Introduction

After the Reformasi movement in 1998, Indonesia has undergone rapid democratization to replace the New Order centralistic and authoritarian government. Horizontal contestation over national issues, including heated discussion regarding national ideology: pro-Khilafah or Islamic state, and in opposition to that, “NKRI harga mati” (United Indonesia without compromise), emerged due to the widening freedom of expression. Concern regarding national ideology is heated. Thus, the government started to form policies to re-entrench state ideology, which is Pancasila (or the Five Principles), especially for the younger generation, through formal education. However, people often forget that the use of educational institutions as ideological state apparatus is relatively old. The effort of the state to control the student population has previously occurred, and students acted as agents of change considering their Indonesian history. In contrast to current Indonesia, this chapter will examine a period when democracy was no longer in the hands of the people but “under the guidance” of the state, particularly by then-President Soekarno. This phenomenon occurred when the parliamentary system was changed to a presidential system. The discussion will focus on the effect of the aforementioned shift on state policy concerning students.

On July 5, 1959, President Soekarno received strong support from the Indonesian National Army (TNI–AD) during his announcement of a presidential decree, which (1) disbanded the Constitutional Assembly and (2) proclaimed the nation’s return to the 1945 State Constitution (Undang Undang Dasar 1945). The power of the government of the Republic of Indonesia once again returned to the president as the 1945 State Constitution was reactivated. Consequently, the ministerial cabinet Kabinet Karya under Prime Minister Djuanda was subjected to demission before being disbanded. As a replacement for the cabinet, President Soekarno formed the presidential cabinet Kabinet Kerja on July 9, 1959. On July 22, 1959, the president later formed a Supreme Advisory Council (Dewan Pertimbangan Agung/DPA), which was led by the president under Presidential Regulation No. 3 Year 1959. On Independence Day in 1959 (17 August), President Soekarno then made a speech titled “The Rediscovery of Our Revolution,” in which he explained the accountability of the July 5, 1959, Presidential Decree and introduced his political concept of Guided Democracy (Feith, 1970, p. 98).

In an assembly in September 1959, DPA proposed to the government that the aforementioned speech, namely “The Rediscovery of Our Revolution,” be adopted into The Outlines of State Policy (Garis-garis Besar Haluan Negara/GBHN) under the name of Manipol (Political Manifesto of the Republic of Indonesia). The institution finalized Manipol as GBHN after the temporary People’s Consultative Assembly (MPRS) was founded on December 31, 1959.

The Provisional People’s Consultative Assembly (MPRS) accepted the DPA proposal and processed it with attention to other inputs, especially that from President Soekarno as a “reinventor” of the revolution. In addition to GBHN, the following five guidelines were included: (1) UUD 45, (2) Indonesian Socialism, (3) Guided Democracy, (4) Guided Economy, and (5) (specifically Indonesian) Personality (USDEK). The title of the speech was then changed to Manipol-USDEK with the aforementioned addition. In November 1960, MPRS officially declared Manipol-USDEK as the GBHN as stipulated in Decree No. I/MPRS/1960 on November 19, 1960 (Saleh, 1981, pp. 31–33; Madinier, 2017, p. 146).

As GBHN, Manipol-USDEK had naturally to be understood by all levels of Indonesian society. The government considered the need for Manipol-USDEK dissemination and indoctrination and established an indoctrination executive committee, namely the Panitia Pembina Jiwa Revolusi (PPJR, the Revolutionary Soul Committee), to prevent misinterpretations. Roeslan Abdulgani was appointed chairman of the established committee. PPJR aimed to coordinate the implementation of indoctrination at all levels of education.

At the time, all institutions of the state were ordered by the government to become instruments of revolution, and educational institution (particularly higher education) was the most effective channel, which popularized Manipol-USDEK. Under Presidential Regulation No. 130 dated April 14, 1961, the Ministry of Education was divided into the Ministry of Primary Education (Kementerian PD dan K) and the Ministry of Higher Education and Science (Kementerian PTIP). The former was then led by Priyono, a socialist and an activist of Murba Party. Meanwhile, the latter was led by Iwa Kusuma Sumantri, another activist of the same party (PTIP, 1965, p. 16; PaEni & dan Karsono, 2018, pp. 198–200, pp. 217–218).

