The Greatest Literary Works

literary works documentation. essay on literature. student paper. etc

Taufik Ismail’s Anger against ¼ and ½ Indonesian Women Literary Works

Written by eastern writer on Sunday, July 13, 2008

by Dewi Candraningrum. The writer is a lecturer of the University of Muhammadiyah, Surakarta, Central Java, Indonesia. She is recipient of DAAD Stipendium, now taking post doctoral program (phd) in Universitat Munster, Germany.


January 9, 2007, senior poet and artist, Taufik Ismail (TI) deliver his culture oration in IPB, entitled Gerakan Syahwat Merdeka (The Free Sexual-Arousal Movement). Syahwat derived from an Arabic term which could be equated with English words "arousal". His words are decorated with ultra morality under the name of absolute fear against the global conspiracy. He spoke against a bunch of conspirators who propagated this lusty sexual arousal which were categorized into 13 lusty faces.

As if these 13 movements have been inspired by a satanic call to destroy the morality of the Indonesian. The most interesting face is number five, (5) “writers, publishers, sexual propagandist which are merely ¼ and ½ to be categorized as literary works. Those of Indonesian women’s writers who are only interested in talking about sexual arousal. They have no shame at all. It is a literary mazhab of s.m.s (sastra mazhab selangkang).” It is clearly a glance of anger. I was tempted to imagine who those women writers are, those who write not in his mores and those who write under the correct morality. What is correct and incorrect in morality? What kind of ideological cloak that decorated the absolute ideal morality he embraced? What kinds of cosmological construct that defines “what art is” Taufik is now believing?

I then retoured my rereading on the work of Helvy Tiana Rosa and Ayu Utami, two Indonesian women writers who have a different gender construction in relation with morality.

Hamka once wrote and shed his capture of peaceful mores under the abode of Kabah (Di Bawah Lindoengan Ka’bah). He propagated these way of life in his well-known Padang published Pedoman Masjarakat in the thirties. The quest for Islamic identity which was inertly searched by former Islamic writers was then transformed by Hamka into outwardly search.

This outward search is now also shared by women writers in Forum Lingkar Pena. The propagation shed its light on the mass Islamic pops magazine like Annida and Sabili whom one of its prominent Islamic women writers, Helvy Tiana Rosa (HTR), becomes the main actor. HTR is in firm search of Islamic identity. Her Cut Dini, Lizetta, and Hanan are shouldered with the roles of star of wars to defend and protect other Muslimah. If Hamka spoke against the Dutch, Helvy read against the global war on terror which have apparently cornered the Muslim. These works of literature are being read as well as being interpreted thousands of times. The Islamic identities that they uniquely represented through its characters have its legacy in every person who read it. The Islamic mores is usurped in the beauty of its brave major women characters. The untouchable beauty of her Muslim women is inaugurated to serve the Islamic morality a women of Islam are willing to participate. Helvy’s aesthetical works deserve a place in the rainbow of contemporary Indonesian women writers.

Writers can never live without critics. Critics affirm the legacy writers deserve to achieve. These very rights shall be guaranteed and protected by “the civilization of ratio” that we affirm.

The way Ayu Utami pick a woman character to speak against the patriarchal feudal construction of women’s bodies, represent her ability in giving back women women’s own voices. Voices that enable them to apprehend the meaning of sexuality in women’s own social cultural construct. She has returned the right the women have. She has interrogated the level of horizon which is casted upon the soul of the languages. Her words were often attacked that they sparkled with the glance of lust, which is immoral. The deep structure that was roamed by her words represents a different cosmological gender construction. The sound of existentialism, of the being, is obstructed to speak against the taboos feudal Indonesian. Ayu very mores shed further challenge to the so-called rigid-textual-scriptural interpretation. Like Helvy, Ayu’s aesthetical facts deserve a place in the rainbow of contemporary Indonesian women’s writers.

From the surface hermeneutical inquiry, it seems that Ayu’s and Helvy’s construction of women’s bodies are in conflict. It is indeed, but not necessarily paradoxical. The civilizations of “here and now” and “there and after” remain enriching the color of Indonesian women’s writers. They are the precious wealth, Indonesian have. Clerics may laud that the world of “there and after” is better and holier than the world of “lusty here and now”. A senior poet will surely assure and appreciate both of the works as equally valid. A senior poet will not easily angry just to stamp that the literary works of “here and now” is lusty, is immoral, is solely ¼ and ½ to be regarded as “literary”.

Taufik’s anger to one of both genres is an anger of an old man. An old man who is longing for the world of “holy-sacred there and after”. His anger could be interpreted as his own shock of his inability to see that “morality” shall become the responsibility of not only women but men as well. His morality is deeply ingrained in his interpretation that “women’s bodies as source of temptation”, that spectators of those temptations are freed from any responsibility of the so-called ultra-morality. Is this fair? Shall morality be shouldered merely to women’s bodies? How about the spectators who apparently shows their greedy patriarchal mores in the name of religion?

The different gender constructions that are perceived by Helvy and Ayu need not necessarily to be paradoxical. The different positions they outcast could be paradoxical that certainly enhance the source of creativity. They are the deposit of millions of interpretations which lubricated the hermeneutical cycle of work of arts. The beauty their words represented is the rainbow of contemporary Indonesian writers. Ayu together with other Indonesian writers establish a remarkable group of women who created a great deal of the fabric of modern Indonesian women writers, to retell the story of women from different social cultural background, to mediate the voices of women, to negotiate the resistances into the aesthetical transformation, which are indeed women’s own stories, which are belong to women, only.

source: http://indonesianmuslim.com

Read More......

Polemik Ayat-ayat Cinta: Indonesian Best Seller Novel

Written by eastern writer on Sunday, March 30, 2008

Sukses film "Ayat-ayat Cinta" (AAC) yang sebelumnya diangkat dari novel islami karya Habiburahman El Shirazy membuat nama penulis asal Semarang tersebut semakin di kenal luas. Sebelum heboh film AAC, novel Kang Abik tersebut memang sudah menjadi best seller dan konon sudah tercetak lebih dari 400 ribu kopi. Dari kabar terakhir, penonton film AAC sudah menembus angkat 3 juta lebih sejak diputar perdananya pada 28 Februari 2008.

Banyak pujian dialamatkan kepada penulis novel alumnus Al Azhar, Kairo, Mesir itu. Pun juga kepada Hanung Bramantyo, sang sutradara yang menggarap novel AAC ke layar lebar. Pujian itu diberikan karena film ini dinilai telah memberikan pengaruh yang positif, menyampaikan ajaran-ajaran moral yang tinggi.

Namun demikian, kesuksesan buku ini, bagi pihak lain menunjukkan betapa rendahnya selera masyarakat pembaca Indonesia akan sebuah karya yang bagus. Kritik atas AAC tidak jauh dari nuansa dakwah yang disampaikan penulisnya yang dinilai seperti teks khotbah, dan juga tokoh Fahri sebagai pemeran utama yang sangat lurus dan sempurna.

Berikut ini, saya mengumpulkan beberapa link penting untuk dokumentasi seputar fenomena Ayat-ayat Cinta baik dalam versi buku atau terakhir, versi film:

Read More......

Salman Rushdie: The Satanic Verses and the Fatwa

Written by eastern writer on Tuesday, July 24, 2007

The publication of The Satanic Verses in September 1988 caused immediate controversy in the Islamic world because of what was perceived as an irreverent depiction of the prophet Muhammad. The title refers to a Muslim tradition that is related in the book. According to it, Muhammad (Mahound in the book) added verses (sura) to the Qur'an accepting three goddesses that used to be worshipped in Mecca as divine beings. According to the legend, Muhammad later revoked the verses, saying the devil tempted him to utter these lines to appease the Meccans (hence the Satanic verses). However, the narrator reveals to the reader that these disputed verses were actually from the mouth of the Archangel Gibreel. The book was banned in many countries with large Muslim communities.

On 14 February 1989, a fatwa requiring Rushdie's execution was proclaimed on Radio Tehran by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the spiritual leader of Iran at the time, calling the book "blasphemous against Islam." A bounty was offered for the death of Rushdie, who was thus forced to live under police protection for years to come. On 7 March 1989, the United Kingdom and Iran broke diplomatic relations over the Rushdie controversy.

The publication of the book and the fatwa sparked violence around the world, with bookstores being firebombed. Muslim communities in several nations in the West held public rallies in which copies of the book were burned. Several people associated with translating or publishing the book were attacked, seriously injured, and even killed.[11] Many more people died in riots in Third World countries.

On 24 September 1998, as a precondition to the restoration of diplomatic relations with Britain, the Iranian government, then headed by moderate Mohammad Khatami, gave a public commitment that it would "neither support nor hinder assassination operations on Rushdie."[12][13] Hardliners in Iran have however continued to reaffirm the death sentence.[14] In early 2005, Khomeini's fatwa was reaffirmed by Iran's spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in a message to Muslim pilgrims making the annual pilgrimage to Mecca.[15] Additionally, the Revolutionary Guards have declared that the death sentence on him is still valid.[16] Iran has rejected requests to withdraw the fatwa on the basis that only the person who issued it may withdraw it[15], and the person who issued it is dead.

Salman Rushdie reported that he still receives a "sort of Valentine's card" from Iran each year on February 14 letting him know the country has not forgotten the vow to kill him. He was also quoted saying, "It's reached the point where it's a piece of rhetoric rather than a real threat."[17] Despite the threats on Rushdie, he has publicly said that his family has never been threatened and that his mother (who lived in Pakistan during the later years of her life) even received outpourings of support.[18]

Hezbollah's failed assassination attempt

A 1989 explosion in Britain is believed to have been a Hezbollah "attempt to assassinate British novelist Salman Rushdie [which] failed when a bomb exploded prematurely, killing a terrorist in London."[19] There is a shrine in Tehran’s Behesht-e Zahra cemetery for Mustafa Mahmoud Mazeh that says he was "Martyred in London, August 3, 1989. The first martyr to die on a mission to kill Salman Rushdie." Mazeh died priming a book bomb loaded with RDX explosives that took out two floors of a hotel in Paddington, central London. A previously unknown Lebanese group, the Organisation of the Mujahidin of Islam, said he died preparing an attack "on the apostate Rushdie". Mezeh's mother was invited to relocate to Iran and the Islamic World Movement of Martyrs’ Commemoration built his shrine in the cemetary that holds thousands of Iranian soldiers slain in the Iran-Iraq War.[12] During the 2006 Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah declared that "If there had been a Muslim to carry out Imam Khomeini's fatwa against the renegade Salman Rushdie, this rabble who insult our Prophet Mohammed in Denmark, Norway and France would not have dared to do so. I am sure there are millions of Muslims who are ready to give their lives to defend our prophet's honour and we have to be ready to do anything for that."[20]

Pakistani International Guerillas film

In 1990 a Pakistani film was released in which Rushdie, played by Afzaal Ahmad, was depicted as plotting, soon after his publication of The Satanic Verses, to cause the downfall of "Pakistan, the stronghold of Islam" by opening a chain of casinos and discos in the country. The hero of the story, played by Mustafa Qureshi, learns of the plot and decides to quit his day job as a police officer to recruit his unemployed brothers and create a mujahid (God's soldiers) group to pursue Rushdie and slay him before the plot can go into effect.[21][22] The film was popular with Pakistani audiences, and it “presents Rushdie as a Rambo-like figure pursued by four Pakistani guerillas”[23] and surrounded by the Israeli armed forces.[24] Rushdie is protrayed as "a smug, bespectacled butcher in a double-breasted suit, who lives in palatial splendor, [and who] personally slaughters his enemies with a huge blood-soaked sword".[25] In the end as the trio of brothers and their mother are being crucified by Rushdie, Allah frees them with bolts of lightning and "Rushdie is attacked by a quartet of floating holy books (the Koran, Tawrat, Zabur, and Injil), which shoot laser beams into his skull until he bursts into flame"[25], "a scene that evoked shouts of approval from [Pakistani] audiences."[23] The British Board of Film Classification refused to allow it a certificate, as "it was felt that the portrayal of Rushdie might qualify as criminal libel, causing a breach of the peace as opposed to merely tarnishing his reputation."[24] This move effectively banned the film in Britain outright. However two months later, Rushdie himself wrote to the board, saying that while he thought the film "a distorted, incompetent piece of trash" he would not sue if it was released.[24] He later said "If that film had been banned, it would have become the hottest video in town: everyone would have seen it".[24] While the film was a massive hit in Pakistan, it went virtually unnoticed in the UK.[24]

[source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie]

Read More......

