Judul : Nota Kerinduan

Jenis Buku : Antologi Puisi

Pengarang : Muhammad Tajul Mafachir, Imam Syaukani Ahmad, Lili Soedirman

ISBN : 978-602-18218-7-9

Tahun terbit : Cetakan Pertama, 2012

Tebal : 203 hal

Penerbit : Penerbit Gigih Pustaka Mandiri

Peresensi   : Fifi Alfiana Rosyidah*

Memahami sesuatu yang jangkauannya hanya sebatas hati memang cenderung sulit dilakukan. Apalagi rindu. Tak jarang ia membeku di sudut terkecil hati dan tak terungkapkan. Terkadang lebih mudah mentransformasikannya ke dalam kata-kata dan berharap-harap cemas sosok yang kita rindukan akan membaca tulisan itu dibandingkan mengatakan secara langsung kepadanya bahwa: "Aku merindukanmu,". Seperti sebuah puisi dalam buku kumpulan puisi Nota Kerinduan ini. Kerinduan yang mendalam kepada seseorang yang hanya dituangkan dalam sebuah nota seperti ini oleh Muhammad Tajul Mafachir:

Aku merindukanmu atas nama jarak yang memisahkan

Aku merindukanmu atas nama ambisi yang menunjam

Aku merindukanmu atas nama sarana yang kubuang

Aku merindukanmu atas nama kesetiaan yang kautenggelamkan

Aku merindukanmu atas nama kayu, melapuk

Aku merindukanmu bersama badai menderai

Aku merindukanmu bersama hujan-hujanan

yang menganak sungai di pipi

bersama berai dan derai

Aku terus merindukanmu

dalam sebutan akhir namaku

Kumpulan puisi ini berisi beberapa kata-kata tentang rasa yang muncul dari hubungan antar manusia. Bagaimana ia mencintai, merindu, terkungkung dalam candu, tersakiti dan pada akhirnya ia hanya bisa memberi salam perpisahan. Meski begitu, salam perpisahan dalam kisah epik manusia tidak jarang hanya dari tatapan mata, seperti dalam penggalan salah satu puisi berjudul Salam Perpisahan karya Lili Soedirman ini:

Sungai berkelok menemukan muara

Menggamit pisah menggandeng duka

Mencumbu bahagia terakhir kalinya

Lalu mengucap pisah dalam bahasa mata

Tidak hanya itu, sebagaimana manusia hidup di dunia yang tidak pernah lepas dari sisi spiritual. Rindu seorang manusia tidak terbatas hanya pada sosok manusia lain. Manusia juga merindukan entitas yang disebut Tuhan. Seperti dalam puisi berjudul Allah yang dibuat oleh Imam Syaukani Ahmad di bawah ini:

Aku dan napasku

Di sembilu ribu risauku

Aku dan raga ku

Di gelap penjuru resahku

Aku dan jiwaku

Berjalan di setapak mataku

Aku dan napasku

Merindukan-Mu

Aku dan ragaku

Mengalamkan-Mu

Di sisi lain, penulis ingin menyampaikan perasaan prihatinnya melihat kemiskinan yang merajalela di negerinya.  Seperti dalam baris kalimat "Bangsaku sedang sakit jiwa tingkat dewa, Sebab kewarasan mahal harganya sebab apa saja sudah tak berkroni jua"  dalam puisi berjudul Kemiskinan karya M Tajul Mafachir. Penulis mengkritisi salah satu faktor penyebab kemiskinan yang masih mendarah daging di negerinya. Yakni tidak adanya dukungan dari semua pihak untuk memberantas kemiskinan, atau lebih bisa dibilang alam tidak mendukung. Penulis juga menambahkan gambaran analogi antara semesta dan kemiskinan. Seperti dalam penggalan puisi berikut:

Kemiskinan dan bangsa

adalah kematian dan kehidupan

yang berkejaran di tengah pelataran gersang

bertanah abang, kering air, dan basah pedang

bangsa dan kemiskinan

sebagaimana ketika burung altar

mati kelaparan, sebab malu mengapar

dan, sebagaimana  aku bercerita

aku bingung menentukan akhir kata

sehingga gusaran kata ini kusisihkan

aku masih terjebak kemiskinan

: sederhana sajalah.

