She did not seem to rebel, but within her there was disarray as an uncertain war raged.

Only being sedated could save her from psychological damage.[1]

A few years ago, Pramoedya Ananta Toer’s Bumi Manusia (This Earth of Mankind) was brought to the big screen. A lot of people marveled at the protagonist Annelies Mellema’s beauty, innocence and goodness. For his film adaptation, Hanung Bramantyo chose a clear-cut good guys/bad guys categorizing of his characters, with Annelies, Nyai Ontosoroh, Minke, Dr. Martinet (the family doctor) and Panji Darman/Jan Dapperste as the “good guys”, and others (Robert Suurhof, Robert Mellema, Mr. Mellema, the Dutch court of Surabaya, and the government doctor who evaluated Annelies before she sailed for the Netherlands) as the “bad guys”. But in this essay, I would like to ask a much more important question: Who is/are responsible for Annelies Mellema’s deteriorating condition and eventual death? Nyai Ontosoroh, Annelies’ mother, squarely blamed the Dutch: “They have murdered her in the manner available and permitted to them.”[2] But is this assessment accurate? In this essay, I’d like to argue that it is Indonesian culture and society (including its so-called “good guys” like the Nyai, Dr. Martinet, Darsam and Minke) who is largely responsible for the crippling of Annelies’ personhood and womanhood, which led to her unfortunate death shortly upon her arrival in the Netherlands. What’s more, this culture/society has not changed much since Pramoedya’s days. There are countless Annelieses currently living crippled, incomplete and dissatisfied lives in Indonesia.

I actually hold Nyai Ontosoroh as the main culprit for her own daughter’s handicap and eventual death. First of all, she pulled both her children out of primary school after a tiff with her husband. Annelies never had any formal education beyond ELS grade 3 (primary 3).[3] I bet Nyai’s reasoning went like this: What good is all that education if it produces corrupt and unjust people like the Dutch? But Nyai forgot that without any formal education, there would be very little one could do to fight for a more just world. After pulling Annelies out of school, Nyai trained Annelies to help her with the family business. Without schooling and friends, Annelies grew up interacting only with the farm workers employed by the Mellema family. Upon Mr. Mellema’s death, Annelies and the business automatically “reverted” back to Mr. Mellema’s Dutch relations (because Mr. Mellema’s relationship with Nyai wasn’t legally acknowledged). Since Annelies was about 1-2 years short of what was considered the “age of majority” (legal adult age), she had to spend 1-2 years in the custody of her faraway Dutch relations. She couldn’t tolerate being separated from Minke and everybody else, and so she gave up caring for herself, got severely depressed, and died. Now whose fault is this (besides Nyai Ontosoroh’s)? I feel very strongly that the values of Indonesian society that shaped Annelies’ childhood, together with the people who held these values, were largely responsible for her tragic fate. Furthermore, these same values are still responsible for the tragic and unfulfilled fates of countless Indonesian women today. Let us now look at a few major aspects of this disordered value system: the socially acceptable feminine response to anger and injustice, and how a woman should channel her energies, goals and longings.

“She did not seem to rebel, but within her there was disarray as an uncertain war raged,” Dr. Martinet observed. Annelies, just like any other human being, is capable of feeling angry, especially when faced with something she considers to be unpleasant or unjust. But what is a socially acceptable response to injustice in Indonesia? Lacking a unified national purpose and still divided by countless small interest groups, the most common and socially acceptable response to disorder, corruption and injustice is to nrimo (Javanese for “simply accepting it as unchanging and unchangeable”). This is especially true for women, for traditional codes of feminine beauty and conduct dictate that a woman should always be graceful, the flower of the home, and not be too involved with “outside elements” that are unchanging and unchangeable. A patriotic woman, eager to change the way things are, is not considered attractive or desirable in Indonesia. Annelies, as the epitome of beauty and grace, embodies this nrimo and obedient mindset perfectly. However, she is still capable of feeling anger at injustice, so where does she channel her energies? Without a formal education, lacking the means to survive outside her small family circle, she directs all her longings and energies to the idealized figure of Minke. After meeting Minke, Annelies cannot live without him. Even when Minke had to go away only for short periods of time, Annelies promptly got sick and was incapable of normal daily functioning. Even Annelies’ own mother was astonished at the speed of her deterioration: “How could this happen, Ann, you falling so madly for him after just a few days? He should be the one falling madly in love with you.”[4] This conversation between Annelies and her mother, which took place when Minke had to go away temporarily to answer some charges, made Annelies’ tragic condition even more poignant:

[ Annelies] “Do something, Mama. Do something.”

[Nyai] “You think Minke is just your doll, Ann. He’s not a doll. Do something, do something! Of course, I’m going to do something. Be patient. It’s still too early in the morning.”

