PRAMOEDYA ANANTA TOER AND CHINA: THE TRANSFORMATION OF A CULTURAL INTELLECTUAL Hong Liu As one of the most prominent writers in Indonesia, Pramoedya Ananta Toer has been at the center of a number of valuable studies which carefully document his intellectual journey and his place in modern Indonesian cultural history.* 1 It has been generally agreed that the years between 1956 and 1959 were crucial in the evolution of Pramoedya's cultural and political thinking. In an effort to trace the causes of this change, the existing literature focuses almost exclusively on Indonesia's turbulent domestic political transformation and its impact on Pramoedya; very little attention * This is an expanded version of a chapter from my doctoral dissertation, "'The China Metaphor': Indonesian Intellectuals and the PRC, 1949-1965" (Ohio University, 1995). I am indebted to William H. Frederick for his constructive and thorough comments. Charles Alexander, Donald Jordan, Benedict Anderson, Chen Xiaru, Go Gien Tjwan, Kent Mulliner, Kohar Rony, Yong Mun-Cheong, and Tsing Yuan have been helpful in shaping my understanding of the complex questions relating to China in Indonesia, for which I am grateful. Financial support for my overseas research was provided by a fellowship from the Center for International Studies at Ohio University and a grant from the Southeast Asian Council of the Association for Asian Studies, both funded by the Henry Luce Foundation. I alone, of course, am responsible for the views expressed here and any remaining errors. 1 See for example, Bahrum Rangkuti, Pramoedya Ananta Toer dan Karja Seninja (Jakarta: Gunung Agung, 1963); Savitri Scherer, "From Culture to Politics: The Writings of Pramoedya Ananta Toer" (PhD diss., Australian National University, 1981); Mohamad Zamri bin Shaari, "Sebuah Analisa Kebahasaan terhadap Bumi Manusia Karya Pramoedya Ananta Toer" (PhD diss., Universitas Nasional Indonesia, 1985); and A. Teeuw, Pramoedya Ananta Toer de Verbeelding van lndonesie [Pramoedya Ananta Toer and the Imagining of Indonesia] (Breda: De Geus, 1993). 120 Hong Liu has been drawn to an important external source of inspiration that facilitated Pramoedya's shift to cultural leftism: his perceptions of China and of People's Republic of China (PRC) literary doctrines. A. Teeuw, an authority on modern Indonesian literature, is one of the few scholars who has noticed the critical connection between Pramoedya's attitude toward the PRC and his changing views regarding Indonesia. He argues that Pramoedya's 1956 trip to China represented a milestone: "It was only with his return from Peking that the dream of the poet was exchanged for the action of the social fighter."2 However, Teeuw does not examine in any length why Pramoedya's China experience was so significant and how his perception of the PRC actually affected his thinking about Indonesia. The lack of close scrutiny on Pramoedya's complex perceptions of the PRC and their ramifications impedes a better comprehension of Pramoedya and his vital role in Indonesia's left-leaning cultural movement during the first half of the 1960s. This paper discusses Pramoedya's understanding of the PRC's cultural principles and practices, and suggests how it is relevant to the evolution of his thought. It will be argued here that, in reformulating his agendas for Indonesia, Pramoedya consistently drew upon his favorable impressions of the PRC and the (perceived) respected role of Chinese intellectuals. His notion of what went wrong with Indonesia was constantly compared with his perception of what went right with the China example. In so doing, the China image constructed and presented by Pramoedya became a mirror and a metaphor which contained transformable implications of far-reaching significance beyond its original connotations. By using China as a political statement and a cultural symbol, Pramoedya in effect incorporated some key PRC literary doctrines into his modified visions for Indonesia, which in turn prompted his transition to cultural radicalism. 