Approach to Indonesian History: Towards an Open Future	Soedjatmoko
AN APPROACH TO INDONESIAN HISTORY:
TOWARDS AN OPEN FUTURE
Soedjatmoko
TRANSLATION SERIES
MODERN INDONESIA PROJECT
Southeast Asia Program
Department of Far Eastern Studies
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York
I960
Price—$1.00
CMlEfrZ-1
SEAP Publications
Do not remove from room 213
640 Stewart AvenueAN APPROACH TO INDONESIAN HISTORY
TOWARDS AN OPEN FUTURE
Soedjatmoko
An address before the
Seminar on Indonesian History
Gadjah Mada University
Jogjakarta, December 14, 1957
TRANSLATION SERIES
MODERN INDONESIA PROJECT
Southeast Asia Program
Department of Far Eastern Studies
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York
1960© 1960 by Cornell Modern Indonesia ProjectIll
PREFACE
Independent Indonesia emerged from colonial rule
virtually bereft of anything which could be described
as a comprehensive history. The existing pre-colo-
nial chronicles were regionally focused, and with a
very few exceptions Dutch writers concerned with In-
donesian history had a primary preoccupation with
Holland’s role — frequently in their approach to the
17th and 18th centuries regarding the history of In-
donesian states as a mere adjunct of the history of
the Netherlands East India Company. For Indonesia
this problem was compounded because of the disincli-
nation of the Dutch to provide facilities to Indo-
nesians for training in history. At the close of
colonial rule, no more than two or three Indonesians
could be described as having received a scholarly
training in history.
Although concurrent with the beginning of the
Indonesian Revolution in 1945 there was widespread
recognition of the need for a scholarly, Indonesian-
centered history of Indonesia, most of that handful
of Indonesians capable of effectively addressing them-
selves to this task were pressed into the more urgent
service of political leadership and government admini-
stration. In the decade since the attainment of in-
dependence almost all these people were again burdened
heavily with governmental tasks. Most of the history
written during this past decade has been largely —
the exceptions have been disquietingly few — a rehash
of history books written by Netherlanders, many of
which, even from the standpoint of a Dutch-oriented
history of Indonesia, were of poor quality and lacking
in scholarly foundation.
Consequently the need to rewrite Indonesian his-
tory, both at the scholarly level and at the level of
instruction in Indonesian primary and secondary
schools, has during the past few years been generally
and acutely felt. The central question has been how
the writing of this history should be approached, with
which major foci, from which point of view and by whom
Agreement concerning these questions has not yet been
possible, and a dispute as to how they should be re-
solved has developed with great, if sometimes dis-
guised, intensity. Although the range of opinion isIV
considerable, the major difference lies between those
who are convinced of the propriety of using history to
create and maintain support for a national ideology and
those who would protect history from the immediate de-
mands of nationalism with the objective of developing
its study in an atmosphere of intellectual freedom,
maintaining as high scientific and scholarly standards
as possible — writing history for the sake of a gene-
ral deepening of social understanding, rather than sub-
ordinating it to any particular ideologically or poli-
tically determined end. This is, of course, a problem
which while of immediate concern is destined to have
long-term consequences.
Reflecting the widely felt need to resolve this
issue and related problems and generally to encourage
the writing of Indonesian history was the conference
held in Jogjakarta in mid-December 1957 upon the ini-
tiative of Gadjah Mada University, the University of
Indonesia and the Ministry of Education and Culture.
The approach of the conference was well des-
cribed in the program drawn up by its secretariat. In
the introduction to the program it was stated:
”In the struggle of the Indonesian people to
build up a free and independent country and
to search for new values in all spheres of
life in accordance with its own identity,
the need has been felt for compiling a natio-
nal history.
By decree of His Excellency, The Mini-
ster of Education and Culture, a seminar on
Indonesian history will be held from 14-18
December, 1957 in Jogjakarta, Central Java.
Since, for the greater part, the exis-
ting books on Indonesian history still con-
tain points of view of the colonial period
and as such are not in accordance with the
real history of the Indonesian people, the
purpose of the seminar will be to stimulate
the collection of materials and to seek a
new approach towards the writing of the
nation’s history."V
The first, and in terms of the problem noted
above, probably the most important item on the agenda
was entitled: ’’The Philosophical Concept of National
History". The speakers were Professor Mohammad Yamin
and Soedjatmoko, the two presenting rather different
views with respect to the desirable philosophical
approach. We should have liked to have here presen-
ted translations of both statements. Unfortunately,
however, on attempting to secure permission to trans-
late Professor Yamin’s address, we were informed that
he had not written it out and had spoken only from
notes, consequently no text being available. We re-
gret this and, having recently learned that Professor
Yamin's address has now been written out and pub-
lished, we hope that he will be willing to give per-
mission for its translation and publication in our
Translation Series.
Mr. Soedjatmoko, author of the address here
presented, is one of the outstanding intellectuals of
Indonesia’s revolutionary generation, having attained
a position of prominence both as a writer and as a
publisher. The Cornell Modern Indonesia Project is
pleased to have this opportunity for making his im-
portant statement to the history seminar available to
a wider audience.
