INDONESIA AND CENSORSHIP

From the beginning of its reign in 1966 to its fall in 1998, New Order regime had banned over 2,000 books. Under its censorship law, all works, which, in the view of the Attorney General, “could disturb public order”, are subject to censorship. Under this law, hundreds of novels, historical studies, religious tracts, and books on political and social controversies have been banned, including scholarly works on subjects from early twentieth century social movement, to liberation theology, to the rise of Asia as a center of global capitalism.


The broad censorship practiced by the Soeharto government has had a direct impact on scholarship and the academic community. The Indonesian National Library keeps copies of banned books, but such books are inaccessible without the prior approval of security authorities. Researchers and students are, in principle, able to apply for permission to use such books for academic study, but in practice they must obtain prior permission from the State Intelligence Coordinating Body (Badan Koordinasi Intelijen Negara or Bakin), the Coordinating Agency for the Maintenance of National Stability (Badan Koordinasi Bantuan Pemantapan Stabilitas Nasional or Bakorstanas), and the attorney general’s office. These authorities have untrammeled discretion to delay or refuse to issue permits for use of the books. Because of the permit requirements, the National Library is often forced to deny permission to students and others. Although many academics and intellectuals keep copies of banned books and there is an active market in photocopies of such works, they are rarely used in classrooms except by the most critical and fearless lecturers. References to banned works are absent from the works of all but a handful of scholars because publications of studies based on such sources could damage their career.

Book censorship in Indonesia did not begin with the New Order. In 1963, President Sukarno issued a decree, PP no.4/1963, requiring publishers to submit copies of all books to their local prosecutor’s office within forty-eight hours of publication. The decree vested the attorney general with broad power to criminalize possession and seize all copies of works which “could disturb public order [and] have a negative influence on efforts to achieve the goals of the [Indonesian] Revolution.” Within a month of the coup attempt, writers who belonged to the Indonesian Communist Party or its affiliates used this decree to ban all works. In 1969, the Soeharto government enacted the decree into law and subsequently built up a bureaucratic infrastructure to implement the law.

During the 1970s and 1980s, most censorship decisions were initiated by one of the New Order security and intelligence bodies. In October 1989, a “clearinghouse” was formed to study the contents of books and make censorship recommendations directly to the attorney general. The clearinghouse is composed of nineteen members, including representatives of the attorney general’s office and all of the leading intelligence agencies in the country, including the State Intelligence Coordinating Body (Badan Koordinasi Intelijen Negara or Bakin), the Coordinating Agency for the Maintenance of National Stability (Badan Koordinasi Bantuan Pemantapan Stabilitas Nasional or Bakorstanas), and the Armed Forces Intelligence Agency (Badan Inteligen ABRI or BIA), together with representatives from the ministries of information, education, and religion. Since early 1990s, the attorney general on the advice of the clearinghouse makes most censorship decisions.

A wide range of works is subject to censorship. In 1996, the Jakarta daily Kompas listed criteria used by the government in making censorship decisions. Works subject to censorship include those which: conflict with the state ideology or national constitution; contain Marxist-Leninist teachings or interpretations; destroy public faith in government leaders; are pornographic; are atheistic or insult a religion recognized in Indonesia; undermine national development; lead to ethnic, religious racial or inter-group conflict; or undermine national unity. Because there is no provision in the law for compensation for those whose books are seized, publishers and bookstores that carry controversial works take a substantial financial risk. Because banning also criminalizes possession, it can also be used to keep critics on the defensive. A prominent example occurred in 1989 when three students were arrested, convicted of subversion, and sentenced to jail terms ranging from seven to eight and a half years for, among other things, possessing and attempting to distribute copies of Pramoedya Ananta Toer’s banned novels on the rise of Indonesian nationalism.

A study of the impact of the government’s censorship on scholarly inquiry has not yet been undertaken, but previous works have noted the impact of the policy on the availability of social science texts, poetry and fiction, commentary on and analysis of contemporary political controversies, and alleged government abuses. Because Marxist-Leninist teachings are banned, professors in the social sciences can be subject to harassment. In 1988, for example, Dr. Arief Budiman, a sociologist at Satya Wacana Christian University was accused by a university alumni group of teaching Marxism to students, and the complaint was forwarded to the regional armed forces headquarters (Korem). Dr. Budiman argued that someone couldn’t know if someone else a Marxist if that person did not know what Marxism is and he taught Marxism in his class because it was part of the theoretical and ideological study of development.

