Hubungan orangtua dan anak ternyata rumit juga ya. Mirip seperti tarik tambang, ada saat-saat orangtua harus mengalah sama anak, dan sebaliknya ada permintaan anak yang tidak harus dipenuhi orangtua. Memang sih, dalam kasus gue yang terjadi lebih banyak gue mengalah sama anak. Tapi dalam beberapa situasi, orangtua tetap harus tegas: tidak boleh! Ada prinsip-prinsip yang tidak boleh dilanggar, batasan yang harus diketahui oleh si anak. Contohnya adalah kejadian baru-baru ini.
Gue dan istri mengajak si Yuka bermain ke tempat bermain anak yang ada di Senayan City. Apa ya namanya? Kalau nggak salah Play Mall gitu. Banyak permainan yang menarik buat anak kecil di situ. Si Yuka betah banget jadinya deh. Satu jam berlalu, masih asik juga tuh. Oke lah, kita tambah satu jam lagi. Eh, udah abis waktunya kok belum mau keluar juga. Padahal ini udah jam makan buat Yuka (dan orangtuanya juga udah kelaperan gitu...he he)
Inilah saatnya orangtua harus bersikap tegas. Yuka, sudah cukup. Dan proteslah dia, dalam bentuk (apalagi kalau bukan) menangis sejadi-jadinya. Tapi sebagai orangtua yang tegas kita tetap memaksa dia keluar, sepertiga ditarik, sepertiga digendong, sepertiga dibujuk. Tapi tetep dong nangis terus. Apakah kemudian kita berubah pikiran? Tentu tidak. Apalagi, ini yang terpenting, apa kata dunia bila orangtua modern macam kita ini selalu memenuhi tuntutan anaknya. Memanjakan anak secara berlebihan tidak ada dalam kamus kita.
Nomor dua, ini juga penting, kita berdua merasakan tatapan tajam dari para orangtua modern yang lain. Jangan menyerah! Biar si anak tahu, who’s in charge. Kalau nggak, seumur hidup kalian akan diperbudak oleh tuntutan mereka! Ya, kita bisa membaca pikiran para orangtua yang lain. Dan tentu saja, kita sependapat. Akhirnya sukseslah si Yuka dibawa keluar dari arena permainan.
Tapi si Yuka tetep manyun tuh. Makan, minum susu udah sukses, tapi kok kayaknya masih sedih ya? Mukanya itu lho. Waduh gimana nih. Ya, hal itu akhirnya muncul juga. Hal yang banyak dialami orangtua modern di manapun juga, terlepas dari seberapa tegasnya mereka. Please welcome: guilty feelings. Hmmm. Yuka mau beli mainan Hot Wheels? Mau ayah. Dan pergilah kita membeli bukan satu, bukan dua, tapi tiga buah mobil Hot Wheels buatan Mattel Inc. Dan tersenyumlah si Yuka.
Oh, kami memang orangtua yang lemah...
***
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
On Being a Skeptic
Note: it starts with a comment in my friend’s blog, from a guy claiming he’s an atheist. So sure he is with the claim that God doesn’t exist, it actually reminds me of myself in the old days. You know, we were immortal back then. But as we grow old we are not too sure anymore, about anything. We’re skeptical. People says it’s alright and that actually the sign of maturity. Is it true? I don’t know. I’m a skeptic remember?
Anyway, ends up I wrote this comment. At the beginning what I had in mind was a plea for this guy to continue question everything. But after I read it again, it looks like I have written something about my value, which I hold dear to my heart. Worth to post it here...maybe.
**
Ah mas Narto, senang sekali mengetahui bahwa ada orang Indonesia yang dengan lantang mengakui dirinya atheist. Mungkin banyak yang dalam hatinya seperti itu tapi yang out of the closet seperti mas Narto nggak banyak. Seperti fenomena gay begitu...he he. Sori cuman bercanda.
Saya cuman berharap mas Narto tidak menjadi atheist hanya karena alasan sesederhana itu (karena tidak percaya adanya mukjizat). Agama, seperti halnya ilmu pengetahuan mengalami perkembangan juga. Penafsiran saklek tentang mukjizat seperti itu rasanya sudah ketinggalan zaman. Kreasionisme (tentang terciptanya kehidupan di muka bumi) sudah nggak laku lagi, intelligent design juga banyak diperdebatkan.
Alih-alih, cerita dalam kitab suci harus dilihat sebagai alegori, tamsil tentang kondisi manusia, dan pengantar bagaimana caranya agar manusia bisa merasakan kehadiran Tuhan. Merasakan kehadiran Tuhan menurut banyak orang adalah cara untuk meningkatkan kualitas hidup manusia. Itu saja.
Saya juga nggak mau bilang kalau fungsi agama atau kepercayaan pada tuhan adalah sebagai pedoman moral manusia, karena penganut atheisme sudah pasti bilang: “memangnya kalau tidak percaya tuhan berarti tidak bisa bermoral?” Hal ini sudah disimpulkan sekian lama lalu oleh Immanuel Kant dengan moral imperative-nya. Ya, menurutnya nalar kita sudah cukup untuk menjadi penunjuk apa yang boleh dan tidak boleh kita lakukan sebagai manusia sosial. Agama tidak relevan lagi di sini.
Namun masih berpedoman pada Immanuel Kant, saya juga tidak tertarik dengan kepastian yang ditawarkan atheisme, yaitu kepastian tentang ketiadaan tuhan. Menurut Kant, hal yang berkaitan dengan keberadaan tuhan berada di luar kemampuan nalar manusia, dan hal yang berada di luar nalar bukan obyek nalar sehingga tidak dapat diperdebatkan. Jadi menurut saya, secara nalar ada atau tidaknya tuhan tidak bisa dipastikan.
