K. Foulcher A survey of events surrounding Manikebu. The struggle for cultural and intellectual freedom in Indonesian literature

K. Foulcher A survey of events surrounding Manikebu. The struggle for cultural and intellectual freedom in Indonesian literature In: Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 125 (1969), no: 4, Leiden, 429-465

This PDF-file was downloaded from http://www.kitlv-journals.nl

A SURVEY OF EVENTS SURROUNDING "MANIKEBU"* The Struggle For Cultural and Intellectual Freedom in Indonesian Literature I. The position of socialist realism: the opposing trends.

T I n order to understand the struggle for cultural freedom in art 1^ and literature which came to a political climax in the events surrounding the Manifes Kebudajaan (Manikebu) (1963), it is necessary first of all to take a brief look at the development and character of the social realist strand of modern Indonesian literature. The revolutionary spirit in art and literature which appeared to characterise Chairil Anwar and his generation was in no way a unified rejection of the old and a common belief for the future. Indeed, when Chairil died in 1949, and the dynamic influence of his personality was removed from literary circles, the cohesion of the so-called Angkatan 45 fell apart. Writing as an expression of life and individuality, which Chairil had been able to inspire through his own example, gave way to the need to devise theories of art and creativity. An attempt was made by those who had followed Chairil, known collectively as the Gelenggang artists, 1 to formulate his ideals into a declaration of belief, the Surat Kepertjajaan Gelenggang, which was issued on 18th February, 1950. It was a proclamation of Chairil's concept of man as the only universal reality (though not incorporating his belief in the vitality of the life force). Its formulators declared themselves the rightful heirs to world culture, and open to its influences in all national forms. As * This is the first chapter of a thesis entitled " "Manifes Kebudajaan": The Struggle for Cultural and Intellectual Freedom, and its Relation to Modern Indonesian Poetry", submitted to the Department of Indonesian and Malayan Studies, University of Sydney, as part requirement for the Degree of B.A. (Hons.) 1968. 1 Jassin (1951, p. 11) mentions Gelenggang as a gathering of artists founded on 19th November, 1946 by Chairil Anwar. Rather than an actual organisation, it was a spiritual bond existing among artists who used a supplement to the periodical Siasat as their mouthpiece.

430

KEITH R. FOULCHER

Indonesians, they held themselves free to develop it in their own way, with a continuing substitution of new standards for old ('revolution'), and a constant search for universal man as the ultimate reality. They added an acknowledgment of the reciprocal influences of the artist and society, yet this was incidental to the concept of universalism which underlined the whole document. In the same year, the Lembaga Kebudajaan Rakjat (Lekra) was formed on the initiative of D. N. Aidit, M. S. Ashar, A. S. Dharta and Njoto, and the PKI officially entered the cultural arena. With the doctrine of art as a political tool, Lekra approached those artists whom Chairil's death had left without a standard of belief. The ideals of the Surat Kepertjajaan Gelenggang were the first obvious target for attack. For Lekra and its adherents, universalism bore in it the danger of an alienation of art from society, and a tendency in the direction of art for art's sake, which could only mean the sterility of art as a tool in social reconstruction. An ever greater danger inherent in this 'outmoded' and 'bourgeois' concept was the direct opposition it posed to the struggle of the oppressed classes. The first publication incorporating the views of the Lekra and Gelenggang groups was Aoh K. Hadimadja's collection of polemics, Beberapa Paham Angkatan 45 (Some Concepts of the 45 Generation).2 The social realist doctrine which Lekra proposed was here given expression by Klara Akustia and Bakri Siregar. In his Kepada Seniman Universil (To the Universal Artist), Klara Akustia equates the development of literature with the Marxist doctrine of the class struggle: Perkembangan kesusastraan adalah pertarungan kelas2 jang bertentangan kepentingannja dilapangan kesusastraan; jang satu mempertahankan kekolotan, jang lain mengusahakan kemadjuan. Semakin didjauhkan kesusastraan dari masjarakat, semakin kuat kelas jang tak menginginkan adanja perubahan susunan masjarakat dan semakin lemah kelas jang menginginkan terwudjudnja masjarakat baru.3

For this reason, the universalism of the Gelenggang writers is dangerous, as it allies itself with the anti-improvement class. The class struggle must first be resolved before there can be any talk of universalism. Therefore, literary activity must be directed at assisting the masses in 2 3

Aoh K. Hadimadja (1952). 'The development of literature is the conflict of classes with opposing interests in the field of literature; the one defends conservatism while the other makes an effort for progress. The further literature is removed from society, the stronger is the class which does not want a change in the structure of society, and the weaker is the class which desires the materialisation of a new society'. {ibid., p. 89.)

EVENTS SURROUNDING "MANIKEBU"

431

their struggle to abolish class distinctions. Bakri Siregar develops this concept in his Funksi-Tugas Kesusastraan (The Function and Duty of Literature), where he proposes that a writer concerned with the awakening of his people will devote his art to assist in that awakening. For this he must make himself, a part of society, aware of its needs, and awake to opportunities where his art can serve in society's development. He clarifies these thoughts with a concrete example: A writer contemplating a field of rice must look at it through the eyes of the peasant whose family it has to feed. If there is enough rice, the peasant is happy. It is the writer's duty to sing of the peasant's happiness in such a way that it will stimulate his ardour for work and increased production. The writer cannot speak of the beauty of the rice field unless he is first assured it is sufficient for the peasant's needs.4 Boejoeng Saleh, writing in 1953, was of the opinion that the publication of the previous year had not given adequate explanation of the problem. In his article entitled Kearah Sent Berisi (Towards Meaningful Art), 5 he discusses the Marxist approach to literature and its purpose. He rejects the formalistic approach to literature, which concerns itself solely with the perfection of form, as a stage in decadent bourgeois culture which aims to deprive art of its social function. Similarly, any move in the direction of an 'international' art, which for him means 'art for art's sake', is an attempt by the bourgeoisie to protect itself from the powerful influence which the artist can have on the struggle of the masses. (As shown in the French and Russian revolutions). Indonesia must therefore be on guard against any attempt to dissociate the artist from the People. The most valuable, and most objective section of his article is his discussion of engaged art and the reasons for its unpopularity. He acknowledges that much of the work produced by engaged artists is not art of a high quality, but denies that this as such is inherent to the doctrine itself. He attributes the large proportion of inferior work to the fact that many of the doctrine's adherents have written without real conviction and possession of their ideas. On the other hand, they may have had this conviction, but not the artistic talent necessary for the transmission of these ideas into art. In this case they show themselves to be nothing more than 'hawkers of ideas'.6 He himself is aware of the danger of engaged art's degenerating into mere propaganda. 4 5 6

ibid., pp. SS-S7. Boejoeng Saleh (1953). ibid., p. 343.

432

KEITH R. FOULCHER

This is a thoughtful analysis, which shows an awareness of the problems involved in understanding art. With the financial and organisational backing of the PKI, Lekra in the 1950's grew into a large and influential organisation propagating the doctrine of socialist realism in art. At its first conference in 1959, there was created a series of institutes (of literature, plastic arts, music, dance, drama, film and science), offering guidance and assistance to its members at a regional and local level. By May, 1960, there were claimed to be about 200 branches, and in May, 1963, membership was announced as 100,000.7 By the very nature of its doctrine, and its political involvement, Lekra did not continue to oppose those who rejected its ideals merely with the cultural polemics which followed its inception, and hand in hand with its growth and the coresponding strength of the PKI's influence in the later 1950's, went a suppression of freedom for the artist and intellectual.8 Particularly stringent after the proclamation of President Sukarno's political manifesto in 1959, and the introduction of Guided Democracy, it took the form of 'yes-manship' in political and intellectual circles, and a suppression of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.9 There were attempts to oppose the measures against intellectual freedom, but they were blocked by political power. A case in point is the banning of Mochtar Lubis' newspaper, Indonesian Raja, after its continued attacks on the Sukarno regime. For various reasons not yet completely understood, a number of writers during these years adopted the socialist realism line, and in so doing made a sharp left-about-turn on the creative ideals they themselves appear once to have upheld. Pramoedya Ananta Toer became a member of the Central Leadership of Lekra in 1959,10 and became one of its most vociferous, protagonists as his creative activity ebbed to a close. Shortly before this time, Sitor Situmorang became head of LKN (Lembaga Kebudajaan Nasional, cultural organisation of the PNI), which moved steadily closer to Lekra's ideals after the formation of Sukarno's NASAKOM concept in 1962. Others had travelled the 7

8

9 10

For background on Lekra's growth and organisation, see Donald Hindley (1966), pp. 184-186. For information on this period, see Wiratmo Sukito (stencilled). The article was translated by Prof. A. H. Johns and circulated from the Australian National University. ibid., p. 3. The facts concerning the details of Pramoedya's association with Lekra are very obscure. My reference is an unpublished thesis by Asnidar Said, Tindjauan Singkat atas Pengarang Pramoedya Ananta Toer dan Buku-Bukunja (Brief Review of P.A.T. and his Books) (IKIP, Bandung, 1964).

EVENTS SURROUNDING "MANIKEBU"

433

same path, some perhaps attracted by the obvious material benefits which allegiance to a financially sound, protector had to offer, some probably with a genuine belief that in this way they were offering their artistic capabilities as their contribution to the desperately-needed social reconstruction. Nevertheless, it should be stressed at the outset that post-war Indonesian literary conflicts have never been a simple matter of I'art engage versus I'art pour fart. As early as 1949, Achdiat K. Mihardja " had expressed contempt for any elements still anachronistic enough to be practising art for art's sake, and this is still, I believe, characteristic of the Indonesian literary scene of today, regardless of any political standpoint of the artist. Achdiat, who at that time was representing the ideal opposed to Lekra and supported by the PSI, saw as the writer's responsibility the task of liberating the souls of his people, that they might interact as free individuals in a community. This he considered an essential complement to economic, social, and political liberation. While this concept may have altered among various artists, and in accordance with changing times, the outright rejection of art for art's sake has never really been questioned by any members of the artistic community. Even Sitor Situmorang could write objectively in 1963: Sastra Indonesia adalah sastra jang ber"kebangsaan" Indonesia. Sastra Indonesia tidak bisa lain dari pada sastra (kebudajaan) jang berakar sosial kedalam bumi dan masjarakat Indonesia. Sifat sosialnja sastra sudah djelas. Pada achli sedjarah dan kritikus sastra kita setjara umum selalu menghubungkan. sedjarah sastra kita dengan sedjarah kebangsaan kita, mulai dari pandangan Marxis sampai kepada pandangan jang non-politik, seperti jang diwakili oleh pandangan H. B. Jassin.12

Speaking in Kuala Lumpur in 1965, in reply to an attack from the Lekra group in Indonesia, Idrus explained clearly the rejection of art for art's sake in favour of a more meaningful creative activity which he named 'art for beauty'. He explained the concept as follows: 11

12

(in) Angkatan 45: Angkatan Chairil, Angkatan Merdeka (The Generation of 45: Chairil's Generation, the Generation of Freedom), Pudjangga Baru, Djakarta, 17 Aug., 1949 (translated by Raffel (1967), pp. 236-243). 'Indonesian literature is a literature having an Indonesian "nationality. Indonesian literature cannot be anything else but literature (culture) with social roots in the Indonesian soil and society. The social character of the literature is clear. Our historians and literary critics in general always link our literary history with national history, from the Marxist viewpoint to the non-political view, as represented by H. B. Jassin'. Sitor Situmorang, Sastra Indonesia Bukan Kelandjutan Sastra Melaju (Indonesian literature is not a continuation of Malay literature), Basis, June, 1963, pp. 279-280.

