The Politics of Anamnesis:
The Subversive Memory of Jesus in a Criminal Country
By Patrisius M. Andalas
Gloria Dei vivens homo; Vanitas Dei moriens homo.
Jon Sobrino[1]
The politics of anamnesis conveys my politico-theological journey interpreting the lives of victims of the May – Semanggi tragedy of 1998 and the life of Jesus from
I start my politico-theological essay by revisiting the May – Semanggi tragedy of 1998 from the eyes of victims.[2] I use terminologies the “politics of anamnesis” and the “politics of amnesia” to name battles for truths that have taken place between the Indonesian government and the community of victims. The government wrote an official report on the tragedy that idolized them and criminalized the victims and survivors. I also find battles for truth between each party in the Christian scripture. In this essay, I focus on the dynamics among the community of victims who have struggled to resist the politics of amnesia. I hear a call to proclaim the God of Life in a criminal country. I revisit the Scripture to re-claim the subversive memory of Jesus and I protest the Indonesian government who caused premature deaths toward innocent victims. I propose the politics of anamnesis as a politico-theological critique to the politics of amnesia. I end this essay with a personal letter to a mother whose son died prematurely in the Semanggi tragedy and request her to respond to my letter.
Reclaiming the Dead Bodies
I encountered the community of victims for the first time when I visited Cipto Mangunkusumo hospital in
The government declared officially the May tragedy as a mass riot and stigmatized all victims who died prematurely inside the shopping centers as penjarah (English: looters)! Many Indonesians, even academicians, participated in the politics of victimization by adopting the report uncritically. The community of victims conversely shared their last moments with the victims and defended their innocence. Mrs. Ruyati Darwin who found the identity of her son, Eten Karyana, from his unburned wallet denied the accusation against him as a looter. According to the eyewitnesses, Eten stood outside
Some men came from the direction of Pondok Kopi bringing jars of gasoline. They splashed the gasoline outside the building and burned it. They ignored the masses who shouted to them to stop their acts, “Don’t burn the plaza. Many people still stay inside!” They burned the plaza and left the area immediately after they completed the assigned job.[3]
The community of victims has sought to know the truth of the May tragedy. They rejected the official report from the government because the report distorted the truth. The community admitted that they sometimes adopted terminologies used in the report, such as penjarah (English: looters), kerusuhan (English: riot), and provokator (English: provocateurs) when they told the truth of the tragedy. They saw the importance to create a resistant language.
I lost my only son who died prematurely during the May tragedy of 1998. I beg your pardon if I talk to you using ordinary language. I only know the language that I always use to speak to my kids. His death forced me to enter into a political stage …. I requested the government to discover the provocateurs that caused his death. He would live if the provocateurs did not burn the Plaza.[4]
The government gave less attention to the victims of mass rape during the May tragedy until domestic and international human right activists raised the issue. They first denied that mass rape happened during the tragedy and then released the number of Chinese women who suffered mass rape when they could not hide the fact from the public. They criticized human right activists who defined rape loosely that consequently increased significantly the number of rape victims. Human right activists invited the public to understand the psychology of rape victims after the tragedy and analyzed information about the mass rape critically. The minimum of rape testimonies did not necessarily tell the public that the mass rape never happened. Irresponsible individuals or organizations released counterfeit reports about the mass rape to confuse the publics and to victimize the survivors further. Human right activists urged the government to create a new law that would protect the victims or the witnesses.[5] Rev. Sandyawan Sumardi, the general secretary of the Volunteer Teem for Humanity, invited the public to listen to the unsaying.[6]
The government deprived the humanity of victims and performed a political ritual to forget them. The community of victims conversely has continued to reclaim the humanity of victims and to remember them. They discovered the identity of perpetrators by interpreting the fractured body of victims. Social anamnesis expresses an active act to unveil the identity of the victims and to disclose the identity of the perpetrators. Elaine Scarry, in her book entitled The Body in Pain, discovers that the perpetrator of violence seeks to injure the humanity of the victims totally and to mute them. They seek to destroy the ability of the victims to objectify their case verbally. They attack the body of the victims intensively and seek to separate them from the social body. They deprive the voice, self, and the social world of the victims. They dehumanize the victims by causing muteness, self-refusal, and social alienation. The survivors reclaim their humanity when they have power to resist dehumanization by narrating their unspeakable sufferings to the public.[7]
The perpetrators sought to perform a drama of violence without leaving any mark on it. They distorted the truth of the when they failed to hide their violent acts perfectly. They covered their criminal identity by attacking the credibility of the victims and humanitarian volunteers who supported the victims. They at first accused the victims who died prematurely in the shopping centers as looters. They used the term kerusuhan (English: riot) to settle the dispute when human right activists uncovered the systematic pattern in the tragedy. They also accused Chinese women telling lies about the mass rape to the public. They government considered the mass rape as an unintended consequence of the tragedy when they could not defend their accusation convincingly.