Bahkan dalam membahas tuhan, Romo Franz Magnis Suseno dalam bukunya “Menalar Tuhan” (sudah baca? Bagus lho) memberikan banyak batasan dan dia bermain cantik dengan tidak secara gamblang menyimpulkan ada atau tidaknya tuhan. Tapi kayaknya dia kurang meyakinkan tuh waktu berusaha “membuktikan” adanya intelligent design dalam satu bab. Mengenai hal ini saya lebih setuju dengan pendapat Richard Dawkins (The Blind Watchmaker, kayaknya buku wajib penganut atheist ya...he he) yang intinya mengatakan bahwa tidak ada yang istimewa dari keberadaan hal-hal yang kelihatannya sudah tersusun rapi dari sono-nya. Karena menurut Dawkins, “siapa bilang itu benar-benar sempurna?” Artinya itu pendapat subyektif dari manusia yang gampang kagum aja. Tentu tidak sesederhana itu, Dawkins menyertakan beberapa argumen ilmiah yang cukup mendalam tentang pendapatnya itu.
Tapi di lain pihak, menjadi rasional berarti harus percaya pada konsep sebab-akibat: harus ada sebab logis dari mengada (being). Nah, ilmu pengetahuan dengan dahsyat menurut saya sejauh ini berhasil merunut kejadian alam semesta ini dari awalnya. Apalagi kalau bukan “Big Bang”. Namun sampai saat ini tidak ada teori yang cukup memuaskan untuk menjelaskan apa yang menyebabkan alam semesta memuai dengan kecepatan luar biasa pada saat (tepatnya: sesaat setelah) terjadinya “Big Bang” itu. Ini kan semacam kreasionisme juga: something out of nothing. Apa ini bukti keberadaan Tuhan? Mungkin saja.
Kita masih bisa berdebat panjang lebar mengenai Tuhan yang cemburu, yang tidak mengenal belas kasihan. Kalau benar Tuhan itu cinta, mengapa Ia membiarkan banyak penderitaan terjadi kepada umatnya? THE ultimate question, if you may. Tapi ruang di sini rasanya terlalu sempit untuk membahas itu.
Intinya: menemukan kepastian itu tidak menantang, yang lebih asik adalah mencari jawaban. Mas Narto contohnya, jadi berhenti bertanya kan? Kalau saya sih lebih cenderung membuka pintu untuk segala kemungkinan, siapa tau ada perkembangan menarik di masa depan. Tentu saja, nggak ada yang bisa melarang atau memaksa kalau mas Narto bersikukuh dengan pendapatnya.
***
Anyway, ends up I wrote this comment. At the beginning what I had in mind was a plea for this guy to continue question everything. But after I read it again, it looks like I have written something about my value, which I hold dear to my heart. Worth to post it here...maybe.
**
Ah mas Narto, senang sekali mengetahui bahwa ada orang Indonesia yang dengan lantang mengakui dirinya atheist. Mungkin banyak yang dalam hatinya seperti itu tapi yang out of the closet seperti mas Narto nggak banyak. Seperti fenomena gay begitu...he he. Sori cuman bercanda.
Saya cuman berharap mas Narto tidak menjadi atheist hanya karena alasan sesederhana itu (karena tidak percaya adanya mukjizat). Agama, seperti halnya ilmu pengetahuan mengalami perkembangan juga. Penafsiran saklek tentang mukjizat seperti itu rasanya sudah ketinggalan zaman. Kreasionisme (tentang terciptanya kehidupan di muka bumi) sudah nggak laku lagi, intelligent design juga banyak diperdebatkan.
Alih-alih, cerita dalam kitab suci harus dilihat sebagai alegori, tamsil tentang kondisi manusia, dan pengantar bagaimana caranya agar manusia bisa merasakan kehadiran Tuhan. Merasakan kehadiran Tuhan menurut banyak orang adalah cara untuk meningkatkan kualitas hidup manusia. Itu saja.
Saya juga nggak mau bilang kalau fungsi agama atau kepercayaan pada tuhan adalah sebagai pedoman moral manusia, karena penganut atheisme sudah pasti bilang: “memangnya kalau tidak percaya tuhan berarti tidak bisa bermoral?” Hal ini sudah disimpulkan sekian lama lalu oleh Immanuel Kant dengan moral imperative-nya. Ya, menurutnya nalar kita sudah cukup untuk menjadi penunjuk apa yang boleh dan tidak boleh kita lakukan sebagai manusia sosial. Agama tidak relevan lagi di sini.
Namun masih berpedoman pada Immanuel Kant, saya juga tidak tertarik dengan kepastian yang ditawarkan atheisme, yaitu kepastian tentang ketiadaan tuhan. Menurut Kant, hal yang berkaitan dengan keberadaan tuhan berada di luar kemampuan nalar manusia, dan hal yang berada di luar nalar bukan obyek nalar sehingga tidak dapat diperdebatkan. Jadi menurut saya, secara nalar ada atau tidaknya tuhan tidak bisa dipastikan.
Bahkan dalam membahas tuhan, Romo Franz Magnis Suseno dalam bukunya “Menalar Tuhan” (sudah baca? Bagus lho) memberikan banyak batasan dan dia bermain cantik dengan tidak secara gamblang menyimpulkan ada atau tidaknya tuhan. Tapi kayaknya dia kurang meyakinkan tuh waktu berusaha “membuktikan” adanya intelligent design dalam satu bab. Mengenai hal ini saya lebih setuju dengan pendapat Richard Dawkins (The Blind Watchmaker, kayaknya buku wajib penganut atheist ya...he he) yang intinya mengatakan bahwa tidak ada yang istimewa dari keberadaan hal-hal yang kelihatannya sudah tersusun rapi dari sono-nya. Karena menurut Dawkins, “siapa bilang itu benar-benar sempurna?” Artinya itu pendapat subyektif dari manusia yang gampang kagum aja. Tentu tidak sesederhana itu, Dawkins menyertakan beberapa argumen ilmiah yang cukup mendalam tentang pendapatnya itu.
