W

hile maintaining a rigid stance on the death toll and a refusal to apologize for the 1965 tragedy, the government on Tuesday softened its position on the settlement of unanswered questions surrounding the dark events, vowing to reconcile with all victims of the violence.

The government announced its commitment during the close of a two-day symposium on the purge entitled “Dissecting the Tragedy of 1965, the Historical Approach”, the first such dialogue spearheaded by the government.

“We have to acknowledge the state’s involvement [in the violence],” Presidential Advisory Board (Wantimpres) member Sidarto Danusubroto said. “It is the responsibility of the nation to heal this wound.”

According to Sidarto, the symposium will recommend full rehabilitation for all victims, allowing their rights to be restored and removing the stigma now attached to them.

President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo would, he said, issue a presidential decree based on a list of recommendations from the symposium currently being drafted by a team of experts. The team will submit the recommendations to the government in the next two days.

“Lastly, I hope this kind of dialogue will be conducted not only in Jakarta, but also in other regions under the state protection. The state has to be present to protect all citizens. That’s the basic constitution,” he said. “The quality of a country’s democracy is measured by its ability to protect human rights and minority groups.”

Public space for free expression in Indonesia is gradually shrinking, with public discussions and stage performances banned with increasing frequency.

The Institute for Policy Research and Advocacy (ELSAM) recorded that in 2014, at least 27 events related to the 1965 communist repression were subject to restrictions and bans, including 17 film screenings and discussions, four cases of forced dispersal of meetings of victims, three cases of intimidation, three cases of deportation and forceful arrest and one magazine recall.

The latest censorship took aim at the organizers of the Ubud Writers and Readers Festival, which canceled a session dedicated to the 50th anniversary of the events under pressure from local authorities.

National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM) commissioner Muhammad Nurkhoiron said one way to measure the success of the symposium was to see if people could subsequently hold public discussions and events related to the tragedy without any fear.

“If the government can’t guarantee that, the symposium will have failed. But if any future public discussions can be held with guaranteed protection from the government, there will have been real progress,” Nurkhoiron, who is a member of the committee tasked with drafting the recommendation, told The Jakarta Post.

The closing day of the symposium also saw progress on efforts to resolve the investigations into the anticommunist violence, having been in limbo for years.

“The President could establish a special commission by issuing a presidential decree, but usually in other countries, there needs to be approval from parliament first. So the government could set up a commission, but it would require approval from the legislature first,” Sidarto said.

Over the course of the symposium, which examined the mass killings that took place in 1965 and 1966 under the pretext of an anticommunist purge through testimony provided by experts, survivors of the atrocities and members of the military, calls mounted for the establishment of a commission.

Harkristuti Harkrisnowo, a professor of law at the University of Indonesia and acting executive director of the Human Rights Resource Center (HRRC), said a commission was vital to speed up the reconciliation process between the government and the victims of the tragedy.

“We can’t rely on judicial mechanisms, which have often proven ineffective,” she said, expressing her belief that a commission could unravel the truth behind the violence.

In 2004, a law was passed mandating the establishment of a commission for truth and reconciliation. However, the Constitutional Court scrapped the law in December 2006 on the grounds that it contravened the constitution.
____________________________________