In addition, the government issued a law on Undang-undang Perguruan Tinggi (UUPT, Higher Education Regulation) No. 22 of 1961, which explicitly emphasized the importance of understanding Manipol-USDEK (PTIP, 1965, p. 16). One of the department’s special tasks was to design Manipol-USDEK indoctrination for universities, hoping it would become the foundation of higher education. This design then led to the inclusion of Manipol-USDEK indoctrination in the education system and university curriculums as compulsory for university students. In addition, the book Tujuh Bahan Pokok Indoktrinasi (Seven Basic Materials for Indoctrination, that is, Tubapi) was designed as reference material (Ministry of Information Republic of Indonesia, 1961, p. 1).

Meanwhile, Prijono, the Minister of Primary Education, issued a Ministerial Instruction No. 1 (which was then immediately followed by No. 2 in 1960), and this instruction emphasized the importance of Pancasila and Manipol as the foundation of primary and secondary education. This instruction was also regulated under the concept of Panca Wardhana. Afterward, Panca Wardhana was finalized in October 1960 as the foundation of the National Education System.

Many studies on the political history of Guided Democracy have been written. However, studies on Manipol-USDEK indoctrination in universities are relatively rare. Thus, the current research aims to fill the aforementioned gap. Despite such scarce research on the aforementioned topic, the attempt at popularizing GBHN as an instrument to support the interest (of the ruler) is an important historical topic to understand. GBHN became a tool of power legitimation. The significance of such an indoctrination could be found in the government of the New Order under the leadership of President Soekarno, which toppled the Guided Democracy yet conducted the same act of indoctrination. Under the New Order, Pancasila was transformed into the foundation of Indonesia’s democracy, and institutions similar to the PPJR of Guided Democracy were established to implant this idea. An example of such an institution would be Badan Pembinaan Pendidikan Pelaksanaan Pedoman Penghayatan dan Pengamalan Pancasila (BP-7) whose responsibilities included the preparation of Pancasila socialization (Pedoman Penghayatan dan Pengamalan Pancasila/P4) for students in schools and universities under the People’s Consultative Assembly’s Regulation No. II/MPR/1978.

Meanwhile, some studies, which consider books and academic articles related to Guided Democracy’s political history, allude to Manipol-USDEK indoctrination and higher education; for example, studies by Herbert Feith (1995), Said Hutagaol (1985), and John Maxwell (2001). The study of Herbert Feith is crucial to the explanation of political conditions of Guided Democracy. Additionally, the relevant study of Said Hutagaol on universities describes governmental efforts to guide universities in a certain political direction. Finally, John Maxwell helped explain student response to Manipol-USDEK indoctrination. The review of the three books of these authors revealed that Manipol-USDEK indoctrination was ineffective in the higher education environment. However, these studies do not adequately explain how or in what form Manipol-USDEK indoctrination was conducted. Therefore, the current study exposes such information.

Manipol-USDEK as the Foundation of Higher Education

In the early Guided Democracy era, one opinion of President Soekarno was that Indonesian higher education produces only textbook-oriented ways of thinking of narrow-minded scholars (Maxwell, 2001, p. 77). Such conditions were inconsistent with the needs of the revolution, which required scholars to think broadly and possess creative power, intellectual maturity, and character. Therefore, changing paradigms, specifically by understanding Manipol-USDEK as the basis of the Indonesian Revolution, is necessary.

As mentioned, Soekarno established PTIP and issued UUPT No. 22 of 1961 to implement his ideas. Additionally, his state address on August 17, 1960, Djalan Revolusi Kita—Djarek (The Way of Revolution—Djarek), powerfully commanded, Dan saja (saya) komandokan kepada semua sekolah-sekolah dan universitas-universitas (perguruan tinggi), supaja (supaya) semua murid mahasiswa di USDEK-kan dan di Manipol-kan! (“And I am urging that all the schools and universities (colleges), all the students must be conditioned in USDEK and Manipol!”) (Soekarno, 1960, pp. 68–69). The DPA then used this speech as Pedoman-Pedoman Pelaksanaan Manipol RI (Manpower Implementation Manuals of the Republic of Indonesia).