Tapi di lain pihak, menjadi rasional berarti harus percaya pada konsep sebab-akibat: harus ada sebab logis dari mengada (being). Nah, ilmu pengetahuan dengan dahsyat menurut saya sejauh ini berhasil merunut kejadian alam semesta ini dari awalnya. Apalagi kalau bukan “Big Bang”. Namun sampai saat ini tidak ada teori yang cukup memuaskan untuk menjelaskan apa yang menyebabkan alam semesta memuai dengan kecepatan luar biasa pada saat (tepatnya: sesaat setelah) terjadinya “Big Bang” itu. Ini kan semacam kreasionisme juga: something out of nothing. Apa ini bukti keberadaan Tuhan? Mungkin saja.
Kita masih bisa berdebat panjang lebar mengenai Tuhan yang cemburu, yang tidak mengenal belas kasihan. Kalau benar Tuhan itu cinta, mengapa Ia membiarkan banyak penderitaan terjadi kepada umatnya? THE ultimate question, if you may. Tapi ruang di sini rasanya terlalu sempit untuk membahas itu.
Intinya: menemukan kepastian itu tidak menantang, yang lebih asik adalah mencari jawaban. Mas Narto contohnya, jadi berhenti bertanya kan? Kalau saya sih lebih cenderung membuka pintu untuk segala kemungkinan, siapa tau ada perkembangan menarik di masa depan. Tentu saja, nggak ada yang bisa melarang atau memaksa kalau mas Narto bersikukuh dengan pendapatnya.
***
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Battlefield Football
Football is a physical game, England’s league in particular. During an average England’s game rarely can you see the referee blows his whistle for fouls. In a typical English understatement, the referee doesn’t stop the game after players being lightly fouled and instruct them to continue instead. True, the nature of the refereeing makes the game more dynamic: fast and flowing, unlike Italian games where the whistle is blown every 10 seconds. But lately that leniency is questioned, after several accidents in the past 3 months, involving players in the field.First, there’s Ben Thatcher from Manchester City whose elbowing on Pablo Mendes from Portsmouth made him unconscious and hospitalized for several days. Thatcher got away with it, not a single yellow card from the referee. Luckily FA inquired that incident and gave Thatcher 8 games-ban. His own club also punished Thatcher with a similar ban. Itself a rare occasion proving this is a serious incident, since most clubs prefer to protect their player. Their own interest to be precise. But the public outcry was too strong to be easily dismissed hence damage control need to be done.
Then there’s Shay Given, Newcastle United’s goalie. Given needed emergency surgery for a perforated bowel after being clattered by Marlon Harewood from West Ham United. Given described the pain as like “having acid poured into my stomach”.1 Perforated bowel, I can imagine the pain.
And then the last incidents, when not one but two keepers had to be stretched out in Chelsea vs. Reading game. Petr Cech from Chelsea has his skull fractured after a challenge by Steve Hunt from Reading, when Cech dove to catch the ball. Whether the challenge was intentional or not is still hotly debated. The fact is it’s a life threatening injury, and Cech has to undergo an operation to safe his life. On field, Carlo Cudicini replacing him only to be knocked unconsciously down in a collusion with another Reading’s player. No card shown for both incidents.
Blaming the referee, here’s Arsenal’s Jens Lehmann. “I have never injured a player in my life and I really want to retain this record because I respect my opponents. But now if they want to have a go at me then I will have to change my game because there is no protection from the referees”2. Is that a threat Jens?
But Lehmann has a point. The nature of the game has changed since FIFA introduced back pass rule several years ago. Chris Woods, the former England international and current goalkeeping coach at Everton, explained: “Goalkeepers were always an option before the introduction of the back pass rule but because you can't use your hands anymore it has given the forward more encouragement to keep running at you. Before the back pass rule the forward knew the goalkeeper could pick the ball up and would see no point in going for the ball. Now he knows he might have a chance if he keeps going as the goalkeeper might have a poor first touch or clearance. There is more pressure on the goalkeeper now in that sense”.3
In fact this is exactly what Reading’s coach said in defense for Hunt. “There's no way Hunty went in to damage the keeper but he has a right to put geographical pressure on him”4. You mean: a geographic area with a size of one man’s head?
Anyway worth to wait for FA’s decision on this issue, or even FIFA perhaps. Football has been slow in adopting latest technology both to improve refereeing and to protect the players. Is it because the football body leans more towards Europe rather than America? I mean, the American has embraced the latest technology in sport faster than its European counterparts. For instance radio, 2 referees, video playback have been used to improve refereeing in American’s games. Whereas the football czars in FIFA are not too keen to introduce technology in football, relying on gentlemanly refereeing instead. “To err is human, and the extensive use of technology would only diminish the spirit of the game”, or something like that.
Well, I just hope that the spirit of the game doesn’t cost any life in the future. After all football is only a game, while human’s life value much much more than that. Even the notorious Chelsea’s coach Jose Mourinho can come up with a touching remark this time, aptly summarizing the situation, “I do not care about football. I do not care about Barcelona (their opponent in the next match). I care about my friends”.5
***
1. Independent, Oct. 17, 2006
2. VitaFootbal.co.uk, Oct. 16, 2006
3. Independent, Oct. 17, 2006
4. The Guardian, Oct 16, 2006
5. The Guardian, Oct 16, 2006
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
A Confession
I'm not ready for this. Never was, never will. At first when those experts told me I didn't believe it. But after having second, third opinion I finally relented. This is the end, I have it...