2 A. Teeuw, Modem Indonesian Literature, 2nd ed. (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1979), p. 167; Teeuw, Pramoedya, p. 36. Boen Oemarjati concurs, "Before it [the 1956 trip] Pramudya may be regarded to have written a kind of engagei literature___After his Peking visit he seemed to have developed himself to a kind of enrage writer." See her, "The Development of Indonesian Literature," in Dynamics of Indonesian History, eds. H. Soebadio and C. A. M. Sarvaas (Amsterdam: Elsevier/North Holland, 1978), pp. 327-28. According to Harry Aveling, Pramoedya was "captivated by the social and economic progress made by China. From that time [October 1956] on, Pramoedya became increasingly involved with left-wing cultural and literary activities in Indonesia." See Aveling, "Introduction," in Pramoedya, The Girl from the Coast (Singapore: Select Books, 1991), p. vi. But none of the authors elaborates his or her arguments or provides any documentation for his or her findings. Pramoedya Ananta Toer and China 121 Pramoedya in the Pre-1956 Years: The Evolution of a Cultural Intellectual3 Pramoedya as a Writer of "Universal Humanism" Pramoedya Ananta Toer was bom on February 6, 1925 in Blora, a small town in north-central Java.4 His father was headmaster of a Budi Utomo school. After completing his elementary school course of study, Pramoedya went to Surabaya to study at the Radio Vocational School in 1940. During the Japanese occupation (1941— 1945), he attended an adult school while working at the Japanese Domei press agency. When the revolution broke out in 1945, he joined a pemuda (youth) paramilitary organization before entering the Siliwangi Division in East Java. Between July 1947 and December 1949, Pramoedya was imprisoned by the Dutch. After 1950 he became editor of the modem literature section at Balai Pustaka, a government publishing house, and of the Indonesia, a leading cultural journal. At the end of 1951, he left Balai Pustaka and founded DUTA, the Literary and Features Agency. Pramoedya's thinking prior to 1956 had been characterized by its adherence to nationalism and universal humanism, which were clearly manifested in his Perburuan (The Fugitive) and Keluarga Gerilya (The Guerrilla Family), novels about anti-Japanese and anti-Dutch revolutionary movements. In addition to their patriotic and nationalist coloring, these two novels had a deep humanistic strain, which reflected the prevailing universal humanism of the time. One of the key maxims in this humanistic literary doctrine was the conviction that Indonesian writers were "the true heirs of world culture." The 1950 Testimonial cf Beliefs (Gelanggang) declared, "Indonesian culture is determined by the combination of all sorts of stimulating voices which are caused by voices hurled from all comers of the world, to be hurled back later in the form of our own voice."5 As Pramoedya himself later wrote, "this novel [Keluarga Gerilya] too was inspired by patriotic semangat, and from another angle, by humanity [humanitas]—a utopian idealism that lives and dies by its rejection of existing reality."6 This 3 In my study of Indonesia's China perceivers during the Sukarno era, I divide them into two groups: political intellectuals and cultural intellectuals. Represented by individuals like Sukarno and Mohammad Hatta, the former group consisted of those who, while they assumed administrative or political responsibilities in the government or other political organizations, still maintained some broad intellectual concerns with themes and issues of enormous, intrinsic significance for postcolonial Indonesia. As creators and articulators of ideologies, their primary domain of activity was the "political market-place." Cultural intellectuals, on the other hand, were identical with the group of people who would be identified as "intellectuals" according to the standard Western definition of the term. Absent from direct responsibilities for practical affairs, they functioned principally as interpreters of the world, producers of ideas, and depositories of cultural values. For a fuller discussion, see Liu, "The China Metaphor," pp. 14- 18. 4 The biographical data is drawn from Pramoedya Ananta Toer, "Perburuan 1950 and Keluarga Gerilya 1950," trans. Benedict Anderson, Indonesia 36 (October 1983), pp. 25-48; and Boen Oemarjati, "The Development." 5 A. Teeuw, Modern Indonesian Literature, p. 127. See also Savitri Scherer's discussion of the influence of universal humanism on Pramoedya, in her "From Culture to Politics," pp. 130-31. 