434

KEITH R. FOULCHER

Antara ('Seni untuk Seni' dan 'Seni untuk Keindahan') itu terdapat perbedaan antara siang dan malam, seperti djuga perbedaan antara wanita tjantik jang kita biarkan melintas didalam kehidupan kita dan wanita jang kita sekap didalam kehidupan kita, artinja jang kita peristeri. Jang satu jang kita biarkan melintas itu hanja memuaskan mata kita sadja untuk seketika sadja, sedangkan jang lain itu memberikan kejakinan kepada kita, bahwa ia akan memperkaja djiwa kita, membantu kehidupan kita. Jang satu tjantik kosong, jang lain tjantik berisi, jang satu beautiful, tapi jang lain beauty. Keindahan kosong, jang dangkal dan jang seketika itu sadja, itulah hasil daripada "Seni untuk Seni", sedangkan keindahan jang diberikan "Seni untuk Keindahan" adalah sesuatu jang memperkaja djiwa, jang berisi, jang kekal, pendek kata jang berguna bagi manusia.13

The conflict has been rather, as Burton Raffel expresses it, a question of 'this sort of awareness, this intensely communal feeling' as opposed to 'an insistence upon certain prescribed forms of social awareness, certain kinds of literary expression as opposed to certain other kinds'.14 Jassin, himself a member of the group which later came into head-on political conflict with Lekra was, in the early years of its inception, hesitant about the contribution which an art having the obligation to educate, and increase the spirit of the people's struggle, could make to the development of literature, but at the same time prepared to acknowledge that the ultimate criterion for the validity of a work of art was the honesty of its conceptor.15 On the side of the artists and critics opposing Lekra, the basic issue has always been a defence of the artist's rights as an individual having adequate freedom and means of expression, and a recognition of the contribution he can make as an individual to an art which is national, and at the same time, universal. It is the common belief of those writers who opposed Lekra on its inception and those who fought it during the political conflicts of the early 1960's that art must serve humanity and not a political ideal. While it is my intention to avoid, as far as possible, subjectivity in 13

14 15

'Between ('Art for Art's sake' and 'Art for Beauty') there is the difference between night and day, or the difference between a pretty woman we let flash by in our lives and a woman we lock up in our lives, i.e., whom we marry. The one, whom we let flash by, is only satisfying to our eyes for a moment, while the other gives us the conviction that she will enrich our minds, contribute to our lives. The one is empty charm, the other is meaningful charm. The one is beautiful but the other beauty. Empty beauty, which is shallow and ephemeral, is the product of 'art for art's sake', while the beauty which comes from 'art for beauty' is something which enriches the mind, which is meaningful, eternal, in short, which has some usefulness for mankind'. "Voice of Malaysia" interview with Idrus, Kuala Lumpur, 8-7-1964. Idrus was replying to an attack by Adnan Basalaman in Bintang Timur, 10th May, 1964. Raffel (1967), p. 140. Jassin, Gema Tanah Air (Echoes of our Homeland), Djakarta, 1959, p. 13.

EVENTS SURROUNDING "MANIKEBU"

435

approach, I think it fair to say that Lekra, on the other hand, has accepted the artist only in as much as his work contributes to the political advancement of a socialist state.18 And whatever the motives of the artists who did adopt this ideal, if we continue to regard them as artists, it is difficult to understand the loss of individuality and decline in artistic value in the works they produced, as well as the vehement and narrow-sighted attacks they continued to level against the 'nonaligned' writers of the 1960's grouped together around the literary periodical Sastra, and defending their freedom as creative artists. It is this conflict between the years 1961 and 1965 which represents the climax of the problem, and for our overall understanding, requires a more detailed discussion.17 II. Conflicts centred around Sastra (1961-1963); the pre-eminence oj politics. The periodical Sastra was first published in May, 1961, as a continuation of Kisah, a short-story magazine which had ceased publication in 1957. It was led by H. B. Jassin, M. Balfas, and D. S. Muljanto. In the preface to the first edition, entitled Kisah Terbit Kembali (Kisah Published Again), Balfas affirmed the determination of the editorial staff to open the magazine's pages to every short story of sufficiently high artistic value. He emphasised their conviction that art was not bound to any one ideology.18 This was a declaration of continued rejection of political standards in art, and at a time when Lekra was already in a strong and influential position, represented a somewhat daring counter-attack. It was not long before the reaction was felt. Two short stories by B. Sularto,18 in which the author attempts to portray basic human conditions not bound to any ideology, were condemned by Bakri Siregar as reactionary, 'tidak progressif dan anti buruh, tani, perdamaian, partai 16

17

18 19

I feel it is rather narrow-sighted, for example, to accept Sukarno's comments on the individuality of the artist as shown in the varying styles exhibited in the 1959 Lekra art exhibition (Hindley (1966), p. 342 (n. 28), also Aveling (1967, p. 27) as evidence of Lekra!'s inability to repress individuality among its members. Even if Sukarno's comments are those of an unbiased observer (?) variations in style do not necessarily indicate freedom of belief and individuality of the artist. Most of the references to newspapers and periodicals in the ensuing sections are known to me through the compilation by Taufiq Ismail and D. S. Muljanto (1968). Sastra, No. 1, Th. 1, May, 1961. Tanah and Rapat Perdamaian, in Sastra, No. 5/6, Sept./Oct., 1961.

436

KEITH R. FOULCHER

dan menghina revolusi' ('not progressive, anti worker, peasant, peace, the party, and showing contempt for the revolution').20 Pramoedya Ananta Toer accused the stories appearing in Sastra of portraying the bourgeois character, and of not giving any indication of the present upheavals in society which were to put an end to the bourgeoisie as the employer class.21 The poetry of Subagio Sastrowardojo, characterised by the author's despair and confusion in society, was condemned in turn, and the poet accused of representing a generation struggling in its death agony before entering the grave.22 At the end of one year's publication, it was already clear that Sastra and its supporters had entered the political as well as literary arena. Jassin had been forced into answering accusations that Sastra and its leaders were reactionary. Desperately, it seems, he had tried to defend the original standpoint. In his report, Satu Tahun Sastra (One Year of Sastra), he re-affirmed: . . . kami tidak terikat pada salah satu partai atau program salah satu lembaga kebudajaannja. Kami mengambil djalan kami sendiri dalam menentukan sikap terhadap pemilihan nilai2 dan memperkembangkan kebudajaan baru sesuai dengan haluan negara. Sikap itu ialah sikap seniman merdeka jang berdasarkan pertimbangan akalbudi meranglcum seluasnja pengertian kemanusiaan.23

The Lekra attacks were extended to any writers outside its sphere of influence, and a general attack on Islamic writers was launched through accusations that Hamka's Tenggelamnja Kapal van der Wijk was a plagiarism.24 In December 1962, Sastra announced its literary awards for the year. Among those cited for awards were Motinggo Boesje, Virga Belan and M. Poppy Hutagalung. Each of these three in turn rejected the award, their letters of rejection appearing in the leftist daily, Bintang 20 21

22 23

24

in a lecture in Jogja, 1-10-1961. in Gedjala Sebitah Skisma Dalam Tjerpen Indonesia Dewasa Ini (Symptoms of a Schism in Present-Day Indonesian Short Stories), Lentera/'Bintang Timur 3-8-62. Said, in Harian Rakjat ( H R ) , 8-9-62. 'We are not bound to any one party or the programme of any one cultural institution. We take our own path in determining our attitude to the election of standards, and in developing a new culture in accordance with the course of the state. That is the attitude of the free artist based on common sense considerations embracing the full extent of the concept of humanity'. Sastra, No. 1, Th. 11, 1962. See Buku "Van der Wijck" dalam Polemik ("Van der Wijck" in Polemics.), Mega Bookstore, Djakarta, 1963, also Jassin (1954, augmented 1967 ed.), pp. 64-71, Apakah Tenggelamnja Kapal van der Wijck Plagiatf (Is Tenggelemnja Kapal van der Wijck a Plagiarism?).

EVENTS SURROUNDING "MANIKEBU"

437

Timur. Motinggo Boesje claimed he was rejecting the judgment of Jassin,25 Virga Belan rejected Sastra itself as containing anti-revolutionary literature,28 and Poppy Hutagalung claimed she had not produced works which could be justified in the eyes of society.27 A further rejection of an award by Usamah was shown to be a forgery. The writer himself denied the news of his rejection in a telegram to Jassin. Later it was revealed that all but Virga Belan had made the rejection on the intimidation of the Lekra organisation.28 In the same month, there was an attempt by Lekra and its associates to foil the Musjawarah Pembentukan Badan Federasi Teater se-Indonesia (All-Indonesia Conference for the Formation of a Federated Theatre Body) in Jogjakarta. This too failed, and the conference resulted in the formation of a Badan Pembina Teater Indonesia. By now the conflict had become an all-out political battle. In a vicious attack on Jassin and his 'followers' in March, 1963, Sitor Situmorang claimed: Ketekunan H. B. Jassin membuat dia berhasil, diluar perkembangan revolusi, membangun sematjam mazhab, diluar segala proporsi. Ibarat satu tempat teduh didaerah badai, mazhab ini menarik tendensi2 dan pribadi2 pengarang atau jang merasa pengarang, mentjari perlindungan dari hirukpikuknja revolusi, meninabobokkan diri dengan teori "universil-humanisme".28

Pramoedya Ananta Toer led a concerted attack on the followers of universal humanism in a series of articles in his Lentera column of Bintang Timur. He had already, in January 1963, delivered his paper on Socialist Realism in Indonesian literature at a seminar at the University of Indonesia, attended by representatives of Lekra and non-Lekra groups, as well as students from the Faculty of Arts and representatives of Sastra. In June and July there was a lively series of cultural polemics between Wiratmo Soekito and Sitor Situmorang in the magazine Warta Dunia, Sitor defending Aspirasi Nasional dan Kesusastraan (National Aspirations and Literature) against Wiratmo's Bukan Humanisme 25 28 27 28 29

Lentera/Bintang Timur (L/BT), 5-1-63. Bintang Timur (BT), 10-2-63. L/BT, 24-2-63. Jassin (1967), p. 130. ' H . B. Jassin's perseverance has made him succeed in developing a kind of school, outside the development of the revolution, and outside all proportion. Like a haven in a storm, this school attracts the tendencies and personalities of writers, or self-styled writers, to seek shelter from the tumult of the revolution, and to lull themselves to sleep with the theory of "universal humanism".' Suluh Indonesia, 13-3-63.

438

KEITH R. FOULCHER

Universil, Tetapi Budi Nurani Universal (Not Universal Humanism, but the Universal Conscience). III. The declaration of a Manifesto; the Manifesto seen in context. By August 1963, the stage was set for the declaration of a Manifesto. There seems to have been felt a need among many of the 'free' artists for a common statement of belief to which they could openly declare their allegiance and with which they could confront their enemies. The evidence points to the actual formulation and declaration being a rather hurried affair, yet it nevertheless had the support of a large number of artists and intellectuals. The debates and discussions prior to the actual formulation and declaration of the Manifesto were in the hands of Wiratmo Soekito, a Roman Catholic intellectual who for many years had been prominent in intellectual and cultural circles, and who had written extensively on literature and culture in various periodicals of the 1950's and 1960's. A month before the declaration of the Manifesto, at the time of his participation in the polemics mentioned above, he had effectively declared himself aati-Lekra in an interview published in a popular magazine: ...jang tak boleh ditawar2 bagi seorang pengarang ialah kebebasan dan kegembiraan batin, jang implikasinja ialah bahwa pengarang itu mengabdi kepada kemanusiaan jang universil. Pengarang tidak bertanggung-djawab kepada penerbitnja seperti didalam masjarakat kapitalis. Djuga tidak bertanggung-djawab kepada pemerintahnja seperti didalam masjarakat komunis. Melainkan bertanggungdjawab kepada masjarakat pembatjanja sebagai kemanusiaan jang universil itu. Oleh karena itu dalam masjarakat kapitalis rintangan bagi pengarang adalah tendensi komersil dari penerbitnja, sedang dalam masjarakat komunis adalah tendensi otoriter dari pemerintahnja.30

Wiratmo Soekito completed the manuscript of the Manifes Kebudajaan on 17th August, 1963, and after its examination and subsequent approval by Gunawan Mohamad and Bokor Hutasahut, it was duplicated and forwarded to prominent figures in the field of Indonesian culture for examination and comment.31 In its broad outlines, the 30

31

' . . . the indispensable conditions for a writer are freedom and inner joy, which implies that the writer s e r v e s . . . universal humanity. T h e writer is not responsible to his publisher, as in a capitalist society. Also he is not responsible to his government as in a communist society. But he is responsible to the society formed by his readers, as universal humanity. For that reason, in a capitalist society, the obstacle for the writer is the commercial tendency of his publisher, while in a communist society it is the authoritarian tendency of his government'. Minggu Pagi, 7-7-63. My notes on the actual recording of events are taken from D. S. Muljanto (1967).