Deep down I still have my doubt. I understand the risk, at the end it could get me there’s no denying it. But so far I’ve done what I can to minimize it—haven’t I tried hard enough? And look at the others. They’re the same with me but why don’t they get it? Some guys were even lucky enough to get around it and died peacefully with their dignity intact. Why can’t I?
There was a time when I used to look down on those who have it. I thought, “I'm not going to be like you my poor brothers. Look at me, a healthy and perfectly functioning human being, proudly cheating it. I’m not going to get it, that’s for sure”. But now I can understand their agony. I admire them for putting a brave face in front of friends and families. I don't know whether I can be that strong. Where’s that bravado?
God please help me I don't know what to do. It's unstoppable and can only get worse. Sure I heard that you might be able to cure it, but not everyone can afford the treatment. I have a family to feed; it just doesn't seem fair if they have to suffer too. After all this is because my own doing, I can’t blame no one.
Should I conceal it? You can always do that. But then again, it's still not a cure, merely preserving a little dignity you have left. I don't know whether it's still any use to do that. I couldn't care less. I'd rather die; I don’t want to suffer for long. I'm too weak to bear this burden. Way too weak.
I guess there's only one thing to do. I owe my loved ones an explanation. I am going to tell them openly about my condition. Only then I can continue to live the rest of my life peacefully. It will take all the courage left in me to say those four words in front of them. To tell them the truth about what is happening to me. I have receding hairlines...
***
Deep down I still have my doubt. I understand the risk, at the end it could get me there’s no denying it. But so far I’ve done what I can to minimize it—haven’t I tried hard enough? And look at the others. They’re the same with me but why don’t they get it? Some guys were even lucky enough to get around it and died peacefully with their dignity intact. Why can’t I?
There was a time when I used to look down on those who have it. I thought, “I'm not going to be like you my poor brothers. Look at me, a healthy and perfectly functioning human being, proudly cheating it. I’m not going to get it, that’s for sure”. But now I can understand their agony. I admire them for putting a brave face in front of friends and families. I don't know whether I can be that strong. Where’s that bravado?
God please help me I don't know what to do. It's unstoppable and can only get worse. Sure I heard that you might be able to cure it, but not everyone can afford the treatment. I have a family to feed; it just doesn't seem fair if they have to suffer too. After all this is because my own doing, I can’t blame no one.
Should I conceal it? You can always do that. But then again, it's still not a cure, merely preserving a little dignity you have left. I don't know whether it's still any use to do that. I couldn't care less. I'd rather die; I don’t want to suffer for long. I'm too weak to bear this burden. Way too weak.
I guess there's only one thing to do. I owe my loved ones an explanation. I am going to tell them openly about my condition. Only then I can continue to live the rest of my life peacefully. It will take all the courage left in me to say those four words in front of them. To tell them the truth about what is happening to me. I have receding hairlines...
***
Monday, October 16, 2006
Amangkurat I - A History of Violence
Sometimes we, who live in Indonesia today, wonder why can’t we live peacefully like in the good old days. Answer: have we ever lived peacefully, really? I mean for us who were born in the 70’s, it seems that the most violent things we have ever seen is “tawuran” between high schools’ students. Unlike now when even the smallest sparkle can ignite all out violence. But I guess deep down you and I know that it’s not the whole truth. That cruelties and malicious acts were happening as well in the Orba era. Worse, because they were institutionalized, conducted in the name of national security and stability. Worse, because the truth was concealed by our very own government, again in the name of public interest.
But then again, it’s not a unique period in our history. Ours is a long record of violence. For you Javanese with royal ancestry, just remember that you can track back your lineage to Ken Arok. Who was he? A common thug who rose to the throne through series of murders, and died because he was killed himself.
And down the line, there’s Amangkurat I, the successor of the mighty Mataram’s king Sultan Agung Hanyokrokusumo. But Amangkurat is the flip side of a coin. While Sultan Agung fought VOC all his life, Amangkurat I befriended them. If Sultan Agung remembered as the one who brought pax javanica, Amangkurat I was notorious for ruining his father's legacy. Whereas Sultan Agung ruled in a (relatively) just manner, Amangkurat I was a paranoid megalomaniac who didn’t hesitate to kill his own wife. If he could kill his own immediate family, what about his subjects then? Let’s elaborate further.
The sources of this piece came from various online sites, you can google it easily. I have books on Java’s history as well, but I left all of them in Jakarta, so I could not consult them. Mind you, this is only a popular history, mostly accurate but not reliable for scientific purpose.
Amangkurat I was one of the numerous offsprings of Sultan Agung. Being the oldest son from the principal wife, he was chosen as the crown-prince. While his father was busily fighting VOC in Batavia, he was raised in luxury inside the keraton.
The nature of the rivalry between Mataram and VOC was actually trade. Mataram was a strong agricultural kingdom, but as the bulk of its territory laid deep inland it was still a minow in the trading business, unlike coastal kingdoms such as Aceh and Makassar also Sriwijaya and Demak earlier. Mataram’s trade through its ports in Cirebon and Tegal were further weakened by VOC control of Batavia. Hence the attacks in 1628 and 1629.
The attacks were fruitless as VOC under J.P. Coen survived the siege and continue controlled the trade network from the relatively undisturbed sea route. Sultan Agung then put an embargo on VOC, prohibited its vassals to trade with it. But the decision backfired, as the already weakened trade channel was choked by the embargo. On top of that the wars waged against VOC were costly. Thus, by the time Amangkurat I rose to the throne in 1645 he inherited an almost empty coffer. Mataram was still rich mind you, but not as strong as under Sultan Agung previously. With limited treasury it could not afford to wage war against VOC, or even to keep its vassals within its territory. Mismanagement by this incompetent ruler adding to the problem.
