Tag: Malacca

Categories
History & heritage

[1239] Of discussion on Malacca

From Srivijaya, the discussion moves on to Malacca. Gardam writes:

…I came to study the subject of Sriviyaja/Singapura/Malacca because of a research I did a few years back on Bintan and the Riau archipelago and found it indeed a fascinating subject.

There is in my opinion no doubt that Srivijaya was a far greater civilisation than Malacca. It lasted many centuries as opposed to barely one, it laid the basis of an economic and trade pattern that still defines the region to this day and which Malacca only tried to re-enact. It made the Malay language the lingua franca of South East Asia. Much less known, the Hindu-Buddhist spiritual legacy of Srivijaya is still alive today in Thibetan Buddhism (on that subject you should research the life of the Bengali Buddhist monk Atisha who brought the Srivijayan spiritual knowledge to the Land of Snow in the early 11th century).

And there is no doubt that the consensus in modern Malaysia to take Malacca as the starting point of Malay history exist only for purely religious reasons, to bind it to a Muslim identity which is largely a fabrication. This can be explained if one looks a little more closely at how the transition from Srivijayan heritage to Muslim Malay world took place in Malacca.

To carry on with this subject I am afraid to have first of all to correct you on something you said in the other blog that carries the answer to Menj. Your mistake can easily be explained because you simply repeat what keeps on being said everywhere, that the first “sultan” of Malacca was Parameswara/Iskandar Shah. For a long time this was indeed the version that prevailed, largely based on Wolters’History of Malacca. However more recent researchs, summarised in “the Malay Sultanate of Malacca” by Muhammad Yussoff Hashim (1992), have established that the first Malacca king to convert was the son of Parameswara who had taken the name Iskandar Shah by the time he went to the Ming Court to announce the death of his father in 1414.

The third ruler still had a Srivijayan name and was enthroned as Sri Maharaja. He eventually converted to Islam to become Muhammad Shah in 1436, a conversion told in the Sejarah Melayu as a miraculous event of the boat from Juddah. He is credited with initiating the rise to greatness of Malacca, but according to Ming sources was not yet a “Sultan”.

After two muslim kings ( and again according to foreign sources not yet sultans, this is an important point because they are much more neutral on this subject than the Sejarah Melayu) Raja Ibrahim, son of Muhammad Shah, again reverts to a Srivijayan name and is enthroned as Sri Parameswara Dewa Shah. This probably marks a Hindu/Buddhist reaction in the aristocracy living in the palace of Bertram, further up the Malacca river. He is the son of a princess form Sumatra and of pure Malais aristocratic descent. His half brother, Raja Kassim, is the son of a Tamil common woman, but he has the support of a Tamil faction that enjoys a growing influence in the port.

In 1445 Sri Parameswara II was killed in a coup d’etat by his half-brother who is the first Malacca king to take on the Arabic title of sultan to become Sultan Muzaffar Shah. And it is only under Raja Kassim’s rule that Islam became the state religion of Malacca.So we see that in fact Malacca was truly a Muslim state for barely more than half a century. Of course, later literature such as the many versions of the Sejarah Melayu (and remenber that they were in fact written in the 16-17th century in Riau when the descendants of the Malacca line were trying to boost their prestige) started calling kings of the Malacca line “sultan” all the way back to Temasek (first Iskandar Shah in the supposed grave of Fort Caning), as a way to give a Muslim identity to Malacca as early as possible, a fabrication now so well entrenched that it can hardly ever be corrected.

So why is Malay history today trying so hard to erase the memory of Srivija? Because the full transition from the Srivijayan heritage to an Islamic state in Malacca rests on a coup d’etat, a regicide and a fratricide, and because the first real sultan of Malacca was not a pure Malay aristocrat. Not quite the clean start that many people would like it to be, in particular in regards to the adat of utter respect and obedience to the king on which part of the Malay identity is supposed to rest in the Bumiputra concept. In my opinion this is precisely the reason behind the problem which Mahatir came to define as “the Malay dilema”. There is indeed an untold dilema because most of what defines the Malay identity rest on a lie that Malays can not help but subconciously perceive…

I have yet to read The Malay Sultanate of Malacca by Muhammad Yusoff Hashim. So, I am unable to go back to the source. However, for something less rigorous, do crosscheck with the excellent Sejarah Melayu by Sabri Zain on the internet. In particular, pages entitled Parameswara and The Melaka Empire. Apart from that, I do not think that site requires introduction.

Categories
History & heritage Society

[1225] Of to protect status quo, rewrite history and ignore Srivijaya

In my childhood, there were many intriguing movies that launched my imagination to its wildest limits, challenging preconceptions. One of them was the Neverending Story. Falkor the luckdragon never truly left my imagination, even as I come to appreciate the real world. The Neverending Story is a work of fantasy but the truth is, we all live in a never ending story that is history. The pages of history have been written on and on since the writing exercise first began ages ago, a time long forgotten. To me, embracing history as a whole is an effort to embrace truth. I try so much to learn my own history and that have caused me to stumble against those that would rewrite history for their own gain, denying truth. Malay history has been one of the victims such rewrites.