George McT. Kahin
Director
Ithaca, New York
May 30, 19601
My presence as a non-historian at this gathering
of historians calls for an explanation. A part of the
explanation has been given at the beginning of our
meeting, but I feel that it is still necessary for me
to give an account of the reasons why I have been so
bold as to accept the invitation of the sponsors of
this seminar to speak here.
The subject matter of our discussions here today
is Philosophy of History, in particular National
Philosophy of History. Now, philosophy of history
happens to be an aspect of history which is most fre-
quently and most congenially treated by non-historians.
St. Augustine, Hegel, Marx, Spengler, Croce, Alexander
Rustow, Nietzsche, Cassirer, Ortega Y Gasset, Alfred
Weber, Jaspers, Sorokin — none of these are histo-
rians , although their thinking has clearly had an in-
fluence on both history and historical understanding.
Indeed historians rarely seem to concern themselves
with philosophy of history. The names of Burckhardt,
Toynbee, Huizinga and Romein should be mentioned among
the few historians who did or do concern themselves
with this subject.
A second and more important reason why I, as one
who is not an historian, accepted this invitation is
that I regard myself as having a personal interest in
the issues at stake. Every Indonesian is directly in-
volved in what we are to discuss in this history semi-
nar. The ways in which we look at history in general
and at Indonesian history in particular, the ways in
which historical research is going to be conducted and
the atmosphere surrounding this research, and again the
ways in which historical knowledge will be made avail-
able to the public and will be imparted to the younger
generations of Indonesians — all this will directly
contribute to the moulding of the thinking and the
national character of the Indonesian people. Our view
of history will have a definite impact on the outlook
of the Indonesian people toward the future, and in this
way on the destiny of our people and country. My pre-
sence here stems from that awareness of the inseparable
ties which link the future we want with our choices in
the present and our concept of the past. This essay
presents some reflections of an intellectual who is not
a specialist on the problem of history in Indonesia at
the present time. So much for explanations of my pre-
sence here. I do not mean them as apologies.2
OUR PROBLEM AT THE PRESENT TIME.
When a people finds itself at a turning point in
its history, it is only natural that it should ask it-
self questions about itself. There is the expectation
that these questions and this act of self-examination
will result in a clearer definition of who they really
are, a definition which may be more suited to the needs
of the new historical phase into which they are en-
tering, and which may also be able to generate within
them the strength and the faith needed to face the pro-
blems which arise from the new situation. We should
therefore not be surprised at the fact that questions
about our identity as a people, its roots and its his-
torical development, invariably arise whenever we face
the problems which are bound up with our independence
and with our present period of critical change.
Probably never before in the history of our people
have we felt so much at a loss and so bewildered in the
face of our problems as a country and as a people. It
is very clear now that in facing these problems we are
divided. We differ in our understanding and evaluation
of them, and both emotionally and rationally we react
differently to them. Indeed our reactions are often
mutually opposed. It is as if our unity as a people
were split, with the several parts divided from one an-
other, now along ethnic lines, then as between the cen-
ter and the regions, sometimes as between religion and
secularism, or again between the forces of tradition and
of change, and sometimes, of course, as between the
different political ideologies. And so we often feel
ourselves confronted with a perplexing accumulation of
somehow related problems which sometimes threaten to
overwhelm us. In addition to the political and govern-
mental crisis which for several years now has pervaded
our lives, we also face the fact that a large flow of
material goods, of cultural products and political
thoughts is entering our country from the outside, as a
result of the breaking of the bonds of colonialism and
of our people’s entry into the life of the twentieth
century.3
WHO THEN ARE WE?
All these developments have produced an anxiety
and confusion which appears now to have almost reached
its climax. So the question forces itself upon us
with all the more insistence: ’’ Who are we then, who
are we as a people and as a nation, who have only so
recently felt ourselves a single people and now appear
to be divided and no longer able to recognize our-
selves in each other. What compass have we to use if
we are to face this whole gamut of new realities and
problems and not lose our personality and identity as
a people? What is it that binds us together into a
single people, and in what light are we to understand
and place in perspective the differences and conflicts
which divide us? How did we come to this condition of
division and crisis which now appears to dominate our
life? What are its origins, what are the remedies for
it? Are we being swept along by an inexorable tide of
history? If so, where are we now and whither are we
being carried? If not, are we capable of controlling
the course of this stream of development and in which
direction are we to divert it? ”
It is questions like these which have led many of
our people to turn to history in the hope of finding
answers to the anxiety and uncertainty which charac-
terizes our life at the present time. Our immediate
political crisis only adds to the urgency of this
quest. It would seem that this quest lies behind the
holding of this seminar, and behind the particular
phrasing of today’s topic, "Philosophy of National
History". There also seems to be the hope that a
philosophy of our history as a nation will be able to
provide us with a basis for guidance in the develop-
ment of history as a science, and with a framework
and standards for the teaching of history in our
country.
THE A-HISTORICAL VIEW OF LIFE.
