and consistent with popular discourse of African/Black leadership today, Africans and African Americans were viewed as politically corrupt and therefore unable to govern themselves in a way that did not result in anarchy or moral turpitude. Many pro-segregationists came to believe that both the decolonization movements in Africa and the African American Civil Rights Movement were largely communist conspiracies. Thus, Blacks were subject to a global racist ideology that posited they had no basis for complaint and that whatever protest they did engage in was because they had been manipulated to do so. In this way the White House was definitely threatened by Black independence---whether at "home" or abroad---but, given its racist assumptions, did not assume that Blacks were capable of initiating such movements without white---or in the case of Bandung, Asian---leadership pulling the strings.
Yet despite its reservations about Black agency, as well as its hostility to Asian self-determination and Asian communism (which far exceeded its hostility to Russian communism), the US government saw Asian nationalism as an actual threat to the stabilization of the US' growing dominance and thus a major factor in the direction of world affairs. In other words, the US begrudgingly considered Asians as capable of self-determination and therefore competed with them for control of Asia. This may explain why most of the books I acquired from a university library regarding the Bandung Conference were found in the Asian nationalism section.
Given these concerns about the rise of Asian nationalism, the growing energy of what would result in the Civil Rights Movement, and violent decolonization battles being waged worldwide, the US government debated privately how to handle the Bandung gathering. When asked about his opinion on the upcoming Bandung Conference at a press conference on February 2, 1955, President Eisenhower feigned ignorance stating that his administration was not too familiar with the event. The White House was of course lying but did not want to take a public stand against Bandung. Doing so would suggest that Bandung was important and on the White House's radar. And they did not want to publicly dismiss Bandung for fear of being accused of racism. Such a critique would hurt the US' efforts to push its agenda worldwide in the face of growing global criticism of US racism that was gaining momentum and also being strategically exploited by the USSR.
One way the US enforced its "encouragement, not discouragement" strategy was to push African and Asian countries they identified as cooperative or allies to attend. The US especially encouraged the attendance of Japan, who emerged out of the bitter ashes of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to be a junior partner of the US. The White House also pushed for members of the now defunct Southeast Asian Treaty Organization (SEATO) to go. SEATO was an alliance established in 1954 that included Pakistan, the Philippines, Thailand, and the United States. It is important to point out that despite the inclination to see Bandung as a gathering driven by feelings of kinship, some suggest that the Columbo powers who organized Bandung (which included SEATO member Pakistan) actually hoped Bandung would prove an important counterpart to SEATO.
Basically, the US was, on the surface, either keeping its critiques of Bandung to themselves or feigning support for the all colored gathering while conducting power plays behind the scenes to insure its dominance. As Fraser puts it, "The United States was thus participating in the Afro-Asian conference although it had not been invited."
* * *
. . . . .
The lack of African American representation at Bandung can be easily attributed to the repression of the US government towards African American mobility and politics. But we must also consider the paucity of African Americans to be indicative of a lack of insight on behalf of the Columbo Powers to adequately grapple with the African American experience and how it relates to the very issues of colonialism and racialism addressed at Bandung. While African Americans were welcomed to attend Bandung, and as the testimony of those who went reveals, treated quite well when they were there, African Americans were never invited to the conference as a class of people despite their intimate knowledge of colonialism and racialism or sustained albeit varied critiques of white supremacy and western imperialism. Indeed, the parameters of the Bandung Conference, which emphasized nation building and movement towards independent nation status, could not adequately address the African American situation. In many ways, Bandung did not even really address or seek to radically include Africans despite its public commitment to Afro-Asian solidarity. Perhaps this is why Richard Wright would remark in /The Color Curtain/ that "Africa was barely represented."
* * *
Overall, then, Bandung may be an event that was largely a gathering of good intentions on the surface and a developing albeit highly fractured pan-Asian nationalism or more---as revealed in the recent APEC conference---a growing pan-national Asianism behind the scenes. Asian nations controlled the planning and the proceedings and dominated in both numbers and importance. Africa was hardly present. And the African American presence was limited to observers and journalists.
While the US government was indeed threatened by the rise of Asian self-determination and racially opposed to it, there was recognition from the White House that Asian nations may actually be capable of self-rule and that this possibility could change the tides of history or at least seriously challenge the status of the west. As such, white supremacists begrudgingly negotiated with Asia as a partner of sorts---albeit in a hierarchical relationship---in a larger movement towards modernity and actualization of Enlightenment ideology. The same can not be said for Africa or African America.
* * *
Thus, I look at Bandung neither to memorialize or destroy it but rather to /situate it/ within a larger history and trajectory of what it means to be Black and Asian in the modern world. The story about Bandung and the conclusions we draw from it regarding Black-Asian coalition still requires much reflection. But reevaluating such events and figuring out what such efforts mean to our understanding of the world today is, to me, an integral step in determining whether coalition is truly viable between our communities.
* * *
Sunday, 24 April, 2011
-----------------------
56 YEARS AFTER . . . - THE AFRO-ASIAN SPIRIT IS STILL ALIVE
Today, 24 April, 56 years ago, at Bandung, Indonesia, a HISTORICAL GATHERING OF AFRO-ASIAN NATIONS FOR FREEDOM, INDEPENDENCE, for Solidarity in the Common Struggle Against Colonialism and Imperialissm for Peace, was closed with great success! The Afro-Asian nations and countries of today are still confronted with the task of consolidating their independence, building an independent national economy, and continue with develoment and progress along the path of independence and self-reliance.
* * *
The first *Asian--African* or *Afro--Asian Conference*
The conference's declared aims were to promote Afro-Asian economic and cultural cooperation and to oppose colonialism, or neo-colonialism. The conference was an important step toward the devellopment of of the NON-ALIGNED MOVEMENT , which still exist today.
* * *
Notes published below may give the readers a bird's-eye-view on the idea and aspirations behind the Afro-Asian Conferenc 66 years ago.
Sixty-six years ago, a significant hitorical/political event took place at Bandung, Indonesia. The First Afro-Asian Conference -- f i r s t of its kind in the history of the two continents -- was held from 18 -- 24 April 1955.
A significant and historical document was unaninously adopted: THE TEN BANDUNG PRINCIPLES OF PEACEFUL CO-EXISTENCE.
The meeting constituted a great impetus to the national independence struggle of the Afro-Asian peoples and countries. Asserting themselves as an independentt force, they are neither allied to or a substitute of the Western Bloc, nor the Eastern Bloc countries. This Afro-Asian independent political movement that started at Bandung (1955) developed 6 years later, into a formal political movement called THE NON ALIGNED MOVEMENT (Belgrade, 1961).
* * *
The conference reflected what they regarded as a reluctance by the Western powers to consult with them on decisions affecting Asia in a setting of Cold War tensions; their concern over tension between the People's Republic of China and the United States; their desire to lay firmer foundations for China's peace relations with themselves and the West; their opposition to colonialism, especially French influence in North Africa and French colonial rule in Algeria; and Indonesia's desire to promote its case in the dispute with the Netherlands over western New Guinea (Irian Barat)
SOEKARNO,the first president of the Republic of INDONESIA, portrayed himself as the leader of this group of nations, naming it NEFOS (Newly Emerging Forces).
CHINA played an important role in the conference and strengthened its relations with other Asian nations. Having survived an asassination attempt by foreign intelligence services on the way to the conference, the Chinese premier,ZHOU EN LAI, displayed a moderate and conciliatory attitude that tended to quiet fears of some anticommunist delegates concerning China's intentions.
Later in the conference, Zhou Enlai signed on to the article in the concluding declaration stating that overseas Chinese owed primary loyalty to their home nation, rather than to China -- a highly sensitive issue for both his Indonesian hosts and for several other participating countries.
A 10-point "Declaration on Promotion of World Peace and Cooperation," incorporating the principles of the UNO was adopted unanimously:
1.Respect for fundamental human rights and for the purposes and principles of the charter of the United Nations
2.Respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all nations
3.Recognition of the equality of all races and of the equality of all nations large and small
4.Abstention from intervention or interference in the internal affairs of another country
5.Respect for the right of each nation to defend itself, singly or collectively, in conformity with the charter of the United Nations
6.(a) Abstention from the use of arrangements of collective defence to serve any particular interests of the big powers
(b) Abstention by any country from exerting pressures on other countries
7.Refraining from acts or threats of aggression or the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any country
8.Settlement of all international disputes by peaceful means, such as negotiation, conciliation, arbitration or judicial settlement as well as other peaceful means of the parties own choice, in conformity with the charter of the United Nations
9.Promotion of mutual interests and cooperation
10.Respect for justice and international obligations.
* * *
The Final Communique of the Conference underscored the need for developing countries to loosen their economic dependence on the leading industrialized nations by providing technical assistance to one another through the exchange of experts and technical assistance for developmental projects, as well as the exchange of technological know-how and the establishment of regional training and research institutes.
The United States of America, through its Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, shunned the conference and was not officially represented. However, Representative Adam Clayton Powell (D-N.Y.) attended the conference and spoke at some length in favor of American foreign policy there which assisted the United States's standing with the Non-Aligned. When Powell returned to the United States to report on the conference, the House of Representatives honored him for his contributions.
The conference of Bandung was preceded by the Bogo Conference (1954) and was followed by the Belgrade Conference (1961), which led to the establishment of the Non Aligned Movement. In later years, conflicts between the nonaligned nations eroded the solidarity expressed at Bandung.
To mark the fiftieth anniversary of the Conference, Heads of State and Government of Asian-African countries attended a new Asian-African Summit from 20-24 April 2005 in Bandung and Jakarta . Some sessions of the new conference took place in Gedung Merdeka (Independence Building), the venue of the original conference. The conference concluded by establishing the New Asian-African Strategic Partnership (NAASP).
* * *
Origins of the Non Aligned Movement:
Independent countries, who chose not to join any of the Cold War blocs, were also known as non aligned nations.
The term "non-alignment" itself was coined by Indian Prime Minister Nehru,, during his speech in 1954 in Colombo, Sri Lanka. In this speech, Nehru described the five pillars to be used as a guide for Sino-Indian relations, which were first put forth b Chinese Premier Zhou En-lai called Pancha Sheel, these principles would later serve as the basis of the Non-Aligned Movement.The five principles were:
Mutual respect for each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty
Mutual non-aggression
Mutual non-interference in domestic affairs
Equality and mutual benefit
Peaceful co-existence
A significant milestone in the development of the Non-aligned movement was the 1955Bandung Conference, a conference of Asian and African states hosted by Indonesian president SUKARNO, has give a significant contribution to promote this movement. The attending nations declared their desire not to become involved in the Cold War and adopted a "declaration on promotion of world peace and cooperation", which included Nehru's five principles. Six years after Bandung, an initiative of Yugoslav Presiden Tito led to the first official Non-Aligned Movement Summit, which was held in September 1961 in Belgrade.
At the Lusaka Conference in September 1970, the member nations added as aims of the movement the peaceful resolution of disputes and the abstention from the big power military alliances and pacts. Another added aim was opposition to stationing of military bases in foreign countries.
he founding fathers of the Non-aligned movement were:
SUKARNO OF INDONESIA,NEHRU OF INDIA and YOSEP BROZ TITO OF YUGOSLAVIA, GAMAL ABDEL NASSER OF EGYPT, KWAME NKRUMAH OF GHANA. Their actions were known as 'The Initiative of Five'.
* * *
The Asian-African Conference at Bandung in 1955
The Asian-African conference held in April 1955 was an important milestone on the road to the formation of the non-aligned movement six years later
The Pre-Bandung Era
The new spirit of anti-colonialism and co-operation between newly emerging states received a boost at the Asian Relations Conference of 1947 held in India. The future prime minister of Ceylon Mr. S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike spoke of the conference being the "beginning of something much greater-a federation of free and equal Asiatic countries, working not merely for our own advantage but for the progress and peace of all mankind". This was the common aspiration of the main participants of this conference.
Ceylon played a vital role in organizing the conference of the Colombo Powers in 1954, where the holding of an Asian-African conference of emergent countries were discussed for the first time. Indonesian Prime Minister Dr. Sastromidjojo was the chief exponent of this idea. "Where do we stand now? We, the people of Asia, in this world of ours today?" was the question he posed at the gathering. At this time, the principals of mutual co-operation and non alignment with the two power blocs were popular policies in many newly emerged nations. But a more cohesive agreement between these states was envisioned by the exponents of these ideas.
On December 28-29, 1954, another conference was held at Bogor, Indonesia, as a prelude to the larger conference to be held the following year. This was to decide upon whom to invite for the Bandung conference and to agree on an agenda. The conference was to be held on April 18-24, 1955.
Participants of the Bandung Conference
Many independent nations in Asia-numbering 23-took part in the conference, including Indonesia, India, Ceylon, Burma, Peoples Republic of China (PRC) and Pakistan. Both the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and State of Vietnam were represented but Republic of China (Taiwan) was not. The two Koreas were not represented either. Meanwhile, there were 6 African nations including Egypt, Sudan, Ghana and Ethiopia. These nations were not a cohesive group with similar agendas. They included allies of both power blocs and also nations advocating non alignment.
The participation of the PRC was vital because of several factors. She was hostile towards the West and clearly was an ally of the Soviet Union. But she was the most populous country in the world and had traditional ties with many Asian nations. Premier Zhou En-lai had survived an assassination attempt on his way to the conference by the sheer chance of changing his plans and visiting Burma at the last moment to meet Burmese, Indian and Egyptian leaders, thus missing the plane he intended to travel. Despite the fact that there were several pro-Western nations at Bandung, the Chinese were quite conciliatory in their attitude, may be intending to bolster their international image by being so. To a large extent they succeeded and it contributed to lessen the diplomatic isolation of the PRC over the next few years.
Main Points of Discussion
There were three committees appointed to discuss the political, economic and cultural affairs. The discussions focused on important matters such as economic and cultural cooperation, human rights and right to self-determination, promotion of world peace and international cooperation. The promotion of a foreign policy based on the Panchaseela Principles agreed upon by China and India was an important development in the conference.
At the end of the conference, despite the differences, all countries agreed upon a 10 point declaration
After Bandung
Even though some participants remained allied to the power blocs, the non-aligned policy in foreign affairs enjoyed widespread support among the newly emerging nations. This ultimately led to the birth of the non aligned movement (NAM) in 1961.
In 2005, a second Bandung conference was held to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the first conference.
* * *
*The illusion of Afro-Asian solidarity?: Situating the 1955 Bandung Conference*
*
And how could the Bandung Conference not be significant? Bandung convened only ten years after World War II ended and the United States emerged as the world's superpower. It was during this period that the goals of the 1944 Bretton Woods Conference ---including the International Monetary Funds and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (now known as the Worldl Bank---began to be institutionalized. And of course it was the beginning of the Cold War. A political period whose moniker was coined by financier and White House insider Bernard Baruch, the "Cold War" came to signify the struggle between the first world of the west (which included the US, Canada, Western Europe, Japan, Australia and New Zealand) and the second world of the east (comprised of communist Soviet Union and its Eastern European allies). As we know, the Cold War was anything but cold for the majority of humanity given that non-European countries were forced to carefully negotiate their relationships with both the west and the east and too often were treated as collateral damage. Many territories of course were engaged in fierce decolonization battles and others were faced with the challenge of trying to develop as autonomous nations in an era that was strategically transitioning to a global neo-colonial framework.
It was in this context that a third world emerged. While the term Third World was an analytical concept coined by the economist Alfred Sauvy in the August 14, 1952 edition of the French magazine /L'Observateur/, it meant much more to those who convened in Bandung with the hopes of creating what would later become the Non-Algined Movementr, which was initiated by India, Indonesia, and Yugoslavia in 1961. The Non-Aligned Movement was an effort to neither align with the first world or the second world. Its participants continue to meet today, even during an era of globalization that is certainly marked by alignment or at least a lack of neutrality. A great deal of attention has been given to what Martin Luther Kingg Jr.,.
Not surprisingly, the US did not take well to neutralism and saw it as similar to aligning with the enemy or being ready to do as much. As if to foreshadow a contemporary quip heard 'round the world, the US government believed that you're either for it or against it. And so it was within this context that twenty-nine African and Asian nations convened in Bandung, Indonesia in an effort to denounce colonialism and what they termed "racialism," maintain neutrality, promote economic and cultural cooperation, and critique nuclear weapons. In doing so, participants of Bandung were issuing a mighty challenge to the both the west and the east, a challenge that has great significance and meaning for the many of us who did not or could not attend Bandung but who can identify with its goals.
The significance and meaning of Bandung, then, makes it difficult to intervene in the conversation about the conference, to speak in a way that troubles the gathering, or at least explores it from a slightly different angle. I have often been accused of being at best, negative, and despite what some may think, I am not going out of my way to live up to this image. But I want to take on the challenge, as daunting as it may be, to reevaluate Bandung. After all, our forum today is less about celebrating Bandung but more about commemorating its memory by interrogating Black-Asian coalition, which has become a hegemonic and institutionalized impulse in the 21st century. And so I will try to engage in the dual task of both describing Bandung and evaluating it in the process.
In April 1955, twenty-nine African and Asian nations came together in Bandung, Indonesia for a gathering of non-aligned colored nations to discuss issues of economic and cultural cooperation as well as the threat of nuclear weapons and the need for world peace. Yet only six out of the twenty-nine countries formally represented at Bandung were African nations or regions: Egypt, Ethiopia, the Gold Coast (now Ghana), Liberia, Libya, and Sudan. Out of these six African countries, a third was of the Arab world and the Gold Coast and Sudan were not yet independent. The Central African Federation, which was comprised of what is now present day Zimbabwe, Zambia and Malawi, would have been the seventh African country but could not attend because it was still engaged in a struggle of decolonization. Thus, despite its emphasis on "Afro-Asian" solidarity, the majority of Sub-Saharan Africa was not present at Bandung.
