When the Forest Turns to Ash: Reflections on Humanity, Nature and the Memory That Burned

I. Fire and Civilisation

Fire is humanity's oldest companion. With fire, people drove back the cold, kept wild beasts at bay, cooked their food, forged metal and, in time, built civilisation. It was around a small flame at the mouth of a cave that early humans first gathered, shared stories and learned to become a society. Without fire, we might never have become what we are. Yet from the very beginning of history, fire has also taught one unchanging lesson: whatever gives life can just as easily bring destruction once it slips out of control.

In nature, fire is not always an enemy. In some ecosystems, burning is part of the cycle of life. Certain plants release their seeds only after being touched by heat, and others flourish only once fire has cleared away the old undergrowth that shuts out the sunlight. A burnt forest can sometimes rise again through green shoots pushing up from the ashes, as though nature were teaching us that destruction and renewal often walk side by side.

There is, however, a great difference between fire that belongs to the balance of nature and fire born of greed, negligence or arrogance. Natural fire follows the laws of nature, with a rhythm and limits tested over immense stretches of time. Fire set by human hands too often comes from the wish to gain more at less cost: clearing land by the cheapest means, finishing a job as quickly as possible, and leaving the consequences to the wind.

This is where the real problem begins. A forest fire is more than an ecological disaster. It is a mirror that shows how humanity regards the world it inhabits: as a home to be cared for, or as a warehouse to be emptied.

 

II. A Burning Forest Is More Than Trees

When a forest burns, what is lost is not only trunks and branches. What burns is the bird's nest, built patiently over years. What burns is the path of wildlife, handed down from one generation to the next, memorised by the mother and taught to her young. What burns is the spring that quietly feeds the river, and the river that quietly sustains the villages downstream. What burns is the clean air that was freely given, and for which humanity has never been sent a bill.

We tend to think of fires as events that can be seen: leaping flames, thick billowing smoke and blackened land. Such images are terrible, but precisely because they are so dramatic, they make us forget that the greatest damage is often invisible. The soil stripped of its fertile layer, the insects and fungi whose names were never recorded, the intricate relationships between living things that we notice only once they are severed: all of it vanishes without leaving a single photograph.

Nature needs decades to grow a forest. Fire needs only a few hours to erase it. This imbalance of time is the quietest tragedy of all, for what was built through the patience of generations can be destroyed by a single decision taken overnight.

We live in an age that worships speed, while nature works with patience. When the two meet, it is too often patience that loses.

 

III. Indonesia and the Paradox of the Green Nation

Indonesia is home to one of the largest tropical forests in the world. From the rainforests of Sumatra and Kalimantan to the interior of Papua, these forests not only sustain the lives of millions of people but also form one of the last bastions of the planet's biodiversity. Within them live tigers, orangutans, elephants and thousands of other creatures found nowhere else on Earth.

It is ironic, then, that a country blessed with such forest wealth has again and again become the stage for forest and land fires. Over the past decade, the area burnt in Indonesia has been highly erratic, soaring in some years and subsiding in others. The year 2015 marked the darkest point, when around 2.6 million hectares of forest and land were consumed, making it one of the largest ecological disasters in Indonesia's modern history. The economic losses were estimated at Rp221 trillion, or about US$16.1 billion, a sum that exceeds the cost of many of the nation's infrastructure projects.

After a period of decline, the fires surged again in 2019, reaching about 1.65 million hectares. The year 2023 was troubling once more, with more than 1.16 million hectares burnt, an increase of over fourfold on the previous year. That jump was a reminder that a fall in the figures in one year is no guarantee that the problem has been solved, especially when a long dry season returns.

These data show that fires in Indonesia are not wholly random or incidental events. They behave like a chronic illness that occasionally eases but never truly heals, flaring up whenever conditions allow and, each time, leaving deeper scars on the same body.

 

IV. Indonesia in the World's Mirror

Viewed from a global perspective, Indonesia is not in fact the country with the largest burnt area each year. Worldwide, between 340 and 370 million hectares of the Earth's surface are burnt by vegetation fires annually, an area several times the size of our own country. Most of this occurs in grasslands, savannas, scrub and dry regions of Africa, Australia and South America.

Yet comparing Indonesia with the rest of the world on burnt area alone can be misleading. A figure in hectares says nothing about what was burning. In many parts of the world, fire is part of a natural ecological cycle. The African savanna, for instance, has evolved alongside fire for thousands of years. Its grasses recover swiftly, its soils are accustomed to the flames, and many of its plant species actually depend on fire to regenerate.

Indonesia faces a different problem.

Most forest and land fires (known in Indonesian as KARHUTLA) occur in tropical rainforest and peatland, ecosystems that were never “designed” by nature to burn. Peat is a deposit of plant matter that has decayed slowly over hundreds to thousands of years, waterlogged throughout. So long as it stays wet, it is a quiet store of carbon. But once it is drained through canals and then set alight, it becomes fuel that can smoulder beneath the surface, is fiendishly hard to extinguish, and releases carbon stored for centuries or millennia into the atmosphere within a matter of weeks. This is why fires in Indonesia have a far greater impact on the global climate than their area alone would suggest.