As proclaimed by Soekarno, Manipol-USDEK served as the ideological foundation of the Indonesian Revolution and had a purpose similar to the implementation objectives of universities in article 2, Point 1, UUPT No. 22 of 1961, that is, to create a fair and prosperous Indonesian socialist society materially and spiritually. On the contrary, Points 2 and 3 of the same articles aligned with Soekarno’s criticism of scholars who needed to think more broadly compared with textbook-oriented thinking to fulfill the needs of the expert advocates of revolution. In other words, UUPT was not merely the operational base of higher education but also the basis of authority for the PTIP to control universities, especially the implementation of Manipol-USDEK indoctrination (Moechtar, 1998, pp. 23–24).

Thus, UUPT set the definition, form, institutionalization, admissions, lectures, degrees, and implementation of private universities not only as an operational guideline but also to remove all irrelevant aspects to Manipol-USDEK. The actions of Iwa as Minister of PTIP reflected this policy by dismissing or decreasing the employment level of rectors, deans, professors, and higher education lecturers with low loyalty to Manipol-USDEK. Iwa asked some students to report to the government if professors attempted to preserve liberalism (Feith, 1995, p. 84). Law No. 22 Year 1961 states that “The purpose of higher education is to shape social human beings with the spirit of Pancasila and the responsibility of creating a just and civilized Socialistic Indonesia.”

UUPT No. 22 of 1961 was welcomed by an inter-association organization of extra-university students (student organizations outside auspices of universities), such as Perserikatan Perhimpunan-perhimpunan Mahasiswa Indonesia (PPMI, Association of Indonesian Student Associations), and intra-university student organizations (student organizations under auspices of universities), such as Majelis Mahasiswa Indonesia (MMI, the Indonesian Student Assembly). These organizations believed that UUPT would encourage the success of students in their studies (Warta Bhakti, 1961, p. 3). Indeed, the support of PPMI and MMI cannot be separated from the role of two university student organizations, namely Gerakan Mahasiswa Nasional Indonesia (GMNI, the Indonesian National Student Movement), which is close to Partai Nasional Indonesia (PNI, the Indonesian National Party), and Consentrasi Gerakan Mahasiswa Indonesia (CGMI, the Indonesian Student Movement Concentration), which is ideologically close to Partai Komunis Indonesia (PKI, the Indonesian Communist Party). PNI and PKI were two political parties supporting the Guided Democracy government (Maxwell, 2001, p. 140).

The leadership of Iwa as Minister of PTIP did not last long because his policy was unpopular and thought to have allowed conflicts to flourish in higher education (Feith, 1995, p. 84). Iwa was later replaced by Prof. Dr. Ir Tojib Hadiwidjaja on March 12, 1962 (PTIP, 1965, p. 16). Tojib had a good academic reputation and background as a nonparty figure; he was considered more moderate than Iwa (Feith, 1995, p. 84). Tojib began to improve several policies and actions previously implemented by Iwa. However, efforts to underpin universities with Manipol-USDEK continued.

As the second Minister of PTIP, Tojib sought to instill Manipol-USDEK values by establishing principles, systems, and traditions from UUPT as their source. The working principle of higher education was produced and named Tridharma Perguruan Tinggi: education/teaching, research, and community service (PTIP, 1965, p. 16). Although Tridharma Perguruan Tinggi derived from UUPT, which was full of manipulation and the USDEK efforts of the academic community, the principle was sufficiently effective to maintain the nature of the university as an independent science development institution. All Indonesian universities are still based on the same principle.

The preparation of the system and tradition cannot be separated from the influence of Manipol-USDEK ideology as follows.

  1. 1.

    Science without character does not bring happiness to the Indonesian Socialist Society.

  2. 2.

    Higher Education that can stay in “ivory towers” has disappeared. Colleges must be integrated with the community, and higher education work programs are always tailored to a government program.

  3. 3.

    Science and research are not meant solely for the sake of science and research but for the advancement and benefit of progress and usefulness for the field of knowledge, culture, and social life.