The Trisakti and Semanggi tragedy also happened in 1998 and caused premature deaths toward students and civilians. They “canonized” the students who suffered premature deaths during the Trisakti tragedy as the “martyrs of reformation” and conversely stigmatized the students and civilians who died during the Semanggi tragedy as political protesters. They considered the victims of Semanggi tragedy as political protesters that might cause national instability and they found a political justification to use violence limitedly to restore political stability. They never considered the act as a crime against humanity, but merely as a procedural mistake to interpret the military command. The military officials prosecuted the military squads who shot the victims in a military court because they only misinterpreted a military command that consequently caused premature deaths. They would decide whether the military squads misinterpreted or followed the order faithfully. They denied the suggestion from human right activists to prosecute the military squads in a civil court. The military court de facto functioned more as an instrument for impunity rather than for justice.
The community of victims has urged the government to create an ad hoc tribunal to prevent the crime against humanity and to punish the perpetrators. They expect that the tribunal will provide justice to the victims and will end impunity toward the perpetrators. The government responded the proposal negatively because they considered the May – Semanggi tragedy as a political riot that caused mass injuries and killings unintendedly. They lacked conviction to define individuals or organization that orchestrated the tragedy because the riot involved angry masses. The government rejected political speculations that accused them for orchestrating or supporting to orchestrate the tragedy. The newly established government under Soesilo Bambang Yudoyono also expresses the same difficulty to prosecute the perpetrators. They ordered the House of the Representatives and the governmental judiciary assembly to investigate the case and resolve it constitutionally.
The Subversive Memory of Jesus
The community of victims has seen the important role of religion in pursuing justice for the victims. Religious communities have assisted the community of victims in dealing with sufferings and in journeying for justice. They also have paid attention to support them psychologically and economically. The community of victims has challenged the Church to re-imagine politics positively as a sphere to transform reality, and to re-imagine her political role as a public witness in a criminal country. They have called Christian theologians to re-interpret the subversive memory of Jesus in a criminal country. Jesus became a faithful witness of God by denouncing historical idols that caused premature deaths toward the innocent victims and announcing the divine preferential option for the sufferers. He proclaimed the reign of God by unveiling historical idols, defending historical victims, and humanizing society.
Mrs. Su, whose son died prematurely in the plaza during the May tragedy, has taken a significant role as a treasurer in the community of the May tragedy. She has struggled with her economic problem, but has tried to seek scholarship for her community who need educational support for their kids. She has involved her Church to support them economically at least during Christmas season.[8] She has involved in supporting her members who still need a psychological support by visiting them and holding periodic gatherings. She has represented her community courageously to raise a public awareness about the criminal regime that orchestrated a political violence during the May – Semanggi tragedy.
The community of victims has met regularly at religious places. They experienced that the memory of suffering sometimes paralyzed as well as liberated them. They sought to know the basic attitude of God responding to the criminal regime who killed the victims unjustly. God in Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, and other religious communities denounces unjust sufferings and criminal regimes that caused premature deaths. The memory of suffering can unveil a political regime that worships the historical idols of death. The community of victims challenges me to re-imagine the role of religion in a criminal country. I seek to formulate a Christian theology that arises from the subversive memory of political victims in
I do not start my theological reflection from the scriptural texts but from the existential experiences of victims. I discovered that the community of victims posed a brief, yet an important question after the tragedy. Why? When they saw indications that the government involved in orchestrating the tragedy, they asked the government, “Why you killed them?” The community of victims has struggled to see the basic relationship between God and the historical victims. I ask whether the God of life or the idols of death caused premature and unjust deaths toward the victims. The Christian theology can help the community of victims to discover the criminal regime as the perpetrator of tragedy. Mrs. Indah, the older sister of Tedi Mardani who died prematurely in the Semanggi tragedy, has tried to understand the death of his younger brother from her Islamic faith.
”God, I ask You to grant Tedi life beyond the grave. Heaven may become his final destination after his innocent death. Your divine grace may strengthen me to offer his life to You and to accept his premature death.
I have decided to pursue for his cause after his death.... We surrendered his death to God because we believe that God will love him in heaven.[10]
Mrs. Sumarsih posed a similar question when her son, Bernardinus Realino Norma Irmawan, died prematurely during the Semanggi tragedy. Sumarsih shifted her reflection from a theological to political question. She experienced the presence of God as a light that helped her to unveil the criminal regime that caused his death.
I have recognized the presence and power of God in my family after the tragedy. I felt embarrassment because I cried easily after the military shot dead my son. His premature death shed my tears easily. I sometimes passed my days crying…. I experience gratefulness because I do not lose God.