6 Pramoedya, "Perburuan 1950," p. 38. On Pramoedya's early novels, see the provocative analyses in Benedict Anderson, "Reading 'Revenge' by Pramoedya Ananta Toer (1978-1982)," in Writing on the Tongue, ed. A. L. Becker (Ann Arbor: Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies, University of Michigan, 1989), pp. 13-94; see also Keith Foulcher, "The Early Fiction of Pramoedya Ananta Toer, 1946- 122 Hong Liu humanistic concern was perhaps partly responsible for Pramoedya's antagonism toward the Indonesian communists. His Keluarga Gerilya, for example, condemned not only the Dutch and the English (for bombing Surabaya), but the communists for staging the bloody Madiun Rebellion. His other writings in the early 1950s continued to expound the frustrating theme of "the universal loneliness of man."7 Pramoedya's mode of thinking was in part shaped by a versatile political and cultural scene at home. The first years of the 1950s witnessed a persistent search for a political formula that would fit Indonesian circumstances. Deep-seated social and political divisions within the new-born Republic, however, made this task arduous, if not impossible. As a consequence, political instability, cultural antagonism, and ethnic/regional confrontation became conspicuous features of the early history of postcolonial Indonesia.8 It was within this context that disillusionment and alienation gradually replaced optimism and high expectations as the dominant mood of many intellectuals. The most obvious indication of this intellectual discontent was the frequent emergence of the notion of "crisis" in the political and cultural discourse. The 1953-1955 "crisis in literature" debates, for example, centered around three major themes:9 this crisis was a consequence of a failed revolution, it was partly generated by negative Western influence on Indonesian literature, and intellectuals' isolation from the people further aggravated the existing crisis. Pramoedya himself participated in these debates and agreed with most of the opinions expressed by frustrated participants. Pramoedya left for the Netherlands in June 1953, perhaps intending to escape the gloomy scene of Indonesia and look for inspiration from the outside world. However, his six-month stay in Amsterdam as a guest of the Sticusa (Dutch Foundation for Cultural Cooperation) turned out to be fruitless. The Holland trip appears to have been a disappointment for Pramoedya, primarily because he came to recognize that Indonesia and the Netherlands were simply too different. Holland reminded him of "a coffin," and he was particularly sensitive to "the contrast between his own country, in the process of establishing itself and seeking an identity, and Holland which had already been established."10 He became more critical of the West and charged that the 1949/' in Text/Politics in Island Southeast Asia, ed. D. M. Roskies (Athens: Ohio University Southeast Asia Series, 1993), pp. 191-220. 7 Anthony Johns, "Pramudya Ananta Tur: The Writer as Outsider: The Indonesian Example," in idem, Cultural Options and the Role of Tradition (Canberra: Australian National University Press, 1979), pp. 96-108. See also Pramoedya, "Ada Humanisme di Oranje Nasaulaan-5 dan Komunisme telah Mati Bersama Lenin," Medan Bahasa 3,10 (October 1953): 29-32. 8 The most comprehensive study of the Indonesian political history between 1950 and 1957 is Herbert Feith's The Decline of Constitutional Democracy in Indonesia (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1962). On some of the more recent insightful observations, see David Bouchier and John Legge, eds., Democracy in Indonesia: 1950s and 1990s (Clayton: Centre of Southeast Asian Studies, Monash University, 1994). 9 See Liu, "The China Metaphor," pp. 158-163. 10 Teeuw, Modern Indonesian Literature, p. 166. According to Willard Hanna, Pramoedya's disappointment in Holland was mainly the result of personal problems: "He did not receive sufficient financial support to enable him live or travel as he wished; he did not meet many Dutch persons of prominence, literary or otherwise; and he did not find any appropriate opportunity for study." See Hanna, "'Guerrilla Family': A Novel of the Indonesian Revolution," American Universities Field Staff (Southeast Asia Series) 5,14 (September 12,1957): 8. Pramoedya Ananta Toer and China 123 Sticusa was a "colonial brain trust" which only aimed at "importing Western culture into Indonesia."11 While in Holland, Pramoedya was perhaps influenced by a leading Dutch Indonesian specialist, W. F. Wertheim, who held that the root of confusion in Indonesian literature lay in "the failure of the Indonesian revolution