Selain puisi di atas, ada beberapa puisi yang lain. Tentang mimpi, harapan, bahkan hak asasi manusia. Yang semua pada dasarnya berujung pada satu pangkal, dimana kesemuanya itu merasa jauh sejauh seorang penulis menawarkan beberapa pilihan dan jatuhan, itu mungkin yang bisa kita sebut Personnal Order. Meski sedikit Anarkis, namun para penulis mampu menemukan egaliter total dari sebuah Anarkismenya. Melambungkan makna dengan kata kata yang sederhana namun mengena.

__________________________________

*Penulis Novel "I Love You, But Good Bye"

Alumni Pesantren Sunan Ampel Jombang

Note : Pemesanan buku langsung melalui Email : Mtajulmafachir@yahoo.co.id

Atau Inbox https://www.facebook.com/mtajulmafachir.guegalauGan dengan harga Rp. 35.000 (belum termasuk ongkos kirim)

This morning, just after I walked out of my room, I saw someone got ousted from the building due to unpaid rent… Don't get me wrong, the process was not violent. The landlord gently told her that "it breaks my heart to do this." She was then crying at the corner.

I had never seen such a process before. I did see many on TV, though; but this morning was different. The emotion was far more real. The tears of the ousted tenant was real. And the very awareness on my behalf knowing that someone, who days before shared with me the elevator and laundry room, would not have a place to sleep tonight was real, too.

I couldn't help then but to spend 10-minute walking from my apartment to the library ruminating what I just saw. I wondered, how could we reconcile property rights with the subsistence provision of those who have not. How can we still respect the landlord's right of lease payment without jeopardizing the tenant's need for shelter?

And I remembered couple years back —sometime between 2004-2008— when I was a….. well, socialist. I vehemently believed that capitalism brought too much injustice and inequality and that only socialism would be able to provide everyone with their basic needs. I recalled passionately telling a friend, "socialism is the solution! Capitalism is just too unfair for everyone." Simply, I believed that socialism was the future of the world.

I became disinterested with leftist views of the world sometime in 2010, or so. It was not because some capitalists persuaded me about the positives of capitalism; it was because I engaged in a rather extreme discussion with a labor activist. The discussion was taking place in a seminar in one of the churches in Jakarta —the Catholic church is closer to socialism than capitalism, FYI. The activist argued that inequality was mankind's greatest problem. It would be more acceptable for him to have an authoritarian undemocratic regime who is able to provide its people with all their basic needs than to have a democratic regime whose society is economically unequal. I tried to make him aware what an authoritarian undemocratic regime could do: forced disappearance, Soviet-style gulag, forced property seizures, etc. He moved not.

Surely, not all socialism-sympathizers are like him. I am fully aware of that. That discussion changed me not in the sense that it made me hate socialists, but more in the sense that it enlightened me of what are actually in conflicts. At that time, it occurred to me —albeit vaguely— that what actually happened was not capitalism versus socialism; it was individual rights versus others' needs. Socialism, at least according to that activist, sides on the needs side of the equation. Capitalism, on the contrary, sides on the rights side of the equation.

Back to the present. In this Fall 2012 semester, I am taking a political science class on liberalism. Ignore my formal major in psychology. I am very eclectic when it comes to formal studies —undergraduate in computer science and statistics, master's in social psychology, and planning to get a doctoral in political science. (Please forgive that irrelevant personal background mentioning). The liberalism class really helps me better understand the conflict between rights and needs.