The Hermeneutics of Victim
I formulate the hermeneutics of victim to interpret historical and biblical events through the eyes of victims. The hermeneutic of victim considers politics as a transformative act and politics of victimization as a dehumanizing act. David Held helps me to re-imagine the Church as a transformative agent in transforming society. Robert Elias awakens me to the status of victims in the contemporary world. Johann Baptist Metz, Jon Sobrino and Ivonne Gebara invite me to read the story of Jesus as a subversive as well as liberating memory. Jesus used the “hermeneutic of victim” to liberate the victims from the idols of death. He resists the “hermeneutics of victimizer” that dehumanized the victims.
David Held rejects a traditional understanding of politics as an exclusive act of people who work in governmental or political offices. Held also rejects the tendency to separate politics from daily human issues in the academy. He understands politics as a discipline as well as practice that produces and reproduces reality. Politics involves all humans as transformative agents and it wrestles with “the history of possibilities” and “the possibilities of history.” Held admits that government officials and politicians have tried to reduce politics from a public into an exclusive sphere. They have tried to conquer political space by depriving the transformative capacity of others. De-politicization happens when individuals or groups claim political sphere as their private property.[12]
The hermeneutic of victim requires a positive understanding of politics. The
The hermeneutics of victim also requires a preferential option for the victims. The Church has struggled to listen to their voices and have resisted the temptation to adopt the official report about the tragedy uncritically. She lives in a criminal country that has ignored the oppositional voice of the victims actively. She has learned to understand that the community of victims has experienced difficulty to narrate their sufferings to the public. Most of the victims had difficulty to speak about their sufferings to the public. The victims of mass rape spoke rarely to the public about their cases and the witnesses of mass rape also found difficulties to testify to the public because they received political threats. The Church only knew abut their sufferings incompletely but needed to listen to their oppositional voices.
Seno Gumira Ajidarma, in his short story entitled Clara, narrated a Chinese woman who became a victim of mass rape during the May tragedy. Clara at least posed two important questions after she suffered a mass rape: Who am I? Where do I belong? She deprived from her humanity and dislocated socially because
She told her tale in a language that was impossible to understand. Not because her Indonesian isn’t good enough, since she has complete command of the language, but because it seems as if what she’d experienced and felt couldn’t be put into sentences. Her pretty face was full of unimaginable emotional pain. I was almost moved even before she began to tell her tale. I could never have imagined that a human being should have endured so great a burden of suffering merely because she was born as a human being. Her story came falteringly. The sentences didn’t follow one another. Her words were scattered about without being linked together so that I had to make sense out of them myself. What kind of burden of suffering could a human being experience that would render her unable to speak coherently?[13]
Robert Elias observes that contemporary people understand victimization distortedly because victimization becomes a synonym for crime. A distorted understanding of victimization ignores the root of political victimization. Robert Elias calls contemporary people to challenge structures that produce victimization. The politics of victimization dehumanizes the subjects by treating them as acceptable victims. It happens when contemporary people recognize their existence in history, but ignore them. The victims first of all seek to escape victimization and then further victimization. The prevailing culture, politics, and even law still ignore necessary protections toward the victims.
Victims have progressed significantly in the last quarter century, but they have not yet shaken their second-class status. When victimized, they lack confidence in receiving the aid they need, and for good reason – they often must tolerate inadequate services, cultural insensitivity, and political insignificant and official maltreatment. The many worthy initiatives for victim rights and services have provided valuable help, yet have been impeded by numerous obstacles. Most important, we have been very unsuccessful in preventing victimization in the first place.[14]
Johann Baptists Metz suggests that the Church connects Christian message as a dangerous memory with contemporary world.
Johann Baptist Metz detects the danger of political euthanasia which veils the face of totalitarian regime with democratic government. He envisions a cultured politics that supports human freedom as well as global responsibility. He realizes the complex process to connect politics and morality in contemporary world. He urges to include the memories of human sufferings because contemporary society who worships technological civilization ignores human sufferings easily. He even brings discussion further by inviting contemporary people to see the world from the eyes of suffering people.
This connection between politics and moral cannot be ordained from above, and can and should not be allowed to relapse into the political canonization of a particular moral system. It requires the mobilization of spiritual and moral forces by means of a radical democratization of the social infrastructure, a nourishing from below of freedom and effective responsibility.[16]
A Totalitarian regime enslaves humans by destructing their memories. It conceals the importance of suffering by idolizing a progressive history and underestimates a dangerous meaning of suffering.
