Objectivity in Historical Writing

By Asep Saepudin Jahar

As Indonesia approaches its 80th year of independence, the government is preparing an ambitious project: rewriting national history in 10 volumes, from Early Indonesian History to the Reform Era. Coordinated by the Ministry of Culture and involving 100 historians from various universities, the project aims to construct a historical narrative claimed to be oriented towards national interests and strengthening a sense of nationalism. One of the main reasons cited is the need to align the historical narrative with the latest findings. Furthermore, the government intends to fill gaps in historical writing since the publication of Sejarah Nasional Indonesia Edisi Pemutakhiran (Updated Edition of Indonesian National History) in 2008.

However, given the significant impact of this project on the nation's collective memory, we must ask how history will be written. What will be commemorated and what will be suppressed? Will the writers critically follow the cycle of events or create a narrative construction that highlights specific figures according to the interests of certain groups or factions? These questions lead us to a more fundamental issue: what paradigm will be used in rewriting national history? We can all accept that history is not an entirely objective record of the past, but rather a construction that is inseparable from who writes it, from what perspective, and for whose benefit. This process often acts like a magnifying glass, where the roles of certain figures are highlighted, making them appear as if they were the sole historical actors, while other actors outside the official narrative are obscured or eliminated.

In this context, great caution is needed. Writing history is not enough to merely choose who to highlight; it must also offer a comprehensive understanding of events. If history is rewritten only to glorify a handful of figures, we open the door to distortion. When history is distorted, future generations will lose the opportunity to learn from their own nation's collective experience.

Learning from German Historical Writing

Beyond that, we also need to avoid reading the past through dark and glorious stereotypes. Stefan Berger, who examined the writing of national history in several European countries since 1945, highlighted how Germany seriously confronted its dark past after World War II. After the war, German historians began to critically rewrite their national history. Fritz Fischer, for example, showed that the rise of the Nazis was not a deviation, but a continuation of modern German history. Since then, many historians have sought to break the connection between nationalism and historical narrative. They reversed old narratives that boasted the nation's uniqueness (a proud statement of exceptionalism) into a critique of past failures.

This experience shows that rewriting national history is not just about updating data or adding facts, as the initiators of the historical writing project suggested, but also about the courage to review the paradigm and perspective on history itself. From Germany's experience, we can learn that honesty towards a dark past is not a threat to national identity. On the contrary, it is an opportunity to develop collective maturity and build a stronger intellectual foundation for understanding national identity.

To achieve this, we can follow the principles for more objective historical writing offered by Richard P. Cecil. First, objectivity in history does not mean being value-free or absolutely neutral, but rather openness to various perspectives, including those that have been marginalized or even opposed by official state narratives. History written only from the perspective of the rulers risks obscuring reality and sidelining the voices of ordinary people, indigenous groups, women, or even those once considered 'traitors'. Therefore, rewriting national history must create space for counter-narratives so as not to fall into ideological biases that narrow our understanding of the past.

Second, we must realize that historical evidence is not identical to the event itself. Documents, artifacts, and historical records are indirect representations of an event, not the event itself. As stated by historians such as Edward W. Strong and R.G. Collingwood, historical documents are symbols that refer to the past and their meaning still needs to be interpreted. Therefore, the claim that a version of history is 'true' merely because it relies on certain archives must always be accompanied by the awareness that the interpretation of such evidence greatly depends on the context, viewpoint, and reading method used.

Third, to prevent the reduction of historical meaning to a mere collection of chronology, the use of auxiliary disciplines such as archaeology, philology, and anthropology becomes crucial. Furthermore, an interdisciplinary approach is very important for a comprehensive understanding of historical events. In the context of colonial history, for example, historical evidence needs to be re-read with the help of postcolonial studies, gender studies, political economy, or the psychology of colonized societies. Such an approach will help our national history become not merely a record of the state, but also a critical reflection on the complexity of the Indonesian people's experiences.

We Must Be Honest About Past History

Debates about Indonesia's past history, such as Malari and Supersemar, were caused by writing that was tailored to the interests of the writers. It was revealed much later that intelligence played a role in altering these historical writings. History must be able to create a balance of narratives that are not solely dominated by subjective writers. A fair and comprehensive approach must be taken because history will become a source of inspiration that truly reflects the diversity of experiences and contributions of various parties in the journey of the Indonesian nation.

History is a mirror of the past that is very important for the development of a nation. However, in the writing of Indonesian history, there is often a tendency to highlight the prestige of an individual or a particular group. This needs to be avoided as it can create bias and distortion that harm our understanding of true historical reality. When historians focus more on the greatness or role of one individual or a specific group, the historical narrative becomes unbalanced. The complex and diverse truths from various parties can be ignored. As a result, the history presented becomes subjective and tends to be biased, thereby losing the values of justice and truth that should be the basis of history.

Furthermore, history can vanish if its writers do not maintain objectivity. Biased writing can omit important facts and leave future generations without a complete understanding of their past. This is very dangerous because history is not just a record of the past, but also a source of learning whose authenticity must be preserved so as not to be distorted by specific interests. Dark or glorious, history is an excellent lesson for the nation's generations. Objective historical writing is very important for creating a civilized society. By understanding history honestly and completely, society can learn from past mistakes and avoid repeating dark events. Accurate history forms a strong collective consciousness so that the nation can grow with a solid and civilized foundation.

Proper Historical Writing

Historical writing should be done correctly so that it becomes a lesson for future generations. Glorious history will be an instrument for building a better nation. Conversely, dark history serves as a reminder not to repeat it. The power of history lies in its ability to form collective consciousness. This consciousness belongs not only to individuals but also to the entire society that recognizes and appreciates the nation's journey. This collective consciousness becomes the foundation for building a better and more harmonious future.

Historical writing also needs to include critical analysis and be written with an open mind. This is done to create space for it to grow and develop into a strong nation. History does not only belong to the past; it also shapes the character and identity of future generations. By understanding history objectively, young people can learn valuable lessons and build a better future based on values of honesty, justice, and togetherness.

No less important is that historical writing must be built with an objective narrative and openly accept input with data and facts from various parties involved in the events. Thus, historians can avoid misconceptions and unconscious biases. The process of dialogue and constructive criticism will enrich the content of history, resulting in a more comprehensive and balanced work. Moreover, objectivism in historical writing can strengthen its legitimacy in the eyes of society because they feel involved and valued in the process of forming the historical narrative.

With a commitment to writing history fairly and objectively, historical writing can present justice and openness as cultural heritage and national identity. Furthermore, it will build a strong foundation for a more advanced, harmonious, and competitive Indonesia on the global stage.

Finally, we realize that objective history is the main key to a more civilized future where every citizen can live in an atmosphere of justice, peace, and sustainable progress. Hopefully.

Asep Saepudin Jahar is the Rector of UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta. This article was published in the opinion column of mediaindonesia.com, Friday, July 4, 2025.