Indonesia’s Ministry of Culture is in the process of creating an official history that seeks to establish a strong national identity and address misconceptions surrounding the nation’s colonial past. The government hopes to launch this new story on August 17, in time for the country’s Independence Day. According to Culture Minister Fadli Zon, the initiative would help overcome the colonial bias. Secondly, it intends to respond to the current challenges of Indonesian society.
This draft version of this otherwise boring official history has caused some alarm among historians and civil society advocates. Critics say it whitewashes or sanitizes history. They say that it leaves out important incidents and people that contributed to building this country. Senior historian Asvi Warman Adam, part of a civil society alliance reviewing the draft, has voiced concerns over how the narrative may misrepresent Indonesia’s complex history.
The Draft’s Content and Criticism
The government’s tentative account is said to omit these milestones, even in the case of celebrated leaders, such as current president, Prabowo Subianto. Alongside his stature as a significant military leader, Prabowo is heavily linked with allegations of human rights violations and war crimes. This omission has indeed raised a firestorm of new debate over the integrity of the proposed official history.
Critics, such as historian and former member of parliament Bonnie Triyana, vehemently criticize. They shine a light on the important history that was left out of the draft. The 1997 Asian financial crisis and 1998 anti-Suharto protests are almost laughable omissions. Absent are the repressive crackdowns, the 1928 Women’s Congress, and the 1955 Asia-Africa Conference in Bandung, Indonesia.
Triyana emphasized the danger of constructing a state-sanctioned version of history:
“The impact of having ‘official history’ or a state-sanctioned version of history is that it will create ‘unofficial history’, which is illegal — even subversive.” – Bonnie Triyana
Asvi Warman Adam criticized the draft for concealing negative aspects of Indonesia’s past, stating:
“Negative or harmful aspects are omitted, concealed, or obscured, and we can see that happening in this proposed concept.” – Asvi Warman Adam
The Debate Surrounding Historical Representation
Behind this supposed desire for an official narrative lies deeper questions of authority and representation in the telling of Indonesia’s history. The suggestion of a single “official history” was vehemently rejected by then-attorney-general Marzuki Darusman. This understanding, he further contended, flattens the beautiful complexities of Indonesia’s history. He argued that the revision process included 113 historians and archaeologists, arguing that a range of perspectives should be represented.
“New history would atone for the sins of our forebears,” was deemed a “historical perversion” by activist historian Asvi Warman Adam. He cautioned that these views have the potential to shape a misleading narrative and skew the public’s understanding of historical events.
“Who gives the government the right to take control and declare the final word on our identity?” – Marzuki Darusman
Despite strong public criticism directed towards Culture Minister Fadli Zon, he stands his ground in support of the initiative. He argues that it is crucial for creating a shared national identity. He acknowledged the limitations inherent in historical narratives:
“A group that came to the parliament said this project would cleanse past sins. I think this perspective can be considered a perversion. A historical perversion — misguided.” – Asvi Warman Adam
Government’s Justification and Future Plans
The government says it remains committed to addressing colonial prejudices. This commitment reflects their desire to change the narrative about Indonesian history, both domestically and internationally. It remains unclear how this effort will balance various narratives without alienating significant segments of society.
“We certainly cannot write history in its entirety and in detail, so the 10 volumes are only highlights.” – Fadli Zon
Many academic voices have written about their concern too. One unnamed professor remarked on their reluctance to engage with more contemporary periods of history:
Another academic expressed concerns about the reliability of sources related to recent historical events:
“I was asked to write about Joko Widodo’s period, but I declined because it is not my area of expertise.” – Professor
Meanwhile, Indonesia is poised to release its first official history textbook. At the same time, debates over memorialization and what it means to be a nation are changing. The administration is clearly motivated to produce a rock solid, coherent story. It should be the authority’s goal to be inclusive in its storytelling of this complex past.
“I have never researched it; it’s too contemporary and the data is still unclear.” – Professor
As Indonesia approaches the launch of its official history book, conversations surrounding historical representation and national identity continue to evolve. The government faces pressure not only to present a coherent narrative but also to ensure inclusivity in its portrayal of a multifaceted past.