Moreover, the location of Bandung, Indonesia was not incidental to the gathering given that Indonesia was one of the five countries that organized and ran the Bandung Conference. Actually, all of the organizing nations that also played key roles at the conference were of Asia: Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Burma (now Myanmar), and Ceylon (now Sri Lanka). In 1953, the Indonesian Prime Minister delivered a statement to the Indonesian Parliament encouraging cooperation between Africa and Asia. In 1954, the Prime Minister of Ceylon invited the heads of the other Asian nations who would eventually become the Bandung organizers to a meeting in Colombo, Ceylon to discuss an Afro-Asian Conference. Based on the proceedings of the Columbo meeting, the five Asian nations began to discuss the possibility of a gathering with other African and Asian nations. The Columbo Powers, as they were dubbed, met in Bogor, Indonesia at the end of 1954 to plan what would eventually be the Bandung Conference, a process that involved determining who would be invited. At the time, the majority of Africa was still colonized and therefore, not "inevitable," so to speak, given that the emphasis was on independent nation status.
One of the most controversial decisions from the organizers was to not invite either the United States or the USSR. Also not invited were South Africa, North Korea, South Korea, and Israel. No European countries formally participated, with the exception of Turkey, whose racial identity was not yet European in a pre-European Union era.
The decision to not invite the United States of course rankled the US government, especially Secretary of State John Foster Dulles. Publicly the White House attempted to appear ambivalent about and even disinterested in Bandung. But behind the scenes, the US government was concerned about the possibility that Bandung would make it difficult for the US to maintain control over, or contain the spread of communism through Africa and Asia. If countries were to become self-determined and become a non-aligned bloc, it might mean that they will either be at best uncooperative with the US government's efforts to contain communism or at worst might align themselves with the Soviet Union.
Indeed, despite today's tendency to describe the coming together of "people of color" as inherently revolutionary, it does not appear that the US government was convinced that Africans and Asians were steadfastly united in some primordial sense of brotherhood. Rather, research suggests that the White House was more concerned with what they anticipated to be certain Asian countries' efforts to make participants look to the east and away from the west. In other words, it appears that the White House was not too concerned with a real possibility of solidarity between Africans and Asians. Rather, evidence suggests that the US really feared that certain Asian countries were using the platform of solidarity in order to achieve Asian self-determination. This of course would undermine US and Western interests in controlling the Asian region and its people. Further, the specter of Asian nationalism and regional cooperation was driven by the specter of cooperation between Asia and the USSR. Ostensibly, the US worried that the platform of Afro-Asian solidarity was really a ruse to turn the Black and Asian worlds into what can crudely be labeled "communist dupes" vis-à-vis a strategic discourse of self-determination and anti-colonialism.
To be sure, its fear of a communist takeover at Bandung revealed the White House's racist arrogance and white western superiority towards both Africans and Asians. But this racism must be understood in relation to the context of the Cold War and particular racial ideologies associated with Africa and Asia. The US was mainly concerned about losing the non-western world to a developing pan-Asian nationalism and what appeared to be a growing cooperation among emerging independent Asian nations with each other and the USSR, as apparent in its particular anxiety over the newly formed Peoples' Republic of China and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam.
Conversely, White House discussions of Bandung do not reveal a great deal of anxiety over the possibility of a self-determined Africa and its role at Bandung, although future research may unearth more important insight into this area. But overall, most research suggests that the US was not too concerned about losing Africa and Asia to Africans but rather was afraid of losing both regions to Asia and the USSR.
While the possibility of widespread African decolonization and independence of course threatened the sensibilities of the US---particularly its pro-segregationists---it was one that reflected its racist belief that Africans and African Americans were incapable of self-actualization and self-determination. Hence the White House's concern that Asian countries would dupe other participants at Bandung to go red and therefore initiate a worldwide communist struggle in which Black Africans would be controlled by Asia or the USSR. In other words, the US was threatened by the specter of Asian nationalism and Asian-USSR control over Africa.
The US government's preoccupation with Asian nationalism is congruent with their vehement denial of white supremacy in general because it suggested that Blacks had no legitimate reason to rebel or to side with Asians and that Asians were getting Blacks "riled up" about racism in order to win them over to an Asian version of communism. As Thomas Noer
Yet despite its reservations about Black agency, as well as its hostility to Asian self-determination and Asian communism (which far exceeded its hostility to Russian communism), the US government saw Asian nationalism as an actual threat to the stabilization of the US' growing dominance and thus a major factor in the direction of world affairs. In other words, the US begrudgingly considered Asians as capable of self-determination and therefore competed with them for control of Asia. This may explain why most of the books I acquired from a university library regarding the Bandung Conference were found in the Asian nationalism section.
Given these concerns about the rise of Asian nationalism, the growing energy of what would result in the Civil Rights Movement, and violent decolonization battles being waged worldwide, the US government debated privately how to handle the Bandung gathering. When asked about his opinion on the upcoming Bandung Conference at a press conference on February 2, 1955, President Eisenhower feigned ignorance stating that his administration was not too familiar with the event. The White House was of course lying but did not want to take a public stand against Bandung. Doing so would suggest that Bandung was important and on the White House's radar. And they did not want to publicly dismiss Bandung for fear of being accused of racism. Such a critique would hurt the US' efforts to push its agenda worldwide in the face of growing global criticism of US racism that was gaining momentum and also being strategically exploited by the USSR.
One way the US enforced its "encouragement, not discouragement" strategy was to push African and Asian countries they identified as cooperative or allies to attend. The US especially encouraged the attendance of Japan, who emerged out of the bitter ashes of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to be a junior partner of the US. The White House also pushed for members of the now defunct Southeast Asian Treaty Organization (SEATO) to go. SEATO was an alliance established in 1954 that included Pakistan, the Philippines, Thailand, and the United States. It is important to point out that despite the inclination to see Bandung as a gathering driven by feelings of kinship, some suggest that the Columbo powers who organized Bandung (which included SEATO member Pakistan) actually hoped Bandung would prove an important counterpart to SEATO.
Basically, the US was, on the surface, either keeping its critiques of Bandung to themselves or feigning support for the all colored gathering while conducting power plays behind the scenes to insure its dominance. As Fraser puts it, "The United States was thus participating in the Afro-Asian conference although it had not been invited."
* * *
. . . . .
The lack of African American representation at Bandung can be easily attributed to the repression of the US government towards African American mobility and politics. But we must also consider the paucity of African Americans to be indicative of a lack of insight on behalf of the Columbo Powers to adequately grapple with the African American experience and how it relates to the very issues of colonialism and racialism addressed at Bandung. While African Americans were welcomed to attend Bandung, and as the testimony of those who went reveals, treated quite well when they were there, African Americans were never invited to the conference as a class of people despite their intimate knowledge of colonialism and racialism or sustained albeit varied critiques of white supremacy and western imperialism. Indeed, the parameters of the Bandung Conference, which emphasized nation building and movement towards independent nation status, could not adequately address the African American situation. In many ways, Bandung did not even really address or seek to radically include Africans despite its public commitment to Afro-Asian solidarity. Perhaps this is why Richard Wright would remark in /The Color Curtain/ that "Africa was barely represented."
* * *
Overall, then, Bandung may be an event that was largely a gathering of good intentions on the surface and a developing albeit highly fractured pan-Asian nationalism or more---as revealed in the recent APEC conference---a growing pan-national Asianism behind the scenes. Asian nations controlled the planning and the proceedings and dominated in both numbers and importance. Africa was hardly present. And the African American presence was limited to observers and journalists.
While the US government was indeed threatened by the rise of Asian self-determination and racially opposed to it, there was recognition from the White House that Asian nations may actually be capable of self-rule and that this possibility could change the tides of history or at least seriously challenge the status of the west. As such, white supremacists begrudgingly negotiated with Asia as a partner of sorts---albeit in a hierarchical relationship---in a larger movement towards modernity and actualization of Enlightenment ideology. The same can not be said for Africa or African America.
* * *
Thus, I look at Bandung neither to memorialize or destroy it but rather to /situate it/ within a larger history and trajectory of what it means to be Black and Asian in the modern world. The story about Bandung and the conclusions we draw from it regarding Black-Asian coalition still requires much reflection. But reevaluating such events and figuring out what such efforts mean to our understanding of the world today is, to me, an integral step in determining whether coalition is truly viable between our communities.
* * *
Friday, April 22, 2011
MILITARY VIOLENCE ON POPULATION
IBRAHIM ISA FOCUS -- MILITARY VIOLENCE ON POPULATION
Friday, April 22, 2011
-----------------------------------------------------
MILITARY OPEN FIRE ON PROTESTING VILLAGERS IN KEBUMEN, CENTRAL JAVA
April 18, 2011
* * *
ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME
Urgent Appeal Case: AHRC-UAC-079-2011
18 April 2011
INDONESIA: Military open fire on protesting villagers in Central Java
ISSUES: Military, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom of Expression, Land Rights, Police Negligence
Dear friends,
*Since Saturday April 16, 2011 several farmers have been injured by military violence in Kebumen regency, Central Java. The actions of the military personnel included beating, kicking and shooting, allegedly with rubber bullets caused several persons injured. Ten villagers were arrested after they protested against the occupation of their land by the military. On April 16, 2011 several villagers joined a procession to the graves of child victims of past military exercises in the area. Provocation by the local military escalated the situation. Some of the victims were brought to hospitals and many left the area due to fear of further violence by the military and police. The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is concerned about the ongoing arrests and sweeping operations in the area.
CASE NARRATIVE*:
After years of disputes over the use of land by the military in the Kebumen Regency farmers had built a road block of trees on April 11, 2011 to prevent the Indonesian military (TNI) from accessing the disputed land they claimed. On Saturday, April 16, 2011 at 9.30 in the morning about 30 residents conducted a procession to the tombs of children who became civilian victims of mortar explosions in 1997 due to military activities. The tombs in Setrojenar village are located only 400 m away from the TNI office. At 12.00 noon TNI forces dismantled the road block. Between 12.30 and 14.00 pm, more villagers had gathered to join the procession after the military had removed the roadblock.
The protesters rebuilt roadblocks and since the military was not supposed to conduct exercises in that area, the sudden removal of the roadblock was considered by the villagers as a provocation. Following this, the by then more than 150 protesters, moved towards the local TNI exercise area near Buluspesantren and broke open the entrance gate. The crowd then went on to break the walls of a former armory and teared down a tower the army had built on the resident's land.
Once the villagers returned to their original procession area between 14.00 and 15.00 o'clock, fully armed TNI soldiers had lined up. According to the protesters the military had not given any warnings before they opened fire against the protesters causing injuries to four persons. When the crowd started panicking the TNI soldiers went on to beat some villagers and continue sweeping operations. Police officers who were not in uniform were present during the clashes.
Following this, the military conducted violent arrests in the village including beating with batons and kicking causing injuries and the destruction of property
The value of the destroyed property is estimated to be in the region of IDR 60,000,000 (USD 7,000) excluding the crops destroyed by the military.
Some of the victims may face criminal charges under article 170 of the Indonesian Penal Code. Those suspects later declared as witnesses by the police were required to report back to the police daily, violating criminal procedure.
*ADDITIONAL INFORMATION*:
The disproportional dominance of the military on local levels and the lack of avenues to obtain redress for violations caused by the military leave often no effective options for villagers to challenge the use of land and the activities conducted by the military. In the concerned area in this case several children had died from mortar explosions in the past and the demand for justice regarding the military use of farm lands in the area has not been addressed so far. As a result the villagers anger was expressed in the protests on Saturday April 16, 2011.
The Indonesian laws on military do not allow members of the military be held accountable by a reliable court for crimes committed against civilians. Military members are instead tried at best by internal military tribunal that would give low or no punishments and don't conform with standards of fair trial.
* * *
*SUGGESTED ACTION*:
Please write to the authorities to urge a timely intervention into the conflict in Kebumen area including a comprehensive process to settle the land disputes and provide remedies for the villagers, investigate the disproportional use of violence by the military and the illegal process of arrests conducted. Please also call on the Indonesian government to review the law on military courts which continues to provide impunity for members of the Indonesian national army (TNI).
*SAMPLE LETTER*:
I am writing to voice my deep concern regarding the recent action by the military in the Kebumen region during which the baton charged protestors and opened fire, supposedly with rubber bullets. Several of the protestors were arrested and other taken to the hospital for medical treatment.
After years of disputes over the use of land by the military in the Kebumen Regency farmers had built a road block of trees on April 11, 2011 to prevent the Indonesian military (TNI) from accessing the disputed land they claimed. On Saturday, April 16, 2011 at 9.30 in the morning about 30 residents conducted a procession to the tombs of children who became civilian victims of mortar explosions in 1997 due to military activities. The tombs in Setrojenar Village are located only 400 m away from the TNI office. At 12.00 noon TNI forces dismantled the road block. Between 12.30 and 14.00 pm, more villagers had gathered to join the procession after the military had removed the roadblock.
The protesters rebuilt roadblocks and since the military was not supposed to conduct exercises in that area, the sudden removal of the roadblock was considered by the villagers as a provocation. Following this, the by then more than 150 protesters, moved towards the local TNI exercise area near Buluspesantren and broke open the entrance gate. The crowd then went on to break the walls of a former armory and tear down a tower the army had built on the resident's land.
Once the villagers returned to their original procession area between 14.00 and 15.00 o'clock, fully armed TNI soldiers had lined up. According to the protesters the military had not given any warnings before they opened fire against the protesters causing injuries to four persons. When the crowd started panicking the TNI soldiers went on to beat some villagers and continue sweeping operations. Police officers who were not in uniform were present during the clashes.
Following this, the military conducted violent arrests in the village including beating with batons and kicking causing injuries and the destruction of property.
This case is another example of repeated violence by the Indonesian military. Their impunity must end with an immediate review of the law on military courts to ensure full accountability for crimes committed against civilians
I urge you to ensure a full investigation into this violence. The perpetrators must be charged and subjected to disciplinary and criminal action. I also urge for your intervention into the land dispute conflict in the area and push for a settlement.
PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO: 1. Mr. Susilo Bambang Yudoyono President
Republic of Indonesia
Presidential Palace Jl. Medan Merdeka Utara Jakarta Pusat 10010 INDONESIA
Fax: + 62 21 231 41 38, 345 2685, 345 7782
2. Adm. Agus Suhartono
Headquarter Tentara Nasional Indonesia (TNI) Jakarta INDONESIA
3. General of Police Timur Pradopo Chief of Indonesian National Police Jl. Trunojoyo No.3 INDONESIA
4. Ms. Harkristuti Harkrisnowo General Director of Human Rights Department of Law and Human Rights Republic of Indonesia Jl. HR Rasuna Said Kav.6-7 Kuningan, Jakarta 12940
Tel: +62 21 525 3006, 525 3889, 526 4280
Fax: +62 21 525 3095
* * *
96 POLICE OFFICERS QUESTIONED FOR PALU ATTACK
The Jakarta Post, Jakarta | Fri, 04/22
The Central Sulawesi Police have questioned 96 police officers in relation to the police attack on houses on Jl. Veteran in Palu over the weekend.
The number of officers questioned rose from the previously questioned 30 after more evidence and witnesses' statements were gathered, Central Sulawesi Police chief Brig. Gen. Dewa Parsana said in Palu on Friday.
Some of the officers will be subject to criminal charges, while others are facing disciplinary sanctions, Dewa added.
"We will uphold existing regulations for sure," he said as quoted by Antara.
Dewa said seven civilians were also questioned regarding the Sunday night attack.
About 120 police officers, most of whom rode motorcycles, allegedly threw stones at houses on Jl. Veteran, breaking windows of buildings, including kiosks, and damaging several parked motorcycles.
The attackers did not wear police uniforms during the attack, but a wallet that was found at the crime scene contained a police officer's ID card and led to suspicions of police officers' involvement in the attack.
They are said to be part of a group from Poboya subdistrict in the East Palu district, and did the attack to get back to a man who had allegedly tortured their friend.
* * *
TNI ADMITS SOLDIERS INVOLVED IN DEBT COLLETOR'S DEATH
The Jakarta Post, Jakarta | Thu, 04/21/2011
A spokesman for the Indonesian Military (TNI) confirmed on Wednesday that three TNI members were involved in the alleged torture and murder of a debt collector in Jakarta on Monday.
The Army's Strategic Reserve Command (Kostrad) was investigating the three TNI members allegedly implicated in the death of Helmy Yohanes Manuputty, Kostrad chief Lt. Gen. Pramono Edhie Wibowo said on Wednesday.
"Those found guilty will be punished," Pramono told reporters, adding that the TNI would be transparent in its handling of the case.
Pramono also confirmed that a TNI member had been given a Rp 6.4 million automobile loan from leasing company PT Sinar Mitra Sepadan (SMS), where Helmy worked as debt collector.
Helmy, 34, was assigned to collect payment from the TNI member, who allegedly failed to pay his last two monthly installments.
The debtor and about 100 TNI members in civilian clothes allegedly attacked PT SMS's office in
Margonda, Depok, on Monday, brandishing machetes and firearms, and attacking Helmy and his colleagues.
Helmy and three colleagues, A.T., Aldo and Videl, were allegedly taken by the mob from the company's office and tortured in Cilodong, Bogor, where the headquarters of Kostrad's Division I is located.
