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.
Reexamining blame in the 1965 tragedy, beyond the PKI and Sukarno
The 1965 tragedy is a complex historical context continues to resonate today, and acknowledging past wrongs is the way to move past one of the darkest periods in Indonesian history so the country can heal.
Change Size
Center stage: President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo salutes as he presides over a ceremony on Oct. 1, 2023 marking Pancasila Sanctity Day at the Lubang Buaya monument in East Jakarta.
(Antara/Sigid Kurniawan)
N
early 60 years have passed since the infamous large-scale killings of 1965 and the black propaganda against the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) that proved highly effective. It has been argued that Sukarno's political slogan of Nasakom (nationalism, religion and communism) significantly contributed to the instability and violent response from the military and other conservative forces, resulting in the hundreds of thousands of deaths of alleged communists.
Moving beyond one of the darkest periods in Indonesian history requires acknowledging past wrongs. Even former president Abdurrahman “Gus Dur” Wahid, a prominent leader of the world’s largest Islamic organization Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), publicly expressed regret for NU's involvement in the 1965 purge on the morning television show Secangkir Kopi on March 14, 2000.
Discussing the historical significance of the communist movement in Indonesia can provoke reactions from certain segments of society. However, history should not omit crucial chapters, and we can only address this by engaging in open discourse on the topic.
It is appropriate to say that the PKI, and even communism in general, have been used as a scapegoat for all the violence and responsibility for every negative incident in the Cold War era. This is not to say that the PKI and affiliated organizations committed no mistakes in the past, but we must look at the bigger picture of who should be held accountable for the violence and who played a role in destabilizing Indonesia during this time.
During the authoritarian rule of Soeharto, Indonesian scholars at that time rarely discussed the tragic events in 1965-1966 due to intense censorship. Thus, now more than ever with the democratic space that we have, we need to provide an explanation for the role of several political actors in the communist purge by analyzing its political, social and ideological contributions to the events surrounding the mass killings.
As the PKI tended to become more reliant on Sukarno, it became more like a traditional political party that participated in the elections. The “Indonesianization” of Marxism, or Marhaenisme, developed a more moderate and reformist approach that emphasized the importance of participating in the legislative struggle. Thus, in the latter years of the PKI’s peak before 1965, it failed to implement the fundamental principles of communism that aimed to build a revolutionary army to topple the ruling class.
Under the Nasakom framework, Sukarno perceived himself as a unifier of the diverse Indonesian population, and aimed to maintain neutrality during the Cold War by participating in the formation of the Non-Aligned Movement. However, from the perspective of United States policymakers, this approach was viewed as aligning with the Soviet bloc.