The History of Lawrence's Lady Chatterly's Lover

Written by eastern writer on Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Between the years 1926 and 1928, D. H. Lawrence wrote his final Lady Chatterly's Lover three times. Finishing the third revision, he decided the book was ready for publication, but when he attempted to persuade his agents and publishers to print the work, all were obstinately opposed. Already, he was a seasoned veteran of battles over censorship against people whom he referred to as "morons," battles which put an added strain on his already failing health (Moore 9). He expected difficulty in finding a publisher brave enough to print the content as it stood. As he foresaw, they all refused to publish it unless he agreed to make some changes to the text which would show the public that it was a work of literary merit apart from all the sex and four-letter words. In A Propos of Lady Chatterly's Lover, Lawrence said that he was tempted to make such changes for money but that they were impossible. He said, "I might as well try to clip my own nose into shape with scissors. The book bleeds" (2).

He refused to bow to the demands of the "censor-morons" as he had for the publication of his first novel, The White Peacock. Being in poor health, it was no longer a question of money nor of the writer's creed "publish or perish." He was guided by the desire to speak openly, honestly, and fervently about matters which the majority would rather keep silent. No longer having the patience to veil what he perceived as truth, he met with a Florentine bookseller named Guiseppe Orioli who agreed to print the book in his Tipografia Giuntina using Lawrence's own capital. Orioli, the compiler, knew little English and even less trepidation, for when Lawrence warned him of the book's volatile content, the Italian replied smugly, "O Ma! We do it every day!" (Moore 20).

The 1,000 copies of this first edition printed in July 1928 were sold through Lawrence's close personal friends due to the expectation of trouble from the police. At only two pounds each, the book sold quickly so that by December, this first version was completely sold out (Draper 20). In November, he published another cheaper edition of 200 copies which sold as quickly as the first.

The novel, despite the fact that its audience was limited to only those who had ties to the black market, was a profitable one for Lawrence. In fact, he would have become extremely wealthy had he been given a royalty on all the pirated editions which sprang up almost immediately after its first publication. One bookseller felt guilty about selling an unauthorized novel, so he sent Lawrence a small percentage of the profits. Lawrence remarked that if this were just a drop in the bucket, as the bookseller had indicated, it must have been a wonderful bucket (Lawrence 12). As it was published privately, no copyright was issued, so the novel was free game to any and all who wished to pirate their own editions, and the pirates could sell them for as much as possible.

The immediacy and pervasiveness with which the pirated editions arose is astounding. Apparently, someone in America had ordered an edition from one of Lawrence's friends, and within a month of its arrival there, the first pirated edition was offered for sale in New York, usually at the price of fifteen dollars. Even the most `reliable' bookstores sold pirated editions to the public as if they were the originals (Lawrence 5).

By 1929, Lawrence himself possessed a pirated edition, a "filthy-looking book...containing my [his] forged signature by the little boy of the piratical family" (Lawrence 4). In response to this edition's appearance in London, Lawrence put forth a second edition in November 1928, again from the tiny Florentine print shop. This time he only printed two hundred copies and offered them at one guinea each as it was smaller and less expensive to print.

Lawrence also possessed a pirated edition that resembled a long Bible, a funeral version, and in America before the end of the decade, at least four pirated editions are recorded. In Europe, a pirated edition of 1500 copies was very near to the original. Only the corrections of a few of the spelling mistakes, which had been made to begin with by the English illiterate Orioli, the absence of the author's signature, and a slightly different binding identified it as a false version. Being so close to the original, the book was sold to an unsuspecting public at anywhere from 300 to 500 francs (Lawrence 7).

Several pirates offered Lawrence a guarantee of royalty from the sale of their editions if he would simply agree to authorize them. While this would not have made their editions any more legal, it would have served to make stiff-necked booksellers more ready to carry the books. However,, Lawrence was as opposed to this idea as he was to the idea of expurgating Lady Chatterly's Lover to appease the censor-happy publishers. He said, "It is understood that Judas always stands ready with a kiss. But that I should have to kiss him back-!" (Lawrence 8).

Instead of succumbing to the requests of the pirates, he managed to publish a cheap edition in May 1929 of 3,000 copies in Paris. This edition sold out by August at sixty francs and was the first to include his prefatory essay entitled "My Skirmish with Jolly Roger," a defense, explication, and history of the novel that was published posthumously as A Propos of Lady Chatterly's Lover. In light of the multitudinous damning criticisms, such a volume was needed. Nevertheless, the publication came too late and few people took time to read it to figure out what Lawrence's intentions were when he set the pen to paper. Virtually every criticism of the book indicated to some extent that Lawrence was obsessed with sex. Some even went so far as to say that the entire book was laden with evil. An anonymous author in John Bull wrote a scathing review about the novel which "reeked with obscenity and lewdness...The muddy minded perverts peddled in the backstreets of Paris are prudish by comparison" (Draper 278). Like many other critics, he felt indifferent to people who wanted to be tainted by Lawrence so long as they kept their distance.

With such negative criticism, the flames of hatred against both the author and the book were ignited in the hearts of the general public, particularly the church-going crowd. Because of what others had said about it, most became so afraid of the book that they would not even allow it in their sight, much less read it for fear that immediate corruption would ensue. With this outcry from the religious community, police in England and America had their hands full preventing the sale of the novel. Undercover police approached a book shop in Oxford in September 1928 and asked if they carried a copy of the novel. The clerk denied indignantly that they stocked it but later approached the undercover officer as he was leaving and said that he could get a copy as a favor to a friend if no receipt was needed.

In America on November 25, 1930, an agent of the Watch and Ward Society purchased a copy of Lady Chatterly's Lover at the Dunster House Book shop in Cambridge, Massachucets. James Delancy, the manager, and Joseph Sullivan, his clerk, were both convicted of selling obscene literature, a crime for which Mr. Delancy was find $800.00 and assigned four months in the house of corrections while Mr. Sullivan was sentenced to two weeks in prison and a $200.00 fine (Morris 2603). The case was appealed to Superior Court on December 19 and 20, 1929. The defense attorney leveled his attack against the unscrupulous methodology employed by the Watch and Ward Society when black-mailing the defendants. He stated that they were "depraved and perverted" to manipulate the booksellers the way they did, and cared little about disagreeing that Lady Chatterly's Lover was obscene. Since he was defending the booksellers, not Lawrence, he was not concerned with the book's reputation. The prosecutor attacked the Watch and Ward Society so that when the trial was over, the Society was censured by the judge. Unfortunately for the two defendants, they were still considered guilty, and their sentences stood unchanged.

Among the hubbub of the anti-Lawrence community, a small group of people voiced support of the book. He received many letters from booksellers, critics, and readers praising the novel and asking questions about what happened to Lady Chatterly or complaining that their orders had not been received (Moore 20). In answer, Lawrence wrote in the margins of the letters and sent them to the Florentine publisher to be typed into formal replies. While most of the criticism condemned his obsession with sex and fowl language, few would deny that he was a man of genius. Even the bully in John Bull had this to say on his behalf: "Mr. Lawrence is a man of genius. As a psychologist he is in the front rank of living writers; as a stylist he stands supreme" (Draper 278).

Lawrence became extremely ill in late 1929 and moved to the Swiss Alps and then to the South of France in search of a healthy atmosphere, but news of the novel continued to follow him. It is likely that the strain of the publication details of Lady Chatterly's Lover hastened his death in 1930. One day in early 1930, he said, "The hatred which my books have aroused comes back at me and gets me here," pointing to his heart (Moore 25). He was a serious man who took news of his novel's acceptance seriously. Later that year, due to complications, he passed away in the South of France. With the death of Lawrence, publishers felt at liberty to expurgate it at will. Without a copyright, a publisher who could come up with a clean version had the promise of the novel's preceding reputation to back up its success. In 1932, two expurgated versions were published, 2,000 copies in America and 3,440 copies in England. Frieda Lawrence, D. H. Lawrence's widow, endorsed one expurgated version on the jacket sleeve stating that it "suggests to the greatest possible extent the original's strength and vigor" (Hazlitt 289). However, one can only assume that Lawrence would have published the novel in an expurgated version when he was alive had he so desired. He made so many attempts to defy authority and have his third version of the novel published the way he wanted that no one can assume he would have been pleased. To him, the detailed descriptions of the sex act were central to convey his philosophy on the issue, and the four-letter words were nothing more than all men knew. He used them in an attempt to capture or mirror what he perceived as reality.

The publishers of this version euphemistically referred to it as an `abridged' edition. Whole pages were left out with nothing but confusing asterisks left to mark their omissions. There was no consistency in the use of these astriks; some deleted pages were not even mentioned. Every description of the act of sex and all four-letter words which could have been remotely objectional were left out. Moreover, the reader was not made aware of when his or her "chastity was being protected from the depraving influence of the original volume" (Hazlitt 289). It would have been better had the editors simply been consistent in their omissions.

Criticism of this expurgated version often focused on the inconsistency of the omissions but was generally in favor of the clean version, although the name carried with it a certain dubious reputation which prohibited its purchase by the religious community. They were still afraid of it. In America, literary criticism was caught up in the worries of the Great Depression, and concerns over Lady Chatterly's Lover took a back seat to the more immediately important issue of keeping food on the table. Nevertheless, its popularity evidently did not die. The National Union Catalog records fifteen different printings of expurgated versions between the years 1932 and 1943 in America, England, and Paris. A considerable number of these novels were sold, and the black market still carried a full line of assorted unexpurgated copies.

Further evidence of the novel's continued popularity lies in the 1944 printing of Lawrence's first version of the novel. Printed under the fitting title, The First Lady Chatterly, Dial Press expected to capitalize on the novel's reputation. It was this reputation, however, that led to a court battle in November 1944.

Earlier that year in May, Charles Sumner, raided the offices of Dial Press in New York City seizing four hundred copies of the novel. When it came to trial, two of the three justices hearing the case decided that there was reasonable doubt as to the obscenity of the novel.