Helmy reportedly was released in Cililitan, South Jakarta, returned home by motorcycle taxi and died from his wounds at Indonesian Christian University (UKI) Hospital in Cawang, East Jakarta, on Monday evening.
"The three [TNI members] are under investigation," TNI spokesperson Brig. Gen. Wiryantoro told reporters on Wednesday.
PT SMS offices were abandoned when The Jakarta Post visited on Wednesday, and a banner with the company's name had been removed.
A local resident who declined to be named said that he saw on Monday a debt collector fleeing an assailant who was driving a motorcycle and trying to run him over.
"The assailants looked young and most of them drove motorcycles. After the assault the debt
collectors were taken away by the assailants. They were seated in the middle of motorcycle, sandwiched between two assailants," he added.
Junaedi, a security guard from an adjacent building, told the Post that the debt collectors were usually hanging out in front of the PT SMS office in the place where they parked their motorcycles.
"Many people here were not really sympathetic due to the debt collectors' attitudes," he said.
Junaedi added that about three months ago there was a fight between debt collectors at the PT SMS office over how to conduct their business.
"The debt collectors brought wooden logs and then used them to smash the office windows," Junaedi added.
Andi, a PT SMS customer, told the Post that he was surprised that there were no debt collectors hanging out in front of the office as usual on Wednesday.
"Since a lot of collectors used to hang out in front, I often was afraid to come to pay my debt," he said.
Andi said that he had often came to the leasing company over the last six months to make payments on his car loan. (rpt)
The protesters rebuilt roadblocks and since the military was not supposed to
conduct exercises in that area, the sudden removal of the roadblock was
considered by the villagers as a provocation. Following this, the by then
more than 150 protesters, moved towards the local TNI exercise area near
Buluspesantren and broke open the entrance gate. The crowd then went on to
break the walls of a former armory and teared down a tower the army had
built on the resident's land.
Once the villagers returned to their original procession area between 14.00
and 15.00 o'clock, fully armed TNI soldiers had lined up. According to the
protesters the military had not given any warnings before they opened fire
against the protesters causing injuries to four persons. When the crowd
started panicking the TNI soldiers went on to beat some villagers and
continue sweeping operations. Police officers who were not in uniform were
present during the clashes.
Following this, the military conducted violent arrests in the village
including beating with batons and kicking causing injuries and the
destruction of property
The value of the destroyed property is estimated to be in the region of IDR
60,000,000 (USD 7,000) excluding the crops destroyed by the military.
Some of the victims may face criminal charges under article 170 of the
Indonesian Penal Code. Those suspects later declared as witnesses by the
police were required to report back to the police daily, violating criminal
procedure.
*Additional information:*
The disproportional dominance of the military on local levels and the lack
of avenues to obtain redress for violations caused by the military leave
often no effective options for villagers to challenge the use of land and
the activities conducted by the military. In the concerned area in this case
several children had died from mortar explosions in the past and the demand
for justice regarding the military use of farm lands in the area has not
been addressed so far. As a result the villagers anger was expressed in the
protests on Saturday April 16, 2011.
The Indonesian laws on military do not allow members of the military be held
accountable by a reliable court for crimes committed against civilians.
Military members are instead tried at best by internal military tribunal
that would give low or no punishments and don't conform with standards of
fair trial.
Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission
Cop shoots farmer dead, mob attack ensues in Lampung
Oyos Saroso H.N., The Jakarta Post, Bandarlampung | Thu, 04/21/201
Two people were allegedly shot to death by police in Lampung on Tuesday in bizarre circumstances, in the second bloody clash between authorities and civilians within a week.
*The shooting in Tulangbawang came days after a similar incident in which several farmers were shot at with rubber bullets and clubbed with rifle butts by soldiers while they were protesting on a military training ground in Kebumen, Central Java.
*
Tuesday's shooting was allegedly sparked by a quarrel between Tulangbawang Udik Police Internal Affairs chief Adj. Second Insp. David and local farmer Sahab at a local organ music concert on Tuesday afternoon.
Sahab, 45, allegedly carrying a makeshift pistol, went on to the band stage and shook hands with the female singer. David then attempted to arrest Sahab, but ended up shooting him in the chest, witnesses said.
Sahab died on his way to Bandarjaya Islamic Hospital in Central Lampung.
Rohadi, a relative of Sahab, said that when Sahab approached the stage and shook hands with the female singer, he was immediately reprimanded by David.
David then pointed his pistol at Sahab's face, and then shot Sahab in the chest, Rohadi said.
That night, hundreds of local people traveling in three trucks and on hundreds of motorcycles set fire to the Way Abang Police post in Central Tulangbawang district, West Tulangbawang.
They then proceeded to attack the Tulangbawang Udik Police station, apparently out of revenge for the earlier killing.
Hundreds of police officers had gathered at the Tulangbawang Udik station to deter the mob.The police eventually dispersed the crowd after about an hour after shooting the tire of one of the trucks brought by the mob.
After the clash, a civilian, Anton Saputra, was found dead with a bullet wound in his chest. The police said Anton had been carrying a home-made gun, which was confiscated after the attack.
A relative of Anton, Lukman, denied that Anton had been carrying a home-made gun in the attack on the police station.
"We ask police not to manipulate the case. We instead want to question what happened to the missing Rp 7.5 million [about US$750] that Anton had in his pocket, as well as his two cell phones," Lukman said.
Tulangbawang Police chief Adj. Sr. Comr. Dwi Iriyanto said the police were investigating the motive of the attack on the police station.
"Our data shows that Sahab was a regular offender in drug and robbery cases. But if my men are guilty, we will definitely sanction them," he said.
He said the mob had been armed with sharp weapons and home-made guns.
"Sahab was carrying a home-made pistol when he went on the stage to shake hands with the singer," Iriyanto said.
The Lampung Police said that local organ musical shows were notorious for outbreaks of violence.Every year, it said, an average of 10 people die at organ musical performances in Lampung.
* * *
Read following news item (in the Bahasa, sorry for the absence of an English translation, I.I.):
Army General George Toisutta:
THERE IS NO VIOLATION ON THE PART OF THE ARMY
SHOOTING AT UNARMED DEMONSTRATING POPULATION AT KEBUMEN, CENTRAL JAVA.
EVERYTHING OCCURED ACCORDING TO THE BOOKS, THE GENERAL SAID.
* * *
*BentrokAN Kebumen -- KSAD: Tak Ada Pelanggaran di Kebumen*
Heru Margianto | Rabu, 20 April 2011 | 13:18 WIB
cetak.kompas.com
Kepala Staf Angkatan Darat Jenderal TNI George Toisutta
JAKARTA, KOMPAS.com --- Kepala Staf Angkatan Darat Jenderal TNI George Toisutta menyatakan, tidak ada pelanggaran yang dilakukan personelnya saat mengatasi aksimassa di depan Markas Dinas Penelitian dan Pengembangan TNI Angkatan Darat diKebumen, Jawa Tengah.
"Penyelidikan dan evaluasi sudah dilakukan dan tidak ditemukan adanya
pelanggaran," katanya seusai memimpin serah terima jabatan Panglima Kodam Jaya di Jakarta, Rabu (20/4/2011).
George menegaskan, langkah-langkah yang dilakukan prajurit TNI Angkatan Darat sudah sesuai prosedur yang diawali dengan langkah persuasif dan tindakan peringatan, tetapi massa tetap saja merangsek atau maju. "Semua sudah dilakukan sesuai prosedur yang berlaku, hingga tembakan peringatan, tetapi mereka tetap memaksa," ujar KSAD.
Bahkan, ia menilai aksi massa yang melakukan unjuk rasa dengan perusakan markas
merupakan tindakan perusuh dan bukan warga masyarakat. "Itu bukan rakyat,
melainkan perusuh, karena sudah membakar gudang senjata kami," katanya.
Jadi, ia menambahkan, "Kalaupun ditembak, sudah sesuai aturan dan standar,
karena beberapa kali sudah diberi peringatan."
KSAD menegaskan, TNI telah melakukan evaluasi dan memeriksa prajurit yang
terlibat bentrokan. "Tidak ada yang melanggar," katanya.
Bentrok aparat TNI dengan warga dipicu penolakan warga Bulus Pesantren karena
daerahnya dijadikan tempat latihan militer. Aksi unjuk rasa telah dipersiapkan
sejak awal pekan silam, yakni pada 11 April. Sekitar 400 warga Desa Sestrojenar
melakukan aksinya di depan markas dengan membawa senjata tajam, bambu runcing,
dan membakar ban bekas.
* * *
Friday, April 22, 2011
-----------------------------------------------------
MILITARY OPEN FIRE ON PROTESTING VILLAGERS IN KEBUMEN, CENTRAL JAVA
April 18, 2011
* * *
ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME
Urgent Appeal Case: AHRC-UAC-079-2011
18 April 2011
INDONESIA: Military open fire on protesting villagers in Central Java
ISSUES: Military, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom of Expression, Land Rights, Police Negligence
Dear friends,
*Since Saturday April 16, 2011 several farmers have been injured by military violence in Kebumen regency, Central Java. The actions of the military personnel included beating, kicking and shooting, allegedly with rubber bullets caused several persons injured. Ten villagers were arrested after they protested against the occupation of their land by the military. On April 16, 2011 several villagers joined a procession to the graves of child victims of past military exercises in the area. Provocation by the local military escalated the situation. Some of the victims were brought to hospitals and many left the area due to fear of further violence by the military and police. The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is concerned about the ongoing arrests and sweeping operations in the area.
CASE NARRATIVE*:
After years of disputes over the use of land by the military in the Kebumen Regency farmers had built a road block of trees on April 11, 2011 to prevent the Indonesian military (TNI) from accessing the disputed land they claimed. On Saturday, April 16, 2011 at 9.30 in the morning about 30 residents conducted a procession to the tombs of children who became civilian victims of mortar explosions in 1997 due to military activities. The tombs in Setrojenar village are located only 400 m away from the TNI office. At 12.00 noon TNI forces dismantled the road block. Between 12.30 and 14.00 pm, more villagers had gathered to join the procession after the military had removed the roadblock.
The protesters rebuilt roadblocks and since the military was not supposed to conduct exercises in that area, the sudden removal of the roadblock was considered by the villagers as a provocation. Following this, the by then more than 150 protesters, moved towards the local TNI exercise area near Buluspesantren and broke open the entrance gate. The crowd then went on to break the walls of a former armory and teared down a tower the army had built on the resident's land.
Once the villagers returned to their original procession area between 14.00 and 15.00 o'clock, fully armed TNI soldiers had lined up. According to the protesters the military had not given any warnings before they opened fire against the protesters causing injuries to four persons. When the crowd started panicking the TNI soldiers went on to beat some villagers and continue sweeping operations. Police officers who were not in uniform were present during the clashes.
Following this, the military conducted violent arrests in the village including beating with batons and kicking causing injuries and the destruction of property
The value of the destroyed property is estimated to be in the region of IDR 60,000,000 (USD 7,000) excluding the crops destroyed by the military.
Some of the victims may face criminal charges under article 170 of the Indonesian Penal Code
*ADDITIONAL INFORMATION*:
The disproportional dominance of the military on local levels and the lack of avenues to obtain redress for violations caused by the military leave often no effective options for villagers to challenge the use of land and the activities conducted by the military. In the concerned area in this case several children had died from mortar explosions in the past and the demand for justice regarding the military use of farm lands in the area has not been addressed so far. As a result the villagers anger was expressed in the protests on Saturday April 16, 2011.
The Indonesian laws on military do not allow members of the military be held accountable by a reliable court for crimes committed against civilians. Military members are instead tried at best by internal military tribunal that would give low or no punishments and don't conform with standards of fair trial.
* * *
*SUGGESTED ACTION*:
Please write to the authorities to urge a timely intervention into the conflict in Kebumen area including a comprehensive process to settle the land disputes and provide remedies for the villagers, investigate the disproportional use of violence by the military and the illegal process of arrests conducted. Please also call on the Indonesian government to review the law on military courts which continues to provide impunity for members of the Indonesian national army (TNI).
*SAMPLE LETTER*:
I am writing to voice my deep concern regarding the recent action by the military in the Kebumen region during which the baton charged protestors and opened fire, supposedly with rubber bullets. Several of the protestors were arrested and other taken to the hospital for medical treatment.
After years of disputes over the use of land by the military in the Kebumen Regency farmers had built a road block of trees on April 11, 2011 to prevent the Indonesian military (TNI) from accessing the disputed land they claimed. On Saturday, April 16, 2011 at 9.30 in the morning about 30 residents conducted a procession to the tombs of children who became civilian victims of mortar explosions in 1997 due to military activities. The tombs in Setrojenar Village are located only 400 m away from the TNI office. At 12.00 noon TNI forces dismantled the road block. Between 12.30 and 14.00 pm, more villagers had gathered to join the procession after the military had removed the roadblock.
The protesters rebuilt roadblocks and since the military was not supposed to conduct exercises in that area, the sudden removal of the roadblock was considered by the villagers as a provocation. Following this, the by then more than 150 protesters, moved towards the local TNI exercise area near Buluspesantren and broke open the entrance gate. The crowd then went on to break the walls of a former armory and tear down a tower the army had built on the resident's land.
Once the villagers returned to their original procession area between 14.00 and 15.00 o'clock, fully armed TNI soldiers had lined up. According to the protesters the military had not given any warnings before they opened fire against the protesters causing injuries to four persons. When the crowd started panicking the TNI soldiers went on to beat some villagers and continue sweeping operations. Police officers who were not in uniform were present during the clashes.
Following this, the military conducted violent arrests in the village including beating with batons and kicking causing injuries and the destruction of property.
This case is another example of repeated violence by the Indonesian military. Their impunity must end with an immediate review of the law on military courts to ensure full accountability for crimes committed against civilians
I urge you to ensure a full investigation into this violence. The perpetrators must be charged and subjected to disciplinary and criminal action. I also urge for your intervention into the land dispute conflict in the area and push for a settlement.
PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO: 1. Mr. Susilo Bambang Yudoyono President
Republic of Indonesia
Presidential Palace Jl. Medan Merdeka Utara Jakarta Pusat 10010 INDONESIA
Fax: + 62 21 231 41 38, 345 2685, 345 7782
2. Adm. Agus Suhartono
Headquarter Tentara Nasional Indonesia (TNI) Jakarta INDONESIA
3. General of Police Timur Pradopo Chief of Indonesian National Police Jl. Trunojoyo No.3 INDONESIA
4. Ms. Harkristuti Harkrisnowo General Director of Human Rights Department of Law and Human Rights Republic of Indonesia Jl. HR Rasuna Said Kav.6-7 Kuningan, Jakarta 12940
Tel: +62 21 525 3006, 525 3889, 526 4280
Fax: +62 21 525 3095
* * *
96 POLICE OFFICERS QUESTIONED FOR PALU ATTACK
The Jakarta Post, Jakarta | Fri, 04/22
The Central Sulawesi Police have questioned 96 police officers in relation to the police attack on houses on Jl. Veteran in Palu over the weekend.
The number of officers questioned rose from the previously questioned 30 after more evidence and witnesses' statements were gathered, Central Sulawesi Police chief Brig. Gen. Dewa Parsana said in Palu on Friday.
Some of the officers will be subject to criminal charges, while others are facing disciplinary sanctions, Dewa added.
"We will uphold existing regulations for sure," he said as quoted by Antara.
Dewa said seven civilians were also questioned regarding the Sunday night attack.
About 120 police officers, most of whom rode motorcycles, allegedly threw stones at houses on Jl. Veteran, breaking windows of buildings, including kiosks, and damaging several parked motorcycles.
The attackers did not wear police uniforms during the attack, but a wallet that was found at the crime scene contained a police officer's ID card and led to suspicions of police officers' involvement in the attack.
They are said to be part of a group from Poboya subdistrict in the East Palu district, and did the attack to get back to a man who had allegedly tortured their friend.
* * *
TNI ADMITS SOLDIERS INVOLVED IN DEBT COLLETOR'S DEATH
The Jakarta Post, Jakarta | Thu, 04/21/2011
A spokesman for the Indonesian Military (TNI) confirmed on Wednesday that three TNI members were involved in the alleged torture and murder of a debt collector in Jakarta on Monday.
The Army's Strategic Reserve Command (Kostrad) was investigating the three TNI members allegedly implicated in the death of Helmy Yohanes Manuputty, Kostrad chief Lt. Gen. Pramono Edhie Wibowo said on Wednesday.
"Those found guilty will be punished," Pramono told reporters, adding that the TNI would be transparent in its handling of the case.
Pramono also confirmed that a TNI member had been given a Rp 6.4 million automobile loan from leasing company PT Sinar Mitra Sepadan (SMS), where Helmy worked as debt collector.
Helmy, 34, was assigned to collect payment from the TNI member, who allegedly failed to pay his last two monthly installments.
The debtor and about 100 TNI members in civilian clothes allegedly attacked PT SMS's office in
Margonda, Depok, on Monday, brandishing machetes and firearms, and attacking Helmy and his colleagues.
Helmy and three colleagues, A.T., Aldo and Videl, were allegedly taken by the mob from the company's office and tortured in Cilodong, Bogor, where the headquarters of Kostrad's Division I is located.
Helmy reportedly was released in Cililitan, South Jakarta, returned home by motorcycle taxi and died from his wounds at Indonesian Christian University (UKI) Hospital in Cawang, East Jakarta, on Monday evening.
"The three [TNI members] are under investigation," TNI spokesperson Brig. Gen. Wiryantoro told reporters on Wednesday.
