“A nation is a soul, a spiritual principle. Two things, which are really one, constitute this soul and spiritual principle. One is in the past, the other, the present. One is the possession in common of a rich trove of memories; the other is actual consent, the desire to live together, the will to continue to value the undivided, shared heritage.” (Ernest Renan, What is a Nation?)
If the postmodern era often makes us nervous in trying to understand our national identity, the early years of the Republic are a good starting point to reflect. In the era, people from different ethnicities, religious and social backgrounds can merge into one collective awareness; of either achieving freedom and living together as one sovereign nation or die trying.
First president Soekarno in his book Di Bawah Bendera Revolusi (Under the Banner of Revolution) talked about the meaning of being a nation by quoting Renan’s writing from an 1882 French conference titled What is a Nation? This meaning of nationhood became highly contextual in the experience of establishing a diverse Indonesia. The nation of Indonesia was not formed on a singularity of ethnicity, culture, religion and belief.
Indonesia as a nation-state was established due to a singular experience of a people suppressed by colonialism. There was a desire to live together with shared values and future goals. “The soul of Indonesia is that of mutual assistance, brotherhood and kinship. We have formulated such a soul in what is defined as Pancasila,” Soekarno wrote.
The seeds of collective awareness as a nation emerged in the early 20th century, as seen in the establishment of the Budi Utomo movement in 1908 and the Youth Pledge in 1928, among other events. The nation’s founding fathers fostered the seeds through ideas of nationhood and through their actions in grounding these ideas. The era between 1945 and 1949 was fertile for turning these ideas into concrete action. People may not have known each other, but they were driven by a singular experience and goal to rise up against colonialist oppressors. They sacrificed their belongings, youth and even lives to achieve that dream, despite many of their contributions ending up being forgotten in history books.
A memorial wall at the Giri Tunggal heroes cemetery in Semarang city, Central Java, records a small part of the struggle of the unsung heroes buried there. Thousands of names on the memorial wall give a picture of the heroes’ diversity.
Among the thousands of names is Kho Siang Bo. The cemetery’s caretaker who Kompas met during a visit there in early March showed us his grave. On the headstone, it says he died in 1945 as part of the Youth Force. Several of the people Kompas met at the Giri Tunggal cemetery that day could not further explain the soldier’s background or in which battle he died. Besides Kho Siang Bo’s gravestone, there is another gravestone bearing a Chinese name, Lie Eng Hok (1893-1961).
Junus Jahja in Peranakan Idealis: Dari Lie Eng Hok sampai Teguh Karya (Idealist Peranakan: From Lie Eng Hok to Teguh Karya) says that Lie was an independence freedom fighter involved in the battle against the Dutch forces in Banten in 1926. In pre-independence times, he worked as a courier. He was exiled by the Dutch to Boven Digoel for five years. When he died in 1961, he was buried in a public cemetery, but his comrades fought so that he could be buried at the Giri Tunggal heroes cemetery. It was not until 25 years after he died that Lie’s remains were finally moved to Giri Tunggal.
“There were other Chinese-Indonesians who fought for the nation’s independence, including in the Five-Day War in Semarang. But they are not famous,” said Jongkie Tio, the writer of Kota Semarang dalam Kenangan (Semarang in Memory).
Chinese-Indonesians were split during the fight for independence. Many were pro-China and pro-Dutch, but many others were pro-Indonesia. Liem Koen Hian (1886-1952), a journalist, established the Chinese Party of Indonesia in 1932. The party believed that Indonesians of Chinese descent were truly Indonesians who were “born, raised, died and buried in Indonesia. Therefore, they have to be devoted to and work for Indonesia.”
Liem was friends with AR Baswedan, who established the Arab Party of Indonesia in 1934. Purnawan Basundoro in A.R. Baswedan: dari Ampel ke Indonesia (AR Baswedan: From Ampel to Indonesia) said that the two historical figures joined Malay-language Chinese newspaper Sin Tit Po. The newspaper was highly nationalistic and supported Indonesia’s freedom movement.
AR Baswedan’s party also encouraged Indonesians of Arab descent to pledge their loyalty to Indonesia.
The presence of the two political parties encouraged the inclusivity of Indonesians of foreign descent, including of Arab and Chinese ancestries, in the national independence movement. They had the same spirit as our freedom fighters of other ethnicities, including Javanese, Sundanese, Minang and Bugis.
Religious leaders
The diversity of those contributing toward defending the nation was not just in ethnicity. People of various religions also played important roles in defending the newly established Republic during the two episodes of Dutch military aggression.
MC Ricklefs in A History of Modern Indonesia 1200-2008 wrote about the huge roles of Nahdlatul Ulama and Muhammadiyah clerics in defending the Republic. Islamic leaders stated that wars to defend Indonesia were holy wars and it was the obligation of all Muslims to participate. Clerics and students of various Islamic boarding schools in East Java went to Surabaya to fight against the British forces in the battle of November 10, 1945, where between 70,000 and 140,000 locals raised their weapons against the British.
However, such a historical narrative seemed to have been missing during the New Order era. “The role of students of Islamic boarding schools was not talked about much. It was such a huge energy boost for the students when their clerics said that the war for independence was jihad,” said Yogyakarta Nahdlatul Ulama University rector Purwo Santoso, who is also a professor of public administration at Gadjah Mada University.
Purwo said the students’ obedience to their respected clerics’ call was understandable through Nahdlatul Ulama’s doctrine of hubbul wathon minal iman. “One’s faith is not perfect without love for one’s nation,” Purwo said.
In Semarang, the Five-Day War also brought to mind the name of Semarang archbishop Mgr Soegijapranata. He stopped the Japanese force’s plan to slaughter local youths who wanted to take over Semarang. He also sent two youths of different religions to meet with Prime Minister Sjahrir to restore security in Semarang.
Through his status as an archbishop, Soegijapranata also urged the Vatican to recognize Indonesia’s independence. The effort was successful. Soegijapranata also actively wrote articles for foreign media that condemned Dutch military aggression. “Mgr Soegija was known for his statement of being 100 percent Catholic and 100 percent Indonesian,” said Soegijapranata Institute chair Theodorus Sudimin in Semarang.
In a speech in 1952-1953 in the Soegijapranata Institute’s collection, Mgr Soegijapranata explained the two sides of identity that complemented each other. As an Apostolic vicar, he said he had the responsibility to lead and develop Catholics. “As a citizen of the great city of Semarang and a son of Java, we are obligated to participate to the best of our ability in efforts to fight all kinds of danger, threats and huge losses to the city, the islands and the nation,” he said.
Another difference can be observed in the aspect of political ideology. There was a diversity of political views among those in the freedom movement. However, they set aside all these differences to fight for a single cause.
Gadjah Mada University professor of history Suhartono said the positions of freedom fighters and movement leaders with differing ideologies were like the forming of theses and antitheses. Sometimes they were far apart and yet, at other times, they merged. Suhartono said there were at least three huge fragmentations of ideological views within the national independence movement, namely nationalism, socialism with all of its variants and Islam.
Then, what dissipated all the differences and made these movement leaders struggle for a single cause? “A collective awareness. A national awareness of living together and for each other,” Suhartono said.
In current times, as the waves of trouble that hit Indonesia are becoming increasingly stronger, this collective awareness is becoming highly necessary. The question is, then, whether or not such a awareness is still fostered.