Explaining such rewriting and denial was the initial reason why I brought up the question of Srivijaya in the first place. I was sidetracked but such digression was temporary as I am proving it here right now. The good thing about the digression is that it proves that there is denial that there was an advanced Malay civilization before Malacca, before Islam became the dominant religion in this region.

The religion of the Malays is of great sensitivity. I am in the opinion that it is not about Islam in particular however. If the Malays were primarily Christians, or Buddhists or members any other belief, the scenario of strong bias towards status quo would be played all the same. I believe that the greatest factor that contributes to the denial of Malay history before Malacca, is not religion per se but is power.

In Malaysia, the constitution defines a Malay as a Muslim. This has allowed the definition of a Malay to be both restricted and widened. It is restricted because non-Muslim Malays are not legally Malays. It is widened because those in the past that would not consider as Malays like Javanese or Indians may now be legally considered as Malays, as long as they are Muslims.

Islam has become a crucial component of Malay culture. In the Malay language, the influence of the language of Islam, Arabic, is easily noticeable. Islam and the culture of Arabs itself are deeply intertwined despite clear differences. This has confused many Malays. The result of that confusion has caused some Malays to identify Arabic culture as Malay, while Malay culture as foreign.

This Islamic identity, or indeed, generally all religions, has always been used to legitimize the power of the day. In the past and even now, the sultans are seen as the ultimate defenders of the faith. So powerful this perception was that even the colonialists from the islands in northwest Europe would affirm the sovereignty of the sultans over matters of religion of the Malays. Do not mind the loss of the homeland to the British but do not touch religion; “pantang” the Malays of those days would say.

The sultans nowadays have little power, even in matter of religion. The real shot callers are those in the upper echelon of UMNO. These members of the Malay political party depend on the support of the majority of the Muslim Malays. Reason is, the commonness between the rulers and the ruled is the source of power which UMNO derives from. The more religious conservative group on the right obviously emphasizes more on religion.

In a cold world, I find commonness as a source of warmth. In a function full of strangers, I would work to find friendly faces, avoiding awkward moments of making new friends or personae non gratae. Even in Ann Arbor at the very beginning, I found comfort in fellow Malaysians. Really, in a fellow Malay Collegian. At the Malay College, I was never close to that friend but only when we were on the other side of the planet did we really connect. That is how commonness affects me and quite possibly, many others.

History justifies the commonness we experience. History explains how we got here, how we met, how we treated each other, etc. The power of history cannot be underestimated. History justifies the endless conflict between the Israelis and the Arabs. History justifies the two world wars. History justifies our prosperity. History justifies our cooperation to build a better world.

Those in power, or simply aspirers, need to justify their authority. The sultan of Johor, Alauddin Riayat Shah II, through his bendahara, Tun Sri Lanang, justified his reign by claiming lineage to Malacca and all the way to Alexander the Great. Odd, is it not, for the justification that came in form of Sejarah Melayu, skips the Buddhist Srivijaya before Malacca and goes all the way to an arguably Islamic hero that lived in Macedonia?

Regardless, for Malaysia, or maybe, just the Malays in Malaysia, it is the Sultanate of Malacca.

As mentioned earlier, the Malay heritage goes beyond Malacca and to Srivijaya. If we trace Malay heritage to anything earlier, we might get back to China and end up in Africa but who knows.

As suggested, the reason why the Malays did not go beyond Malacca is religion. Malay leaders derive their power from the religious or simply cultural commonness that they share with the Malay people (Malays as defined in the federal constitution). Further, the justification of that commonness is the Islamic Malay Sultanate of Malacca. Those of interest that hazardously affect others or just the ignorant, claim that Malacca is where Malay shared history began. It was the origin of our commonness, they say. Conveniently, they ignore the part when the Malays were different, when they were the great traders and sailors of old.

While Islamic, Malacca was established by a Hindu Malay Srivijayan prince, Parameswara; the first king of Malacca argueably converted to Islam at the end of his life. In the same Malacca, Hang Tuah allegedly said, “takkan Melayu hilang di dunia” (the Malays will never varnish); Malacca became the next torchbearer of the Malays, picking up the pieces where Srivijaya left after being butchered by the Cholas from the west, Majapahit from the east and the Sukhothai from the north. It was as if history conspired to wipe the Malays off the planet at that particular point of time, at the turn of the second millennium.