as a social revolution."12 After coming back to Indonesia, Pramoedya's disillusionment was exacerbated by rampant corruption and social chaos. As he later recalled those days, "I saw that all the promises of the revolution had been left unfulfilled."13 His literary probing to penetrate to the heart of human problems appeared to have taken him nowhere. In mid-1956, he published a story entitled "Silence at Life's Noon," which vividly depicted the themes of intellectual alienation and resentment of Western cultural intrusion. According to Teeuw, this novel had symbolic meanings, In this story the writer seemed to have reached a stage where he is ready to replace his dreams with action—he has reached this stage because of his embitterment with the world around him, and also because of his disappointment at the futility of his own life, at the failure of his writing and the insufficiency of his humanity.14 Breaking with the past, however, did not necessarily mean finding a new direction. In mid-1956 Pramoedya remained uncertain as to what he could do, as a marginalized writer, to combat social injustice and to help realize the dream of "a just and prosperous society." It was at this critical conjunction that he embarked on a trip to China, a trip that would profoundly affect his cultural and political thought. Pramoedya's Understanding of China: The Initial Stage Prior to his 1956 trip to China, Pramoedya had acquired some knowledge about that country and the PRC's cultural doctrines. While working for the Domei press agency during World War II, he was assigned by Adam Malik to cover the Sino- Japanese war.15 By Pramoedya's own account, the activities of the Chinese communist army, Mao Tse-tung, and Zhou Enlai had been widely reported in Indonesia's "revolutionary newspapers" before independence.16 When he was jailed in Bukitduri 11 "Pramoedya tentang STICUSA," Kompas 5,6 (1954): 55. 12 See Pramoedya, "Prof. Dr. Wertheim tentang Kesasteraan Indonesia Modem," Medan Bahasa 3,11 (1953): 39-43. Pramoedya and Wertheim have remained in close contact ever since, with Pramoedya being the recipient of the 1995 Wertheim Prize. I am grateful to Dr. Go Gien Tjwan, Vice Chairman of the Wertheim Foundation, for providing me with the Testimonial of the Award (Leiden, August 15,1995) and the information regarding the process of Pramoedya's nomination. 13 Cited in Margaret Scott, "Waging War with Words," Far Eastern Economic Review, August 9,1990, p. 27. It has been pointed out that one of the major concerns in Pramoedya's writings during the first half of the 1950s was the question of "how did we get into this mess?" See Patricia Henry, "The Writer's Responsibility: A Preliminary Look at the Depiction and Construction of Indonesia in the Works of Pramoedya Ananta Toer," Crossroads 6 (1991), pp. 59-72. 14 Teeuw, Modem Indonesian Literature, p. 178. 15 Pramoedya "Perburuan 1950," pp. 34-35. 16 Pu Ananda Duer [Pramoedya Ananta Toer], "Jiaqiang Yin Zhong Youyi, Fensui mei Ying Qinlue" [Strengthening Sino-Indonesian friendship, resisting the aggression of the British and the Americans], Zhong Cheng Bao (Warta Bhakti) (Jakarta), October 1,1964. Regarding writings about China published in pre-1949 Indonesia, see Claudine Salmon, Literature in Malay by the Chinese of Indonesia: A Provisional Annotated Bibliography (Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l'Homme, 1981), pp. 66-67,75-76; Kwee Kek Beng, Doea Poeloe Lima Tahoen Sebagai Wartawan, 1922-1947 (Batavia: Kuo, 1948), pp. 32-43; and 124 Hong Liu in 1948, Pramoedya recorded, he met a Dutch prisoner who was a former officer of the Royal Netherlands Indies Army (KNIL). The Dutchman told Pramoedya that he had been sentenced to death. "However," he said to Pramoedya, "I still have a glimmer of hope; if the Chinese Red Army advances southward, I will be saved." Since that time, Pramoedya recalled, "I have developed a feeling that the influence of the Chinese Red Army has been so far-reaching, it even penetrates to the hearts of Dutch soldiers . . . and it has left some tangible stimulating effects [on the Indonesians]."17 During the first half of the 1950s, Pramoedya started paying some attention to the Chinese cultural practices. In his 1952 essay, "Literature as a Tool," Pramoedya cited Mao Tse-tung's work to support his own view that literature was nothing but a tool people used to achieve their own agendas. He