The hermeneutics of victim requires the Church to re-imagine liberation. Johann Baptist Metz relates liberation with freedom and Jon Sobrino shifts the discussion of liberation into a new direction when he connects liberation with life. Sobrino relates human suffering with the divine hope for life. He rejects a fatalistic or ascetical understanding of human suffering. He invites the Church to shift her discussion about idolatry from a theodicean into anthropological question. He considers suffering from the de facto situation in the
Jon Sobrino sees an absolute need for the Church to “live spiritual life historically and live historical life spiritually.” The Church should commit herself to build the reign of God in the very midst of history. The historical and Christian realities call the Church to transform history by loving justly.[19] Jon Sobrino suggests the Church to use present historical situations as her setting for doing theology. The historical situations help her to penetrate the reality of God in the Scripture.
The “setting” of Christology is not, therefore, a direct categorical ubi, a particular place in geographical or spatial terms (universities, seminaries, base communities, bishop’s offices…) although it has to be in one or several of them, and each of them offers advantages and disadvantages, and ideally the specific positive characteristic of each should be present in all of them. But “setting” here means first and foremost a quid, a substantial situation in which Christology offers it, allow itself to be affected, questioned, and enlightened.[20]
Jon Sobrino pays attention to contemporary historical idols that create premature deaths, but does not yet address historical idols that dehumanize women intensely. The Church needs a politico-liberation hermeneutics with a gender perspective; otherwise the Church excludes women as one of the political victims throughout history. Ivone Gebara, a Brazilian feminist liberation theologian, reinterprets historical evils that hide in societal and ecclesial institutions. Gebara uses a feminist liberation hermeneutics to unveil and denounce historical evils that degrade women by design. The Church should ask herself honestly whether she accommodates or denounces historical evils that cause premature deaths toward women.
The problem that captivates my thinking is not the existence of evil, but rather the understanding of it, the way it is interpreted, and especially the role this interpretation has played in history and theology, particularly in relationship with women… The evil that I want to talk about is not the evil we do personally, but the evil that we undergo, that we suffer or endure, something not chosen, the kind of evil present in institutions and social structure that accommodate it, even facilitate it. Evil of this sort has no connection with conscience of choice. It is sometimes beyond recognition. One lives with it daily; one sometimes endures it without even naming it as evil. Moreover, it often happens that this kind of evil is accepted as fate, as God’s design or as punishment for hidden sins.[21]
Reading the Story of Jesus from the Eyes of Victims
At the previous section, I proposed the main characteristics of the hermeneutics of victim. The hermeneutics of victim re-imagines politics, victim, and liberation. It sees politics as a positive sphere to transform reality, victim as a subversive subject in history, and liberation as a new language for salvation. At this section, I use this hermeneutics to read the story of Jesus who proclaimed the reign of God to the sufferers. Jesus encountered the victims, confronting the kingdom of death, and liberating the victims. The criminal regimes that worshipped the idols of death confronted him and caused his premature death. They also confronted all transformative agents, including women, who defended their sacred lives and challenges the kingdom of death.
Jesus encountered people who suffered poverty, sickness, discrimination, and premature death. He discovered that criminal regimes caused their sufferings and premature deaths. Jesus named political leaders, religious authorities, and even academic authorities who hid sufferings from eyes of public. He observed that human solidarity disappeared from the community. He took side with individuals and communities who experienced unjust sufferings. He built a community of love that portrayed God as a Thou who loved the sufferers. The community of love worked with him to denounce the anti-love kingdom that caused unjust sufferings.[22]
Jesus proclaimed the reign of God by helping the poor, visiting the sick, welcoming the outsiders, and raising the dead. He re-imagined a new relationship between human beings by inviting the poor to share a meal with him from the inclusive table. He challenged a traditional perception of table as a miniature of social separation and reconceived table as a miniature of egalitarian society. He ate with tax collectors, unmarried women, the poor and sinners. Jesus received derogatory stereotypes from the advocates of the purity system as a glutton, a drunkard, and a friend of publicans and sinners. All who conceived table as a social boundary criticized Jesus because he associated with people who did not deserve to eat in the same table with him.
Jesus touched the sick and cured them. He confronted a harsh criticism from the advocates of the clean system who supported the separation between the unclean and the clean. These people created a clean society by drawing a bodily-boundary line. They rejected the sick because the sick contaminated the clean society. Jesus constructed a new society by opposing the clean society. He introduced the reign of God as a new community that welcomed the unclean. He rejected the politics of purity that excluded and divided society into the unclean from the clean, and introduced the politics of compassion that includes and unites all people. He rejected a socio-religious map that ignored the impure. He visited the temple not as a legal observer, but as a confrontational witness toward the clean society.[23]
Jesus journeyed across the potentially separating boundaries to proclaim the reign of God. He challenged his society that ignored the identity of others outside its territorial boundary. Jesus, in the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10, 29-37), invited his society to cross its comfort zone and to meet with the outsiders. He focused his ministry at the Jewish territory, but also crossed the Gentile territory. He used to draw a boundary marking as a Jewish Messiah. His encounter with an unnamed Syro-Phoenician woman and other Gentiles called him cross his socio-religious boundary. Jesus proclaimed the reign of God as a community that welcome all identity-groups. He created a living space for the non-identity groups who live at the periphery, even outside society.
