Distorting History: The Colonial Narrative of Papua in Indonesian Education

Distorting History: The Colonial Narrative of Papua in Indonesian Education

Throughout history, genocides and cultural erasures have often followed a common tactic: the distortion of a nation’s history. This deliberate rewriting serves to weaken a people’s identity and justify domination. My personal reflection reveals the deep impact of such distortions—false narratives about Papua were ingrained in me during my schooling, narratives that continue to be taught to millions of Indonesian students today.

Below are some critical examples of historical misrepresentations concerning Papua in the Indonesian national curriculum:

1. Papua Was Part of the Majapahit Kingdom

The Majapahit Empire, centered on Java during the 13th to 16th centuries, is frequently cited in Indonesian nationalist discourse as a precursor to modern Indonesia. The 'Negarakertagama', a 14th-century Javanese text, claims a vast Majapahit dominion stretching from Sumatra to Papua. However, archaeological and historical evidence supporting Majapahit’s control over Papua is absent. No inscriptions, temples, or ruins of Javanese palaces have been discovered in Papua. Thus, the narrative of Papua as a Majapahit territory is largely legendary. This myth has been politically exploited by predominantly Javanese leaders to assert cultural supremacy over Papua.

2. Papuans Participated in the Indonesian Youth Pledge

The Indonesian Youth Pledge of 1928 symbolizes unity in diversity, where youth from across the archipelago vowed allegiance to a united Indonesia. Two figures, Poreu Ohee and Aitai Karubaba, are commonly presented as Papuan participants. Yet research reveals they were emissaries from the Sultanate of Tidore in Maluku, not representatives of Papuan indigenous peoples. Historically, Tidore’s influence in Papua involved exploitation and subjugation rather than genuine representation. Therefore, the notion that Papuans embraced Indonesian nationalism at this juncture is historically inaccurate.

3. Papuans Fought for Indonesian Independence

Several Papuan figures have been declared Indonesian national heroes, such as Frans Kaisiepo, featured on the 10,000 rupiah note. This recognition creates the impression of Papuan allegiance to Indonesian sovereignty. Yet these individuals primarily facilitated Papua’s integration into Indonesia rather than fought for Indonesia’s independence. Many Papuans view them as collaborators rather than heroes. Resistance to Dutch colonialism did not equate to support for Indonesian annexation.

4. Papua is an Integral Part of Indonesia

The Indonesian government asserts that Papua has always been part of the Republic of Indonesia (NKRI). However, in 1949, the Netherlands transferred sovereignty only over former Dutch East Indies territories excluding Papua, which was administered separately as Dutch New Guinea. Moreover, the 1949 recognized entity was the United States of Indonesia (RIS), a federal arrangement that included several states, with the unitary NKRI only established in 1950. This legal and historical nuance challenges the simplistic claim that Papua has always been an integral Indonesian region.

5. Papua as a Dutch Military Base Threatening Indonesia

Indonesia justified its military campaign to annex Papua partly by alleging Dutch militarization of the territory. Paradoxically, Indonesia collaborated with the Soviet Union, allowing Soviet military bases on its territory and receiving arms from the Eastern Bloc for a planned invasion of Papua. The U.S., under President Kennedy, pressured the Netherlands to cede Papua to Indonesia to prevent its further alignment with communism.

6. Indonesia Liberated Papua from Dutch Colonialism

President Sukarno’s 1961 declaration to “liberate” Papua is popularly regarded as anti-colonial heroism. Yet this was a militarized aggression violating international law and Papuan self-determination. Sukarno’s dismissal of the short-lived West Papuan state as a “Dutch puppet” belittled Papuan agency. The annexation was driven largely by Papua’s abundant natural resources, exploited by Indonesian authorities and multinational corporations like Freeport McMoRan. The often-cited rhetoric of liberation masks economic and political interests.

7. May 1, 1963: Papua Liberation Day

While Indonesian textbooks celebrate May 1, 1963 as Papua’s liberation and reintegration, eyewitness accounts tell a different story. Dutch missionary Father Frans Lieshout documented atrocities by Indonesian forces—looting, burning of archives, and widespread violence—contradicting the official narrative of a joyous liberation.

8. The 'Act of Free Choice' (1969) Represented Papuan Consent

The 1969 referendum purportedly showed Papuan approval for integration into Indonesia. In reality, only about 1,025 Papuans—out of roughly 800,000—were selected to vote, and reports indicate coercion by Indonesian military personnel. The United Nations resolution endorsing the vote emphasized Indonesia’s development responsibilities, not sovereignty recognition. Instead of development, Indonesian policies prioritized transmigration and resource extraction, leaving Papua impoverished and marginalized.

Papua Is Not Indonesia

These examples are but a fraction of the distortions embedded in Indonesia’s historical narrative about Papua. Until the Indonesian state acknowledges and revises these falsifications, systemic injustice and violence against Papuans will persist. Papua is not merely a province of Indonesia—it is a Melanesian nation forcibly annexed for economic gain under the guise of national unity.