Intellectuals and Nationalism In Indonesia

It has always been a matter of national pride that independence came to Indonesia not as the result of a negotiated transfer of sovereignty, though the process was completed in that way, but through a struggle of heroic proportions in whose fires the nation itself was forged. The revolution, indeed, is central to the Republic’s perception of itself. To call it a revolution is, of course, to beg a number of important questions. What is a revolution? Is the concept, developed in modern thought o­n the models of the French and Russian revolutions, applicable to a nationalist struggle for independence? Or must a revolution involve also a transfer of power from o­ne social class to another and a subsequent social transformation? For Indonesians looking back to the birth of the nation, however, such questions do not arise. For them there is no question but that the events of 1945-49 constituted a revolution, a revolution that is seen as the supreme act of national will, the symbol of national self-reliance and, for those caught up in it, as a vast emotional experience in which the people -- the people as a whole -- participated directly.


The exploration of Sjahrir’s recruitment of a group of followers during the Japanese Occupation and of the character and attitudes of the group is based, in large measure, o­n interviews with its surviving members. A highly articulate body of people, they clearly enjoyed recalling their youth, remembering particular experiences, and thinking back o­n the issues that had preoccupied them and the ideas that had excited them as students. For many of them it had obviously been a golden age, perceived all the more vividly now because the world they had hoped for had never come into being. There is, perhaps, a good deal of nostalgia in their memories of what it was like to be a part of a crucial period in their country’s history and no doubt some misjudgment about the parts they played. Oral history is a risky business, given the fallibility of human memory and the tendency for interviewer and subject alike to collaborate in re-shaping the past in the light of their later perspectives. The dangers of such a method are discussed below. Nevertheless, provided it is kept in mind that memories are documents of the present and not of the period with which they deal, it is important to gather these recollections while members of the generation in question are still alive.