Categories
History & heritage

[1219] Of why Malacca but not Srivijaya?

A majority of Malays are content to look only as far as the Sultanate of Malacca in the 15th and the 16th century, apparently accepting the era as the golden age of ancient, classical or medieval Malay civilization. Thanks to the education I received through the Malaysian system, I had the same perception too and I do think even Malaysians as a society in one way or another accept Malacca was the greatest civilization in ancient, classical or medieval Malaysian history. My love for history has allowed me to delve far beyond Malaysian textbooks. While Malacca was a great empire, a greater civilization was Srivijaya, an empire that was almost forgotten. I truly believe that Srivijaya was that brilliant light that stayed bright from nearly a millennium. Malacca was a just spark, though brilliant as it may be.

The Malaysian education system fails to give Srivijaya the respect it deserves. So many Malaysian textbook pages concentrate on Malacca and successive minor Malay states but ignored that one large Malay empire that spanned from the Isthmus of Kra all the way down to Central Java and, at one point in time, even the banks of the Mekong. Admittedly, Srivijayan border was porous unlike modern states but its sphere of influence was far wider than that of Malacca or even of Malaysia.

Perhaps part of the reason why the Malays stress so much on Malacca is the fact that so little information is known about Malay history earlier than the 14th century. Relatively modern Malays have been so ingrained with the notion that their history starts with Malacca. That misconception pushes Srivijaya into that one book in a section of a library that nobody goes to.

Srivijaya, despite its status, was only discovered by historians in the early 20th century. The reason why it was so easy to overlook Srivijaya’s existence is the material used for Srivijayan architecture; many of Srivijayan structures were made out of wood. In harsh tropical climate, wood would not last for too long, definitely not for one thousand years. Malacca itself did not leave too much behind to be marveled at by tourists and so, one could not hope too much for Srivijaya. The rain and the sun conspired to erase a chapter of a history book, hushing Srivijaya from history to myth to total obscurity.

That does not mean Srivijaya failed to leave its mark in history. The Sailendra, under the auspice of the Srivijayan Emperor Samaratunga, constructed the Borobudur which still stands today in the middle of Java. But even that monument was only rediscovered in the 19th century by Stamford Raffles. As for the Sailendra, the East Javanese pushed them out of central Java, causing the Srivijayan ally to migrate to the west and built a new hope under the protection of Srivijaya. The royal court of Sailendra was finally eliminated by Srivijayan Emperor Culamanivarmadeva after the Sailendra betrayed the emperor. That act led to the loss to Srivijayan capital, Palembang, to the East Javanese in the early 11th century. Palembang was reconquered by Culamanivarmadeva but by that time, Srivijaya had gone over its hill. It was dusk time.

Notice the names? Yes. The Malays were Hindus then. And Buddhists, and animists, despite whatever the religious conservatives might assert, despite how our history is being rewritten by those that have no respect for truth.

The Sultanate of Malacca itself was founded by an heir to the Srivijayan throne. The struggle between the Malays and the Javanese continued well into the 14th century and sometimes by the late 1300s, Parameswara, a Malay Srivijaya prince, fled Sumatra when Majapahit finally crushed the last remnant of a Malay empire that started humbly by the Musi River.

In a way, Malacca was the successor of the glorious Srivijaya. If Malacca could be seen as a sultanate that later led to Malaya and Malaysia, then Srivijaya could be seen as such as well.

While I was in Bangkok, I visited some of the museums there. It is truly sad to find out that the Thais are more appreciative of the Malay empire than the Malays and Malaysians in Malaysia themselves. Perhaps, that could be explained by the presence of Srivijayan temples, biaras, in Thailand, reminding the Thais of an empire long ago. In Malaysia, almost nothing.

Almost nothing but the Bujang Valley which was under the control of Old Kedah, a state within the realm of Srivijaya. Is it not odd that Bujang Valley, itself being far richer in historical terms, has been outshone by relatively young ruins (if it could be called as such) of Malacca?

Something must explain this bias that sides with Malacca. Could it be religion?

Categories
History & heritage Humor

[1204] Of Joshua Abraham Norton, the emperor of USA

I am off to somewhere but before that, I wish to share the wonder of Wikipedia. Presenting to you, Joshua, Abraham Norton, the emperor of the United States of America:

Joshua Abraham Norton (c. 1819 — January 8, 1880), also known as His Imperial Majesty Emperor Norton I, was a celebrated citizen of San Francisco, California who, in 1859, proclaimed himself “Emperor of these United States” and later “Protector of Mexico”. Born of Jewish origin in London, England, Norton spent most of his early life in South Africa, and emigrated to San Francisco in 1849 after receiving a bequest from his father’s estate. Norton initially made a living as a businessman, but he lost his fortune in a business transaction involving Peruvian rice. After losing a lawsuit in which he tried to void his business contract, Norton left San Francisco and apparently lost his mental balance. He returned a few years later as an eccentric man, claiming to be the self-appointed emperor of the United States. Although he had no political power, and his influence extended only so far as he was humored by those around him, he was treated deferentially in San Francisco, and currency issued in his name was honored in the establishments he frequented. Norton also proposed marriage to Queen Victoria, and he was referred to as His Imperial Majesty by local citizens and in the newspaper obituaries announcing his death.

Though he was considered insane, or at least highly eccentric, the citizens of San Francisco celebrated his presence, his humor, and his deeds—among the most notorious being his “order” that the United States Congress be dissolved by force (which Congress and the U.S. Army ignored), and his numerous (some claim prophetic) decrees calling for a bridge and a tunnel to be built across San Francisco Bay. [Joshua A. Norton. Wikipedia. 3 May 2007]

Heh.