  4. 4.

    Universities implement principles of each citizen entitled to teach without being affected by the state/economy (their parents). As in colonial times, higher education is not only for certain limited groups of citizens. Thus, higher education must open the doors as wide as possible for every citizen who has craft, perseverance, and nature.

  5. 5.

    Any misuse of scientific freedom and freedom of speech at universities will be firmly dealt with. Higher education is prohibited to be the site of subversive and counterrevolutionary activities.

  6. 6.

    In addition to having ethical and emotional maturity, higher education will not produce scholars who are only textbook-thinkers but also those who possess intellectual maturity, critical thinking, creativity, and can handle and solve problems. (PTIP, 1965, p. 17)

This new system and tradition showed the seriousness of PTIP when Tojib attempted to indoctrinate students and avoid liberalism to create conditions compatible with Manipol-USDEK ideology. Matters deemed incompatible with Manipol-USDEK were eradicated and labeled as subversive or counterrevolutionary. Tojib also issued Ministerial Instruction No. PTIP 8 of 1962 on Pengabdian Perguruan Tinggi Kepada Masyarakat (the Service of Higher Education to the Community) as a guideline for its implementation (PTIP Magazine, 1962, p. 5) to bring higher education close to the community.

A series of efforts of PTIP to use Manipol-USDEK ideology as a basis for higher education indicated higher education as an important target for Soekarno. Experts were needed at that time to support the development of Indonesia. Then, Manipol-USDEK not only functioned as the foundation for higher education but also as the knowledge that every student must understand. Therefore, PTIP designed mandatory indoctrination courses to realize this plan successfully.

Internalizing Manipol-USDEK-Based Thought in Higher Education Students

The ambition of Soekarno in conducting national development was clear during the Guided Democracy period. However, only a small number of Indonesians received higher education. Moreover, no study system had been developed to regulate the academic programs of students. Thus, the number of scholars needed to fulfill university development lines was unavailable. Moreover, the efficacy of undergraduate outcomes could not be determined without a regular study system.

Before the Guided Democracy era, the educational systems of universities still embraced a free education system that did not have structured guidelines for study plans. In free education, students could generally choose a branch of science as the study object and another for thesis research; they could also postpone the examination period, occasionally attend lectures, and move from one faculty to another without any sanction. Simultaneously, lecturers were obliged only to present lecture materials well and assess student learning only through examinations (Tim Penyusun Buku Sejarah Pendidikan Tinggi Dikti, Compilation Book of Higher Education, Higher Education Team, 2003, p. 57). This system was ineffective for meeting the needs of experts because many graduates managed to study for more than ten years under educational quality, which was difficult to measure.

Such ineffectiveness prompted universities and PTIP departments to design effective study or learning systems according to UUPT 22 of 1961. This design led to the guided course system, an adaptation of a system applied in the United States (Hutagaol, 1985, p. 145). In contrast to the previous free study program, in the student-led study system, students began to establish study obligations, such as presenting systems and lecture-taking requirements at a certain level, by adjusting each type of higher education circumstances. Each student was also required to follow his/her education according to an already determined structure and curriculum with this new system. Therefore, students can no longer study according to their will.

Students then took and followed lectures according to the specifications of each educational level. For assessing students, lecturers no longer relied only on final examinations but also on the timeliness of the study of students. This approach increased the number of graduates who were seriously needed, especially technological and agricultural experts (Hutagaol, 1985, p. 142). Moreover, the government was incessantly attempting to overcome the problem of food and clothing for the population (Soekarno, 1959, p. 34). Thus, the government began to direct students in the guided study system to fit the needs of country orientation. The required country orientation is similar to the needs of experts in the field of technology, food, and ideological cadres of Manipol-USDEK. Students are expected to study with regular processes and measurable standards to achieve the wishes of the state.

In the academic year 1962–1963, PTIP implemented a guided study system that had begun when Iwa led the department. However, the full development of this system occurred under the leadership of Tojib (PTIP, 1965, p. 20). This new system was important in Indonesian higher education and continued until the beginning of the New Order when it was replaced by another system introduced in the 1970s, namely Sistem Kredit Semester (Semester Credit System), which is still currently used.

