Sukarno” (Volume III, chapter 8), which develops the idea of Sukarno’s concern with grande élégance and grande éloquence.
The grande-éloquence à la Sukarno was never concrete and definite, frankly confronting the obvious enemy close at hand. In the time of the Dutch, nationalism should have been directed against the Dutch East Indies government, but instead the enemy was carefully obscured with the words “capitalism-imperialism” . . . something abstract and distant. Similarly this grande-éloquence could construe the term “mass action” (which really means “the self-acting armed organization of the proletariat”) to mean “getting up at the same time in the morning” under Dutch rule, kinro hoji (communal labor) in the Japanese period, and, in this current revolutionary period, “cutting wood and sweeping the streets together.” (Volume III, p. 78)
Tan Malaka pulls no punches in criticizing the style and actions of his political opponents. His treatment of Alimin is quite different, as he recalls an event in 1926. This cri de coeur shows a real sense of betrayal, and is a typical illustration of Tan Malaka’s tendency to put tremendous value on personal relationships and honor. (The contrast with Alimin’s derogatory castigation of Tan Malaka, referred to in the quotation, is marked.)
Apparently Alimin did not trust this comrade. Only then did I begin to become aware of what sort of honesty he had shown me. I had always thought of him as honest and respected him, but now he would no longer be a comrade-in-arms for me. If he did not trust his lifelong friend in Singapore, how could he trust me, whom he had known barely a year. This feeling strengthened when I recalled Alimin’s testimony against his former leader Tjokroaminoto in the Afdeling B case. Since this affair, I have continued to regard Alimin as a friend but as a comrade-in-arms I have doubted his honesty. . . . To Alimin, who had admitted my “weakness” in his book Analysis, I address the following question: Can a revolutionary party survive if its members are not honest with each other? (Volume I, pp. 136-37)
In my opinion, these episodes of personal rapportage form the most fascinating sections of the text, covering as they do historical events with some bearing on the revolution, and revealing Tan Malaka’s skills as a writer. Further, it is here that we see his personality and political attitudes far more clearly than in the formalistic didactic sections or the overly dramatic adventure escapades.
Significance of the Text
In my preface I have discussed the reasons for selecting From Jail to Jail as the object of my study. It was Tan Malaka himself as a historical figure, as a symbol of perjuangan, as a link between the communist fighters of the 1920s and the physical struggle for independence from 1945 to 1949, that originally drew my attention. The proliferation of strange and fanciful stories and the corresponding lack of hard information about Tan Malaka led me to decide that translating his own presentation of his life’s story would be a worthwhile contribution to the task of understanding the Indonesian revolution. While the text cannot be abstracted from Tan Malaka himself in any ultimate sense, an examination of various of its attributes and features can reveal aspects in which the text has an intrinsic significance, aside from that of illuminating its author and his historical role.
As a Primary Source for the Indonesian Revolution
First and foremost, From Jail to Jail has significance as a primary source from the Indonesian revolution. Most participants in historical events are too involved to have time to document them. Diaries, of course, are the principal exception to this rule, but in most cases even the appearance of diaries may be delayed for years, until the author has had time to edit or censor their content, or until the author’s place in history is assured. It requires a peculiar set of circumstances to extricate a protagonist from the scene far enough to allow comment on events as they unfold. Such a set of circumstances was brought into play when Tan Malaka was jailed in March 1946, just as his Persatuan Perjuangan was displaced by the reemergent social-democratic prime minister, Sutan Sjahrir. A continuing keen sense of concern for the course of the revolution led Tan Malaka to write about developments occurring after his arrest, as well as to chronicle events that had taken place previously. Not until some years later did any of the other political activists from the revolution write their interpretations of that period. (I discuss these later in the context of the significance of this text as autobiography.)
Indeed, contemporary analyses of the Indonesian revolution even from nonparticipants were few and far between. As Anthony Reid has commented,
The importance of the revolution as a symbol of Indonesian identity and freedom has made it a difficult, perhaps increasingly difficult, subject for Indonesians to write about with candour. To the best of my knowledge only two serious attempts have been made to describe the revolutionary process as a whole, including its internal dynamics. Muhammad Dimyati, Sedjarah Perdjuangan Indonesia (Jakarta, Widjaya, 1951) is the earliest and best such account, dealing frankly with internal developments at the national level from a viewpoint sympathetic to Tan Malaka. The second volume of Iwa Kusuma Sumantri, Sedjarah revolusi Indonesia (Jakarta, Grafica, [1965?]), is a partial account by one of the leading 3 July detainees, but it does give some attention to the “social revolutions” and to events outside Java. Two slighter general accounts, Susanto Tirtoprodjo, Sedjarah revolusi nasional Indonesia (Jakarta, Pembangunan, 1962) and Samawi, 25 tahun merdeka (Jogjakarta, Kedaulatan Rakjat, 1970), stress the international aspect.12
In the late 1970s the situation changed with the publication of a major history of the revolution in eleven volumes: A. H. Nasution’s Sekitar perang Kemerdekaan Indonesia. The fact that it was nearly thirty years after the transfer of sovereignty that such a history appeared illustrates by exception the paucity, one could say even the absence, of contemporary analyses of any depth (of course the newspapers and magazines of the day carried numerous polemics and analyses). While From Jail to Jail concludes in March 1948 (with a postscript comment made in October 1948) and therefore cannot give a final judgment on the revolution, it can be regarded as one of the very few contemporary works to attempt to see a pattern and a logic in the crowded saga of events from 1945 to 1948. The major events are discussed and analyzed in Volume III, with the relevant forces and dynamics of each sitution forming the author’s main focus. It is appropriate here, in the discussion of the text’s significance, to draw together Tan Malaka’s perception of a number of events and situations with which he was involved or associated.
The Proclamation of Independence. Tan Malaka opens his discussion with the following words:
Forced by the people of Jakarta under the leadership of the pemuda headquartered at Menteng 31, on 17 August 1945 Sukarno and Hatta proclaimed the independence of Indonesia13 and chose a republican form of government. To me, this momentous event for the people of Indonesia meant stepping from the world of ideas to the world of reality in a period of little over twenty years. (I had written Naar de ‘Republiek Indonesia’ in January 1924 in Singapore.) (Volume III, p. 63)
These sentences sharply bring out the major points of his perspective on the proclaiming of Indonesia’s independence: first, that Sukarno and Hatta were forced to act by the people under the leadership of the pemuda, and second, that Tan Malaka should get the credit as the originator of the idea of “the Republic of Indonesia” (discussed in more detail below, p. lxxxv).
Tan Malaka devotes four chapters of Volume III to developing these two points as the focus for his discussion of the proclamation and its interpretation. Chapter 5 shows that in terms of international law and natural justice, the people of Indonesia had the right to make such a proclamation. Clearly, at the time Tan Malaka wrote this section (1948), this right was being violated in practice by the continuing Dutch occupation of large areas of the territory claimed by the republic of Indonesia. The very survival of the republic was at stake, and so Tan Malaka felt it necessary to prove the case for Indonesian self-determination by invoking the Atlantic Charter and the United Nations Charter.
Chapter 6 considers the revolution in Indonesian terms, clearly differentiating it from the French and Russian revolutions. It discusses “the technology and the economy; the sociopolitical structure; the culture and psychology of the Indonesian people,” showing the reasons Indonesia has chosen self-determination