Besides lacking the four-letter words that lit so much controversy over the third version, this edition also differed in characterization. The character of the gamekeeper, Mellors, was originally named Parkin who was more of a social figure. In the third version, with Mellors, the social motif was not as direct, and the love theme was thereby emphasized more exclusively (Moore 20). Parkin speaks only in the vernacular while Mellors speaks the common language in affectionate scenes and the king's English when he wishes. "In Constance Chatterly, the changes are perhaps less drastic, but they are no less important to her motivation" (Schorer xxxi). Clifford Chatterly gradually comes to be bitter in the first version, whereas he is already bitter at the start of the third. All of these changes lend themselves to the theme which evolved in Lawrence's mind as he wrote the book. Therefore, the strongest criticism against accepting this first version as authoritative lies in the fact that the message Lawrence wished to convey through the story was not perfected until the final version.

Most critics agreed that there was nothing wrong with the idea of publishing this version of the manuscript. Lawrence had not included much of what made the third version so hated, and a respectable literary opinion centered on the idea that this version was at least as good if not better than the third draft which Lawrence preferred. Indeed, had Lawrence been satisfied with his first draft of the novel, it would have been published with very little commotion. Still, it is impossible to say how the novel would have been viewed critically were it not for the controversy it generated. Evidence points to the possibility that the novel would not have enjoyed great popularity. Many critics agreed that the plot was too simple and that the characters were utterly dead inside, that it was a bleak, depressing novel. It simply was not Lawrence's best work.

Even though the book may not have been his best, the idea of not being able to legally purchase the third version was difficult to accept, even for those who did not necessarily care for the novel itself. The gradual push for the publication of the third version without abridgement continued. In 1953, a collection of Lawrence's essays regarding his sexual ideology entitled Sex Literature and Censorship was edited by Harry Moore. In this book Moore called for the publication of an unexpurgated third version: "Now, twenty years after the legalization of Ulysses, we might expect a publisher to undertake the genuine Lady Chatterly's Lover" (26). He would have to wait six years more until Grove Press accepted that portentous task.

"Like water pressure that has slowly built up behind a cracked dam, the suppressed book suddenly burst upon us" (Evans 144). Once the novel was available in pure, unexpurgated form, the greatest battle in its controversial history exploded culminating in a trial at the U. S. District Court under Judge Frederick vanPelt Bryan. Opponents and proponents voiced their opinions openly. Among the more eminent figures opposed to the book were Post Master General Arthur E. Summerfield and President Eisenhower. When Summerfield showed the President a copy of the book in which he had marked some of the four-letter words and sex scenes, the shocked President replied "Dreadful...We can't have it." (Evans 145). The religious community backed the President in an outcry against the novel. The publisher at Grove Press was thankful for those who stood up in defense of the novel as it was banned from the mail system. He had printed 30,000 copies which were projected to sell rapidly, and were it not for the testimonies of distinguished people such as Aldous Huxley and the thoughtful foresight of Judge Bryan, Grove Press might have been forced into bankruptcy (Kazin 34).

Summerfield had been charged by Congress with the duty of excluding obscenity from the mails, and when copies were mailed by Grove Press in the spring of 1959, he was challenged with fulfilling this obligation of office. When he denied it from the mails, the publisher immediately sued in the Federal District Court asking that the ruling of the Postmaster be laid aside. He called on some of the paramount literary critics to defend the novel as a work of art, and all of them contended that it was one of the most important novels of the century. The work was characterized as one containing dignity. "They even went so far as to stress its high `religious quality' and `consecrated vein'" (Evans 146).

Once both sides had argued their case, Judge Bryan, having read the novel himself, decided that Lady Chatterly's Lover was "an honest and sincere novel of literary merit" (qtd. in Evans 146). He thought that the scenes which the Postmaster General had pointed out as obscene were necessary to the plot structure in conveying the author's intent. The language that the President regarded as `dreadful' "seemed to him not inconsistent with character, situation or theme" (Evans 146).

In this light, Judge Bryan issued an order that the book be allowed all the privileges of the mail, a ruling which outraged many citizens. J. Benedict, in the title of his essay regarding the matter, called the case "A Legal Leftwing Softening of Public Morality" (3). Many were afraid that this decision would only lead to the freedom of the press to publish anything and everything, which it may have done to a certain extent. They feared that what may result from the decision would be "the noisiest censorship yap since James Joyce's Ulyesses was declared literature by Federal Judge John M. Woolsey in 1933" (Morris 88). Some were puzzled. They thought that if the Postmaster General were charged with keeping obscenity from the mail, he should be able to decide exactly what obscenity was.

Nevertheless, the ruling stood firm and became a precedent in other censor cases as the Ulysses case had done. Just after the ruling, Alfred Kazin observed that Lady Chatterly was out of date for 1959. Some of the contempory novels (the names of which he failed to mention) dealt with matters that made Lady Chatterly's Lover pale by comparison. "One was about necrophilia, another on sodomy between priests, a third on incest"(33). Kazin condemned the way people choose to ignore and repress what they are afraid of. He said, "There is something about the American mind that is quick to identify what it is afraid of or just ignorant of as immoral" (34). Sonya Rudikoff supported the novel and "the purgative effects of intentional frankness" (408).

It is likely that the first movie version from Paris added a new dimension to the trial. Arriving in America at approximately the same time as the unexpurgated version, the risque sex scenes evoked horror in the minds of people who were barely accustomed to the antics of Howdy Doody. This was one of the first and most deeply felt blows to U.S. film censorship that had yet come about. The state of New York had banned the film from public viewing, and controversy over the book caught the film in its whirlwind so that the case went to the U.S. Supreme Court. The decision regarding the film was as shocking as the ruling on the book. Our constitutional rights were being violated by New York, and as adults, we should be allowed to view the film if we so desire.

These two decisions serve as landmarks in the struggle for freedom of expression. They played a minor part in the sexual revolution of the sixties, and widespread open-mindedness. One must be careful not to go too far in measuring the degree of profundity these cases had on future generations. However, we can note that they served as precedents, and once they were established, there was no going back to equal days of suppressing ideas. The effects are still being felt today in that the mind set of the general public was totally altered. Perhaps the present push for nudity and violence on public television programs, such as N.Y.P.D Blue, has its roots in Lady Chatterly's Lover.

Whatever the effects of Lady Chaterly's Lover, America was at the forefront in making bold steps towards true liberty of thought. England followed in our footsteps almost immediately, and soon allowed the unexpurgated third version admittance to bookstores, this time to be put on shelves legally.

Indeed, the whole world felt the shock of Lady Chatterly. In Japan, the book stirred up as much trouble as it did in America, only there, the big trial came sooner. The unexpurgated edition of the novel was translated into Japanese by Sei Ito of Waseda University, and it appeared in Tokyo in the spring of 1950. At once, lawyers, civic leaders, authors, journalists, professors, publishers, and general readers created one of the biggest outrcries in Japan since World War II. In 1952 and 1953, trials resulted in the conviction of Hisajiro Koyama, the publisher. To obtain this conviction, the prosecution called on a long list of witnesses including the chairman of the Committee on the Regulation and Control of Cinema Ethics, the president of the Society for the Reform of Manners, and the chief of the Diet Library. Japan believed that Lawrence's purpose in Lady Chatterly's Lover was to encourage adultery and sexual promiscuity (Moore 29). They did not take into account the extreme differences in culture which pose great obstacle in understanding the motivations of people, even literary characters. Therefore, they were limited to begin with in their ability to comprehend why Mellors used colloquial, sometimes vulgar speech, and especially why Constance would meet with him for a secret rendezvous.

In China, governmental resistance against Lady Chatterly led to more than a conviction; it culminated in bloodshed. During the late sixties and early seventies, a period known to the Chinese as the Great Cultural Reformation, people were thrown in prison where they spent the remainder of their lives for possessing a copy of the forbidden book. It was and is considered a threat to the security of the state. In the 1990s, only the prominent are allowed to read the book, and they are only given this privilege once they have obtained a certificate signed by several superiors and stating that they will only use it for academic purposes. Otherwise, possession of the book will lead to a prison sentence. (Wang)

Elsewhere in the world, a `cleaner' version was published in Czekloslovokian, Danish, Polish, and Spanish by 1932. Hungarian followed in 1933, and Portuguese obtained a translation in 1938. Nowadays, virtually every language has a translation of one form of the novel or another.

One question still remains: What happened to the second version that Lawrence wrote and why was it not published instead of the first and third? Nothing "happened" to the version. Critics simply felt that the first and the last versions were of much higher literary quality. Apparently, the only printing of the second manuscript version is in Italian. Piero Nardi published this second version in an Italian translation by Carlo Izzo. Otherwise the version is unavailable (Draper 25).

Without a doubt, "few works by established authors have had as much difficulty getting published in full, unexpurgated form as the `shocking' version of Lady Chatterly's Lover" (Evans 145). Despite this difficulty, Lady Chatterly has taught us an important lesson in First Amendment rights. The bad side to the situation is that in blasting open the road to tolerance, Lawrence accidentally made it possible for a number of less skillful artists to slide into popularity right behind him. Yet this is part of America's philosophy. We want to have the right to see and read everything, even the cheesy works.

Thinking back on what might have happened if Lawrence had been satisfied with his first version, none of the censorship battles would have occurred. Similar battles might have developed over a different work of art or another, but Lawrence should be given a good deal of credit for opening up our minds to a more healthy view of sexuality. He took three times to get it right, and we should be glad that he did considering all that the novel has accomplished. From it we have partially learned the value of honesty.

Works Cited

American Library Association. National Union Catalog, pre-1956
Imprints
. Vol. 382. London: Mansell, 1968-80.

Draper, R. P., ed. D. H. Lawrence: The Critical Heritage. London: Redwood Press Limited, 1972.

Evans, Bergen. "Lady Chatterley's Lover" Coronet. 12.2 (1959):
144-151.

Hazlitt, Henry. "Henry Hazlitt in Nation." Ed. R. P. Draper. D. H. Lawrence: The Critical Heritage. London: Redwood Press Limited, 1972.

Kazin, Alfred. "Lady Chatterley in America." Atlantic. 204 (1959): 33-36.

Lawrence, D. H. A Propos to Lady Chatterly's Lover. London: Mandrake Press, 1930.

Moore, Harry T. Sex Literature and Censorship. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1953.

Morris, John. "Fine and Imprisonment for Selling Lawrence's Book Lady Chatterly's Lover." Publisher's Weekly. 116 (1929): 263.

Rudikoff, Sonya. "D. H. Lawrence and Our Life Today: Re-reading Lady Chatterly's Lover." Commentary. 28 (1959): 408-13.

Schorer, Mark. Introduction. Lady Chatterly's Lover. By D. H. Lawrence. New York: Grove Press Inc., 1959.

Wang, Zhe. Personal interview. 20 November 1993.

[source: http://web.ukonline.co.uk/rananim/lawrence/lcl.html]

Read More......

Literature, Censorship and the State: To What Extent is a Novel Dangerous?