The guided study had an important role in the efforts of PTIP to indoctrinate higher education students according to Manipol-USDEK because the manifesto had its dedicated course. The legal basis for this guided study was MPRS Decree no. II of 1960, article 2, verse 2, UUPT article 9, paragraph 2 on Pancasila (Indonesian five-pillar ideology), and Manipol, which had to be taught in higher education. As previously mentioned, the goal was to indoctrinate students with the ideology of Manipol-USDEK and stimulate them to understand and believe Pancasila and Manipol.

PTIP of Iwa took quick action in implementing the indoctrination by issuing a new regulatory requirement for students who wanted to study abroad. Students had to obtain the consent of the minister, promise not to marry, and believe in the truth of Manipol-USDEK to go abroad; these requirements aimed to fortify students against ideas that contradicted Manipol-USDEK (Feith, 1995, p. 84). PTIP also made students who wanted to study abroad Ambassadors of the Suffering of the People (Ampera) and required them not only to follow their indoctrination, which was first held in the event of Duta Ampera Ambulance (PTIP, 1965, p. 38), but also to disseminate Manipol-USDEK in foreign countries. Iwa made many changes, especially in the social sciences, to adjust the curriculum and textbooks to align with Manipol-USDEK (Feith, 1995, p. 84).

Iwa also began designing compulsory subjects, classified as “mental education,” which are useful as Manipol-USDEK indoctrination and called Pancasila and Manipol of the RI (PTIP, 1965, p. 36). In cooperation with PPJR and Panitia Retooling Aparatur Negara (the State Apparatus Retooling Committee), the initial planning of these compulsory subjects was concentrated to meet the needs of faculty members or lecturers. PTIP and PPJR conducted indoctrination training in Cibogo from November 10 through 16, 1961, and it was attended by 102 lecturers (PTIP, 1965, p. 37). Tojib continued this effort to fulfill the need for lecturers but also issued operational standards used by organizers. Tojib then issued Instruksi Menteri (Ministerial Instruction) No. PTIP 2/1962, dated April 5, thus requesting higher education to send its representatives for a second wave of indoctrination training from August 13 to 18, 1962, in Kebayoran Baru; this training was attended by 50 lecturers (PTIP Magazine No. 2, 1962, p. 3). Furthermore, universities were required to report every two months regarding the implementation of Pancasila/Manipol RI courses. Furthermore, Tojib issued Keputusan Menteri (Ministerial Decree) No. PTIP 126/1962, dated September 20, for conducting the course (PTIP, 1965, p. 36).

Tojib also formed a special division of PTIP in charge of monitoring Manipol-USDEK indoctrination in higher education. Based on Ministerial Decree No. PTIP 7 years, 1963, Lembaga Pembina Jiwa Pancasila dan Manipol RI (the Coordinating Body of Pancasila and Manipol RI), as a special division responsible for indoctrination, was formally established (PTIP Magazine No. 6/7, 1963, p. 5). In each type of higher education, the indoctrination team, which was double-headed by the rector, was also established. Manipol-USDEK indoctrination was conducted on students in every type of higher education through this team and was further continued by a new PTIP Minister, Brigadier General Dr. Sjarif Thajeb, who was the former rector of the Universitas Indonesia and was appointed on September 2, 1964 (PTIP, 1965, p. 21).