PT SMS offices were abandoned when The Jakarta Post visited on Wednesday, and a banner with the company's name had been removed.
A local resident who declined to be named said that he saw on Monday a debt collector fleeing an assailant who was driving a motorcycle and trying to run him over.
"The assailants looked young and most of them drove motorcycles. After the assault the debt
collectors were taken away by the assailants. They were seated in the middle of motorcycle, sandwiched between two assailants," he added.
Junaedi, a security guard from an adjacent building, told the Post that the debt collectors were usually hanging out in front of the PT SMS office in the place where they parked their motorcycles.
"Many people here were not really sympathetic due to the debt collectors' attitudes," he said.
Junaedi added that about three months ago there was a fight between debt collectors at the PT SMS office over how to conduct their business.
"The debt collectors brought wooden logs and then used them to smash the office windows," Junaedi added.
Andi, a PT SMS customer, told the Post that he was surprised that there were no debt collectors hanging out in front of the office as usual on Wednesday.
"Since a lot of collectors used to hang out in front, I often was afraid to come to pay my debt," he said.
Andi said that he had often came to the leasing company over the last six months to make payments on his car loan. (rpt)
The protesters rebuilt roadblocks and since the military was not supposed to
conduct exercises in that area, the sudden removal of the roadblock was
considered by the villagers as a provocation. Following this, the by then
more than 150 protesters, moved towards the local TNI exercise area near
Buluspesantren and broke open the entrance gate. The crowd then went on to
break the walls of a former armory and teared down a tower the army had
built on the resident's land.
Once the villagers returned to their original procession area between 14.00
and 15.00 o'clock, fully armed TNI soldiers had lined up. According to the
protesters the military had not given any warnings before they opened fire
against the protesters causing injuries to four persons. When the crowd
started panicking the TNI soldiers went on to beat some villagers and
continue sweeping operations. Police officers who were not in uniform were
present during the clashes.
Following this, the military conducted violent arrests in the village
including beating with batons and kicking causing injuries and the
destruction of property
The value of the destroyed property is estimated to be in the region of IDR
60,000,000 (USD 7,000) excluding the crops destroyed by the military.
Some of the victims may face criminal charges under article 170 of the
Indonesian Penal Code. Those suspects later declared as witnesses by the
police were required to report back to the police daily, violating criminal
procedure.
*Additional information:*
The disproportional dominance of the military on local levels and the lack
of avenues to obtain redress for violations caused by the military leave
often no effective options for villagers to challenge the use of land and
the activities conducted by the military. In the concerned area in this case
several children had died from mortar explosions in the past and the demand
for justice regarding the military use of farm lands in the area has not
been addressed so far. As a result the villagers anger was expressed in the
protests on Saturday April 16, 2011.
The Indonesian laws on military do not allow members of the military be held
accountable by a reliable court for crimes committed against civilians.
Military members are instead tried at best by internal military tribunal
that would give low or no punishments and don't conform with standards of
fair trial.
Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission
Cop shoots farmer dead, mob attack ensues in Lampung
Oyos Saroso H.N., The Jakarta Post, Bandarlampung | Thu, 04/21/201
Two people were allegedly shot to death by police in Lampung on Tuesday in bizarre circumstances, in the second bloody clash between authorities and civilians within a week.
*The shooting in Tulangbawang came days after a similar incident in which several farmers were shot at with rubber bullets and clubbed with rifle butts by soldiers while they were protesting on a military training ground in Kebumen, Central Java.
*
Tuesday's shooting was allegedly sparked by a quarrel between Tulangbawang Udik Police Internal Affairs chief Adj. Second Insp. David and local farmer Sahab at a local organ music concert on Tuesday afternoon.
Sahab, 45, allegedly carrying a makeshift pistol, went on to the band stage and shook hands with the female singer. David then attempted to arrest Sahab, but ended up shooting him in the chest, witnesses said.
Sahab died on his way to Bandarjaya Islamic Hospital in Central Lampung.
Rohadi, a relative of Sahab, said that when Sahab approached the stage and shook hands with the female singer, he was immediately reprimanded by David.
David then pointed his pistol at Sahab's face, and then shot Sahab in the chest, Rohadi said.
That night, hundreds of local people traveling in three trucks and on hundreds of motorcycles set fire to the Way Abang Police post in Central Tulangbawang district, West Tulangbawang.
They then proceeded to attack the Tulangbawang Udik Police station, apparently out of revenge for the earlier killing.
Hundreds of police officers had gathered at the Tulangbawang Udik station to deter the mob.The police eventually dispersed the crowd after about an hour after shooting the tire of one of the trucks brought by the mob.
After the clash, a civilian, Anton Saputra, was found dead with a bullet wound in his chest. The police said Anton had been carrying a home-made gun, which was confiscated after the attack.
A relative of Anton, Lukman, denied that Anton had been carrying a home-made gun in the attack on the police station.
"We ask police not to manipulate the case. We instead want to question what happened to the missing Rp 7.5 million [about US$750] that Anton had in his pocket, as well as his two cell phones," Lukman said.
Tulangbawang Police chief Adj. Sr. Comr. Dwi Iriyanto said the police were investigating the motive of the attack on the police station.
"Our data shows that Sahab was a regular offender in drug and robbery cases. But if my men are guilty, we will definitely sanction them," he said.
He said the mob had been armed with sharp weapons and home-made guns.
"Sahab was carrying a home-made pistol when he went on the stage to shake hands with the singer," Iriyanto said.
The Lampung Police said that local organ musical shows were notorious for outbreaks of violence.Every year, it said, an average of 10 people die at organ musical performances in Lampung.
* * *
Read following news item (in the Bahasa, sorry for the absence of an English translation, I.I.):
Army General George Toisutta:
THERE IS NO VIOLATION ON THE PART OF THE ARMY
SHOOTING AT UNARMED DEMONSTRATING POPULATION AT KEBUMEN, CENTRAL JAVA.
EVERYTHING OCCURED ACCORDING TO THE BOOKS, THE GENERAL SAID.
* * *
*BentrokAN Kebumen -- KSAD: Tak Ada Pelanggaran di Kebumen*
Heru Margianto | Rabu, 20 April 2011 | 13:18 WIB
cetak.kompas.com
Kepala Staf Angkatan Darat Jenderal TNI George Toisutta
JAKARTA, KOMPAS.com --- Kepala Staf Angkatan Darat Jenderal TNI George Toisutta menyatakan, tidak ada pelanggaran yang dilakukan personelnya saat mengatasi aksimassa di depan Markas Dinas Penelitian dan Pengembangan TNI Angkatan Darat diKebumen, Jawa Tengah.
"Penyelidikan dan evaluasi sudah dilakukan dan tidak ditemukan adanya
pelanggaran," katanya seusai memimpin serah terima jabatan Panglima Kodam Jaya di Jakarta, Rabu (20/4/2011).
George menegaskan, langkah-langkah yang dilakukan prajurit TNI Angkatan Darat sudah sesuai prosedur yang diawali dengan langkah persuasif dan tindakan peringatan, tetapi massa tetap saja merangsek atau maju. "Semua sudah dilakukan sesuai prosedur yang berlaku, hingga tembakan peringatan, tetapi mereka tetap memaksa," ujar KSAD.
Bahkan, ia menilai aksi massa yang melakukan unjuk rasa dengan perusakan markas
merupakan tindakan perusuh dan bukan warga masyarakat. "Itu bukan rakyat,
melainkan perusuh, karena sudah membakar gudang senjata kami," katanya.
Jadi, ia menambahkan, "Kalaupun ditembak, sudah sesuai aturan dan standar,
karena beberapa kali sudah diberi peringatan."
KSAD menegaskan, TNI telah melakukan evaluasi dan memeriksa prajurit yang
terlibat bentrokan. "Tidak ada yang melanggar," katanya.
Bentrok aparat TNI dengan warga dipicu penolakan warga Bulus Pesantren karena
daerahnya dijadikan tempat latihan militer. Aksi unjuk rasa telah dipersiapkan
sejak awal pekan silam, yakni pada 11 April. Sekitar 400 warga Desa Sestrojenar
melakukan aksinya di depan markas dengan membawa senjata tajam, bambu runcing,
dan membakar ban bekas.
* * *
Sunday, April 17, 2011
IBRAHIM ISA: Minggu, 17 April 2011
--------------------------------------------------
IN MEMORIAM H. ROSIHAN ANWAR,
WARTAWAN SENIOR
Dua hari yang lalu, Jum'at 15 April, sudah kutulis sebuah artikel mengenang tokoh wartawan senior H. Rosihan Anwar, yang meninggal dunia pada tanggal 14 April 2011 y.l. Tulisan tsb disertai dua lampiran tulisan Rosihan Anwar: Sekitar kasus mensyariat (Islam)-kan Indonesia; dan mengenai Konferensi Meja Bundar antara Indonesia dan Belanda (1949). Kedua tulisan Rosihan itu telah kuberi tanggapan seperlunya.
Mengenal dan mengenang seorang wartawan senior seperti Rosihan Anwar, paling baik kiranya mengenal fikiran dan pandangannya mengenai masalah-masalah penting yang dihadapi bangsa kita dewasa ini. Sehingga dapatlah ditarik pelajaran dari pengalaman kaya yang dimiliki Rosihan sebagai wartawan senior.
Kesankku sebagaimana halnya manusia lainnya, yang selalu aktif berfikir, seiring dengan perkembangan dan perubahan zaman, sedikit banyak fikiran-sendiri dan penilaian mengenai pelbagai masalah JUGA mengalami perkembangan dan perubahan.
Mari ikuti tulisan Rosihan Anwar berikut komentarku (4th yang lalu) sekitar perkembangan dan perubahan fikiran wartawan senior H. Rosihan Anwar.
* * *
'Jalan Baru' dan 'True-Confession H. ROSIHAN ANWAR
Belum lama ini aku sempat ngomong-ngomong dengan seorang kawanku,
pejuang kawakan, yang kini sudah mencapai umur di atas 80. Usianya
kira-kira setara dengan umur Rosihan Anwar, wartawan senior, sebagaimana
Rosihan selalu menamakan dirinya. Kawanku itu kenal Rosihan sejak zaman
Revolusi Kemerdekaan. Mengenai masalah politik, dalam banyak hal,
mereka, pejuang kawakan itu dan Rosihan Anwar, sering bertolak belakang.
Dalam cakap-cakap itu, kami menyinggung artikel yang belum lama ditulis
Rosihan Anwar, berjudul: 'AKU MAU PRESIDEN BARU'. Tulisan yang patut
dibaca. Aku menanyakan kepada kawan itu, apakah ia sudah membaca tulisan
Rosihan Anwar tsb. Belum, katanya.
Tidak lama kawanku itu menilpunku lagi. Katanya, ia sudah membaca
tulisan Rosihan itu. Kesan kawan itu: Wah kali ini tulisan Rosihan itu
baik. Ada perubahan pada Rosihan, tambahnya, tanpa menjelaskan persis
apa alasannya, ia menyatakan bahwa 'ada perubahan baik' pada Rosihan Anwar.
Aku sendiri berpendapat bahwa memang, sejak ia menulis
'kenang-kenangannya' mengenai ultah ke-55 Konferensi Asia-Afrika,
Bandung (1955) ---- mengenai sikap terhadap peristiwa sejarah, tulisan
Rosihan Anwar, memang lebih baik, terbanding tulisan-tulisan sebelumnya.
Rosihan menulis (22 April 2005) tentang pengalamannya ikut hadir sebagai
wartawan muda pada Konferensi Asia-Afrika (KAA) di Bandung (1955).
Dengan lugu ia menulis tentang keadaan wartawan-wartawan Indonesia,
periode itu. Perlengkapan kerjanya yang amat sederhana, menjurus ke
wartawan yang miskin. Rosihan berusaha menjelaskan betapa pentingnya
arti sejarah Konferensi Asia-Afrika di Bandung. Saat ketika para pejuang
kemerdekaan dan pemimpin bangsa-bangsa Asia dan Afrika untuk pertama
kalinya bertemu, berembuk bersama dalam suasana membina persatuan dan
solidaritas demi perjuangan kemerdekaan, tanpa seizin dan restu fihak
Barat. Blok Barat ketika itu, jelas sekali mengharapkan konferensi tsb
akan gagal. Di Bandungnya Indonesia, tulis Rosihan, disitulah bertemu
untuk pertama kalinya begitu banyak pemimpin-pemimpin Asia dan Afrika,
membicarakan perihal perjuangan kemerdekaan dan perdamaian dunia.
Disitulah bertemu tokoh-tokoh penting seperti Sukarno, Nehru, Ali Khan,
Zhou En-lai, U Nu, Kotelawala, Nasser dll.
Arti penting apa yang ditulis Rosihan itu, disebabkan oleh gejala-gejala
menyolok waktu itu dan sampai sekarangpun, di kalangn sementara fihak di
negeri kita, termasuk kaum intelektuil dan pekerja medianya, yang tidak
atau kurang menyadari, kurang mengkhayati arti penting Konferensi
Bandung. Baik ditinjau secara strategi perjuangan bangsa-bangsa AA
ketika itu, maupun dalam usaha untuk ikut aktif dalam memperjuangan
perdamaian daunia. Mereka-mereka itu menganggap memperingati KAA sebagai
'nostalgia'. Tak lebih dari itu. Mereka tidak bisa melihat, betapa besar
dampak 'Semangat 10 Prinsip Bandung' yang dideklarasikan oleh Konferensi
, di masa itu, juga untuk masa depan bangsa-bangsa Asia dan Afrika.
Rosihan juga menekankan pada generasi muda kita tentang arti penting
mempelajari dan memahami sejarah bangsa sendiri. Menghargai usaha para
pemimpin bangsa sendiri dalam membina bangsa dan kehidupan bersama
bangsa-bangsa Asia dan Afrika.
Mari baca lagi secuplik dari tulisan Rosihan tsb tentang Konferensi AA
di Bandung:
“Dewasa ini ada orang yang bertanya apakah gunanya bagi kita
memperingati 50 tahun KAA Bandung, sedangkan dunia sudah berubah?
Sebagai wartawan yang meliput KAA dulu saya ingin menjawabnya dengan
mengemukakan bahwa betul dunia sudah berubah, namun kita mesti berusaha
menanamkan kesadaran sejarah kepada generasi muda Indonesia. Generasi
muda jangan sampai melihat sejarah bangsa kita seperti terputus- putus,
merasa hidup hanya dalam zamannya saja, bersikap bagaikan "muara
melupakan hilirnya". 50 Tahun yang lalu Indonesia tampil aktif di
gelanggang politik internasional dengan tujuan membebaskan bangsa
Asia-Afrika dari kolonialisme.
“Indonesia sukses menyelenggarakan KAA walaupun keadaannya masih sukar
dan pengalamannya masih kurang. Tapi, Indonesia tetap maju ke depan dan
aktif bergerak dalam human pilgrimage, perjalanan umat manusia.
'Apakah pengetahuan sejarah tentang KAA itu tidak memberi inspirasi dan
optimisme bagi generasi sekarang untuk menatap masa depan? Saya yakin
ada, karena itu ada gunanya memperingati 50 tahun KAA Bandung. God bless
Indonesia.' Demikian Rosihan Anwar tentang arti sejarah Konferensi AA di
Bandung (1955).
Sungguh tepat dan kena sekali apa yang dikemukakan oleh Rosihan Anwar
tertuju pada generasi muda, khususnya para wartawannya dewasa ini.
Itulah antara lain, yang terpenting, mengapa kukatakan tulisan Rosihan
itu baik.
* * *
Lalu, ------ Ada puisi Rosihan Anwar yang berjudul,
'SAYA TIDAK MALU JADI ORANG INDONESIA'
Di tengah-tengah pendapat yang direkayasa menjadi 'pendapat umum', bahwa
Indonesia dewasa ini amat 'memalukan', disebabkan merajalelanya budaya
KKN, situasi ketiadaan kepastian hukum, dsb. Sedangkan sementara orang
meneriakkan dengan suara menyesal, bahwa ia 'MALU JADI ORANG INDONESIA'.
Nah, dalam situasi demikian itulah, bak gebrakan di tengah-tengah cerita
wayang yang bikin sementara orang ngantuk dan mulai bosan, muncullah
puisi Rosihan. Seperti ia tulis sendiri, itulah bentuk perlawanan
Rosihan terhadap korupsi.
* * *
Lihat cara Rosihan menumpahkan kritik sosialnya dalam puisi :
SAYA TIDAK MALU JADI ORANG INDONESIA
'Catatlah, Bung Karno menciptakan keamanan dan persatuan bangsa
Pak Harto menciptakan kemakmuran bangsa dan keluarganya
Habibie menciptakan demonstrasi
Gus Dur menciptakan partai kebangkitan bangsa
Megawati menciptakan kenaikan-kenaikan harga'
Semakin keras kritik Rosihan terhadap budaya korupsi, s.l.:
'Akan tetapi drakula-drakula Indonesia tetap perkasa
Beroperasi 24 jam, ya malam ya siang mencari korban
Sehingga sia-sialah aksi melawan korupsi membasmi drakula
Yang telah merasuki rongga dan jiwa aparat negara
Yang membuat media memberitakan
Akibat bisnis keluarga pejabat, Tutut-Tutut baru bermunculan.
'Aku orang terpasung dalam terungku kaum penjarah harta negara
Akan aneh bila berkata aku malu jadi orang Indonesia
Sorry ya, Aku tidak malu jadi orang Indonesia
Kuhibur diri dengan sajakku magnus opus karya sang Empu
Sajak pendek yang berbunyi:
Katakan beta
Manatah batas
Antar gila Dengan waras
Sorry ya, inilah puisiku melawan korupsi
Siapa takut?'
