Saturday, December 1, 2012

RICKLEF DAN CAREY MELIHAT PERANG JAWA


A COMPARISON APPROACH OF RIKLEFS & CAREY ON JAVA WAR

Daya N. Wijaya
MA History, University of Sunderland, UK




The Java War, or also people called it with Dipanegara War, happened in Java between 1825 until 1830. Said (n.d.) stated that the event named Dipanegara War because the war led by Dipanegara against the Dutch and this war happened in main area of Yogyakarta Kingdom, Some parts of Surakarta Kingdom, Semarang, Kedu, Bagelan, Tegal, Pati, Pekalongan, Pacitan, Banyumas, Rembang, Bojonegoro, and Kediri. It means that Dipanegara’s war happened in most of area in Central Java, Special Area of Jogjakarta (DIY) and East Java. So people called this war with Java War. Commonly, people argued that the war was caused by the Dutch Government decision to build a road across a piece of Prince Dipanegara’s property that contained his parents’ tomb. So, he led a rebellion to fight the Dutch. Troops of Prince Dipanegara were very successful in the beginning, controlling the middle of Java and besieging Yogyakarta. Furthermore the Javanese population was supportive of Prince Dipanegara's cause, whereas the Dutch colonial authorities were initially very indecisive. However, as the Java war prolonged, Prince Dipanegara had difficulties in maintaining the numbers of his troops. The Dutch colonial army, however, was able to fill its ranks with troops from Sulawesi, and later on from the Netherlands. The Dutch commander, General de Kock, was able to end the siege of Yogyakarta on 25 September 1825. Prince Dipanegara started a fierce guerrilla war and it was not until 1827 that the Dutch army gained the upper hand. The rebellion finally ended in 1830, after Prince Dipanegara was tricked into entering Dutch custody near Magelang, believing he was there for negotiations for a possible cease-fire. He was captured through treachery and deported to Manado and then to Makassar, where he died in 1855.

