Emancipatory Heroism
The most meaningful insight from a story on heroism is how the peoples were emancipated through the actions of heroic figures.
.
The most meaningful insight from a story on heroism, for myself, is how those who experienced injustice, oppression, and inequality, were emancipated through the actions of heroic figures. Armed struggle may have been a tool to achieve it, as with political struggle, organizational management, education, and raising awareness.
Along the way, unfortunately, these tools have often become the goal instead of the means. Violence, exclusion, and rejection of other groups have frequently been part and parcel of heroic actions.
From era to era, this has been seen in how we measure the dignity of an individual or a group of people as citizens by what they did to drive out the colonialists through armed struggle. And, of course, in how we consider independence simply as a result of war.
However, it is possible that nothing shines a light on this tendency more than the products of our own legislation. Article 26 of Law No. 20/2009 on Titles, Service Medals and Medals of Honor, defined heroes as firstly by "armed struggle", followed by "struggles in other fields".
Political strife
The above situation has a historical background, which is actually reasonable. Since the beginning, the idea of heroism has always been connected to the political strife of a period.
If we examine the idea of heroism that we have adopted today, it is rooted in the exhaustive struggles of the nationalists according to the history taught at Dutch schools, which saw history as a way to consolidate Dutch rule in the islands of Nusantara (the Indonesian archipelago).
In the 1930s, the nationalists reinterpreted narrative of these history books by promoting local figures that drove away the Dutch as heroes. During this period were three warrior-like figures who were called the "three heroic friends”: Diponegoro, Teuku Umar, and Tuanku Imam Bonjol.
The other historical root is in the dilemma of maintaining the unity of the Republic. When the criteria for heroes were institutionalized as a state program at the end of the 1950s, the most noticeable problem that troubled Indonesia then was rebellion after rebellion.
At that time, the legitimacy and authority of the Republic of Indonesia in the outer regions were highly unstable. With the support of Soekarno, the bestowal of National Hero as a state honor was launched. It expected that the regions, after their local figures were declared National Heroes, would feel they were part of the Indonesian nation.
In many places at that time, the awareness of being a part of Indonesia was not as strongly ingrained as it is today. However, despite the slim sense of equality that was felt among the regions, each region was recognized for its own exhaustive struggle against Dutch colonialism. These narratives were later used to nurture a sense that they were part of the continuum of a shared history.
By recognizing the actors of struggle as heroes of the Indonesian nation, the idea that they were a single actor was staunchly established. They struggled as one against an unjust colonialist and moved as one in the same historical fight to free themselves from colonialism.
This historical strategy to establish the national consciousness had its benefits, of course. As for the leaders who pioneered it, they may have had no other choice. However, we may be more familiar with the Indonesian identity that was built on the negative, that is, rejection of the other.
What occurred later, thanks to this free and open category of hero, was that the regions competed to gain honor on the national stage. They enlivened historical studies of their local figures, but in doing so, the vast treasures that were unearthed became limited to only war stories of the past.
One characteristic that has been confirmed through this process is that we have a tendency to speak of history as a dramatic tale of our fight against the other. The militarisic history of the New Order regime confused this tendency further.
Forms of struggle outside armed struggle were considered unequal in their relevance to independence. Efforts that contributed to the establishment of a sovereign Indonesia were those carried out by the military, which was in accordance with the actions of the regional heroes of the past.
Not drama
I think there is no other appropriate time than today to review our understanding of heroism. The image of antagonistic heroism does not only exclude those dimensions that are essential to heroism itself; we should also realize that the popular legitimacy of political power today is perpetuated through an image of heroism that harms others.
From where have these populist leaders come who seem to be sprouting everywhere? They gained the momentum by successfully turning the public anxieties and frustrations caused by a systemic crisis into anger against vulnerable groups.
Then they behaved as if they were heroes who would drive out these “others” to restore sovereignty to their voters, the indigenous people entitled to everything. And the problem is, by continuously identifying heroes with war, this rhetoric on heroism can easily become imprinted in memory.
You can even ask students who are weak in history. Regardless that they have difficulties remembering when important historical events happened, they know that Indonesia was established by armed struggle before all other forms of struggle.
You can also examine influential youth of this era who are fond of chatting through various means. We will find not a few among them who find it difficult to distinguish independence from a victory of war.
With the burden of such historical wealth, won’t violence against the other easily slip in among the signs of heroism? Won’t it raise promoters of hate to a higher position of power? Even further, won’t it exclude those who have made real contributions in emancipating their fellows from where they should appear on the pages of history?
The works of Tan Malaka, for example, who contributed to the struggle by writing, educating and organizing, would have been buried if it wasn’t for the "colonialist" researcher who dedicated his life to researching Tan. We would possibly not know of Tirto Adhi Suryo, who published the first newspaper in the Indonesian language, without the Buru tetralogy of Pramoedya.
Sense of justice
At this point, therefore, we need to reexamine the basis of the struggle of those figures who have been named “hero”. From the past, from the farthest past to the most recent past, these figures have always launched forth from their awakened sense of justice.
They acted in solidarity with their fellow men who were treated unfairly, and tried to do something to change the condition. When they chose to engage in armed struggle, it was the only means available to them at the time. It was important, but there are also other ways for other men.
If we start with this understanding, I believe we can celebrate an idea of heroism that is more sensitive to a time and a place, one which transforms instead of annihilates. Heroism is not always dramatic; it is oriented toward empowerment, not degradation. Heroism is not always vehement, and can be enacted out by all – not just one or two.
GEGER RIYANTO
Essayist, Sociological Research; Teaches Social and Constructivist Philosophy at the University of Indonesia