EVENTS SURROUNDING "MANIKEBU"

439

Manifesto was to be a declaration of a concept of national culture which did not place any one ideology over another, and an explanation of the ideals which had to form the guidelines of a national cultural policy. On 23rd August a meeting was held in Djalan Raden Saleh, Djakarta, attended by the following thirteen Indonesian artists, writers, and cultural figures: Trisno Sumardjo, Zaini, H. B. Jassin, Wiratmo Sukito, Bokor Hutasahut, Gunawan Mohamad, Bur Rasuanto, A. Bastari Asnin, Ras Siregar, Djufri Tanissan, Soe Hok Djin (Arief Budiman), Sjahwil, D. S. Moeljanto. Gunawan Mohamad led the discussion, and Wiratmo Soekito was given the opportunity to explain to those present the meaning, target and formulation of the Manifesto. In the ensuing debate, the discussion of universal humanism figured prominently. In answering the questions of Trisno Sumardjo and H. B. Jassin on the concept, Wiratmo explained: "Kebudajaan sebagai pernjataan hidup manusia mempunjai tendensi2 Universil, jaitu Universil dalam arti bahwa kebudajaan itu bukan hanja untuk satu bangsa sadja, tetapi untuk semua bangsabangsa. Dan disamping itu bukan hanja untuk satu angkatan sadja, tetapi untuk semua angkatan. Meskipun demikian harus ditegaskan bahwa kebudajaan itu mempunjai titik-tolak dan titik-tolak itu adalah titik-tolak nasional. Saja menjetudjui sepenuhnja utjapan Dag Hammerskjoeld bekas Sekretaris Djenderal PBB jang meninggal dunia dalam tahun 1961 jang mengatakan, bahwa kita harus menekankan kepentingan Nasional, tetapi kepentingan Nasional itu harus ditingkatkan niveau-nja kearah kepentingan Internasional".32

In answer to a question by Bokor Hutasahut, he explained their relationship with the Angkatan 45: " . . . Lahirnja Manifes kita adalah djuga penilaian terhadap Angkatan '45 inklusif penilaian L E K R A atas Angkatan ' 4 5 . . . Angkatan '45 sebagian besar tidak mempunjai militansi. Meskipun pada dasarnja gagasan2nja tjukup bermutu. Namun harus dikemukakan bahwa tidak seorangpun dari mereka itu mempunjai wawasan tentang kebudajaan apabila dilihat setjara psychologis dan i l m i a h . . . Manifes ini lahir sebagai re-generasi dengan kondisi2 objektif jang baru pula". 3 3 32

33

"Culture as a fact in human life has universal tendencies, that is, universal in the sense that culture is not just for one nation, but for all nations. And besides that, not only for one generation, but for all generations. Nevertheless it must be stressed that culture has a starting point, and that is the national starting point. I am in full agreement with the former Secretary-General of the U N , D a g Hammerskjoeld who died in 1961, when he said that we must emphasise national interests, but that those national interests must be raised to the level of international interests", {ibid., p. 158). " . . . T h e birth of our Manifesto represents an evaluation of the 45 Generation, inclusive of the evaluation of Lekra on the 45 Generation. . . . T o a large extent the 45 Generation did not possess militancy. Although basically their concepts were of sufficient quality. Yet it must be brought out that not one of them possessed an insight into culture when viewed psychologically and scientifically. . . . This Manifesto was born as a re-generation with new objective conditions", (ibid.)

440

KEITH R. FOULCHER

The meeting concluded with a resolution to accept the Manifesto as the basis for further investigation and simplification, to be carried out by a committee of six members of the meeting. This committee, led by the artist Zaini, met the same day in the same place, and at the end of its discussions, formulated the Manifesto into three parts: the actual declaration, its explanation, and a list of books incorporating the "literature of the Pantjasila". On the following day (24th August), Bokor Hutasahut read the report of the committee's findings to the full meeting. It was received with acclamation, and the signing of the document as it stood by the following twelve members of the meeting represented its first official acceptance: H. B. Jassin, Trisno Sumardjo, Wiratmo Sukito, Zaini, Bokor Hutasahut, Gunawan Mohamad, Bur Rasuanto, Soe Hok Djin, D. S. Moeljanto, Ras Siregar, Djufri Tanissan, A. Bastari Asnin.34 Finally two resolutions were passed, affirming that the Manifesto could no longer be altered in its principles and that the Manifesto itself did not a priori give birth to any cultural organisation. The full text, incorporating the declaration, explanation and history of events leading to its inception, was first published in Sastra, No. 9-10 1963 and in the newspaper Berita Republik, 19th October, 1963. It should at this point be noted that the Manifesto was in itself only one specific reaction to the political climate. It represented a systematic formulation of writers opposed to Lekra, yet it did not represent a united front of all those artists included in this group. There were other artists and intellectuals who had come together in study groups before the declaration and who considered that a Manifesto which, by its very nature and the very language it employed, declared open political conflict on Lekra, was not the only, nor the most effective method of opposition. Some, indeed, felt that their cause would be served better by a more concrete effort towards work and action than by the declaration of a Manifesto. One of these was D. A. Peransi, who had formed a study group, 'Modernisasi', some time before the formulation of the Manifesto.35 It was attended on its inception by Soedjatmoko, Rosihan Anwar, Gunawan Mohamad, Soe Hok Djin, students and youth leaders. 34

35

The actual number of original signatories has become confused, owing to publications incorporating the subsequent signatures. The text I have included in the Appendix contains a slightly different list of signatures. The following notes represent a summary of information obtained in conversation with D. A. Peransi. (Djakarta, 18-1-68.)

EVENTS SURROUNDING "MANIKEBU"

441

Soedjatmoko addressed the group's first meeting, and urged the young leaders who composed it that they should above all not lose confidence in themselves. He advocated rationalism in discussion and comparative studies of modernisation in other parts of the world, in order for them to understand the present situation and how it had come about. Some of the members of the group (among them Wiratmo Sukito and Gunawan Mohamad) rejected this approach in favour of immediate and direct action. The group split, and it was this faction, feeling "the need for political action, which headed in the direction of the Manifesto.36 The remainder of the group, holding to the guidelines set down by Soedjatmoko, considered the political situation and President Sukarno to be merely a phenomenon in the process of modernisation which Indonesia was experiencing. For this reason they did not consider the political situation a necessary hindrance to their continued development. So it was that they continued to reject the Manifesto in principle. Thus, to a certain extent, Manijes Kebudajaan represents only one aspect of the situation, and must be seen in the context of a broad frame of suppressed intellectual activity current in society. It should not be imagined that it was the only reaction to the political domination' of art. IV. Reactions to the Manifesto. Reaction to the Manifesto was immediate and violent. Attacks from Lekra members were directed primarily at the concept of 'universal humanism', which they had always rejected, and which was interpreted purely in the context of the present political situation. 'Universal humanism' meant support for the enemies of the revolution. At the beginning of November, Bakri Siregar declared: Terhadap estetikanja kaum "humanisme-universil" jang meniadakan garis pemisah antara kavvan dan lawan revolusi, kita tidak punja persamaan-persinggungan: dia adalah lawan kita, jang setjara tegas kita ganjang, karena dia mengabdi pada lawan revolusi, dibelakang segala mat jam kedok dan variasi istilah, antaranja kedok demi-estetika.37 38

37

It was probably at this point that Wiratmo Sukito and his colleagues became involved in the proposed liason with SOKSI (Central Organisation of Socialist Workers of Indonesia). See Wiratmo Sukito (stencilled), p. 6. 'With the aesthetics of the "universal humanism" group, who deny the dividing lines between friend and foe of the revolution, we have no similarity or contact: they are our enemies, whom we will resolutely crush, because they serve the enemies of the revolution, behind all kinds of masks and variations of term, among them the mask of 'in the name of aesthetics'.' (in a report of the plenary session of LESTRA/Lekra, Surabaja, 3-11-63.)

442

KEITH R. FOULCHER

Virga Belan claimed that it was not only the concept which had to be fought, but in addition its supporters had to be destroyed and all trace of them removed from Indonesia.38 Rejection of the concept was even reported from the Surakarta head of IKAT (Ikatan Kekeluargaan Anggauta Tentara - League for Family Spirit Among Army Members), who declared that universal humanism as proposed in the Manifesto did not belong in the revolutionary spirit which had to be possessed by troops of the People's Army.39 A conference of artists belonging to the Lekra-LKN group in Medan, North Sumatra, on 30th January, 1964, declared its joint intention to crush the Manifesto and the Malaysia concept.40 Clearly, the Manifesto was considered a political issue. The concept of 'universal humanism' was dubbed reactionary, because it was anti-Manipol. Sastra still asserted that its confrontation was a literary and cultural one, which was aimed not at individuals, groups, or the state, but at a principle. As the conflict was a matter of principle, they had no alternative but to continue their creative activity. Still holding to its original declared belief that art was not bound to any political ideology, it had, in 1963, included poetry by Dodong Djiwapradja, one of the prominent social realist poets. In a letter to the editors, the poet had expressed his objection to the inclusion: Dalam madjalah Sastra no. 9/10 - Th. Ill - 1963 pada halaman 21 dst.nja sdr. telah memuat sadjak saja "Pasir Putih, Pantai Sanur". Saja berkeberatan atas pemuatan sadjak tsb. Keberatan saja itu pada pokoknja didasarkan atas hal2 sbb.: Bahwa sadjak saja itu tidak tjotjok untuk madjalah saudara jang sudah mempunjai pendirian politik a la "Manifes Kebudajaan" dan a la "KKPSI". 4 1

'KKPSI' (Konperensi Karyawan Pengarang se-Indonesia - AllIndonesia Writers' Conference) took place in Djakarta early in March, 1964, to coincide with the Conference of Afro-Asian Writers being organised by Lekra. The leftist press had attacked it from when the plans were first announced, and an attempt was made by Lekra and its associates to thwart it by means of a general boycott. Nevertheless, with the backing of Nasution and the Army, the conference was a 38 39 40 41

(in) Sekali lagi tentang Humanisme Universil (Once again on the subject of Universal Humanism), Berita Indonesia (BI), 10-11-63. Warta Bhakti (WB), 27-2-64. Harian Harapan (Medan), 3-2-64. 'In Sastra, No. 9/10 - Th. I l l - 1963, p. 21 f., you included my poem, 'White Strand, Sanur Beach'. I object to its inclusion, and my objection is based fundamentally on the following grounds: That poem of mine is not fitting for your magazine, with its political standpoint a la "Cultural Manifesto" and a la " K K P S I " . ' (Published in HR, 23-2-64.)