That it is to history that these questions are
addressed reflects a most important occurrence in the
life of our people. It signifies the breakthrough of
the historical mental outlook and view of life into the
a-historical framework which has dominated the mental
climate of a great part of our people in the past, and4
remnants of which still continue to make their influence
felt. This cast of thinking in Indonesia has been
closely connected with the static feudal-agrarian struc-
ture of society. This social structure is seen as the
reflection of a cosmic order which provides an appro-
priate place and function for every member of society
and every social group, all within a firmly established
framework. Society is not seen as the resultant of
component social forces. Nor is it seen as the con-
fluence of conflicting group interests with a con-
stantly shifting equilibrium of power. Rather, society
is seen as a sphere in which there occur developments
which find their roots outside the temporal world. For
this reason the great events or occurrences which affect
the life of society are seen not as amenable, at least
in part, to rational human manipulation and control.
They are not regarded as consequences of the success or
failure of human efforts. On the contrary, they appear
as occurring beyond the reach of human power and re-
sponsibility. And so one’s hope of freeing oneself from
the difficulties and misery of the present, one’s hope
for a better future in this world, is made to depend on
the arrival of a Ratu Adil (1) or some sort of leader in
whom the Wahju Tjakraningrat (2) might be vested, making
him for the duration the steward of the cosmic order and
its justice.
In this view the collective human experience is of
significance only inasmuch as it provides lessons,
pointers and warnings which prepare man for a deeper
understanding of his relatedness to the world of the
spirit and to the truths whose validity extends beyond
life. The inner meaning of human life lies outside and
beyond the temporal world. The significance of human
efforts in the world is seen as not primarily related to
the results of these efforts. It is seen to lie in the
fact that these efforts test and forge the human spirit.
Man’s ideals are meaningful not because they are just or
good, but rather because of their power to move men, to
bring them to their spiritual trial.
(1)	Messianic King, according to Javanese popular be-
lief, expected to arise after a period of chaos
and misery, restoring ideal conditions for the
country and happiness to the people. Up to the
present day there are constantly recurring press
reports of people claiming to be the Ratu Adil.
(2)	Divine sanction of the ruler. When the Wahju
leaves him, it spells the end of the ruler.
Sometimes the Wahju Tjakraningrat is invested
in a potential ruler, thus making his impending
succession to power certain.5
No sense of time is involved in man’s immersion
in the flow of transient things. For the sense of
time has not been actuated by any sense of direct re-
sponsibility for this flow, or by any accepted neces-
sity for choice and decision in the face of the
sequence of events. Mankind’s accumulated experience
does not enter our awareness as history, but is con-
densed into stories which tell of the relation of man
to the natural and moral order of the cosmos, and into
tales which show the best ways for men to face the or-
deals which confront them in this temporal world.(3)
It is not difficult to see that the influence of this
view of life, or of its remnants, in the life of our
society is still considerable. We can see it in the
style of our politics, in the fact that we frequently
show little sense of urgency about making decisions
or taking irrevocable steps, very little of the
feeling that the decisions we take may very well in-
fluence, and sometimes indeed determine, the course
of history and of our future, and all this even
though at the level of rationality we may be aware of
these things. The point is that there is no accep-
tance of the decisive importance of the here and now
and no consequent sense of responsibility. These
matters are not accepted because they are not felt.
This picture requires some qualification. Buginese-
Macassarese historical writings and likewise Malay
and Javanese historiography provide evidence of the
fact that the a-historical point of view did not
characterize the higher social strata in several
Indonesian cultures of the past. Buginese-Macassa-
rese historical writings in particular demonstrate
an impressive degree of exactness and objectivity.
In Java, aside from the great Chronicles (babad),
which do not fall within this category, there is also
a variety of local histories, of genealogies and
family histories which show that a sense of history,
in the more modern meaning of the term, was not
foreign to the prijaji (4) group of Java.
(3) When a military clash between the Central Govern-
ment and the P.R.R.I. rebels seemed inevitable,
many people found some degree of consolation and
justification for a kind of stoic resignation in
contemplating the story of the Brathajuda, the
great battle between the Pandava’s and the Kau-
rava *s as related in the Wayang literature.
(4) prijaji: bureaucratic aristocracy in Java.6
But it would seem that with our loss of political
power, and with the consequent loss of direct re-
sponsibility for our own destiny and future, the
a-historical elements of our culture gradually
grew in strength to a point where these came to a
position of virtual dominance in our view of life
THE HISTORICAL VIEW OF LIFE.
In contrast to this stands the outlook on
life which in the last hundred years gradually
gave shape to the view of history as a scientific
discipline. This in turn, of course, also did not
fail to influence that outlook on life itself.
According to this outlook, the experience of mankind
is seen as a series of events which can and must be
understood in terms purely of secular factors. In
the view of history which goes with this outlook on
life there is no place for the occult or the mys-
terious as factors of interpretation. If an his-
torian, on the basis of his religious views, sees a
particular historical sequence as the work of God or
as God’s intervention in history, he will interpret
this intervention in terms of secular factors opera-
tive at the time. He will not see the intervention
as an independent factor existing alongside the
secular factors. He will regard society as a resul-
tant of association and conflict as between different
interests and groups.
In this view every happening is seen as having
ascertainable causes. In every case it is believed to
be possible to point to those who are responsible for
a decision or a happening which has influenced the
course of history. Today's happenings are seen as
rooted in past events, just as they will have a direct
effect on the shape of things in the future.
Thus man is directly responsible for his future.
He is aware of this responsibility and accepts it.