Actually, so many perspectives on Java War, but there are two mainstreams of approaches to the war. Those are political history approach represented by Merle Calvin Riklefs (2008) in his work of ‘A history of modern Indonesia’ and another by Peter Carey (2008) in his work of ‘The Power of Prophecy: Prince Dipanegara and the End of The Old Order in Java, 1785-1855’ using economic history approach to explain this event. It is interesting to elaborate their historiography of Java War briefly based on their views and examine their approaches specifically in the term of usefulness and limitations.
Briefly, Riklefs (2008), a historian from National University of Singapore, explained that however Dipanegara was an eldest son of the royal family but he did not take a throne because he was not a son from an official queen. He was being a leader of folk not only in his land of Tegalrejo which is given by the king but also in daily activities such as in farmer society, religious man, and unsatisfied man to the kingdom. Dipanegara had religious experience to meet Ratu Kidul (spirit which is believed by Javanese as conqueror of Hindia Ocean) convincing him to be the next king. He claimed he had a message from god that he should destroy his age to purify his kingdom. In 1810-1820, the condition of Java was bad because of many rebellions, shortage in many areas, diseases, mountain eruption, and also the leader of Dutch, Van Der Capellen, remove the land rent system which was affecting the royal family which was not fulfilling their needs because they cannot rent out their land. This note effected them tend to rebel the Dutch. Another policy, which was harmful to Dipanegara and his friend, was building a road across a piece of Prince Dipanegara’s property that contained his parents’ tomb in Tegalrejo. His land of Tegalrejo was burned and Dipanegara escaped from the Dutch brutality. He led a lot people consisted of 15 princes, 41 regents, and Muslim community to rebel the Dutch who was cooperated with Yogyakarta Kingdom in 1825. He called his self as an “Erucakra” or the king of justice who safe Javanese from suppression. The troops of Prince Dipanegara were very successful in the beginning, controlling the middle of Java and besieging Jogjakarta. Furthermore the Javanese population was supportive Dipanegara’s cause, whereas the Dutch authorities were initially very indecisive. However, as the Java War prolonged, Prince Dipanegara had difficulties in maintaining the numbers of his troops. The Dutch colonial Army however was able to fill its ranks troops from Sulawesi and later on troops from the Netherlands. The Dutch Commander, General De Kock, was able to end the siege of Jogjakarta on September 25, 1825. Prince Dipanegara started a fierce guerrilla war and it was not until 1827 that the Dutch Army gained the upper hand. The Dutch used “benteng stelsel” strategy to press the troops of Dipanegara and this strategy was successful to destroy Dipanegara’s troops. In 1830, after Prince Dipanegara was tricked into entering Dutch custody near Magelang believing he was there for negotiations for a possible cease-fire, and exiled to Manado on the island of Sulawesi. In this war, The Dutch colony lost not less than 15000 soldiers and spent more than 20 millions Gulden and Dipanegara lost 200.000 soldiers.
Basically, history is the product of two elements, the past, or what is left of it in material or immaterial form called the traces, and the present’s imaginative skill in its reconstruction (Bindoff, 1962, p.11). However, Riklefs used a lot of books as sources to explained the event of Java War such as: Carey’s work of ‘Origin of the Java War’, ‘Santri & Satria’, ‘Waiting for the Just King’, ‘Changing Javanese Perception of the Chinese’, ‘Sepoy Conspiracy of 1815 in Java’; Louw & De Klerck’s work of Java Oorlog; Sagimun’s work of ‘Pahlawan Dipanegara Berdjuang’; Wright’s work of ‘East Indian Economic Problem’; Boomgard’s work of ‘Children of the Colonial State’, Pringgodigdo’s work of ‘Ondernemingen van het Mangkoenagorosche rijk’; and Dobbin’s work of ‘Islamic Revivalism’, but he did not use primary sources or the traces of Java War’s actor, both Dutch government or Dipanegara’s group. In my view, it is a gap in his work. So, it can be clearly seen that he tend to use library research and compare many descriptions of Java War; understand and retell in his work.
Riklefs used political history not only to describe Java War but also to explain the long history of Indonesia from circa 1200-2008 because he had an interest in changing the bad practice of politician and government in Indonesia. He tended to use his work to be role model of Indonesian politic today. He composed an interesting study of political history based on deeply analysis of power structure between Dipanegara & his friend, the Dutch & Yogyakarta Kingdom in other side; leadership of Dipanegara; and power in Javanese Culture, he revealed the relation of Javanese king and Ratu Kidul. However, he had explained an event comprehensively in political sequences but his work tended to be more deterministic, believe that politic is the main actor of an event and also his work as seen did not accept the ordinary people. He ignored the local economical development and emphasized on colonial economy; the role of the troops in the war because his study focused on clash between Dipanegara and the Dutch especially in their policy towards the war. His focus of work is too abroad making him. To extent, political history is an event about king; nation; country; government; rebellion; importance groups of noble; religious man; farmer; and interaction between powers to compete an authority.
Briefly, we can use the term of “History is the past of politics” to examine his work. In my view after reading Riklefs’ work, there is some usefulness of using politics in the study of history. Those are using periods of time to make people understand to the prominent event especially in the date and also people understand spirit of the age with pointing a separated time before, in, and after war; successful to link the topic of the past to solve the problem at present and future; Riklefs looks like mastering many concepts and theories of politics, so he can analyze an event comprehensively; making a sense that history is important to know their ancestor in preventing their privilege. While the limitations of using political history are: not having many sources to write history because the key man does not write anything such as handwriting or diary; seen separated from daily activities because human actions in the past is not only doing political action but also economic, cultural, or social action; focused on the upper class or the great man and ignored the ordinary people.
Another historian, who has perspective on Java War, is Peter Carey. Just like Riklefs, he also focused his research on Javanese History. The historian from Oxford University described Java War based on economic perspective and he succeeded to describe it so well (Lombard, 2008, p.50). Shortly, Carey explained that the war happened at the time of society which had developed economy. Many people said that peasant rebellion to Dutch Government happened because suffering and starvation, but Carey believed that the rebellion had planned by noble group consciously and supported by farmer and religious man. Rebellion happened because they were unhappy with European authority in Java; but they felt so angry with the right hand of Sultan (King) who was taking a lot of money from agricultural surplus. The strained situation was not a new thing, some events conducted the high tension before: Yogyakarta palace was occupied by British Army in 1812 and Raffles’ policy established the forth kingdom (Pakualaman), for Hamengkubuwono II brother who was supporting British policy. The both events made some noble group of Java so disappointed especially “Sikep”group who was afraid with the government treatment of their economy activity which was increasing sharply. This reason made them tended to rebel the government and cooperated with Dipanegara. In many places of Central Java were so many rebellions. The agricultural production was declined greatly with decreasing a lot of people but there was no changing of social structure. The war changed one important factor of the Dutch government, concentrated in Batavia, conquered Java island and his function as same as the old Yogyakarta kingdom (Mataram Kingdom). Also, there were two centre of political power in Java. First one was Mataram in the new form which was separated into four small authority and kept continuing the great tradition of Javanese Kingdom. Another power was “pesisir (kingdom occupying the north coastal area of Java)” taking all of commerce policy.
It can be clearly seen that Carey believes development of economy influencing other aspect of life for instances: ideological structure as depicted in “Sikep” group (one of noble group unbelieving in god) prefer to cooperate with Dipanegara to against the government than losing their wealth and political changing as seen in Raffles’ policy when he decide to give one of royal family authority in order to help him implementing the new system of land-rent. Eley (2003, p.66) stated that the commonest expression for this determining relationship was the architectural language of base and superstructure. The base & superstructure is an analogy explaining particular between determinations of x (superstructure) by y (society’s relations of production). Base is not society’s most basic element but Marx refers to the totality of the relations of production, the economic structure, as society’s foundation and superstructure is everything relate to society such as class formation, ideological structure, cultural structure, law, and politics. In the case of Java War, he saw that the causing and affecting factor of Java War was the economical development in society. He can write Java War based on economical development or people’s view because he has a lot of primary sources for instances: Dipanegara handwriting, Babad Dipanegara, Babad Ngayogyakarta, Babad Pakualaman, Babad Kedung Kebo, Archives of Dutch Government, paintings, newspaper, Court Official of Dutch Government, and a lot of Javanese manuscripts: Serat Salasilar, Serat Para Loelohoer, Serat Ing Kadaroerejan. In addition, he also has a lot of primary literature in the field of Java. In addition, he marries with one of Dipanegara’s ancestor, so he can find a lot of prominent document and he masters a lot of languages: Javanese, Malay, English, Dutch, and French, with those languages he can analyse it so well. So, he can reconstruct the past based on economy influencing the other aspect of life. After examining his approach to Java War, I think his approach has some usefulness such as: showing people’s history and the actor behind the event; giving details of event for instances: rice prices in Java; family tree of Dipanagara and other prince; list of kyai (the religious group who is supporting Dipanegara to rebel the Dutch). While, the limitations of his approach are meaningless without prediction or proposing the reader to solve the problem of present and future; not having a purpose of study and celebrate the losers; seen economy as the main actor (ignore the other factor) to influence another aspect of life.
Even though Riklefs and Carey are focusing their research in Javanese History, they are strikingly different in many ways. For example their approach is different. Riklefs used political history having usefulness of linking the past to solve a problem of present & future; and its limitation is showing the great man & ignoring the ordinary people. In contrast, Carey approaches history by economic perspective; usefulness of his approach tend to show the society (people can make history), especially production and its relations as a main actor which is influencing the human actions and beliefs; and the limitation of his approach is merely giving people knowledge about the war, it means his work does not have speculation or prediction about the future. Another difference is sources which are used. Riklefs tends to use secondary sources of books, but Carey maintains his work by many primary sources such as handwriting of important actor and diary of the event which is written by someone who knows his event. It can be concluded that the usefulness of political history and economic history are equipping each other because its approach can analyze comprehensively in political or economical aspects in the past; while, its limitation of both approaches  is being determinant to the other aspect of life. So, it will be better to conclude their usefulness to make comprehensive historiography.