EVENTS SURROUNDING "MANIKEBU"

443

success, and the Afro-Asian Conference was never held. In its place, Sitor Situmorang led the organisation of a film festival, which was attended by President Sukarno. The K K P S I was discredited by Sukarno, and his statements in support of Communist China were seen as a reaction to KKPSI's repudiation of the participation and leadership of the PKI. 4 2 What may once have appeared a safety-valve for Manikebu, the high importance placed on the official state ideology of Pantjasila, was now no longer valid. Hesitantly, its supporters had declared themselves followers of Manipol, but refused to commit themselves to the new concept of NASAKOM. This was sufficient basis for a continuation of the attack by Aidit, in March, 1964: Sekarang ini ternjata ada golongan jang dikenal umum sebagai "kaum Manikebu", jang merasa berhak berbitjara tentang "revolusi" tanpa menjebut Manipol, jang merasa tjukup menjatakan dirinja pendukung Pantjasila tanpa mendukung Manipol, dan baru setelah diganjang dari kiri dan kanan, mereka memproklamisasikan dirinja sebagai "pendukung Manipol". Tapi mereka tetap berkepala batu tidak menjatakan persetudjuannja pada Nasakom. Padahal persoalannja sederhana sekali: setudju Pantjasila harus setudju Manipol, dan setudju semuanja ini harus setudju Nasakom".43 The Moslem cultural organisation, Lesbumi, remained a hesitant onlooker: P. P. Lesbumi (Lembaga Budaja Muslimin Indonesia) beranggapan, bahwa "Manifes Kebudajaan" tersebut belumlah setjara sempurna mengungkapkan landasan2 ideal jang dapat dipergunakan oleh para pengarang Indonesia dalam pengadjarannja (pengabdiannja?) kepada Revolusi Indonesia dan dalam beberapa hal memberikan kemungkinan untuk penafsiran2 jang mengaburkan tudjuan Revolusi Indonesia.44 42 43

44

See Wiratmo Sukito (stencilled), p. 5. ' I t is now evident that there is a cluster commonly known as the "Manikebu" group, who feel they have a right t o talk about "the revolution" without mentioning Manipol, who think it is enough to declare themselves supporters of Pantjasila without supporting Manipol, and only after pressure from left and right proclaimed themselves "supporters of ManipoF'. But in their continued obstinacy they will not express their agreement with Nasakom. Whereas the matter is very simple: if we agree with Pantjasila we must agree with Manipol, and agreeing with all this we must agree with Nasakom'. ( H R , 22-3-64.) ' T h e central leadership of Lesbumi (Indonesian Moslem Cultural Organisation) is of the opinion that this "Cultural Manifesto" has not yet fully expressed the bases of the ideals to be used by Indonesian writers in their service to the Indonesian Revolution, and in a few matters does offer possibilities for interpretations which obscure the aim of the Indonesian Revolution'. (Penilaian Lesbumi Sekitar "Manifes Kebudajaan" (Lesbumi's Evaluation of the Cultural Manifesto), Djakarta, 9-3-64.) For the sake of objectivity, it should also be noted that in the same report, and in the same hesitant manner, Lesbumi deplores the slanderous accusations made against the Manikebu signatories.

444

KEITH R. FOULCHER

On 15th April, 1964, a report was tabled in Djakarta, purporting to be an examination of all the attacks on Manikebu since its declaration in the previous year, and a reply to them by the Manifesto supporters themselves.45 It tables the attacks under two headings: 1. Manifes adalah "kontra-revolusi", karena a) "anti" atau "memusuhi" Nasakom b) "Segan" menggunakan kata dan konsepsi revolusioner dan rakjat c) "mengaburkan" lawan dengan kawan d) merupakan "reaksi" atas gagasan Ganefo e) mengumandangkan freedom to be free f) hendak "menandingi" Manipol. 2. Manifes adalah "hipokrit" atau "munafik", apa alasannja tidak diterangkan.46 The report charges that the attacks on Manikebu as anti-Nasakom are based on a dishonesty which intentionally confuses issues and concepts. The text of the explanation of Manikebu is quoted repeatedly to refute the other attacks. The essence of the report is a restatement of non-committal to a political ideology, yet the conflict has by now long been political, and the report itself reads as a political document. V. Banned by Presidential decree. Clearly, the political left considered the Manifesto and its adherents a danger to the national struggle, and had used their influence to impart this fear to the President. For on 8th May, 1964, the following Presidentical decree was issued, banning the Manifesto: "Kami, Presiden Republik Indonesia, Panglima Tertinggi Angkatan Perang, Pemimpin Besar Revolusi, dengan ini menjatakan bahwa, demi keutuhan dan kelurusan djalannja Revolusi dan demi kesempurnaan ketahanan Bangsa, apa jang disebut "Manifesto Kebudajaan" jang disingkat mendjadi "Manikebu" dilarang. Sebab2 larangan itu ialah karena Manifesto Politik Republik Indonesia sebagai pantjaran Pantja Sila telah mendjadi garis besar haluan Negara dan tidak 43

48

Hasil penjelidikan team-research manifes kebudajaan. Manifes-Phobi, Motif dan Targetnja, Kekurang-Matangan dalam Ideologi. (Results of Team Research Investigation of the Cultural Manifesto; Manifesto Phobia, its Motive and Target - Immaturity in Ideology). Djakarta, 15 April, 1964. (typewritten). 'The Manifesto is "counter-revolutionary", because: a) It is "anti" or "hostile to" Nasakom. b) "reluctant" to use the words and concepts "revolutionary" dan "people". c) "blurs the distinction" between friend and foe. d) represents a "reaction" to the Ganefo concept. e) echoes "freedom to be free". f) wants to "stand on a par" with Manipol. The Manifesto is "hypocritical", for reasons unexplained', (ibid., p. 3.)

EVENTS SURROUNDING "MANIKEBU"

445

mungkin didampingi dengan Manifesto lain, apalagi kalau Manifesto lain itu menundjukkan sikap ragu2 terhadap Revolusi dan memberi kesan berdiri disampingnja, padahal demi suksesnja Revolusi, maka segala usaha kita, djuga dalam lapangan kebudajaan, harus kita djalankan diatas rel Revolusi menurut petundjuk2 Manipol dan bahan Indoktrinasi Iain2nja".47

Two days after the decree, Jassin and others forwarded a letter of apology to the President, pledging obedience to the ban.48 Nevertheless, this did not decrease the ardour of the leftist press, which, feeling itself in possession of the victory laurels, wasted no time in declaring its support for the ban. Harian Rakjat took the decree as a stern warning from the President that any activities not on the rails of the Revolution would immediately be crushed by those with political power.49 Bintang Timur described the ban as proof that Manikebu was a threat to the course of the Revolution in the field of culture.50 Warta Bhakti added its voice to the approval of the ban, insinuating that the Manifesto had been an attempt by banned political parties to keep alive their influence in the field of culture.51 On the previous day, it had included a report of the first Dies Natalis of Bakri Siregar's Akademi Sastra dan Budaja 'Multatuli' ('Multatuli' Academy of Literature and Culture). On this occasion, Njoto, one of the founders of Lekra, and by now a prominent PKI figure, had been invited to deliver a lecture on 'The Concepts of Multatuli 52 and Modern Democratic Literary Movements'. This provided another ideal opportunity for an attack on Manikebu. He

discussed Multatuli as a revolutionary democrat, not a nationalist, yet 47

48 49 50 51 52

" I , President of the Republic of Indonesia, Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, Great Leader of the Revolution, hereby declare that, in the name of the uniformity and straight road of the Revolution, and the complete defence of the Nation, the so-called "Cultural Manifesto" (abbreviated to "Manikebu") is banned. The reasons for the ban are that the Political Manifesto of the Indonesian Republic as a product of the Pantjasila has already become the broad lines of National direction and cannot possibly be accompanied by any other Manifesto, particularly if that other Manifesto shows a hesitant attitude towards the Revolution, and gives the impression of standing aloof from it, whereas in the interests of the success of the Revolution, all our efforts, also in the field of culture must be on the rails of the Revolution in accordance with the guidance of Manipol and other materials of Indoctrination." An English translation of the letter appears in Raff el (1967), p. 263. Editorial, HR, 11-5-64. Editorial, BT, 11-5-64. Editorial, WB, 11-5-64. "Multatuli" is the pseudonym of Douwes Dekker, whose book attacking the colonial government, Max Havelaar (1860), has always been held in high regard in Indonesia.

446

KEITH R. FOULCHER

a rejector of universal humanism, because in speaking of the oppressors and the oppressed, he had denied the equal status of men. If he were still alive, declared Njoto, he would certainly be anti-Mamikebu: "Kita sajangkan Multatuli terlalu tjepat pergi; tapi bersjukurlah kaum manikebuis, karena kalau Multatuli masih hidup, pastilah Manikebu tidak akan berusia lebih dari 24 djatn".53

The political implications of the Manifesto as it was seen by the Left were brought out in an address by Armunanto, Indonesian Ambassador to Czechoslovakia, to Indonesian students in Prague.54 The Manifesto was seen as an attempt to divert from Manipol in the field of culture, which bore in it the dangers inherent to a world-view placing its stress on individualism. The declaration of the Manifesto was in this way a direct and organised attack on Manipol, which consistently denounced individualism as the greatest enemy of socialist awareness and the idea of gotong-rojong. The initial declarations of support for the ban were followed by a call for Jassin's dismissal from his position as lecturer at the University of Indonesia, and a general purging from educational institutions of all counter-revolutionary elements. There was full support for the ban and Jassin's dismissal from the leftist student organisations, Madjelis Mahasiswa Indonesia (Indonesian Students' Council), Gerakan Mahasiswa Nasional Indonesia (Indonesian National Students' Movement) and the Panitia Aksi Mahasiswa Ibukota Mengganjang Manikebu (Djakarta Students' Action Committee to Crush Manikebu). A full programme for the establishment of control in institutes of higher education was proposed by Berita Indonesia: Tugas revolusioner pertama, me-Manipol/Usdekkan semua Perguruan Tinggi. Baik negeri maupun swasta. Dengan djalan indoktrinasi2. Disamping itu diadakan pengawasan chusus terhadap pelaksanaan kuliah2 Manipol/Usdek ditnasing2 Universitas/Perguruan Tinggi. Tugas revolusioner kedua, merentjanakan dan menjelesaikan UU-Perguruan Tinggi. Sebagai dasar atau pegangan dalam membimbing dan mengembangkan Perguruan Tinggi dalam arti jang luas. Membimbing dan mengembangkan dasar dan haluan negara dalam Perguruan Tinggi pada umumnja. Tugas revolusioner ketiga, mulai dari sedikit mengadakan pembersihan dari unsur2 partai terlarang, unsur2 kontra-revolusi, unsur2 musuh (Belanda), unsur2 intrig dan subversi, unsur2 jang memusuhi konsepsi2 Presiden, jang ternjata masih tampak djelas gedjala2nja dalam Universitas2 negeri. Masih ada kuliah2 53

54

" W e regret that Multatuli has passed on prematurely; but the Manikebuis thank God for it, because if Multatuli were still alive, Manikebu would certainly not last any longer than 24 hours". (WB, 10-5-64.) Reported extensively in BT, 12-5-64.

EVENTS SURROUNDING "MANIKEBU"

447

jang diberikan setjara tertulis maupun lisan oleh tokoh2 jang linearecta berlawanan dengan konsepsi2 Bung Karno, sehingga membingungkan dan mengatjaukan mahasiswa2.55

Within a short time, Jassin had been dismissed (or 'retooled'), and a general purge was underway.56 The second edition of Sastra for 1964, which proved to be the second-last edition, appeared with its leading article Mamifes Tidak Mati (The Manifesto is not Dead) completely blacked in. On the surface, the battle was over and the Manifesto and its supporters were crushed. Unofficially, the movement was continued underground. Interestingly enough, since it indicates a basic unity of aim, the split occurring among the study groups which had led to the declaration of the Manifesto was to all intents healed. The two groups now worked together underground as one. There were regular meetings and interchange of views and reports.57 The complete domination of art by a political ideal, which the banning of Manikebu officially brought into reality, can be clearly seen in Aidit's collection of reports presented to the National Conference of Revolutionary Literature and Art, held in Djakarta on 28th August, 1964.5S The supporters of Manikebu were condemned as enemies of the people's struggle: Menurut kaum Manikebuis, se-djelek2 manusia, misalnja Tengku Abdul Rachman dan Lyndon Johnson, masih bersinar 'tjahaja Ilahi' didalam dirinja, masih ada segi2 baiknja. Oleh karena itu orang2 sematjam itu djangan dimusuhi, malahan harus diselamatkan.