(Dibacakan pada acara Deklamasi Puisi di Gedung Da'wah Muhammadiyah di
Jakarta, 31 Desember 2004. Juga dibacakan dalam acara pertemuan keluarga
wartawan senior di rumah penulis pada tanggal 9 Januari 2005, di Jakarta)
Demikianlah, H. Rosihan Anwar yang TAK MALU JADI ORANG INDONESIA.
* * *
Belakangan ada dua lagi tulisan Rosihan Anwar yang bagiku menunjukkan
benarlah kata pejuang kawakan kawanku itu, bahwa Rosihan SUDAH BERUBAH jadi baik.
Yang ingin kubicarakan di sini ialah tulisannya yang berjudul
'10 NOVEMBER, TANPA MITOS'.
Yang utama maksud tulisan itu adalah untuk menyampaikan kepada umum, sbb:
“Bulan November 1945 itu, saya sudah ke Surabaya, tetapi tidak pernah
sampai ke front pertempuran paling depan. Jadi apa yang saya banggakan?
Maka bila saya menulis bahwa saya adalah wartawan perang di zaman
revolusi, hal itu tak lebih hanya mitos”. (Kutipan selesai)
Sebelumnya Rosihan menjelaskan:
(Kutipan mulai) 'Hari ini, memperingati perjuangan arek Suroboyo 10
November 1945, saya ingin berhenti memitoskannya atau mendewa-dewakannya, sejauh mengenai
diri saya sebagai wartawan dan pelaku sejarah saat itu.
Untuk menghapuskan mitos, ada ungkapan, demitologisasi. Orang lain
bilang debunking menolak aneka kepalsuan seseorang. Saya pakai istilah
true confessions, pengakuan-pengakuan sejati'.(Kutipan selesai)
Bila diterjemahkan dalam bahasa sehari-hari, maka begini kira-kira
jadinya --- Selama ini sementara orang menganggap Rosihan Anwar,
wartawan senior, suatu waktu ketika bekecamuk PERTEMPURAN SURABAYA (12
November, 1945), ia berkiprah sebagai wartawan perang. Sebagai wartawan
yang meliput pertempuran Surabaya yang bersejarah itu.. Padahal keadaan
sebenarnya tidak demikian. Memang Rosihan ke Surabaya, tetapi tidak
hadir di front. Cerita-cerita seolah-olah Rosihan melaporkan situasi
perang lawan Inggris di Surabaya, di tengah-tengah pertempuran yang
sedang berkobar, itu tidak benar. Rosihan lama-lama merasa tidak énak
keberadaannya di Surabaya ketika itui, dibikin menjadi mitos. Entah oleh
siapa. Maka Rosihan sekarang ini, MELAKUKAN DEMITOLOGISASI,
pengakuan-pengakuan sejati, atau TRUE-CONFESSION. Ngaku sendiri, bahwa
mitos itu tidak benar.
Betullah adanya, . . . . . sungguh jarang ada orang, apalagi wartawan,
yang berani berbuat seperti halnya Rosihan Anwar yang melakukan
TRUE-CONFESSION secaras terbuka dan blak-blakan begitu. Meskipun
nyerempet-nyerempet menyinggung Sumarsono, pemimpin PRI, yang
dikatakannya tidak pernah dilihatnya pada waktu pertempuran di Surabaya
(Ini dibantah oleh Sumarsono yang menegaskan bahwa dia hadir di Surabaya
ketika itu, hanya Rosihan yang tidak melihatnya, karena memang Rosihan
tidak pernah ke front pertempuran). Bagaimanapun Rosihan hendak
menunjukkan bahwa ia seorang wartawan yang mau JUJUR. Yang tidak
mengada-ada, yang tidak ngibul.Maka dalam hal ini, Rosihan Anwar
memberikan teladan bagi para wartawan junior dewasa ini.
Rosihan menyatakan , ini saya lho, berterus terang saja. Saya adalah
wartawan biasa yang tidak ikut berperang di zaman PERTEMPURAN SURABAYA.
Titik.
'AKU MAU PRESIDEN BARU' dan 'JALAN BARU' BAGI INDONESIA
Selanjutnya. Sikap Rosihan yang kritis dan analitis mengenai pertemuan
di Gedung Perpustakaan
Nasional di Salemba, Jakarta, siang, 1 November 2007, yang
diselenggarakan oleh Komite Bangkit Indonesia, atas inisiatif mantan
Menko Ekonomi Kabinet Abdurrahman Wahid, dr Rizal Ramli. Menurut
Rosihan, dalam tulisannya 'AKU MAU PRESIDEN BARU', banyak selebriti
politik dari tempo dulu hingga sekarang, tokoh intelektual di luar
establishment, pemimpin lintas agama, hadir untuk memberi warna pada
pertemuan itu.
Dengan panjang lebar Rosihan memberitakan sekitar orasi Rizal Ramli,
mengenai 'Jalan Baru' yang perlu ditempuh negeri dan bangsa ini. Karena,
kata Ramli, dalam 40 tahun terakhir Indonesia menjadi negara yang
tertinggal dari negara lain di Asia Timur. Reformasi pada 1998 belum
juga berhasil meningkatkan kesejahteraan rakyat. Karena watak feodal
para pemimpin. Karena praktik neokolonialisme di mana kebijakan ekonomi
Indonesia hanya menjadi subordinasi dan alat kepentingan internasional.
Karena adanya kepemimpinan yang tidak efektif serta lemah secara visi
dan karakter. Maka untuk keluar dari keterpurukan dan untuk menciptakan
kesejahteraan bagi mayoritas rakyat, Indonesia harus memperjuangkan jalan baru yaitu
jalan yang anti-neokolonialisme dan lebih mandiri..
Bagaimana pendapat Rosihan sendiri? Inilah dia:
SEKITAR 'JALAN BARU' BAGI INDONESIA.
Rosihan mengharapkan mudah-mudahan usaha elite politik dan oligarki
hendak merintis JALAN BARU bagi Indonesia, menimbulkan harapan baru di
kalbu rakyat, dapat bergaung dan berterima baik di kalangan rakyat. Saya
teringat salah satu dikotomi lain yakni hall of fame (bangsal
kemasyhuran) dan hall of shame (bangsal keaiban). Bila usaha berhasil,
maka dalam sejarah mereka akan tercatat masuk ke dalam hall of fame.
Bila gagal, tempat mereka dalam hall of shame.
Lanjut Rosihan:
Dalam pertemuan itu saya dengar, tulis Rosihan, banyak orang bertanya:
What next? Apakah cuma bicara dan silaturahmi saja sebagaimana
diperlihatkan oleh Komite Bangkit Indonesia? Apakah cuma tinggal pada
NATO belaka yaitu akronim bukan dari North Atlantic Treaty Organization,
melainkan dari No Action Talk Only? Tiada aksi ngomong doang? Saya
pikir, bila mau sedikit lebih serius, NATO itu bisa pula diartikan sebagai New Action Towards Oneself. Tindakan (gerakan) baru ke arah diri pribadi sendiri. Ke arah watak
pribadi bangsa yang mandiri, yang menjunjung harkat dan martabat
kemanusiaan. Sebagaimana sudah dikemukakan oleh Soebadio Sastrosatomo,
tokoh PSI (Partai Sosialis Indonesia) dalam bukunya Pengembang Misi
Politik (1995), "Bangsa Indonesia harus kembali menegakkan be yourself".
Berarti jadilah kamu bangsa mandiri, punya harga diri, menolak dijadikan
budak oleh kepentingan-kepentingan asing. Demikian liputan dan pendapat
Rosihan mengenai situasi dewasa ini.
Rosihan mengutip ucapan tokoh PSI Soebadio Sastrosatomo. Mudah-mudahan,
dalam rangka menempuh JALAN BARU tsb., ia tidak lupa strategi perjuangan
Subadio Sastromo, yang mengimbau persatuan dengan Bung Karno, (sekarang
tentunya dengan para Sukarnois dan pendukung Bung Karno yang
sungguh-sungguh) dalam rangka membangun kekuatan nasional untuk
MENEGAKKAN YOUSELF. Halmana adalah kebijakan strategi Bung Karno yang
dirumuskannya dalam TRISAKTI dan PRINSIP BERDIKARI bagi Indonesia.
Hematku, Rosihan Anwar benar-benar telah berubah, bila ia memanfaatkan
sisa umurnya, memberikan sumbangannya demi membangun kekuatan nasional
seperti yang digariskan oleh Bung Karno dan juga oleh Subadio Sastrosatomo.
* * *
WARTAWAN SENIOR ROSIHAN ANWAR TUTUP USIA
Kolom IBRAHIM ISA
Jum'at, 15 April 2011
---------------------
WARTAWAN SENIOR ROSIHAN ANWAR TUTUP USIA
Sesudah mengalami operasi 'bypass' pada usia lanjut, 3 minggu kemudian
H. Rosihan Anwar meninggal dunia pada hari Kemis, 14 April 2011. Inna
Lillahi Wa Inna Ilaihi Radjiun. Semoga kerabatnya tabah melalui
hari-hari duka ini.
Sudah menjadi kebiasaan masyarakat mengadakan penilaian mengenai
seseorang yang meninggal dunia. Apalagi bila menyangkut seorang wartawan
senior seperti H. Rosihan Anwar.
Mengenangkan tokoh wartawan senior Rosihan Anwar, maka diteritkan
dibawah ini komentar saya terhadap sikap dan tulisan Rosihan Anwar,
mengenai dua masalah penting di Indonesia. Pertama Mengenai masalah
"Mensyariatkan Indonesia", di muat di bawah ini lengkapnya rulisan
Rosihan Anwar, peng-syairat-Islam-kan Indonesia.
Kedua mengenai Persetujuan Konferensi Meja Bundar antara Indonesia
dengan Belanda.
* * *
Kolom Ibrahim Isa
Komentar terhadap tulisan H. Rosihan Anwar:
Masaalah Mensyarikatkan Indonesia,
Rosihan Anwar adalah wartawan kawakan (dulu pernah Pemimpin Redaksi
Harian "Pedoman"). Belum lama ia menulis tentang masalah yang banyak
dipermasalahkan dan dibicarakan di kalangan masyarakat Indonesia yang
sekular dan multikultural ini.
Kesan yang diperoleh membaca tulisan Rosihan Anwar mengenai "Masalah
Mensyariatkan Indonesia", begini: Cukup blak-blakan dan bermanfaat
dibaca , a.l. karena itu pendapat seorang Rosihan Anwar. Sama seperti
pendapatnya tentang arti sejarah Konferensi Asia-Afrika, di Bandung
(1955), ketika ia menulis dalam rangka memperingati ultah ke-50
Konferensi Bandung tahun yang lalu. Baik dibaca oleh generasi muda yang
rendah hati, yang hendak mengetahui dan belajar dari peristiwa penting
tsb (Konferensi Asia-Afrika di Bandung, 1955) dari seorang yang pernah
mengalaminya sendiri sebagai "kuli tinta".
Masalah yang dewasa ini banyak dipertanyakan dan dibicarakan dalam
masyarakat ialah sbb: "APAKAH NEGARA KITA INI AKAN MENJADI NEGARA ISLAM
seperti Iran, Pakistan, Arab Saudi, Sudan, Qatar dll negeri Teluk?".
"Apakah Republik Indonesia yang diproklamasikan dalam tahun 1945, dengan
motto BHINEKA TUNGGAL IKA, lama-lama akan menjadi suatu negara yang
berdasarkan hukum-hukum Islam? Yang didasarkan pada syariat Islam? -----
Ataukah Republik Indonesia tecinta , bangsa Indonesia tercinta ini akan
selalu mampu dan berhasil mempertahankan Indonesia yang didasarkan pada
falsafah PANCASILA. Pancasila seperti yang dijelaskan oleh penggali
falsafah negara Pancasila, yaitu Bung Karno, diucapkan dalam pidato
beliau pada tanggal 1 Juni 1945. "
Bukan saja di kalangan bangsa kita, tetapi juga di kalangan mancanegara
, di saat sedang digejolak-gejolakkan isu global 'perang melawan
terorisme"; -- pertanyaan tsb sering muncul dan dipermasalahkan. Dengan
sendirinya masalah tsb dipersoalkan, karena, bukankah dalam beberapa
waktu yang lalu, Indonesia menjadi sorotan dunia, terutama oleh dunia
Barat, karena beberapa kali jadi sasaran pemboman terhadap masyrakat
sipil yang dilakukan oleh golongan Islam 'keras', atau fundamentalis.
Dunia sering diingatkan bahwa Indonesia merupakan negeri berpenduduk
Islam terbesar di dunia dewasa ini . Dirasakan "ancaman" bahwa Indonesia
cepat atau lambat akan menjadi 'negara Islam' sebagai sesuatu yang riil,
yang nyata.
Kalau tidak salah pada tanggal 10 Mei mendatang ini, Rosihan mencapai
umur 84th. Di saat mencapai usia Manula (Manusia Usia Lanjut), Rosihan
sering disebut sebagai 'wartawan senior'. S.k. "Pedoman", yang
dipimpinnya di zaman kepresidenan Sukarno, pernah diberangus karena
simpatinya dengan pemberontakan militer PRRI-Permesta. Pada zaman Orba
s.k. "Pedoman" terbit lagi, kemudian diberangus lagi oleh Suharto.
Ada yang menjuluki Rosihan Anwar sebagai wartawan 'sesepuh', karena
pengalaman dan umurnya itu. Rosihan pernah menulis kata pengantar untuk
buku Umar Said "Perjalanan Hidupku". Kata pengantar Rosihan itu boleh
dibilang kritis, tetapi nyat sekali berat sebelah dan arogan. Di dalam
kata pengantarnya itu, terungkap sikap Rosihan Anwar sebagai seorang
'diehard komunistophobi' . Ia menyimpulkan bahwa Umar Said adalah
komunis. Maka menurut Rosihan, Umar Said harus, kasarnya, ---- 'bertobat'.
Kalau tidak salah Rosihan, entah kapan, sudah lama jadi 'haji'. Ia
seorang Muslimin yang hendak memenuhi Lima Rukun Islam. Dalam "Tokoh
Indonesia.Com" tentang Rosihan Anwar ditulis, bahwa ia 'boleh dibilang
legenda hidup pers Indonesia'. Selanjutnya dikatakan bahwa Rosihan
"dinilai konsisten dalam berkarya sebagai wartawan". Ditulis juga
bahwa Rosihan "tetap tidak melupakan sejarah dan tradisi pers
Indonesia, yaitu mesti selalu tampil membela wong cilik.
Kiranya baik dipertanyakan di sini, bagaimana sesungguhnya sikap
Rosihan, yang dikatakan 'mesti selalu tampil membela wong cilik', ----
Ketika Jendral Suharto memulai kup-merangkak (creeping coup d 'état),
sibuk menggulingkan Presiden Sukarno. Ketika Jendral Suharto melakukan
kampanje persekusi dan supresi terbesar dalam sejarah Indonesia, dengan
menangkap, menyiksa, memenjarakan, membuang serta melakukan pembantaian
masal terhadap warganegara (Wong Cilik) yang tidak bersalah, yang PKI
atau yang dituduh PKI - yang Marxis maupun yang nasionalis Kiri, ---
patut dipertanyakan bagaimana sikap Rosihan Anawar yang dikatakan "mesti
selalu tampil membela wong cilik". Sejauh catatan yang diketahui ,
kiranya tidak pernah Rosihan tampil membela para koban peristiwa 1965,
para eks-tapol beserta keluarganya yang berjumlah lebih dari dua puluh
juta orang tak bersalah itu, yang sampai sekarang masih terus
didiskriminasi dan distigmatisasi oleh penguasa. Masih belum
direhabilitasi.Bagaimana Rosihan bersikap terhadap masalah tsb?
Rosihan juga dikenal sebagai seorang 'sosial-demokrat'. Ia dekat dengan
mantan Perdana Menteri (pertama) Republik Imdonesia, dan tokoh pemimpin
Partai Sosialis Indonesia (PSI), Sutan Syahrir. Ia juga banyak bergaul
di kalangan PSI dan kaum sosial-demokrat mancanegara. Maka ada kesan
bahwa meskipun tidak formal diketahui bahwa ia anggota PSI, Rosihan
paling tidak sealiran/sejalan dengan PSI. Ketika PSI dibubarkan oleh
Presiden Sukarno, maka Rosihan menjadi 'orang pinggiran'.
Tetapi Rosihan bukan sosial-demokrat seperti yang dewasa ini pengaruhnya
sedang menanjak di kalangan 'wong cilik' di Amerika Latin. Katakanlah
golongan Kiri, golongan Sosialis. Golongan Kiri, kaum sosialis di
Amerika Latin, seperti Hugo Chavez dari Venezuela, Presiden yang baru
terpilih dari Bolivia, Morales; atau Presiden Michelle Bacelet, yang
wanita, Sosialis dan eks-tapol dari Chili. Mereka-mereka itu jelas,
tegas dan vokal anti-imperialis (AS) serta merasa perlu kerjasama dalam
perjuangan dengan Cuba Sosialis yang dipimpin oleh Fidel Castro. Dalam
hal ini, Rosihan Anwar lain samasekali dengan tokoh-tokoh Sosialis
Amerika Latin itu. Terhadap Bung Karno saja, Rosihan bertolak belakang.
