Poor archival conditions have meant that the identification of victims, their experiences and their needs is incredibly difficult
Sri Lestari Wahyuningroem
On 12 January 2023, a team formed by then President Joko Widodo issued a statement and several recommendations for the settlement of cases of gross human rights violations in Indonesia. Established in 2022, the Tim Penyelesaian Non-Yudisial Pelanggaran Hak Asasi Manusia yang Berat PPHAM (PPHAM, Ad Hoc Team for the Non-Judicial Settlement of Gross Human Rights Violations), was mandated to provide a non-judicial path to truth, recognition and reparation for victims of gross violations, including the 1965–1966 anti-communist massacres.
The team submitted eleven recommendations to the government; of these, seven are particularly difficult to implement. Recommendation Two involves rewriting history; recommendations Three, Five, and Six concern restoring victims' rights; and recommendations Four and Seven focus on collecting data about victims and providing them with assistance. The core challenge in implementing these seven recommendations is the lack of reliable data on victims' identities, experiences and needs. This data gap stems from poor archival practices concerning crucial documents and materials belonging to victims and survivors in Indonesia.
The search for truth
Uncovering data on the 1965-1966 genocide is difficult. These events took place 60 years ago. Most perpetrators and victims have now passed away, and memories have faded among survivors. Additionally, lingering trauma, ongoing persecution, and societal stigma continue to affect victims and their families until today.
The lack of data does not mean there have been no efforts to document the truth or victims’ experiences. In 2014, the National Commission for Human Rights (Komisi Nasional Hak Azasi Manusia, KOMNAS HAM) conducted investigations into serious human rights violations that took place during 1965-1966. Using seven regions as case studies, this investigation concluded that crimes against humanity were committed against thousands of civilians. Although the findings were part of a pro justitia investigation (which are separate from criminal investigations), over e decade on, the Attorney General’s Office has yet to act on the report.
Since the beginning of the 1998 reform, civil society has undertaken various initiatives to seek truth through documenting the experiences of victims and reconciliation related to the 1965 genocide. These initiatives are part of grassroots or community-based activities, mainly organised around documentation, exhumation, memorialisation, commemoration and reconciliation, as well as organising public seminars. Local and national organisations have worked with victims and grassroots communities and collected testimonies and documents, including letters, creative works, and victims' belongings. In several regions, these documentation and archiving initiatives have been carried out by non-government organisations (NGOs) such as Syarikat in Central Java and Yogyakarta, and SKP HAM Palu (Solidaritas Korban Pelanggaran Hak Asasi Manusia, Solidary with the Victims of Human Rights Violations) in collaboration with the city government to collect data on victims for local reparations programs. Other groups include YAPHI (Yayasan Yekti Angudi Piadeging Hukum Indonesia, the Yekti Angudi Foundation for Indonesian Legal Aid) and Sekber 65 (Sekretariat Bersama ’65, the Joint Secretariat on ’65) in Solo and its surroundings, and FOPERHAM (Forum Pendidikan dan Perjuangan Hak Asasi Manuisa, Forum on Human Rights Education and Struggle) in Yogyakarta and Central Java.
At the national level, NGOs such as KontraS (Komisi untuk Orang Hilang dan Korban Kekerasan, Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence), ELSAM (Institute for Policy Research and Advocacy), and AJAR (Asia Justice and Rights) have collected victim testimonies, court documents, media reports, and community records to ensure that evidence of violations is not lost to history. These organisations have previously attempted to coordinate documentation efforts, such as through the Joint Documentation Network (Jardokber). A larger civil society coalition, the Coalition for Truth and Justice (Koalisi Keadilan dan Pengungkapan Kebenaran, KKPK), serves as a larger coordination forum where truth and reconciliation initiatives are carried out nationally. In addition, there was also ISSI (Institut Sejarah Sosial Indonesia, the Indonesian Social History Institute) based in Jakarta, which created a significant collection of recorded interviews with many victims of 1965 in the early 2000s.
Another key element of this work is that carried out by survivor groups. Since 2000, these groups have actively documented their own stories and participated in truth-seeking and reconciliation efforts. The ‘opening up’ period directly after Suharto’s fall in 1998 enabled victims of past human rights abuses—including the 1965–66 anti-communist purge—the political space to form various associations. Victims’ organisations such as the YPKP 65 (Yayasan Penelitian Korban Pembunuhan 1965, the Research Foundation for Victims of the 1965-1966 Killings), Pakorba (Paguyuban Korban Orde Baru, the Association of Victims of the New Order), LPKP 65 (Lembaga Penelitian Korban Pembunuhan 1965, the Research Institute for Victims of the 1965 Tragedy), LPK 65 (Lembaga Pembela Korban 1965, the Institute for the Defenders of 1965 Victims), LPRKROB (Lembaga Perjuangan Rehabilitasi Korban, the Organisation for Rehabilitation Struggle for New Order Victims), KKP HAM 65 (Komite Aksi Korban Pelanggaran Hak Asasi Manusia 1965, the 1965 Human Rights Victims Action Committee), IKOHI (Ikatan Keluarga Orang Hilang Indonesia, the Association of Families of the Enforced Disappeared) as well as individual victims, established a range of testimony-collecting initiatives in conjunction with other civil society groups, including human rights activists, researchers, scholars, teachers, and community leaders, to document the abuses perpetrated in 1965-1966.
