This piece was originally published in The Jakarta Post.

Congratulations, Indonesia! What a thrill it was to open my daily copy of The New York Times on Aug. 3 and see a nearly half-page color photo of the jubilant faces and raised fists of Greysia Polii and Apriyani Rahayu as they celebrated their and their country’s Olympic gold medal in women’s- doubles badminton.

Their first-place finish could not have been more timely. Indonesia needs good news. Bloomberg has combined 12 variables to determine where the COVID-19 pandemic is being most-to- least effectively managed.

From April to July, by that measure, Indonesia fell steadily to last place among the 53 countries covered. Such a bad review cannot be explained by domestic underperformance alone. The ferocity of the now ubiquitous Delta variant has played a role. So has vaccine nationalism—the limited and late availability of effective jabs from abroad. Not to mention less well-established variables such as the relative potency of Chinese vaccines. Whatever the reasons, there is little to celebrate regarding the risk to the health of Indonesians.

In this downbeat context, however, and far less well known than Indonesia’s “goodminton” victory in Tokyo, is an upbeat development on Indonesia’s academic front that also deserves Indonesian pride: the five-day inaugural Conference on Indonesian Studies (CIS) held online on June 24-27 Jakarta time. The American Institute for Indonesian Studies and Michigan State University sponsored the meeting with the participation and cooperation of hundreds of students, academics, and educational institutions in Indonesia and the United States. As a long-time would-be Indonesianist, I was happy to attend.

Researchers have more questions than answers. Nationalists reverse the ratio. The scholarly ideal—gathering evidence, testing assertions, birthing, sharing, and comparing ideas— transcends borders. But nationality has long shaped Indonesian studies.

During Dutch rule over the East Indies from 1816 to 1941, with rare exceptions, the archipelago’s past was largely interpreted by Europeans with colonial access. Indonesian studies were dramatically expanded and diversified following World War II. But the birth and growth of “area studies” in Western universities continued to incubate mainly Western scholarly careers.

The recent CIS was doubly important, as an affirmation and a stimulus. Its 326 presentations in 65 different sessions served to remind the roughly 500 attendees from Indonesia and 22 other countries of the breadth and vitality of Indonesian studies and thereby motivate further research.

Included on the program were a first-rate keynote speech by Prof. Aquarini Priyatna of Padjadjaran University on feminist voices in Indonesian literature; the premiere reading in English of Oh by Indonesia’s renowned novelist and playwright Putu Wijaya, whose work I remember applauding at Taman Ismail Marzuki decades ago; and a rousing performance of the wayang lakon (Javanese puppet show) Ciptoning by Ki Purbo Asmoro, ably and simultaneously rendered in English by Kathryn Emerson (no relation).

The conference also conveyed what was on the minds of the more than 300 mainly young and Indonesian panelists who wrote papers and made presentations about their country. Although the topics were diverse, some were more popular than others. A comparison may offer clues as to the subjects for research that are attracting the next generation of Indonesian scholars as they begin to shape the future and focus of Indonesian studies.

The distribution of themes is informative. Nearly half of all the CIS sessions were about culture. Culture in the sense of identity was by far the most popular topic at the conference, including religious and especially Muslim identity, with lesser attention to language and gender. Three genres of performed culture — art, music, and literature—were featured in roughly a fourth of the sessions. Five different sessions took up the blood-shedding watershed of 1965, encouragingly in the light of past silence on the subject. Only three panels focused on the economy, merely three were on climate change, and just two featured foreign policy.

Polls among the Japanese public show mixed support for the games and meanwhile, major advertisers in the country are pulling out. As a sociologist, how do you see this mixed public sentiment affecting overall mood and morale?

There is no question that there is a strong headwind against the Olympics in the lead-up to the opening ceremony. Opinion polls are still against the games, although the numbers improved a little in recent weeks. The general public sentiment can be summed up as “Why are we doing this now?”

The road to the Tokyo Olympics has been a long and winding one complicated by COVID-19, first and foremost, and various scandals. The Japanese public has been fed up with the COVID-19-related emergency declarations and other restrictions as well as the slower pace of vaccination compared to other developed countries. The perception, right or wrong, is that the government is making decisions based on whether they help in hosting the Olympics successfully, when the focus should be on public health and economic rescue in the COVID environment.

Morale is low, but many are hoping that things will change quickly once the games begin. Whether that happens or not depends on a whole host of factors, most importantly whether major public health incidents and other unfortunate accidents happen or not, how Japanese athletes fare, who might emerge as global stars, and so on.

To what extent has the International Olympic Committee (IOC) helped or hindered support for the games among the Japanese public?

The Japanese public sees the IOC as simply pushing its economic interest without the proper regard for their safety and health. Many people do not understand that the Japanese government does not have the authority to cancel the Olympics and could have faced a lawsuit with a huge compensation at stake if it tried to do so. The IOC looks like the IMF/World Bank during the Asian economic crisis in affected countries or the EU in some European countries – an international entity that pushes its agenda without accountability to the citizens. The frustration has nowhere to go but to the Japanese government, which combined with overall COVID-19-related dissatisfaction, has led to the most recent polls showing the lowest approval rating for the government under Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga.

For Japan, hosting the 2020 Olympic Games initially symbolized the country’s rebound from the devastating Tōhoku earthquake, tsunami and Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident in 2011 and was poised to boost their economy. Then COVID hit, and meanwhile, Olympic expenses ballooned. Are there any opportunities for the Olympic Games to help the country bounce back? 

The 2020 Olympics was initially framed as a symbol of recovery from the triple disaster in 2011, but that slogan is no longer central. The expenses were justified as a way to develop infrastructure for foreign visitors and increase inbound tourists, and the government’s goals for the number of visitors from abroad have been met already. With no spectators allowed, Japan will lose money on hosting the Olympics, but the economic damage is not irrecoverable. Once the world gets out of COVID-19, the Japanese economy will likely rebound and tourists will come back.

It will be interesting to follow how socially, in terms of the national psyche and its unity, Japan will respond to the Tokyo Olympics. Even when the games take place in other countries, the Olympics often serve as a moment of national unity, especially in Japan. With Japan being the host, many thought that it would serve as an enormous booster towards national confidence and unity. We have yet to see how the games will turn out, but these psychological impacts will likely be lessened as the games are scaled down and may not get as much global attention as typical Olympics do.

There’s still a chance for a better outcome though if the games go smoothly and offer many compelling moments. People in many countries are still more homebound than usual and the contents that the games offer could be attractive. And the Japanese public is known to swing from one side to the other very quickly and on a massive scale, so once the games begin, TV personalities who were questioning whether the games should happen will likely quickly turn around and support Japanese athletes and tout their accomplishments. That is, if no serious outbreak incidents occur.

The Olympics are often celebrated as a nonpolitical event that can unite the world. In a globally turbulent world, what do you make of that assessment? Can the Olympics be nonpolitical?

The Beijing Winter Olympics in 2022 is a case in point. Boycott of the games seems unlikely, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has already floated an idea of diplomatic boycott. There’s a lot at stake for the host country, and the Olympics will likely be politicized when countries like China, Russia or even the U.S. host it.

Another problem is that not many democracies would be eager to host the games anymore. Public support is needed for democracies to host the Olympics, but the growing cost of the games, combined with increasingly less clear benefits of hosting, has made it difficult to find democracies that are eager to be the host country. Meanwhile, non-democracies like China and Russia, and even smaller countries like Kazakhstan or Azerbaijan campaign to become host nations. The pattern of dictatorships hosting the Olympics and the world demanding a change in their human rights practices and, threatening a boycott, might be a recurring pattern in the coming decades.