Virtually all works by authors alleged to have been communists or communist sympathizers continue to be banned, whether those works were written before or after the 1965 coup attempt. Prominent among such authors is Pramoedya Ananta Toer, Indonesia’s best-known novelist. More than twenty works of fiction, a memoir, and a number of significant historical studies by Pramoedya, including works on the Chinese in Indonesia and on important historical figures Tirto Adhi Suriyo and Kartini, are banned. Even his edited edition of one of Indonesia’s first novels, Hikayat Siti Marijah, by Haji Mukti, is banned on the ground that the novel emphasizes “social contradictions.” Students who wish to write their theses on Pramoedya’s works have been denied permission to do so by their advisors and university administrators. Pramoedya is accused by his critics in Indonesian literary circles of having denigrated and subjected other writers to abuse when he headed the literary section of the leftist cultural organization Lekra (Lembaga Kebudayaan Rakyat or Institute of Peoples’ Culture) in the 1950s and early 1960s. Pramoedya was jailed for fourteen years after the 1965 coup attempt as a suspected communist based on his work for Lekra. None of these claims justify the continued censorship of his writings. Pramoedya is a prolific and respected author, and his works represent a gold mine for literary and cultural critics that were all but lost to the scholarly community as a result of the arbitrary censorship practices of the New Order government.

Publications in Chinese have been banned altogether. As described above, ethnic Chinese were made the subject of de jure as well as de facto government discrimination following the 1965 coup attempt, amid allegations that the coup plotters received support directly from Beijing through Chinese-Indonesian intermediaries. All Chinese-language schools were closed permanently in 1966. Because the closures were carried out almost overnight, many students lost the ability to continue their education. In late 1978 and 1979, a series of government decrees formally banned all imports of goods with Chinese characters, and forbade use of Chinese characters in all publications and circulation of any Chinese-language printed matter, absent the express consent of the authorities, with the exception of a government-run newspaper. Again, although there was an exception in the regulations for academic study of Chinese-language materials, the ban has had devastating consequences for the development of scholarship on China in Indonesia, and has all but closed off discussion of the status of the Chinese-Indonesian community and its role in early Indonesian history.

Historical studies have been a leading target of the censors. In almost every case, the rationale for censorship contained in the attorney general’s censorship decision is that the offending work “inverts the facts” which could “lead the public astray” and ultimately “disturb public order.” Censorship thus presupposes an official history. In at least one case, this was made explicit. In 1990, the attorney general banned Permesta: Kandasnya Sebuah Cita-Cita (Permesta, the End of Hope), by KML Tobing, an account of the Permesta Rebellion in Sulawesi during the late 1950s. According to the censorship decree, the book was banned because it “contains analyses that conflict with the work Cuplikan Sejarah Perjuangan TNI Angkatan Darat (Aspects of the History of Struggle of the National Army),” a work published by the Armed Forces.
As these censorship cases in Indonesia demonstrate, censorship played an important role in defining New Order ideological orthodoxy and frequently was used as a weapon against political opponents. Academics, students, and scholarship itself suffered as a result.

Read More......

Summary and Analysis of Beyond the Nationalist Panopticon: the Experience of Cyberpublics in India By Ravi Sundaram

In this essay, Ravi Sundaram talked about the concept of modernism in post-independence India and its relation with cyber activity. The concept of modernism had been changed over the last century where the concept of border and sovereignty over it had shifted by the advance of technology development.


He assumed that West’s possession over modernity had come to an end and the power would shift to Asia in which it would most probably be China since the old state-system of modernity which is based on borders and sovereignty has collapsed. Through this shifting, the third world countries, India in particular, had seen the opportunity to gain its role in the process of modernity through the media of cyberspace. This new mode of space had enabled the Third World countries to travel without restriction of borders and sovereignty to the new area. The collapse of Western modernity and its products had given India the opportunity to move toward this new electronic space.

Sundaram proposed that to adopt a certain diffusionary model of the spread of cyberpractices in India, there are two things we have to consider which are a) The simple fact of India being a peripheral society in the capitalist world-economy: with one of the lowest saturation rate of telephones in the world; only a small minority of the population has electricity, b) India has no tradition of cyberpunk, in fact there is no indigenous science fiction tradition. Most existing cultural communities have remained ambivalent about technology. Historically, representations of science and technology have been state-sponsored and social-realist in form. Despite of these facts, the number of people linked to electronic network is getting larger every time and the term ‘cyberspace’ has become a significant term in public discourse in India. He further divided the user of this new public space in three categories which are those of the nationalist state, the transnational elite, and that of the space between the market and the state occupied by various bulletin boards, and social movement networks.

