Majapahit – the _

[1227] Of from Palembang to Trowulan, to Pagar Ruyung and Seri Menanti, Adityavarman calls out

Srivijaya was great but it was not the only empires or kingdoms that impacted Malay or Malaysian history. Despite the perception that nothing important occurred before the coming of Islam to Southeast Asia and the Sultanate of Malacca, there were a number of kingdoms that flourished thanks to trade. We know this through Malay, Chinese, Indian, Arab and sometimes even European records. One of the kingdoms, as a reader shared his thought with me earlier through email, was a kingdom founded by Adityavarman.

By the 13th century, Srivijaya succumbed to various external and internal threats and changes. All was left in the 14th century were disparated Malay states, each claiming to be the successor of Srivijaya. In Malaysia, places such Subang Jaya, Petaling Jaya, Nusajaya and Putrajaya remind me of the radiant victory, which is what Srivijaya means in Malay, and auspicious victory in Sanskrit.

The Hindu kingdom of Singhasari, the predecessor of Majapahit, conquered the last vestige of Srivijaya, Jambi or the Malayu (Malayu-Jambi; I am unsure if the spelling is Malayu or Melayu but the difference is superficial for both refer to the same entity) in the 13th century, ending a Malay golden age that was only to be reignited in form of Malacca two centuries later. Singhasari fell to the Mongol along with its holding of southern Sumatra at the end of the 13th century. The Mongol was then defeated by Raden Wijaya, the founder of the most celebrated Javanese empire in history, Majapahit, not too long later. That is the last time Mongol forces ever set foot in Southeast Asia.

During that era, southern Sumatra under the leadership of Malayu-Jambi experienced short period of independence though the dream of reliving the story of Srivijaya was beyond its means. Matters of survival received greater attention than matters of glory. The Javanese Majapahit, after getting its house in order, finally asserted proper control over Malayu and the rest of southern Sumatra in 1347.

Under Srivijaya, the Javanese, did not like to live under the Malays. Under Majapahit, the Malays likewise. After the conquest, Gajah Mada, the designer of the conquest, the prime minister of Majapahit under the reign of Hayam Wuruk, needed somebody that could be accepted by the people of southern Sumatra. And thus, Gajah Mada sent Adityavarman, a half-Malay, half-Javanese prince as a sort of governor of Malayu Jambi.

Gajah Mada however misplaced his trust. Indeed, the Malays accepted Adityavarman except that the acceptance was beyond what the Javanese prime minister had imagined. After successfully gaining the support of the Malays, Adityavarman revoked this allegience to Majapahit and established an independent state of Jambi. Fearing Majapahit reprisal, he transferred his capital from Jambi near the mouth of Batang Hari river to upstream at a place Malayupura in the Tanah Datar. Tanah Datar is located in the modern day Indonesian province of West Sumatra, home of the Minangkabau. Malayupura (probably means city of the Malay in Sanskrit, if Singapura means city of lions) was located close to Pagar Ruyung, the center of Minangkabau culture. To make it clear, Adityavarman founded the kingdom of Pagar Ruyung.

By Thomas Lehmkuhl. Public domain. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Adityawarman.jpg

A statue of Adityavarman at the National Museum of Indonesia. Photo by Thomas Lehmkuhl. Public domain.

Despite finding the kingdom, Adityavarman’s Buddhist belief clashed with local practice. Further, the difference between the local egalitarian governance and the Malay aristocratic model enhanced the conflict. Before the century came to past, the kingdom varnished from history record due to the differences. The culture however remains to this day.

Pagar Ruyung is of course, is closely related to the Malaysian state of Negeri Sembilan, where culture is remarkable different from other modern Malay states of Malaysia. I am interested in its history at the moment, not culture. So, I shall not digress.

In the 15th century when the part of former Srivijayan holding of Sumatra and the Malay Peninsula came under the control of Islamic Malay Malacca, Minangkabaus started to migrate to modern day Negeri Sembilan. Islam rose to prominence under Malacca and the Minangkabaus, linked to Adityavarman, became Muslims along with other Malays. In the 18th century, the area came to the rightful successor of Malacca, the Sultanate of Johor-Riau Empire. The Malay of Johor however was busy holding the Bugis influence at bay and so, the Minangkabaus had to rely to someone instead of Johor. Who is our leader now, I would presume they had asked. They looked around and turned their attention to their ancestral origin, Pagar Ruyung.

While knowing full well that their origin was unislamic, they knew that history is above petty differences that religious conservatives nowadays harp on. The Minangkabaus of that time were not afraid of history. Those that fear history are only those that have something to hide: “berani kerana benar, takut kerana salah.”

From Pagar Ruyung, Raja Melewar was appointed as the the first Yamtuan Besar (basically, king) of the Minangkabaus with consent of the sultan of Johor in 1773. With that, home of the new ruler, Seri Menanti, replaced Pagar Ruyung as the center of Minangkabau culture on the Malay Peninsula. And the unique Malaysian state of Negeri Sembilan was born. I was there at the palace ground earlier this year, celebrating history, knowing full well, Adityavarman had a hand on that particular night, knowing full well, short of going to Pagar Ruyung, that night was possibly the closest I would ever be to the half-Malay, half-Javanese prince that defied Gajah Mada and Hayam Wuruk.

This proves that Malaysian history, at minimum, the history of Negeri Sembilan, goes beyond the Sultanate of Malacca. And thus, this further strengthens the truth that Malaysian history, and Malay history, goes beyond Malacca.

How many Malaysians know this? How many of us tried to suppress part of our history?

[1221] Of re: why Malacca but not Srivijaya?