Two months after the appointment of Sjarif, PTIP held Konferensi Kerja Antar Rektor Perguruan Tinggi se-Indonesia (an Interdepartmental Work Conference of Universities throughout Indonesia) in Jakarta on November 26, 1964 (PTIP, 1965, p. 36). This conference generated several matters of Manipol-USDEK indoctrination; for instance, this indoctrination aims to produce Pancasilais/Manipolis-spirited scholars who are committed to intensifying Manipol-USDEK indoctrination in universities and practicing Pancasila/Manipol. Sjarif then succeeded in forming a curriculum designed under PTIP leadership of Iwa. Based on the results of Rapat Dinas Pentavipan (the Pentavipan Service Meeting, a term the government used to describe preparations against Vivere Pericoloso Year or the dangerous year), the Higher Education Curriculum established a new curriculum on June 25 and 26, 1965; in this curriculum, Manipol-USDEK indoctrination was not only conducted via courses of Pancasila and Manipol RI but also supplemented with other subjects, comprising Sejarah Pergerakan Nasional (History of the National Movement), Sejarah Pergerakan Rakyat-Rakyat Nefos (History of the People’s Movement of Nefosi), and Ekonomi Politik, dan Sosialisme Indonesia (Political Economy, and Indonesian Socialism) (PTIP, 1965, p. 249). Sjarif also increased the status of a special division that handled indoctrination in higher education. Through Keputusan Menteri (Ministerial Decree) of PTIP No. 197, 1965, dated September 20, the Pancasila and Manipol RI Coordinator, which was established during the leadership of Tojib, was upgraded to Biro Pembina Jiwa Revolusi Indonesia (Bureau of the Soul of the Indonesian Revolution).

A series of efforts of PTIP in implementing Manipol-USDEK indoctrination from 1961 to 1965 demonstrated the seriousness of the government regarding indoctrinating students. In addition to instilling students with the ideology of Manipol-USDEK, this effort was also conducted to avoid the emergence of counterrevolutionary groups in the higher education environment. However, the implementation was not as smooth as the government had hoped.

Responses of Higher Education Students to Manipol-USDEK Implementation

Guided Democracy reaped pros and cons among university students. Those who belonged to extra-campus organizations, such as Pergerakan Mahasiswa Islam Indonesia (the Indonesian Muslim Student Movement), which was close to the Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), GMNI, and CGMI parties, gained favored positions because the three organizations were affiliated with political parties supporting the government and its implementation of Manipol-USDEK indoctrination.

By contrast, Himpunan Mahasiswa Islam (the Islamic Student Association), which is close to Majelis Syuro Muslimin Indonesia (Masyumi, the Council of Syuro Muslimin onesia), and Gerakan Mahasiswa Sosialis (Gemsos, the Socialist Student Movement), which is close to Partai Sosialis Indonesia (the Indonesian Socialist Party), both rejected Manipol-USDEK indoctrination. However, the counterpositions of Pemerintahan Revolusioner Republik Indonesia (the Revolutionary Government of the RI) and Perdjuangan Rakjat Semesta (Permesta, the Struggle of the People of the Universe) were judged as loyalty to two already banned parties because their association with two political parties is considered rebellious.

Extra-campus organizations made campus political life dynamic during the aforementioned time. Competition for and seizure of student positions in intra-campus organizations, such as university student councils or faculty senates, became increasingly popular. The power struggle continued at the national level for positions in the PPMI and MMI. In addition, conditions of student life were still colored by Western lifestyles and/or cultural influences. Western cultural products, such as party activities, dances, and rock “n” roll music, were considered neocolonialism or forms of cultural imperialism. Soekarno repeatedly denounced such cultural products as incompatible with Manipol-USDEK because they did not reflect Kepribadian Nasional Indonesia (the Indonesian National Personality) (Feith, 1995, p. 83). However, students at that time loved products of Western culture. The vibrant condition of campus politics and the presence of Western lifestyles demonstrated the freedom of Kepribadian Nasional Indonesia in the student world. This freedom resulted in students receiving Manipol-USDEK indoctrination with hostility, cynicism, and even indifference (Feith, 1995, p. 84).

The indifference of students to Manipol-USDEK ideology is evident from their unresponsiveness to the criticism of Soekarno of Western cultural products. Extra-campus student organizations in Jakarta established only on regional or friendship bonds, such as the Djakarta Student Association (Imada) and the Djakarta Student Movement (GMD), still held parties and dances. Meanwhile, students held parties and dances quietly in other areas because they would have been immediately disciplined if such events became known. This situation occurred at the Indonesian Student Association (Perhimi) meeting in Yogyakarta on December 26, 1961, because parties and dances were held after the event (Warta Bhakti, 1961a, p. 3). Thus, students showed minimal acceptance of Manipol-USDEK.

