Instead, there were burning buildings and shattered glass, tear gas and a constant howling of ambulances and police cars, fists pointing to the sky in anger and defiance. There appeared to be a revolution in the making, an unmistakable desire for change, a hunger for a better country - a more honest, more liveable country.

One day on the streets of Jakarta, police shot and killed students at the Trisakti University, one of the country's elite schools, and Jakarta erupted in spontaneous revolt against President Suharto's US-backed dictatorship. Students stood at the vanguard, soon to be followed by the frustrated masses, surprisingly including members of an already shrinking middle class.

The whole world watched images of the fourth most populous nation on earth revolting against a brutal and corrupt regime: according to some, Indonesia was fighting for freedom, while others believed it was descending into anarchy, becoming ungovernable, and heading rapidly towards disintegration.

Protesting Jakarta have-nots trashed Chinese businesses, raped women and looted stores, carrying off everything from refrigerators to shoes. There was chaos on the streets, and it soon became evident that, even if there had been some leadership trying to coordinate the uprising, it had lost control over the crowd.

It was at that point I met the leaders of the student revolt in a computer room at the Trisakti University, hastily converted to become the headquarters of an uprising against the regime. One of them was called Suresh. He seemed a gentle human being, well brought up, well mannered. His eyes were red from lack of sleep, his shaking fingers holding a clove cigarette, his shirt unwashed for days.

After our first meeting, I abandoned my comfortable hotel room and moved to the HQ, sleeping as the y did under tables and wires on the floor, participating in their countless meetings, trying to understand exactly what had prompted them to put their lives on the line, to fight for change in their enormous, complex and wounded country.

I always remember how at one point I abandoned my dislike of clich?s and asked the student leader: "So this is your Sorbonne, your Paris, your Mexico City of 1968, isn't it?"

What followed was a long silence.

"You're wrong," he finally answered. "In the West, they fought for 'free love' and revolted against their parents, their families, their professors, and their culture. We love our country, we love and respect our families and our teachers. We are dying to return to our homes and to our classrooms, we are tired and confused. All we want is our country to return to the rule of law: we want an end to corruption and we want justice."

It was an honest answer, confirming my suspicions formed by following earlier riots on the streets. This was no revolution, just a rebellion that was to doom Indonesia for at least another decade and ensure that nothing would essentially change in the foreseeable future.

Soon after, Suharto's regime collapsed. Six years later, Indonesia is still a stubbornly conservative country ruled by a miniscule clique made up of individuals motivated by private interests and backed by the might of the military.

Recently, Indonesia introduced two seemingly unrelated laws. One banned cohabitation (men and women are not allowed to live together unless they are related or married), and the other reconfirmed an existing law implemented in 1966 banning Communist Parties, particularly the PKI.

The PKI was first outlawed after Suharto's 1965 coup against Sukarno, an act supported by the US. The human cost has been estimated to be between 500 thousand and 1.2 million lives. Generally supportive of Sukarno, the Communist Party was singled out and falsely accused of staging the coup (in fact, it had been instigated by Suharto and his military faction). Its members were promptly liquidated en masse. Among the victims were also members of the Chinese minority (who were absurdly accused of supporting Communist China), opponents of the new regime, and progressive thinkers, as well as professors and intellectuals in general.

Demanding full obedience, the dictatorship saw intellectual and creative activities as the most dangerous challenge to its rule.

While tolerating and even promoting local culture (mainly folk music and

dance) as well as pop of any origin as long as it carried no 'subversive messages', Indonesia embarked on a long and painful process of intellectual degradation.

Chinese culture, language and even characters were (and still are) banned. The educational system discouraged any creativity and espoused the most vulgar state propaganda. Nationalism was promoted avidly. Even in Jakarta, there was almost no access to the works of foreign (except Hollywood) filmmakers. Writers such as Promoedya Ananta Toer were thrown into concentration camps.

The two pillars of the system became 'religion' and 'the family'. To lack religion became illegal behaviour: everybody had (and still has to) to commit to one of the five officially sanctioned religions on his or her identity card (Muslim, Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist or Hindu).

In addition to its military and police resources, as well as its secret services, the regime needed some well organised 'moderate' forces to help it keep the population in a manageable and governable state. It was a strictly pragmatic move -- Suharto himself was no great believer.

As in almost all poor countries ruled by extreme right wing governments with almost no social spending, the concept of a 'strong family' unit became a decisively important socio-economic element. Parents were expected to make great sacrifices to educate and support their children, who were later expected to support their ageing parents (identical to the situation in Latin America or Africa).

Two or more generations crammed into a single house was supposed to demonstrate 'love between the family members' instead of a lack of independent and affordable housing. Families accepted the deceit: they had no choice. Internal family support became almost exclusive way for survival of its members.

The linguistics of the process were turned upside down. Necessity was turned into virtue, the way to survive into 'family love'.

While the government liquidated the leftovers of the intellectuals and free thinkers, children were encouraged to dance traditional dances and sing folk songs, love their country and not contradict their elders and teachers.

A God-fearing nation was the next logical step. Sukarno's secularism had not been destroyed - even now, Indonesia remains a secular country in many ways. Nevertheless, in a society where almost any alternative thought or criticism of the system led to some sort of discrimination, sanctions or something much worse, religion became almost the only escape from a dreary reality.