Written by eastern writer on Tuesday, July 24, 2007

by Pramoedya Ananta Toer
Translated by Alex G Bardsley

I am an Indonesian citizen of Javanese ethnicity. This "fate" [kodrat] makes it clear that I was brought up with Javanese literature. It is a literary tradition dominated by wayang drama, oral as well as written, that tells of the Mahabharata and the Ramayana--the Javanese versions and their chewed-over wads, that continue to depend on the authority of Hindu culture. This dominant literature, without anyone being aware of it,2 glorifies the satria class or caste, while the classes or castes under it have no role whatsoever. The satria caste's main job is to kill its opponents. In addition to the somewhat more dominant wayang literary tradition, there is the babad or chronicle literature. This also glorifies the satria caste, and in the hands of the court poets conjures away the crimes and defeats of kings, leaving fantastic myths instead.

One example is how the court poets of Java mythified the defeat of Sultan Agung, a king of the Javanese interior, who in military operations against Dutch Batavia in the second decade of the 17th century experienced total defeat. As a result Mataram suffered the loss of its power3 over the Java Sea as an international [sic] sea route. To cover up the loss the court poets dreamt up the Sea Goddess Nyai Roro Kidul as camouflage, so that Mataram still ruled the sea, that is the Southern Sea (i.e., the Indian Ocean). This myth produced further mythical offspring: it was made taboo to wear green clothing on the shore of the Southern Sea. This was to sever any association with the green clothes of the Dutch [East India] Company. And without the court poets themselves intending it, the Goddess consolidated the power of the kings of Mataram over their people. She even became the thought police [polisi batin] of the Mataram people.

Here we are faced with literature in its relation to the state, and its utilization by the state, functioning for the glorification of [the state's] own works. Passed down from generation to generation the result is to deny the progression of ages, to bestow an unnecessary historical burden, to make people think that the past was better than the present. This conviction made me leave literature of that sort behind altogether. Leaving behind a literature that was born in the lap of power and functions (in my experience) to cradle power, right away I came across escapist literature, that feeds the ancient instinctual dreams of its readers. As Machiavelli put it, this kind of literature becomes an indirect instrument of Power, so that society will pay no attention to the power of the state. In short, so that society will not be political, will not care about politics. Literature of this second category brings its readers to a complete halt.

Because of my experience as the child of a family of freedom fighters, I pardon my own self if I do not like this escapist literature, the second type of literature. Consequent to my personal experience, though at first I was not aware of it, I was drawn directly to a literature that could provide courage, new values, a new world-view, human dignity, and agency [peran] for the individual within society. The aesthetic that emphasizes language and its employment is put to the service of a new orientation of the role [peranan] of the individual in an aspired-to society.4 It was this third type of literature that later became my field of creative activity.

Each work of literature is the autobiography of its author at a certain stage and in a certain context. Hence it is also the product of an individual and is individual in character. Presenting it to society is no different from contributing to the collectivity. Also in regard to the relations of power, and to the prevailing standard of culture, the writer's attitude as an individual is disseminated, aware of it or not.5 To this point the duty of a writer is to make an evaluation and reevaluation of the establishment in every walk of life. This action is taken because the writer concerned is dissatisfied, and feels cornered, even oppressed by the establishment "in effect."6 He cries out, resists, even rebels. It is no accident if this writer--naturally type three--has been called an oppositionist, a rebel, even a revolutionary, alone in his muteness.

In states living with democracy for centuries, winning and losing in a clash of ideas is something normal. That does not mean that democracy is without flaws. Europe, while democratic in Europe itself, was on the contrary undemocratic in the countries it colonized. As a result, in the colonized countries that never tasted democracy, winning and losing in the clash of ideas can give birth to long-lasting resentment, arising from traditional concepts of personal prestige and patrimonial authority.

In Indonesia, the censoring of literary works was first known in the second decade of this century. Before that, censorship had been more directed at the mass media. And in accordance with the tradition of law, actions regarding press offenses were decided in court. The prohibition against the circulation of several works by Mas Marco Kartodikromo, untraditionally, was put into effect without legal procedures, and was carried out by native colonial officials locally. Prohibition and confiscation, also by colonial native officials, were once carried out against my father's work, though that was not a literary work but a text of lessons for elementary schools that did not follow the colonial curriculum.

Prohibition of a literary work is truly something extraordinary. [So it was] for centuries after the maritime kingdoms of Nusantara were shoved aside by the power of the West and became back-country principalities or agrarian villages; the Power of feudalism that was sustained solely by the peasant brought about the birth of a new mentality that deteriorated too. The court poets of Java consolidated the culture of "tepo seliro" (= knowing one's place), the awareness of one's social station vis a vis Power according to its hierarchy, from life within the family to the pinnacle of power. The use of euphemism (= High Javanese) up to the 7 levels "in effect" to match the hierarchy of Power, interpreted traditional culture more and more stuntedly. Therefore in Javanese culture the evaluation and reevaluation of culture has never taken place. It can happen only by using the Indonesian language, that if need be denies all euphemism: hence it is also in Indonesian literature that Power's censoring occurs.

As ideas from all corners of the world are absorbed by modern Indonesian society toward the end of the 20th century, their reflection can no longer possibly be blocked by a Power that is reluctant to grow up.7 In order to allow [those] people with the power of the state to sleep soundly without the need to improve themselves, the institution of censorship does indeed need to be established.

Java was "fated" to possess profitable geographic factors. Of all the islands of Indonesia, it was on Java that the inhabitants multiplied thanks to climatological factors that favored farming. It is no accident that the Dutch colonialists made Java an imperial center of their world outside Europe. On their departure, as Java remained the center of Indonesia, with its inhabitants [comprising] a majority out of all Indonesia, the introduction of a certain amount of Javanese traditional culture into the power of the state was quite unavoidable. One thing from Javanese traditional culture that was felt to oppress was "tepo seliro," in Power's present existence called, in English, "self-censorship." Seemingly Power is ashamed to use its original name. In this way, how people conceal their atavism becomes one of the facets of existence in modern Indonesia.

I am inclined to include the third type of literature with the literature of the avant garde. I deem writers of the third group to have the authenticity [kemurnian] to evaluate and reevaluate culture and the established Power. And as an individual alone [the writer] in return must endure alone the backlash from any other individual who feels his stability [kemapanan threatened.

So to what extent can a work of literature be a danger to the state? According to my personal opinion, no literary work, here [meaning] a story, has ever actually been a danger to the state. [A story] is written with a clear name, where it comes from is known, and also it clearly originates from only one individual who does not possess a troop of police, military, or even a troop of hired killers. He only tells of the possibility of a better life through models for the renovation of an establishment that is rotten, old, and out of luck.

In the meantime, any state can at any moment change its basis and its system, with or without works of avant- garde literature. Such changes have already been experienced by the Indonesian state itself, from liberal democracy to guided democracy and later Pancasila democracy, that is [during] the era of national independence after the collapse of the colonial state called the Netherlands Indies and the changeover to occupation by the Japanese militarists. During the period of liberal democracy in which the state was based on the Pancasila, the Pancasila did not get much attention; during the period of Guided Democracy when, with all the consequences [it implied], President Soekarno wished to be autonomous and to shake off the influence of and involvement with the superpowers' Cold War, the Pancasila was given more emphasis. Soekarno as the discoverer of the Pancasila never tired of explaining the Pancasila was mined from, among others, Sun Yat Sen's San Min Zhuyi,8 the Declaration of Independence of the United States, and the Communist Manifesto, in issues of social justice. In the time of Pancasila Democracy, which was signaled by the de- Soekarnoization movement, not only were the Pancasila's references no longer mentioned, there was even an effort by a New Order historian to fabricate a theory that the Pancasila did not originate with Soekarno.

Through all these changeovers the existence of a work of literature that conferred any influence was never proved. And indeed an avant-garde literature has practically not yet come into being. Indonesian works of literature have practically only just become descriptive in character. If nonetheless an avant garde came into being, it occurred under the oppression of Japanese militarism, in a rebellion as harsh as its suppression. The individual concerned, Chairil Anwar, in his poem "Aku [I]," declared: "I am an untamed beast /From its herd outcast." He refused to be treated by the Japanese as a farm animal, that must carry out Japanese orders only, and cut itself off from the rest. It was he himself who had to take responsibility for his work. The Kempeitai9 arrested and tortured him, though he was in fact later released. Ironically the society of readers, many of whom read and like that poem, generally do not connect it to the period of Japanese militarist occupation during which he created it.

My apologies if I only discuss Indonesian literature. Still, I believe that to speak about any particular literature is also to speak--although indirectly- -of regional and international literature at the same time, because each work of literature is the autobiography of an individual, one person out of the rest of humankind, who contributes his inner experience to the collectivity of humanity's experience.

Based on its history, Indonesia needs a large troop of writers from the avant garde. For centuries the common people paid on behalf10 of feudalism. With the victory of colonialism, the people then had to fund the running of colonialism as well. Although feudalism as a system was eliminated by the proclamation of independence, the character of its culture still lives on, and the power elite even tries to preserve it. It is avant-garde literature that offers evaluation, reevaluation, renovation, and naturally the courage to bear the risk alone.

Here it becomes clear that a story, a work of literature, is in no way dangerous to a state that at any time can change its basis and system. The literary works of avant-garde writers merely disturb the slumber of persons in power-elite circles, who fear that some time their hold over the common people may loosen. I myself, though coming from a family of freedom fighters and being myself a struggler for freedom as well, have over the 50 years of national independence actually suffered the loss of my personal freedom for as long as 33 1/2. 2 1/2 were stolen by the Dutch, nearly a year was stolen during the Old Order by the Power of the military, [which took another] 30 years during the New Order, among them 10 years of forced labor on Buru Island and 16 as livestock, being a citizen with the code "ET,"11 meaning a detainee outside of prison. As a writer, certainly I rebel against these circumstances. So in my works, I try to tell about particular stages in this nation's journey, and try to answer: why did this nation get to be this way?

That the works are forbidden to circulate in my own homeland at the request of several persons among the power elite, for me is no problem. The prohibitions in fact give surplus value to my works without Power being aware of it.

Perhaps there are some who are surprised, [wondering] why for me literature is so closely tied to politics. I will not reject that fact. In my view each person living in society, let alone in a nation, is always tied to politics. That a person accepts, rejects or affirms a particular citizenship is a political stance. That a person waves the flag of her nationality, is a political act. That a person pays taxes, is an acknowledgment of power, so it also means political obedience. Literature too can not be free of politics, since literature itself is brought into being by humanity. As long as there are human societies and Power that regulates or ruins them, each individual in them is tied to politics.

There once arose the belief that politics is dirty, hence literature must be kept separate from politics. Really, it is easy for politics to become dirty in the hands of and from the business of politicians who are dirty. If there are some that are dirty, surely there are also some that are not dirty. And that literature properly must be kept separate from politics actually emerges from the thoughts of the directors, whose politics is to be apolitical. Politics itself can not be limited in its meaning to a party system. It is every aspect of that which involves Power, and as long as society exists Power also exists, no matter the manner of its existence, dirty or clean. And it can be said that literature that "rejects" politics in reality is brought into being by those writers who are already established in the lap of the Power "in effect."

Jakarta, August 24, 1995.