55

56

57 58

' T h e first revolutionary duty is to place all institutes of higher education, both state and private, on the lines of Manipol-Usdek. Through indoctrination. In addition special supervision of the implementation of lectures on ManipolUsdek in each University or educational institution must be organised. The second revolutionary duty is to plan and implement laws for the higher institutes. A s a basis or a guide in leading and developing higher institutes in the broad sense. Leading and developing the basis and direction of the state in higher institutes in general. The third revolutionary duty is to organise a purge, in a small way at first, of the elements of banned parties, counter-revolutionaries, enemies (Dutch), intrigue and subversion, elements hostile to the President's concepts, the symptoms of which are still clearly visible in state universities. There are still lectures given in written and oral form by figures who stand in direct opposition to the concepts of Bung Karno, so that they confuse and disturb the students'. (Editorial, Berita Indonesia, 19-5-64.) For information on this period, told from personal experiences, see True Story of an Indonesian Student (no author named), stencilled by the Department of Indonesian Languages and Literatures, Australian National University. See note 35. Aidit, (1964).

448

KEITH R. FOULCHER

Demikianlah tjara mereka mengebiri adjaran Manipol agar Rakjat tidak mengenal dan tidak melawan musuh2nja.59

The artist now had to master the party's policies before he could produce art which would serve the People: . . . politik adalah panglima... untuk mengerti inti aspirasi2 Rakjat pekerdja, sastrawan2 dan seniman2 harus mengetahui, bahkan harus menguasai politik Partai. Sastra dan seni hanja akan bisa mendjadi sendjata jang ampuh ditangan Rakjat, djika sastrawan dan seniman mampu memadukan politik jang tepat dengan ketjakapan artistik.60

Moreover, the writer's creativity was to be limited to an artistic view of the thinking of the masses, expressed in such a way that it could be understood and used by the masses: Kalau kita ambil persoalannja setjara hakekat, sastrawan dan seniman revolusioner sebagai djuru-bitjara massa melewati 'bahasa artistik' hendak menjampaikan suatu konsepsi, suatu expresi pemikiran dalam pembajangan artistik dari massa kepada massa. Kalau apa jang kita sampaikan itu tidak bisa dimengerti oleh kader ataupun massa, tidak ada artinja kreasi itu sebagai sendjata artistik ditangan Rakjat.61

A brochure was published on 8th May, 1965, by those involved in the illegal underground movement, to commemorate the first anniversary of the banning of the Manifesto.02 It expressed a view that their struggle was not dead, and outlined the framework for victory. Although at the time they could hardly have forseen. it, victory was effectively won only a few months later, with the abortive coup of September 1965 and the dissolution of the PKI on 12th March, 1966. Sukarno's letter of 11th March, in which he formally handed over power to General Suharto, signalled the end of an eight-year period of intellectual op50

60

01

'According to the Manikebids, the worst of mankind, for example Tengku Abdul Rachman and Lyndon Johnson, still have within them the shine of the 'divine glow', they still have their good side. For this reason such people must not be fought, but must even be saved. This is how they emasculate the teachings of Manipol so that the People do not recognise and oppose their enemies', {ibid., p. 17.) ' . . . Politics is the commander... to understand the essence of the working People's aspirations, the writer and artist must be informed on, in fact, must have mastered the politics of the Party. Literature and art will only be able to become an invulnerable weapon in the hands of the People, if the writer and artist is able to fuse exact policy with artistic ability', {ibid., p. 53.) 'If we take the problem in its essence, the revolutionary writer and artist as spokesmen of the masses through 'artistic language', wants to convey a concept, an expression of thought reflected artistically from the masses to the masses. If what we convey cannot be understood by the cadres or the masses, the creation has no meaning as an artistic weapon in the hands of the People'. {ibid., p. 52.)

62

Wiratmo Sukito (stencilled), p. 6.

EVENTS SURROUNDING "MANIKEBU"

449

pression,63 and brought into the open once again the supporters and the ideals of Manikebu. VI. Birth of a Generation? Nevertheless, in the ensuing period, the tie which had bound literary and political activities remained to all appearances unbroken. In the activities of the student bodies KAMI and KAPPI calling for the downfall of the Sukarno government, Indonesia saw the awakening of a new generation, collectively termed the Angkatan 66. It was a generation which pledged itself to the promotion of justice and truth, the purging of all corrupt and anti-freedom elements in whatever field they were still apparent. In its original form, the new generation showed itself in the student demonstrations and riots which shook Indonesia in early 1966. It is understandable that the young writers who themselves had been engaged in a battle on a political level for cultural and intellectual freedom should feel an immediate affinity with their student compatriots, and feel themselves the literary 'spokesmen' of the new generation. So it was that in the context of the student uprisings, there appeared publications, specifically a few collections of. poetry,64 honouring the struggle of the students, and expressing their ideals in a literary form, in such a way that they would be immediately understood and appreciated by any who chanced to read them. A cultural standpoint of the new generation was formally declared with a symposium on the spiritual renaissance of the Angkatan 66, held at the University of Indonesia, from the 6th to 9th May, 1966.65 As distinct from the Angkatan 45, the new generation saw themselves as seekers, not only of freedom in the political sense, but freedom as a basic human condition. They are vitally concerned with the sufferings of their fellow man, his right to freedom, and truth, justice, and responsibility. In addition, they declared themselves possessors of a deep 83 64

65

ibid., p. 7. Tirani (Tyranny), by Nur Fadjar (Taufiq Ismail). Benteng (Fortress), by Taufiq Ismail. Mereka Telah Bangkit (They have Arisen), by Bur Rasuanto. Perlawanan (Opposition), by Mansur Samin. Pembebasan (Liberation), Abd. Wahid Situmeang. Kebangkitan (Resurgence), by five students of the Faculty of Arts, University of Indonesia. The following notes on the cultural standpoint are a summary of a report of the symposium in Kesaksian (bulletin of the Indonesian Council of Churches), May, 1966.

450

KEITH R. FOULCHER

religious sensitivity which sees God in concrete form as an individual. Culture, in their view, is directly related to these ideals, because it is not seen as a theoretical matter, but a concrete reality. In fact, culture represents life as it is lived day by day. It is formed by man's reaction to his environment, and means 'change', 'advancement'. The planning of a rice-field is as much a part of culture as the planning of a painting. Culture means man's adapting the world of nature into his own life. In this process man himself is changed, and in becoming aware of the unlimited possibilities of his existence, is moving in the direction of freedom and completion. In this freedom man experiences the presence of God. It is God Who plants in men the longing for truth, justice, and eventual completion. The domination! of culture by politics has to be rejected, because it means a curtailment of freedom as this basic right of man. The first to declare Angkatan 66 a literary generation was H. B. Jassin, with his article published in August 1966.66 Taking the 'poetry of the demonstrators' as its manifestation, he included as its members those writers aged about 6 in 1945, who during the 1950's had published work in various literary periodicals, and who, in 1966 and the years preceding, were interpreting in their work the ideals expressed in the Angkatan 66 symposium. His suggestion in no way received the unanimous approval of other observers. Satyagraha Hoerip07 objected primarily to the use of the term Angkatan 66. He pointed out that the ideals of the Angkatan 66 received their first expression in the Manikebu of 1963, and from this time on were current among creative writers whose ages covered more than the generation Jassin described. However, in 1963, the ideals were expressed not only in poetry, but also in prose and other creative works. For this reason he indicated his preference for the term Angkatan Manifes or at least, Angkatan 63. Aoh K. Hadimadja88 objected to Jassim's omission of regional literature from his compilation. He sees the ideals of the Angkatan 66 revealed in Sundanese literature long before the time of the student uprisings. The most penetrating analysis of Jassin's periodisation has been made by Drs Rachmat Djoko Pradopo.00 Until now, he has been the 66 67 68 69

Jassin, (1966). Satyagraha Hoerip,. (1966). Aoh K. Hadimadja, (1967). Rachmat Djoko Pradopo, (1967).

EVENTS SURROUNDING "MANIKEBU"

451

only commentator to realise that if a literary generation is to' be born of the new spirit, the proof of its existence must be found in the literature itself. That is, the new literature must be strong enough to live in itself. If its existence can only be shown by linking it to the social and political conditions contemporary with its production, then not only does it not exist in its own right, but in this case is denying the essential beliefs on which it purports to be founded. A literature does not evidence a belief in humanity and freedom of the individual by stating these terms in capital letters with the bravado and political involvement of the social realists. Literature which serves humanity in the way which the conceptors of Manikebu envisage does not have to make an open declaration of such beliefs, for once they are absorbed and interpreted by the individual artist, they live in the literature as the very basis of the creative activity, and are recognisable as such. The new generation purports to be one which rejects external control of art, but this being so, we will not recognise it in the poetry of the spokesman for the student uprisings. The concern of most Indonesian writers of this decade (the actual dating to me seems unimportant) has been a broad statement of beliefs rendered necessary (in the eyes of many artists) by the political and social conditions. The literature has largely been a reflection of the struggle for intellectual and cultural freedom, and as such, has not existed in its own right. I fully agree with Pradopo when he says that Angkatan 66 in literature is at present merely a possibility.70 To a certain extent, what we have so far observed represents the ideological basis for a new generation. If in the decades to come these ideals are absorbed and interpreted by individual artists in their work, then, and only then, will we be able to speak of a new generation. In that event, we will look back on the writers who were involved in the political and social developments of the 1960's as their ideological forerunners. Nevertheless, it is important to note that there have been writers this decade who have not felt the need, or not had the opportunity, for political involvement of any kind. Their art has remained removed from politics, and 'free' in the truest sense, i.e. absorbed in the basic universal realities of life. Sydney KEITH R. FOULCHER

70

ibid., p. 168.

452

KEITH R. FOULCHER REFERENCES

Aidit, D. N., Dengan Sastra dan Seni jang Berkepribadian Nasional Mengabdi Buruh, Tani dan Pradjurit (Serving the Worker, Peasant, and the Soldier with Art and Literature of a National Character), Jajasan 'Pembaruan', Djakarta 1964. Aoh K. Hamidjaja, Beberapa Paham Angkatan 45 (Some Concepts of the 45 Generation), Tintamas, Djakarta 1952. idem

Daerah dan Angkatan 66 (Generation of 66 and the Daerah), in Horison, Th. II, No. 2, Febr. 1967, pp. 58-60; 63.

Aveling, Harry G., Indonesian Literary Conflicts, in Dissent, Spring 1967, pp. 25-30. Boejoeng Saleh, Kearah Seni Berisi: Sekitar Soal Tendens (Towards Meaningful Art; Concerning the Problem of Tendency), in Indonesia IV, 6/7, 1953, pp. 337-344. Hindley, Donald, The Communist Party of Indonesia - 1951-1963, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1966. Jassin, H. B., Angkatan 45 (45 Generation), Jajasan Dharma, 1951. idem

Kesusasteraan Indonesia Modern Dalam Kritik dan Esei I (Modern Indonesian Literature in Criticisms and Essays - Vol. I), Gunung Agung, Djakarta, 1954 (latest augmented edition, 1967).

idem

Angkatan 66 - Bangkitnja Satu Generasi (Angkatan 66 - Rise of a Generation) in Horison, Th. I, No. 2, Agustus 1966, pp. 36-41.

idem

Kesusastraan Indonesia Modern Dalam Kritik dan Esei IV, 1967.

Muljanto, D. S., Lahirnja Manifes Kebudajaan (Birth of the Cultural Manifesto), in Horison, Th. II, No. 5, Mei 1967, pp. 158-159. idem and Taufiq Ismail, (Compilers) Dokumen-Dokumen Tentang "Manifes Kebudajaan" (Documents Concerning the Cultural Manifesto), Djakarta, 25th February 1968 (typewritten). Rachmat Djoko Pradopo, Penggolongan Angkatan dan Angkatan 66 Dalam Sastra (The Classification of Generations and the Generation of 66 in Literature), in Horison, Th. II, No. 6, Djuni 1967, pp. 165-168. Raffel, Burton, The Development of Modern Indonesian Poetry, State University of New York Press, 1967. Satyagraha Hoerip, Angkatan 66 Dalam Kesusastraan Kita (The Generation of 66 in Our Literature), in Horison, Th. I, No. 6, Des. 1966, pp. 188-189. Wiratmo Sukito, The Struggle for Intellectual Freedom in Indonesia, 1957-1965 (A.N.U.) (stencilled).