If you can’t beat them join them. Maybe that’s what Amangkurat thought when he was about to cooperate with VOC. In all objectivity, this was a logical thing to do. Rather than spending time, money and resources fighting a stronger opponent, it’s better to make peace and do business with it. At the same time Amangkurat I could use VOC's hand to crush rebellious vassals trying to set themselves free from Mataram.
Logical indeed, but unfortunately Amangkurat was not strong enough, neither diplomatically shrewd enough. The military aids from VOC came with a cost: concession of Mataram’s territory if not its trade network. VOC’s modus operandi is well studied now; it was to gain monopoly of trade routes in exchange for military or financial aids. Two kingdoms in dispute, intrict around the throne, and rebellious vassals were its favourite.
Against this backdrop—-pressure from work and overshadowed by an all powerful father’s image-—is it any wonder Amangkurat I became a paranoid? Maybe not. And his cruelty is not totally unique either, compared with his fellow local kings or even other kings from distant countries in Europe and Asia. What made him unique is his capacity to crush the ulamas, the religious leaders in the community. Up until then, religious leaders had always had strong position in the palace politics. Hindu, Buddha and Islamic kingdoms in Indonesia had put so much confidence, even regularly consulted the religious leaders for day-to-day business of running the kingdom.
But this king, after hearing a rumor that his rebellious brother Pangeran Alit made a pact with the ulamas to overthrown him, without hesitancy gathered 6,000 ulamas along with their families in “alun-alun”. Then with a cue from a blast of cannon, the massacre began. In 30 minutes all what left were headless bodies. The king and his family had cunningly made themselves unavailable in the palace at that day to avoid repercussion. The day after he came back, he was furious (only an act, by the way) and called few ulamas who survived the massacre. He accused them responsible for the massacre and, when they did not relent, tortured them until they confessed. He killed them anyway, along with their families.
Provoking the ulamas was unprecedented and a dangerous thing to do since ulamas had strong bond with the people. That massacre proved to be the seed of Amangkurat’s downfall later on. But Amangkurat I did it anyway, for the sake of maintaining his power and because he had to show the people that he still held absolute power. While from the point of real-politik this thing was somewhat justified, can you justify the following cruelty?
Amangkurat I had a son, Pangeran Tejaningrat which also known as Adipati Anom. He sent his son to a sort of boarding school. In this boarding school Adipati Anom met a beautiful girl in the name of Larah Hoyi and they fell in love. Unfortunately Larah Hoyi was also a designated concubine for Amangkurat I. Hearing the love affair, Amangkurat I called Adipati Anom back to the palace, and asked him as an act of loyalty to kill Larah Hoyi. Adipati Anom desolatedly obeyed, and Amangkurat I successfully gained one more enemy, a strong one this time.
Later, Adipati Anom joined the Madurese rebel Trunajaya in the almost successful attempt to overthrown Amangkurat I. In 1677 Amangkurat I, a sick old man, died in obscurity when he was fleeing from the rebellions, far from the palace. Adipati Anom replacing him as Amangkurat II, turned his back on Trunajaya and together with VOC captured and killed him. He asked his aides to mutilate Trunajaya and ate his heart and liver as an act of loyalty. Violent reign ended violently.
Yes, some of those accounts were actually coming from the Dutch which—-as all colonialists do-—purposely twisted the image of native people to justify their position. But there are truths in the stories, especially for some coming from Babad Tanah Jawi, the official palace history. Hence we can see that violence, for whatever reasons have been carried out by ourselves for centuries. It was a myth that we were a peace-loving people, it still is. Ever optimistic though, the morale of the story seems to be: don’t glorify your past (or lineage on that matter), and learn from the mistakes instead.
***
But then again, it’s not a unique period in our history. Ours is a long record of violence. For you Javanese with royal ancestry, just remember that you can track back your lineage to Ken Arok. Who was he? A common thug who rose to the throne through series of murders, and died because he was killed himself.
And down the line, there’s Amangkurat I, the successor of the mighty Mataram’s king Sultan Agung Hanyokrokusumo. But Amangkurat is the flip side of a coin. While Sultan Agung fought VOC all his life, Amangkurat I befriended them. If Sultan Agung remembered as the one who brought pax javanica, Amangkurat I was notorious for ruining his father's legacy. Whereas Sultan Agung ruled in a (relatively) just manner, Amangkurat I was a paranoid megalomaniac who didn’t hesitate to kill his own wife. If he could kill his own immediate family, what about his subjects then? Let’s elaborate further.
The sources of this piece came from various online sites, you can google it easily. I have books on Java’s history as well, but I left all of them in Jakarta, so I could not consult them. Mind you, this is only a popular history, mostly accurate but not reliable for scientific purpose.
Amangkurat I was one of the numerous offsprings of Sultan Agung. Being the oldest son from the principal wife, he was chosen as the crown-prince. While his father was busily fighting VOC in Batavia, he was raised in luxury inside the keraton.
The nature of the rivalry between Mataram and VOC was actually trade. Mataram was a strong agricultural kingdom, but as the bulk of its territory laid deep inland it was still a minow in the trading business, unlike coastal kingdoms such as Aceh and Makassar also Sriwijaya and Demak earlier. Mataram’s trade through its ports in Cirebon and Tegal were further weakened by VOC control of Batavia. Hence the attacks in 1628 and 1629.