References

1.      Bindoff, ST., ‘Political History’, in HPR Finberg (ed.), ‘Approaches to History’, (London, Routledge, 1962).
2.      Carey, P., ‘The Power of Prophecy: Prince Dipanegara and the End of The Old Order in Java, 1785-1855’, (Leiden: KITLV Press, 2008).
3.      Court, WHB., ‘Economic History’, in HPR Finberg (ed.), ‘Approaches to History’, (London, Routledge, 1962).
4.      Eley, G., ‘Marxist Historiography’, In Berger, S., et, al (ed.)., ‘Writing History: Theory & Practice” (London: Arnold, 2003).
5.      Lombard, D., ‘Nusa Jawa Silang Budaya: Warisan Kerajaan-Kerajaan Konsentris 3’, (Jakarta: PT Gramedia, 2005).
6.      Riklefs, MC., ‘Sejarah Indonesia Modern’, (Jakarta: PT Serambi Ilmu, 2008).
7.      Said, A., ‘Prince Dipanegara in a Great War in Java (1825-1830)’, available at http://www. eceme.ensinob.e.br/cihm/Arquivos/PDF%20Files/22.pdf (n.d.).

◄ New Post Old Post ►
 

Copyright 2012 Forum TJK Indonesia: December 2012 Template by Bamz | Publish on Bamz Templates