The diary of Soe Hok Gie, Faculty of Letters, Universitas Indonesia Department of History 1962–1969, exemplifies unfavorable responses to the Manipol-USDEK ideology in the academic world. In his notes, Gie responded to a scientific speech by Sutjipto Wirjosuparto during his inauguration as professor on January 27, 1962. Gie considered Prof. Sutjipto as shackled by extreme Manipol-USDEK ideology because Sutjipto criticized the opinion of Resink that Indonesia was not colonized for 350 years as “a big mistake” because it contradicted the opinion of Soekarno. The statement of Gie is as follows:

But the way he [Sutjipto] is oriented is very naive and a scientific decadence. He says that they are not in line with Manipol-USDEK, not in accordance with the Pancasila interpretation and so on. It is a matter of politics, and in that situation, there is no place to accuse someone as “an USDEK.” USDEK brings trauma as anyone stamped as non-USDEK will face a dangerous situation. And he said “In other words Resink said that 350 years of colonial occupation is not true, whereas His Excellency President Soekarno has acknowledged it as such, on page this and so on.” So many times he quotes and uses Soekarno as a pretext for reinforcing his theory. Soekarno is a man at odds and Sutjipto has treated him like a prophet, even a source of truth. This tone is the tone of the author / scholar sycophant. (Maxwell, 2001, p. 97)Footnote 1

According to this passage, Gie intensely blamed Sutjipto for contradicting the opinion of Resink simply because it differed from that of Soekarno, who was not a lawyer or a historian. He considered Sutjipto to have acted similar to a sycophant instead of a scientist. This response illustrates the cynical attitudes of students toward Manipol-USDEK, which became the scourge of lecturers.

An ensuing contradiction also occurred during the transition from the free study system to the system of Iwa’s leadership as Minister of PTIP (Hutagaol, 1985, p. 146). Many senior students enjoyed the free study system during that time. They generally had considerable influence and held important positions in intra- and extra-campus student organizations. They also considered a guided system of study to be a form of restraint because it required regularly attending classes, taking examinations, and completing studies within a certain period. Therefore, they protested the enactment of a system that was considered restrictive. They also attempted to negotiate with key figures to pressure the government to cancel the guided study system. The rise of protests that rejected the implementation of guided study was worsened by the unpopular approach of Iwa; he refused to engage in dialogs with students. This situation encouraged President Soekarno to replace Iwa as Minister of PTIP.

According to Herman Lantang, a former student of Anthropology, Faculty of Letters (FSUI) of 1960, and also a former senate chairman of the Faculty of Letters, Universitas Indonesia (1965–1966), the Manipol-USDEK course was uninteresting and was indeed boring but still had to be taken before graduation (Bachtiar, 1975, p. 76; Herman Lantang Interview, April 27, 2017). Kresno Saroso, a CGMI activist, expressed a similar statement in his memoir:

We do not realize when the first semester ends and come the second semester, study subjects change. For the second semester we must learn the “Manipol” or “Political Manifesto of the Republic of Indonesia”. This is the fruit of the struggle of certain people in my own group. Although the people of my own group fought for it, for me personally, the subject was burdensome. Inevitably, I was forced to study the course, which, incidentally, I had already learned while still in high school. The high school subject “Civics,” had included Manipol. (Saroso, 2002, p. 23)

Similar to Herman, Kresno Saroso was a CGMI activist who also felt resentment toward indoctrination lessons. CGMI activists were still deemed to have set a good example by passing the course despite their attitudes; CGMI was among the organizations that supported Manipol-USDEK indoctrination (Saroso, 2002, p. 23). Ironically, Kardi, a CGMI member, failed the Manipol-USDEK exam. He had to take a remedial exam to improve his score and move up to the next level (Saroso, 2002, p. 23).

An accumulation of student objections to Manipol-USDEK indoctrination occurred at the end of 1965, along with rising inflation, with the last straw in the aftermath of the 1965 political crisis. The government of President Soekarno began to lose credibility, thus encouraging student actions that merged in Kesatuan Aksi Mahasiswa Indonesia (the Indonesian Students Action Unity) and in attacks on the government, proving that Manipol-USDEK indoctrination had failed. Manipol-USDEK student indoctrination completely disappeared after the Guided Democracy government was replaced by the New Order government (Warta Bhakti, 1961b).