The attacks were fruitless as VOC under J.P. Coen survived the siege and continue controlled the trade network from the relatively undisturbed sea route. Sultan Agung then put an embargo on VOC, prohibited its vassals to trade with it. But the decision backfired, as the already weakened trade channel was choked by the embargo. On top of that the wars waged against VOC were costly. Thus, by the time Amangkurat I rose to the throne in 1645 he inherited an almost empty coffer. Mataram was still rich mind you, but not as strong as under Sultan Agung previously. With limited treasury it could not afford to wage war against VOC, or even to keep its vassals within its territory. Mismanagement by this incompetent ruler adding to the problem.
If you can’t beat them join them. Maybe that’s what Amangkurat thought when he was about to cooperate with VOC. In all objectivity, this was a logical thing to do. Rather than spending time, money and resources fighting a stronger opponent, it’s better to make peace and do business with it. At the same time Amangkurat I could use VOC's hand to crush rebellious vassals trying to set themselves free from Mataram.
Logical indeed, but unfortunately Amangkurat was not strong enough, neither diplomatically shrewd enough. The military aids from VOC came with a cost: concession of Mataram’s territory if not its trade network. VOC’s modus operandi is well studied now; it was to gain monopoly of trade routes in exchange for military or financial aids. Two kingdoms in dispute, intrict around the throne, and rebellious vassals were its favourite.
Against this backdrop—-pressure from work and overshadowed by an all powerful father’s image-—is it any wonder Amangkurat I became a paranoid? Maybe not. And his cruelty is not totally unique either, compared with his fellow local kings or even other kings from distant countries in Europe and Asia. What made him unique is his capacity to crush the ulamas, the religious leaders in the community. Up until then, religious leaders had always had strong position in the palace politics. Hindu, Buddha and Islamic kingdoms in Indonesia had put so much confidence, even regularly consulted the religious leaders for day-to-day business of running the kingdom.
But this king, after hearing a rumor that his rebellious brother Pangeran Alit made a pact with the ulamas to overthrown him, without hesitancy gathered 6,000 ulamas along with their families in “alun-alun”. Then with a cue from a blast of cannon, the massacre began. In 30 minutes all what left were headless bodies. The king and his family had cunningly made themselves unavailable in the palace at that day to avoid repercussion. The day after he came back, he was furious (only an act, by the way) and called few ulamas who survived the massacre. He accused them responsible for the massacre and, when they did not relent, tortured them until they confessed. He killed them anyway, along with their families.
Provoking the ulamas was unprecedented and a dangerous thing to do since ulamas had strong bond with the people. That massacre proved to be the seed of Amangkurat’s downfall later on. But Amangkurat I did it anyway, for the sake of maintaining his power and because he had to show the people that he still held absolute power. While from the point of real-politik this thing was somewhat justified, can you justify the following cruelty?
Amangkurat I had a son, Pangeran Tejaningrat which also known as Adipati Anom. He sent his son to a sort of boarding school. In this boarding school Adipati Anom met a beautiful girl in the name of Larah Hoyi and they fell in love. Unfortunately Larah Hoyi was also a designated concubine for Amangkurat I. Hearing the love affair, Amangkurat I called Adipati Anom back to the palace, and asked him as an act of loyalty to kill Larah Hoyi. Adipati Anom desolatedly obeyed, and Amangkurat I successfully gained one more enemy, a strong one this time.
Later, Adipati Anom joined the Madurese rebel Trunajaya in the almost successful attempt to overthrown Amangkurat I. In 1677 Amangkurat I, a sick old man, died in obscurity when he was fleeing from the rebellions, far from the palace. Adipati Anom replacing him as Amangkurat II, turned his back on Trunajaya and together with VOC captured and killed him. He asked his aides to mutilate Trunajaya and ate his heart and liver as an act of loyalty. Violent reign ended violently.
Yes, some of those accounts were actually coming from the Dutch which—-as all colonialists do-—purposely twisted the image of native people to justify their position. But there are truths in the stories, especially for some coming from Babad Tanah Jawi, the official palace history. Hence we can see that violence, for whatever reasons have been carried out by ourselves for centuries. It was a myth that we were a peace-loving people, it still is. Ever optimistic though, the morale of the story seems to be: don’t glorify your past (or lineage on that matter), and learn from the mistakes instead.
***
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
The Sukhoi in the Hangar
Welcome to Hasanuddin Airport, Makasar. This airport is actually owned by Indonesian Air Force, that’s why there are Sukhoi fighters in the hangar over there. But Perum Angkasa Pura rent some part of the airport from the Air Force, to service civil transportation. Does it mean the money goes to the military? Military do business in this post Orba era?My friend, don’t be too skeptical. Put it this way: I know so many satpams paid better than the sergeants in the service, and we know it doesn’t sound right. They risk their life daily to protect us civilian, so I guess it’s okay to earn a little pocket money right? Just look at those Sukhoi, they’re going to patrol our territory and protecting us from invaders...
What did you say? They are pitifully armed, if not nothing at all? No money to buy the missiles? Ah but not too worry. Look at those Sukhoi fighters, look closely. You’re intimidated right? That’s because all jet fighters are designed to look menacing. Imagine yourself as the invaders, confronted by those Sukhoi up there in the sky. Armed or not armed, I guarantee you’ll be running for your life the moment you catch sight of those things flying toward you...
Come again? They’re rarely flown? Not enough budget for the fuel? But… well come to think of it we don’t even need to fly them. It’s part of an ingenious plan. You see, we just have to leak the news to the potential invaders (say Malaysia for instance; they’ve robbed us an island!) that a squadron of Sukhoi is stationed here in Hasanuddin airport. Not a full squadron you say? Only 4 actually? Doesn't matter. They will surely get curious and send a spy here to get information. Once they have the info confirmed, they will be frightened knowing we have a squadron of--excuse me--4 Sukhoi fighters and cancel the plan to attack us all together. A very cost efficient way to stop any invasion. I’ve told you: simply ingenious, nobody can come up with such plan.