453

EVENTS SURROUNDING MANIKEBU

Appendix "MANIFES — KEBUDAJAAN" —

para seniman dan tjendekiawan Indonesia dengan ini mengumumkan sebuah MANIFES KEBUDAJAAN, jang menjatakan pendirian, tjita-tjita dan politik kebudajaan Nasional kami. — Bagi kami kebudajaan adalah perdjoangan untuk menjempurnakan manusia. Kami tidak mengutamakan salah satu sektor kebudajaan diatas sektor kebudajaan jang lain. Setiap sektor berdjoang bersamasama untuk tudjuan kebudajaan itu sesuai dengan kodratnja. — Dalam melaksanakan kebudajaan Nasional kami berusaha mentjipta dengan kesungguhan jang sedjudjur-djudjurnja sebagai perdjoangan untuk mempertahankan dan mengembangkan martabat diri kami sebagai bangsa INDONESIA ditengah-tengah masjarakat bangsa-bangsa. — PANTJASILA adalah falsafah kebudajaan kami. KAMI,

Djakarta, 17 Agustus, 1963. H. B. Jassin Trisno Sumardjo Wiratmo Soekito Zaini Bokor Hutasahut Goenawan Mohamad

A. Bastari Asnin Bur Rasuanto Soe Hok Djin D. S. Moeljanto Ras Siregar Hartojo Andangdjaja

Sjahwil Djufri Tanisan Binsar Sitompul Taufiq Ismail Gerson Poyk

PENDJELASAN MANIFES KEBUDAJAAN I. Pantjasila Sebagai Falasafah Kebudajaan DALAM PENGERTIAN KAMI JANG BERSUMBER DALAM HIKMAH PANTJASILA,

kebudajaan bukanlah kondisi objektif, apalagi hasil sebagai barang mati. Dalam pengertian kami kebudajaan adalah perdjoangan manusia sebagai totalitas dalam menjempurnakan kondisi2 hidupnja. Kebudajaan Nasional bukanlah semata-mata ditandai oleh "watak nasional" melainkan merupakan perdjoangan nasional dari suatu bangsa sebagai totalitas dalam' menjempurnakan kondisi2 hidup nasionalnja. Predikat kebudajaan adalah perdjoangan dengan membawa konsekwensi2 jang mutlak dari sektor2nja. Sepenuhnja pengertian kami tentang kebudajaan seirama dengan Pantjasila karena Pantjasila adalah sumbernja, sebagaimana Bung Karno mengatakan: "Maka dari itu djikalau bangsa Indonesia ingin supaja Pantjasila jang saja usulkan itu mendjadi suatu realiteit, jakni djika kami ingin hidup mendjadi satu bangsa, satu nationaliteit jang merdeka, jang penuh dengan perikemanusiaan, ingin hidup diatas dasar permusjawaratan, ingin hidup sempurna dengan sociale rechtvaardigheid, ingin hidup sedjahtera dan aman, dengan ke-Tuhan-an jang luas

454

KEITH R. FOULCHER

dan sempurna, djanganlah lupa akan sjarat untuk menjelenggarakannja, ialah perdjoangan, perdjoangan dan sekali lagi perdjoangan". (Lih. Bagian III: Literatur Pantjasila). Maka pengertian Kebudajaan Nasional adalah perdjoangan untuk memperkembangkan dan mempertahankan martabat kami sebagai bangsa Indonesia ditengah-tengah masjarakat bangsa2. Djadi Kepribadian Nasional jang merupakan implikasi dari Kebudajaan Nasional kita adalah apa jang oleh Presiden Soekarno dirumuskan sebagai "Freedom to be Free", sehingga kebudajaan Nasional kita digerakkan oleh suatu Kepribadian Nasional jang membebaskan-diri dari penguasaan (itjampurtangan) asing, tetapi bukan untuk mengasingkan diri dari masjarakat bangsaZ, melainkan djustru untuk menjatukan diri dengan masjarakat bangsa2 itu setjara bebas dan dinamik sebagai persjaratan2 jang tidak dapat ditawar bagi perkembangan jang pesat dari Kepribadian dan Kebudajaan Nasional kita jang pandangan-dunianja bersumber pada Pantjasila. Kami ingin membuktikan bahwa sebagai falsafah demokrasi Pantjasila menolak sembojan "The End justifies the Means" (Tudjuan menghalalkan tjara), sehingga sebagai falsafah demokrasi Pantjasila adalah humanisme kulturil jang pengedjawatannja harus kami perdjoangkan dalam setiap sektor kehidupan manusia. Sembojan a-kulturil "The End justifies the Means" tersebut jang tidak mengakui perbedaan antara tudjuan dengan tjara, mengakibatkan orang menudju tudjuan dengan menjisihkan pentingnja tjara mentjapai tudjuan itu. Demikianlah umpamanja dibidang pentjiptaan karja2 kesenian dimana orang lebih mementingkan aspek propagandanja daripada aspek keseniannja, adalah tjontoh pelaksanaan dari sembojan "The End justifies the Means" sebagai suatu sembojan jang bertentangan dengan Pantjasila. "The End justifies the Means" — apabila orang mengemukakan apa jang bukan kesusastraan sebagai kesusastraan, apa jang bukan kesenian sebagai kesenian, apa jang bukan ilmu-pengetahuan sebagai ilmu-pengetahuan dsb. Perkosaan seperti itu bukanlah tjara insanijah, melainkan tjara alamiah. Perkosaan adalah mentah sedang pentjiptaan karja mengalahkan kementahan dengan tjara manusia untuk mentjiptakan dunia jang damai. Kesenian sebagai pentjiptaan karja manusia akan abadi hanja apabila bukan sadja tudjuannja adalah kemanusiaan, tetapi djuga tjaranja adalah kemanusiaan, dan itulah implikasi jang paling hakiki dari Pantjasila sebagai falsafah demokrasi jang kami perdjoangkan setjara prinsipiil. Adapun bahaja bagi kebudajaan jang paling mengantjam datangnja dari wilajahnja sendiri, tetapi jang terang ialah bahwa sumber pokok dari bahaja tersebut terletak dalam ketjenderunganZ fetisj sebagai ketjenderungan non-kreatif. Adapun ketjenderungan tersebut manifestasinja tidak hanja dalam pendewaan, melainkan terdapat djuga dalam persetanan sebagai umpamanja kami kenal dalam wilajah kesenian. Sebagaimana fetisj'2 itu bermatjam-matjam, demikian pulalah kesenian fetisj. Sebagaimana terdapat fetisjisme dari djiwa-pelindung disamping

EVENTS SURROUNDING "MANIKEBU"

455

fetisjisme dari djiwa-pendendam, demikianlah terdapat kesenian jang mengabdi kepada djiwa-pelindung dengan memberikan sandjungan2 setjara berlebih-lebihan, disamping kesenian jang mengabdi kepada djiwa-pendendam dengan memberikan fitnahan2 setjara berlebih-lebihan pula. Tidak djarang terdjadi bahwa kedua matjam kesenian fetisj itu mempunjai pretensi "kesenian revolusioner", tetapi dalam halnja demikian maka kesenian fetisj itu kita namakan kesenian dengan pengabdian palsu. Kesenian kreatif, berlawanan dengan kesenian fetisj, tidak mentjari sumbernja dalam fetisj 2 melainkan dalam dirinja sendiri, sehingga dengan ini kami menolak fetisjisme dalam segala bentuk dan manifestasinja. Kesenian kreatif jang kami perdjoangkan dengan menjokong Revolusi tidaklah bersumber dalam fetisjisme dari djiwa-pelindung, sebaliknja dengan mengkritik penjelewengan2 dari Revolusi tidaklah pula bersumber dalam fetisjisme dari djiwa-pendendam. Kami tidak memperdewakan Revolusi karena kami tidak mempunjai pengabdian palsu, sebaliknja kamipun tidak mempersetankan Revolusi karena kami tidak pula mempunjai pengabdian palsu. Tetapi kami adalah revolusioner! Kami tidak lebih daripada manusia lainnja, direntjanakan namun merentjanakan, ditjiptakan namun mentjiptakan. Itu sadja dan tidak mempunjai pretensi apa2. Kamipun tidak akan merasa takut kepada kegagalan2 kami sendiri, karena kegagalan2 itu bukanlah achir perdjoangan hidup kami. II. Kepribadian dan Kebudajaan Nasional DAIAM DUNIA KESENIAN INDONESIA DIKENAL ISTILAH "HUMANISME UNIVERSIL". Tafsiran kami mengenai istilah itu adalah sebagai berikut:

Apabila dengan "humanisme universil" dimaksudkan pengaburan kontradiksi antagonis, kontradiksi antara kawan dengan lawan, maka kamipun akan menolak "humanisme universil" itu. Misalnja sebagaimana jang dilakukan oleh Nica dahulu, dimana diulurkan kerdjasama kebudajaan disatu fihak, tetapi dilakukan aksi militer dilain fihak. Sebaliknja kami menerima "humanisme universil" apabila di-maksudkan bahwa kebudajaan dan kesenian itu bukanlah semata-mata nasional, tetapi djuga menghajati nilai2 universil, bukan semata-mata temporal, tetapi djuga menghajati nilai2 eternal. Apabila dengan kebudajaan universil itu jang dimaksudkan bukan kondisi objektif, melainkan perdjoangan manusia sebagai totalitas dalam usahanja mengachiri pertentangan antara manusia dan kemanusiaan, maka kami menjetudjui adjakan untuk meneruskan kebudajaan universil itu, karena dengan demikian kebudajaan universil itu merupakan "kekuatan jang menggerakkan sedjarah", dan itu sepenuhnja sama dengan fikiran kami bahwa kebudajaan universil itu adalah perdjoangan dari budi-nurani universil dalam memerdekakan setiap manusia dari rantai2 belenggunja, perdjoangan jang memperdjoangkan tuntutan2 Rakjat Indonesia, karena Rakjat dimana-mana dibawah kolong langit ini tidak mau ditindas oleh bangsa2 lain, tidak mau dieksploitir oleh

