Campuses must remain free spaces for thought and discussion without any external interference, including the military.
Written by Iqbal Alaik, Translated by Jeremy Lim
THE revision of Law Number 34 of 2004 concerning the Indonesian National Army (Undang-Undang Tentara Nasional Indonesia or UU TNI) opens a new and wide avenue for the military to be involved in civilian life, including in the academic space. It didn’t take long for indications of this to be clear. Only a short time after the revision was passed, we saw many examples of military infiltration on our campuses.
On March 26, for example, news emerged about cooperation between the TNI and Universitas Udayana. The agreement requires students to take part in national defense education (with marching), while active soldiers could get an education on campus.
In Purwokerto, the rectorate of Universitas Jenderal Soedirman (Unsoed) summoned the Student Executive Board (Badan Eksekutif Mahasiswa or BEM) functionaries after they held a demonstration rejecting the TNI Bill on March 21. The rectorate asked BEM to hold a dialogue with the Military District Command (Kodim) of Banyumas. BEM initially refused because there was no official letter from the TNI, but the meeting was still held. According to BEM Unsoed, the meeting was apparently used by the military to pressure students to provide clarification and an apology for the action that occurred.
In Merauke, a letter from Kodim 1707 appeared requesting student data. The students suspected that it was intended to monitor and silence critical voices of the National Strategic Project (PSN). The Papua Legal Aid Institute (LBH) was involved in helping students who felt threatened.
From Syllabus Standardization to Civil Repression
Some observers have expressed concerns about military infiltration on campuses. Criticism of military infiltration reflects concerns about the loss of free inquiry and debate on campuses.
ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute researcher Made Supriatma stated that this is an attempt by the military to control what can and cannot be taught to students. Meanwhile, the Chairman of the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation (YLBHI) Muhammad Isnur asserted that the military approach is in oppposition to academic values that absolutely require space for free and critical thinking.
Campus should indeed be a space for freedom of thought, a place for the exchange of egalitarian and critical ideas. A free and dialogical academic atmosphere is essential for the advancement of knowledge. As Paulo Freire said, “true education is the practice of freedom, not an act of taming.” The militarization of campus is not an effort to educate but rather a strategy to shape obedience and eliminate the courage to challenge—as in the case of Unsoed.
Furthermore, the involvement of the military in higher education institutions is also considered a regression towards authoritarianism. According to Dhia Al Uyun, Chair of the Campus Workers Union (Serikat Pekerja Kampus or SPK), this infiltration could drag the academic world into strict control. This creates an atmosphere that is not conducive to the development of science and creativity, which are the core of higher education.
One of the excuses that often arises to support military infiltration is the need to defend the country. This, for example, emerged when military figures came to give lectures during the new student admissions at Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta (UNY)) and Universitas Gadjah Mada (UGM) in 2019. The question “why the military?” clearly emerged, as if there were no figures who could be role models. The decision to bring in military fatigues also seemed to reduce the campus’s capabilities. Intellectuals also failed to bear their teeth at their home turf.
Besides, it is not only the military that defends the country. Academic, sports, and research achievements are also forms of contribution to the country that are even more relevant and in accordance with the function of education.
The Head of the Indonesian Army Information Service, Brigadier General Wahyu Yudhayana, argued that the TNI could enter campuses because they had a “territorial development” function. This statement is nothing other than reminiscent of the Republic of Indonesia Armed Forces’ dual function concept during the New Order era.
This statement also strengthens the belief that the military entering campus is misguided. Historical experience shows that military involvement in the world of education often results in censorship of thought and limiting freedom of expression.
Let us recall how the New Order regime ruled for 32 years. President Soeharto ran the government with a military style. A number of propaganda tools were designed to make the people’s attitudes conform to the wishes of the ruler. Rendro Dhani, Terence Lee, and Kate Fitch wrote in Political Public Relations in Indonesia: A History of Propaganda and Democracy that during that time the Soeharto regime used “fear” in running the government. Manipulation of reality was also carried out so that the military regime was seen as a hero.
Meanwhile, freedom of expression was crushed. The proof is that many newspapers were banned without mercy. This attitude is the same as depriving the public of their right to the information they need. Not to mention the problem of human rights violations. East Timor and West Papua are two regions that witnessed the cruelty of the military regime at that time. The tragedy was further prolonged by the case of the forced disappearance of pro-democracy activists before the fall of the New Order.
Years after the Reformation, the military has clearly attempted to rebuild its reputation in the eyes of the public. This is plain to see. The presence of military figures as speakers or on other occasions in public spaces is one way to reconstruct an image that has been badly tarnished in the past. The military is given a strategic position to present a positive narrative, as if they are the only ones capable of fixing all the ills of this nation. This is also supported by the increasing number of former high-ranking military officers who now occupy important positions in the central government.
It seems that this effort has been successful so far. A Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) survey showed that the TNI is in first on the list of institutions trusted by the public. The TNI won 90 percent of the votes from a total of 1,183 respondents. This figure successfully surpassed the Corruption Eradication Commission which was in second place with 80.8% of the votes. Meanwhile, the president and vice president were in third and fourth place respectively.
Continued domination will give way to hegemony. Now, many may still think it is strange if there are soldiers entering campus, lecturing students who should think freely. But over time it will become normal. Society will consider that soldiers in public spaces are commonplace; belief that soldiers can do everything is also commonplace; and so on.
Maybe, for now, the military regime has not fully returned. But we know that history will always be a valuable lesson for life in the future. We do not want to return to the past again. That is our task as of the academic community. Domination must be fought with a counter-discourse that is no less strong.
Our efforts to contest and advance our position in public seems to be going through a rocky road. For years, the military has been subtly conveying their version of the narrative in academic circles. If this is allowed to continue, the authority of the university may be eroded. Our freedom and independence of thought will be of no use. It would be even more embarrassing if we choose to remain silent when the military seizes the role of the university as a pillar of development.
Conclusion
Military infiltration into campuses is a serious matter that needs to be carefully observed. While there are arguments about the need to defend the country, the reality is that the presence of the military will threaten academic freedom and democracy. Therefore, it is important for civil society and the academic community to speak out against steps that can harm the integrity of higher education. Campuses must remain free spaces for thought and discussion without any external pressure, including the military.
The military’s entry into campus is not just an intervention—it is a real form of systematic infiltration to silence academic freedom and revive the dual function of the TNI. This is a regressive step that threatens democracy, kills freedom of thought, and drags the academic world into the abyss of authoritarianism. Campus is an intellectual space, not a barracks. Here, argument meets argument. There is no place for the muzzle of a gun. Academic freedom only grows in an egalitarian and dialogical atmosphere—not under the shadow of chronic feudalism and hierarchical culture.
History has proven that every time the military enters a campus, what follows is repression, silencing, and the destruction of critical reasoning. We must not remain silent. The campus must become a space for competition, not a site of indoctrination. There needs to be intellectual resistance—from students, lecturers, and other academics—to maintain the dignity of the university. A counter-discourse must be built, not only rejecting the physical presence of the military but also challenging the dominant narrative that justifies civilian militarization.
In a situation like this, democracy and common sense are indeed at a critical point. Will we give in to the romanticisation of nationalism driven by the military, or will we maintain the campus as a free, critical, and independent space from those in power? I think we all know the right answer.
Iqbal Alaik is a freelance writer who is currently researching campuses, academic freedom, and democracy. He lives in Semarang City and studies economics at UIN Walisongo Semarang.Originally published in Indonesian in IndoPROGRESS.