My post on Srivijaya hit a nerve. Specifically, somebody called Menj! Oh, Rajan, come to my aid please! LOL!

The best thing is, while he is calling me as an idiot economist from a third rated university and all, he mistook Srivijaya as Majapahit. I had problem understanding his objection — it did not make sense at all — until I realize, the “Srivijaya” he was referring to oddly has the same timeline as Majapahit. Majapahit that existed between the 13th and the 16th century while Srivijaya was founded between 3rd and 6th century and ended before the 14th century. Menj kept harping on what had happened between 13th and the 16th century when in fact, many history books do not talk about Srivijaya when dealing with that era.

For instance, Demak had never attacked Srivijaya. Such attack never occurred because both states had never met each other. Demak came to being more than 200 years after Srivijaya finally collapsed after Majapahit conquered Palembang (and Jambi too). Demak did conquered Majapahit however.

Further, the capital of Srivijaya was located (mostly; it shifted several time because of attack from Rajaraja of Chola and Majapahit) on Sumatra. But Majapahit’s capital was located on Java from the start to the end.

Another example of misaligned timeline by Menj concerns Pasai and Perlak. Menj said both sultanates existed before Srivijaya. Au contraire, the places called Pasai and Perlak were firmly within the realm of Srivijaya at least till the 13th century. To make it clearer, the sultanates of Pasai and Perlak existed after Srivijaya’s peak (or even end).

The best thing is, when Srivijaya was in power, Islam had not arrived yet. When Majapahit was in power, Islam had indeed arrived. The buzz word was Hinduism and Buddhism. Islam was mostly irrelevant in the powerplay.

So, could he have misattributed Srivijaya as Majapahit?

LOL! Most definitely.

Lesson: stop calling people idiot and start looking in the mirror. Think before you speak.

Checkmate.

For those that are interested more about at least two of the most powerful empires in maritime Southeast Asia history, read Srivijaya (guess who wrote that?) and Majapahit at Wikipedia. Or alternatively, a good book to start with is Early Kingdoms of the Indonesian Archipelago and Malay Peninsula by Paul Michel Munoz.

Since he has a reputation of removing his post after being caught for committing folly, I am reproducing his post here and keeping a screenshot:

A majority of Malaysian historians have accepted the fact that the Malaccan Sultanate (14th to 16th century CE) is pretty much the sine qua non the starting point of where Malaysian history begins, since the rise of Malacca was the Golden Age of the Nusantara region in not only socio-political terms, but also in terms of education, art, sciences and philosophy. Malacca was not the first place to receive Islam in the region (see S.Q. Fatimi, How Did Islam Came To Malaysia?) but nonetheless it has been equated with modern-day Malaysia, particularly because we still have descendents of the Malacca Sultanate in the modern-day monarchy of Perak. Since Malacca was the first place where the Muslim Malays actually formed a viable and self-sustaining government, it is often referred to as the starting point for modern Malaysian history.

However some Islam liberals, like this low-class American university economist, try to question this unique status of Malacca. The reason is because they seem to think that the previous Majapahit and Srivijaya empires were a more viable starting point of reference to determine the religious culture of the Malaysian Muslims. Here we shall look at their arguments and refute it point by point, insha’allah.

Argument 1:

While Malacca was a great empire, a greater civilization was Srivijaya. 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.

I wonder on what criteria was this based on? The so-called “greater civilization [that] was Srivijaya” was eventually overrun by the neighbouring country of Demak. Demak, by the way, was an Islamic sultanate.

Argument 2:

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 larger than that of Malacca or even of Malaysia.

The capital of Srivijaya was in Java Island, a remote place with not even any resemblance of culture to the Malays of the Peninsula. Mentioning their place in history was not ignored but It is like claiming that since the Crusader kingdoms [that was not established until after the First Crusades] were not given its proper due in Islamic history, therefore it means that these kingdoms are “greater” than the later Ayyubid Sultanates or the Ottomon Caliphate.

But what are the significant Srivijayan contributions to the Nusantara culture? What philosophical or cultural advancements had this “greater civilisation” provide that we can speak of today? Our liberal idiot does not make mention at all! He is simply uncomfortable with the fact that “the Malacca effect” was so emcompassing that his forefathers reverted to Islam many centuries ago and today, he is a Muslim instead of remaining as a Hindu!

Argument 3:

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 started with Malacca and further pushed Srivijaya into that one book in a section of a library that nobody goes.

This has to be the silliest of all arguments thus far. One can simply go to the library and pick up the works that are replete with information on the subject. Refer to, for example, S.Q. Fatimi’s How Did Islam Come to Malaysia? (a monograph by the MSRI, published in 1978 if memory serves me correctly) where she makes mention of the Islamic Sultanates of Perlak and Pasai (in modern-day Acheh). Syed Muhammad al-Naquib al-Attas had also discussed this subject briefly in Islam and Secularism (published by ABIM, 1979) and he has a monograph on the subject as well. Perhaps the economist should go out of his shell once in a while and read up a bit before talking about the subject.

Argument 4:

Srivijaya, despite its status, was only discovered by historians in the early 20th century. That was the times when vehicles were powered by steam engines.

And where is the reference for this? Reference, reference, reference! Do not make sweeping statements without backing them up!

Argument 5:

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.

And before Srivijaya there were the Islamic Sultanates of Perlak and Pasai and Champa. Perhaps we should say Srivijaya was a “successor” of these civilisations as well!

Argument 5:

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

Likewise we should ask the liberal the same question: Something must explain this bias that sides with Srivijaya. Could it be caused by religion? [Critical Thoughts. May 15 2007]

I appreciate a good debate on history but the way Menj handles it adds nothing of value.