Politics becomes a chessboard on which responsible
men attempt to regulate and channel the various forces
and conflicts in particular directions for the attain-
ment of particular goals. Life in the world is seen
as having meaning and significance in and of itself.
Human effort and endeavor are important for their own
sake, and not merely as tests of one’s spiritual
strength. The situation in which man finds himself7
today is seen as a consequence of the past. But at
the same time man is also conscious that he is free,
and therefore responsible for his future. His aware-
ness of his situation in the here and now, which si-
multaneously comprises his notion of the total his-
tory of mankind and of his own people, also encom-
passes, and in its turn is molded by, his dreams of
the future. Conscious of the past, then, we are
free in the present and responsible for the shaping
of the future. It is the concept of history as a
scientific discipline which ’’arms our vision” in
this confrontation.
Thus may be briefly sketched the historical
view of life. As can easily be seen, it is a view
which is different from the a-historical view exa-
mined earlier, and in many respects conflicting with
it. I am of the opinion that in dealing with the
problem of history or, as we can now put it more pre-
cisely, with the problem of the development of history
as a science in our country, we are essentially faced
with the question of our whole outlook on life. I am
convinced that no development of history as a scien-
tific discipline will be possible unless we are aware
of this problem. In other words, unless we are con-
stantly aware of the fact that by the Revolution of
1945 we, as a nation, have accepted full and permanent
responsibility for our future. It should not be
necessary to say this. However, we can observe how
easily many of our people, including a great number of
our intellectuals, when faced with problems of the
present affecting their own lives or affecting the
nation, jump away from the responsibility of rational
decision-making, and fall back to the consolation and
security of surrender to the cosmic order. They tend
to accept in such instances decisions not rationally
taken, but purporting to stem from a deeper knowledge
of that order. When one sees how easily these people
with this a-historical frame of mind accept the myth
of a glorious past as a salve for their wounded self-
respect, how they depend on the myth of 350 years of
colonialism as a guide in facing the problems of to-
day, then this point cannot be overemphasized. For
we have now permanently left behind us the feudal-
agrarian society. That society has broken down. In
facing the task of building a new society we cannot
find guidance in the a-historical perspective on life.8
The Revolution of 1945 constitutes the final breakthrough
in which historical consciousness penetrated the a-his-
torical frame of mind in Indonesia. It constitutes the
climax of a process which finds its beginning in the birth
of the national movement. And now we can no longer run
away from it, even though at present only a limited
section of the Indonesian people is consciously affected
by it.
PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY.
Let us now return to the question of philosophy of
history. Can a philosophy of history provide answers to
the questions we have discussed earlier, and so take away
the feeling of uncertainty and anxiety from which they
stem? Can these answers in turn bring us closer to the
formulation of a national philosophy of history, such as
is the subject of our discussion here today?
It is inherent in man’s nature that he should attempt
to order his knowledge in such a way as to be able to com-
prehend it in terms of one or two basic principles. Thus
man has long attempted to organize the wealth of histori-
cal data at his disposal in the light of one or more prin-
ciples or patterns in order thereby to uncover history’s
meaning. In The City of God, St. Augustine has portrayed
history as an unfolding of God’s will from the day of
creation to the day of judgment. Hegel has portrayed it
as the unfolding in the material world of a Mind which is
in the process of becoming conscious of itself and of
realizing its own essential being. Marx and Spengler too
each had his own theory of history. They are, of course,
well known, and we will not deal with them here.
But since Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Heidegger, and
in the face of the development of scientific historical
criticism, the great edifices of historical theories with
their closed thought systems, have collapsed. It is true
that these men’s views of history and man continue to
exert their influence, and continue to be valuable in the
world of thought; it is nevertheless also true that the
era of the great philosophical systems of history has
passed, and will never return. The progress of human
thought, and of historical scholarship itself, has put an
end to this era.9
We now know that the historical data available to man-
kind cannot be subsumed under one or two principles,
but that they can only be understood by looking at
them in terms of a multiplicity of viewpoints. They
are henceforth poly-interpretable. In addition, we
now know that no historian, and no one for that
matter who thinks about history, can fully detach
himself, or his outlook, from the historical situation
in which he himself lives. In our efforts to find
illumination from history for the problem of the
meaning of human life, we are now more clearly aware
of the relativity and the historically conditioned
character of our thoughts and of the systems which
we may build. And so philosophy of history has
abandoned its ideal to synthesize the whole of human
history into a great philosophical system, or,to
borrow Karl Jaspers’ term in Vom Ursprung und Ziel
der Geschichte, to arrive at a total pattern of his-
tory (Totalentwurf der Geschichte). Today philo-
sophy of history limits its concern to thinking, to
reflecting about history.
A NATIONAL PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY?
If then in the twentieth century, philosophy of
history has grown in its understanding of itself and
has become more humble in its claims, if what remains
of it is simply philosophizing about history, can we
still work with the concept of a national philosophy
of history, or of a philosophy of national history?
