TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Insight: Soft approach needed in 1965 reconciliation efforts
Nani Nurrachman Sutojo - AntaraPsychologist Nani Nurrachman Sutojo lost her father, Gen
Change Size
Nani Nurrachman Sutojo - Antara
Psychologist Nani Nurrachman Sutojo lost her father, Gen. Sutojo Siswomiharjo, during the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI)'s alleged coup attempt on Oct.1, 1965. The lecturer at Atmajaya University says she has suffered from trauma and depression for decades, seeking refuge in psychology and becoming an advocate for reconciliation efforts. She is the founder of the Forum Silahturahmi Anak Bangsa (Forum for National Bonding), which comprises descendants of figures from conflicting sides in the 1965 violence and other unresolved historic episodes. To commemorate the 50th anniversary of the tragedy that killed at least 500,000 people, The Jakarta Post's Ika Krismantari interviewed Nani to get her views on the deadlocked reconciliation process for the victims. Here are excerpts from the interview.
Question: Many activists have argued that the families of the slain are not victims because their cases have been legally settled. What do you think?
Answer: '¦ [Such arguments] see it only from the legal perspective. Who said we acknowledge that it was [the PKI] that was responsible for the killing? The court said that, not us. [Victimhood] is not only about losing someone, but the suffering, the pain, the grieving, the impact ' all that does not simply disappear. Like other victims, we were robbed of our future. We may be better off financially than other victims, but that's not to say we didn't suffer.
As a victim, what do you want to achieve by the reconciliation process?
I'd like to see a shared understanding of the history of this country, because ['¦] the dominant version of events we have now was written by the winners. I hope there will be a rewriting of history in the form of alternative narratives that center on the reality of past conflicts.
Why is finding the truth or 'alternative narratives' important in the reconciliation process?
What is the truth here? The truth is that whatever the parties, perpetrators, victims and bystanders experienced and went through, [we hope to find] the essence of this narrative. There should be a common understanding, and it would be better if accounts overlap. That is the truth.
As a victim of the 'winning side', as the generals are officially national heroes, you seem to have a different perspective from others on this side of the reconciliation process. Why?
Honestly, I am glad to be recognized as a representative of the victors and the truth, but is that accurate? What is truth, and who are the real winners? We cannot explain that in black and white. I myself struggled to recover from trauma and depression after the incident. My turning point was when my child asked me, 'what is a communist?' It took me years to be able to answer that question. Another turning point was when I met other 1965 victims and victims' families in Leuven, Belgium, in 2000. In that forum, I realized that I wasn't looking for victory; I just wanted to prove that I was finished with it all.
Why hasn't the reconciliation process shown any progress?
It's mainly because the discourse has been dominated by legal and political language. ['¦] This is not only about political will, but also moral courage. The draft [of the reconciliation process] has been designed with a top-down approach and does not focus on the victims. Look, we have to understand that reconciliation requires equality and cannot be forced.
What do you think about the commitment of President Joko 'Jokowi' Widodo's administration regarding the resolution of past human rights abuses, including the 1965 atrocities?
I am not in a position to judge, but he certainly has the chance, as he is free of any historical burden. He also has close relations with the people and he has already mentioned [resolving past abuses] in his Nawacita [nine programs]. But the problem is the implementation.
Many have argued that reconciliation is deadlocked because of the many different interpretations and demands involved in the process. Do you have any solution for this?
We have to look for a common understanding, not politically, but psychologically and anthropologically, involving language experts. We need a soft approach to give us the perfect socio-cultural and anthropological context using the right language [because] it is about us as people.
Can you give any examples?
This approach has been tried in Yogyakarta under the coordination of [Mohammad] Imam Azis [a leader of Nahdlatul Ulama, the country's biggest Muslim organization] and I have been doing it myself with my organization, Forum Silahturahmi Anak Bangsa. In practice, these reconciliation efforts are happening among the grassroots. What we need next is to formulate alternative narratives that can be supported by those involved in grassroots reconciliation efforts. I've heard of cases of victims and alleged perpetrators working hand-in-hand.
What are the dangers if we decide to abandon these grueling reconciliation efforts?
If all past conflicts are not resolved with one common understanding and we just leave the problem hanging in the air, then the problem will be buried in people's social memory, and it could emerge in the future in ways that trigger emotional reactions, eventually leading to further violence.