Sehubungan dengan ini --- (mungkin sedikit menyimpang dari topik kolom
ini)--- menarik juga kiranya membaca opini "de Volkskrant" (Nederland)
yang Katolik itu, tertanggal 17 Januari, 2006, berjudul KIRI DI AMERIKA
LATIN,
ketika mengomentari kemajuan golongan Kiri di Amerika Latin, a.l. sbb:
"Dipilihnya Michelle Bachelet menjadi presiden Chili adalah berita baik
dari sebuah benua dimana demokrasi masih sering goyah dasarnya. Naiknya
Bichelet yang Sosialis, seorang janda -- telah memahkotai suatu
transformasi Chili dari suatu diktatur militer menuju, ke suatu
demokrasi yang modern dan relatif makmur".
Bagaimana Rosihan menanggapi nanjaknya 'Wong Cilik" di Amerika Latin,
tidak jelas diketahui.
*Meskipun demikian, pandangan Rosihan Anwar sebagai orang yang dikenal
penganut sosial-demokrasi (paling sedikit) yang simpatisan PSI,
pandangannya yang belakangan ditulisnya dalam KOMPAS, menunjukkan bahwa
dalam usianya yang lanjut, ia masih bisa melakukan analisis dan membuat
kesimpulan yang obyektif mengenai keadaan dan pengaruh Islam
fundamentalis, garis Islam keras di Indonesia. Kesimpulan Rosihan Anwar
adalah:*
"Demokrasi berarti kaum ekstrimis dapat mengutarakan diri dengan lebih
bebas. Salah satu dari 11 fatwa yang dikeluarkan oleh MUI pada akhir
bulan Juli menyatakan bahwa tafsiran Islam berdasarkan liberalisme,
sekulerisme dan pluralisme adalah bertentangan dengan ajaran Islam.
Ketakutan di kalangan Islam konservatif adalah keterbukaan politik akan
merongrong nilai-nilai keagamaan dan mengizinkan pemurtadan oleh Kristen.
"Akan tetapi orang-orang Indonesia telah menolak gagasan bahwa negeri
mereka akan menjadi negara Islam, dan mereka tidak cenderung memberikan
suara kepada Parpol Islam garis keras.
Dua tahun yang lalu para anggota DPR memberikan suara untuk menolak
disisipkannya ketentuan-ketentuan Syariat di dalam konstitusi Indonesia.
"Kebanyakan orang Indonesia tidak tergerak oleh dogma agama yang kaku.
Lahan tengah dan politik Indonesia adalah sekuler dan toleran, dan bagi
sembarang partai Islam untuk meraih mayoritas
akan memerlukan melempar jauh-jauh setiap pikiran mengubah dasar negara
yang merupakan tempat tinggal bagi jutaan orang Kristen dan Hindu.
Sebuah parpol akar rumput yang populer PPP terpaksa dalam menifestonya
menaruh dukungan terhadap syariat di bawah platform termasuk sekuler,
kendati banyak orang mencurigai bahwa PPP masih mempromosikan syariat.
". Demikian a.l kesimpulan Rosihan.
(Lampiran)
*
Mensyarikatkan Indonesia
Oleh H. Rosihan Anwar
Indonesia adalah negeri berpenduduk Muslim terbesar di dunia.
Pengamat*menaruh perhatian apakah Islam di Indonesia bersifat moderat,
lembut ataukah fundamentalis, keras.Karena di masa lalu terjadi
serangkaian pemboman di negeri ini yang dilakukan oleh pengikut Jemaah
Islamiyah yang terkait dengan Al-Qaeda dan gerakan teror Osama bin
Laden, maka pengamat mengikuti dengan seksama
perkembangan Islam di Indonesia. Salah satu pengamat ialah Michael
Vatikiotis, mantan Pemred majalah Far Eastern Economic Review di Hong
Kong, kini peneliti tamu pada LembagaStudi Asia Tenggara di Singapura.
Ia menulis dalam International Herald Tribune sebuah artikel berjudul:
Islamizing Indonesia.
Di tengah ketakutan global mengenai penyebaran militansi Islam, hal
terakhir siapa saja tidak ingin dengar ialah adanya fundamentalisme yang
sedang merangkak di Indonesia, tulis Michael. Akantetapi
ketakutan-ketakutan ini menjadi jelas gamblang dalam minggu-minggu
belakangan ini. Majelis Ulama Indonesia(MUI) telah menerbitkan
fatwa-fatwa yang melarang pernikahan campuran,
pluralisme agama dan doa-doa antar-agama. Serangkaian serangan memaksa
ditutupnya gereja-gereja Kristen. Dan di propinsi Aceh seorang wanita
dicambuk dan lebih dari selusin pria dicambuk dalam tiga bulan terakhir
karena melanggar syariat, hukum Islam.
Beberapa orang Indonesia cemas melihat kejadian-kejadian ini. Sebanyak
tujuh kabupaten di Jawa Barat hingga Sulawesi Selatan dan Madura telah
melaksanakan jenis syariat yang dapat mereka lakukan di bawah
undang-undang otonomi khusus. Sarjana muslim yang liberal Syaf'i Anwar
mengeluh tentang 'perlahan-lahan mensyariatkan Indonesia'. Dia resah
bahwa kepemimpinan politik negeri tidak memberikan perhatian pada
penyebaran syariat yang pada hematnya tidak dimengerti dengan baik dan
dimanipulasi oleh politisi daerah untuk mendukung popularitas mereka.
"Indonesia tidak punya pemimpin-pemimpin agama yang bisa dipercaya, dan
kita tidak tahu hendak kemana kita," keluh Syaf'i Anwar.
Sesungguhnya, wafatnya salah satu ilmuwan Islam liberal terkemuka
Nurcholish Madjid meninggakan suatu kesenjangan sangat besar di sebuah
negeri di mana retorika keagamaan kasar yang mencampurbaurkan dogma
dengan mistik mendapatkan khalayak yang siap di kalangan penduduk yang
telah putus asa mengharapkan keadilan dari kalangan sekuler.
Belakangan ini Presiden SBY mencoba meredam keprihatinan bahwa Indonesia
sedang hanyut ke arah fundamentalisme. "Anda mungkin membaca dari wakaf
ke waktu suara kelompok-kelompok kecil yang radikal, akan tetapi suara
itu tidak akan mengubah fakta adapun arus utama Indonesia akan terus
bersifat moderat, toleran dan demokratis."
Demokrasi berarti kaum ekstrimis dapat mengutarakan diri dengan lebih
bebas. Salah satu dari 11 fatwa yang dikeluarkan oleh MUI pada akhir
bulan Juli menyatakan bahwa tafsiran Islam berdasarkan liberalisme,
sekulerisme dan pluralisme adalah bertentangan dengan ajaran Islam.
Ketakutan di kalangan Islam konservatif adalah keterbukaan politik akan
merongrong nilai-nilai keagamaan dan mengizinkan pemurtadan oleh Kristen.
Akan tetapi orang-orang Indonesia telah menolak gagasan bahwa negeri
mereka akan menjadi negara Islam, dan mereka tidak cenderung memberikan
suara kepada Parpol Islam garis keras. Dua tahun yang lalu para anggota
DPR memberikan suara untuk menolak disisipkannya ketentuan-ketentuan
Syariat di dalam konstitusi Indonesia.
Kebanyakan orang Indonesia tidak tergerak oleh dogma agama yang kaku.
Lahan tengah dan politik Indonesia adalah sekuler dan toleran, dan bagi
sembarang partai Islam untuk meraih mayoritasakan memerlukan melempar
jauh-jauh setiap pikiran mengubah dasar negara yang merupakan tempat
tinggal bagi jutaan orang Kristen dan Hindu. Sebuah parpol akar rumput
yang populer PPP terpaksa dalam menifestonya menaruh dukungan terhadap
syariat
di bawah platform termasuk sekuler, kendati banyak orang mencurigai
bahwa PPP masih mempromosikan syariat.
* * *
Untuk lengkapnya, pendapat Rosihan Anwar mengenai "Mensyariatkan
Indonesia", di muat di bawah ini lengkapnya rulisan Rosihan Anwar,
seperti yang disiarkan oleh a.l. s.k. Kompas, sbb:
* * *
'KENANGAN' ROSIHAN Yang 'TIMPANG'
Tulisan Rosihan Anwar, yang disebut atau menyebut diri, 'wartawan
senior', tentang Penyerahan Kedaulatan 27-12-1949 (Kompas, 27 Des 2006.
Lihat Lampiran), suatu peristiwa yang digambarkannya sebagai suatu
peristiwa penting, -- namun, begitu dibaca terasa 'timpang'. Artinya
'miring'. Ada kekurangannya. Dan kekurangan itu cukup gawat, karena
justru ditulis oleh seorang 'wartawan senior', yang juga dianggap
sesepuh. Sayang, sesunguhnya tulisan Rosihan Anwar itu, bisa jadi bunga
rampai dalam rentetan tulisan-tulisan sekitar hari-hari 'penyerahan
kedaulatan' oleh Belanda kepada pemerintah RIS - Republik Indonesia
Serikat. Kiranya tulisan Rosihan itu akan jadi seimbang, bila sedikit
saja ada disebut tentang betapa berat dan tidak sederajatnya persetujuan
dua negeri. Atau mungkin, ketimpangan ini disebabkan karena yang satu
fihak adalah negara kolonial dan satunya adalah 'koloni', maka
persetujuan KMB itu menjadi suatu persetujuan internasional yang
termasuk sangat menguntungkan satu fihak (Belanda) dan merugikan fihak
satunya (Indonesia.)
Asal saja Rosihan Anwar sedikit saja menyinggung fasal-fasal Peretujuan
Konferensi Meja Bundar Dehn Haag tsb, maka segera akan memasuki
intisarinya. Akan terungkap betapa beratnya syarat-syarat yang
ditetapkan dalam Persetujuan Konferensi Meja Bundar-Den Haag (1949),
yang harus dipenuhi oleh fihak Indonesia. Ada yang mengatakan bahwa
memang tidak bisa lain, begitu jadinya karena Persetujuan KMB itu
dikatakan sebagai 'imbalan' terhadap 'goodwill' fihak Belanda . Bukankah
dengan Persetujuan KMB itu akhirnya fihak Belanda 'menyerahkan
kedaultan' kepada Indonesia, mengakhiri masa kolonialisme (kan baik --
ya tokh?) .
Dimasuki sedikit saja Persetujuan KMB itu, terungkaplah bahwa fihak
Indonesia dalam hal ini telah melakukan kompromi besar dan konsesi yang
berat sekali. Begitu banyak syarat-syarat yang harus dipenuhi oleh fihak
Indonesia. Mulai dari masalah bentuk kenegaraan: harus bentuk federasi,
RIS; finansiil (harus bayar kembali utang Hindia Belanda kepada Den
Haag); ekonomi (harus mengembalikan semua perusahaan dan 'aset' Belanda
kepada Den Haag); sampai ke masalah militer (KNIL harus diintetrasikan
kedalam Angkatan Perang RIS) dan adanya Misi Militer Belanda di
Indonesia). Itu sedikit saja menyebut fasal-fasal yang menonjol
merugikan kita.
* * *
Bagaimana mungkin Rosihan Anwar yang dirinya pribadi meliput proses
Persetujuan KMB itu sampai upacara 'penyerahan kedaultan' di Istana De
Dam, Amsterdam, kok dalam menulis suatu peristiwa yang pasti dia sendiri
menganggapnya penting itu, bisa-bisanya samasekali tidak menyebut apa
isi Persetujuan KMB yang merugikan Indonesia. Tetapi itulah yang
terjadi, Rosihan membiarkan berlalu segi-segi negatif Persetujuan KMB
itu. Entahlah barangkali dia pernah menulis hal itu sesudah 1949. Kalau
ada tulisan Rosihan yang menganalisis segi-segi negatif Persetujuan KMB
di dalam surat kabar Pedoman yang ia pimpin sendiri dalam periode itu,
tentu itu baik.
* * *
Akibat dari begitu banyaknya fasal-fasal yang merugikan bagi Indonesia,
maka tidak lama kemu-dian , - - - - salah satu dari fasalnya yang
terpenting, ialah mengenai syarat bahwa sifat negara Indonesia harus
federal, dimana tercakup didalamnya 'negara-negara bagian' bikinan
Belanda , -- pemerintah Indonesia yang mencerminkan kehendak rakyat
telah membatalkannya. Demikianlah, Republik Indonesia Serikat (RIS)
dibubarkan dan negara Indonesia kembali menjadi bentuk negara REPUBLK
INDONESIA, sesuai Proklamasi 17 Agustus 1945. Hidup rakyat Indonesia!
Beberapa waktu kemudian salah satu syarat lainnya dari persetujuan KMB
yaitu adanya MMB, Misi Militer Belanda, di Indonesia dituntut rakyat
supaya diusir dari Indonesia. Karena dianggap sebagai salah satu sumber
subversi Belanda terhadap Indonesia. Juga 'Uni Indonesia Belanda', yang
dikepalai oleh Mahkota Kerajaan Belanda, digugat rakyat dan dituntut
agar dibubarkan. Karena Uni Indonesia-Belanda itu atasannya adalah
Mahkota Kerajaan Belanda. Hal mana dianggap oleh rakyat kita sebagai
perlambang bahwa Indonesia belum benar-benar lepas dari kolonialisme
Belanda.
Yang terasa amat berat lagi, ialah keharusan Indonesia membayar utang
Hindia Belanda kepada Den Haag. Yang termasuk utang yang harus dibayar
Indonesia itu diantaranya yang paling berat, ialah keharusan Indonesia
yang baru berdiri itu, membayar ongkos-ongkos perang Agresi Ke-I dan
Ke-II Belanda terhadap Republik Indonesia. Suatu peperangan untuk
menghancurkan Republik Indonesia.
Dan banyak lagi hal-hal yang timpang dalam fasal-fasal Persetujuan KMB.
Untuk lengkapnya bisa minta bahan-bahan dari Batara Hutagalung Ketua,
Komite Utang Kehormatan Belanda (KUKB)yang banyak menulis tentang
masalah ini.
* * *
Tokh masih perlu disebut di sini satu lagi yang amat menonjol.
Dimaksudkan di sini ialah, sesudah Indonesia menerima 'peneyerahan
kedaulatan dari Belanda, namun Irian Barat (Papua), masih tetap dikuasai
Belanda. Suatu kasus yang hampir saja mencetuskan perang baru lagi yang
gawat di Pasifik Barat, antara kekuatan bersenjata Republik Indonesia
dan Kerajaan Belanda.
Berkat keteguhan tekad dan semangat juang rakyat Indonesia membebaskan
Irian Barat dan mengembalikannya keharibaan Ibu Pertiwi, serta pula (ini
perlu dicatat) campur tangan PBB khususnya turun tangannya Amerika
Serikat yang memberikan tekanan berat kepada fihak Belanda untuk
meyerahkan Irian Barat kepada RI, suatu politik AS demi kepentingan
strategi Perang Dinginnya, akhirnyua Irian Barat kembali ke pangkuan Ibu
Pertiwi.
* * *
Itulah tadi sekadar komentar terhadap tulisan wartawan senior Rosihan
Anwar yang berkenan mengingatkan pembacanya atas suatu peristiwa yang
dianggapnya penting, yaitu 'Penyerahan Kedaulatan' atas Indonesia oleh
Belanda kepada Indonesia pada tanggal 27 Desember 1949, dimana Rosihan
Anwar pribadi ada di situ sebagai wartawan peliput.
* * *
LAMPIRAN:
KOMPAS, Rabu, 27 Desember 2006
Penyerahan Kedaulatan 27-12-1949
H Rosihan Anwar
Musim dingin di Amsterdam. Pagi-pagi 27 Desember 1949, pakai mantel
tebal, saya naik trem dari Valarius Straat menuju Paleis op de Dam,
menyaksikan upacara penyerahan kedaulatan dari Kerajaan Belanda kepada
Republik Indonesia Serikat, sesuai hasil Ronde Tafel Conferentie (RTC)
atau Konferensi Meja Bundar di Den Haag (23 Agustus-2 November 1949).
Sebagai Pemimpin Redaksi Harian Pedoman, saya satu-satunya wartawan
Indonesia yang hadir. Peliput Konferensi Meja Bundar (KMB) lainnya,
seperti BM Diah, Adinegoro, Wonohito, Soekrisno, Soetarto, Pohan, Kwee
Kek Beng, Mohammad Said, EU Pupella sudah kembali ke Tanah Air. Saya
menunggu di Belanda karena akan menuju Amerika Serikat mengikuti
pelajaran di Yale Drama Workshop sehingga diundang untuk menyaksikan
peristiwa bersejarah itu.
Di depan Istana Dam, saya melihat sekumpulan orang Indonesia menanti
kedatangan Wapres Mohammad Hatta. Saat itu Bung Hatta bermantel hitam
dan blootshoofd (tanpa tutup kepala), memeriksa barisan kehormatan
militer. Dengan langkah cepat dia masuk Istana, lalu mengambil tempat di
Burgerzaal. Hadir Ratu Juliana, sebelah kiri duduk PM Belanda Willem
Drees, sebelah kanan Wapres Hatta, Sultan Pontianak Alkadrie, Prof Dr
Supomo. Lalu anggota Corps Diplomatique (CD), Menteri Van Maarseveen,
Stikker, mantan PM Louis Beel, Dubes Van Royen, serta Kamerheren
(pegawai tinggi Istana) dalam pakaian kebesaran warna-warni. Drees yang
sosialis-demokrat yang dalam gerakan sosialis bertahun-tahun mendukung
dan prokemerdekaan Indonesia sengaja mengundang tiga pengarang perempuan
Henriette Roland Holst dan spesialis Hindia dari Fraksi Partai SDAP di
Tweede Kamar Cramar dan Stokvis.