Jesus entered into conflicts with the advocates of the politics of purity because he proposed an alternative society.[24] He challenged the old society that perpetuated dehumanization and premature deaths. He used life as the hermeneutical instrument to unveiled false divinities because he saw life as the first mediation of the divine reality. He staked himself to proclaim the God of life by fostering human life. He challenged the politico-religious systems that negated the God of life and dehumanized humans. He also exposed the religious institutions that justified human oppressions in the name of God.
Jesus confronted the religious and political regimes that worshipped the idols of death. The religious leaders expelled him from the synagogue that symbolized the divine presence. They accused him guilty religiously because Jesus challenged the temple as a concrete mediation of God and considered himself as an alternative mediator of God. They claimed themselves as the true mediators of God and punished Jesus for mediating God falsely. Sobrino also invites the Church to see the political regime as a significant agent that caused the premature death of Jesus. He sees a tendency to overlook the role of political regime in his premature death. The religious and political regimes who worshipped the idols of death dehumanized Jesus totally by criminalizing and crucifying him.[25]
The political and religious regimes condemned Jesus to death penalty; his surrounding community conversely rejected his crucifixion. His female disciples expressed their faithful love to Jesus by standing around him at
Jesus died as a faithful witness of the loving God toward humans who experienced historical crosses. He experienced cross not because he fought against atheism literally, but because he fought against the idol of deaths.
Sobrino reminds the Church of the danger rejecting the God life and responding to the crucified people non-empathetically. The memory of Jesus will become flat and lose its subversive scandal if the Church isolates it from concrete history. Jesus carried his cross because he embraced the God of life and opposed political and religious regimes that worship the idols of death. His resurrection questions human to opt for the God of Life and to voice human solidarity. The Church should find the presence of God in contemporary people who carry historical crosses.[28]
My Own Story
I end this essay with a personal letter to Mrs. Sumarsih. She and the community of victims have challenged me to formulate the hermeneutics of victim that start from their experiences dealing with historical crosses. They also have challenged the Church to revisit the Scripture that announces the God of life and denounces the historical idols of death. They have called the Church to become a witness of divine love in a criminal country. The Church should resists the politics of victimization that cause unjust sufferings and ignore the victims from history.
From Heaven You Wipe My Tears
By Patrisius M. Andalas [29]
Dear Sumarsih,
I wrote this letter at the end of summer season. I feel sorry because you will receive a wet letter. I wrote it with a language of tears and sealed it with an envelope of tears. I had written it for almost 9 years, and I almost did not finish it. I paused at loss of words and found only tears in my eyes. I remembered you, Arief Prijadi, Irma and Wawan. I stengthened my shaky hands to finish the letter and to send it to you. I ever received a pen as a present before I left Jakarta and I wrote this letter using this pen. I hope that this letter will restore my friendship with the community of victims. I seek to narrate your experience losing your beloved son during the Semanggi tragedy of 1998 and pursuing justice for his case. An editor of a national journal publishes my experience encountering the community of victims as a humanitarian letter.
Dear Sumarsih,
an Indonesian human right activist came to US last week and invited me to join with him to campaign against state-violence. I shared my involvement with the survivors and families of May – Semanggi tragedy of 1998. My whole body suddenly trembled when I narrated your political journey from Joglo, the place where you buried your beloved son after the shooting, to the Presidential palace. I could hear your steps walking, wearing a mourning cloth, and sharing your journey, ”I experience strength as well as weakness. I walk courageously to the Presidential palace to pursue my case as long as God provides life to me.” I could not help shedding my tears when I addressed your name during the seminar. Your serene eyes reminded me of the question that you posed to me almost nine years ago, ”Would you accompany me to seek justice?” I hope you still allow me to answer it.
Dear Sumarsih,
You came from Rogomulyo, Susukan, an administrative division of Semarang province. You sought to support life for people close to you. When you married to Arif Prijadi, you promised before God to become a faithful wife in times of sorrow and joy, and to become a responsible mother for your kids. When you delivered Bernardinus Realino Norma Irmawan, you promised to educate him becoming a person living according to the norm of justice and following the dynamics of society.
Dear Sumarsih,
On November 13, 1998 you received a death notice. The Indonesian military troops shot dead Wawan when your beloved son evacuated the injured students who marched near his campus Atmajaya. According to the eyewitnesses, Wawan asked permission from the military officer to evacuate the injured. He waved a white flag as a sign of humanitarian help, but the military troops still shot him right in his chest, went through his heart and hurt his left lung.
