Statement by The Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence (KontraS)
2 March 2026
For almost forty years, victims and families of the Talangsari massacre have lived in the shadow of silence, denial, and impunity. On 7 February 1989, in Talangsari, East Lampung, Indonesian military forces under the command of A.M. Hendropriyono attacked a Muslim community led by Warsidi amid the New Order regime’s repressive enforcement of Pancasila as the “Single Principle.”
At least 246 people were killed. Many others were arbitrarily detained, tortured, or forcibly disappeared. A huge number of women and children were not excluded as victims. It is to be noted that what occurred in Talangsari was not a spontaneous clash nor a tragic misunderstanding, it was a deliberate act of state violence carried out in the context of systematic repression. Yet nearly four decades later, the Indonesian authorities have failed to deliver truth, justice, and meaningful reparations. Instead, it has increasingly engaged in state denialism and historical distortion that compound the original harm.
In 2008, Indonesia’s National Human Rights Commission (Komnas HAM) concluded that the Talangsari incident constituted a gross human rights violation under Law No. 26 of 2000 on Human Rights Courts. The case file was submitted to the Attorney General for prosecution. Under both domestic law and Indonesia’s international obligations, this should have marked the beginning of a judicial process aimed at accountability.
However, to date, no prosecution has been initiated. The Attorney General’s continued inaction directly contradicts the mandate set forth in Law No. 26 of 2000, including the application of command responsibility under Article 42. It also stands in violation of Indonesia’s obligations under Articles 2(3), 6, and 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which require prompt, independent, and effective investigations, prosecutions, and full reparations for serious human rights violations.
It is also important to note that the persistence of impunity in the Talangsari case is not merely a bureaucratic delay, it is a structural refusal to confront past atrocities.
In its March 2024 concluding observations, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concern over Indonesia’s pattern of impunity for past human rights violations. The failure to establish an ad hoc Human Rights Court for Talangsari exemplifies this pattern. For decades, survivors and civil society organizations have demanded criminal accountability, full truth disclosure, comprehensive victim-centered reparations, and guarantees of non-recurrence. These demands are neither radical nor unreasonable. They reflect universally recognized principles of transitional justice and Indonesia’s own legal framework. Yet the state has chosen a different path.
Rather than pursuing judicial accountability, the government has promoted non-judicial mechanisms, including the establishment of mechanisms such as the non-judicial team (PPHAM) and the provision of limited symbolic reparations. While acknowledgment and material assistance can form part of a broader reparative framework, they cannot substitute for prosecution, truth-telling, and institutional reform. Reparations without justice risk becoming instruments of pacification rather than vehicles of accountability.
Worse, reports of official honors granted to individuals alleged to bear responsibility under command responsibility standards send a chilling message: that power protects itself, and that accountability is negotiable. For instance, in August 2025, retired General A.M. Hendropriyono, who commanded the military operation in Talangsari in 1989, was awarded the "Star of the Republic of Indonesia" by President Prabowo Subianto, one of the country’s highest state honors.
Bestowing such recognition upon a figure linked to an unresolved case of gross human rights violations, in the absence of any judicial process, reinforces the perception that alleged perpetrators remain shielded rather than scrutinized. The conferral of National Hero status upon former authoritarian President Soeharto, whose regime presided over widespread and systematic human rights violations, further entrenches a narrative that sanitizes repression.
At the same time, revisions to official national history that reportedly erase or reframe New Order-era gross violations, including Talangsari, represent an institutional attempt to reshape collective memory. Such acts are not neutral exercises in historiography; they are political choices that undermine the right to truth and signal tolerance for past abuses.
State denialism operates not only through omission but also through glorification. When individuals alleged to have played command roles in gross human rights violations are publicly honored, the state communicates that the suffering of victims is secondary to political expediency. When history is revised to downplay or erase atrocities, the state denies future generations the opportunity to learn from the past.
The Talangsari case thus stands at a critical juncture. It is not only about redressing a massacre that occurred in 1989; it is about confronting the broader trajectory of Indonesia’s democratic commitments. A state that fails to prosecute gross human rights violations weakens the rule of law. A government that substitutes symbolic gestures for judicial accountability risks normalizing impunity. And a nation that distorts its own history endangers its democratic future.
The international community, including the United Nations Special Procedures, has a crucial role to play. Publicly calling on the Government of Indonesia to establish an ad hoc Human Rights Court for Talangsari and to proceed with prosecutions in accordance with Law No. 26 of 2000, including the application of command responsibility, would reaffirm that justice delayed must not become justice denied. Urging prompt, independent, impartial, and effective investigations into all alleged perpetrators, including high-ranking officials, would align Indonesia’s domestic
processes with international standards on crimes against humanity. Such steps are not acts of interference; they are expressions of solidarity with victims and of commitment to universal human rights norms.
For thirty-seven years, survivors of Talangsari have demanded what international law already guarantees them: truth about what happened, justice for those responsible, full and meaningful reparations, and assurances that such crimes will never recur. The continued refusal to fulfill these obligations constitutes not only negligence but also a form of state denialism that compounds the original atrocity. The question facing Indonesia today is whether it will continue to protect impunity through silence and historical distortion, or whether it will finally honor the dignity of the victims by upholding the rule of law. The answer will shape not only the legacy of Talangsari, but the moral credibility of the Indonesian state itself.
END.