Endangered collections
The efforts by these survivor groups and supporting organisations were tremendously successful; particularly in the first decade after 1998. They collected large numbers of victim testimonies, letters and notes, books, photographs, artistic works such as paintings or sketches, and artefacts. The problem is that while each group has collected large amounts of data, rarely have they catalogued or archived them, and very few have systems in place for the long-term storage of these materials. In most cases, the materials are also poorly organised and stored, which is also an impediment for access.
For most of these organisations, including KOMNAS HAM, the approach to documentation has concentrated on collection, not storage. Rarely have they made provisions for maintaining and storing the materials. Most do not have the means to set up good archiving systems to preserve and catalogue their records, so they remain accessible now and into the future. Good archiving practices also go beyond simple storage by ensuring documents are systematically arranged, labeled, and protected against damage or loss. Effective archiving involves documenting metadata, indexing, and preservation techniques to maintain both physical and digital materials.
Accessibility must be balanced with confidentiality, safeguarding sensitive information while enabling public access when appropriate. More than a technical task, archiving is an ethical responsibility: it preserves collective memory, supports transparency, and ensures that knowledge and history are not lost but remain valuable for future generations. Another important principle often overlooked, is ensuring that archives are stored with the consent of the victims, including consent regarding whether their materials can be accessed by the public, including for use in state programs.
The challenges of long-term conservation
There are several reasons the 1965 archives held by these organisations are in such disarray. The first factor is the lack of understanding about best practices in archiving. Archiving and archival science are still marginal and developing in Indonesia. Learning about archives remains limited to university classrooms, and there are few opportunities to learn these valuable skills needed by institutions working on human rights issues in Indonesia.
The second factor is limited resources. Proper archiving requires significant funding and skilled manpower. Long-term archives require advanced technological infrastructure and systems, as well as adequate physical storage facilities. At present, the only state institutions equipped to meet these needs are the National Archives and, at the regional level, the Regional Archives.
The third, and most substantial, impediment to the long-term preservation of the 1965 archives is their political sensitivity. There is currently no access available to materials relating to 1965 currently held within Indonesian national archives. There is also little appetite by these institutions to store and preserve materials relating to 1965 collected by survivors and human rights organisations.
The consequences of the lack of skills, funding and support have been devastating for the 1965 collections. Many of the materials gathered in the early 2000s have already been lost. Some have literally perished due to Indonesia’s high levels of humidity, which has irreparably damaged papers and destroyed old cassette tapes, with these materials rotting away in cupboards. Other materials have been lost in floods, others through the loss of computer hard-drives and other inadequate data storage backups disasters. In some cases, however, these materials have been destroyed because they are deemed too dangerous to keep.
Survivor archives
The task of preserving the 1965 archives is now urgent. Transparency and access to archives begin with recognising them as a shared responsibility. Archives are not the property of institutions or individuals who collect or store them—they are a public resource. They support accountability by enabling victims, researchers, and advocates to confront impunity and promote truth. More than repositories of evidence, archives preserve collective memory and amplify marginalised voices. In doing so, they play a vital role in education, advocacy and the protection of human rights, ensuring the past informs the future.
The role of archives in advancing human rights is particularly significant in Indonesia, a country marked by a complex history of authoritarian rule, political violence and ongoing struggles for justice. Well-maintained archives that comply with human rights archiving principles have the potential to reveal the truth about past gross human rights violations and bring justice to victims. Indonesia has chosen a ‘non-judicial’ path to address this history of gross violations, but the recommendations of the PPHAM call for data on these violations to be amassed and preserved.
In the context of the 1965 genocide, archiving poses a particular challenge. In addition to the fact that many of the victims (and perpetrators) have already passed away or are very elderly, and so little time remains in which to collect data with those able to provide first-hand accounts, the materials gathered by survivor and supporting organisations over the past three decades are endangered and many have already been lost.
It was in this context that a group of Indonesian and international researchers formed the Indonesia Trauma Testimony Project (ITTP) in 2018. The primary aims of the ITTP are to collect, digitise and preserve these critically endangered survivor community archives in collaboration with custodians, to ensure that they form a permanent record of eyewitness accounts to this dark and defining period in Indonesia’s history. The work of the project began with negotiating a set of agreed protocols with survivor groups, but due to delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the work of digitising these archives did not begin until 2024. Now mid-way through the project and supported by a range of national and international institutions to ensure the preservation and proper archiving of these materials, the ITTP hopes that the resulting archive will preserve the memory of 1965 now and into the future.
Sri Lestari (Ayu) Wahyuningroem leads the Centre for Citizenship and Human Rights Studies, Universitas Pembangunan Nasional Veteran Jakarta. Her work focuses on human rights and transitional justice.