Upacara penyerahan
Hawa dalam ruangan terasa panas. Maklum, banyak orang tumplek di sana.
Lantaran gerah, saya kurang konsentrasi menyimak pidato Ratu Juliana
setelah ditandatanganinya teks bahasa Belanda dari dokumen penyerahan
kedaulatan. Pidato Bung Hatta yang diucapkan dalam bahasa Indonesia juga
tidak cermat saya ikuti. Teks pidato Bung Hatta yang ditulis tangan itu
diserahkan kepada Drees keesokan malamnya dalam jamuan di Treveszaal
yang diselenggarakan Pemerintah Belanda. Drees amat menghargakan
pemberian Hatta itu sehingga copy pidato Hatta dimuat dalam bukunya,
Zestig jaar levenservaring (60 Tahun Pengalaman Hidup).
Bagi Hatta, peristiwa 27 Desember 1949 itu amat besar maknanya. Beberapa
tahun kemudian saya bertanya, apakah peristiwa paling penting dalam
hidupnya, Bung Hatta menjawab, menandatangani teks Proklamasi
Kemerdekaan 17 Agustus 1945 dan menandatangani akta penyerahan
kedaulatan Belanda kepada Indonesia, 27 Desember 1949.
Saya catat, ada kejadian saat upacara berlangsung. Tiba-tiba terdengar
bunyi gedebuk, orang jatuh. Seorang Kemerheer pingsan. Apakah lelaki
pegawai Istana Ratu itu lemas karena terlalu lama berdiri, sakit, atau
belum sarapan? Saya tidak tahu. Tetapi saya menganggapnya sebagai
perlambang, jatuhnya kekuasaan sebuah imperium, tamatnya era
kolonialisme Belanda.
Upacara di Paleis Dam disiarkan langsung melalui radio yang pada saat
sama bisa didengarkan di Istana Rijswijk (Istana Negara) di Jakarta oleh
hadirin yang menyaksikan upacara penyerahan kedaulatan dari Wakil
Mahkota Agung Lovink kepada Sultan Hamengku Buwono IX. Presiden Soekarno
sungkan menghadiri upacara di Jakarta itu dan tinggal di Yogya, menunggu
triomfala intocht alias ketibaan berjaya di ibu kota RI.
Bertahun-tahun kemudian, Soebadio Sastrosatomo dari PSI (Partai Sosialis
Indonesia) mengatakan, "dari perspektif mistik, yang terjadi di Jakarta
adalah penyerahan kekuasaan atas Indonesia dari Belanda, bukan kepada
Presiden Republik Indonesia (Soekarno), tetapi kepada Raja Jawa (HB IX)."
Juga di Jakarta, ada kejadian lain. Diplomat Belanda Van Beus dalam buku
Morgen bij het aanbreken van de dag menulis, saat bendera Belanda
Merah-Putih-Biru diturunkan, massa rakyat yang menyaksikan bersuit-suit
disertai teriakan mencemooh, menimbulkan perasaan pilu pada orang-orang
Belanda yang hadir. Sebaliknya, waktu bendera Indonesia Merah-Putih
dikerek ke puncak tiang, rakyat bertepuk tangan diiringi sorak sorai.
Ini simbol berakhirnya era kolonialisme.
Lagu kebangsaan
Saat keluar dari Paleis op de Dam saya dengar dari carillon sebuah
gereja di dekatnya, pertama kali diperdengarkan lagu kebangsaan
Indonesia Raya. Saya pikir itu juga simbol tamatnya kolonialisme Belanda.
Pada 31 Desember 1949 malam, saya mengantar Bung Hatta, juga istri saya
Siti Zuraida, yang hari itu akan pulang ke Tanah Air ke Bandara
Schiphol. Setelah Bung Hatta bertolak, saya balik ke penginapan.
Berjalan kaki sepanjang kali atau grachtan lewat tengah malam jelas
berbeda dengan jalan kaki di Gunung Kendeng, 8 Juli 1949 malam, saat
saya bersama Pak Harto menjemput Panglima Besar Sudirman dari daerah
gerilya, agar kembali ke Yogya di mana Soekarno-Hatta telah tiba dari
Bangka. Sudah tahun baru, pikir saya. Tanah Air saya sudah merdeka dan
berdaulat, diakui dunia internasional.
* * *
Jum'at, 15 April 2011
---------------------
WARTAWAN SENIOR ROSIHAN ANWAR TUTUP USIA
Sesudah mengalami operasi 'bypass' pada usia lanjut, 3 minggu kemudian
H. Rosihan Anwar meninggal dunia pada hari Kemis, 14 April 2011. Inna
Lillahi Wa Inna Ilaihi Radjiun. Semoga kerabatnya tabah melalui
hari-hari duka ini.
Sudah menjadi kebiasaan masyarakat mengadakan penilaian mengenai
seseorang yang meninggal dunia. Apalagi bila menyangkut seorang wartawan
senior seperti H. Rosihan Anwar.
Mengenangkan tokoh wartawan senior Rosihan Anwar, maka diteritkan
dibawah ini komentar saya terhadap sikap dan tulisan Rosihan Anwar,
mengenai dua masalah penting di Indonesia. Pertama Mengenai masalah
"Mensyariatkan Indonesia", di muat di bawah ini lengkapnya rulisan
Rosihan Anwar, peng-syairat-Islam-kan Indonesia.
Kedua mengenai Persetujuan Konferensi Meja Bundar antara Indonesia
dengan Belanda.
* * *
Kolom Ibrahim Isa
Komentar terhadap tulisan H. Rosihan Anwar:
Masaalah Mensyarikatkan Indonesia,
Rosihan Anwar adalah wartawan kawakan (dulu pernah Pemimpin Redaksi
Harian "Pedoman"). Belum lama ia menulis tentang masalah yang banyak
dipermasalahkan dan dibicarakan di kalangan masyarakat Indonesia yang
sekular dan multikultural ini.
Kesan yang diperoleh membaca tulisan Rosihan Anwar mengenai "Masalah
Mensyariatkan Indonesia", begini: Cukup blak-blakan dan bermanfaat
dibaca , a.l. karena itu pendapat seorang Rosihan Anwar. Sama seperti
pendapatnya tentang arti sejarah Konferensi Asia-Afrika, di Bandung
(1955), ketika ia menulis dalam rangka memperingati ultah ke-50
Konferensi Bandung tahun yang lalu. Baik dibaca oleh generasi muda yang
rendah hati, yang hendak mengetahui dan belajar dari peristiwa penting
tsb (Konferensi Asia-Afrika di Bandung, 1955) dari seorang yang pernah
mengalaminya sendiri sebagai "kuli tinta".
Masalah yang dewasa ini banyak dipertanyakan dan dibicarakan dalam
masyarakat ialah sbb: "APAKAH NEGARA KITA INI AKAN MENJADI NEGARA ISLAM
seperti Iran, Pakistan, Arab Saudi, Sudan, Qatar dll negeri Teluk?".
"Apakah Republik Indonesia yang diproklamasikan dalam tahun 1945, dengan
motto BHINEKA TUNGGAL IKA, lama-lama akan menjadi suatu negara yang
berdasarkan hukum-hukum Islam? Yang didasarkan pada syariat Islam? -----
Ataukah Republik Indonesia tecinta , bangsa Indonesia tercinta ini akan
selalu mampu dan berhasil mempertahankan Indonesia yang didasarkan pada
falsafah PANCASILA. Pancasila seperti yang dijelaskan oleh penggali
falsafah negara Pancasila, yaitu Bung Karno, diucapkan dalam pidato
beliau pada tanggal 1 Juni 1945. "
Bukan saja di kalangan bangsa kita, tetapi juga di kalangan mancanegara
, di saat sedang digejolak-gejolakkan isu global 'perang melawan
terorisme"; -- pertanyaan tsb sering muncul dan dipermasalahkan. Dengan
sendirinya masalah tsb dipersoalkan, karena, bukankah dalam beberapa
waktu yang lalu, Indonesia menjadi sorotan dunia, terutama oleh dunia
Barat, karena beberapa kali jadi sasaran pemboman terhadap masyrakat
sipil yang dilakukan oleh golongan Islam 'keras', atau fundamentalis.
Dunia sering diingatkan bahwa Indonesia merupakan negeri berpenduduk
Islam terbesar di dunia dewasa ini . Dirasakan "ancaman" bahwa Indonesia
cepat atau lambat akan menjadi 'negara Islam' sebagai sesuatu yang riil,
yang nyata.
Kalau tidak salah pada tanggal 10 Mei mendatang ini, Rosihan mencapai
umur 84th. Di saat mencapai usia Manula (Manusia Usia Lanjut), Rosihan
sering disebut sebagai 'wartawan senior'. S.k. "Pedoman", yang
dipimpinnya di zaman kepresidenan Sukarno, pernah diberangus karena
simpatinya dengan pemberontakan militer PRRI-Permesta. Pada zaman Orba
s.k. "Pedoman" terbit lagi, kemudian diberangus lagi oleh Suharto.
Ada yang menjuluki Rosihan Anwar sebagai wartawan 'sesepuh', karena
pengalaman dan umurnya itu. Rosihan pernah menulis kata pengantar untuk
buku Umar Said "Perjalanan Hidupku". Kata pengantar Rosihan itu boleh
dibilang kritis, tetapi nyat sekali berat sebelah dan arogan. Di dalam
kata pengantarnya itu, terungkap sikap Rosihan Anwar sebagai seorang
'diehard komunistophobi' . Ia menyimpulkan bahwa Umar Said adalah
komunis. Maka menurut Rosihan, Umar Said harus, kasarnya, ---- 'bertobat'.
Kalau tidak salah Rosihan, entah kapan, sudah lama jadi 'haji'. Ia
seorang Muslimin yang hendak memenuhi Lima Rukun Islam. Dalam "Tokoh
Indonesia.Com" tentang Rosihan Anwar ditulis, bahwa ia 'boleh dibilang
legenda hidup pers Indonesia'. Selanjutnya dikatakan bahwa Rosihan
"dinilai konsisten dalam berkarya sebagai wartawan". Ditulis juga
bahwa Rosihan "tetap tidak melupakan sejarah dan tradisi pers
Indonesia, yaitu mesti selalu tampil membela wong cilik.
Kiranya baik dipertanyakan di sini, bagaimana sesungguhnya sikap
Rosihan, yang dikatakan 'mesti selalu tampil membela wong cilik', ----
Ketika Jendral Suharto memulai kup-merangkak (creeping coup d 'état),
sibuk menggulingkan Presiden Sukarno. Ketika Jendral Suharto melakukan
kampanje persekusi dan supresi terbesar dalam sejarah Indonesia, dengan
menangkap, menyiksa, memenjarakan, membuang serta melakukan pembantaian
masal terhadap warganegara (Wong Cilik) yang tidak bersalah, yang PKI
atau yang dituduh PKI - yang Marxis maupun yang nasionalis Kiri, ---
patut dipertanyakan bagaimana sikap Rosihan Anawar yang dikatakan "mesti
selalu tampil membela wong cilik". Sejauh catatan yang diketahui ,
kiranya tidak pernah Rosihan tampil membela para koban peristiwa 1965,
para eks-tapol beserta keluarganya yang berjumlah lebih dari dua puluh
juta orang tak bersalah itu, yang sampai sekarang masih terus
didiskriminasi dan distigmatisasi oleh penguasa. Masih belum
direhabilitasi.Bagaimana Rosihan bersikap terhadap masalah tsb?
Rosihan juga dikenal sebagai seorang 'sosial-demokrat'. Ia dekat dengan
mantan Perdana Menteri (pertama) Republik Imdonesia, dan tokoh pemimpin
Partai Sosialis Indonesia (PSI), Sutan Syahrir. Ia juga banyak bergaul
di kalangan PSI dan kaum sosial-demokrat mancanegara. Maka ada kesan
bahwa meskipun tidak formal diketahui bahwa ia anggota PSI, Rosihan
paling tidak sealiran/sejalan dengan PSI. Ketika PSI dibubarkan oleh
Presiden Sukarno, maka Rosihan menjadi 'orang pinggiran'.
Tetapi Rosihan bukan sosial-demokrat seperti yang dewasa ini pengaruhnya
sedang menanjak di kalangan 'wong cilik' di Amerika Latin. Katakanlah
golongan Kiri, golongan Sosialis. Golongan Kiri, kaum sosialis di
Amerika Latin, seperti Hugo Chavez dari Venezuela, Presiden yang baru
terpilih dari Bolivia, Morales; atau Presiden Michelle Bacelet, yang
wanita, Sosialis dan eks-tapol dari Chili. Mereka-mereka itu jelas,
tegas dan vokal anti-imperialis (AS) serta merasa perlu kerjasama dalam
perjuangan dengan Cuba Sosialis yang dipimpin oleh Fidel Castro. Dalam
hal ini, Rosihan Anwar lain samasekali dengan tokoh-tokoh Sosialis
Amerika Latin itu. Terhadap Bung Karno saja, Rosihan bertolak belakang.
Sehubungan dengan ini --- (mungkin sedikit menyimpang dari topik kolom
ini)--- menarik juga kiranya membaca opini "de Volkskrant" (Nederland)
yang Katolik itu, tertanggal 17 Januari, 2006, berjudul KIRI DI AMERIKA
LATIN,
ketika mengomentari kemajuan golongan Kiri di Amerika Latin, a.l. sbb:
"Dipilihnya Michelle Bachelet menjadi presiden Chili adalah berita baik
dari sebuah benua dimana demokrasi masih sering goyah dasarnya. Naiknya
Bichelet yang Sosialis, seorang janda -- telah memahkotai suatu
transformasi Chili dari suatu diktatur militer menuju, ke suatu
demokrasi yang modern dan relatif makmur".
Bagaimana Rosihan menanggapi nanjaknya 'Wong Cilik" di Amerika Latin,
tidak jelas diketahui.
*Meskipun demikian, pandangan Rosihan Anwar sebagai orang yang dikenal
penganut sosial-demokrasi (paling sedikit) yang simpatisan PSI,
pandangannya yang belakangan ditulisnya dalam KOMPAS, menunjukkan bahwa
dalam usianya yang lanjut, ia masih bisa melakukan analisis dan membuat
kesimpulan yang obyektif mengenai keadaan dan pengaruh Islam
fundamentalis, garis Islam keras di Indonesia. Kesimpulan Rosihan Anwar
adalah:*
"Demokrasi berarti kaum ekstrimis dapat mengutarakan diri dengan lebih
bebas. Salah satu dari 11 fatwa yang dikeluarkan oleh MUI pada akhir
bulan Juli menyatakan bahwa tafsiran Islam berdasarkan liberalisme,
sekulerisme dan pluralisme adalah bertentangan dengan ajaran Islam.
Ketakutan di kalangan Islam konservatif adalah keterbukaan politik akan
merongrong nilai-nilai keagamaan dan mengizinkan pemurtadan oleh Kristen.
"Akan tetapi orang-orang Indonesia telah menolak gagasan bahwa negeri
mereka akan menjadi negara Islam, dan mereka tidak cenderung memberikan
suara kepada Parpol Islam garis keras.
Dua tahun yang lalu para anggota DPR memberikan suara untuk menolak
disisipkannya ketentuan-ketentuan Syariat di dalam konstitusi Indonesia.
"Kebanyakan orang Indonesia tidak tergerak oleh dogma agama yang kaku.
Lahan tengah dan politik Indonesia adalah sekuler dan toleran, dan bagi
sembarang partai Islam untuk meraih mayoritas
akan memerlukan melempar jauh-jauh setiap pikiran mengubah dasar negara
yang merupakan tempat tinggal bagi jutaan orang Kristen dan Hindu.
Sebuah parpol akar rumput yang populer PPP terpaksa dalam menifestonya
menaruh dukungan terhadap syariat di bawah platform termasuk sekuler,
kendati banyak orang mencurigai bahwa PPP masih mempromosikan syariat.
". Demikian a.l kesimpulan Rosihan.
(Lampiran)
*
Mensyarikatkan Indonesia
Oleh H. Rosihan Anwar
Indonesia adalah negeri berpenduduk Muslim terbesar di dunia.
Pengamat*menaruh perhatian apakah Islam di Indonesia bersifat moderat,
lembut ataukah fundamentalis, keras.Karena di masa lalu terjadi
serangkaian pemboman di negeri ini yang dilakukan oleh pengikut Jemaah
Islamiyah yang terkait dengan Al-Qaeda dan gerakan teror Osama bin
Laden, maka pengamat mengikuti dengan seksama
perkembangan Islam di Indonesia. Salah satu pengamat ialah Michael
Vatikiotis, mantan Pemred majalah Far Eastern Economic Review di Hong
Kong, kini peneliti tamu pada LembagaStudi Asia Tenggara di Singapura.
Ia menulis dalam International Herald Tribune sebuah artikel berjudul:
Islamizing Indonesia.
Di tengah ketakutan global mengenai penyebaran militansi Islam, hal
terakhir siapa saja tidak ingin dengar ialah adanya fundamentalisme yang
sedang merangkak di Indonesia, tulis Michael. Akantetapi
ketakutan-ketakutan ini menjadi jelas gamblang dalam minggu-minggu
belakangan ini. Majelis Ulama Indonesia(MUI) telah menerbitkan
fatwa-fatwa yang melarang pernikahan campuran,
pluralisme agama dan doa-doa antar-agama. Serangkaian serangan memaksa
ditutupnya gereja-gereja Kristen. Dan di propinsi Aceh seorang wanita
dicambuk dan lebih dari selusin pria dicambuk dalam tiga bulan terakhir
karena melanggar syariat, hukum Islam.
