History is not Propaganda

The revision of historical writing typically follows regime changes, which are significant, fundamental, and rapid alterations in the state system that often involve violence. An example of this is the transition from colonial rule to an independent Indonesia. Additionally, there were changes before and after the New Order regime. Such regime changes in this sense have not occurred again since 1967. What has transpired during this time is merely a series of government transitions within the same system and the same elite.

What can be expected from the government's ambition to rewrite national history ahead of the 80th anniversary of Indonesia's independence? It is difficult to hope that various theories regarding the bloodbath of 1965-1966 and the rise of the New Order will be discussed. Also, the massacre by state apparatus against thousands of powerless citizens in 1983-1984. This event is referred to as the mysterious shootings (petrus), even though there is nothing mysterious about it. It is even hard to expect the exposure of state violence (not riots) in the "July 27 Riots" (Kudatuli) of 1996 and state terrorism in May 1998.

Several parties are questioning why the revision of national history is being rushed and conducted in a closed manner, similar to the recent Military Law, without public consultation. Some are wondering if it is a coincidence that this history revision project coincides with the nomination of President Suharto as a national hero. Most other responses focus on the issues of the material or content that will be replaced or added. Those who welcome the government project express hope that certain content will be included in the national history revision. The critics are suspicious about what type of content will be included and which content will continue to be ignored in the writing of official history.

No matter how many hundreds of historians are involved in this project, it does not change the fact that this project belongs to the politicians in the government.

For me, there are several other matters that are more important to question. For instance, does the government need to intervene in the work of writing history? Especially by becoming the main sponsor or commander of the history writing team. Why not leave it entirely to the historians? Why doesn't the government simply support the provision of resources and funding to those experts, while ensuring their independence and comfort to work professionally according to their academic standards?

Reportedly, more than 100 graduates from various universities will be involved in a super-fast project targeted for completion by August. Does this mean that the question above has been answered? Certainly not. The issue does not lie there.

No matter how many historians are involved in this project, it does not change the fact that this project belongs to the politicians in the government. Scholars are involved merely as implementers. The starting point is not an academic work agenda. It is not an activity initiated, designed, and carried out by scholars autonomously with scientific and educational purposes.

During the New Order regime, scholars were also involved in various government propaganda efforts. For instance, the indoctrination of the Guidelines for the Appreciation and Practice of Pancasila (Penataran P4). Not just hundreds, but thousands of scholars were mobilized to implement this program. Millions of citizens, including students, lecturers, and various professionals from the upper middle class, were required to participate. P4 aimed to strengthen the legitimacy of the ruling military regime.

The P4 training is not intended as a forum for critical discussion, let alone an open and intelligent debate about Pancasila.

The P4 training was not intended as a forum for critical discussion, let alone an open debate that educates about Pancasila. The program was implemented with the assumption that the people were stupid, did not or did not understand and did not appreciate Pancasila, while the military regime was the most Pancasilaist. The program was designed in a top-down direction. The government provided understanding, the people were required to accept it.

In a modern democratic country, writing history is the domain of academics. Not politicians and state officials. In an authoritarian country, officials censor and hijack historical materials for their own interests. History lessons are replaced with indoctrination about the past. It takes place in a top-down monologue. The content is propaganda, namely a monochrome (black-and-white) narrative, full of glorification of narrow nationalism that culminates in the glorification of its elite. Sometimes it is accompanied by stigmatization or black campaigns against political opponents of the rulers.

In a modern democratic country, writing history is the domain of academics, not politicians and state officials.

Unlike indoctrination, historical education is open to various narrative versions of the past. History is not propaganda about a black-and-white world. It is not merely a collection of facts, names of people, dates, and events from the past for students to memorize. History is a narrative about the past that presents interpretations and selected facts from history, arranged and packaged in an academic manner.

Due to differing interpretations, narrative frameworks, and selected facts, it is natural to have multiple versions of history. In the hands of professional scholars, the study of history is not intended to present a singular truth about the past. Unlike indoctrination, historical education aims to cultivate intelligence and critical thinking in individuals. It does not aim to educate people to boast while belittling other groups. A critical attitude towards one's own nation's past does not imply a lack of love or loyalty to the homeland.

What we need is open discussion, freedom of thought and difference of opinion. Not indoctrination wrapped in the label of “history”.

What we need is a history education that trains students to skillfully analyze and understand various versions of narratives about the past. As a result, they are able to comprehend the complexities of society with a broad perspective, not just that of its elites. Unlike military command, history education is open to debate. The goal is not only to reach conclusions but also to explore further questions about the significance of the past for contemporary life.

What is needed at this moment is not a revision of the official history writing, regardless of who the author is, who the sponsor is, and what the content entails. What is more necessary is the expansion of opportunities and interests for as many citizens as possible to care, research, write, and read various narratives about the past of this nation. What we need is open discussion, freedom of thought, and differing opinions. Not indoctrination wrapped in the label of "history."