Notes on Indo-Pacific Nationalism and Internationalism in Indonesia Calling

Page 1

Intention of the talk: reflection on the messages from the Indonesian film Indonesia Calling and their relevance to modern Indonesia.
Two core messages identified by Prof. Ariel Heryanto:
- 1) Kemerdekaan merupakan hak setiap bangsa. This was a new idea at Indonesia's moment of independence; it demanded imagining a time when Indonesia proclaimed independence amidst a brief opportunity after Japan’s defeat and before the Allies fully arrived.
- Indonesia declared independence when the world was not fully prepared; Belanda (the Netherlands) and the Allies were slow to respond, needing months to react and launch an attack. The moment of independence was fragile and easily attacked.
- 2) Kemerdekaan semua bangsa itu adalah urusan semua bangsa. Independence is an international matter, not merely an internal affair; Indonesia’s independence was supported by other nations (Australia, India, China).
- The international nature of independence meant that Indonesia did not stand alone in declaring independence; global sympathy and recognition played a role.
The talk emphasizes the need to re-situate these ideas in the present Indonesia, noting that Indonesia today is different from 70 years ago, particularly in how nationalism and independence are imagined.
Historical context highlighted:
- The moment of independence occurred when currency (uang rupiah) did not yet exist; Indonesian sovereignty was proclaimed even as official monetary systems were still under Japanese/Dutch control.
- The response of the Dutch and the Allies to Indonesia’s independence declaration was slow and reactive, underscoring the fragility of that moment.
The message invites the audience to reflect on what these two ideas mean for contemporary Indonesia and how the nation’s self-image has evolved over time.
The lecture frames nationalism in a global context, arguing that modern national ideas are inseparable from internationalist ideas.
Closing thought for the page: Indonesia’s current national identity differs significantly from its early post-colonial era; the talk seeks to broaden our understanding of what it means to be “a nation” in a global era.

Page 2

The central question of this part: How does modern Indonesian nationalism relate to the broader internationalist framework?
The speaker identifies two dominant ideologies currently contending in Indonesia:
- 1) Gagasan nasionalisme (nationalism) — a serious, strongly defended position held by its advocates.
- 2) Gagasan yang bersumber dari agama Islam (an ideology rooted in Islam), framing the national question in religious terms and competing with secular-nationalist perspectives.
The presentation shifts to concrete expressions of nationalism today, contrasting them with the past:
- Contemporary demonstrations and protests, often accompanied by music (e.g., Mancita Kentar), prompting questions about why there aren’t other songs from the era of 70 years ago; a sense that the era’s artistic expression is underrepresented.
- Public rhetoric during elections (e.g., Pilpres 2014 and 2019) has framed nationalism through anti-foreign sentiment; candidates often position themselves as more anti-foreign as a mark of nationalism.
- A critical observation: nationalism should not be reduce to “anti-foreign” posture; nationalism and internationalism are not mutually exclusive.
Notable slogans and concepts discussed:
- NKRI harga mati (Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia, non-negotiable) — a slogan associated with revolutionary-era nationalism; the critique is that it represents a continuity with older struggles but may limit how nationalism is imagined today.
- The point that this is not simply a 45-era heritage; these emotional archetypes persist but are expressed in a modern, plural context.
The speaker emphasizes that the masculine, combative, and war-time rhetoric of nationalism is not the sole legacy; nationalism today must be read in a more nuanced, plural light.
The broader aim: to understand nationalism as part of a broader, global frame rather than as a purely domestic, isolationist mindset.

Page 3

The discussion uses the film Indonesia Calling as a reference point to compare past and present images of nationalism.
In the New Order era, Indonesian cinema posters (e.g., at Gedung Biskup) were not overtly nationalist; many posters were pornographic or supernatural in nature. This contrasts with a later period when nationalism became a more explicit marketing and cultural force.
Examples of films referenced that highlight nationalism in later periods:
- Bebas (1995) — cited as a film that shows a different mood from earlier nationalist cinema; the speaker notes the shift away from earlier, more sober nationalist representation.
- Merah Putih; Darah Garuda; Garuda didadaku (garuda as a symbol) — titles that explicitly invoke national symbols.
- Pahlawan Lama Nasional — a recent trend of resurrecting historical national figures for mass appeal.
- Sektor industri komersial film (commercial film industry) that leverages nationalist tropes for profit.
Observations about film and nationalism in public life:
- Before screenings of certain nationalist-era films, Indonesian Raya (the national anthem) would be sung in some venues, which was a modern departure from earlier times when such songs were not routinely invoked in cinema spaces.
- In 2017, a policy from Mek Ditbud mandated that schools sing Indonesia Raya before lessons; announced in April 2017 and extended in July 2017 for 3 years. The speaker questions why this practice emerged so recently and asks for reflection on how and why it was instituted.
The lecture uses a specific case: the film Indonesia Calling and its modern reinterpretations, including how nationalist sentiment is marketed and consumed in popular culture.
A critical point: as nationalism becomes a commodity, certain films (e.g., Mingke, a nickname for a student humiliated as a “monkey” in Guru Bang Bang Lada) illustrate how nationalist rhetoric can be repurposed in different contexts, sometimes to the detriment of nuanced, inclusive national identity.
The broader concern: how nostalgia for a certain revolutionary nationalism can narrow the plural, multicultural reality of Indonesia.