Dear Sumarsih,
You visited your deceased son at the Jakarta hospital. You saw him lying in an open keranda and wearing a white t-shirt and a short. The physicians bended his hands and bound his tumb feet with a piece of cloth. You saw a hole at his t-shirt with a dark red color surrounding it as if someone burned a cigarette on it. You felt a sharp bullet shot his body and caused his premature death. Wawan, your beloved son, died because he defended the life of injured students. You put his body on your lap and murmured, ”God, I accept whenever You want to take his life, but I protest when the military took his death prematurely by violence.”[30]
Dear Sumarsih,
University students, NGO activists, office colleagues, media reporters and others came to offer sincere condolences. They gathered around the body of your deceased son and witnessed your suffering as a mother who lost her son who died prematurely in a political tragedy. Dear Sumarsih, we ask your forgiveness if we responded to your suffering with apathy.
Dear Sumarsih,
His death froze your life like a winter season. You almost did not leave the living room, the place where you laid his body before his burial in Joglo public cemetery. You stood near the window for hours praying and waiting for the latest news about his case. You did not feel hunger for weeks because white rice always reminded you of your deceased son who loved to it during his life. One day you felt a terrible hunger and said to Jesus crying, ”I am hungry.” Suffering almost paralyzed your life. When you returned to your office, your body lost balance and tears flew like a river. You laid your weak body at the wall seeking support until your fellow worker hold your hands and helped you enter into your office. Dear Sumarsih, we beg your forgiveness because we often left you to walk alone with shaky feet and weak hands.
Dear Sumarsih,
You have read the scriptures, prayed, fasted, and visited the cemetery after his death. You lit a candle of hope when desperation begins to conquer your life. You admitted that you experience weakness, tiredness, and even hopelessness. You long for the presence of God when you recite the psalm,” Not in my bow do I trust, nor does my sword bring me victory. You have brought us victory over our enemies, shamed those who hate us. In God we have boasted all the day long; your name we will praise forever” (Ps 44, 7 – 9).[31] Dear Sumarsih, your God has listened to you and has responded to your lamentation, ”Come to me Sumarsih when you were weary and heavily burdened. I will give you rest.”
Dear Sumarsih,
You experienced moments of darkness and confusion after his death. You reached at a crossroad and you asked God to lead your journey to truth. You long for God to lit a candle in your heart. You return to God in prayer. You started your days reading the scriptures, visiting the cemetery at 7.30 a.m., reciting the rosary at 12 p.m., praying the most holy names of Jesus, the sacred heart of Jesus, and Mary at 5 p.m. You prayed to God before you went to bed and sometimes you could sing to God in the middle of the night. Every time you woke up from your sleep you oriented yourself to God.
Dear Sumarsih,
You pray to God using fractured words. You believe that God understands the language of tears. You introduce tears as a possible language in prayer. You raised your head when your offered your deceased son to God of life. You brought back him to God lovingly. You have fasted three times in a week after his death. You have fasted on Thursday to follow the Javanese tradition and have fasted on Friday to remember his death and have fasted on Saturday to remember his burial.
Dear Sumarsih,
His death devastated your life. You almost experienced powerlessness to recover from it. You have visited his cemetery at Joglo everyday on the way to your office at Meruya because he has resided in your heart. The cemetery has become a family garden by bringing flowers and water routinely. It has become a wellspring for your life, a place where you have washed away your tears. When you experienced tiredness, took a little rest there. You experienced his spirit accompany and console your journey. Dear Sumarsih, your beloved son ever wrote an untitled poetry:
I seek to follow my conscience
I do it for others
I never expect a reward from them
I only do a small thing: to see them smile
I only seek to become a free person
I only seek to love.[32]
Dear Sumarsih,
You have walked from Joglo to the Palace to seek justice and you do not yet reach final destination. You have moved closer to the Palace, but the presidential guards have prevented you entering into the area. You never imagined that you had to walk a long journey before you approached the Palace. Munir, a human right activist from KontraS who died prematurely for defending the political victims, ever talked to you: “We need to chase after the cloud in order to pursue justice in
Dear Sumarsih,
You have walked through a difficult path with the community of victims to seek justice. You shared your political pilgrimage modestly, “I never identify myself as a human right activist. My political act shows a high degree of spontaneity. I do ordinary, yet important things."[34] You have fought against law enforcers as an ordinary mother. Your resistance arises from your womb. You lack financial support and suffer law illiteracy, but you never lack resistance. You have experienced law discrimination because the law enforcers cover political violence legally. You believe that the regime does not have any right to decide the life and death of your beloved son.