Beberapa orang Indonesia cemas melihat kejadian-kejadian ini. Sebanyak
tujuh kabupaten di Jawa Barat hingga Sulawesi Selatan dan Madura telah
melaksanakan jenis syariat yang dapat mereka lakukan di bawah
undang-undang otonomi khusus. Sarjana muslim yang liberal Syaf'i Anwar
mengeluh tentang 'perlahan-lahan mensyariatkan Indonesia'. Dia resah
bahwa kepemimpinan politik negeri tidak memberikan perhatian pada
penyebaran syariat yang pada hematnya tidak dimengerti dengan baik dan
dimanipulasi oleh politisi daerah untuk mendukung popularitas mereka.
"Indonesia tidak punya pemimpin-pemimpin agama yang bisa dipercaya, dan
kita tidak tahu hendak kemana kita," keluh Syaf'i Anwar.
Sesungguhnya, wafatnya salah satu ilmuwan Islam liberal terkemuka
Nurcholish Madjid meninggakan suatu kesenjangan sangat besar di sebuah
negeri di mana retorika keagamaan kasar yang mencampurbaurkan dogma
dengan mistik mendapatkan khalayak yang siap di kalangan penduduk yang
telah putus asa mengharapkan keadilan dari kalangan sekuler.
Belakangan ini Presiden SBY mencoba meredam keprihatinan bahwa Indonesia
sedang hanyut ke arah fundamentalisme. "Anda mungkin membaca dari wakaf
ke waktu suara kelompok-kelompok kecil yang radikal, akan tetapi suara
itu tidak akan mengubah fakta adapun arus utama Indonesia akan terus
bersifat moderat, toleran dan demokratis."
Demokrasi berarti kaum ekstrimis dapat mengutarakan diri dengan lebih
bebas. Salah satu dari 11 fatwa yang dikeluarkan oleh MUI pada akhir
bulan Juli menyatakan bahwa tafsiran Islam berdasarkan liberalisme,
sekulerisme dan pluralisme adalah bertentangan dengan ajaran Islam.
Ketakutan di kalangan Islam konservatif adalah keterbukaan politik akan
merongrong nilai-nilai keagamaan dan mengizinkan pemurtadan oleh Kristen.
Akan tetapi orang-orang Indonesia telah menolak gagasan bahwa negeri
mereka akan menjadi negara Islam, dan mereka tidak cenderung memberikan
suara kepada Parpol Islam garis keras. Dua tahun yang lalu para anggota
DPR memberikan suara untuk menolak disisipkannya ketentuan-ketentuan
Syariat di dalam konstitusi Indonesia.
Kebanyakan orang Indonesia tidak tergerak oleh dogma agama yang kaku.
Lahan tengah dan politik Indonesia adalah sekuler dan toleran, dan bagi
sembarang partai Islam untuk meraih mayoritasakan memerlukan melempar
jauh-jauh setiap pikiran mengubah dasar negara yang merupakan tempat
tinggal bagi jutaan orang Kristen dan Hindu. Sebuah parpol akar rumput
yang populer PPP terpaksa dalam menifestonya menaruh dukungan terhadap
syariat
di bawah platform termasuk sekuler, kendati banyak orang mencurigai
bahwa PPP masih mempromosikan syariat.
* * *
Untuk lengkapnya, pendapat Rosihan Anwar mengenai "Mensyariatkan
Indonesia", di muat di bawah ini lengkapnya rulisan Rosihan Anwar,
seperti yang disiarkan oleh a.l. s.k. Kompas, sbb:
* * *
'KENANGAN' ROSIHAN Yang 'TIMPANG'
Tulisan Rosihan Anwar, yang disebut atau menyebut diri, 'wartawan
senior', tentang Penyerahan Kedaulatan 27-12-1949 (Kompas, 27 Des 2006.
Lihat Lampiran), suatu peristiwa yang digambarkannya sebagai suatu
peristiwa penting, -- namun, begitu dibaca terasa 'timpang'. Artinya
'miring'. Ada kekurangannya. Dan kekurangan itu cukup gawat, karena
justru ditulis oleh seorang 'wartawan senior', yang juga dianggap
sesepuh. Sayang, sesunguhnya tulisan Rosihan Anwar itu, bisa jadi bunga
rampai dalam rentetan tulisan-tulisan sekitar hari-hari 'penyerahan
kedaulatan' oleh Belanda kepada pemerintah RIS - Republik Indonesia
Serikat. Kiranya tulisan Rosihan itu akan jadi seimbang, bila sedikit
saja ada disebut tentang betapa berat dan tidak sederajatnya persetujuan
dua negeri. Atau mungkin, ketimpangan ini disebabkan karena yang satu
fihak adalah negara kolonial dan satunya adalah 'koloni', maka
persetujuan KMB itu menjadi suatu persetujuan internasional yang
termasuk sangat menguntungkan satu fihak (Belanda) dan merugikan fihak
satunya (Indonesia.)
Asal saja Rosihan Anwar sedikit saja menyinggung fasal-fasal Peretujuan
Konferensi Meja Bundar Dehn Haag tsb, maka segera akan memasuki
intisarinya. Akan terungkap betapa beratnya syarat-syarat yang
ditetapkan dalam Persetujuan Konferensi Meja Bundar-Den Haag (1949),
yang harus dipenuhi oleh fihak Indonesia. Ada yang mengatakan bahwa
memang tidak bisa lain, begitu jadinya karena Persetujuan KMB itu
dikatakan sebagai 'imbalan' terhadap 'goodwill' fihak Belanda . Bukankah
dengan Persetujuan KMB itu akhirnya fihak Belanda 'menyerahkan
kedaultan' kepada Indonesia, mengakhiri masa kolonialisme (kan baik --
ya tokh?) .
Dimasuki sedikit saja Persetujuan KMB itu, terungkaplah bahwa fihak
Indonesia dalam hal ini telah melakukan kompromi besar dan konsesi yang
berat sekali. Begitu banyak syarat-syarat yang harus dipenuhi oleh fihak
Indonesia. Mulai dari masalah bentuk kenegaraan: harus bentuk federasi,
RIS; finansiil (harus bayar kembali utang Hindia Belanda kepada Den
Haag); ekonomi (harus mengembalikan semua perusahaan dan 'aset' Belanda
kepada Den Haag); sampai ke masalah militer (KNIL harus diintetrasikan
kedalam Angkatan Perang RIS) dan adanya Misi Militer Belanda di
Indonesia). Itu sedikit saja menyebut fasal-fasal yang menonjol
merugikan kita.
* * *
Bagaimana mungkin Rosihan Anwar yang dirinya pribadi meliput proses
Persetujuan KMB itu sampai upacara 'penyerahan kedaultan' di Istana De
Dam, Amsterdam, kok dalam menulis suatu peristiwa yang pasti dia sendiri
menganggapnya penting itu, bisa-bisanya samasekali tidak menyebut apa
isi Persetujuan KMB yang merugikan Indonesia. Tetapi itulah yang
terjadi, Rosihan membiarkan berlalu segi-segi negatif Persetujuan KMB
itu. Entahlah barangkali dia pernah menulis hal itu sesudah 1949. Kalau
ada tulisan Rosihan yang menganalisis segi-segi negatif Persetujuan KMB
di dalam surat kabar Pedoman yang ia pimpin sendiri dalam periode itu,
tentu itu baik.
* * *
Akibat dari begitu banyaknya fasal-fasal yang merugikan bagi Indonesia,
maka tidak lama kemu-dian , - - - - salah satu dari fasalnya yang
terpenting, ialah mengenai syarat bahwa sifat negara Indonesia harus
federal, dimana tercakup didalamnya 'negara-negara bagian' bikinan
Belanda , -- pemerintah Indonesia yang mencerminkan kehendak rakyat
telah membatalkannya. Demikianlah, Republik Indonesia Serikat (RIS)
dibubarkan dan negara Indonesia kembali menjadi bentuk negara REPUBLK
INDONESIA, sesuai Proklamasi 17 Agustus 1945. Hidup rakyat Indonesia!
Beberapa waktu kemudian salah satu syarat lainnya dari persetujuan KMB
yaitu adanya MMB, Misi Militer Belanda, di Indonesia dituntut rakyat
supaya diusir dari Indonesia. Karena dianggap sebagai salah satu sumber
subversi Belanda terhadap Indonesia. Juga 'Uni Indonesia Belanda', yang
dikepalai oleh Mahkota Kerajaan Belanda, digugat rakyat dan dituntut
agar dibubarkan. Karena Uni Indonesia-Belanda itu atasannya adalah
Mahkota Kerajaan Belanda. Hal mana dianggap oleh rakyat kita sebagai
perlambang bahwa Indonesia belum benar-benar lepas dari kolonialisme
Belanda.
Yang terasa amat berat lagi, ialah keharusan Indonesia membayar utang
Hindia Belanda kepada Den Haag. Yang termasuk utang yang harus dibayar
Indonesia itu diantaranya yang paling berat, ialah keharusan Indonesia
yang baru berdiri itu, membayar ongkos-ongkos perang Agresi Ke-I dan
Ke-II Belanda terhadap Republik Indonesia. Suatu peperangan untuk
menghancurkan Republik Indonesia.
Dan banyak lagi hal-hal yang timpang dalam fasal-fasal Persetujuan KMB.
Untuk lengkapnya bisa minta bahan-bahan dari Batara Hutagalung Ketua,
Komite Utang Kehormatan Belanda (KUKB)yang banyak menulis tentang
masalah ini.
* * *
Tokh masih perlu disebut di sini satu lagi yang amat menonjol.
Dimaksudkan di sini ialah, sesudah Indonesia menerima 'peneyerahan
kedaulatan dari Belanda, namun Irian Barat (Papua), masih tetap dikuasai
Belanda. Suatu kasus yang hampir saja mencetuskan perang baru lagi yang
gawat di Pasifik Barat, antara kekuatan bersenjata Republik Indonesia
dan Kerajaan Belanda.
Berkat keteguhan tekad dan semangat juang rakyat Indonesia membebaskan
Irian Barat dan mengembalikannya keharibaan Ibu Pertiwi, serta pula (ini
perlu dicatat) campur tangan PBB khususnya turun tangannya Amerika
Serikat yang memberikan tekanan berat kepada fihak Belanda untuk
meyerahkan Irian Barat kepada RI, suatu politik AS demi kepentingan
strategi Perang Dinginnya, akhirnyua Irian Barat kembali ke pangkuan Ibu
Pertiwi.
* * *
Itulah tadi sekadar komentar terhadap tulisan wartawan senior Rosihan
Anwar yang berkenan mengingatkan pembacanya atas suatu peristiwa yang
dianggapnya penting, yaitu 'Penyerahan Kedaulatan' atas Indonesia oleh
Belanda kepada Indonesia pada tanggal 27 Desember 1949, dimana Rosihan
Anwar pribadi ada di situ sebagai wartawan peliput.
* * *
LAMPIRAN:
KOMPAS, Rabu, 27 Desember 2006
Penyerahan Kedaulatan 27-12-1949
H Rosihan Anwar
Musim dingin di Amsterdam. Pagi-pagi 27 Desember 1949, pakai mantel
tebal, saya naik trem dari Valarius Straat menuju Paleis op de Dam,
menyaksikan upacara penyerahan kedaulatan dari Kerajaan Belanda kepada
Republik Indonesia Serikat, sesuai hasil Ronde Tafel Conferentie (RTC)
atau Konferensi Meja Bundar di Den Haag (23 Agustus-2 November 1949).
Sebagai Pemimpin Redaksi Harian Pedoman, saya satu-satunya wartawan
Indonesia yang hadir. Peliput Konferensi Meja Bundar (KMB) lainnya,
seperti BM Diah, Adinegoro, Wonohito, Soekrisno, Soetarto, Pohan, Kwee
Kek Beng, Mohammad Said, EU Pupella sudah kembali ke Tanah Air. Saya
menunggu di Belanda karena akan menuju Amerika Serikat mengikuti
pelajaran di Yale Drama Workshop sehingga diundang untuk menyaksikan
peristiwa bersejarah itu.
Di depan Istana Dam, saya melihat sekumpulan orang Indonesia menanti
kedatangan Wapres Mohammad Hatta. Saat itu Bung Hatta bermantel hitam
dan blootshoofd (tanpa tutup kepala), memeriksa barisan kehormatan
militer. Dengan langkah cepat dia masuk Istana, lalu mengambil tempat di
Burgerzaal. Hadir Ratu Juliana, sebelah kiri duduk PM Belanda Willem
Drees, sebelah kanan Wapres Hatta, Sultan Pontianak Alkadrie, Prof Dr
Supomo. Lalu anggota Corps Diplomatique (CD), Menteri Van Maarseveen,
Stikker, mantan PM Louis Beel, Dubes Van Royen, serta Kamerheren
(pegawai tinggi Istana) dalam pakaian kebesaran warna-warni. Drees yang
sosialis-demokrat yang dalam gerakan sosialis bertahun-tahun mendukung
dan prokemerdekaan Indonesia sengaja mengundang tiga pengarang perempuan
Henriette Roland Holst dan spesialis Hindia dari Fraksi Partai SDAP di
Tweede Kamar Cramar dan Stokvis.
Upacara penyerahan
Hawa dalam ruangan terasa panas. Maklum, banyak orang tumplek di sana.
Lantaran gerah, saya kurang konsentrasi menyimak pidato Ratu Juliana
setelah ditandatanganinya teks bahasa Belanda dari dokumen penyerahan
kedaulatan. Pidato Bung Hatta yang diucapkan dalam bahasa Indonesia juga
tidak cermat saya ikuti. Teks pidato Bung Hatta yang ditulis tangan itu
diserahkan kepada Drees keesokan malamnya dalam jamuan di Treveszaal
yang diselenggarakan Pemerintah Belanda. Drees amat menghargakan
pemberian Hatta itu sehingga copy pidato Hatta dimuat dalam bukunya,
Zestig jaar levenservaring (60 Tahun Pengalaman Hidup).
Bagi Hatta, peristiwa 27 Desember 1949 itu amat besar maknanya. Beberapa
tahun kemudian saya bertanya, apakah peristiwa paling penting dalam
hidupnya, Bung Hatta menjawab, menandatangani teks Proklamasi
Kemerdekaan 17 Agustus 1945 dan menandatangani akta penyerahan
kedaulatan Belanda kepada Indonesia, 27 Desember 1949.
Saya catat, ada kejadian saat upacara berlangsung. Tiba-tiba terdengar
bunyi gedebuk, orang jatuh. Seorang Kemerheer pingsan. Apakah lelaki
pegawai Istana Ratu itu lemas karena terlalu lama berdiri, sakit, atau
belum sarapan? Saya tidak tahu. Tetapi saya menganggapnya sebagai
perlambang, jatuhnya kekuasaan sebuah imperium, tamatnya era
kolonialisme Belanda.
Upacara di Paleis Dam disiarkan langsung melalui radio yang pada saat
sama bisa didengarkan di Istana Rijswijk (Istana Negara) di Jakarta oleh
hadirin yang menyaksikan upacara penyerahan kedaulatan dari Wakil
Mahkota Agung Lovink kepada Sultan Hamengku Buwono IX. Presiden Soekarno
sungkan menghadiri upacara di Jakarta itu dan tinggal di Yogya, menunggu
triomfala intocht alias ketibaan berjaya di ibu kota RI.
Bertahun-tahun kemudian, Soebadio Sastrosatomo dari PSI (Partai Sosialis
Indonesia) mengatakan, "dari perspektif mistik, yang terjadi di Jakarta
adalah penyerahan kekuasaan atas Indonesia dari Belanda, bukan kepada
Presiden Republik Indonesia (Soekarno), tetapi kepada Raja Jawa (HB IX)."
Juga di Jakarta, ada kejadian lain. Diplomat Belanda Van Beus dalam buku
Morgen bij het aanbreken van de dag menulis, saat bendera Belanda
Merah-Putih-Biru diturunkan, massa rakyat yang menyaksikan bersuit-suit
disertai teriakan mencemooh, menimbulkan perasaan pilu pada orang-orang
Belanda yang hadir. Sebaliknya, waktu bendera Indonesia Merah-Putih
dikerek ke puncak tiang, rakyat bertepuk tangan diiringi sorak sorai.
Ini simbol berakhirnya era kolonialisme.
Lagu kebangsaan
Saat keluar dari Paleis op de Dam saya dengar dari carillon sebuah
gereja di dekatnya, pertama kali diperdengarkan lagu kebangsaan
Indonesia Raya. Saya pikir itu juga simbol tamatnya kolonialisme Belanda.
Pada 31 Desember 1949 malam, saya mengantar Bung Hatta, juga istri saya
Siti Zuraida, yang hari itu akan pulang ke Tanah Air ke Bandara
Schiphol. Setelah Bung Hatta bertolak, saya balik ke penginapan.
Berjalan kaki sepanjang kali atau grachtan lewat tengah malam jelas
berbeda dengan jalan kaki di Gunung Kendeng, 8 Juli 1949 malam, saat
saya bersama Pak Harto menjemput Panglima Besar Sudirman dari daerah
gerilya, agar kembali ke Yogya di mana Soekarno-Hatta telah tiba dari
Bangka. Sudah tahun baru, pikir saya. Tanah Air saya sudah merdeka dan
berdaulat, diakui dunia internasional.
* * *
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