Page 4

The discussion returns to cinema and national symbols, noting how film titles and experiences incorporate national imagery (Indonesia Raya, red-and-white flag, Garuda symbol) and how these become tools for marketing and promoting nationalism.
Specific films cited: Sang Pencerah, Sukarno, Guru Bangsa Cokroaminoto, and films about Sukarno, Kartini, and other national figures.
The cinema environment in certain periods (e.g., pre-screen talent and songs) is described as having the audience sing Indonesia Raya, which the speaker notes as a new, perhaps unusual, practice compared to earlier decades.
A critical observation: the commercialization of nationalism can blur the line between cultural celebration and political economy, where national symbols are used to sell products.
The example of Mingke (the insult to a native student used as a plot device) shows how nationalist discourse intersects with social hierarchies and how modern audiences may react differently to these depictions.
The speaker notes a turning point in 2017 (Mek Didbud policy) that formalized nationalist performance in schools, and questions the abruptness and implications of this shift.
The overall argument: Indonesian nationalism has become more restricted and securitized in some modern contexts, even as Indonesia remains deeply multicultural and globally connected.

Page 5

A key thesis: Indonesian nationalism is deeply multicultural, and yet contemporary discourse often narrows it into two opposing poles (a binary between inclusive, global nationalism and a hostile, militaristic nationalism).
The speaker highlights a paradox: Indonesian nationalism, though grounded in the historical struggle for independence, has long been an inherently global concept from the country’s early history of foreign influences and migrations.
The discussion emphasizes that Indonesia’s past was not a monolithic “nationalist” struggle but a cosmopolitan blend of peoples and cultures (Ambon, Chinese, Arab, etc.).
The example of the term India-Belanda illustrates how colonial-era identities were already composite and multicultural, with people of diverse origins contributing to the Indonesian republic.
The talk stresses the symbolic power of cultural hybridity in Indonesia’s early growth: the land attracted people from various backgrounds due to its fertility and resources, creating a multicultural society even before modern nation-states fully formed.
The discussion recounts the way such diversity showed up in history, including travel and exchange with colonies and global movements; the phrase India-Belanda is used to describe the colony’s diverse population.
The speaker reflects on the contemporary moment where nationalist rhetoric sometimes reifies a narrow identity (e.g., the discourse around outsiders and foreigners) while the historical record demonstrates deep multicultural intermixture.
Pop culture and youth culture as a site of ongoing negotiation: today’s youth may gravitate toward global popular culture (e.g., K-pop) while still living in a multicultural Indonesian framework.
The speaker uses a visual memory of Indonesia’s past—its cosmopolitan character (farmers, merchants, laborers, immigrants)—to argue for a more inclusive, global sense of nationhood.
A broader theme: Indonesian national identity is inherently global; to preserve it, one must acknowledge and incorporate multiculturalism rather than reduce it to binary nationalist narratives.

Page 6

The page continues the multicultural argument by giving concrete historical examples:
- People from Ambon, white-skinned people, Chinese, and Arabs as contributors to what was historically called India-Belanda—illustrating Indonesia’s long-standing diversity.
- The idea that the colonial-era workforce in the Netherlands-India empire included many brown-skinned individuals; not all colonial civil servants were white.
- The notion that Indonesia, during certain historical moments, contributed players to global events (e.g., being among the first Asia-Pacific teams in a football world cup context, even if the match results were not favorable).
The text highlights that the colonial empire’s makeup was diverse and that the colonial label itself—India-Belanda—reflected this cosmopolitan population and cross-cultural exchange.
The speaker discusses cultural memory and diaspora: Indonesian people, including those taken to Australia as political prisoners or used in the colonial administration’s domestic structures, illustrate the broad reach of Indonesia’s historical connections.
The lecture emphasizes that nationalism in Indonesia’s history was expressed in multiple locales, not only in large urban centers but also in diaspora communities (e.g., Ludruk performances in Melbourne in 1943).
The point is made that the Indonesian struggle for independence involved international attention and participation from Indonesian diasporas abroad, including demonstrations in Australia and interactions with foreign observers.
The broader takeaway: Indonesia’s modern national culture is inseparable from its global relationships and history of exchange, not a purely insular phenomenon.