Dear Sumarsih,
You have fought with the community of victims to resists against the political regime who has tried to preserve the anonymity of victims. The regime also has separated the victims from the wider society. They have tried to drop the case legally. Once you threw eggs during the House of Representatives’ session to awake their conscience. The regime has tried to exempt military officers who implicated with mass killings from the charge of crimes against humanity. Some civilians even accused you for giving him birth, but mis-educating him. Some advised to drop your case in order to restore a positive image of
Dear Sumarsih,
Political terror has failed to weaken your spirit to seek justice for the victims. I would like to send my greeting to the family of Teddy Mardani, Sigit Prasetyo, and Engkus Kurnaedi. I would like also to say my greeting to the family of the victims of Trisakti and Semanggi II tragedy. You kneel before God when you feel tiredness in journey pursuing justice. Wawan, your beloved son, has wiped away your tears from heaven. When you feel tiredness in your pilgrimage, I hope you allow me to hold your hands.
My Broken Heart Resists
By Maria Katarina Sumarsih[36]
Dear Rev. Patrisius M. Andalas,
Time has passed shortly after the Semanggi tragedy. I have remembered my deceased son and his friend at the volunteer team for humanity (TRuK). I remembered that I often asked you on the way to the government offices, “What should I say?” I asked the similar question again when a private television INDOSIAR on
Dear Rev. Patrisius M. Andalas,
I have recognized the presence and power of God in my family after the tragedy. I felt embarrassment because I cried easily after the military shot dead my son. His premature death shed my tears easily. I sometimes passed my days crying. Rev. Ignatius S. Sumardi and Mrs. Karlina L. Supelli consoled me and understood that I needed a period of mourning.
I experience gratefulness because I do not lose God.
Dear Rev. Patrisus M. Andalas,
I have immersed into a political arena and have stood face to face with the regime that authorized political violence. The criminal regime asserted the rule of law in its constitution, but abused the survivors and family of victims who seek law protection. They lacked political honesty and played a dangerous game that harmed our humanity. They agreed to create an ad hoc court through law No. 26/2000, but the law enforcers used it to drop the charge toward the perpetrators. The House of Representatives released an official report that rejected the Trisakti tragedy on
The national committee for human right in
Dear Rev. Patrisius M. Andalas,
I sometimes experienced helplessness journeying toward justice. I occasionally overlooked my role in the community of victims and fell into temptation to end state-violence heroically. I often imagined myself as a short woman trying to catch the moon. I also overlooked the role of the government as the only agency who could stop the recurrent cycle of violence. I should participate to end state-violence.
The community of victims can resist social amnesia, but many of them withdrew from the struggle because they suffered exhaustion and did not see a hopeful future for their case. Humanitarian groups, for instance KontraS, have provided alternative activities to assist our struggle and to resist amnesia. I have consulted my activities with Rev. Ignatius S. Sumardi and he has invited me to appreciate small victories in pursuing justice. We have brought the case to the government and have protested silently in front of the presidential palace to resist social amnesia.
We have demonstrated in front of the palace since
A few survivors and the family of victims have attended Kamisan, while the others have come irregularly. University students, humanitarian activists and other state-violence victims have joined our act. The military guards expelled us when they prepare to commemorate the 62nd of Indonesian independence last August. They also expelled us when Vladimir Putin passed through the palace. Our broken heart resisted the violent expulsions.
Dear Rev. Patrisius M. Andalas,
We have pursued the case and have expected the government to solve all crimes against humanity in
Bibliography
Andalas, Patrisius M. et all, Politik Amnesia: Berpaling kepada Wajah Korban, Melawan Politik Amnesia, forthcoming publication 2008.
Arditi, Rita. Searching for Life: the Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo and the Disappeared Children of Argentina.
Borg, Marcus J. Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time .San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994.
Boyers, Robert. Atrocity and Amnesia: The Political Novel since 1945.
Eagleton, Terry. After Theory.
Elias, Robert. The Politics of Victimization: Victims, Victimology, and Human Rights.
Gebara, Ivone. Out of the Depths: Women’s Experience of Evil and Salvation. Translated by Ann Patrick Ware.
Held, David. Political Theory and the
Green, Joel B. Ed. Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation.
Herman, Judith L. Trauma and Recovery: the Aftermath of Violence: from Domestic Violence to Political Terror.
Ignatieff, Michael. Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry.
Neuffer, Elizabeth. Key to My Neighbor’s House: Seeking Justice in Bosnia and Rwanda.
Riemer, Neal. Ed. Protection against Genocide:
Scarry, Elaine. The Body in Pain: The Making and Unmaking of the World.
Simons, Geoffrey.
Sobrino, Jon and Ignacio Ellacuria. Eds. Systematic Theology: Perspectives from Liberation Theology.
Sobrino, Jon. Jesus in
________. Spirituality of Liberation: Toward Political Holiness.
________. Where is God? Earthquake, Terrorism, Barbarity, and Hope.
Sudiarja, Antonius. Agama (di Zaman) yang Berubah.