456

KEITH R. FOULCHER

golongan2 apapun, meskipun golongan itu adalah bangsanja sendiri; mereka menuntut kebebasan dari kemiskinan dan kebebasan dari rasatakut, baik jang karena antjaman didalam-negeri maupun jang karena antjaman dari luar-negeri; mereka menuntut kebebasan untuk menggerakkan setjara konstruktif aktivitas sosialnja, untuk mempertinggi kebahagiaan individu dan kebahagiaan masjarakat; mereka menuntut kebebasan untuk mengeluarkan pendapat, jaitu menuntut hak2 jang lazimnja dinamakan demokrasi. (Lihat Bagian III: Literatur Pantjasila). Djadi "humanisme universil" djanganlah menjebabkan orang bersikap "indifferent" (atjuh tak atjuh) terhadap semua aliran (politik), sehingga dengan "humanisme universil" orang harus tolerant terhadap imperialisme dan kolonialisme. Kami tetap menarik garis pemisah setjara tegas antara musuh2 dan sekutu2 Revolusi, antara musuh2 dan sekutu2 kebudajaan,-tetapi ini tidak berarti bahwa kami mempunjai sikap sektaris dan chauvinis, karena sikap jang demikian itu adalah djustru mengaburkan garis pemisah tersebut. Musuh kami bukanlah manusia, karena kami adalah anak manusia. Musuh kami adalah unsur2 jang membelenggu manusia, dan karenanja kami ingin membebaskan manusia itu dari rantai2 belenggunja. Dalam perlawanan kami terhadap musuh2 kami itu kami tetap berpegang teguh pada pendirian dan pengertian bahwa sedjahat-djahatnja manusia namun ia masih tetap memantjarkan sinar-tjahaja Illahi, sehingga konsekwensi kami ialah bahwa kami harus menjelamatkan sinartjahaja Illahi tersebut. Maka kepertjajaan jang kami kumandangkan ialah bahwa manusia adalah machluk jang baik, dan karena itulah maka kami bertjita2 membangunkan suatu masjarakat jang kuat tjenderung kearah masjarakat manusia jang baik itu, sesuai dengan garis2 Sosialisme Indonesia. Dengan begitu teranglah sudah posisi kami terhadap masaalah "humanisme universil". Kami menampilkan aspirasi2 nasional, jaitu pengarahan2 kepada pembedaan diri ditengah-tengah masjarakat bangsa2 bagi merealisasi kehormatan, martabat (dignitas), prestige dan pengaruh, tetapi kami ingin mendjaga agar supaja pengarahan2 tersebut tidak menudju kearah kesombongan nasional dan chauvinisme dalam segala bentuk dan manifestasinja. Adapun implikasi dari aspirasi2 nasional ini ialah bahwa bangsa Indonesia sebagai suatu bangsa mempunjai kebebasan untuk mengembangkan kepribadiannja, artinja bangsa dapat terus-menerus menjesuaikan diri dengan perkembangan disekitarnja, tetapi tjaranja adalah unik dan dinamik. Untuk dapat mempunjai sifat dinamik inilah maka bangsa Indonesia sebagai bangsa harus mempunjai kesenian sebagai sektor kehidupan kebudajaan, jaitu kesenian jang sepenuhnja merupakan pantjaran kebebasan, kesungguh-sungguhan jang sedjudjur-djudjurnja. in. Politisi dan Estetisi Dalam dunia kesenian Indonesia djuga dikenal istilah "realisme sosialis". Menurut sedjarahnja, penafsiran tentang realisme sosialis itu ada dua matjam:

EVENTS SURROUNDING "MANIKEBU"

457

Jang pertama: Realisme Sosialis langsung merupakan kelandjutan dari konsepsi kulturil Josef Stalin. Dalam tahun2 30-an dengan berkembangnja fetisjisme moderen dengan Stalin sebagai suatu fetisj, barang pudjaan jang seakan-akan mengandung suatu kekuatan gaib, maka kebudajaan Rusia terantjam dengan amat mengerikan. Dengan Stalin maka metode kritik seni adalah deduktif, artinja konsepsinja telah ditetapkan lebih dahulu untuk "menertibkan" kehidupan kesenian dan kebudajaan. Tjiri pokok pada kesenian jang telah "ditertibkan" itu ialah adanja konsepsi jang sama dan sektaristis mengenai kritik seni. Itulah sebabnja maka djiwa objektif jang berpangkal pada budi-nurani universil tidak selaras dengan realisme sosialis, sehingga kami menolak realisme sosialis dalam, pengertian itu, dimana dasarnja ialab faham politik diatas estetik. Jang kedua: Realisme sosialis menurut kesimpulan kami dari djalan fikiran Maxim Gorki, jang dipandang sebagai otak dari realisme-sosialis itu, jakni bahwa sedjarah jang sesungguhnja dari rakjat pekerdja tak dapat dipeladjari tanpa suatu pengetahuan tentang dongengan kerakjatan jang setjara terus-menerus dan pasti mentjiptakan karja2 sastra jang bermutu tinggi seperti Faust, Petualangan Baron Munchaussen, Gargantua dan Pentragruel, Thyl Eulenspiegelnja Coster, dan Prometheus Disiksa karja Shelly, karena dongengan kerakjatan kuna purbakala itu menjertai sedjarah dengan tak lapuk-lapuknja dan dengan tjaranja jang chas. Disitu sebenarnja Gorki telah menggariskan politik sastra jang berbeda dengan realisme sosialis ala Stalin, karena pada hakikatnja Gorki telah menempuh politik sastra universil. Sesungguhnja politik sastranja itu bersumber dalam kebudajaan tidak sebagai suatu sektor politik, melainkan sebagai induknja kehidupan politik jang searah dengan garis Manifes ini. Berdasarkan fenomena2 sedjarah maka seorang ahli sedjarah mengatakan bahwa kebudajaan dari suatu periode adalah senantiasa kebudajaan dari kelas jang berkuasa. Akan tetapi sedjarah djuga mengadjarkan bahwa djustru karena tidak termasuk dalam kelas jang berkuasa maka orang berhasil membentuk kekuatan baru. Dan politik, sebagai kekuatan baru jang terbentuk ditengah-tengah penindasan kekuatan lama, merupakan faktor positif jang menentukan perkembangan kebudajaan dan kesenian. Sebagaimana terdjadi di Perantjis, sedjarah mengadjarkan bahwa kekuatan jang dibentuk oleh burdjuasi revolusioner adalah kekuatan jang menentukan dalam melawan penindasan monarki mutlak. Tetapi sajang, bahwa alan kreatifiteit jang menjala-njala bersama-sama kekuatan baru itu mendjadi padam setelah kekuatan bordjuasi revolusioner itu mendjadi sempurna. Bahkan kekuatan politik jang sempurna itu merintangi kebudajaan dan kesenian. Penindasan baru jang dilakukan oleh kelas baru itu dibidang kesenian dan kesusastraan chususnja telah menjebabkan timbulnja suatu kekuatan baru dengan lahirnja Angkatan 1830 jang mula2 dipelopori oleh Victor Hugo dan kemudian dilandjutkan oleh Theophile Gautier.

458

KEITH R. FOULCHER

Maka dapatlah kami mengambil kesimpulan bahwa faham politik diatas estetik jang merumuskan bahwa politik adalah primair dan estetik adalah sekondair, dilihat dari sudut kebudajaan dan kesenian adalah suatu Utopia. Sebab faham itu djikalau dilaksanakan dengan djudjur hanja akan memupuk dan menghasilkan perasaan2 keketjewaan, djikalau dilaksanakan dengan tidak djudjur akan dapat merupakan tipu-muslihat kaum politisi jang ambisius. Sebagai realis kami tidak mungkin menerima setiap bentuk Utopia karena kami menjadari bahwa dunia ini bukan sorga. Karena berfikir setjara dialektik maka kami mengakui kenjataan2 bahwa lingkungan sosial kami senantiasa mengandung masalah2, dan setiap tantangan jang kami djawab akan menimbulkan tantangan baru. Oleh karena itu kami tidak pernah berfikir tentang suatu djaman, dimana tak ada masalah lagi, karena setiap fikiran jang demikian itu adalah terlalu "idealis" dan karenanja tidak ilmiah. Pekerdjaan seorang seniman senantiasa harus dilakukan ditengah-tengah dunia jang penuh dengan masalah2, analog dengan pekerdjaan seorang dokter jang senantiasa harus dilakukan ditengah-tengah dunia jang penuh dengan penjakit2. Apabila dunia ini sudah sempurna tidak perlu lagi adanja seniman. Oleh karena itu faham jang merumuskan bahwa politik adalah primair dan estetik adalah sekondair tidak memahami realisme karena apabila kekuatan politik telah mendjadi sempurna maka tidak perlu lagi kesusastraan dan kesenian, tidak perlu lagi estetika. Seandainja pada suatu ketika kekuatan politik jang dibentuk itu telah mendjadi sempurna, maka masalah apakah jang akan dibahas oleh kesenian revolusioner jang sebagai estetik murni baru mulai sesudah itu? Tidak lebih dan tidak kurang daripada masalah jang dibahas oleh kaum esteet, jaitu mereka jang mempunjai faham estetik diatas politik, sehingga bersifat bordjuis. Tidaklah berlebih-lebihan kiranja apabila kami mengambil kesimpulan bahwa faham politik diatas estetik itu tidak memberikan tempat kepada estetik sebelum pembentukan kekuatan politik mendjadi sempurna, sehingga selama djangka waktu pembentukan kekuatan politik itu tidak ada persoalan tentang estetik, sedangkan faham estetik diatas politik hanja dapat dilaksanakan apabila mendapat sandaran kekuatan politik jang sempurna pula. Maka kami dapat menarik kesimpulan selandjutnja, bahwa kedua faham kesenian tersebut mengandung kontradiksi2. Berbeda dengan itu adalah faham kami, jaitu faham jang tidak mengorbankan politik bagi estetik, tetapi sebaliknja, tidak pula mengorbankan estetik bagi politik, karena pengorbanan tersebut tidak menundjukkan adanja dinamika, dan didalam hal tidak adanja dinamika maka fungsi estetik murni adalah suatu imperialisme estetika. Dalam kondisi ini maka transformasi revolusioner dari negara kapitalis kearah negara sosialis tidak akan mengubah pula setjara revolusioner kondisi2 kulturilnja. Berlawanan dengan itu kami menghendaki perobahan kondisi2 kulturil itu setjara revolusioner menudju kearah masjarakat sosialis Pantjasila. Menurut kejakinan kami maka masjarakat sosialis Pantjasila jang

EVENTS SURROUNDING

MANIKEBU

459

kami perdjoangkan setjara kulturil-revolusioner itu adalah suata keharusan sedjarah Jang tidak dapat dihindarkan oleh siapapun, tetapi terutama oleh kami sendiri. Demikianlah PENDJELASAN MANIFES ini diumumkan: — Djakarta, 17 Agustus, 1963. H. B. Jassin Trisno Sumardjo Wiratmo Soekito Zaini Bokor Hutasahut Gaenawan Mohamad

A. Bastari Asnin Bur Rasuanto Soe Hok Djin D. S. Moeljanto Ras Siregar Hartojo Andangdjaja

Sjahwil Djufri Tanissan Binsar Sitcmipul Taufiq Ismail Gerson Poyk

LITERATUR PANTJASILA terdiri dari: 1. BUNG KARNO: 2. BUNG KARNO: 3. DR. H. ROESLAN ABDULGANI 4. WIRATMO SOEKITO: 5. HARIAN SEMESTA:

"Nasionalisme, Islamisme dan Marxisme". "Pidato Lahirnja Pantjasila". : "Manipol-Usdek, Pidato Radio". "Peranan Institusi2 dalam memperkembangkan Sosialisme Kreatif". "Realitas kelas dan persoalan sosial".

460

KEITH R. FOULCHER

Translation* CULTURAL MANIFESTO We, the artists and intellectuals of Indonesia, herewith proclaim a Cultural Manifesto, which states our standpoint, ideals, and policy of a National culture. For us culture is the struggle to perfect mankind. We do not emphasise one cultural sector more than another. Each sector strives together with the others, moving towards the goal of culture in accordance with its individual character. In putting into practice a National culture we endeavour to create with the utmost sincerity, as the struggle to maintain and develop our own status as the Indonesian nation among the community of nations. Pantjasila is our cultural philosophy. Djakarta, 17 August, 1963. H. B. Jassin Trisno Sumardjo Wiratmo Sukito Zaini Bokor Hutasahut Goenawam Mohamad

A. Bastari Asnin SjahwU Bur Rasnanto Djufri Tanissan Soe Hok Djin Binsar Sitompul D. S. Moeljanto Taufiq Ismail Ras Siregar Gerson Poyk Hartono Andangdjaja

EXPLANATION OF THE CULTURAL MANIFESTO I. Pantjasila as a Cultural Philosophy On our interpretation, which has its source in the wisdom of Pantjasila, culture is not an objective condition, still less a product as a static thing. On our interpretation culture is the struggle of mankind as a totality to perfect the conditions of their lives. A National culture is not solely characterised by a "national identity" but rather it represents the national struggle of a nation as a totality to perfect the national con* The difficulties associated with the comprehension and translation of the actual text of the Manifes have been numerous. The particular copy of the text here quoted was received in Kuala Lumpur, 1967, by M. Balfas, from Taufiq Ismail, one of the signatories to the document. The translation attempts to clarify to some extent the complicated syntax and terminology employed by the formulators, and secondly, some typographical errors found, or presumed, in this particular text. Both aspects may be further corrected by the formulators themselves, or by one familiar with their original intention. For the purposes of this translation, I have preferred to keep as close as possible to the text in hand. The reader may be referred for another translation to H. Luethy, Indonesia in Travail (Congress for Cultural Freedom, New Delhi, 1966). This is a fairly elaborate English paraphrase, which expands and clarifies the sense of many passages, rather than an actual translation.