Page 7

The narrative centers on the post-1945 period when Indonesia declared independence and then faced foreign intervention and diplomacy.
The presence of foreign support for Indonesia’s independence is highlighted through concrete anecdotes:
- Mr. Joe Isak (an Australian envoy) who, despite political tensions, supported Indonesia’s early political leadership, aided by his language skills and time living in Indonesia.
- The Australian government’s envoy, McMahon Ball, who supported Indonesian leaders—Sukarno, Hatta, and Sjahrir—and the complexities of those early diplomatic relations.
The text notes that Indonesia’s path to independence involved a spectrum of responses: some admired the Indonesian cause, others faced concern about sovereignty under Allied scrutiny.
The historical detail: even after independence, Indonesia faced ongoing struggle and conflict (e.g., 1947) before full normalization with the Dutch and other powers; the author emphasizes that Indonesia’s history is one of continual contest and negotiation rather than a simple, linear path to nationhood.
The author argues that from 1950 onward, the initial global vision of a multicultural, globally connected Indonesia faced challenges and some of that ideal was eroded or sidelined in the pursuit of internal stability.
The theme: global solidarity and cross-cultural exchange—between Indonesia and Australia, India, and other nations—has been a consistent thread despite political ups and downs.
The page closes with an emphasis on the ongoing need to understand and preserve Indonesia’s multicultural foundations in the face of nationalism’s narrowing tendencies.

Page 8

Reflection on present-day misunderstandings about Indonesia’s past and its global connections:
- Some Indonesians misunderstand or dismiss the international support that accompanied Indonesia’s independence and early state-building, forgetting that allies helped and that external partners influenced the course of the nation’s development.
- The talk reiterates the idea that nationalism must embrace international ties rather than repudiate them; the Republic’s own name (Republik) has roots outside Indonesia (the term “Republic” originates in ancient Greek language contexts like Plato’s Republic), underscoring the global nature of political concepts.
The presenter highlights a vivid anecdote: a photograph/book memory about a colonial-era mix of people (Ambonese, Europeans, Chinese, etc.) and the colonial administration’s diversity, illustrating that early Indonesian society was already multicultural beyond simple binary labels.
A key policy note: the post-independence era saw the international community, including Australia, India, and others, play roles in Indonesia’s early diplomacy and political development.
The talk ends with a reaffirmation of the need for multiculturalism and openness: Indonesia’s national identity is not a closed, purely domestic construct but a product of long-standing global interactions.

Page 9

Student feedback excerpt (English-language responses) praising the presentation and its value for understanding Indonesia–Australia diplomatic relations.
Key student takeaways:
- The independence of Indonesia was not solely a domestic effort; China and India also contributed to the broader struggle, highlighting the international dimension of national freedom.
- The film Indonesia Calling offered a lens to view Indonesia’s past that contrasts with the present; students recognize the importance of multiculturalism in shaping Indonesia’s identity.
- The students express appreciation for the chance to learn about the global dimensions of Indonesian independence and the role of Australia and India.
- The discussion raises questions about how to convey or preserve the notion of nationalism as international, particularly for a younger generation (millennials) in a borderless world.
The students reflect on how globalization and cross-cultural exchange influence modern Indonesian identity and the way nationalism is taught and perceived.
They suggest education should emphasize openness to foreign influences to build a more inclusive national identity rather than a reflexive, insular nationalism.
A forward-looking note from students: pride in multicultural heritage, but with an awareness of how to responsibly share and teach nationalist ideas across borders.

Page 10

Final reflections from the speaker/participants:
- The claim that Indonesia is inherently a global nation, with influences from various cultures since ancient times, contrary to the notion of a purely insular national culture.
- The origin of the term Republik and its Greek roots (Republik from Greek contexts, not exclusively Indonesian), illustrating how national concepts borrow and adapt from global intellectual history.
- The call to avoid ethnocentric notions of “asli” (genuine/indigenous) and “asing” (foreign); instead, recognize that globalization and exchange have always shaped Indonesia.
- The idea of a borderless nation in the modern era: information and influence flow across borders, and Indonesia should engage with the world rather than isolate itself.
- Practical guidance for contemporary citizenship: maintain openness, adapt national identity to a global context, and avoid polarizing rhetoric that reduces nationalism to a simple “us vs. them” dichotomy.
Final message: Multiculturalism and international connections are foundational to Indonesia’s national project; the country’s identity benefits from recognizing and embracing global ties rather than retreating into exclusive nationalism.
Closing note: The audience, including international partners like Australia and India, underscores the long-standing, constructive relationships that have contributed to Indonesia’s development and its multicultural, global character.
The overall takeaway emphasizes living with a modern, global awareness while respecting Indonesia’s diverse cultural fabric and history.