displayed an ambivalent attitude toward Mao's principle that "art should serve the people, especially the workers, peasants, and soldiers." He contrasted this stance with the "aristocratic view" that art was for those who understood (which he did not reject). Pramoedya found merits and deficiencies in both opinions: the first [the aristocratic] view was capable of preserving creative integrity whereas the second [Mao's] view had the power to eradicate a possible decadent creation that might imperil social unity.18 In 1954, Pramoedya translated, from an English or Dutch source, an article by Zhou Yang [Tjau Jang],19 the Chinese cultural czar. In this essay, entitled "Socialist Realism—The Road of Advance for Chinese Literature,"20 Zhou Yang argued that Chinese literature needed its own national character and needed to be open to all progressive influences. He also elaborated some principles of socialist realism and called for a "class perspective" in portraying real life. By the mid-1950s, Pramoedya had developed a certain degree of admiration for what he perceived the high social status of writers in socialist nations such as the PRC, "where literature is considered to be one of the political and economic forces" and where writers were paid generously for their publications, in a stark contrast to conditions in Indonesia.21 During the 1955 Bandung Conference, Pramoedya had some contact with the Chinese delegation and the Chinese embassy, which may be taken as an indication of Wu Wenhua & Gan Meifeng, "Benshiji Sanshi dao Wushi Niandai Huawen Tushu zai Yinni/' [Chinese books in Indonesia from the 1930s to the 1950s], Dongnanya Zongheng 3 (1993): 41-46. 17 Pu Ananda Duer, "Jiaqiang." There is perhaps some factual basis for this Dutchman's assertion. In 1948/49, a few Pesindo units in East and West Java named themselves as "Mao Tse-tung Brigades" and wanted to be united with the Chinese Red Army. See Jacques Leclerc, "Aidit dan Partai pada tahun 1950," Prisma 7 (1982): 61-78. 18 "Kesusteraan sebagai Alat," Indonesia 3,7 (1952): 6-11. 19 With a few exceptions (such as "Peking" and "Mao Tse-tung"), this paper employs the Pinyin system for the romanization of Chinese terms. For reference purpose, the original Indonesian translation of Chinese terms is included in the bracket. See the appendix of this article for a complete list of cross- references. 20 "Realisme Sosialis—Jalan Kemajuan bagi Kesusastraan Tionghoa," Harian Rakjat, May 8,1954. This essay was originally published in the Flag, a Soviet literary journal, in December 1952 and reprinted in Zhou Yang Wen Ji [Collected essays of Zhou Yang], vol. 2 (Peking: Renmin Wenxue Chubanshe, 1985), 182- 191. The English version appears in Chou Yang [Zhou Yang], China's New Literature and Art: Essays and Addresses (Peking: Foreign Language Press, 1954). 21 Pramoedya, "Hidup dan Kerdja Sasterawan Indonesia Modem," Seni 1,1 (1955): 22-36. Pramoedya Ananta Toer and China 125 his increasing interest in the PRC.22 In early 1956 Pramoedya translated, perhaps from English, a long article by Ding Ling [Ting Ling], one of the most prominent writers in China.23 This translation, entitled "Life and Creative Writing," appeared in the cultural journal, Indonesia.24 Central to Ding Ling's thinking was the idea that a good literary and artistic work could only be generated by concrete life experience. In order to produce valuable works, writers must "go into the life and live with the people." Only after understanding that they were "writing for workers, peasants, and soldiers," argued Ding Ling, could writers be truly integrated into the masses. Pramoedya seemed to be somewhat convinced by her arguments. In an essay published three months later, he echoed Ding Ling's views by suggesting that writers should come and live among the people and that they should directly participate in industrial production.25 Pramoedya's writings prior to October 1956 indicated that he had read widely, from Dutch and English sources, on the literature of the PRC and was very familiar with works of major PRC writers (such as Guo Moruo [Kuo Mo-jo], Ding Ling, and Mao Dun [Mao Tun]). In a July 1956 essay, he praised the PRC government for its endeavors in promoting culture and education. He considered Mao Dun and Lu Xun [Lu Hsun] to be "two of the best and most famous writers in China, because they belonged to the new generation who is conscious of its