[Annelies] “You’re going to leave me like this, Mama? Do you want to kill me?”[5]

To Annelies: it’s either Minke or death. She cannot live without Minke, whom she has made into an idealized vessel of all her longings and ideals. Now, this is the most perplexing part: Seeing Annelies in this condition, how do those around her react? Those who were closest to Annelies and who professed to care for her: her mother, Dr. Martinet, Minke, Darsam… how did they react? Did they tell Annelies to wake up from her infatuation, to further her education, to see how big this world really is? No! Instead, they all took it for granted that Annelies cannot live without Minke. They all strove to get Minke for her, so that Minke could “cure” her of her “illness”. When Minke couldn’t be by Annelies’ side (due to Minke’s own duties, or later, due to the Dutch court’s decision to give her Dutch relations legal custody over her for 1-2 years), everyone around Annelies also took it for granted that Annelies wouldn’t be able to function without Minke, so they resorted to drugging her. As Dr. Martinet himself said, “Only being sedated could save her [Annelies] from psychological damage.” (p.351) How astonishing! All the other conversations concerning Annelies follow this same line of reasoning:

Dr. Martinet said that without my [Minke’s] presence Annelies had no hope of recovery; and her illness would probably get worse and there would be complications. (p.195)

[Dr. Martinet to Minke]: “There is only one thing needed by this girl: you, Mr. Minke. She has everything she needs, except you. … She will regain consciousness. I have been drugging her and waiting for you to arrive. So it is your fault that she has been drugged for so long. If I had left her conscious without you here, there is no telling what would have happened. If you hadn’t come back and I was forced to keep her drugged, it would have damaged her heart. It all comes back to you—you are the cause of it all. … Have pity on this child. She cannot face violence or harshness. She dreams of someone who will love her, who will give her pure love. She feels like she is living alone, by herself, without knowing the world. She has put all her hopes for the future in you, Mr. Minke. … Her heart is too soft, too gentle. She can’t cope with hurt. … She lives, in fact, as an orphan. She feels permanently dependent. Even here in her own private world, there is no one she can rely on. She needs someone who will support her.” (p.201-204)

Be a good doctor, Minke. Only you can cure her. Strive so that she believes totally in you. (p.237)

That night Mama and I waited upon Annelies, who had to be drugged once again by Dr. Martinet so that she could sleep. (p.334)

[Dr. Martinet to Minke]: She will not be able to live without you. You now are the only thing to which she clings. (p.351)

This is crazy, right? But in this worldview, those who wish to separate Annelies from Minke are all demonized. Even the government doctor, who was ordered to check on Annelies shortly before her departure, recognized the craziness of this worldview:

 “Nyai!” he said in the coarsest of Malay. “Why have you allowed this child to be drugged so heavily? … You could all be charged!” (p.349)

Those who professed to “love” Annelies never taught her to arm herself with a good education, to see the court mandate as an opportunity to see the wider world, how to be independent, how to use her intelligence to make this world a better place. Even the lady who escorted Annelies to the ship bound for the Netherlands advised her to be positive: “How happy you will be . . . if you don’t like it, perhaps in one or two years [when Annelies reaches the legal adult age] you’ll be able to decide your own life. Yes, miss, just one or two years . . .” (p. 356)

But unfortunately, in the film adaptation, this lady and the government doctor fell into the “bad guys” category, because they did not accept the mentality that Annelies belongs to Minke and cannot live without Minke. But what does any of this have to do with feminism, or with Indonesian women today?

First of all, in a country deprived of national unity and a dependable justice system, the protection of women becomes the responsibility not of the country, but of the small religious/social/ethnic communities that these women belong to. When a woman is assaulted, molested or raped, for example, shame and an undependable justice system colluded to make her forever a victim (to be blamed or pitied), not an empowered agent who could contribute positively to society by (at the very least) reporting the crime. Similarly, a woman’s labor belongs not to the nation, but only to the small community surrounding her (her family, her small religious community or business). I know this for sure, because as a Chinese woman who used to aspire to an army and government career, not only was I treated as an “outsider”, it was also considered inappropriate and out of place for a Chinese woman to have this kind of aspiration. As a result, women are confined to “dream small” (make money, beautify herself, attract men physically), because the Indonesian cultural system laughs at women who are intellectuals, who have patriotic aspirations, or who wish to change a corrupt, inefficient system. Therefore, women with big aspirations have no worthy cause (e.g. a national cause, wide societal goals) into which these aspirations can be channeled, which left them with nothing but Minkes and drugs (read: beauty treatments, shopping sprees, jealousies and anxieties, and other so-called “womanly things”) to keep themselves content and sedated. But what’s more depressing is that Indonesian society works in such a way as to perpetuate this demeaning cycle: When women display their emotions and discontentment, for example, society does not ask itself, Why is that? But simply accepts that this is how women are. Women are inherently emotional, anxious, jealous and hysterical, so try to humor them and give them those small things that would keep them content and sedated, and do not take their concerns too seriously.

If those around Annelies had realized what is truly going on, they would have been glad at the court’s decision. Annelies could have used this opportunity to see the Netherlands, to meet new people and even further her education. With her charm and intelligence, she could have broadened her horizons and be much, much more than Minke’s wife or the manager of Mellema dairy. But of course, how could they see this when they were too busy demonizing those who facilitated Annelies’ and Minke’s separation?

I felt called to write this essay after observing how certain people (especially women) tend to behave when in Indonesia, and how they are treated: exactly like the way Annelies behaved and was treated. Most simply blame the immediate, precipitating cause of the person’s discontentment, instead of looking at the “bigger picture” of how society may have contributed to the person’s dysfunction and unhappiness.

[1] Dr. Martinet’s assessment of Annelies, in This Earth of Mankind (p.351) by Pramoedya Ananta Toer (Penguin Publishing Group, Kindle Edition).

[2] Toer, Pramoedya Ananta. Child of All Nations (Buru Quartet) (p. 44). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

[3] “Where did you go to school?” “E.L.S. I didn’t finish. I didn’t even get to fourth class.” (This Earth of Mankind, p.30)

[4] Ibid., p.177

[5] Ibid., p.158