EVENTS SURROUNDING "MANIKEBU"

461

ditions of life. The attribute of culture is struggle, bringing full consequences from all its sectors. Our interpretation of culture is exactly in line with Pantjasila, because Pantjasila is its source, and as Bung Karno says: "Therefore, if the Indonesian people desire Pantjasila which I have proposed to become a reality, that is, if we wish to live as one nation, a free nationality, full of humanitarianism, wish to live on the basis of consultation, wish for a perfect life with social justice, wish for a prosperous and peaceful life, with a belief in God which is extensive and complete, do not forget that the condition for its execution is struggle, struggle, and once again struggle." (See Part III: Literature of the Pantjasila.) So our understanding of National Culture is the struggle to develop and maintain our status as the Indonesian nation among the community of nations. Therefore, the National Identity, which is implicit in our National Culture, is what President Sukarno formulated as "Freedom to be Free", so that our National Culture is motivated by a National Identity which liberates itself from foreign domination (interference), not in order to isolate itself from the community of nations, but rather, in fact, to join with those nations in a free and dynamic way — the indisputable conditions for the rapid development of our National Identity and Culture with its world view based on Pantjasila. We would like to prove that as a democratic philosophy, Pantjasila rejects the slogan "The End Justifies the Means", so that as a democratc philosophy, Pantjasila is cultural humanism, the implementation of which we must strive for in every sector of human life. This a-cultural slogan "The End Justifies the Means", which does not acknowledge the difference between end and means, results in people striving for the end while ignoring the importance of the means of achieving the end. Thus, when in the field of creating works of art, the propaganda aspect is emphasised above the artistic aspect, we have an example of the implementation of the slogan "The End Justifies the Means", a slogan which conflicts with Pantjasila. "The End Justifies the Means" — when people present that which is not literature as literature, that which is not art as art, that which is not science as science, and so on. Such a violation is not in accord with human conduct, but rather in accord with the law of the jungle. Violation is a crude state, whereas creative work overcomes crudity in a humanistic way in order to create a peaceful world. Art, as human creativity, will be eternal only when, not only is its aim humanism, but also its means are humanistic. That is the most essential implication of Pantjasila as a democratic philosophy, for which we strive as a basic principle. The danger which poses the greatest threat to our culture comes from within itself, but it is clear that the main source of that danger lies in the tendencies towards fetishism as a non-creative trend. That tendency manifest itself not only in deification but also in diabolisation, as, for example, we are familiar with in the field of art. Just as those fetishes are of varying kinds, so too is fetish art. Just as there is found the fetishism of the defending mentality besides the fetishism of the

462

KEITH R. FOULCHER

maligning mentality, so there is found art which serves the former by giving exaggerated flattery, as well as art which serves the latter by presenting an exaggerated calumny. It often happens that both these types of fetish art have pretensions of being "revolutionary art", but in such cases we call that fetish art 'art with false loyalty'. Creative art, contrary to fetish art, does not seek its source in fetishes, but rather within itself. So with this we reject fetishism in all its forms and manifestations. Creative art, for which we strive in upholding the Revolution, does not have its source in the fetish of the defending mentality; on the other hand neither does the criticism of deviations from the Revolution stem from the maligning mentality. We do not deify the Revolution, because we have no false loyalty; on the other hand, we do not diabolise the Revolution, for the same reason. But we certainly are revolutionary! We are no better than other men, planned yet planning, created yet creating. That is all, and we have no pretensions. Nor are we afraid of our own failures, because those failures are not the end of our life struggle. II. National Identity and Culture

In the world of Indonesian art, the term "Universal Humanism" is well known. Our interpretation of that term is as follows: If by "universal humanism" is meant the obscuring of antagonistic contradictions, contradictions between friend and enemy, then we will reject that "universal humanism". For example, the actions of the former Netherlands Indies Civil Administrationi, where on the one hand cultural co-operation was proposed, but on the other hand military actions were carried out. On the other hand we accept "universal humanism", if it means that culture and art are not merely national but also alive with universal values, not just temporal, but also alive with eternal values. If universal culture is understood not as an objective condition, but rather as the struggle of mankind as a totality in its efforts to bring to an end the conflict between man and humanity, then we approve of the invitation to continue universal culture, because in this way, universal culture constitutes "a force which motivates history". That is fully in accord with our thinking that universal culture is the striving of the universal conscience to free every man from his shackles; the strife which fights for the demands of the Indonesian people, because people everywhere in the world neither want to be oppressed by other nations, nor exploited by any groups at all, even though these groups may be of their own nation. They demand freedom from poverty and fear, whether it comes from a threat within their country or from outside. They demand freedom to motivate their social activity in a constructive way, to raise the happiness of the individual and of society; they demand freedom to express opinions, that is to say, they demand the rights usually called democracy. (See Part III: Literature of the Pantjasila). Therefore "universal humanism" must not make people indifferent

EVENTS SURROUNDING "MANIKEBu"

463

to all (political) trends, to the extent that with "universal humanism" people must be tolerant about imperialism and colonialism. We still draw a clear line between enemies and allies of the Revolution, between enemies and allies of Culture, but this does not mean that we have a sectarian and chauvinistic attitude, because such a stand would actually blur the line of distinction. Our enemy is not mankind, because we are men. Our enemy is the elements which shackle man, and that is the reason we desire to free man from his chains. In our opposition to our enemies we always adhere to the standpoint and concept that however wicked a man is, he still radiates the glow of the divine, and consequently, we must rescue that divine light. The belief we procaim is that men are good creatures, and so our ideal is to build a society heavily disposed towards humanity (which is good), along the lines of Indonesian Socialism. This makes our position clear with regard to the matter of "universal humanism". We advance national aspirations, that is, directives towards self-identification among the community of nations — for the realisation of respect, dignity, prestige and influence, — but we would guard against these directives' leading to national arrogance and chauvinism in all its forms and manifestations. The implication of these national aspirations is that the Indonesian people, as a nation, have freedom to develop their identity; that is, the Indonesian people can constantly adapt themselves to the development around them, but in a unique and dynamic way. In order to be able to possess this dynamic quality, Indonesians as a nation must have art as a sector of cultural life; that is to say, art which fully represents the product of freedom, of utmost sincerity. III. Politics and Aesthetics In the world of Indonesian art, the term "socialist realism" is also well-known. According to its history, there are two interpretations of socialist realism. First: Socialist realism as a direct continuation of Joseph Stalin's cultural concept. In the thirties, with the development of modern fetishism, with Stalin as a fetish, an object of worship apparently incorporating a mystic power, Russian culture was subjected to a terrifying threat. Under Stalin, the method of artistic criticism was deductive, that is, its conception was predetermined to "control" cultural and artistic life. The principal characteristic of "controlled" art was the existence of an identical and sectarian concept concerning artistic criticism. That is why the objective spirit which is based on a universal conscience is not in harmony with socialist realism. So we reject socialist realism in that sense, where its basis is the concept of politics above aesthetics. Second: Socialist realism as we derive it from the thoughts of Maxim Gorki, who was regarded as the intelligence behind socialist realism,

464

KEITH R. FOULCHER

that is, that the true history of the working people could not be studied without a knowledge of their folklore, which continuously and surely brings. into being literary works of high quality, such as Faust, The Wanderings of Baron von Munchhaussen, Gargantua and Pantagruel, Coster's Thyl Eulenspiegel, and Shelley's Prometheus Tortured, because the ancient folklore goes hand in' hand with history without becoming obsolete and in a very special way. Actually Gorki there outlined a literary policy (approach to literature) in contrast to socialist realism a la Stalin, because essentially Gorki had taken a universal literary policy. In truth, his literary policy has its roots in culture, not as a political sector, but as the mainspring of political life, which is in accordance with the line of this manifesto. Based on historical phenomena, a historian states that the culture of one period is always the culture of the ruling class. Nevertheless, history also teaches that precisely because of exclusion from the ruling class, people succeed in forming a new force. And politics, as a new power created in the midst of the oppression of the old power, constitutes a positive factor determining the development of culture and art. As happened in France, history teaches that the force which was created by the revolutionary bourgeoisie, was the determining force in opposing the oppression of the absolute monarchy. Unfortunately, this creative elan which flared up with that new power, was extinguished after the power of the revolutionary bourgeoisie became complete. In fact, the complete political domination restricted culture and art. New oppression which was perpetrated by the new class in the field of art and literature in particular, had caused the emergence of a new power with the birth of the 1830 Generation, which was originally pioneered by Victor Hugo and then continued by Theophile Gautier. So we can come to the conclusion that the concept of politics above aesthetics, which postulates that politics is primary and aesthetics secondary, seen from the angle of culture and art is a Utopia. Because if that concept is carried out honestly, it will only foster and produce feelings of dissatisfaction, and if not carried out honestly will represent the guile of ambitious politicians. As realists we cannot possibly accept any form of Utopia, because we are aware that this world is no paradise. Because, thinking dialectically, we acknowledge the fact that our social circles always possess problems, and every challenge we answer will give rise to a new challenge. That is why we never think about a time when there will be no more problems, because every such thought is too "idealistic" and therefore unscientific. The work of an artist must always be carried out in a world full of problems, parallel to the work of a doctor, which must always be done in a world full of diseases. When this world becomes perfect there will no longer be a need for artists. That is why a concept which formulates that politics is primary and aesthetics secondary does not understand realism (reality), because when a political power has become supreme, literature and art are no longer necessary,

EVENTS SURROUNDING "MANIKEBU"

465

nor is aesthetics. Supposing at some time the political power formed has become complete: then, what problems will be examined by revolutionary art, which only after that begins to deal purely with aesthetics ? Not more and not less than the matters which are discussed by the aesthetes, that is, those who hold the concept of aesthetics above politics, therefore displaying a bourgeouis quality. It seems not exaggerated if we draw the conclusion that the concept of politics above aesthetics does not give a place to aesthetics before the formation of the political power becomes complete, so that during the period of time of the formation of that political power, there are no problems touching aesthetics, while on the other hand, the concept of aesthetics being superior to politics can only be put into practice when it also has the support of a complete political power. We can therefore conclude further that both those afore-mentioned concepts of art contain contradictions. Differing from them is our concept, namely, a concept which does not sacrifice politics for aesthetics, but on the other hand, also does not sacrifice aesthetics for politics, because such sacrifice does not indicate the existence of dynamism, and in the case of the absence of dynamism, a pure aesthetic function is an aesthetic imperialism. In this condition, the revolutionary transformation of a capitalist country into a socialist country will also not revolutionise its cultural conditions. In opposition to that we desire a revolution of cultural conditions in a revolutionary manner, striving for the socialist society of Pantjasila. We are convinced that the socialist society of the Pantjasila for which we are fighting in a revolutionary cultural way, is a historical necessity, which cannot be prevented by any one at all, least of all by ourselves. Thus the explanation of this Manifesto is published. Djakarta, 17 August, 1963. H. B. Jassin Trisno Sumardjo Wiratmo Sukito Zaini Bokor Hutasahut Goenawan Mohamad

A. Bastari Asnin Bur Rasuanto Soe Hok Djin D. S. Moeljanto Ras Siregar Hartono Andangdjaja

Sjahwil Djufri Tanissan Binsar Sitompul Taufiq Ismail Gerson Poyk

PANTJASILA LITERATURE consists of: 1. 2. 3. 4.

BUNG KARNO: BUNG KARNO: DR. H. ROESLAN ABDULGANI WIRATMO SOEKITO:

5. HARIAN SEMESTA:

"Nasionalisme, Islamisme dan Marxisme". "Pidato Lahirnja Pantjasila". "Manipol-Usdek, Pidato Radio". "Peranan Institusi2 dalam memperkembangkan Sosialisme Kreatif". "Realitas kelas dan persoalan sosial".