In other words, one hectare of burning peatland in Indonesia can have ecological consequences far beyond those of one hectare of grassland burning naturally elsewhere in the world. The same size does not always mean the same loss

.

V. Peat, Smoke and a Debt to the Future

The tragedy of Indonesia's KARHUTLA also has a dimension that rarely appears in photographs of fires: the smoke. In the 2015 fires, more than 2.6 million hectares burnt and tens of millions of people were exposed to a haze that drifted into neighbouring countries. The morning sun turned a pale red, visibility shrank and face masks became a daily sight. The effects went beyond economic loss, to damaged public health, suspended schooling, disrupted transport and strained regional relations.

This is where forest fires cease to be a local matter. Smoke recognises no administrative boundary. It does not care whether a person lives in a village beside the hotspots or in a big city hundreds of kilometres away, whether they are a farmer or an official, a child or a pensioner. Everyone breathes the same air, and the most vulnerable, namely infants, the elderly and those with respiratory illness, bear the heaviest burden. The haze makes ecological suffering collective.

For this reason, burning peat can be described as an inherited debt. The carbon released today helps to warm the climate that our grandchildren will inhabit. The land ruined today will become a burden of restoration for them to bear, interest included. In this sense, KARHUTLA teaches a moral lesson: environmental damage may be done by a few, but its consequences are borne by everyone, including those who are not yet born.

 

VI. A Recurring Crisis: Why Is It So Hard to Learn?

What makes Indonesia's KARHUTLA so tragic is not only the scale but also the repetition. 2015 was a lesson. 2019 was a warning. 2023 was a reminder that the lesson had not yet been fully absorbed. Each time the flames die down and the smoke thins, public attention thins with it, and we return to our routines until the next dry season comes knocking.

Recurring fires raise a philosophical question deeper than merely who is to blame. Why do humans keep repeating the same mistakes? Why do short-term gains so often triumph over long-term interests? Why does the cheap cost of prevention always feel less urgent than the far greater cost of firefighting, when the former saves and the latter merely patches?

A forest needs decades, even centuries, to grow. Yet the decision to burn it is too often made in a matter of hours. Here lies the contrast between the ways of nature and the ways of humankind. Nature thinks in centuries. Humans often think in harvest seasons or annual profit reports. Until the gap between these two ways of thinking is bridged, by firm law enforcement, by sincere restoration of peatlands and, above all, by the awareness that a forest belongs not to one generation, fire will always find its way back.

Perhaps what we need is not merely stricter rules but a longer memory. For a nation that quickly forgets its disasters is a nation preparing for the next.

Epilogue: When the World Breathes the Same Smoke

On a map of the world, the fires in Indonesia may look like a small dot on the equator. In reality, every hectare of tropical forest lost diminishes the Earth's ability to absorb carbon, safeguard biodiversity and sustain life. That small dot turns out to be joined to the same lungs, the same sky and the same breath.

KARHUTLA is therefore not only Indonesia's problem. It is one branch of the great question now facing the whole of humanity:

Shall we go on seeing the forest as a resource to be exploited, or as a trust to be handed down?

Data can count how many million hectares have burnt. Economists can count how many trillions of rupiah have been lost. But there is one thing no statistic can easily measure, one thing that appears in no annual report yet will one day be claimed by time:

how much of the future goes up in smoke with every tree that turns to ash.

Bahasa

Forgetting Is Human, Hypocrisy Is a Choice: On the Metaphysical Realm

It is said that the universe contains two kinds of courtrooms. The first is the courtroom of this world, where people arrive in their best suits, clutching thick files, armed with arguments as long as a railway line and with memories that turn according to the wind. There, facts are still open to debate. Documents are still open to interpretation. Sentences can still be twisted until their own authors are baffled that they ever uttered them. And mistakes can still be given other, more polite names: a breakdown in communication, developments on the ground or, for those in luck, a policy the public has yet to understand.

The second is a much quieter courtroom. There are no cameras. There are no microphones. There are no press conferences, no spokespeople, no legal team seated in a solemn row behind you. There is no chairman rapping the table to announce, “Time’s up.” There is no button marked “no comment”, and no corridor in which to dodge reporters while walking briskly. There are only questions. And answers.

In this world, people quarrel with one another about what actually happened. And the quarrel almost always opens with a set of phrases we know by heart, so often have they been used:

“I don’t remember.”

“I didn’t know.”

“I wasn’t there.”

“I never discussed that.”

“I never agreed to it.”

These sentences are scattered like dry leaves in the autumn of politics, piling up in the courtyard, swept away by the cleaners, then falling afresh the next morning. Oddly, the more important an event, the more people suddenly lose their memory of it. It is as though human memory came fitted with an automatic sensor: the higher the stakes, the faster it switches off.