Ever since the anti-colonial movement in India, some visions of nation and nationalism had been contested. After independent in 1947, Jawahral Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, lead a new turn of acceleration process of modernization through the building of rational institution of state order. However, Nehru policies denied the previous concept of development in India which was laid by Gandhi where he took village as the starting point of his struggle against British imperialism or other development in India where he also stressed the necessity of cultural heritage. The post-independence nationalists incorporate the growing discourse of development into state policies and later this incorporation would play an important role in the development of cyberpublic.

The focus of these post-independence national was to represent economic development as part of the national identity. However, economic development became accessible only to a certain class of privileged and enlightened modernizers. This development also acted as the mean to achieve order in society by eliminating poverty and cultural ambivalence. And the result came similar to Bentham’s Panopticon where Panopticon was conceived as a prison where ‘rational’ methods of confinement were deployed to ensure the visibility of all the prisoners to the warden’s gaze, while he himself remained out of their sight. In this Panopticon the oppressed would not be able to visualized heir power and order would be achieved. In relation to India, Nehruvian’s modernism focused its goal in temporal acceleration, development and order.

In Nehruvian’s modernity, ‘Dam’ along with steel and electricity production was the symbol of development as opposed to Gandhian movement where village would become the symbol. The state policies over economic development became highly centralized and repressive state policies which resulted in loss of power for Congress party in the 1970’s but they regained power in the 80’s when Rajiv Gandhi became Prime Minister with similar policies but in different territory. The first was to ensure temporal acceleration while at the same time perform the task of emancipating the state-managers from the everyday, the interaction with place. In other words the annihilation of space through time would obtain without the messy political problems that spatiality and its associated politics produced. Further in these policies ‘development’ remained an issue but was reconstituted as a problem of communication. Government tried to promote and simulate this project via public lectures, television programs and press campaigns. The notion of nation had transformed from the problems of borders and sovereignty to the problems of speed accessibility and information.

The government introduced National Informatics Center (NIC) in the mid 1970’s to promote computerization in administration but it became an important project in the 80’s when it launched satellite linked network: NICNET. It links up all district, state and national centers, runs large databases on social science, medicine and law; it works all state research institutes in the country. It provided its users with web and internet access. The very goal of NICNET was to form a new public space not merely provided a new media of administration and education. The NICNET experiment tried to enhance the old grid of Nehruvianism which based on representational realism. Obviously, NICNET’s working scheme has similarity with the earlier panoptic where each district connected to state capital and state capital connected to the national capital.

In recent development of cyber public the idea of the Journey had changed where during anti-colonial agitation, Gandhi invented the idea of nationalist journey. This journey signified human interaction where only through walking that human came into interaction with different cultures and people. Gandhi transformed the journey as a vehicle to politically re-map the nation. This journey was also as dialogue, with conventions of public interaction, anti-colonial agitation and spectacle. Moreover, the journey also acted as a public journey with the attendant modes of representation constructing an imaginary community of nationalism. However, borders and sovereignty limited this kind of physical journey. In the era of cyber space the physical boundary had been eliminated since the notion of border which played an important role in the idea of state-nationalism becoming blurred. The virtual journey would create the state of de-stability in the hardening of national identity as what James Clifford described. The old landscape of nationalism underwent a double process. The first process was a certain de-territorialisation of the old nationalist space which was restrained by border and the other process was he process of trans-national territorialisation where in this process, a section of non-resident Indian tried to rediscover India in virtual space. The Indian state actively promoted this process. The state actively pushed a new category of identity in cultural/political discourse - the figure of the diasporic citizens, also known as the NRI or non-resident Indian. This new category of identity in result pushed the border outside the nation sovereignty. For NRI, the virtual journey to India could satisfy the need to return to their native land.

Although numbers of users in India kept on growing, but statistically the group of users dominated by male users from the middle and upper strata both in economic and social terms of community and caste and also a large numbers of network users still worked from offices, research institutions and from public terminals. In term of economic development, Indian company could take these borderless advantages in their expansions. In the Indian case, the commercial message was clear: to be a genuine ‘national” capitalist, you should transcend the border and enter virtual space because it was here that the peripheral status in real-time will be transcended. Since the 1980’s, the oppressed caste had emerged the composition of India’s political sphere and the effect of this emerging is the challenge to the old panoptic of the state which was predicated on a homogeneous legislative modernity, led by an elite of modernizers. In the event, the social landscape had undergone an effective Haussmanisation which was marked by upper-caste retreated from the old grid of politics and abstract nationalist identity. Later Sundaram argued that the change in large metropolitan to accommodate the development had caused the old journey was being transcended for the old elite.