social responsibilities."26 By mid-1956, Pramoedya had also completed the translation of some portions of Diary cf a Madman (Catatan Orang Gila), a novel by Lu Xun.27 Pramoedya in the mid-1950s was at the crossroads. His conviction that the Indonesian revolution had failed, together with what he perceived to be the gloomy realities of his own country, was the major cause behind his frustration and disillusionment. Universal humanism had proved to be ineffectual in confronting the enormous social and political problems facing the Indonesian nation. He longed for greater social recognition and a more active role for intellectuals, and he was deeply 22 Interview with Chen Xiaru, January 29,1994, New York. Ms. Chen was an Indonesian-language interpreter of the Chinese Writers' Union, which hosted Pramoedya during his 1956 and 1958 trips to China. 23 Ding Ling, vice chair of the Chinese Writers' Union during the early 1950s, won the Stalin Prize in 1951 for her novel on land reform, The Sun Shines on the Sanggan River. On her career and writings, see Yi-tsi Mei Feuerwerker, Ding Ling’s Fiction: Ideology and Narrative in Modem Chinese Literature (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1982). 24 "Hidup dan Penulisan Kreatif," Indonesia 7,3 (March 1956): 102-110. The original essay was entitled "Dao Qunzhong Zhong Qu Luofu" [To Settle in among the masses), which was the text of a speech delivered to the Second National Conference of Chinese Cultural Workers held in September 1953. It is reprinted in Ding Ling Wen Ji [Collected essays of Ding Ling] vol. 6 (Changsha: Hunan Renmin Chubanshe, 1984), pp. 176-188. 25 Pramoedya, "Meninggalkan Negativisme," Mimbar Indonesia 10,22/23 (June 9,1956): 15,26. 26 Pramoedya, "Manakah Pengarang dari Golongan Keturunan Tionghoa," Pendorong, July 13,1956. See also Pramoedya, "Sedikit tentang Kesusasteraan Tionghoa di Indonesia," Pantja Warm 15,113 (April 15, 1957): 85-86.1 am grateful to Dr. Martina Heinschke of the University of Hamburg for making available these essays and some other writings of Pramoedya to me from her own research materials collection. 27 "Duer Fanwen Ji" [An interview with Toer], Hsin Pao (Jakarta), November 17,1956. [Hsin Pao was the Chinese version of the Sin Po, one of the most widely read newspapers during the 1950s]. Diary of a Madman (1918), which catapulted Lu Xun to nationwide prominence as a writer and leader of the "New Literature," signaled "the first instance of Lu Xun's radical epistemology." See Leo Ou-fan Lee, Voices from the Iron House: A Study ofLu Xun (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987), p. 54. 126 Hong Liu disappointed at the lack of organization and poor financial conditions of Indonesian writers.28 His distrust of communism prevented him from joining the leftist cultural organization, Lekra. As a consequence, the pre-1956 Pramoedya remained a detached intellectual painfully searching for a new direction. Furthermore, his experience in the Netherlands convinced him that Western culture could not provide any useful solutions for Indonesia's problems. He began to look elsewhere for answers. It was within this context that China entered the domain of Pramoedya's (re)construction of his literary precept and political ideology; the PRC soon acquired a metaphorical status, as a reference point reflecting his perceptions of what had gone wrong with Indonesia. His translation of Chinese literary work indicated that he was somewhat attracted to the PRC's cultural practices. In fact, Pramoedya might have found a convergence between his own cultural outlook and PRC literary doctrines. For example, both shared a concern for the fate of the masses, though for Pramoedya, they represented socially undifferentiated "little people," and for PRC writers, the masses were members of the working class, namely, peasants, workers, and soldiers. Experiencing a New World: Pramoedya Ananta Toer in China The Politics of Invitation Pramoedya embarked on a one-month trip to the PRC in October 1956. The invitation was forwarded to him by three prominent Chinese cultural and political figures: Guo Moruo, chair of the All-China Federation of Literary and Art Circles (AFLAC) and president of the Chinese Academy of Sciences; Mao Dun, chair of the Writers' Union; and Chu Tunan, head of the Association of the Chinese People's Cultural Exchange with Foreign Countries, a major arm of China's