The act of reaching out to Srivijaya, beyond Malacca however could disrupt the commonness the Malay leaders and the typical modern Malays share. An acknowledgment of the greatness of Srivijaya, one of the possibly two golden ages of the Malays, means acknowledging that the Malays as an ethnic or a race has never been always Muslim. The Malays were animists, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. The notion that the Buddhist Srivijaya was great could render the justification of that commonness which is the source of authority as irrelevant. Through the loss of commonness, shift in influence and power would occur, rearranging complex equation of power, creating new status quo.

For those that benefit from being in power, so much is at stake. They could not afford to see such adverse shift and would do anything to prevent the slightest shift that might contribute to their downfall, turning legitimacy to illegitimacy. That anything includes rewriting history; writing history to justify their authority instead of writing history for honest recording purposes.

Sadly, two of the victims of these lies are Srivijaya — along with many other states such as Langkasuka, Gangga Negara and many others that walked the Malay Peninsula — and truth.

Categories
History & heritage Mudslinging

[1222] Of re: re: why Malacca but not Srivijaya?

It continues:

The low-level economist (not a historian, mind you!) does not seem to know when to quit. So he decided to harp on a slight faux pas that I committed, namely of Demak attacking the Majapahit empire. In that sense, yes, I made a historical error there in attributing that attack as to being on Srivijaya and I stand corrected. [Where Srivijaya is concerned, no confusion at all! Critical Thought. May 16 2007]

He made mistakes and he calls me a low-level economist. And he sneers at how I am not an historian. Mind you telling me dear readers, is he a historian?

That does not, however, change the fact that Perlak and Pasai were Islamic sultanates that were contemporaries of Srivijaya. As I mentioned before, the topic was discussed in a monograph by S.Q. Fatimi, Islam Comes To Malaysia (edited by Shirle Gordon, MSRI, 1963)which discusses in detail the tombstones of the previous Sultans of Pasai found in Acheh, bearing similarities with the tombstones in Gujerat, India. [Where Srivijaya is concerned, no confusion at all! Critical Thought. May 16 2007]

And here is the interesting part. Previously, he alleged that those two sultanates existed before Srivijaya (see here; under his “argument 5”). His exact words were “And before Srivijaya there were the Islamic Sultanates of Perlak and Pasai and Champa“. Now, he states those sultanates were contemporaries of Srivijaya? Wow.

How would anyone justify those sultanates existed before Srivijaya? To prove that those sultanates did not exist before Srivijaya, both Perlak and Pasai were under the rule of Srivijaya from somewhere in the first millennium up to the 13th century and both were Buddhists and Hindus. Another thing is, Srivijaya was founded somewhere in between 2nd and 6th century. Islamic Pasai and Perlak came to existence in the later half of the 13th century. Tell me, which came first: the 5th century or the 13th century?

Menj seems to think 13 comes before 5! At least, before he changed his story.

When caught making false statement, he changes his story. From being before, he changes the story to being contemporaries!

Back to the tombstone, it is dated late 13th century, around 1290s; Srivijaya had already collapsed by mid-13th century because the Javanese Majapahit sacked the Malay Palembang and Jambi. I repeat, the proof of the arrival of Islam to Perlak and Pasai is dated late 13th century, after Srivijaya had already collapsed. Check Munoz 2007, from page 180 to 200.

The point here is to show that Islam has made a far-reaching and significant contribution to the civilisation of the Nusantara, more so than the Hindu-Buddhist kingdom of Srivijaya did. [Where Srivijaya is concerned, no confusion at all! Critical Thought. May 16 2007]

I did not deny contribution made by Islam. But he is pretending that there was nothing before Islam whereas in fact, Srivijaya was an economic, political and cultural center in the Malay Archipelago. Srivijaya was a center for Buddhism where Chinese scholars usually stopped for learning purposes. And unlike Malacca, the Srivijaya left behind more architectural marvels than the Sultanate of Malacca ever did. One example is the Borobudur.

The low-level economist may not have any respect for copyright licence (I call cutting and pasting of my post into his blog without my explicit permission as blatant plagiarism and disrespect of copyright), but he should have read the real gist of the matter instead of harping on a slight historical mistake. [Where Srivijaya is concerned, no confusion at all! Critical Thought. May 16 2007]

Fair use for criticism purpose? Besides, plagiarism means “the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one’s own original work” according to Dictionary.com. I clearly attributed the author and do not claim it as mine. Further, if I were to hand over that thing as my own and get away with it, the factual errors would get me an ‘E’ at Michigan. I do not know about his place.