What if they know they are not armed and rarely flown? Well, who could have that information, you silly. It’s classified, top secret, not a single soul except the top brass in our Air Force know that...and probably some people in government...and us. Hmmm. But again, we won’t share that information with other parties, will you? We, after all, love our dear country, no reason to leak that information.
This country protects us, the military is reliable what else do we need? A little pocket money for the military is still justified. It’s peanut, nothing compared with the protection they give us. With the money they can buy the much needed missiles, fuels and...err...I guess it’s better to stop here.
What? I can’t hear you. No. That’s enough. I don’t need you to differ. No, I don’t need your opinion, you annoying brat. Don’t pester me with stupid questions; I’ll report you for leaking out classified information.
***
Monday, October 09, 2006
Words
Just hate myself for being so cranky today. I guess all of this pressure from work, the exhausting long trip and annoying smog (yes smoke and fog, in Kalimantan now) finally took its toll. Yeah right, lame excuses. Blame it on the weather. As if it justifies being mad to someone over trivial matter.
It’s neither necessary nor productive. Come to think of it, I even took some moments to consider before saying those darn words. It wasn't an uncontrollable-in-the-heat-of-the-moment kind of rage. More like I wanted to, intended to, aggravate someone with those words. My better judgment has eluded me. Hell, I even knew that it might be just a silly misunderstanding. And you know what: it actually was. It’s meaningless, simply meaningless.
I was sorry, and still am, but too proud to openly say that. Now what? Damage check: one ruined relationship, at least one troubled mind, this guilty feeling and a mountain to climb to fix that damage, or whatever left from it. All is a result of less than 20 words. I’m pretty dexterous with words, but no idea I’m that talented. Great, just great…
***
It’s neither necessary nor productive. Come to think of it, I even took some moments to consider before saying those darn words. It wasn't an uncontrollable-in-the-heat-of-the-moment kind of rage. More like I wanted to, intended to, aggravate someone with those words. My better judgment has eluded me. Hell, I even knew that it might be just a silly misunderstanding. And you know what: it actually was. It’s meaningless, simply meaningless.
I was sorry, and still am, but too proud to openly say that. Now what? Damage check: one ruined relationship, at least one troubled mind, this guilty feeling and a mountain to climb to fix that damage, or whatever left from it. All is a result of less than 20 words. I’m pretty dexterous with words, but no idea I’m that talented. Great, just great…
***
Saturday, October 07, 2006
Et Tu Keira?
Oh Keira why do you have to be anorexic? I used to admire you, as an independent soul, different, very much on your own, which placed you above all those mindless (so-called) beauties. But now this look? You have betrayed us and insult our intelligence. Not because you’re being skinnier, but because falling for this silly convention that beauty equals less body fat. Et tu Keira?And here’s a piece from TIME October 2, about the undernourished look that has became the standard among female models / celebrities. Don’t blame the models, they just workers it says, blame the designers! Why do they have to create apparels such as micro skirts, skinny pants et cetera which only fits skinny shape?
No, no my friend, blame us the society for being easily fooled by those fashion czars. We have let ourselves become the victim of the fashion establishment. We crave for the ideal shape and smirk when the models look a bit too curvy. The fashion czars can come up with anything in their minds, but it is us the consumers who should have the final say. Yes, we are bombarded by that preconceived ideal images through various media which besiege us, but we should not give in! Oh Keira, you used to be the torch-bearer in this holy quest, you showed us the way. But now you let us fight alone, it’s too cruel...
***
By the way, I lost 2 kilos during this fasting month. Do you notice?
Thursday, October 05, 2006
The Root of the Matters
Found this interesting post from my friend's blog. I hope nobody mind I re-posted it here along with my comments. I don’t want to say that it is right or wrong, in fact for matters of faith, believe, religion and god you can’t be logically right or wrong. You can only believe. But if you allow me to differ, here’s my opinion. It's started actually with simple question, that with so many religious conflicts, what's in God's mind really? Then came these answers:
The essence of evolution is actually adaptation, survival of the fittest. Following this line of thought then, older imperfect religions must cease to exist because their changed environment won’t allow them to, and give way to more improved ones. They can not live hand-by-hand. Contrarily we can see all around us that the majority of followers of older religions live (at least by their own definition) perfectly happy. They have no need to ‘upgrade’ their faith.
However, this line of thought (evolution of religion) is not totally unique. Nietzche for instance, had used the same argument when he announced the “Death of God”. Human has evolved and at the latest state they can rely perfectly in their logical thinking. Hence no need for God or religion for moral guardian. Free yourself from moral norms and you can be an “Ubbermensch”. Talking about dangerous mind...
Hence I don’t think that evolution of religion can really explain the co-existence of various religions currently. Maybe, it’s more related with marketing strategy. Yes, segmentation. As society evolves different needs emerge. At first you only have one type of automobile—say 4-seats-sedan for argument sake. But then you have needs for different transportation activities, hence buses, trucks, family-car etc. The models might be improved (i.e. Kijang Kapsul, Kijang Innova) but the types remain. There’s no perfect or imperfect here, only different type for different needs, thus they can co-exist.
This is comparable with companies or business entities that set their objective as market-share driven, margin driven et cetera. No matter what your objective is, you should compete legally, within set of rules we had agreed upon. Otherwise none of us can reach our objectives. To force others following our objectives is totally useless, might be illegal and thus counter-productive. Imagine those who set up their companies with an objective of forcing others to follow their way. This is laughable and that people can be considered as deranged. But yes, like business consultants, you can set your objective as persuading other companies to follow your way. To do this however, you have to be invited.