One thing is clear. Philosophy, and also philosophy
of history, almost by definition, can only be uni-
versal in character. At least it claims to be. A
philosophy of history necessarily encompasses or
claims to encompass the whole of the human community
with all its history. Such a philosophy cannot be
concerned merely with the history of one people and
one state — not even one’s own — because the des-
tiny of a state and people is not determined exclu-
sively by factors within the geographical or mental
boundaries of a single nation. It is not without
valid reason that philosophy of history has always
concerned itself with cultural units rather than
with the destinies of the national states within
such units.10
Thinking about one’s own country’s history is a
natural and legitimate preoccupation. But in pur-
suing it, it would be a mistake for us to see as
special factors the forces which influenced the fate
of our own people and determined the course of our
own history, for us to see these as operative only
in our special case and not for the rest of the
world. We should not see ourselves as a nation with
special origins, and a special calling in this world
distinct from other nations. We should not view the
glories of our past as closed to historical scrutiny,
not to be examined with the same tools and methods
applied to the rest of mankind. Such a view can
arise only out of a deep-seated fear that the nation
might lose its identity in facing the outside world
and an unknown future. Or else it might be the con-
sequence of a feeling of excessive pride and superio-
rity towards other nations. The history of mankind
itself abounds with examples of how dangerous it is
for a nation to lose itself in a dreamworld of its
own making. We ourselves have seen the destruction
of the dream of the Japanese fascists, who regarded
themselves as a nation with their own special pro-
venance and their own special calling in this world.
There is also China, which for centuries avoided con-
tact with the outside world in an effort to preserve
its uniqueness. Finally the reality of the outside
world, both in a material and in a spiritual sense,
broke through its Great Wall with the rise to power
of an ideology whose origins lie not in China, but
in Europe -— the ideology of Communism.
It is, of course, quite possible to think in
terms of a nation’s specific calling when one watches
the role a particular country or state has played in
a particular period of history. But it would seem
that such a designation can only be applied after the
event, after the role has been played. It cannot be
regarded as the basis or point of departure for a
nation in facing its future. In short, the parti-
cularistic nature of such ideas about one’s own
nation are clearly in conflict with the universa-
listic claims of a philosophy. Rarely, I feel, has
this matter been more effectively placed in its
proper perspective than by Jacob Burckhardt. Burck-
hardt wrote:11
The truest study of our national history
will be that which considers our own
country in parallels and in relation to
world history and its laws, as a part of
a great whole, illumined by the same
heavenly bodies as have shone upon other
times and other peoples, threatened with
the same pitfalls and one day to be en-
gulfed in the same eternal night and
perpetuated in the same great universal
tradition. (5)
So, however understandable it is that in our love for
our own country and our feeling of concern for its
fate and future, our attention should center on the
history of our own nation, we cannot regard this his-
tory as something which has developed independent of
the influencesand historical factors which operate
elsewhere. All the regularities, patterns and rhythms
which we might discern in the study of history should
be looked at as applying universally to the history of
all mankind. It is clear therefore that there is no
such thing as a nationar~philosophy of history, or a
philosophy of a particular national history.
In putting forward the idea of a national philo-
sophy of history we have in fact left the field of
scientific history and entered another field, the
field of ideology, the field of the use of history for
political purposes, which in some cases may ultimately
lead to demagogy. And there is no doubt in my mind
that the participants in this seminar are here not as
ideologues, not as politicians, not as demagogues, but
purely as scholars.
It is, of course, right that we should think
about and concentrate our attention on the history of
our own country. That is our duty. But we cannot do
this as something which is independent of our view of
human history in general.
(5) Jacob Burckhardt, Force and Freedom, Reflections
on World History. New York: Pantheon, 1943,
Pages 89-90.12
If then this is our conclusion, that philosophy
of history has been reduced to thinking about, to re-
flecting on history, and that a national philosophy of
history has no place in the field of history as a
scientific discipline, nor in the field of the philo-
sophy of history proper, can we then leave today’s
subject simply with this conclusion? I think not.
Our need for more certitude, our anxiety about the
present situation, about the preservation of our own
identity and about the direction in which we are
moving, all these things are pressing too hard and
too seriously upon us. The questions which are
agitating us at the deepest level of our being are
too real to be pushed aside with simply a negative
answer. The crux of the matter is that these ques-
tions have been addressed wrongly. If they are
addressed to the philosophy of history or to a na-
tional philosophy of history, no answer will be
forthcoming. The answer to these questions must, in
my opinion, be sought from the science of history,
from history as a scientific discipline.
A FRAMEWORK FOR HISTORICAL RESEARCH.
In turning to the science of history itself for
answers to our questions, let us go back for a moment
to what has been said about philosophy of history,
about thinking about history. We have seen that phi-
losophy of history and reflection on history is
possible only after the historical data have been un-
earthed, established and delimited by historical in-
vestigation and after they have been threaded into
historical pictures. Historical research in fact pre-
cedes reflection on history.
OUR REAL HISTORY IS STILL UNWRITTEN.
The questions which have been raised above and
which reflect our needs at the present time are there-
fore not in fact a matter of philosophy of history,
but rather a matter of our historical research, its
character and direction, its starting point and goals.
The question before us is what should be the starting
point of our historical work so that its results may
meet our needs of the present time. The answer is,
in my opinion, not difficult.13
At the present time the starting point of our
historical investigations can be nothing other than
Indonesian society itself, which throughout the ages
has faced, undergone and absorbed waves of outside
influence without losing its continuity or vitality,
the same society which finally emerged as the nation
and the state of Indonesia, a society whose history
has in fact not begun to be written.