Notice how selective this affliction is. No one forgets when receiving an appointment. No one forgets when receiving applause. No one forgets when the group photograph is posted in the press, complete with a smile arranged from the most flattering angle. No one forgets the name of the room in which they were sworn in, the colour of the tie they wore, or who shook their hand for longest. Yet when history presents its bill, memory so often takes extended leave without leaving a note. It may be the only kind of amnesia that never strikes at harvest time and always strikes at collection.

Perhaps this is because human beings are too accustomed to living among other human beings. We are used to judges who can be persuaded. Journalists who can be avoided. Opponents who can be rebutted. Supporters whose spirits can be stoked. A public whose opinion can be split, and then split again, until only fragments remain, busily blaming one another. Armed with all that, anyone feels reasonably safe. But there is one opponent that nobody, however strong their team, has ever managed to defeat: the trace.

The trace has a deeply undemocratic character. It does not care about office. It does not care about party. It does not care about rank, title, or how long the string of letters after a name may be. It does not care who is in power, and cares even less who is popular. A signature remains a signature. A document remains a document. An archive remains an archive. And the record has an extremely irritating habit, especially for those who were counting on it: it refuses to forget along with everyone else. It cannot be lobbied, cannot be taken to lunch, and is never swayed by the words “let’s look to the future.”

So one can imagine that, some day, there will be a very simple conversation. Not long. Not complicated. It will require no constitutional lawyer. It will require no political communications expert, still less a consultant paid handsomely to craft the phrase “I am not in a position to comment.” It will require no polling firm to establish which answer the public prefers. There will be just three questions:

“Were you present?”

“Did you know?”

“Did you agree?”

Three simple questions. So simple that it is hard to hide behind a speech. So simple that the intricacies of politics suddenly lose their use, and every trick that once seemed so potent, from the artful dodge to the deliberately elongated foreign term, becomes ornament nobody will buy. In that room there is no point answering, “In our considered view, the context needs to be examined first.” The context is already there. The context is what actually happened.

Perhaps that is the genius of the metaphysical question. It does not ask, “Who won?” It does not ask, “Who is the strongest?” It does not ask, “Who went viral?” It cares nothing for follower counts, nothing for approval ratings, nothing for whose hashtag lingered at the top of the trending list for three days. It asks only, “What actually happened?” And, unfortunately, such a question often knows the answer before it is posed. It asks not because it does not know, but to see whether the person questioned is willing to be honest.

In this world, a person can argue with a journalist. A person can argue with a judge. A person can argue with an academic, or with an entire panel discussion at once. A person can even argue with a document, and win, at least in the eyes of their supporters. But it is exceedingly hard to argue with a conscience. For a conscience keeps an archive that has never been printed. It is not stored on a server. It is not stored in a filing cabinet. It is not stored in a digital cloud that can be wiped with a single click by a suddenly diligent member of staff. It is stored in the one place that goes wherever its owner goes: into the meeting room, onto the podium, and under the duvet at three o’clock in the morning.

And so we begin to understand why there is a saying that is so brief and yet so fierce: “Forgetting is allowed; hypocrisy is not.” Forgetting is a defect of memory, an ailment that can befall anyone, from the car park attendant to the highest official. Hypocrisy is a conflict between what one knows and what one admits. Forgetting is a human weakness. Hypocrisy is a decision. Forgetting makes a person lose the way. Hypocrisy makes a person pretend never to have walked that road, though their shoes are still muddy and the driver of their official car still remembers the turning.

In truth, the world is fairly forgiving of the first. A person who says, “I’m so sorry, I really have forgotten,” with a face that truly looks forgetful, is usually still offered a cup of tea and a second chance. What cannot be forgiven is the forgetfulness that arrives right on cue, that always turns up before the final question, and that, curiously, attacks only the inconvenient parts. That is not an illness. That is a strategy.

And in the end, perhaps every political controversy will finish in the same way. The news will sink, buried under news that is newer and noisier. The hashtag will vanish, leaving a few loyal accounts to repeat it alone. The debate will go stale, and the pundits who were so certain yesterday will move on to the next topic with equal certainty. Supporters and opponents will go looking for a fresh issue, since outrage, like food, cannot be stored for long. But the archive will stay quietly on its shelf. Waiting. Patient. Not angry. Not shouting. Not campaigning. Not buying advertising, not hiring online mouthpieces, not holding a clarification briefing. Simply waiting for someone to come, and say, softly, without a script, without a spokesperson:

“Yes, that is indeed my signature.”

For history, at its core, is not a collection of events. Events have passed and cannot be summoned back. History is a collection of confessions: what people eventually dare to admit about those events, whether before one another or before themselves in a room with no cameras. And that is why, among all the questions that might be put to a human being, there is one that is hardest to answer with a smile. Not a policy question. Not a question about figures. Not even a question about who was to blame.

The most frightening question is not:

“What did you do?”

Rather, it is:

“Why did you pretend you hadn’t?”

Bahasa