Categories
Economics History & heritage

[1146] Of globalization is not new

Globalization is loved and loathed by so many people for so many reasons. Too many people however seem to talk as if globalization is a modern phenomenon. This is understandable given that it is only around the 1990s that many started to recognize the forces of globalization. The Battle of Seattle in 1999 especially brought aspects of globalization into public consciousness. On the contrary, globalization is not a recent invention; only the word is. The phenomenon itself could be observed from dawn of time right here in Southeast Asia, and everywhere else around the world.

The late 20th century has been characterized as a century of trade. So many Asian countries had, and still are, directly benefiting from trade. The Asian tigers built their economies around trade and that later became a template for economic growth. From this perspective, globalization is increased economic connectivity, perhaps, synonymous to free trade. While we as a species have never been closer to each other, globalization has been true even before we, the current generation, came into being.

The previous era of intense globalization was during the Pax Britannica in the 19th century and to a certain extent, the early 20th century. Trade within and without the British empire was so impressive in volume. Goods flowed so freely between nations that it is possible that those decades were the closest point in history we had ever come close to true free trade. Goods crisscrossed nations with great ease; the only restriction then was technology. The speed at which trade was conducted nevertheless amazed those of that era, with goods as far as Malaya could reach London through the Suez Canal in just a few months when previously, it had taken almost eternity. Despite that, no, the 19th century is not the origin of globalization.

The 17th and the 18th century were another, earlier, bout of globalization. The formation of the Dutch and the British East India Company connected Europe with the world in a greater way. More remarkable is that this century marked the rise of free trade as an ideology, pushing mercantilism out of the deck and to the bottom of the sea. After tearing down the wall of protectionism in Europe, free trade continued its march to the east in search of prosperity, albeit violently, initially.

Back in Southeast Asia in the 15th and the early 16th, the Sultanate of Malacca acted as a broker between the east and the west. So famous was it that Barbarosa said “Whoever is Lord in Malacca has his hand on the throat of Venice“. The wealth Malacca gained from trade, specifically, spice trade, attracted the Portuguese to this part of the world. The fall of Malacca to the Portuguese somewhat halted trade for a moment but it did not take long for trade to reorganize itself to take Malacca out of the equation; others like Aceh took over Malacca’s role as Christianity and Islam brought over their rivalry in the west to the east.

Just as Malacca and Aceh, many kingdoms of Southeast Asia rose and fell with elements of globalization. During its golden age, not only Srivijaya controlled the important Malacca and Sunda Straits as well as land bridge up in the Malay Peninsula — Langkasuka-Kedah and Pan Pan — to monopolize trade while the Silk Road faded into ancient history, it was also the center of Buddhism. In other words, it was an agent of cultural globalization. The great Srivijaya — with Sailendra, the builders of the wonderful Borobudur — only started to experience decline and eventually extinction not because of internal strive but instead, by external forces. The restriction of trade in China and harsh raids conducted by Chola from southern India, Srivijaya had its fate sealed by those that lived thousands of miles away from the Malay Archipelago.

Even before Srivijaya — it existence was only noticed by modern historians more than five centuries after its fall — even before Brutus stabbed Caesar in Rome in 44 BCE, the globalization was apparent. How else would one explain the presence of Chinese silk and Persian rug in Rome and Roman vases in the far east? Or the Moluccas spices on the steps of Genoa? And surely, the introduction of paper-making technology from China to Europe by the Muslims is another proof of globalization.

When the safe passage across the Silk Road was threatened, first by the advancing Persian armies, later the Greeks, then the Mongols and finally, the Chinese struggle during the period of the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, globalization refused to die. Trade diverted itself from land to sea. Mushrooming across the Malay Archipelago, along the coast of eastern Indochina and the banks of Mekong were small kingdoms that suddenly saw the influx of traders and the wealth that come with it. That sudden increase in trade created an economic boom in the region. Each one of them took advantage of the change. That prosperity only ended when China under the Sui dynasty practiced isolationist policy in the 6th and the 7th century. It was a good run for the kingdoms of Southeast Asia regardless, lasting long enough to enrich our history.

We are currently riding another wave of globalization. Our ancestors rode theirs and carved their names in history. If we carefully embrace our wave and not succumb to the fear-mongering protectionists, just as we recall Malacca, Srivijaya, etc as great trading nations, our children would remember, that we lived during an era of unprecedented prosperity.

Categories
History & heritage Politics & government

[1140] Of dead people cannot be liberated

Four years ago, on the other side of the planet, in the free Ann Arbor:

Some rights reserved. By Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams.

Vice President Cheney, roughly six months after the invasion of Iraq:

My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. [Meet The Press with Tim Russert, September 14 2003]

That came from a man that shot somebody in the face, thinking that somebody was a quail.

Categories
History & heritage

[1133] Of heroes of Ides of March

More than 2000 years ago on this day, Ides of March, Brutus along with several Roman senators stabbed Julius Caesar to death, in hope to prevent Rome, a republic, from falling into authoritarianism. The irony is, of course, the act, which was done to preserve democracy, only accelerated Rome’s journey to dictatorship.

So, who is the hero here?

It would depend on how one look at the event.

Intention-wise, Brutus and the senators would be the heroes. Action-wise, there would be no heroes. Morally, a great dilemma; kill and preserve democracy, let live and kill democracy.

It is a tragedy, no more, no less, even if it is a false dilemma.