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.

***