1. "An essay written to be delivered on September 4, 1995, in Manila, as part of a series in the program for the presentation of the 1995 Magsaysay Awards.... The title of the essay was at the request of the Ramon Magsaysay Award Foundation to the writer" (Hasta Mitra, ed.); later published in Suara Independen, no.04/I, September 1995. [back]

2. In this essay, Pramoedya plays with statements about awareness in which the subject (society, the writer, "Power") is indeterminate. [back]

3. Kekuasaan stretches to cover power, authority, domination and so forth. Pramoedya is playing with this broad meaning, and with Benedict Anderson's "Idea of Power in Javanese Culture," (in Language and Power, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990). Following Anderson's usage, I have capitalized "power" where it seemed appropriate. [back]

4. Masyarakat yang dicitakan. Compare to "imagined community." [back]

5. See note 2 above. [back]

6. Yang berlaku is a bit of officialese also meaning "prevailing," "applicable," "that applies" and so forth. On the one hand it is as unarguable as a parent answering "because" to a child's "why," yet the words presuppose an ending to the situation they describe. [back]

7. This nicely echoes the 1950 literary manifesto "Surat Kepertjajaan Gelanggang":

...Kebudajaan Indonesia ditetapkan oleh kesatuan ber-bagai2 rangsang suara jang disebabkan suara2 jang dilontarkan dari segala sudut dunia dan jang kemudian dilontarkan kembali dalam bentuk suara sendiri. Kami akan menentang segala usaha2 jang mempersempit dan menghalangi tidak betulnja pemeriksaan ukuran-nilai...." (Cited in Teeuw, Pokok dan Tokoh dalam Kesusastraan Indonesia Baru, Djakarta: P.T. Pembangunan, 1955, v.2, pp.15-6).
[Indonesian culture is determined by the unity of various vocal stimuli, that is evoked by voices thrown from all corners of the world and that later are thrown back in the form of a voice of its own. We will defy all efforts that constrain or obstruct falsely [?] the testing of standards.] [back]

8. The Three People's Principles: nationalism, democracy, and the people's livelihood. [back]

9. The Japanese military police. [back]

10. Membiayakan, in contrast to membiayai in the next sentence. [back]

11. Ex-tahanan politik: former political prisoner. [back]


*This article is taken from http://www.radix.net/%7Ebardsley/censor.html

Read More......

I Just Don't Believe in Her

Written by eastern writer on Tuesday, July 24, 2007

by Pramoedya Ananta Toer


I don't blame President Sukarno for my arrest in the early 1960s. I blame the army. But being a political prisoner in the early 1960s was very different from being a captive of later regimes. Sukarno's political opponents were free to visit their families, to go out walking within a limited area if they wanted to. We were at least treated with respect.

Under Suharto there were no rules, nothing. You could be thrown into prison without first going to court. If you were found with anything to read, even a piece of torn newspaper, you could be killed. If you were a prisoner in Jakarta you could receive visitors?but for that you had to pay.

In 1979, when I left prison on Buru Island, all my papers were taken from me. I was in a group of 40 who were separated from the others. When our ship was north of Madura, my group was taken off the boat. It looked like the authorities were planning to hide us away somewhere. But by chance, someone from the Catholic church in Buru heard we were going to be exiled and he spread the news. So when we were put ashore in the Madura Straits and found a vehicle there ready to take us to Nusakambangan, the notorious prison, the world was already watching. And as a result, with numerous foreign ambassadors as witnesses, the government was forced to give us our release papers.

During Suharto's New Order regime, Megawati, Sukarno's daughter, served in parliament. After her father was overthrown, the New Order government gave her a house and salary as a member of parliament. But did she ever say anything about the way her father was treated? Did she ever protest when her fellow countrymen were imprisoned? Never. Did she ever call Suharto to task? Never! But then she's not alone. Even after Suharto resigned, no one would take him to task, no one dared to bring him to trial. Silently, through his New Order protEgE, he still holds power in this country.

Megawati came to power on the crest of a wave of youth rebellion. Those kids didn't really think about it; they didn't have any other figurehead, so they adopted her because she was Sukarno's daughter. That's all she is.

Maybe Megawati hasn't read her father's books. I don't see that she has inherited any of his better characteristics. She has no experience. There is no evidence that she can resolve the country's problems. Yes, she might visit places where conflict has occurred, but for no other reason than to show her tears. Her heart goes out to the people, she says, but that's the most they get. The villagers praise her, but that's because of ignorance. They don't know her.

No one seems to realize that Indonesia is entering a period of social revolution. The signs are there. It can be seen in the farmers who, having had their land stolen from them during the New Order, are now taking it back by force. It can be seen in the protests by farmers outside regional parliament buildings. It can be seen in the attacks on hundreds of police and military posts. In the past, these very same people would have let themselves be robbed of their voices, but now they are fighting back. Whether they realize it or not, they are the vanguard of a social revolution. Now the nation needs a leader. We've fallen behind; Indonesia is exhausted.

People like to say that Indonesians are so friendly and polite, but that kind of view seems to be nothing more than a leftover tourism slogan. There is a struggle going on, and it is being controlled by people in Jakarta?by the very same people who have done such things in the past. As I see it, there is no real leadership at present; there are just people with power. That students are now part of the democratic process is a sign of progress; indeed, the change we have seen can be credited to the younger generation. This is not what Megawati fought for. She didn't do anything. The kids, the students, did the fighting and she is here now to enjoy the results of their sacrifice.


*Pramoedya Ananta Toer, author of The Buru Quartet and The Mute's Soliloquy, is a former political prisoner

**This article was published in Time, 29 July 2001

Read More......

My apologies, in the name of experience

Written by eastern writer on Tuesday, July 24, 2007

by Pramoedya Ananta Toer
Translated by Alex G Bradsley

Since August 17, 1945, I have been a citizen of Indonesia, as have the tens of millions who were inhabitants of Indonesia then. I was twenty at the time. But I myself am of Javanese ethnic origin, and so I was educated from birth to become a Javanese, guided by the social-ethnic mechanism toward Javanese ideals, culture and civilization. The power of this dominating, massive education came through oral and written literature, drama, music and song. These carried passages from the Mahabharata: a gigantic construction consisting of philosophical and ethical stories, religious references, and naturally, social and political prescriptions. Energy, imagination and effort were mobilized over centuries, bringing into being temples as well as myths about kings who scored big, and squeezing the local deities down to mere "kampung" gods.2 For this "millions" [sic] of humans throughout my ethnic group's history were butchered. Of course no official figure is available. It is clear, though, in line with the opinion of Cornell expert Ben Anderson, that at the climax of the Mahabharata, "they bathe in the blood of their own brothers."3 In their own times, it is true, other peoples have experienced such a "kampung" civilization and culture too. Those who have managed to slip their shackles are the nations that rule the world.

At the start of the 17th century, Dutch society amassed the funds to finance sea-voyages in search of spices, voyages that crossed several oceans and touched a number of continents. In my country, a dozen-odd years later, in 1614 in fact, Sultan Agung, the strongest and most powerful of Java's kings, a king of the interior, of the second generation [in his lineage] and himself the third king of Mataram, destroyed the trading-port of Surabaya, simply because he needed acknowledgment of his power.4 Here the irony of Javanese history is recorded: while the Dutch were circling the world in search of spices, Surabaya, a port of transit for the international consumption of those same spices, was demolished by a king of Java's interior, Sultan Agung.

Mataram itself was the second strong kingdom in Java to avoid the sea because it did not want to face the awesomeness of the sea-faring Portuguese. Sultan Agung also totally failed to expel the tiny Dutch colony at Batavia in 1629. This defeat led to Mataram's loss of the Java Sea, the international shipping passage of the period. To erase the shame Mataram suffered, and to defend its authority, the ethnic5 Javanese poets chirped that the founder of Mataram, Sultan Agung's father, had wedded the princess of the South Sea (south of the island of Java), Nyai Roro Kidul. To show, says Prof. H. Resink, that Mataram was still involved with the sea.6

In the ethnic Javanese chronicles, this particular Sultan is highly lauded while everything at all embarrassing is left out. (It is the same in history courses in the Republic of Indonesia today.) People's eyes would pop out if they kept up with what the Westerners write about him. As for the founder of Mataram, Sutawijaya, on the pretext of a broken promise (so the ethnic Javanese poets chant), he ascended the throne after killing his adoptive father, who had raised him and provided him with all the perks due a prince. None of the chronicles bequeathed to us ever touches on the subject of conscience, something which it seems indeed cannot be found in the Javanese vocabulary.

After the failure of Sultan Agung, his loss of power over the trade routes of the Java Sea, and the appearance of Western gunboats there, Java's middle class, which lived by ship-ownership, and the inter-island and international traders, were driven from the ports, herded into the interior, and went into decline. There they fell under the power of the aristocracy of the interior, whom they joined in decline.

Still the court poets, servants of the power system, disregarded these symptomatic facts. After Sultan Agung's reign, Mataram-number-4 promptly made friends with the Dutch. The poets still took no notice. Instead, Nyai Roro Kidul was standardized as the lover of each king of Mataram, generation after generation, while her power expanded in such a fashion that she ultimately became a police-force. Strange but true, all this took place at the same time Java was, practically, beginning to embrace Islam. The spread of this new religion was not accompanied by its civilization, as had been the case with Hinduism, because it was, practically, a side effect of the chasing of Muslim traders from the sea-lanes by the power7 of the Christian West, a continuation of the expulsion of Arab power from the Iberian peninsula. One might say the spread of Islam was a side effect of the international Pan-Islamic movement of the period.

Even more startling is that, as this piece is written, Nyai Roro Kidul is taken for reality. One hotel on the south coast of West Java has a special room all prepared for this Goddess of the Southern Sea. How can it be that a country with the Pancasila as its ideology, of which Belief in One God is the first principle, accepts the presence of a sea goddess, the lover of the kings of Mataram? The poets never remember that, [even] with the unlimited power of the Goddess of the Southern Sea, not once did Mataram win in its confrontations with the Western power that came from the ends of the earth.

After the defeat of Sultan Agung, Java remained in thrall to its "kampung" civilization and culture, and was swallowed whole by the Dutch over 3 1/2 centuries. Truly a moving tragi-comedy. For the Dutch arrived with no more strength than a mustard seed--a people few in number, from a small country at the northern tip of the world-- having crossed the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans. Even in the belly of Dutch power, Java still glorified its "kampung" civilization and culture, with its "kampung" climax: "they bathed in the blood of their own brothers," right up through 1965-66. And because Java was no longer in the belly of European power, the slaughter clearly reached an unlimited scale.

Dutch, or European, colonization of my country did much to dampen these climaxes. Without colonization, my country would have ceaselessly spilled the blood of its sons and daughters. The struggle for second place after the Dutch in administrative power, [which took place] in Java in the middle of the 18th century, is said to have shed [the blood of] a quarter of all the inhabitants of the Javanese principalities. Yet the prince who took third place after the Dutch, Mangkunegara I, has recently been promoted to National Hero. Thus a foreign tourist who has some knowledge of Java and Indonesia would nod, understanding why, in the 80s nearing the end of the 20th century, a statue of the Pandawa knights leaving for war on a chariot was erected on Jalan Thamrin, Jakarta. This is the image of the climactic phase of the Mahabharata, when "they bathe in the blood of their own brothers."