cultural diplomacy. Pramoedya was invited to attend a conference commemorating the twentieth anniversary of Lu Xun's death and to visit some Chinese cities. Why was Pramoedya invited to China? Although he was apparently one of the most renowned writers in Indonesia, he was by no means pro-communist in terms of his political and cultural orientation. In fact, his negative description of the communist terror in his earlier novels might very well have alienated some communist party members. According to an official internal document, compiled from the materials provided by the Chinese Embassy in Jakarta, Pramoedya in the mid-1950s, together with individuals such as Rivai Apin and Utuy Sontani, was classified as a "petit- bourgeois Centrist Writer." Unlike "the Rightists" (e.g., Takdir Alisjahbana and Trisno Sumardjo) and "the Leftists" (e.g., Lekra-associated writers), "Centrist Writers" accounted for the largest group among Indonesian intellectuals and they were characterized by their frustration and aimlessness. They were unwilling to throw in their lot with the imperialists; yet they did not have the courage to join the struggle of the people and to be part of the Indonesian revolutionary cause. They were dissatisfied with realities, corruption and weakness of the capitalist regime, and they wanted the status quo changed. However, they lacked a clear awareness of the arduous and prolonged nature of the national revolution, or they did not have 28 Pramoedya, "Kegiatan Seni dalam Bulan September di Ibukota," Pudjangga Baru 14,3 (1952): 65-67. Pramoedya Ananta Toer and China 127 sufficient confidence [in this revolution]. As a consequence, they held harsh and extreme sentiments toward the existing social and political order.29 There were perhaps two major reasons for inviting Pramoedya to visit the PRC. First, it was a principle of the Chinese cultural exchange policy to invite foreign intellectuals with centrist or rightist orientations to visit China. The rationale behind this policy was the hope that those intellectuals would be impressed by China's progress, and that their favorable observations regarding the PRC would in turn produce greater effects upon public opinion in their home countries. During his tenure as Chinese ambassador to Indonesia between 1954 and 1960, Huang Zhen energetically and effectively pursued this cultural diplomacy.30 The second reason for inviting Pramoedya was more complex and should be discussed within the Indonesian domestic context. By the mid-1950s, political conflict in the cultural sphere had been intensified, primarily as a result of Lekra's expansion. Established in 1950 and closely associated with the Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI), Lekra advocated the principle of "art for the people" and vigorously sought to expand its horizon during the mid-1950s. It was reported that by 1956 the Lekra leadership had been "working on" Pramoedya, hoping to gain his support and sympathy for the left-leaning cultural movement.31 According to some sources, it was Lekra that first suggested to the Chinese embassy that Pramoedya be invited to China. The embassy then made the recommendation to the respective Chinese authorities in Peking.32 Pramoedya in China: 1956 Pramoedya arrived in Peking in mid-October. Before leaving for China, he had conceived of this trip as a valuable opportunity for formulating his thought not only about China, but more importantly, about Indonesia. As he recalled later, 29 Duiwai Wenhua Lianluo Weiyuanhui Ersi [The Second Bureau of the Committee of Cultural Liaisons with Foreign Countries], comp., Yindunixiya Wenhua Gaikuang [A survey of Indonesian culture] (Peking: for internal circulation only, 1962), pp. 5-6. 30 Teng Yun, ed., Dangdai Zhongwai Wenhua Jiaoliu Shiliao [Historical materials on cultural exchanges between China and foreign countries in the contemporary era] (Peking: Wenhua Yishu Chubanshe, 1990), passim. On ambassador Huang Zhen's efforts in Indonesia, see two recently published accounts (by his successor and his wife, respectively), Yao Zhongming, et al., Jiangjun, Waijiaojia, Yishujia—Huang Zhen Jilian Wenji [General, diplomat, and artist—A collection of essays in commemorating Huang Zhen] (Peking: Jiefangjun Chubanshe, 1992); and Zhu Lin, Dashi Furen Huiyilu: Xunyali, Yinni, Faguo, Meiguo [Memoir of an ambassador's wife: Hungary, Indonesia, France, and the USA] (Peking: Shijie Zhishi Chubanshe, 1991). 