This paper is a lecture delivered at Oxford University on 6 February 1990.Google Scholar

¹ Nieuwenhuys, Rob, Oost-Indische Spiegel (Amsterdam, 1973), a mirror so steamed up it kept the natives of the Indies out of focus.Google Scholar

² The recent German Historikerstreit, inspired by the controversy between Jurgen Habermas and Ernst Nolte about the latter's trivializing of Nazi-terrorism, placed stress upon Verstehung approaches. For Enzenberger's phenomenology see: ‘De moderne held bewijst zich in de terugtocht’, in Volkskrant 24 February 1990.Google Scholar

³ Native tranquillity (rust en orde), a theme popular among colonial observers, has been defused lately. See Breman, Jan, The Village on Java and the Early Colonial State (Rotterdam, 1980).Google Scholar

⁴ Priyayism and santrism both apply to Tjokroaminoto, a scion of a pangreh-praja family, a member of Boedi Oetomo before he went over to Sarekat-Islam to become that latter party's chairman; for the Surabaya guesthouse run by Soekarno's mother-in-law Raden Adjeng Soeharsikin (daughter of the Patih of Ponorogo), see Tichel-man, Fritjof, Socialisme in Indonesie: De Indische Sociaal-Democratische Vereeniging 1897–1917 (Dordrecht, 1985), 382, 668.Google Scholar

⁵ The biographer is Solichin Salam, author of the multi-edition study: Bung Karno Putera Fadjar (Jakarta, 1966);Google Scholar Soekarno's mother is quoted in Adams, Cindy, Bung Karno Penyambung Lidah Rakjat Indonesia (Jakarta, 1982), 24;Google ScholarBima, Soekarno's nom de plume for the articles he wrote for Oetoesan Hindia, the daily edited by his father-in-law. For Soekarno's lasting identification with Bima, the Pendawa's most outspoken if not swaggering warrior of the Bharata Judha, see Resink, G. J., ‘From the Old Mahabharata to the New Ramayana-Order’ in Bijdragen tot de Taal Land en Volkenkunde, 131, 2/3, 214–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶ This section is culled from Soekarno's 2 December 1930 defense speech before the Landraad. See Indonesie Klaagt Aan (Amsterdam, 1931);Google Scholar and the collection of articles from his hand in Dibawah Bendara Revolusi, vol. 1 (Jakarta, 1965);Google Scholar and his Indonesia Moeda article of 1926, translated by Cornell's Modern Indonesia Project, Nationalism, Islam, and Marxism (Ithaca, 1970).Google Scholar

⁷ See his Nationalism, passim.Google Scholar

⁸ For the jambatan emas (golden bridge), see his Mentjapai Indonesia Merdeka (Bandoeng, 1933), and my annotated translation of it (Townsville, 1978); for the brown front and sana confronting sini, see his Naar een bruin front, in Dibawah.Google Scholar

⁹ For windu see my From Soekamiskin to Endeh (Townsville, 1979), vi, note 34; I prefer the term ‘emancipatory nationalists’ over ‘secular nationalists’ since the latter description is misleading. Soekarno's PNI did not promote a ‘secular’ world-view in opposition to the ‘sacral’ appeal of some of the religious-inspired Indonesian parties. In fact, the PNI often utilized peculiarly javanist-religious notions as part of its own Weltanschauung.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Not as chairman, as some political biographies have it; for Mr Iskaq Tjokro-hadisurjo's short stint as chairman see Ingleson, John, Road to Exile: The Indonesian Nationalist Movement, 1927–1934 (Singapore, 1979), 20.Google Scholar

¹¹ For marhaen, the paupers of IndonesiaGoogle Scholar, see Hering, , Mentjapai, 34, note 1.Google Scholar

¹² See Hering, , The van der Most Report: A PID view of Sukarno's PNI (Townsville, 1982), 8,Google Scholarand de Jong, L., Nederlands-Indie, deel IIa, eerste helft, Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden in de Tweede wereldoorlog (The Hague, 1984), 325, for the 4 07 1927 foundingGoogle Scholar; for the PPPKI turn to Poeze, H., Polotiek-Politioneele Overzichten van Nederland-sch-Indie, deel I, 1927–1928 (The Hague, 1982), lxxiiiGoogle Scholar, and Penders, Chris, Indonesia: Selected Documents on Colonialism and Nationalism, 1830–1942 (St Lucia, 1977), 303.Google Scholar