Wibowo,
Yusuf,
[1] Jon Sobrino, Jesus in
[2] See for example Ester Indrayani Yusuf and Raymond R. Simanjorang, Reka Ulang Kerusuhan Mei 1998 (
[3] Patrisius M. Andalas, et all, Politik Amnesia: Berpaling kepada Wajah Korban, Melawan Politik Amnesia, forthcoming publication 2008, 81 – 82.
[4] Patrisius M. Andalas, Politik Anamnesis: Berpaling kepada Wajah Korban, Melawan Politik Amnesia, 77. 80.
[5]
[6] Tim Relawan untuk Kemanusiaan, “Tantangan Kerja Kemanusiaan,” on October 15, 1998.
[7] Elaine Scarry, The Body in Pain: The Making and Unmaking of the World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985), 3 – 59.
[8] Eka Mayo, “Kami Tidak Lemah” in Patrisius M. Andalas, ibid, 107.
[9] Antonius Sudiarja, an Indonesian Catholic philosopher-theologian, sees the danger of formulating a contemporary speculative theology that negates its relation with the realities of
Hartono Budi, another Indonesian Catholic theologian, proposes a theology that starts from Indonesian realities and directs its activity to serve the suffering Indonesians. The contemporary Catholic theologies should find language about God honestly amidst inhuman conditions. The contemporary Indonesian theologians should relate honestly with Indonesian realities, such as massive poverty, state-violence and mass rape toward the Chinese in 1998, corruption, and political conflict. They do not ask whether God exists or not, but asks how God exists in the suffering Indonesians. See further in Hartono Budi, Teologi, Pendidikan, dan Pembebasan (
[10] Indah M., “Isakku Tak Kunjung Usai,” Mutiara Andalas, 119 – 120.
[11] Maria K. Sumarsih, “Hatiku yang Hancur Melawan,” in Mutiara Andalas, 128.
[12] David Held, Political Theory and
[13] Seno Gumira Ajidarma, “Clara,” Indonesia 68, trans. Michael H. Bodden (October 1999):158
[14] Robert Elias, The Politics of Victimization: Victims, Victimology, and Human Rights (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), 230.
[15] Johann Baptist Metz, Faith in History and Society: Toward a Practical Fundamental Theology, translated by David Smith (New York: Seabury Press, 1980), 89 – 98.
[16] Johann B. Metz, Faith in History and Society, 105.
[17] Johann B. Metz, 109 – 118.
[18] Jon Sobrino, Jesus in Latin America (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1987), 159 – 162; Jon Sobrino, Christology at the Crossroads (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1987), 180; Jon Sobrino, Where is God? Earthquake, Terrorism, Barbarity, and Hope (
[19] Jon Sobrino, Spirituality of Liberation: Toward Political Holiness (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1989), 13 – 22.
[20] Jon Sobrino, Jesus the Liberator: A Historical-Theological View (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1993), 27 – 28.
[21] Ivone Gebara, Out of the Depths: Women’s Experience of Evil and Salvation (
[22] Jon Sobrino, Jesus in
[23] John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994), 66 – 70. 75 – 95; Marcus J. Borg, Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994), 46 – 58.
[24] Marcus J. Borg, Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time, 59.
[25] Jon Sobrino, Jesus in
[26] Ivone Gebara, Out of Depths: Women’s Experience of Evil and Salvation (Minneappollis: Fortress Press, 2002), 17 – 44. 106 – 107. 115.
[27] Jon Sobrino, Jesus in
[28] Jon Sobrino, Christology at the Crossroads, 182 – 229.
[29] I previously published this letter for the BASIS journal on November – December 2007 edition. This letter will become part of my forthcoming book entitled Political Anamesis: Berpaling kepada Wajah Korban, Melawan Politik Amnesia (2008) to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the May – Semanggi tragedy of 1998.
[30] Maria Hartiningsih, KOMPAS, on December 10, 2004; Budie Santi , JurnalPerempuan.com, on January 23, 2004; Radio Singapore International, on December 23, 2004.
[31] Excerpted from “Kisah Maria Katarina Sumarsih, Perempuan Akar Rumput dalam Perjuangan menuntut Kebenaran dan Keadilan”
[32] Excepted from unpublished poetry by Bernardinus Realino Norma Imawan as quoted by Maria Katarina Sumarsih, “Kisah Maria Katarina Sumarsih, Perempuan Akar Rumput dalam Perjuangan menuntut Kebenaran dan Keadilan.”
[33] Maria Hartiningsih, KOMPAS, on December 10,
[34] GATRA, on December 10, 2004.
[35] Maria Hartiningsih, Swara KOMPAS, on
[36] Maria Katarina Sumarsih previously published this letter in BASIS journal on November – December 2007 edition. This letter will become a part of a forthcoming book entitled Politik Anamnesis: Berpaling kepada Wajah Korban, Melawan Politik Amnesia (2008) to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the May – Semanggi tragedy of 1998.
No comments:
Post a Comment