In 3 1/2 centuries of colonization, my ethnic group's power never once prevailed against European power, not in any field, but especially not militarily. The poets and writers of Java, being some of those who think and imagine within the framework of "kampung" civilization and culture, flaunt the superiority of Java: that in facing the Dutch, and Europe, Java never lost. The masturbatory stories that are staged, and written, and even the stories spread by word of mouth, constitute one of the reasons I always ask: why does my ethnic group not want to face reality? The little knowledge I picked up in primary school and the little reading I have done in Western literature, at first unconsciously, but ever more forcefully, made me free myself from the "kampung" civilization and culture of my own ethnic origin. Once again--my apologies.

Outside Java, one ethnic group's power did triumph over Europe. This took place in Ternate in 1575. The Portuguese were driven out of their fort, and compelled to surrender. Because this took place somewhere other than Java, the surrendering troops were not made to bathe in their own blood. Instead they were escorted to the shore, and ordered to wait until the Portuguese fleet picked them up. And because this took place far from Java, in the Moluccas, it has never been touched upon in official history courses right up till today, in 1990. Maybe it will take until some foreign researcher's work is published. Or maybe it has been published, only it is just that I do not know.

Perhaps if earlier I had been educated in a particular discipline, history for example, I might do the research that would answer: why does all this happen and continue to happen? But I am a writer with minimal education, so it is not the materials if history that I examine, but its spirit. This I began with the tetralogy Bumi Manusia, particularly working on the currents that ebbed and flowed during the period of Indonesia's National Awakening. And so there came to be a new reality, a literary reality, a downstream reality, whose origin was an upstream reality, that is, a historical reality.8 A literary reality that contains within it a reorientation and evaluation of civilization and culture, which is precisely not contained in the historical reality. So it is that the literary work is a sort of thesis, an infant that on its own begins to grow in the superstructure of the life of its readers' society.9 It is the same with new discoveries in every field, that carry society a step forward.

I began deliberately with the theme of Indonesia's National Awakening--which, while limited regionally and nationally, nonetheless remains part of the world and of humanity. Step by step I am writing [my way] to the roots of its history, that for the moment is not ready to be published, or perhaps may never be published. In this way I have tried to answer: why did my people10 get to be like this, like that? So I do not write escapist fiction either, nor do I serve the status quo. Indeed I am outside of and have left the system that is "in effect." The outcome is very clear: I am thought a nuisance to the status quo in the system that is in effect. And because writing is a personal activity--even though the personal is also a product of the whole of society, present and past--the consequences have to be endured alone. And if sympathy arrives, wherever it comes from, to me it is a surplus value, that never entered my reckoning in advance. For that of course I give my thanks.

Before the tetralogy, I had already written a number of works, all of which would flow into it. And even back then the hostility of those who at the time were busy pursuing [their place in] the status quo had started. Surprisingly, in the beginning my works were well received, and indeed several times received awards. This was especially true during the period of Guided Democracy in the last years of the 50s and the first half of the 60s, the period of the Trisakti doctrine--political sovereignty, economic self-reliance, cultural integrity--a doctrine that, while universal among nationalist states everywhere, was, however, a bogey for the countries stuffed with capital, and hungry for new fields of enterprise around the world. History teaches much about the power of capital. Free peoples are enslaved; artless people are transformed into compradores; the unemployed become paid murderers with uniforms and badges of rank; vast forests are torn apart by infrastructure; cities and ports spring up out of nothing at its command; labor force is sucked in from all over, even from remote hamlets whose names no one has ever clearly heard. The governments of so many states it turns into mere instruments of its will; and when they are no longer wanted, they are overthrown. This is a boring story, one that is part of the experience of many peoples in the world. It is part of the experience of each person who shares the consequences, both the one who profits from it and the one who takes the loss. And each experience for a writer becomes the foundation for the creative process, no matter whether the experience is sensory or spiritual.

Would Indonesia with its independence accommodate itself to the power of capital that has no nationality, or would it challenge it as had been demonstrated during the 1945 revolution? As far back as in the revolutionary years, Soekarno had refused Ford's proposal that he give the company a monopoly in exchange for building a trans- Sumatra-Java highway. During [the process of] development in the period of national independence, he was also the one who bypassed the alternatives of accommodation: capitalist bloc and communist bloc. Nor is it an accident that it was he who invented the term Third World. Whatever people's problems with his several weaknesses, it is clear he had a first-rate Indonesianness internal factor. He did not want his country to become part of any hemisphere-bloc. And Indonesia increasingly sank into economic difficulties. In these extraordinary economic difficulties I gave [him] my support, and naturally endured my portion of those difficulties. Support also came from almost every organization and movement, including movements that supported Soekarno to overthrow him. In that period LEKRA made me a member of its Pleno. People say this organization was a front for the PKI. Even today it still amazes me: why is it that whatever is connected to the PKI is branded as something evil? It is clear, after all, that the party was a contestant in the general elections and came out one of the winners, not some "bandit" party without idealism. This means that the party was not a force already in power and applying its system of power. It is necessary that I emphasize the problem of power, because it is this that tends to turn people into bandits, above all if they have held it for decades and, without ever knowing the spirit of Verlichting, Aufklaerung,11 remain in thrall to "kampung" civilization and culture.

Decades as a citizen of Indonesia, with its territory that resembles a string of volcanoes and it inhabitants who are like a range of another kind of volcano, which at any time can explode without notification, have packed my subconscious with sensory and spiritual experiences.

In detention for 14 years and 2 months, stripped of everything altogether, I reflected on all this past experience from underneath the military boot that trampled on me. It all became clearer, that all of this was nothing but a material experience, a sort of historical vicious circle of "kampung" civilization and culture without reorientation inward, or outward either. Meanwhile the birth of whatever it is they call the New Order is nothing other than the repetition of historical events from the second decade of the 13th century, mythified by Javanese poets several centuries later as the legend of Gandring.

A youth, described as a scoundrel, ordered a keris from a master-craftsman named Gandring. The customer, Ken Arok, killed Gandring before the keris was finished. Of course all this was done in secret. Secretly too, the blade was lent to Kebo Ijo, who went everywhere showing off his borrowed keris, and acting like it was his own. On one occasion Ken Arok stole it [back], and with it he killed the ruler of Singasari. Kebo Ijo was sentenced to death and Ken Arok replaced Tunggal Ametung as lord. Master Gandring, before breathing his last, was able to utter a curse: "Arok, his children and grandchildren, 7 kings in all, will die by this keris!"12 History shows that several kings were indeed killed, though not quite seven. Still the pattern of the last two decades of the 13th century has recurred and recurred unnoticed, in several variations. And in this 20th century, still in Java, Master Gandring was incarnated in Soekarno himself, the Founder of the Pancasila.

This son [Arok] of the village of Pangkur (up through the 20th century there has been but one village of this name, in Pangkur subdistrict, Ngawi regency), is not reported to have received the education standard for his time. What is reported is that he was the son of Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu all at once. It is clear that he was a clever child, a daredevil, and bright. Perhaps because his level of education was minimal, or rather non-existent, under the protection of the chief gods, with power in hand, he closed the era of Javanese Hinduism and began the era of Hindu Javanism.13 The largest burial temple in East Java, Kagenengan, was his burial temple, even though nothing is left of it.

Ken Arok of the 13th century came to me while I was in exile on Buru. Without Buru he would probably not have met me, and would have remained caged in legend. The chief gods of the 13th century are still those of the 20th: the lords of capital, technology and information. Only, when I wrote the story Arok and Dedes in exile on Buru, I dressed them up with a new interpretation so they could come out of the cage of legend.

Of course there will be some who disagree with this idea. And indeed I do not look for anyone's agreement. On the contrary, any one at all can have her or his own ideas, especially if the one concerned has never been treated as I have been: in particular, exiled for ten years in a forced labor camp on Buru. A fellow political prisoner--already I have forgotten his name--put the question [to me]: can the cycle of Arok not be replaced with a different image? It can, and each person can create it for himself if he has the concern, interest and will, as long as he does not forget the pattern of "kampung" civilization and culture, that self-same vicious circle, which can only be broken by a reevaluation of it, Verlichting, Aufklaerung, that produces the creativity to break through its own ceiling.

Of course the New Order will pass judgment on this with its cliche: that is, I am defending the PKI. The New Order has the right of to defend itself. What is clear, though, is that at the time, the party was valid, legal, one of the winning contestants in the elections, and because of this it also had several ministers in the cabinet. It would never stage a coup against its own success. A coup is typically staged by the party that loses the elections, or does not even participate in them.

Dr. J. Krom once stated, that the adventures of Arok before coming to power resemble a "schelmen roman."14 True. It is also true that in the conception of power a la Java,15 and perhaps also for other peoples and ethnicities in the world with "kampung" civilization and culture, it is only supernatural power that makes it possible for something to happen. Thus the reign of a particular person on the throne of power can only come about with its blessing. This is one more indication of the ideals of Javanese culture about power. Power is God's blessing, and he who achieves it, becomes the second person after God. With power every crime is cleansed, even legitimized, made good. Then there follow writings and statements from those who share in profiting from it.

Once when I was small I was told the tale, and also learned from books, that evil would be defeated by good. What I was never told is that, naturally, good would also be defeated by evil. A link in a continuous chain. If there were no such chains, one would no longer know good men from bad. A never-ending vicious circle.

As a writer of course I am asked questions that are incomparably cliched: will you write about the present? Haven't you already written a lot about past times that are already history? What is more, the present is also history, contemporary history, right?16

Indeed many scholars (and many more to come) publish their research on various aspects of the New Order. They help us in many ways to understand many things. But as a person and a writer who shares in bearing the burden of change, I look at it according to national criteria. The era of Soekarno and the Trisakti doctrine was nothing but a sort of thesis. The New Order, an antithesis. Therefore, for me, it is something that in fact cannot be written about yet, a process that cannot yet be written as literature, that does not yet constitute a national process in its totality, because it is in fact still heading for its synthesis.

While I was still at Buru, an Indonesian journalist who behaved like a prosecutor, put me the question, did I not bear a grudge toward the New Order? This is a national process, not a matter for personal grudges. The stories we tell are just a reflection of the level of our own civilization and culture. The progress and variety of technology, statistics about development or even foreign debt, the improvement of communications infrastructure over the colonial legacy, the destruction of the forests and the yearly pack of floods: all occupy their place among the ornamentation of the antithesis in the national process. In the colonial period, the Dutch exported armed paid killers, in uniform, and with military ranks, to subjugate and control areas beyond Java and Madura. Starting in 1904, and sporadically before that, the Dutch sent Javanese beyond Java-Madura without guns--but with hoes. Apparently they knew the demographic and geographic map of Indonesia well enough to come to the classic, profitable conclusion. And apparently the Dutch also knew that their replacements would not be able to do anything but continue [the policy]. No longer occupying a place among the ornamentation of the thesis or even the antithesis, it appears as the nature Indonesia was born with.