The new landscape acquired new technologies of representation in its center which could disturb the old tropes of anti-colonialism and Nehruvian nationalism. Despite all the effort to limit direct foreign influence in India, the new technology of representation had crossed all of physical boundary and sovereignty where now foreign satellites beamed image into India territory. In the result the new cultural space was crowded with the fluidity of national, regional, and global culture which was mediated by the recognition of a new agent, the consumer subject. In this context, the web provided the imaginary possibility of playing with identity that recognized displacement beyond any physical boundaries. There is a certain experience of web travel when logging on from the Third World that almost evokes Benjamin’s analysis of Baudelaire’s flaneur, or the stroller in Second Empire Paris. The web-traveler in the elite cyberpublic seeks out the virtual space of the web to experience the “shock of the new”, which Benjamin calls the distinctive feature of modernity. The flaneur would hide behind the crowd from its imaginary space. Web strolling from India is an entry into a space whose virtuality enhances the feeling of being in the “West” or they tried to reach out for the new.

The third cyber public was relatively different from the other two, it constantly shifted from the zone of activist network, small bulletin boards and dissident scientists but still without any fix borders. For instant, bulletin board (BBS) had an important role in the opening up of electronic space beyond the frontiers of the state/ market dichotomy. At the beginning most of this kind of bulletin board only discuss issues related to their necessity but by time issues were getting broader toward issues concerning public in general. Bulletin boards or BBS existed between the space of state control and the power of global capital and further it offered a new form of agency within the discourse of virtuality. For some part of society whom disembedded by globalization and subject to the shock-like experience of the new Haussmanised city, bulletin boards offered an important zone of engagement and the possibility of a new performative space. The oppressed classes of society also had a new mean to express their thought in bulletin boards.
As before when the state treated dam, steel mill, and electricity as the icon of modernization and they were some groups in society who opposed this thing. The introduction of computer in the 1980’s also had almost similar rejection from some part of society the critique that generally echoed then prevalent notions of utility, sustainability and concerns about workforce cutbacks and the fact that computer was introduced with almost similar rhetoric with the old-style rhetoric made the movements even more suspicious. However, in the 1990’s most of groups in society had accept the existence of computer and its creative possibility of networking. Not like previous developmental project which caused natural destruction and displacement, cyber space development did not cause any such destruction. A certain aesthetics of experimentation had already been experienced by activists in their search for alternatives to developmentalist disasters. With the coming of e-mail, the Internet, and later bulletin boards a liminal space emerged, where utopian desires for modernity, the possibility of experimentation “without destruction”, overlapped with the pleasures of initiation rituals into techno culture.

In the Third World the mode of developmental modernism was similar to what Foucault called as the black mail of Enlightenment in his essay on Kant’s “ What is Enlightenment”. However, in Indian case, the situation was not as great as that. It operated within the rather simplistic oppositions of development/science/progress versus tradition/reaction/stasis. Although the state plan of operating ERNET would increased the accessibility of this third cyber public with all of its richness and potentials to negotiate a space between the market and the state, the access to virtual space still remained a privilege for a certain group of society. So, in a country such as India where the income gap relatively high, it is necessary for the state to fund this kind of developmental project since it would be hard to expect private sector to fund this project.

Read More......

COMMENT ON NANCY FRASER’S ‘RETHINKING THE PUBLIC SPHERE’

Nancy Fraser tries to re-analyze Habermas’ conception of public sphere in this essay for she considers that Habermas has not provided the concrete form of public sphere in his theory which is distinct from the bourgeois conception of public sphere.

Later in this essay, she critizes the bourgeois conception of public sphere itself. She argues that in bourgeois’ conception which stresses the necessity of full accessibility, the subordinated class could not gain such kind of accessibility because of gender, ethnicities or even property qualifications. The ideal public sphere in her opinion is an arena in which all the interlocutors should be included regardless of birth and fortune. However, in this conception, inequalities are not deleted but bracketed. Although the idea of bracketing the inequalities has a good aim to create an arena of dialog and discourse in equal basis but in reality this process is used in the benefit of the dominant group.

In a stratified society the subordinated groups of society tend to develop unequally valued cultural style and it marginalize the contributions of members of subordinated groups. The informal pressure power from the subordinated groups’ cultural style later amplified by the peculiar political economy of the bourgeois public sphere. The media to circulate public view usually owned or affiliated to the bourgeois group which in result would create limitation of accessibility for the subordinated groups. The political autonomy is under question in this concept. Liberalism stresses the important of a very strong political autonomy to organize a democratic form of political life in the basis of socio-economic and socio-sexual structures that generate systemic inequalities and then try to find a way to separate political institutions that are supposed to instantiate relations of equality from economic, cultural, and socio-sexual institutions that are premised on systemic relations of inequality.

