Londo Ireng: The Men Who Sold Their People
Prof. Dr. Imam Subchi, M.A.
Professor of Anthropology at UIN Jakarta
President of the Republic of Indonesia, Prabowo Subianto, said a recent invocation of the Javanese phrase "londo ireng" (literally "Black Dutchmen") to disparage journalists, activists, and analysts has revived a bitter chapter of Indonesia’s colonial past. By framing domestic critics as covert agents of foreign interests, the administration has stirred a heated national debate.
Government loyalists view the rhetoric as a necessary defense of national sovereignty, while critics rightly recognize it as a troubling attempt to delegitimize democratic dissent. Beyond the immediate political sparring, however, this episode underscores how deeply the specter of colonialism remains embedded in the national consciousness.
The phrase carries a complex historical weight that extends far beyond contemporary partisan mudslinging. Originating during the 19th century, the Javanese word "londo", derived from Holland, served as a universal signifier for Dutch imperial power. As historian Ineke van Kessel has documented, the modifier "ireng" (black) was not initially aimed at native Indonesian traitors.
Instead, it described West African soldiers recruited from the Gold Coast (present-day Ghana) to serve in the Royal Netherlands East Indies Army. Wearing Dutch uniforms and enforcing imperial rule, these soldiers were perceived by the local population as an extension of the colonial oppressor, despite their shared status as non-European subjects.
Over time, the phrase underwent a significant semantic evolution. As the Dutch colonial administration modernized in the early 20th century, it increasingly relied on educated native elites to maintain its bureaucratic machinery. Consequently, the primary threat to indigenous autonomy shifted from foreign mercenaries to local collaborators.
The term "londo ireng" transformed from a literal description of African soldiers into a potent metaphor for any Indonesian who sacrificed national interests for imperial favor. Even after independence was secured in 1945, the phrase survived in the collective memory, remaining readily available whenever anxieties about foreign influence resurfaced.
Deploying this historical slur against modern democratic actors is both inappropriate and dangerous. In a functioning democracy, investigative journalists, non-governmental organizations, and independent scholars perform an essential constitutional role by holding power accountable. Branding civil society as foreign operatives conflates legitimate democratic oversight with national treason.
Rather than addressing substantive critiques, such rhetoric risks eroding constitutional protections and fostering a climate of intimidation under the guise of patriotism.
Ultimately, the enduring resonance of "londo ireng" reveals that historical memories cannot be easily erased. However, a term born from colonial subjugation should serve as a cautionary reminder of past divisions, not as an instrument to silence debate in a sovereign republic. True national strength is measured not by the suppression of critical voices, but by a government’s willingness to welcome accountability in service of the public good.
This article was published on BeritaSatu in August, 6 2026.