印尼缘何对1965年屠杀保持沉默
The National Museum of Indonesia is packed with ceramics, maps and schoolchildren. When I visit, in search of information on the mass killings of 50 years ago, the director looks visibly put out.
印度尼西亚国家博物馆满是各种陶瓷制品、地图，还有来此参观的学生。当我来到这里找寻50年前那场大屠杀的信息时，馆长露出不悦的神情。
“Why are you writing about 1965?” Intan Mardiana asks. The museum covers pre-19th century history, she explains, not politics. “People here don’t know much about that.”
“你为什么要写1965年？”因坦鬠艳覄娜(Intan Mardiana)问道。博物馆收藏的都是19世纪以前的历史，不包含政治，她解释说，“这里的人们不太了解那段历史。”
Following a failed coup blamed on the Communist party of Indonesia (PKI), more than half a million people were killed between late 1965 and early 1966, part of a purge that targeted the ethnic Chinese, trade unionists and left-leaning artists as well as PKI members.
在发生了一场被归咎于印尼共产党(PKI)的未遂政变后，超过50万人在1965年末至1966年初遭到杀害，成为针对印尼华人、工会活动人士、左倾艺术家以及印尼共产党员的整肃的牺牲品。
Co-ordinated by the military and local vigilante groups, the killings ushered in three decades of dictatorship by General Suharto. Half a century later, there is still little by way of acknowledgment, let alone retribution, in the nation that is now the world’s third-largest democracy.
在军方与地方民团的相互配合下，这场屠杀开启了苏哈托(Suharto)长达30年的独裁统治。半个世纪后，在这个当今世界第三大的民主国家，连承认屠杀事件的姿态都没有，更不用说对行凶者进行惩罚了。
Ms Mardiana directs me to another museum dedicated to the late General Abdul Nasution, who having survived the 1965 coup led the fight to suppress communism.
玛蒂安娜指引我参观另一家为已故的阿卜杜勒纳苏蒂安将军(General Abdul Nasution)而建的博物馆。纳苏蒂安在1965年的政变中幸存下来，随后领导了镇压印尼共的行动。
I venture into the musty, deserted house where he had lived. There is no ticket office and no one else to be seen. A guard finally emerges in the living room, with its bright yellow walls and floral sofa, and hands me a leaflet that relates in Indonesian the story of the PKI’s raid on Nasution’s home, during which his daughter was killed. There was nothing about the mass murders that followed.
我来到了纳苏蒂安的故居，这里散发着霉味，似乎没人照看。没有售票处，也看不到别的什么人。在亮黄色墙壁和花卉图案沙发的客厅里，我终于见到一名保安。他递给我一个小册子，上面用印尼语记述了印尼共突袭纳苏蒂安宅邸的故事（在此次袭击中，他女儿被杀）。没有对随后发生的大规模屠杀的任何记录。
Since the fall of Suharto in 1998, freedom of speech has improved dramatically but debate about the killings still seems to take place mainly overseas. I learnt about them when I moved to Jakarta this year. A former correspondent recommended The Act of Killing , Joshua Oppenheimer’s 2014 Oscar-nominated documentary, in which men who took part in the executions re-enact their crimes. “When I approached them, I found that within minutes of meeting me they would launch into boasts of how they killed,” the director explains via Skype. Many of the perpetrators remain powerful in their communities, he says.
自1998年苏哈托倒台以来，印尼的言论自由已有显著改善，但围绕那场屠杀的辩论似乎仍主要局限于海外。今年搬到雅加达后，我开始了解这些事件。一位前记者向我推荐了约书亚攠本海默(Joshua Oppenheimer)执导的、获得2014年奥斯卡奖提名的纪录片《杀戮时刻》(The Act of Killing) 。在片中，曾经参与处决的人再现了他们的罪行。“当我走近他们时，我发现，在见到我几分钟内，他们就开始炫耀自己如何杀人，”奥本海默通过Skype解释道。他说，许多行凶者在当地仍保持强大的势力。
The violence of the film forms a striking contrast to the image of gentle Javanese culture and Balinese spirituality. Along with The Look of Silence, a sequel, it has triggered international debate. But in Indonesia the documentaries — like the killings — are not widely discussed. Instead, the government has grown more suspicious of foreign journalists and wary that this year’s anniversary could raise fresh questions.