Nancy Fraser argues that the ideal of participatory parity is better achieved by a multiplicity of publics rather than by a single public. In stratified society, it would be much better to accommodate plural participation in contestation for public space rather than a singular participation because in singular public, the right of the subordinated group most likely would be put aside. As the result of this disadvantageous treatment to the subordinated group, in some cases they constitute alternative publics to formulae their oppositional interpretations of their identities, interests, and needs. Nancy Fraser calls this public as subaltern counterpublic. However, sometimes these subaltern counterpublics become anti-democracy and anti-egalitarian but still they help to create and expand discursive space. Subaltern counterpublic has two functions in stratified society. It would act as spaces of withdrawal and regroupment, and it also functions as bases and training grounds for agitational activities directed toward wider publics. As Habermas said in his book that however limited a public may be in its empirical manifestation at any given time, its members understand themselves as part of a potentially wider public. In egalitarian public still it cannot consist of a single, comprehensive public sphere. Egalitarian public would only exist with the participation of groups with diverse values and rhetoric to create plurality in public arenas. In principle, coexistence of social equality and cultural diversity is possible.

In Habermas theory, public could mean as (1) state-related, (2) accessible to everyone, (3) of concern of everyone, and (4) pertaining to a common good or shared interest. And Nancy Fraser proposes two more notion of public which are (5) pertaining to private property in a market economy, and (6) pertaining to intimate domestic or personal life, including sexual life. The matter which concern of everyone as a notion of public sphere may not be the same in outsider’s perspective and the participant’s and only participant could determine which will become their concerns. However, boundaries between which is a matter of common concern and which is not are not given. The boundaries are set out by discursive contestation in regard that no topics should be ruled off limits in advance of such contestation. Civic-republican is a view in which the discussion is restricted to the ‘common good’ and in which discussion of ‘private interest’ is ruled out. By ruling out ‘private interest’, it is limiting deliberation to talk framed from the standpoint of a single, all-encompassing ‘we’, thereby ruling claims of self-interest and group interest out of order. Without knowing in advance whether the outcome of a deliberative process, it would be no warrant fro putting any strictures on what sorts of topics, interests, and views are admissible in deliberation. Nancy Fraser suggested suspecting the consensuses come out of this process since the process is tainted by the effects of dominance and subordination. In the last two sense of public, the participation of the subordinated group could be easily oppressed by labeling them as private matter rather than as public matter without any discursive contestation.

Nancy Fraser considers bourgeois model of publics as weak publics since its deliberative practice consists exclusively in opinion formation rather than decision-making. Also bourgeois could transform publics into state by threatening the autonomy of publics. Under this condition, the possibility of a critical discursive check on state would be lost. Sovereign parliament is the example she gives as strong publics where as sovereign parliament acts as a public sphere within state and it could encompasses both opinion and decision making. In strong publics, public opinion could be transform into authoritative decision since it is strengthen by the capability of it representing body. The problem aroused from this condition is the relation between strong and weak publics. There is no certainty of the accountability where an institutional arrangement should be established to ensure the accountability of democratic decision-making bodies to weaker publics.

Again as Habermas suggests in his theory, Fraser also deals with a hypothetic society. Although she predicts that a stratified society where openness and full accessibility will be achieved with regard of existence of multiculturalism and multi-identities will exist in short time but at this moment such society does not exist. The contestation of public sphere in reality has existed for a long time. In my point of view, she only focuses her theory in the example of modern western society. If she conducts a comprehensive research among traditional society, she might find a form of society where gender equality exists. In many paternal system of traditional society, women have relatively equal right either in material possession or expression.

I would like to give example of traditional society of Angkola in Indonesia. Angkola is a paternal society, however, to reach any decision or consensus among members of society it should be decide in a kind of advisory institution, Dalihan Na Tolu, which consists of three elements of society, men, women, and youth. Every member in the assembly has equal right to express their opinion to encompass the decision. In this society, women also have the right of material possession and heritage of family wealth.

In modern capitalist society, segregation of class obviously observed since wealth increased power and possibility to reach the media of expression. Fraser also states that media might encompass public opinion but we cannot put aside the fact that in some cases many public members may neglect this kind of influence when it concern of public matters. Also most of people will pick information from any given medias, according to their suitability and believe. It is important for state to acquire the right to relatively restrict matters which emerge from ‘private room’ into public space. Because some issue might cause more chaos rather than benefits in term of common good.

Read More......