Pretext for mass murder

I have been waiting for one particular book about the pogrom in 1965. The book which is written by a historian John Roosa, is called Pretext of Mass Murder: The September 30th Movement and Suharto's Coup d'État in Indonesia. This book is meant to give a new interpretation of the cataclysmic event in the Indonesian history. Luckily enough, Monash university library has the book on its shelve. So i make the book my company while i travel to the city.

Many scholars have talked about the coup attempt in 1965. However, they mostly focused on what actually happened in 30th September. In fact, not long after the coup, hundred thousands people were haunted and brutally murdered. All survivors of the mass murder were incarcerated for two decades or so. The preoccupation of finding the main culprit of the movement has given less weight on the aftermath. The relevancy of mass murder in the emergence of New Order did not gain much attention. Scholars mostly preoccupied with questions such as: Did the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) know and was involved in the movement? What was the role of Sukarno? Did he approve the coup as he was close to left-leaning organisations and the PKI? Or did Suharto and his army plot the movement and intended to be failed so he could use it as an excuse to wipe out the Army's bitter rival?

In his book, Roosa also discussed some arguments from other scholars who wrote about the event. This includes Harold Crouch, Ben Anderson and Ruth McVey, and Wertheim.

Roosa's main argument was that the movement was a pretext for Suharto and his army to crack down Sukarnoist and others left-leaning organisations which could significantly impede the army to come to power. By dismantling the most loyal Sukarno's supporters, the path to presidency was not difficult. The mass murder of approximately 500.000 people who were allegedly communist member should therefore be understood as means to build the new regime. It would be difficult to imagine a regime with a strong military back-up ruling the country if Sukarno and the PKI were not entirely dismantled. By taking control over media Suharto and his army enabled to circulate propaganda to blame the PKI. When army could finally seized the power, communism was an anathema in the Indonesian politics. By giving context to the mass murder, Roosa successfully disputed the idea, which is generally found in discussion, that the gruesome violence was civilians conflict. While the propaganda succeeded in fuelling up the anger mass, it didnt make hard for the army to make the purge campaign went on well.

His argument sounds as it would be difficult for any groups at that time to directly challenge the power of Sukarno. It would be too risky for the army to attack the PKI as the president had a close tie with the party. The failed movement, which involved some high profile members of the party and military officers, then opened up opportunity for the army to attack the PKI and Sukarno's supporters.

He uses a lot of sources to support his argument. It ranges from official document of US government, oral testimonies of survivors, newspaper, to a neglected postmortem analysis written by a general, according to Roosa, who was a core of the movement.

I think Roosa should be commended for his effort of solving the biggest puzzle in the Indonesian history. Writing the history of September movement is the most difficult task. Many of people who allegedly had useful information had died, either being executed or illness. Official documents are not easily accessible. But Roosa took the challenge and found his way to scholarly write a narrative account on the event.