Conclusion

Soekarno imposed the indoctrination of Manipol-USDEK to university students due to several reasons. Among these reasons was the need for educated experts to continue the socialist development plan of Soekarno called the Indonesian Revolution. This plan was formulated in the development mandate of the President. In addition, indoctrination was performed to facilitate the internalization of Manipol-USDEK ideology by students. In this case, indoctrination is inseparable from the efforts of Soekarno to maintain his power by controlling the minds of students.

Various efforts had also been conducted by the Department of PTIP in implementing indoctrination in the college environment. Such an implementation was performed by modifying the curriculum of the undergraduate colleges, inserting Manipol-USDEK values, making the education system efficient, and providing Western influences in the lifestyle of students.

From the outset, the response of the academic world to indoctrination in higher education was negative as expressed by some students who supported and rejected Manipol-USDEK. They considered that the burdensome Manipol-USDEK indoctrination course did not contribute to the knowledge of lecturers and students. One of the most unpopular rules among students was the prohibition of parties and dances because they were considered to be the lifestyle of Western culture (ngak-ngik-ngok culture, a condescending term for useless activities, without clear purpose), which was deemed as neo-colonialist. Scientific-minded people rejected Manipol-USDEK on academic grounds due to its overly political reason, and its sycophantic nature (as in the case of Sutjipto) became increasingly visible.

Similarly, in the implementation of a guided study system, several protests from senior students resulted in the replacement of Iwa as Minister of PTIP. Therefore, students still demanded freedom in running their studies. The application of compulsory subjects of Pancasila and Manipol RI did not generate the expected outcome. Even student bodies that initially supported the program, such as CGMI, did not provide positive evaluations.

As political tension reached its climax in the 1965 crisis, the emergence of student protesters at the time showed the failure of Manipol-USDEK indoctrination. Instead, of forming a body of supportive students of Soekarno’s dream, the result of the indoctrination was the opposite, accumulating resentment and opposition toward the Soekarno government. Overall, Manipol-USDEK indoctrination did not take root among academicians.

The result contradicts all efforts that had been performed in manipulating Pancasila as the nation’s foundation to legitimize existing power through censorship and repression. Books on economics, politics, and culture, which were deemed to carry values of Liberalism and Capitalism, were banned to encourage students not to be textbook-oriented but grounded revolutionists to create a socialist society according to Indonesia. As previously mentioned, the Guided Democracy fell in 1967 after President Soekarno’s report of accountability was rejected by the temporary People’s Consultative Assembly (MPRS). Manipol-USDEK indoctrination met its end with the Guided Democracy of Soekarno. However, the cycle of “Pancasila” indoctrination continued because the New Order government introduced its interpretation and formed a special curriculum in secondary and higher education and Pancasila indoctrination workshops (P4) to Indonesians from various professions.

P4 indoctrination also disappeared with the fall of the New Order regime. The subsequent government amended the 1945 State Constitution, and they were arguably sufficiently wise not to follow suit. However, the anxiety over Pancasila as the foundation of the state and anchor for the people’s concepts of nationalism and statehood remained. On May 19, 2017, President Joko Widodo then signed Presidential Regulation No. 54 Year 2017 regarding the Presidential Work Unit on Education of Pancasila Ideology (Unit Kerja Presiden Pembinaan Ideologi Pancasila), which was then followed by Presidential Regulation No. 7 Year 2018 regarding the Educational Body of Pancasila Education (Badan Pembinaan Ideologi Pancasila). With the revitalization of the work unit into a formal body, BPIP is expected to remain despite possible changes of governments in the future.

One BPIP leader, Yudi Latif, indicated that BPIP is different from the BP-7 of the New Order (the indoctrination unit). Evaluating the differences between the two bodies is still too early. However, controversies and pro and against sentiments were abundant, not unlike the past situation. The contestation over Pancasila is currently heightening in the clash between the “Khilafah” (Islamic state defender) and “NKRI harga mati” (United Indonesia, no compromise). Soekarno had advised in his JASMERAH (do not forget history) speech that one must indeed remember and learn from the past, demonstrating a critical stance.