31 Interview with Shannu, July 8,1994, Peking. Shannu, an Indonesian-Chinese writer who knows Pramoedya personally and was close to Lekra, stated that the PKI Politburo member Njoto personally talked to Pramoedya. According to a Chinese official working in the Cultural Section of the Chinese embassy in Jakarta (who wishes to remain anonymous), Joebaar Ajoeb, secretary general of Lekra, mentioned a number of times that they "were making efforts" on the person of Pramoedya. (Interview in Peking, June 29,1994). In an interview with the journalist Salim Said, Pramoedya revealed that Lekra started approaching him in 1956. See "Saya Lebih Percaya Kepada Kemanusiaan," Tempo, December 31, 1977, pp. 8-11. 32 Interviews with Chen Xiaru, January 29,1994; Huang Shuhai (an official of the Chinese embassy in Jakarta and later of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Peking), July 1993, Washington DC; and with an anonymous Chinese official who worked in the Cultural Section of the Chinese embassy in Jakarta, June 29,1994, Peking. 128 Hong Liu When visiting a foreign country, there were two things I had to pay attention to. If I went to a developed country, there was no question. But in a new nation, I had to study, because there were definitely similarities in terms of how to better the fate of the country and the people. China was one of these new nations. If I was influenced by the PRC, it was by itself, because it was a new nation that had already established itself. Indonesia was also a new nation. . . . There must be certain resemblances between new nations. There was something to be learned from and some good examples be taken. Indeed, just look at the PRC at that time, it was much more successful than Indonesia.33 Pramoedya's first major activity in China was participating in the conference commemorating the twentieth anniversary of Lu Xun's death, which was a well- publicized event attended by writers from more than twenty countries. Clearly aware of the appeal of Lu Xun to intellectuals of the newly independent nations, both Guo Moruo and Mao Dun emphasized in their respective keynote speeches that the greatness of Lu Xun derived from "his revolutionary thinking and from his devotion to the people." Guo Moruo reassured his foreign guests that PRC intellectuals would "live up to the expectations of cultural workers of other countries—that is, the new culture of the PRC would make greater contributions to the world culture and China would produce more Lu Xuns."34 As one of the foreign guests invited to speak to the conference, Pramoedya praised Lu Xun as a great writer whose contributions lay not only in his insightful observation of society, but more importantly, in his willingness and ability to struggle for improving the fate of the masses. "Lu Xun was the voice of his nation and his people," Pramoedya continued, "Lu Xun was an embodiment of the moral awakening which was full of noble hopes for human beings. He did not merely hope, he took the best and most appropriate method—literature—in the endeavor for realizing his ideals."35 This Lu Xun as understood by Pramoedya clearly reignited his own aspiration for Indonesian intellectuals, Every writer has responsibilities, and it is because of these responsibilities that choices have to be made. Lu Xun chose to be on the side of the people who suffered from hardship and misery. . . . He not only made choices, but fought to ensure his ideals be realized. He was a realist in thinking and a realist in action.36 This idea of combining thinking and action provided the most relevant model in Pramoedya's ardent search for effective solutions to Indonesia's social and cultural problems. And Lu Xun as presented in the light of official Chinese interpretation apparently cast an impact upon Pramoedya's views. After returning to Indonesia, Pramoedya characterized Lu Xun not only as a great intellectual, but as a fighter who was "the father of China's socialist realism."37 33 "Wawancara: Pramoedya, Bakal Pemenang Hadiah Nobel," Nadi Insan (Kuala Lumpur) 24 (April 1981): 8. 34 See the texts of their speeches, in Wenyi Boo (Peking), 20 (1956): 4-10. 35 "Yindunixiya Zuojia Pulamudiya Ananda Duer de Jianghua" [Speech by the Indonesian writer Pramoedya Ananta Toer] Wenyi Bao 20 (1956): 15-16. 36 Ibid., p. 16. 37 Pramoedya, "Sedikit tentang Kesasteraan Tionghoa di Indonesia," p. 86.