One more irony: Indonesia, which was unified politically and administratively by Soekarno without spilling blood--an exceptional occurrence in humanity's history--has to have its unity and integrity guarded in the colonial tradition, that is, with two Javanese exports: armed mercenaries and Javanese with hoes. With a tradition like that, Indonesia has a serious genetic flaw. Semaoen-- a private advisor to President Soekarno--once offered therapy for this genetic defect: move the capital out of Java, to Palangkaraya, in central Kalimantan. But the late Semaoen did not have the chance to experience what is happening to our forests in Kalimantan nowadays. To digest this problem in fiction will surely take a long time, and still may not satisfy the writer or the reader. And the condition of "kampung" civilization and culture would make the writer a target of the power that feels its stability threatened. Of course, by writers I mean those who attempt to make an appraisal and reappraisal of the "kampung" civilization and culture that have consolidated an elite stratum within society. Also the intellectuals, and the small groups in society that are already enlightened, but principally the writers, because their profession is not tied to an academic discipline. Their concern is for the expression of their private conscience and subconscious, while those in power--meaning big shots, not leaders--are busy building a cordon sanitaire around their establishment. As individuals, who are armed only with their own selves, writers are naturally under the greatest pressure. Still, whatever befalls them, their personal experience is also the experience of their people, and the experience of their people is also their personal experience. A part of this experience, small or large or the whole lot, will erupt in their writings, and will return to their people in the form of new realities, literary realities. That is why the truth of fiction is also the truth of history.

When as a writer I have to bear so much injustice in my own homeland; physical and mental torment; the theft of freedom and livelihood, rights and property; humiliation and accusation; even the theft of the right to defend myself in the mass media or even in court; I can only nod in understanding. It is a pity that power cannot steal self-respect, personal pride, and everything that lives in people's hearts.

The anxiety that stability--known since the colonial era as rust en orde, and [later] Free-Indonesianized as "security and orderliness"17 -- might be disturbed, frequently gives rise to ridiculous accusations.

Both before and while [we were] on Buru the charge continually spouted by the New Order, without ever showing evidence, was [that we] wanted to change the Pancasila and the '45 Constitution. Usually it was proclaimed in front of a rally or during indoctrination. One of the principles of the Pancasila is Just and Civilized Humanism. By the criterion of humanism, even without the addition of "just and civilized," their treatment of us was quite disgusting, even sickening. The charge of changing the Constitution? Once I heard an officer boast: East Timor? Huh, in two days we can take it. And true, East Timor was latter annexed, the eastern part of the island of Timor that had never been claimed by the founders of the Republic who composed the Constitution of '45. Those two charges led me to the certain conclusion, that what they charged was precisely what they were doing or wanted to do. Because a number of events fit my conclusion, I was sometimes inclined to consider it a formula. But later I softened it to: what is stated as x is minus x.

In private conversation several officials deplored my membership in LEKRA. So according to the New Order's image, LEKRA was a criminal organization. To this day I have never regretted being made a member of LEKRA's Pleno, [or being] later promoted to deputy head of the Institute for Literature, [or becoming] one of the founders of the Multituli Academy, all sponsored by LEKRA. In fact I am proud to have received such great honors, which are not given to just anybody, and it would not lessen my pride if in fact they were front organizations for the PKI. All that has passed, but not yet become history, because as a process it has yet to reach a resolution in synthesis. While I was still on Buru, it turned out that the top person in LEKRA and the top person in the Institute for Literature had long been freed. Maybe if I were not a writer, I would not have experienced all this sickening treatment. But on the other hand, everything I experience forms part of the foundation of my "author-ization" for the days to come if, perhaps, my age allows it and my physical and mental health can still be relied upon.

X minus x really helps me understand the New Order, which they think will be eternal in its newness. As the last round of political prisoners to leave Buru island, we still had to perform corvee labor by making two kinds of letters of declaration, in umpteen copies. One stated we would not spread Marxism, Leninism, Communism, bogeys that they made up themselves to terrify themselves with. The other was a declaration that as political prisoners we had been treated properly on Buru island. Legally, these corvee letters were a joke, but with them we could buy numbers for embarkation on ships leaving for Java. How lovely if perhaps these corvee letters are stored carefully in the state archives. The papers will then become part of the history of how so many Indonesians made masks-and-robes of Angels of Sanctity for the powerful and their power. A leader does not need a mask and robe.18

By the pier at Namlea, where the ship Tanjungpandan was ready to board, 500 of the last group who were to depart for Java had already left the shore. A dozen or so were left, including myself. Lt. Col. Lewirisa, commandant of the last camp, came to me and said unasked and unexpectedly, "Pram, the voyage is straight to Jakarta." That meant x minus x, that our party of a few dozen would not be going to Jakarta. Only then were we permitted to board the ship, where we were separated from the others.

The forced labor camp we had left had at first been named Tefaat, the place of exploitation of our labor, for the rest of our lives: [where we] had to pay to live, for housing, the road network, economy and environment; [where we had] to make paddyfields and dry fields out of grassland and jungle; and [where in addition we] had to provide food to the soldiers who guarded us, despite the murders of a number of us. According to the written corvee, this must be called proper. Also those who died in forced labor to bring in money. Also the payment of taxes--for whom and to whom is not clear--by political prisoners who did crafts and handiwork. According to the written corvee, this too must be called proper. And buildings, tens of them, large and small, with household furnishings, all built and paid for by political prisoners: it must be deemed proper when these are sold to another agency without any compensation to the political prisoners. Also the casual theft of their cattle. And all this really is on its way towards history, but it is not history yet. The list [of abuses] goes on and on. All the banditry, large and small, will be brought home to this people, my people, who brought into being a power of this kind. It is not my intention to erect a utopian world with this people, to inhabit an unblemished corner of the world--other peoples too have their dark side- -what I mean is that this people has not yet brought to life the slightest enlightenment, Verlichting, Aufklaerung. The Brahmins still occupy their position as the [fashion] accessories to the power of the warrior caste, who live from and for power alone, because they really are not productive let alone creative, just as in the precolonial era. It is not surprising if in thousands of texts, the contents revolve around the "terrific"-ness of the warriors in killing those they think oppose them, and the contents of thousands more texts are prescriptions for the happy life (in a world of stifled existence), and advice on behaving gracefully and well (in a world of banditism), and about the spirit world and techniques of communicating with it (in an atmosphere of no longer recognizing one's own surroundings).

What Lt. Col. Lewirisa said was precisely minus x. Before the ship arrived at Jakarta, the dozen or so of us were taken off at Tanjungperak, Surabaya, to be put away on the prison island of Nusa Kambangan, off south Java. Only through the good offices of the international press, which made a fuss about it, did we finally reach Jakarta, to enter a new jail that allowed more latitude. [I have been] under city arrest since the end of 1979 through the end of 1991, without any court ruling whatsoever. Many new accusations have been leveled, which as a writer of course enriches the material I have to let settle. At the very least, it makes the story of a writer's life that much longer.

With the relative freedom of being under city arrest, I have been able to follow the news inside the country and abroad. The chain of accusations turned out to come from Indonesia itself and as far as parts of East Asia and Europe: that in Soekarno's time I prohibited the publishing of a number of works by my fellow writers; that I terrorized Indonesian writers who were not of the same mind by my article, "What Must Be Felled and What Must Be Built."19 A well-known literary figure, giving a lecture at a state university, even declared that he had been fired because of my actions. It happens that this figure, like a number of other [accusers], was an official with the occupying Dutch armed forces during the revolution, while some of the other [accusers], because of their age, did not of course participate in the revolution at all.

The dismissing of people from office is not my business, and never has been. Such accusations are only a smoke screen for what they themselves have done and want to do. In the early days of the events of 1965 it was they who terrorized, and they who destroyed all my papers, including the manuscripts of Just Call Me Kartini, volumes 3 and 4; A Collection of Kartini's Works; Women Before Kartini; A Collection of Bung Karno's Short Stories; the last two volumes of the trilogy The Girl From the Coast; A Study of Abdullah bin Abdul Kadir Munsyi; and A Preliminary Study of the History of the Indonesian Language. When the director of the Balai Pustaka responded to my request to get back the two volumes of Pre-Indonesian Literature, the answer was: they had already been burned at the request of his superiors.

One important literary figure who under the Old Order appointed me his adversary, once told me the names of important literary figures of the time who joined in the attack on my house in 1965. In fact, before the attack they got a request, from a literary figure of the older generation, to take the manuscript of the Encyclopedia of Indonesian Literature I was in the process of compiling.

At the beginning of the 80s, Beb Vuyk in the Netherlands launched the accusation, that LEKRA had sent "knokploeg"20 to beat up its enemies. Among the [alleged] victims was the musicologist Bernard Ijzerdraat. In the Netherlands the issue of knokploeg seems to survive as the end of 1991 approaches. When Beb Vuyk came to Indonesia for the last time and met this same musicologist, she got a disavowal from him. Nevertheless she never retracted her accusation. They, on the other hand, have killed several members of LEKRA, among them being the national sculptor Trubus, while he was en route to Jakarta in answer to President Soekarno's summons. Until this day no one has admitted responsibility for it, nor for the murder of hundreds of thousands of their own brothers and sisters. Very different from what in the North are called terrorists, who as soon as they take action, declare themselves responsible for it: they have no need for angel-masks and angel-robes. Never mind mass murder, the smallest of thefts is criminal, and all of it can happen only because of "kampung" civilization and culture, the social culture and civilization of peoples who are isolated, who feel insecure and threatened because of their own acts, and for whom masks and robes of holiness become the uniform of a parade fascinating enough to be staged as a comic-book drama.

One can imagine how awesome is the task of dealing with all this unfinished business in a work of literature. Not to mirror or reflect events, because the task of literature is not to take pictures, but to change upstream realities to become a literary reality, that will carry its readers further forward than the established order.

Is such an attitude a subversive attitude, or a criminal one? That too is up to Messrs. the powerholders, who have soldiers, police and administrative staff. Their actions are nothing but what the level of their civilization and culture will permit. If it should happen that they progress beyond the measure of their civilization and culture, and one hopes it will be so, this could be a positive sign that Gandring's curse on 7 generations of descendants will not be "in effect" for even 2 generations, because the stage of synthesis is at the door. It is clear, however, that, like it or not, everything that has happened will live on for centuries in the memory of this people and of humanity. Writers will bring it to life more clearly in their works, within which the killers and the killed will be immortal, instead of just actors in history. The holy robes and masks will be scattered.21

Once more--my apologies.

Jakarta, November 1991


Afterword

by Alex G Bardsley

(Back to the top)

"The New Order needs the tapol issue--it is a problem they can be grateful for. They will keep it as an issue, maturing, occasionally airing it in public, but never solve it definitively by granting a blanket amnesty. I know it doesn't make sense to continue to make a bogey out of these broken men, but not making sense is the character of a repressive regime." --Yusuf Ishak22

Pramoedya's essay is an unusual document, and some comment on its background is probably in order. Some five years after it was written, things are still much as he described them: his movements are restricted, his writings banned, and after a spate of interviews published when he won the Magsaysay award last summer, he is again a non-person to the Indonesian media. To whom and for whom, then, did he write the essay?

