Rival Coronotions in Surakarta: 'Tradition has a wonderful way of adapting to reality'

Rival Coronotions in Surakarta: 'Tradition has a wonderful way of adapting to reality'

Internal and external conflicts were always part and parcel of the history of the Mataram, the dynasty that Sultan Agung founded. A great number of conflicts split Mataram into a number of royal territories, such as Yogyakarta's Ngayogyakarta Hadiningrat Sultanate and Surakarta's Surakarta Hadiningrat (Kasunanan) Palace and Pura Mangkunegaran.

The death on June 11, 2004, of the king of Surakarta, Pakoeboewono XII, has sparked a conflict in his palace because he did not name a crown prince. Two groups are now fighting with each other to seize the cultural legacy as the king of Surakarta.

To trace the history of the conflict involving this royal family, Blontank Poer, a correspondent for The Jakarta Post in Surakarta, has interviewed Prof. Merle Calvin Ricklefs, an expert in the history of Islamic kingdoms in Java, in particular the Mataram Kingdom.

The director of the Melbourne Institute of Asian Languages and Societies at the University of Melbourne, Ricklefs is also a visiting professor at Singapore's National University. The following is an excerpt of an interview conducted by e-mail:

Question: Are you keeping abreast of the conflict involving the royal family in the Surakarta Palace following the death of Pakubuwono Xii?

Answer: I have read a little bit about the conflict in the Indonesian newspapers on the Internet.

Those supporting KGPH Hangabehi refer to the palace tradition of always choosing the eldest son as the royal successor. Has this tradition always been an important point of reference since the founding of the Mataram Kingdom?

This was often the case, but not always. It is clear that at times a ruler or others in the highest circles favored someone else. The founding Sultan of Yogya, Hamengkubuwana I, even murdered his first crown prince so as to choose a candidate he thought more able to govern. So choosing a crown prince was primarily a matter of picking the best person. In terms of protocol seniority, it also mattered who the mother was, as well as in what order the sons were born.

Is there an example from the past when controversy emerged over a king's successor because the king did not name a crown prince?

There were controversies almost every time there was a succession. There were even three wars of succession in the 18th century: after the death of Amangkurat II in 1703, after the death of Pakubuwana I in 1719 and after the death of Pakubuwana II in 1749. During colonial times, the Dutch decided who would succeed -- and it was quite often not the eldest son of the last ruler.

On the other hand, those supporting KGPH Tejowulan believe that they can hold a meeting to reach a family consensus about the successor to the late king. Is this argumentation strong enough?

This happened several times during Dutch colonial rule. The wars of succession I referred to ... were about who had the right to succeed, and in the case of the First War of Succession, the Putra Mahkota who had succeeded his father was defeated. In the second, the successor won. In the third, the kingdom was divided between Yogyakarta and Surakarta.

The camp of Tejowulan has said that a king must possess moral legitimacy. Tejowulan has alleged that KGPH Hangabehi will be incapable of being a good king, and has said this is the reason he is prepared to be nominated as a successor. What is the position of the kingdom in this ever-changing society?

It was often said that a ruler must be morally and physically sound, but I'm sure that in fact that was not always so. Is moral legitimacy absolutely necessary?

In theory yes, in practice probably not.

Tejowulan was crowned on the premises of Mooryati Soedibyo without any of the grand processions usually accompanying such an event. There was no Bedaya Ketawang (formal court dance) and Tejowulan did not even don his royal dress, a reason why his coronation has been considered flawed. What do you think?

Tradition has a wonderful way of accommodating itself to political reality. Pakubuwana I became king although all of the pusakas (heirlooms) had been taken from the court. So he said that pusakas didn't matter any more. When they finally got most of the pusakas back in the 1730s, the kraton decided again that they did matter.

An internal conflict in Kanoman Palace in Cirebon has split the kingdom into two. The way you see it, is it likely that there will be an open conflict in Surakarta Palace?

It has happened before, so I don't see why it couldn't happen again. Yogyakarta was founded by Sultan Hamengkubuwana I out of half of the kingdom of Surakarta. The Mangkunagaran was founded on part of the kingdom of Surakarta a few years after that. So why couldn't it happen again?

Tejowulan's camp claims that the coronation outside the palace without the accompaniment of the Bedaya Ketawang is legitimate because of the emergency nature of the event. They refer to the coronation of Pakubuwono II in Semarang and the crowning of his successor in a Dutch ship. What do you think?

As I said before, what is said to be traditionally or morally necessary has a remarkable way of being consistent with what is politically possible.

Will there be a midway point that may bring together the two conflicting parties together so that there will be no dual kings?

There would need to be a mediator respected by both sides. Or simply some sort of government decision. But I know whether such a mediator exists and do not know what level of government would have the right or indeed the courage to intervene.

In the past, the Javanese deemed the position of a king and a kingdom highly sacred and mystical because they believed a king possessed supernatural power, and even considered him God's representative on earth. Does this mean that moral integrity is still an absolute prerequisite for a new king?

It might mean that. It also might mean that a king is so elevated that he is freed of normal restraints. Since the founding of the Republic of Indonesia, all kingdoms have been amalgamated into this state. A king, practically, no longer has any power over the people. Where must a royal palace be placed in this changing situation?

That is a matter for the people of Indonesia and for the various royal families to work out, not for me.