I learned that John Locke is a nice kind of liberal. He thinks that property rights must be respected insofar as two fundamental provisos are still met: 1) That what are produced by the property do not get wasted; and 2) That the have-not are still able to get the minimum subsistence they need to survive this harsh world. If either one was violated, John Locke, I think, would be okay with a limited abolishment of property rights.

I also learned how Adam Smith believes in ghost, or at least something ghostlike —the invisible hand, the natural mechanism of the market. At first, this thinker annoyed me very much by his rather emotionless, stoic intellectual view. He, for example, thinks that under no circumstances may the government abolish property rights. Hey dude, what if the poor really need to be saved? But as I got to know him better —but not that intimate—, I began to understand how he actually cares about the poor. He hates the lavish lifestyle of the rich. He condemns the manipulation of the government by the rich for their advantages. He just doesn't have the heart to advocate property rights abolishment. He thinks that property rights must be absolute because that is the only way to motivate people to work and produce things —thus ensuring the society as a whole gets enough food. Stripping people of their possessions will just kill that motivation.

Milton Friedman is my latest new friend —yeah, finally someone from my era! His Capitalism and Freedom is like a bible for modern day liberals and capitalists alike. Reading it brought back in me the memory of my discussion with the labor activist on freedom and rights versus needs. I hate to take side, but I think I would agree with Friedman on this one, that economic freedom is a crucial part and precursor of political freedom. We just can't abolish someone's property rights without also abolishing that person's political rights.

I stopped walking at that moment. I saw a squirrel!

I wonder if squirrels know the concept of property rights. When a squirrel gathers food to prepare for the winter, who will be benefited from it? Who can eat the food? Would he share it with the others, or would he consume it alone?

And I cannot help but comparing it to our system, humans system. In our world, everything we own, we get by working. We, naturally and justifiably, feel rightful to keep and use our possessions exclusively for ourselves. On the other hand, there are those who even don't have the chance to work. And because they don't have the chance to work, they don't have the chance to own something.

Questions rushed into my mind. Some feeling of revelation.
Different angel-philosophers were trying to talk to me.

"Maybe, instead of ensuring an equality in economic wellbeing, we should ensure an inequality in opportunity. Give the opportunity and let the people decide for themselves whether they are going to take it. Let them also to be responsible for the consequences of their choices."

"But how can you ensure equality of opportunity if people are born into different social statuses and backgrounds?" Whispered an angel-philosopher to me while I kept walking. "Some people are born rich, some others poor; some are born good-looking, some others not that lucky. No matter how you deny it the way you born to some extent determines the limit of your opportunities."

"It's human nature," another angel-philosopher took thy turn. "It wouldn't be like this if only humans were altruistic enough to help those who are in need. You don't need equality of economic well-being or equality of opportunity if you simply help those in need so that who are in need are not in need anymore."

And suddenly I got dizzy —the angel-philosophers were fighting against each other to become the next speaker in my brain's rights-versus-needs seminar! Maybe they consider my brain their property?!

I just couldn't hear them anymore. Enough. Well, I needed to hear them no more no more, actually, as then I just arrived at the library. Before opening the door, I stopped to look at the picture of Tivo, the newly hired counselor of Loyola's Wellness Center that is a labrador retriever. Here is his photo.

And here is his CV: http://www.luc.edu/wellness/about/staff/name,133947,en.shtml

I felt bad. My 10-minute home-to-campus walking didn't really produce something that would change the world. My ex-fellow tenant would still be ousted. The homeless around my home would still be homeless. Someone in the world would still spend the night with empty stomach. I felt terrible. Maybe one day I would arrange a session with Tivo; sharing with him my frustration with the world's inequality.

REP | 18 November 2012 | 02:38 Dibaca: 12   Komentar: 0   Nihil

OPINI | 18 November 2012 | 02:31 Dibaca: 59   Komentar: 0   Nihil

Adakah yang baik dari Indonesia? Tanpa ragu, jawaban afirmatif alias ya, ada yang baik,  tidak menyimpang dari kenyataan. Tetapi, jawaban ini kemungkinan besar akan terkubur di bawah gundukan berita-berita miring seputar dinamika sosial kemasyarakatan di dalam negeri.