It should also be mentioned that there was no real difference between Srivijaya and Majapahit, and Majapahit was indeed the successor to the Srivijaya empire. If any could lay claim to the title of being the successor to Srivijaya, it would be Majapahit and not Malacca. I suppose when dealing with intricate historical matters like this, one should be relying on real, hardcover scholarly works and not on editable encyclopedias like Wikipedia for their research. [Where Srivijaya is concerned, no confusion at all! Critical Thought. May 16 2007]

Hahaha. He wrote that Majapahit was Srivijaya. Since he had already mistaken Majapahit as Srivijaya, instead of confessing making a mistake, he is now calling Srivijaya and Majapahit were the same kingdom. It is amazing the length one would go to rewrite history to just to justify a mistake. Where is your source asserting that there are no difference between Srivijaya and Majapahit?

Further, in Osborne 1979, he wrote Malacca is the successor of Srivijaya. See page 29. Even Munoz 2006 in page 178 reused the same argument. Wolters 1970 asserted similarly in page 4.

To clearly express the difference between the two kingdoms, in Munoz 2006, page 210 and 211, it is stated that Srivijaya was Buddhist kingdom while Majapahit was Hindu. Further, it is beyond Menj that Majapahit was a Javanese kingdom while Srivijaya is Malay kingdom and the fact that the two (the Malays and the Javanese) had been fighting for quite a number of time (for the Javanese, there were other kingdoms before Majapahit while Srivijaya lasted from give and take 1,000 years), with both managed to raze each other kingdoms. It is also beyond him that Srivijaya centered on Sumatra while Majapahit was on East Java. Sumatra, if he had failed geography, is a completely different island to the west of Java.

Also, his “newly” added conclusion:

While it is not denied that the Srivijayan empire played a role in shaping the course of the Nusantara reigion, the coming of Islam to the region brought to the region a new and rejuvenated philosophy that is devoid of the caste system that was prevalent in the Srivijaya Hindu-Buddhist culture. yed Naquib al-Attas remarks in Islam and Secularism that the role of the Sufi mystics was instrumental in the demise of the Hindu-Buddhist influence of the region and Islam gave birth to the rise of the Malacca Sultanate, of which its influence permeates even until today. Despite the end of the Malacca Sultanate at the hands of Alfonso d’Albuquerque and the Portugese colonialists, the Johor-Riau Sultanate was born from its ashes and several Islamic-Malay Sultanate kingdoms were established in the aftermath of the Malaccan demise. [Where Srivijaya is concerned, no confusion at all! Critical Thought. May 16 2007]

Check your timeline. Tell me what is the date of the tombstone. And then tell me the date Majapahit sacked Palembang and Jambi in Sumatra.

Do a research and you will find the latter event happened far earlier than the date found on the tombstone. While indeed Islam fastened the demise of Hindu and Buddhist kingdoms, Srivijaya was gone before Islam made an impact. It mostly affected post-Srivijaya kingdoms that came to being because of the collapse of Srivijaya. Again, Munoz 2006, page 180 to 200.

What competed with Islamic kingdoms was Majapahit, not Srivijaya. The Srivijayan bloodline continued to go to Temasek, Muar and finally settled to found the Malacca. Later, Parameswara converted to Islam. Reminder again — Srivijaya had already extinct but Majapahit still lived on competing with Malacca.

The role of Malacca was significant in the eventual establishment of modern Malaysia, Srivijaya was a foreign empire based in Java island that had never played any significant role in Peninsula Malaysia. [Where Srivijaya is concerned, no confusion at all! Critical Thought. May 16 2007]

Again, Srivijayan capital was based on Sumatra. Also, the first sultan of Malacca was a Srivijaya prince. Munoz 2006, page 183, if you have forgotten who Parameswara was. There are a few other publications if you are so inclined, such as one of those primary school history textbook.

Let’s see some hard research to dispute the above before treating this whole rape of Malaysian history as some chess game. Besides, its too early for you to call it a “checkmate”, liberal. I don’t think you have yet to realise what you are up against. [Where Srivijaya is concerned, no confusion at all! Critical Thought. May 16 2007]

Checkmate. Oh, I do know. You are just that person that mistook Srivijaya as Majapahit.

Stick to economics, liberal, and stay out of history. [Where Srivijaya is concerned, no confusion at all! Critical Thought. May 16 2007]

Again, are you an historian?

At least, while I Michigan, I took proper, formal, undergraduate level history classes, apart from economics. Of course, anyone could learn anything without formal education. But to degrade others when one has lower qualification than the former is absurd. I wonder what kind of education he has anyway, since he keeps degrading my qualification.

Anyway, this is the last reply to him. I am uninterested in engaging personal attack and will not go down to his level of incivility. After all, he is confused between Srivijaya and Majapahit and no matter what kind of publications thrown at him, he would still believe that the Malay and the Javanese kingdoms were one of the same.

In any case, the original thesis is that Srivijaya deserves far more respect than it currently receives; that Srivijaya was greater than Malacca. With it, a question why Malacca is given greater weight and Srivijaya less. I suggested that the religion might provide a clue to answer the question.

Categories
History & heritage Mudslinging

[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.

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?