All in all, this concludes that matters of faith, believe, religion and God are personal. Conflicts usually arise because erroneous believe that those matters should be organized in one way or universally fashioned—if you may. Let others live their life in ways they think fit their needs. As long as ones’ believe don’t interfere with others’ we should be all right. Sounds simple but as we have seen daily in this sick world: not easy to be achieved.
So as Captain Spock says: may you live long and prosper my brothers. That’s the Vulcans’ objective by the way...
***
It starts with one question. Do you believe life (eternal life) after death? If you believe it then you become a follower of a religion. If not you are an atheist. A religion is a way / tool to achieve the ultimate objective i.e having God’s love in the eternal life after death in heaven.Let’s suppose that God created all religions. By definition God must be an all-powerful-perfect-being. If God is perfect than God can make no mistake. Then why God created imperfect religions at the first place (a mistake) only to replace them with a more perfect one? That’s the analogy about Windows was all about right? A continuous process of improving things.
First question: Why are there so many religions? Simple analogy: Why does Bill Gates make so many Windows versions? If we ignore the commercial reasons the other reason left was for IMPROVEMENT. So did in the religion. Religion was being evolutionised and improved until last version of religion which is the final and ultimate improvement. Just like Windows they kept improved and made corrections if some bugs exist. The last religion is the improvement and correction to previous ones.
The essence of evolution is actually adaptation, survival of the fittest. Following this line of thought then, older imperfect religions must cease to exist because their changed environment won’t allow them to, and give way to more improved ones. They can not live hand-by-hand. Contrarily we can see all around us that the majority of followers of older religions live (at least by their own definition) perfectly happy. They have no need to ‘upgrade’ their faith.
However, this line of thought (evolution of religion) is not totally unique. Nietzche for instance, had used the same argument when he announced the “Death of God”. Human has evolved and at the latest state they can rely perfectly in their logical thinking. Hence no need for God or religion for moral guardian. Free yourself from moral norms and you can be an “Ubbermensch”. Talking about dangerous mind...
Hence I don’t think that evolution of religion can really explain the co-existence of various religions currently. Maybe, it’s more related with marketing strategy. Yes, segmentation. As society evolves different needs emerge. At first you only have one type of automobile—say 4-seats-sedan for argument sake. But then you have needs for different transportation activities, hence buses, trucks, family-car etc. The models might be improved (i.e. Kijang Kapsul, Kijang Innova) but the types remain. There’s no perfect or imperfect here, only different type for different needs, thus they can co-exist.
Logically it follows then, that it’s irrelevant to say bus is better than sedan as they cater for different needs. This is the answer for question 2: why there are conflicts among religions. I then, tend to agree with the answers given earlier. Some die-hard jeep-owners-club might think that their type of vehicle is the best. This is an erroneous statement since you may say that jeep is not ideal for those who prefer cleaner-more-fuel-efficient vehicle et ceteraSecond question: Why do religions make conflicts? A lot of followers (may be majority) think that:
(1) his / her religion is the only correct one, others are wrong
(2) everybody in the world must follow my religion, if not they are enemy
(3) I have to safe all people in the earth so they must follow me
(4) My religion is majority, the minority is wrong
That followers forget:(1) religion is not a God. A religion is a way / tool that we must believe can guide as to arrive safely in heaven
(2) God creates mankind : as God's representative on the earth which must bring peace and happiness to the earth (not only human but also animals etc)
Third question: Why are there heaven and hell? Some analogy:I agree with the answer that after-life is an objective, hence: heaven and hell. And it follows that our objectives drive the way we live our life. But to say that this is the ONLY objective might undermine other alternatives. Others for instance, may say that life in itself is an objective. Their objective is then to live life the fullest. Their definition of success then, is limited to this life only. Those who believe on heaven and hell seem to set their objective longer than they do, but this should be fine as each of us can not force others to follow our objectives and our definition of success. Why?
(1) Like a travel we have to have destination
(2) Like a business, we have to have business objectives
(3) Like human resource management: there are rewards and punishments
Can you imagine life without objective? We’ll go nowhere! And you will say: Look at Russian and Chinese people. They don’t believe in God, but they are successful (at least compared to Indonesia). They actually make the religion by themselves. Country is like a religion for them.
This is comparable with companies or business entities that set their objective as market-share driven, margin driven et cetera. No matter what your objective is, you should compete legally, within set of rules we had agreed upon. Otherwise none of us can reach our objectives. To force others following our objectives is totally useless, might be illegal and thus counter-productive. Imagine those who set up their companies with an objective of forcing others to follow their way. This is laughable and that people can be considered as deranged. But yes, like business consultants, you can set your objective as persuading other companies to follow your way. To do this however, you have to be invited.
Last question: Why do we make mistakes? Oh yes, we are not angels. Human do make mistakes. But we have ‘user manual’ as our guidance. And God is merciful. So is natural that we make ‘unintended mistakes’ and then ask forgiveness to God. One thing we must not do: to do mistakes / sins that we have already know that they are definitely mistakes / sins.Again, I agree with this. Apparently that’s all we do. Make mistakes after mistakes after mistakes... That’s fine I guess, as long as your mistakes don’t interfere with my effort to reach my objectives. That’s punishable by laws or norms—game rules we’d agreed upon.
All in all, this concludes that matters of faith, believe, religion and God are personal. Conflicts usually arise because erroneous believe that those matters should be organized in one way or universally fashioned—if you may. Let others live their life in ways they think fit their needs. As long as ones’ believe don’t interfere with others’ we should be all right. Sounds simple but as we have seen daily in this sick world: not easy to be achieved.
So as Captain Spock says: may you live long and prosper my brothers. That’s the Vulcans’ objective by the way...
***
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)