Tag: Srivijaya

The relationship between Srivijaya and the Sailendras has always been problematic to me. Initially, I had believed that the two were separate but closely linked entities but the truth is, the relationship is far more complex than that.

Srivijaya of course was the confederation of Malay states or rather, cities with the principal center being Palembang on Sumatra. The principal city did move from time to time to Jambi but Palembang was the main center of power for most of the times. From Palembang, Srivijayan influence radiated outward toward the Isthmus of Kra, western Borneo and central Java. It also controlled several areas on the bank of the Mekong until Jayavarman II declared independence to establish the Khmer Empire.

The nature of the Sailendras is more mysterious to me. They ruled over western and central Java, considerably far from Palembang but yet, they played a huge role in Srivijayan politics. Now, the question is, did the Sailendras exist independently of Srivijaya? Was Sailendra part of Srivijaya or merely a faithful and reliable ally? Was the Sailendra a kingdom or a noble family typical of a feudal society?

The background of several maharajas of Srivijaya further does not make the situation any clearer. The 8th century maharaja Dharmasetu was not a member of the Sailendras but he was mentioned as the head of Sailendra. Succeeding Dharmasetu as the maharaja was his son-in-law, a Sailendra. Samarantungga, another maharaja in Palembang, was a member of the Sailendras whom married Dharmasetu’s daughter, Dewi Tara.

The son-in-law which became the maharaja, known as Vishnu, was the one that started the construction of the Borobudur. Here is yet another question: Srivijaya was known for its Buddhism while the Sailendras were Hindus. Why a Sailendran would build not only a Buddhist monument, but the largest Buddhist monument in the whole wide world at its time?

More question: what happened before Dharmasetu? What was the nature of Srivijaya-Sailendra relationship before Dharmasetu and during Dharmasetu’s reign? Why did the Sailendra hold a special place within Srivijaya?

By the time of Vishnu, the one thing that I know is that the Sailendras married into the existing Srivijayan royal blood and from there on, they took over the helm of Srivijaya. After Vishnu, the Srivijayan throne went to Samarantungga, yet another Sailendran. His son Balaputra also became the maharaja of Srivijaya.

Balaputra began as a weak head of the Sailendra. During this time, the Sailendras saw their influence being challenged by the Sanjayas. Now, the relationship between the Sailendras and the Sanjayas is another issue lost in history. That notwithstanding, The Sailendras were forced to leave Java by the Sanjayas during a power struggle in the 9th century. The Sailendra retreated and settle in Palembang, the home city of Balaputra’s mother, Dewi Tara. After the overthrow of the Sailendras by the Sanjayas in Java, Balaputra became the maharaja of Srivijaya.

After Balaputra, somehow, the Sailendras ceased to come up in my reading despite the fact the Srivijaya lasted for at least another 400 years. This could be explained by the expulsion of the Sailendras from Java by the Sanjayas but this that would treat the Sailendras as a kingdom, and not a family, which is another cause for confusion.

But in any case, the Sanjayas continued to build the Mataram kingdom. They ruled of western and central Java until Srivijaya eliminated them in the 11th century. As a side note, the fall of Mataram led to the formation of a Javanese royalty by the name of Airlangga to build the kingdom of Kahuripan. This kingdom is the precursor to the kingdom of Singhasari which later led to the Majapahit kingdom. The Srivijayan empire came to an end when Majapahit occupied Palembang and Jambi in the 13th century.

It is worth noting that the rivalry between the Sailendras and the Sanjayas may well be the beginning of the famed Malay-Javanese rivalry.

To make matter more confusing, the Sanjayas were actually part of the Sailendra dynasty.

While the home of the Sailendra was central Java, they were not of Javanese origin. So for from my reading, they might have come from Sumatra, Funan or India. The strongest possibly in my opinion on the moment is that they came from Sumatra. The reason is that Old Malay instead of Sanskrit were extensively used in matter related to the Sailendras. But I suppose, nobody knows for sure.

In reading history, I have issues in applying the boundaries of modern states into the past, in times before modern states were established. While history is indeed continuous in nature unless we are referring to the beginning of time itself, the act of applying modern boundaries into the past before establishment of modern states knowingly falsely assumes that these states existed long before its establishment date. With respect to Malaysian history for example, there are those that take everything that occurs within modern Malaysian states as Malaysian history while those occurring outside Malaysian boundary as someone else’s. If one wishes to understand history, such perspective restricts overall comprehension of history.

In Malaysia, there are those that assert Malaysian history begins with Malacca. I opine that this is done to legitimize the position of those in power through religion. Like what been written earlier, history is continuous and Malaysian history is no exception. It is improper to assume that Malaysian history began at the beginning of the 15th century. For an event to occur, there must be a background, or a precursor, to it and that precursor for Malacca is the decline of Srivijaya, just as how the background for the establishment of Malaysia is everything related that occurred in that past, be it Sulu, Brunei, Langkasuka, Srivijaya, Chi Tu, Johor, Negeri Sembilan and the other modern states of Malaysia, etc.

While I have addressed how the time barrier placed on Malaysian history is a form of denial, I have yet to address how modern boundaries — within our context, Malaysia — are irrelevant in the distance past. As much as history is continuous in time, it is continuous in space as well. This is the purpose of the post.

The idea that Malaysian history is confined within the border of modern Malaysian border is acceptable to as far as the Anglo-Dutch Treaty in 1824 or maybe slightly earlier in the 19th century. History of this region only officially developed separately after that. Prior to the understanding between the Dutch and the British brought in part of the result of the Napoleonic War in Europe, history of the Malay Peninsula and Sumatra, and to some extend part of Borneo and Java, mostly moved on hand in hand, at one point of time or another. Our society, we, in the past, especially before 1824, were a society unbounded by the boundaries of modern nation states.

During the era of Srivijaya, the commonality occurred close to a thousand years. And indeed, during Malacca, the history of the Malay Peninsula and Sumatra was one of the same. Whatever happened to these powers affected the timeline of Malaysian history. Srivijaya was part of Malaysian history as much as Malacca; Malacca was part of Indonesian history as much as Srivijaya. On Borneo. the history of the Sulu belong to both Malaysia and the Phillipines. This history of Brunei is part of Sarawak and Sabah’s history and vice versa as well.

Our history, Malaysian history, cannot be taken in isolation. Malaysian history itself occurred within and without the modern boundary of our federation. What happened within the boundary of the modern states of Indonesia, Thailand, Singapore, Brunei and the Philippines in the past may be part of our history as well simply because our history is a history of trade. It is a story of interaction among us, our neighbors and strangers from afar. A substantial amount of history, especially before 1824, is shared.

If we insist that events occurred outside the boundary of modern Malaysia are not part of our history, we are denying part of ourselves. Reading history in isolation might be tantamount to living inside a box, being simply unable to see the big picture.