Religion was whole-heartedly encouraged. The government tactic was not to force people into mosques, temples or churches. Instead, it banned anyone who was refusing to accept one of the 'official' faiths. Those who refused to lie about their life philosophy by endorsing a faith were often labelled as 'communists' (akin to a devil in Suharto's lexicon). Children were initiated into religion at an early age: no parents would dare to do otherwise, fearing tremendous stigmatization of their offspring.

Moving dramatically from a relaxed approach to religion during Sukarno's rule, post-1965 Indonesia embraced religion as some sort of public display of loyalty and conformity, instead of a personal and extremely private expression of faith. Suharto's departure made no difference: indeed, new strictures such as a dress code for women (something very relaxed in the past) and strict observance of all religious rules became issues. The 'system' did not interfere in the process; as far as it was concerned, women could wear anything they wanted.

But society itself, oppressed and not even able to remember what it was to think independently, took up the role of arbitrator, regulator and that of a moral judge. Today's dress code is not forced upon women by the government, nor even by Islam or other religions: it is 'expected' by society itself, by family members, co-workers, neighbours and friends. In a generally unpleasant social, political and economic climate, one is expected to find 'happiness' in religion, instead of in day-to-day life.

One counter-argument would be: "but if they like it that way, why challenge their choice?" The answer is, "because they never had a choice". Almost no child comes in touch with any alternative to religion (for instance, the theory of evolution is mentioned only to be ridiculed) and society destroys anyone who would openly refuses to follow a faith -- 'breaking the heart of the family' a euphemism for probable excommunication from their kith and kin.

The 1965 massacres were never openly and publicly discussed. Most Indonesians are unaware of the massacres in East Timor, believing that "we were killing them and they were killing us". Families have no influence upon changing their structure due to economic and housing conditions. The present economic system is sacrosanct because the alternative would be 'communism', and thus illegal.

The system has become almost perfect in many ways. There is no longer a need for a huge police force or an army of informants. Any truly fundamental opposition is labelled as leftist or communist and either dismissed or simply banned. 'Family values' and religion assure conformity of the members of Indonesian society at the basic level, negating any effort of men and women to live uniquely and independently lives, behaviour regarded as 'dangerous' and therefore a threat to the status quo.

Education offers repetitiveness and uniformity. A more open culture expressed in critical written words or films (Indonesia has almost no film production considering its size) had been destroyed many years ago. Any deviation by an individual from the 'norm' is condemned by the members of the society itself!

Many brilliant minds gave up (or never had a chance to bloom), mostly entering 'business' as the only way to succeed (thereby further strengthening the system), instead of embarking on a discouraged path of creativity. Their responses to such limitations are practical, based on a need to provide for themselves and their families or because their uniqueness or creativity cannot be recognized (for instance, how can one excel in arts if any discussion or argument is discouraged in advance even at the university?) or simply to make their families 'happy'. Of course, not to be pro-business would automatically be labelled with the 'c' word in any case!!!

Fatherland, religion, family, business: the four columns that support one of the most stagnant, poor and socially uneven nations of Pacific Asia -- once a nation of limitless potential due to its natural resources and, yes, exactly due to the culture and creativity of its people!

Fiercely critical of the US and its foreign policy (over 50% of Indonesians believe that Osama bin Laden has "something to offer" to the world), the Indonesian state increasingly resembles a sort of 'dirt poor' version of the nightmare of any progressively thinking citizen in the United States.

If Indonesians could vote in the next American elections, they would almost definitely vote for George. Like him, the Indonesians are generally pro-death penalty, anti-abortion, anti-cloning, anti-legalization of soft drugs and anti-Communist. They are God fearing, 'family oriented' and patriotic. On some issues, they would go even further than George, by being fundamentally anti-gay and lesbian and against mixed marriages.

Indonesia makes sure that any foreigner who marries an Indonesian citizen has a miserable life -- even to contemplate a marriage acceptable to the family and the state, those who have no religion have to commit to convert to a recognised faith.

By supporting the 1965 coup and the regime that followed, we helped to create something that went even beyond our wildest expectations. Not only has the legacy of the progressive, secular and non-allied Sukarno been destroyed, but what followed was a strictly pro-business, socially indifferent, extremely conservative and outrageously moralistic society generating barely 1,000 dollars per capita in GDP. That's quite an 'achievement', considering that pre-1965 Indonesia was one of the brightest hopes of the developing world!

Patriotism sometimes gives way to realism. Off the shore of the island of Lombok, I was once told by the local fishermen: "If we, the poor people of Indonesia, could... we would all leave for Australia, Singapore, the US, or Europe. Only the rich like it here, because they can have us almost for free. But even they would have to leave, because with us gone, they would have to learn how to clean and cook and do everything by themselves."

After a few years, I would like to meet Suresh again and ask hima few questions: "Wouldn't it be more comfortable to have the women of Jakarta wearing light summer dresses in the tropical heat? Wouldn't it be more acceptable to have a bit of what you called 'free sex'? Wouldn't it be better to challenge parents and teachers in order to make some fundamental changes in society instead of having the present anti-cohabitation and anti-communist laws, instead of the never-ending corruption and exploitation, instead of the fear and self-censorship often imposed by the inertia of society itself? Wouldn't a real revolution be better than the present state of affairs?"