with Prijono’s Sedikit tentang sedjarah Asia Timoer Raja dan Sedjarah Tanah Djawa and Muhammad Yamin’s books on two Javanese heroes, Gadjah Mada: pahlawan persatuan nusantara and Sedjarah peperangan Dipanegara: pahlawan kemerdekaan Indonesia, Sanusi’s works represented the first antidote to the Dutch colonial perspective. The new rulers found acceptable images of past glory in the kingdoms of Java and in the subsequent 350 years of colonial Dutch oppression punctuated by failed rebellions in various parts of the archipelago; and there was an implied greatness to come with the overthrow of the colonial power.17
But a Marxist view of the history of Indonesia, discussing classes in terms of either their origin or their conflicts, was most certainly not permitted, even less so by the Japanese than the Dutch colonial power with all its exorbitante rechten (extraordinary powers). It was in secrecy that Tan Malaka wrote his treatise Madilog (materialisme, dialektika, logika), fear of its discovery being the main reason for his move out of Jakarta in mid-1943 (Volume II, p. 154). As to his intention in writing Madilog, which he described as “a bridge to the philosophy of the western proletariat” (p. 13), prominent Indonesian historian Mohammad Ali commented,
It was because he wanted to put his imprint on the process of mental change in his people that Tan Malaka wrote Madilog as the basic exposition of his philosophy, which he also formulated in a booklet Pandangan hidup (Way of Life). What Tan Malaka offered was Materialism-Dialectics-Logic or dialectical materialism as an outlook on life, so that Indonesian man could free himself from a cosmocentric world.18
Within the next few years a number of histories appeared, concentrating on the nationalist movement and the revolution: L. M. Sitorus, Sedjarah pergerakan kebangsaan Indonesia (1949); A. K. Pringgodigdo, Sedjarah pergerakan rakyat Indonesia (1950); and Muhammad Dimyati, Sedjarah perdjuangan Indonesia (1951). With the exception of Sitorus, there was no attempt to analyze the forces in motion on a national or international scale. Sitorus utilizes a wide canvas, though his text runs only to sixty-six pages. Beginning with a chapter on the meaning and function of the study of history, he concentrates on the prewar nationalist movement, giving the viewpoint of the PKI; only in the last six pages does he discuss, and necessarily rush through, the Japanese occupation and the revolutionary period up to November 1948 (with no mention at all of the Madiun Affair).
It was Tan Malaka’s role to articulate what I believe to be the first Indonesian Marxist view on the evolution of Indonesian society, up to and including the nationalist movement and its culmination in the physical struggle for independence. Of course, it must be stressed that Indonesian Marxists, Tan Malaka included, had commented on Indonesian history even before 1920 and that analyses of the nationalist movement had been made through the 1920s and 1930s. Tan Malaka’s own perspective on the early stages of the movement was articulated in great detail in Massa actie, written in 1926.
In the late 1930s a Dutch historian (S. J. Rutgers) and a Russian historian (A. Guber) cooperated on publishing the first overall Marxist approach to Indonesian historiography. Entitled simply Indonesië, Volume I appeared in 1937 and Volume II some ten years later, at the same time that Tan Malaka was writing From Jail to Jail. Tan Malaka makes no reference to this work, and it is highly unlikely that he would have seen a copy, since it was suppressed in Indonesia by the colonial authorities.
From Jail to Jail comprises in large part Tan Malaka’s observations on the course of human history. Some sections are viewed through the prism of his own experiences. Others are expressed as a retelling of historical events, such as the Philippine revolution and the Sejarah Melayu. Still other sections stand as discrete expositions of the theory of historical materialism, as in the introductory sections of Volume III. Tan Malaka presented his paradigm of historical materialism as follows:
With Marx and Engels’ identification of the cause or condition for change in human society, the history of humanity changed from being the product of chance or destiny without cause or clear direction to one with an origin, a direction, a cause, and consequences. With this change, history was lifted from the world of mystery to that of reality, and society could now be studied intellectually. (Volume III, p. 32)
Applying this tool of analysis to recent Indonesian history, Tan Malaka summarizes his position:
1. Prior to the proclamation, the environment and society of Indonesia, through the intervention of Western society, technology, and modern organization, had established a sociopolitical, productive, and distributive system that could be termed a Dutch colonial capitalist society (thesis);
2. Within the womb of Dutch imperialist society, views developed that conflicted with those of that colonial capitalist society. In essence, they were directed toward establishing a new society using all the instruments of technology and Western science for production, a society based on mutual assistance and distribution as well as freedom and equality among the human beings and nationalities of this world (antithesis); and
3. With the proclamation of 17 August, the people and pemuda began to act to put into practice this view of establishing a new world and society on this, our part of the earth (synthesis). (Volume III, p. 43)
It is clear from this schematic presentation that Tan Malaka took the view that “Indonesia” existed prior to the proclamation of independence. Indeed, he uses the concept “Indonesia” even when speaking of prehistoric days. On the other hand, however, he could say, “The true Indonesian nation does not yet have a history of its own except slavery. . . . The history of the Indonesian nation will first begin when it is freed from imperialist domination” (Massa actie, p. 13). This was, and continues to be today, a hotly debated issue among historians of Indonesia.19
I shall discuss in my concluding section of this introduction my views on the importance of understanding the isolation that Tan Malaka experienced from Marxist theoretical discussions during the 1930s. Indeed, I argue that his political evolution ceased in the early 1920s and that he had little access to the intense debate in Marxist circles from that time on. The relevance of this view here is that, although written in the mid-1940s, From Jail to Jail should be analyzed in terms of the early 1920s. In this regard, the work of Arif Dirlik on Chinese Marxist historiography from 1919 to 1937 has considerable bearing on the subject, for a number of characteristics noted by Dirlik find an echo in Tan Malaka’s work.20
One such characteristic is an eclecticism incorporating various strands of Western thought. Tan Malaka discusses his progression from Nietzsche as thesis, Rousseau as antithesis, and Marx/Engels as synthesis. From Jail to Jail reveals, however, that attitudes and sympathies from Nietzsche and Rousseau persisted into the Marxist Tan Malaka’s Weltanschauung. A certain mechanical reductionism expressed so clearly in the evaluation of the Linggajati and Renville agreements, and admiration of power, in particular military might (shown in the description of the Japanese conquest of colonial Southeast Asia), bring echoes of Nietzsche in their wake. Rousseau’s romantic view of human nature and society forms a recurring contrapuntal theme to the text (for instance in a certain idealization of village life).
In his “lightning” sketch of the development of human thought and progress preceding Volume III, Tan Malaka displays this tendency toward an eclectic blending of a number of schools of thought, with particular emphasis given to Darwin. One can see parallels here with Marxist analysis developed in China during the 1920s in which “historical materialism appeared as a variant of evolutionist theory based on economic change.”21
In Vietnam, too, eclecticism and a Social Darwinist approach was predominant in the historiography of the 1920s, particularly among the bourgeois historians, although it was roundly denounced by the Marxist historians from about 1930 “as reactionary capitalist propaganda designed to legitimize ruthless exploitation of the lower classes.”22
Further, Tan