The history of the Hinduization of Indonesian
society in Java has been studied, but only from an
India-centric point of view. It has not provided us
with any picture of the Indonesian society which ab-
sorbed this Hinduization. It is the same with his-
torical studies of the entry of Islam into Indonesia.
The history of the Netherlands Indies in the seven-
teenth and eighteenth centuries is known only from
the point of view of the Dutch East India Company. It
does not add significantly to our understanding of
Indonesian society either. The history of the last
part of Dutch colonialism provides us with historical
pictures which reflect primarily the Dutch image of
themselves in the Netherlands Indies, consciously or
unconsciously shaped by their expectation of continued
power in the future. Let us start our research and
studies with this Indonesian society, which, as we can
judge from various small signs, proved to be strong
enough in the seventeenth century, and even well into
the eighteenth, to be able to face the Western world
on terms of equality. This basis of equality existed
not only as regards technological levels and the ex-
tent of trade and shipping, but also as regards mili-
tary skill and weapons.
THE DESTRUCTION OF THE MYTH OF THE DUTCH EAST INDIA
COMPANY.
It was the Dutch historian, van Leur, who first
directed our attention to this. He was also the one
who showed that the places of foreign occupation in
Indonesia left almost no traces of influence on the
life and strength of the Indonesian states until well
into the eighteenth century. We are indebted to him
for destroying the myth of the East India Company and
the myth of the decline and weakness of the Indonesian
states in facing the Company. Thanks to his work we14
can now ask the right questions of Indonesian histori-
cal scholarship, for we have freed our thinking from
the restrictive framework of East India Company his-
tory and the history of the kingdom of the Nether-
lands. We can now put Indonesian history once again
within its proper frame of Indonesian society.
Berg too has made a valuable contribution in this
regard in that he has reopened the question of how
valid Krom’s theory of the process of Hinduization in
Java is. In the same way Resink has destroyed the
myth of the Netherlands Indies government, reducing
the period of full colonialism from 350 to 35 years.
It is Resink too who has drawn our attention to the
range of activities of the Indonesian states in the
field of international law right up to the end of the
nineteenth century.
It would be best, therefore, for investigations
of Indonesian history in the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries, and of the nineteenth century, to take, for
some time to come, the direction which has been sugges-
ted by and in the works of van Leur and Resink.
One may say that for no period whatsoever has the
history of Indonesian society been analysed in a
meaningful way.
SOME QUESTIONS.
Many questions arise. Here I shall mention only
a few, taken at random from a whole series. For in-
stance, why did the imposition of Netherlands Indies
power become possible in the nineteenth century?
What happened inside Indonesian society itself which
made this process possible? When did the disinte-
gration of the old structure of Indonesian society
begin and what were its causes? How did this process
develop? What factors in the international situation
influenced the Indonesian revolution and the establish-
ment of the Indonesian Republic? And so on.
Study of historical developments outside Java
will also add to our understanding of ourselves as a
nation, and of the various problems which we now face.15
Studies of this sort would, for instance, show that
differences in actual exposure to Dutch colonialism
in Java as compared with the areas outside Java, have
led to different reactions to that colonialism.
Among other things they have led to a difference in
the temper of nationalism as between Java and the
areas outside Java. The fact that emotional radi-
calism in politics is stronger among the Javanese
people than outside Java may very well be connected
with differences in the length and character of their
colonial experience.
In the same way, a person such as Daud Beureuh (6)
cannot be understood fully in terms simply of the
problems of today. We can have a full appreciation of
the meaning of his role only if we place it against
the backround of the history of his own region.
Studies of the history of the various regions will
show that, true as it is that the nationalist move-
ment became the most important force and instrument
in the struggle for independence, it is also true
that many of the problems which are faced by the Indo-
nesian state in its governmental policy in the period
since the achievement of independence cannot be ade-
quately understood or settled if they are looked at
from the point of view of the nationalist movement
only. The reason is that these problems are often
rooted in the varieties of history in the different
parts of Indonesia.
PROBLEMS OF HISTORICAL THEORY.
The study of Indonesian history which takes
Indonesian society itself as its point of departure,
will present us with various problems of historical
theory. Van Leur has mentioned some of these, for
instance problems of historical terminology and
categorization. How far can the categories which
originate in the development of European society be
used to understand the development of Indonesian
society? How far can we use terms like "feudal",
"bourgeoisie" and so on? How far can terms like
these be lifted out of the environment in which
they have developed and brought to Indonesian
society? Indonesian history, like Indonesian
(6) Achenese leader of the Darul Islam.16
sociology, will have to create its own terminology and
categorizations in order that the history and society
of Indonesia may be analyzed and understood on its own
merits. In the same way the periodisation of Indo-
nesian history will have to be rooted in the autono-
mous development of this history itself.
