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.