The Evolution of Indonesian Historiography: Nationalism, Military Power, and Western Scholarship

Following the Dutch withdrawal, a distinctly nationalist approach to history-writing was powerfully initiated by Muhammad Yamin’s 1950 book, 6000 Tahun Sang Merah Putih. This work traced the origins of the Indonesian flag to prehistoric times, crafting a narrative of timeless national unity. The drive to formalize a state-sanctioned historical narrative culminated in December 1957 when the Ministry of Education convened the first national history congress in Yogyakarta. This occurred as Indonesia transitioned from parliamentary democracy to Sukarno’s Guided Democracy regime (1957-65), which sought greater ideological control. At this pivotal conference, Yamin’s mythologizing method faced critique from the eminent public intellectual Soedjatmoko, who argued for a scientific approach to history centered on evidence and individual responsibility over utopian collectivism.

The intellectual landscape under Guided Democracy was notably pluralistic, allowing room for Marxist approaches to history. Sukarno himself had long been influenced by Marxist analysis, as seen in his 1932 examination of British versus Dutch imperialism. A foremost exponent of this methodology was Roeslan Abdulgani, who applied socio-economic frameworks to the Indonesian past. Concurrently, a significant shift occurred among Western historians, who moved from Indological studies to modern historical research on post-independence Indonesia. While generally sympathetic, these scholars were less invested in nation-building narratives; John R. W. Smail, for instance, advocated for an ‘autonomous history’ focusing on regional dynamics, a concept that clashed with the central government’s fears that regional identity endangered national unity.

The 1965 volume edited by Soedjatmoko, An Introduction to Indonesian Historiography, represents a professional apex and a poignant moment of aspiration. It assembled eight Indonesian, thirteen Western, and one Japanese scholar in a climate that celebrated Western ‘scientific’ historiography. Contributions like J. Noorduyn’s analysis of Buginese and Makassarese chronicles praised their factual prose while noting their lack of dates. However, these scholarly ideals were soon undermined. First, the military’s rise to power after the 1965 coup would impose a rigid, state-controlled historiography. Second, emerging critical theory within Western academia began to challenge the very notion of scholarly objectivity these volumes represented.

The Western contributor who attracted the most controversy was C. C. Berg, whose theories on ancient Javanese ‘verbal magic’ led him to radically distrust textual sources. Berg argued that multiple texts affirming Erlangga’s legitimacy as king actually proved he was a usurper, reconstructing unrecorded regicides and dynastic changes. This extreme skepticism was challenged by other contributors like the Jesuit scholar P. J. Zoetmulder, who pointed out Berg’s logical flaws and inadequate linguistics, and H. J. de Graaf, who defended the historical value of Javanese babad (chronicles). Notably, neither scholar referenced the earlier analytical work of Yasadipura II, highlighting how manuscript-based indigenous scholarship remained marginalized.

Even before the 1965 coup, the military was actively shaping historical narrative. General A. H. Nasution established the Armed Forces History Centre in 1964 to counter communist histories of the revolution. After the coup, this Centre became instrumental under the New Order regime. It appropriated Sukarno’s tripartite historical schema but added a critical fourth stage: a period of dangerous discord under Guided Democracy, from which the nation was “saved” by General Suharto. The military’s takeover of history is epitomized by Nugroho Notosusanto, head of the Centre, assuming control of the National Monument History Museum project in 1969. History was weaponized to legitimize the new regime, justify the mass killings of alleged communists, and enshrine the military’s dwifungsi (dual function) in politics.

Consequently, Indonesian historians faced severe restrictions, required to follow state directives slavishly, while Western historians enjoyed the freedom and resources to explore taboo subjects. Scholars like de Graaf and Ricklefs continued traditional studies of kingship, while others analyzed nationalism, communism, and Islam. Christine Dobbin provided a nuanced study of the Padri War, intertwining religious and economic motives, and Ann Kumar used Javanese sources to illuminate the inner world of the Islamic pesantren. This period also saw Western scholars pioneer studies on previously neglected groups, such as women, laborers, and youth in colonial cities, ensuring that for decades, the most comprehensive academic histories of Indonesia were written outside its borders.