Thirty years have passed since the massacres of 1965- 66, yet an anxiety persists about whether the violence can, will, or perhaps must inevitably happen again. The business of managing this anxiety informs much of New Order political culture, the principal technique being to locate agency elsewhere, outside Indonesian society. For the killings themselves, the victims have been blamed. They have, moreover, been made to represent an ideological force, communism, "foreign" to Indonesian culture. The present rulers, by contrast, represent their regime as "indigenous" and culturally pure, as legitimate as if they were parthenogenetically descended from the "successful kings" of yore. The New Order secures past history by an indigenist exclusion of the causes of change--but communism has left a lot of Indonesian ghosts.

Dead, imprisoned, exiled, or ostracized, they are in no position to start anything. Yet on them is projected the guilt of the winners and survivors, carrying a charge so powerful that the victims frequently seem--in language that, borrowed straight from horror movies, irrupts unnervingly today into newspaper headlines and on magazine covers--about to rise from the grave. And rather as a sick person's family will pay anything, not for a cure, but just for hope, so many Indonesians hardly count the cost of keeping their fear in remission.23 The New Order's second legitimating function is to secure the present against the ghosts of the past.

As a particularly prominent ghost, Pramoedya has been a target of recurrent demands that he apologize for, or at least admit, his role in causing (through literary criticism!) a "national disaster."24 His answer in this essay is to confess--to being Javanese. He ascribes, for the sake of argument, a whole history of fratricidal conflict to the enabling role played by Javanese culture,25 setting New Order indigenism against its security (ghost- busting) function. If culture is destiny, then the blood-bath is repeatable. And the damning characteristics of that culture are the mystification and personalization of politics.

It is here that the essay's intended readership almost comes into view. Mystification of the relations of power is still the job of court poets and brahmins, and among these are Pramoedya's accusers. The piece is strewn with "you-know-who- you-are" references that, with one exception, I have not elaborated on in the footnotes. Pramoedya has reason for his reticence. His principal "crime" seems to have been "terrorizing" his colleagues by mentioning them in literary polemics by name: something that was taken very personally by those who do not distinguish between person and role. Pramoedya's "apology" is addressed to them, on behalf of his fellow ghosts and their scattered bones.


1. Pramoedya, "Maaf, atas nama pengalaman," Kabar Seberang 23 (1992): 1-9. Also published (by AKSI) in Progres 2 (1992). The Indonesian text may be found in the Indonesia list archives on the internet at URL: gopher://gopher.igc.apc.org:2998/7REG-INDONESIA. This translation appears in Indonesia 61, April 1996. [back]

2. Kampung here suggests the narrow world-view of those without experience of what lies beyond their own immediate surroundings. Similar English terms generally carry a rural connotation that kampung does not, but "hick" or "bumpkin" is not far off the mark. [back]

3. And sisters: saudara here is not gender-specific, but like "brother" can suggest an affective as well as familial relation. The sound of Pramoedya's phrase is as beautiful as the image is horrible: mandi darah saudara-saudara sendiri.

Pramoedya is probably referring to the introduction to Anderson's Language and Power: "Claire Holt reminded me that the most loved part of Javanese mythology was an indigenized version of the Mahabharata, which culminates in an orgy of bloodshed between close kinsmen" (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990, p.7). [back]

4. Pramoedya provides Sultan Agung with a lengthy, heroic introduction, only to have him end in a temper tantrum. The word kekuasaan appears repeatedly: it stretches to cover power, domination, hegemony, even authority. [back]

5. Pramoedya pokes at his readers by repeating the word etnik and anachronisms such as internasional, along with a host of other English loan-words, to alert us (angrily, affectionately) to the way categories such as ethnicity can be projected backwards in the process of inventing history, and to spoof the widespread use of Americanisms in the language of the "authentically Indonesian" New Order. [back]

6. See Gertrudes Johan Resink, "Mers javanais," archipel 24 (1982): 97-100. Resink is the "Han" to whom Bumi Manusia and Anak Semua Bangsa are inscribed (see Kompas, August 29, 1980, p.9). [back]

7. Kekuatan is sometimes also best translated as "power," but in a narrower and more instrumental (small p) sense than kekuasaan (see note 4 above). [back]

8. See Henk Maier's reading of this passage in his "Hikayat Dagang: Dari 'Syair Ken Tambuhan' ke Pramoedya Ananta Toer," kalam 4 (1995), at p.16. [back]

9. See Pramoedya's "Sastra Indonesia Timbul Sebagai Bangunan Atas," Bintang Timur, June 1, 1962. [back]

10. For the first time, Pramoedya writes bangsaku instead of etnikku. [back]

11. The Dutch and German words for the Enlightenment. [back]

12. Cf. N.J. Krom, Zaman Hindu, trans. Arif Effendi, (Djakarta: P.T. Pembangunan, 1954), pp.164-73, at p.170. [back]

13. Compare this passage from Pramoedya's Nyanyi Tunggal Seorang Bisu (n.p., n.d., p.50):

"Revolusi tak pernah dikenal oleh Mahabharata dan Ramayana. Sesuatu yang baru. Dan petani-petani itu apakah pernah tahu di permukaan bumi ini sudah banyak kali terjadi revolusi? Juga nenek-moyangnya sendiri pernah, sekalipun para pujangga tidak pernah menyebutkan: Revolusi Arok, pembuka kurun baru, dari Hindu-Jawa ke Jawa-Hindu. Yang sekarang juga pembuka kurun baru: dari kolonial ke nasional. Pengganti dan pengganti-pengganti Arok tidak meneruskan, cuma kembali ke awal baheula, bertekad kembali memasuki lingkaran setan...."
[Revolution was never recognized by the Mahabharata and the Ramayana. Something new. And those farmers, did they realize that, on the face of this earth, revolutions had taken place many times? And that their own ancestors, too, had taken part [in one], even though the poets never mentioned it: the Revolution of Arok, opener of a new era, from Javanese Hinduism to Hindu Javanism. The present [revolution] is also the opener of a new era: from colonial to national. Arok's successor and replacements did not continue it, [but] merely returned to an ancient starting point, intentionally reentering the vicious circle....]
[back]

14. "Pulp fiction," perhaps. [back]

15. See Anderson, "The Idea of Power in Javanese Culture," in his Language and Power, pp.17-77. [back]

16. In Nyanyi Tunggal, Pramoedya records Mochtar Lubis as asking, on a visit to Buru, "Kau sudah mulai menggarap sejarah? Mengapa bukan yang sekarang?" [You've started to tackle history. Why not the history of the present?] To which Pram replies, "Aku sudah muak tentang hal-hal yang tidak menyenangkan sekarang ini..." [I'm sick of all the unpleasant things nowadays...] (p.34). [back]

17. Pramoedya takes the nationalist slogan Indonesia Merdeka, makes it a verb, and with it transforms the watchwords of the Dutch colonial state into a fussier euphemism for control. [back]

18. Some members of the mob that attacked Pramoedya's house on the night of October 13, 1965, wore masks. [back]

19. Pramoedya, "Jang Harus Dibabat dan Harus Dibangun," Bintang Timur, August 10, September 1 and 7, and October 12, 1962. The expressions babat and bangun refer to things, like jungle and houses, or figuratively to structures or systems, not to people. [back]

20. Goons, thugs. [back]

21. The reference, pointed out to me by Ben Anderson, is to Chairil Anwar's poem, "Krawang-Bekasi" (1948):

".../Kami cuma tulang-tulang berserakan
Tapi adalah kepunyaanmu
Kaulah lagi yang tentukan nilai tulang-tulang berserakan.
Ataukah jiwa kami melayang untuk kemerdekaan, kemenangan dan harapan
atau tidak untuk apa-apa,
kami tidak tahu, kami tidak lagi bisa berkata
Kaulah sekarang yang berkata...."

[We are only scattered bones
But in your possession
It is you too who set the value of scattered bones.
Whether our souls did depart for freedom, victory and hope
or for nothing,
we do not know, we no longer can speak
It is you now who speak.]
[back]

22. Inside Indonesia 20 (October 1989): 31. Tapol, or tahanan politik: political prisoner. [back]

23. On institutionalized fear, see Amrih Widodo, "The 'Roh' of the System: on the Unification of Meaning and Expression in a Contemporary Indonesian Novel," Indonesia 40 (October 1985): 75-88. [back]

24. Lukman Ali's comments are fairly typical:

"Melalui ruang 'Lentera' koran Bintang Timur, Pramoedya dengan amat leluasa menikamkan keris revolusionernya ke kiri dan ke kanan dalam rangka memenangkan apa yang disebutnya 'sastra revolusioner.' Untuk sebagian, maksud ini tercapai sampai pecah pemberontakan G.30S./PKI. Akhirnya, ia ikut terkubur (untuk sementara?) bersama situasi, dengan keyakinan untuk timbul kembali bila keadaan sudah meyakinkan....
"Hanya kita tak pernah mendengar adanya pernyataan bersalah dan permintaan maaf darinya tentang ucapan dan perbuatannya selama ini. Lalu, siapa yang salah selama ini? Apakah dirinya tidak ikut bertanggungjawab terhadap malapetaka nasional yang ditimbulkan PKI?" (Lukman Ali, "Sastra Bukan Untuk Revolusi?", Republika, August 19, 1995).
[Through "Lentera's" space in the paper Bintang Timur, Pramoedya thrust his revolutionary keris unchecked to left and right, in his designs for what he called 'revolutionary literature' to prevail. For some, this purpose was reached to the point where the G.30S./PKI rebellion broke out. In the end, he too was buried (temporarily?) along with the situation, assured of emerging again once conditions were more encouraging....
Only we have never heard of there being any statement of fault or apology from him for his statements and actions in all this time. So, who has been wrong all this time? Does he not also share responsibility for the national disaster brought about by the PKI?]
[back]

25. Pramoedya wrote of Indonesia's history of fratricidal conflict long before 1965:

"Tapi dari dulu hingga kini: Indonesia terus-menerus mengalami perang saudara--lahir batin. Dan perang itu terdjadi di semua daerah pendjadjahan. Pangreh Praja melawan kepentingan rakjat. Polisi melawan gerakan kemerdekaan bangsanja sendiri. Murid-murid sekolah pemerintah melawan murid-murid sekolah pribumi di dusun, gunung dan kampung dan djuga sekolah pribumi di kota. Sesungguhnja, orang Indonesia diperangi oleh orang Indonesia sendiri--dari Sabang sampai Merauke. Dan pula perang saudara ini berlaku dari abad ke abad..." (Pramoedya, "Gado-gado," Pertjikan Revolusi, Djakarta: Gapura, 1950, p.31).
[But from the past through the present day: Indonesia has continually experienced civil war--in thought and deed. And such wars also occur in all zones of colonial domination. The civil service opposes the interests of the people. The police oppose their own nation's independence movement. Students from government schools oppose native school students in remote hamlets, mountains, villages and even in the city. In actuality, Indonesians are warred upon by the Indonesians themselves- -from Sabang to Merauke. And this civil war persists from century to century as well....]
[back]

*source: http://www.radix.net/%7Ebardsley/apolog.html

Read More......

Quote on Art and Literature

    "There is only one school of literature - that of talent."
~ Vladimir Nabokov (1899 - 1977)



Want to subscribe?

Subscribe in a reader Or, subscribe via email:
Enter your email here:

Top Blogs Top Arts blogs

Google