In general, Indonesian History’s lessons taught by its scholars is how our prestigious nation can be “freed” from colonization bondages. The lessons captured how impassioned our predecessors to fight for the sake of our national freedom is. But there is one huge mistake that the standard syllabus of National History taught: how the “santri” word seems purposedly excluded, not mentioned in so many spots it should have, inside the History.
From my point of view, they are leading to a massive misunderstanding of Indonesia history. Since factually, as I will provide evidence soon enough, most of the prominent Indonesian history figures, who participated enormously through their effort on Indonesia freedom, are the Ulama, who essentially is a santri.
Back to the ages before the ethical politics being well-known as ‘the pioneer of Indonesia resurgence’ since there are so many education foundations built as the idea of ethical politics started to mushrooms, such as HIS (Hollandsch Indlandsche School), MULO (Meer Uitgebreid Lagare Onderwijs), AMS (Algemeene Middlebare School), Kweek School.
The Islamic education has developed well, as the existence of Pesantren has given Nusantara a centre of culture and education development that is super competitive to the quality provided by Indische’s school in general. Something to be noted is the Indonesian History syllabus has never, scarce, mentioned the existence of pesantren and its contribution to national independence in the past.
Well, there are more of it. The glorious battle of Surabaya is an example, and the syllabus mentioned enough how civilians contribute meaningful participation to the struggle—but fully excluded the fact that the Jihad Resolution was written by Hadratus Syeikh KH Hasyim Asya’ari, a well-known national hero and acknowledged as santri and ulama leader at that moment. Thus, just 18 days before the war begins is the trigger behind why the civilians are even willing to participate in the war in the first place.