Kalau saya ditanya, berita apa yang menjejak di dalam ingatan saya setelah membaca surat kabar kemarin, sebagian besar jawabannya menyangkut berita-berita negatif khususnya yang berkenaan dengan kasus-kasus korupsi dan malangnya nasib TKI. Belum lagi berita tentang uang triliunan rupiah yang seolah dihambur-hamburkan karena ketidakbecusan negara dalam mengelola sumber-sumber energi alami atau juga tentang infrastruktur dalam negeri seperti jalan dan jembatan yang seakan masih seperti barang mewah di negeri ini.

Kesan spontan semacam ini jelas berat sebelah karena tidak semua yang menyangkut Indonesia semata-mata buruk adanya. Tetapi apa boleh buat, media massa cenderung menonjolkan berita-berita yang buruk daripada yang baik. Sebab, yang buruk itulah yang menarik dan yang laku dijual. Dalam bisnis media, bad news is good news.

Untunglah, Kompas kemarin (17/11) menampilkan sosok Tim Lindsey, seorang profesor hukum Asia di universites Melbourne, Australia. Beliau mengingatkan Indonesia untuk berpikir positif. Kritik diri memang penting sebagai sarana kontrol tetapi jangan lupa apresiasi diri. Adakah prestasi yang sudah dicapai oleh negara RI yang pantas diberi apresiasi?

Sang profesor menjawab: ada. Beliau pun melangkah lebih jauh dengan memberikan sebuah contoh: di tahun 2011 Indonesia mendapat point 3 (dari 10 point) dalam indeks persepsi korupsi. Kelihatannya memang masih sangat rendah, tetapi point 3 menunjukkan peningkatan dari tahun-tahun sebelumnya di mana Indonesia hanya mendapat point 2. Dengan kata lain, Indonesia tidak berdiam diri berhadapan dengan penyakit yang menjangkiti semua pemerintahan di muka bumi ini. Indonesia telah dan sedang berbuat sesuatu untuk mengatasi penyakit kronis itu. Hal ini patut diberi apresiasi, bukan hanya terus dikritisi.

Dengan demikian, apresiasi diri memang perlu agar rasa percaya diri tidak lari. Rasa percaya diri ini perlu dimiliki oleh bangsa Indonesia sebab perannya dalam percaturan politik-ekonomi-sosial internasional akan semakin diperhitungkan. Dengan kemenangan Obama, misalnya, fokus politik luar negeri Amerika Serikat akan beralih dari Eropa ke Asia, khususnya Asia Tenggara. Dengan jumlah penduduk lebih dari 600 juta jiwa, pertumbuhan ekonomi yang stabil dan kehadiran komunitas muslim yang mayoritas toleran, Asia Tenggara dapat menjadi rekan Amerika Serikat untuk mengimbangi dominasi Cina dan untuk meningkatkan hubungan baik negara adidaya tersebut dengan dunia Islam. Pemerintah Australia sendiri, dalam white papernya, jelas-jelas mengaitkan masa depan mereka dengan Asia. Artinya, pelajaran tentang budaya dan bahasa beberapa negara penting di Asia seperti Cina, Jepang dan tentunya Indonesia, menjadi bahan pelajaran wajib. Dan Indonesia, sebagai negara terbesar di kawasan Asia Tenggara, pasti sangat diharapkan keterlibatannya dalam membangun dunia yang lebih harmonis.

Agar dapat terlibat secara konstruktif, Indonesia perlu terus menerus memperbaiki diri. Maka, pertanyaan tentang apakah ada yang baik dari Indonesia tidak cukup dijawab dengan ya atau tidak, tetapi dengan kerja demi perbaikan diri yang disertai kritik dan apresiasi.

Ville de Lumière, Minggu 18 November 2012