Six army generals, a high ranking officer and others were taken and killed in the early morning hours of 1 October 1965. Major General Suharto led a counter-operation within hours to crush the September 30th Movement, which claimed responsibility for the abductions.
Suharto, despite the secrecy and the scope of the operation he named the Indonesian Communist Party as the principal perpetrator and began a purge which would result in the death of between 200 000 and 800 000 people when it was over in 1966.
Hidden from History
Suharto, boosted by his success in 1967, was elected president and maintained the “New Order” by maintaining the threat of communism. Government propagandists demonised and vilified the Communist Party of Indonesia by portraying its members as traitors.
Former political prisoners and their families who were involved in organisations affiliated with the Communist Party remain under surveillance and discrimination.
For decades, the official history of Indonesia was silent on the mass murders and incarceration that took place. The Suharto regime’s version, which focused on the deaths of the generals but ignored the purge, dominated the schoolbooks, annual commemorations, monuments, and films.
This New Order perspective of the tragedy of 1965 went unchallenged and became deeply embedded into the rituals of national remembrance.
Come to Light
Official history could not suppress local memories. In Indonesia, they knew that mass graves existed and where they were located.
After the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, these memories could be finally voiced. As the public became more aware of the tragedy in 1965, different narratives began to emerge.
Former Political Prisoners wrote and shared with others their experiences in unlawful imprisonment and arrest. Some provided their interpretation as to what happened on or after October 1st, 1965.
A number of documentaries, both local and international, including Mass Grave (2002), Shadow Play (2003), 40 Years of Silence: an Indonesia Tragedy(2009), and The Act of Killing (1212), sparked interest internationally in the events of 65-66.
Bejo Untung, then 17, was forced to flee his village by armed soldiers in 1965. He was tortured, imprisoned, and eventually caught. REUTERS/Enny Nuraheni
These stories and films have sparked public debate about the tragedy of 1965. Indonesians who were born after the purge began to read and search for information about the massacre. They became aware of the alternative narratives. Some were angry, others confused, and some didn’t give a damn.
Differing perspectives
Since 1965, different perspectives have been used to tell the story and remember the massacre. Both the Suharto and current eras are incomplete.
Recent attention has focused only on human rights violations. While the New Order regime blamed the Indonesian Communist Party (ICP) for abducting the six generals and the subsequent massacre, it was silent on this.
The report highlights mass killings, wrongful incarcerations, and impunity for the perpetrators. However, it is less forthcoming about the events that led up to the killings and the national situation.
Both perspectives are incomplete and reflect a certain agenda or interest. After more than 50 years, the tragedy of 1965 remains the most controversial and contested event in Indonesian modern history.
No consensus exists on how to handle the past violence, but if Indonesia wants to try to prevent a similar tragedy from occurring again, it is important to reconcile the views of both sides.
Reconciliation is possible
There have been efforts at the individual and group level to start a dialog with the descendants of those in political conflict in 1965, former political prisoners and groups anti-communist.
These dialogues show a willingness from both sides to work together to establish mutual trust and find ways of achieving reconciliation.
A two-day historical government-sponsored conference took place in Jakarta, Indonesia, during April. The symposium was held in Jakarta for two days and aimed to examine the tragedy of 1965 using an historical approach, which looked at both the national and international scene at the time. Its goal was to come up with recommendations on how the nation can deal with this troubling chapter of its past.
It was the first time that the opposing camps had been hosted in such a way. It remains to be determined whether or not the current administration will implement the recommendations of the symposium, or even give any indications as to next steps.
In order to heal the nation’s wounds left by the tragedy of 1965 and reconcile the Indonesian people, a narrative will be needed that does not simply explain what happened in two opposing perspectives. It is more important to have an objective and honest narrative, which can help people understand the nature of this tragedy as well as its devastating consequences.