In our efforts to reconstruct the Indonesian
society of the past we will perhaps find it useful to
make an attempt at creating a typology of this Indo-
nesian society. If the typology of Max Weber cannot,
as it stands, be applied to Indonesia, it can at least
suggest an approach. Perhaps Marx’s thinking on Asian
society, (which, interestingly enough, has been dis-
carded by the Communists, but developed by Wittfogel
in his theory of hydraulic society), can provide us
with a point of departure in this direction. It is
very important, however, that we should be aware of
the dangers of relying too heavily on this sort of
speculation. All of these methods contain the danger
of confining the free play of our thought processes
within narrow limits or influencing it unduly in a
particular direction. But if they are used cautiously
it may be that the results will be of significant help
for further research. The critical examination of
historical sources and their place in the framework of
Indonesian history is also something that should re-
ceive attention. These are some of the problems of
historical theory which should gradually be faced.
But more important than all thinking about analytical
tools and methods is that a new beginning should now
be made by resuming historical research itself.
THE ORGANIZATION OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH.
For the resumption of serious historical research
it is necessary that there should be greater coordi-
nation of effort than in the past. The fact that to
date no single coherent body of Indonesian history
exists is, to an important extent, a result of the
heterogeneity of the historical sources which have
been used, and of the heterogeneity of the types of
skill of the historical scholars. It is also, of
course, a consequence of the fact that there was not,
in the past, a national consciousness which could
function as a point of focus for historical research
and studies. We should work for closer cooperation,17
cross-fertilization and mutual criticism among his-
torians, archaeologists, philologists, sociologists,
anthropologists and economists.
There should also be efforts to achieve co-
operation with the historians of our neighboring
countries in Southeast Asia, in China and Japan and
with the centers of historical studies of the metro-
politan powers who have had, or continue to have,
colonies in this part of the world. On the basis of
these scattered sources it should be possible to re-
construct the history and structure of Asian society
of which Indonesian society is a living part.
The picture of Indonesian society which would
be reconstructed in this way would undoubtedly be
more complete than any based exclusively on sources
available in Indonesia. In view of the internatio-
nal character of Indonesian history — as seen in
the ways in which Hindu influence came to make it-
self felt in Indonesia in the history of the seven-
teenth and eighteenth centuries and also in the Asian
revolution of this twentieth century — the necessity
for such international cooperation does not need to
be stressed further.
However, before all this can be done, we will
first have to train the specialists in sufficient
numbers. This does not need to be discussed further
in this paper; let me here simply mention it. The
immediately relevant fact is that we cannot expect
to have specialists in sufficiently large numbers in
the near future. So our thoughts naturally turn to
the elaboration of a plan for historical research
drawn up from the point of view of the living needs
and problems of the present period in an attempt to
secure maximum efficiency.
Indeed, planning of this kind is, in greater or
lesser degree, necessary. But, on the other hand, it
raises again the question of freedom in scholarly his-
torical investigation. Perhaps this problem should be
looked at briefly at this point.18
"NATIONAL" AND "NON-NATIONAL" HISTORIOGRAPHY.
In our thinking about developing historical
scholarship in our country the adjective "national"
always seems to enter, and implicitly also its counter-
part, "non-national". There is, apparently, a strong
fear that historical studies which are not guided by a
particular view of national history will lead to re-
sults which are harmful, weakening, or at least dis-
appointing. For those among us who feel a sense of
responsibility for the life of our nation and for the
education of our younger generation to true Indonesian
citizenship, it is a matter of great concern that, in
what has hitherto been presented as Indonesian history
or the history of the Netherlands Indies, there is no
coherent body, no single focal point of illumination,
no particular frame of reference. This concern is in-
deed understandable. And it may very well be that
this is the reason why the organizers of this seminar,
in formulating our subject today, have emphasized the
specification of "national".
However, I feel that fears of this kind are
groundless. I am convinced that in the period since
the establishment of the Republic of Indonesia there
would not have been a single serious historian of what-
ever nationality who sought to study Indonesian his-
tory and did not take Indonesian society itself as his
point of departure for his research. It goes without
saying that such persons would always have placed the
historical events which they studied in their connec-
tion with Indonesian society as it appeared at the
time of those events, and by doing so, in the context
of Indonesian history in general.
It is a different problem if this adjective
"national" refers to a particular political attitude,
reflecting excessive and aggressive nationalism with
its peculiar combination of xenophobia and exclusive-
ness. In that case we should realize that history as
a scholarly discipline is not and cannot be made the
handmaiden of a particular ideology — cannot that is,
as long as it is true to its scholarly character —
even though within certain limits the political
ideology of the historian inevitably affects the
methods and results of his studies.19
We ourselves have seen that history, as a result
of continuing research, always destroys the myths of
history, although these myths are often supported and
protected by the powers who happen to be exercising
political control at the particular time. Let us not
forget that it was Dutch historians like Berg and van
Leur and ones of Dutch descent such as Resink who des-
troyed the historical myths of the Netherlands Indies
and the projection into the future of their assump-
tions of continued power. Science is indeed a revo-
lutionary force of great strength, not only in the
field of history.
For these reasons it is not necessary that re-
search or teaching in the field of history should be
subjected to specifications designed to safeguard its
national character. Scientific investigation must be
free if it is to produce significant results. It must
have the freedom to formulate and disseminate opinions
and conclusions which might be different pr in con-
flict with the dominant political ideology or with the
myths and views which are generally accepted at a par-
ticular time.