¹³ For Kokrosono see Hering, Mentjapai, 33, 39, and 71, notes, 2, 3; for the recent controversy about Soekarno's written pleas from Soekamiskin turn to Kwantes, R. C., ‘Ir. Soekarno's Vier Brieven’, in Bijdragen tot de Taal-Land-en Volkenkunde 143, 2/3 (1987), 293–311;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Hering, , ‘Nogmaals de Vier Brieven van Ir. Soekarno’, in Bijdragen 145, 2/3 (1989), 281–94;Google Scholar also Hering, , ‘Indonesian Nationalism Revisited’, in Journal of Southeast Asian Studies xviii, 2 (1987), 294–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁴ See Dahm, B., Sukarno and the Struggle for Indonesian Independence (Ithaca, 1969), 169–72.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Cf. Wertheim, , ‘Social Patterns in the Sukarno Era’ in Hering, , The Sukarno Era (Townsville, 1986), 67; a new revised and enlarged version of the latter is with the printers.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Cf. Jong, de, Nederlands-Indie, 386–7; and Gore Vidal for the term of ‘demonised’ conflict, see his ‘Gods and Greens’, The Australian, weekend, September. 9/10, 1989, I; a conflict Soekarno considered inevitable, see his Indonesie Klaagt, 94–8.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Prabu Joyoboyo was invoked by Soekarno as early as 1930, see his Indonesie Klaagt, 44, for Dutch attitudes to Indonesia's revolusi see: Bank's, JanKatholieken en de Indonesische Revolutie (Dieren, 1984), 485ff;Google Scholar and de Jong, J. J. P., Diplomative of strijd: Het Nederlands beleid tegenover de Indonesische Revolutie 1945–1947 (Amsterdam, 1988), 98–103.Google Scholar

¹⁸ The PETA is best described by Notosusanto, Nugroho, Tentara Peta (Jakarta, 1979).Google Scholar

¹⁹ For a well documented study of this speech and the entire concept of Panca Sila, see Bonneff, Marcel et al. (eds), Pantjasila: Trente Années de Débats Politiques en Indonesie (Paris, 1980);Google Scholar also Bank, , Katholieken, 100–1.Google Scholar

²⁰ See Anderson, Ben, Java in a Time of Revolution, Occupation and Resistance, 1944–1946 (Ithaca, 1972), 81–2.Google Scholar

²¹ See de Bruin's, R. unpublished, 1982, University of Amsterdam dissertation, ‘Indonesie: De Laastste Etappe naar de Vrijheid 1942–1945’, 209;Google Scholar also, Tichel-man, Fritjof, The Social Evolution of Indonesia (The Hague, 1980), ch. 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²² See Reeve, David, Golkar of Indonesia: An Alternative to the Party System (Singapore, 1985), 81–8;Google Scholar and Lee, Oey Hong, War and Diplomacy in Indonesia 1945–1950 (Townsville, 1981), 47.Google Scholar

²³ For Sudarsono's putsch see Anderson, Java, ch. 16; for Madiun, see Swift, Ann, The Road to Madiun: The Indonesian Communist Uprising of 1948 (Ithaca, 1989);Google Scholar and Abels, Herman, University of Amsterdam 1983 skripsie, ‘Madiun Indonesische Communisten in de Nationale Revolutie’, as well as Rudi Kreutzer's The Madiun Affair: Hatta's Betrayal of Indonesia's First Social Revolution (Townsville, 1980), both more revisionist in nature.Google Scholar

²⁴ See Reeve, Golkar, 111–16;Google Scholar Ulf Sundhaussen, , The Road to Power: Indonesian Military Politics 1945–1967 (Oxford, 1982), 61–79;Google ScholarMcVey, Ruth, ‘The Post-Revolutionary Transformation of the Indonesian Army’ in Indonesia 11 (04 1971), 143–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁵ See Reeve, , Golkar, 147–50, 160–4.Google Scholar

²⁶ May, Cf. Brian, The Indonesian Tragedy (London, 1978), 81.Google Scholar

²⁷ But also see ibid., 84–6 for a useful piece of revisionism, quoting inter alia an interview with Nasution.

²⁸ That Soekarno knew his authorities and the enclave-theory they adhered to is demonstrated by his constant reference to them (for instance to van Gelderen, Boeke, Huender, Koch, and Schrieke) in both his Indonesie Klaagt, 28–35, and his Mentjapai.Google Scholar

²⁹ In calling for north-south economic and political collaboration Soekarno was ahead of his time, predating Jan van Tinbergen and Willy Brandt, for example.Google Scholar

³⁰ Cf. Dahm, , Sukarno, viii.Google Scholar

³¹ For Enzenberger see note 2 above.Google Scholar

³² See Bratanata, Slamet, Soeharto's ex-minister for mining, on the significance of these Soeharto re-interpretations of the Panca-Sila, with the latter using that philosophy to divide and rule the nation, as well as an instrument against his political enemies, while Soekarno saw it primarily as a cementing force for keeping the nation togetherGoogle Scholar, in ‘De aard van het beestje is totalitair’, De Volkskrant, 21 04 1990, Het Vervolgedition, 3.Google Scholar

³³ Some, like the Roman Catholic priest (Romo) Y. B. Mangunwijaya, have started such reappraisal; see his ‘Lagi Bung Karno’, Kompas of 18 August 1985. See also my ‘Sukarno: Sebuah Profil Yang Pendek’ in Kabar Seberang, 17 June 1986, 1–4; and my ‘Bung Karno Sekali Lagi’ in Kabar Seberang, 19/20 (1988), 204–5.Google Scholar