纪录片中展现的暴力与爪哇文化的温和形象以及巴厘岛的宗教氛围形成了鲜明对比。该片与其续集《沉默之像》(The Look of Silence)一道引发了国际辩论。但在印尼，这些纪录片——像杀戮本身一样——并未被广泛讨论。相反，印尼政府正越来越不信任外国记者，并担心今年的周年纪念可能引发新的问题。
Officials dismissed the International People’s Tribunal that met in November in The Hague to shed light on the slaughter. In the city of Yogyakarta, a cultural centre in western Indonesia, officials have confiscated toys bearing Communist symbols and talks on 1965 were banned at this year’s Ubud Writers and Readers festival. “I think they were just panicking,” says Janet DeNeefe, festival organiser.
今年11月，国际人民法庭(International People’s Tribunal)在海牙对这场屠杀进行了庭审，借此吸引世人对这件事的关注，但印尼官员对此不予理会。在印尼西部的文化中心日惹市(Yogyakarta)，官员们没收了带有共产主义符号的玩具，今年的“乌布作家与读者节”(Ubud Writers and Readers Festival)也被禁止讨论1965年发生的事件。读者节组织者Janet DeNeefe说：“我觉得他们只是感到恐慌。”
When President Joko Widodo swept to power last year, the first leader from outside the political and military elite, some hoped he would improve freedom of speech. These expectations were misguided, local friends tell me. Mr Widodo, who campaigned as a man of the people, is considered to share the views of those reluctant to revisit the wrongs of the past. The killings laid the foundations for Suharto’s rule, and schools have long presented 1965 as the defeat of a political faction that threatened the nation’s future.
印尼总统佐科维多多(Joko Widodo)——首位来自政治与军事精英圈以外的领导人——去年上台时，一些人希望他能改善言论自由。当地朋友告诉我，这种期望是误导的。虽然维多多以亲民形象投入竞选，但据信他的看法与那些不愿重新审视历史错误的人并无二致。那场杀戮奠定了苏哈托统治的基础，印尼学校一直将1965年的事件描述为挫败了一个威胁国家未来的政治派别。
With foreigners raking over this violent past and chastising the government, some Indonesians are understandably prickly. One local historian started his testimony to The Hague tribunal with a disclaimer: “I am not here to make my country and people look bad.”
鉴于外国人士不断抨击这段暴力历史并批评印尼政府，一些印尼人感到芒刺在背是可以理解的。一位当地历史学家以一则免责声明开始自己在海牙国际法庭的证词：“我来这里不是为了让我的国家和人民难堪。”
Ariel Heryanto, an academic at the Australian National University, says the silence is the result of official repression. “How many globally connected young people know about the Santa Cruz, Soweto, Khmer Rouge or Tiananmen Square killings?” he asks. “Young Germans feel sick of the national obsession with guilt and the endless discussion on the Holocaust.”
澳大利亚国立大学(Australian National University)学者Ariel Heryanto表示，沉默是政府压制的结果。“在全球互联的年轻人中，有多少人知道圣克鲁斯(Santa Cruz)、索韦托(Soweto)、红色高棉(Khmer Rouge)或天安门广场的杀戮呢？”他反问道，“德国年轻人对于全民负罪以及对纳粹大屠杀无休止的讨论感到厌倦。”
Yet in Berlin, for example, there is no shortage of museums and lectures for those who want to know more.
但是，以柏林为例，对于那些确实想深入了解历史的人而言，这里并不缺少博物馆和讲座。