Only if this freedom is safeguarded can histori-
cal scholarship be of use for our country. Only in
this way can it continue to enrich our culture, and
widen our awareness of ourselves. Only in this way
can it continue to add to our understanding of the
present time, by bringing new historical facts to bear
upon that understanding in such a way that we become
better capable of facing our future.
So, if and as long as we approach our historical
work by taking Indonesian society itself as the
starting-point and framework of Indonesian history,
there is no need for us to hold on desperately to the
"national” idea. The contrast between things
"national" and things "non-national" is not useful and
not fruitful. It is not necessary for historical re-
search to be limited by any sort of qualification in-
tended to secure its national character.20
FREEDOM OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH,
Limitations of this kind will become restrictions
and will eventually lead to political interference in
the sphere of scientific investigation. This will
make historical work more difficult. It will misguide
it and it will stifle it. Finally it will isolate us
in our thinking and make us close our hearts and minds
as we face the outside world and our own future.
This means that freedom, an atmosphere of in-
tellectual freedom, is an absolute prerequisite for
historical studies. It is also an absolute pre-
requisite for a country’s mental health.
In what has been said here we have placed Indo-
nesian historical research and writing in its proper
perspective, the perspective of Indonesian society.
Historical research carried out in the ways described
here, in an atmosphere of freedom, will certainly pro-
duce new materials and new angles of vision which will
gradually broaden and deepen our understanding of our
situation. The historical pictures which will be pro-
duced by such a development of history in our country
will certainly change our view of ourselves, a view
which, at the present time, is rather limited in its
differentiations and nuances. This investigation will
gradually cast a clearer light on our collective per-
sonality in all its complexities. It will cast light
on us as a nationalist movement, on our different ex-
periences in our various regions, on us as a part of
the Asian upheaval, on us as a part of the changing
world.
Historical study and research will teach us the
lesson that what binds us as a nation is indeed a
common past, however different that past might have
been for each of us. It will make us conscious of the
fact that we are also bound together as a nation by
the fact that we face the same problems today, prob-
lems which result both from the destruction of tradi-
tional Asian society and from the task which we face
of building a new society in accordance with the re-
quirements of the twentieth century. But over and
above all this, it will also make us realize that what
binds us is something more than a common past and
common problems of the present — the will for a
common future.21
We now know that the pictures which are put to-
gether as a result of historical research are not
fixed and definite pictures. They keep changing to
accord with new findings produced by continuing re-
search, and also as a result of the fact that the
*	questions which are asked of history change with the
changing historical situation. This indeed is the
nature of historical work. History cannot provide
»	final certainty. Those who are looking for this sort
of certainty should not look to history for it.
Historical myths, based in part on materials
gained from historical investigation, will, of course,
always arise in the life of a nation. Such myths,
representing "socialized historical narratives"
("gesocialiseerd geschiedverhaal") arise in answer to
particular needs in the social and political life of
men and in this respect fulfill certain functions.
This creates no problems.
However, if we let ourselves become tied to these
myths, we will be misled in the way in which we place
ourselves in the context of the realities of the pre-
sent and in the way in which we face the future. His-
torical consciousness and free and continuous histori-
cal investigation will free us from this danger. Thus
the most valuable contribution which history and his-
torical consciousness can make is to free man by
adding to his understanding of himself in his existing
situation, to his understanding of the historical
roots of that situation and of the historical pro-
cesses which have brought him there. This frees man,
because it makes him more aware of the possibilities
open before him, of the range of choices which he
faces and which will determine his own future.
This frees man from the idea of historical inevi-
tability but it also brings him to face unlimited re-
sponsibility . So, to think about history and to live
historically is in fact to unlock the door to an open
future.
It is a bad habit but a useful one for a writer
i	or speaker who is not sure whether he has succeeded in
showing his readers or listeners the way to his
thoughts and ideas, to end his piece of writing or
speech with a summary of its main points. I will here
follow this custom.22
The points I have tried to present are as follows:
1.	The most important task, as far as the problem of
Indonesian history is concerned, is seriously to
resume historical research.
2.	Historical research need not and indeed cannot be	*
made dependent on a particular philosophy of his-
tory. Philosophy of history and thinking about
history is possible only after, and on the basis	*
of, historical investigation.
3.	The concept of a national philosophy of history is
out of place in historical scholarship and in phi-
losophy of history. The concept is philosophically
indefensible.
4.	Research into Indonesian history must take Indo-
nesian society as its point of departure and frame
of reference.
5.	The subject matter of investigations of Indonesian
history — Indonesian society itself — will
guarantee the national character of the historical
pictures built up from the materials gained from
these investigations. There are no further guaran-
tees of the national character of Indonesian his-
tory, and none are necessary.
6.	A free atmosphere is an absolute prerequisite for
historical work.
Furthermore:
7.	Historical factors must be taken into account in
attempts to understand many of the problems which
we as a nation today face. Political leaders and
statesmen will not be able to solve these problems
if they do not take these historical factors into
account, if they see problems exclusively from the
point of view of the ideas and feelings which pre-	k
vail in their immediate environment.
8.	History is an important instrument for men and	t
nations in their efforts to grow in awareness of
themselves, to understand their place in the si-
tuation of today and to face the future in freedom
and responsibility.I1
<
!
J