Abstract
There are various reasons for centring our attention upon social unrest in 19th-century Banten. Firstly, it may resolve itself into social movements which dominated the historical scene in that area.1 Social upheavals accompanied by the disruption of traditional values were marked by discontent, excitement and restlessness among the population. Such a situation was fraught with social tension and conflict, which were conducive to outbursts of rebellion. Secondly, the account of social unrest and some of the political consequences is intended to illustrate the propensity to revolt or the presence of a tradition of rebellion in Banten. The prevalence of popular unrest expressed itself in recurrent outbreaks not only of risings but also of conspiracies or social banditry. When the people were prevented by the situation from releasing their tension by means of rebellious activities, they could find an outlet for their frustrations in religious movements. Thirdly, social unrest should also be explained in terms of social phenomena, reflecting the unofficial distribution of power in an oppressed society. Besides the élite groups or power holders mentioned in Chapter III, what concerns us in this section particularly is the revolutionary élite, who apparently possessed effective power outside the political realm of those formally in power.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Various instances of social unrest can be distinguished, e.g. revolutionary unrest, agrarian unrest, religious unrest, etc. The term “social unrest” as used in this section also refers to a state of tension and restlessness among the population as a symptom of the disruption or break-down of the socio-cultural order. It can be seen as a condition of the unorganized, unregulated activity of the people and also as the crucible out of which emerged new forms of organized activity, such as social movements, rebellions, religious revivalism, etc. Seen from this point of view, social unrest may develop into a social movement. Of course, the relationship between both social phenomena also has a reciprocal character; social movements, in their turn, can accelerate social unrest. See Blumer, in McLung, ed. (1963), pp. 170–221.
The number of insurrections between 1810 and 1870, as reported by de Waal, (1876), amounted to 19; most of them are dealt with in this chapter. See de Waal, Vol. I, (1876), pp. 219–222. For the phrase “hotbed of disturbances”, see de Klerck, Vol. II (1938–39), p. 547.
See Appendix I, in Benda and McVey (1960), p. 67; the map only indicates places as centres of rebellion and not the areas covered by rebellious movements. Even the focal points of some rebellions are not correctly indicated, e.g. those of the rebellion of 1850, which were Budang Batu and Pulau Merak. Places involved in the insurrections of 1851, 1862 and 1870 are not indicated.
In his report, Resident Buyn ascribed the individualistic personality of the Bantenese to the institution of individual ownerschip; see TNI (1859), no. 1, p. 167. The Banten report speaks of a “chronic rebellious spirit”, see Benda and McVey (1960), p. 20; also Snouck Hurgronje, in VG, Vol. IV, part 1 (1924), p. 255. Cf. Spaan, in Almanak der Indologische Vereeniging (1893), pp. 222–223; H. Djajadiningrat, in Handelingen (1921), pp. 309, 322–324.
During the second decade, a kind of bureaucratic absenteeism existed among European officials; some who held positions in Pandeglang still lived in Serang. Not until 1819 were European officials stationed in Lebak and Tjilangkahan; see the report of Resident Buyn, in TNI (1870), no. 2, pp. 324–325.
E.g. the insurrectionary movements of 1850 and 1870; in almost all the rebellions, incumbent or retired or dismissed officials were to be found as participants.
E.g. the rebellion of Tumenggung Mohamad in 1825, see TNI, S. VII, Vol. 3 (1845), p. 90; Francis, Vol. II (1856), p. 54; Roorda van Eysinga, Vol. IV (1832), pp. 227. Also the Tjikandi Udik revolt in 1845, see TNI (1859), no. 1, p. 142.
A conceptual distinction must be made between modern and traditional social movements in terms of their goal-orientation aspects. The latter’s aim does not involve a basic change in the social system, while the former’s does. The traditional character of revolts in Banten is conspicuous; their goal was the restoration of the old sultanate. For this differentiation, see Heberle (1951), pp. 6–7; cf. the distinction made by Hobsbawm (1958) between archaic and modern agitation. In the Hobsbawmian sence, the revolts in Banten should be categorized as pre-political and archaic. Since the goal-orientation aspect of the insurrections in Banten usually concerns both a change of rulers and an alteration in the form of government as introduced by the colonial power, no distinction is made between rebellion and revolution. Some small cases might more correctly be termed riots. The term “insurrection” may cover all these rebellious movements.
Besides the idealistic aspects of the rebellions, the materialistic ones were also stressed — as in the revolts of 1825, 1839, 1845 — namely the abolition of corvée labour or land rent and other taxes. See Political report, 1839–1849, in Exh. Jan. 31, 1851, no. 27 bis, esp. about Banten; also TNI (1859), no. 1, pp. 140–142, and TNI (1870), no. 2, p. 324; see also Veth, Vol. II (1898), pp. 404–405.
For the essence of millenarianism, see Hobsbawm (1963), pp. 57–58; according to this author it is present in all revolutionary movements. For the restoration of lost harmony, see van der Kroef, in CSSH, Vol. I, no. 4 (1959), pp. 299–323. As to the social movements in 19th-century Java, their goal-orientation was more realistic and not as abstract as van der Kroef conceives it.
The general deficiency of strategic faculty is not only conspicuous in the social movements of 19th-century Java, but is a global phenomenon, see Pieris, in CJHSS, Vol. V (1962), pp. 18–28.
The rural gentry may be distinguished from the nobility; it may be thought of as a category of social strata placed between the aristocracy (including the nobility) and the peasantry. It may also be defined as the class of more prosperous peasants or rural inhabitants. For a conception of the rural gentry, see Eisenstadt (1963), pp. 204–205. Many hadjis of Banten may be classified as belonging to this gentry.
A conflict situation fraught with social tensions naturally conduces to the outbreak of disturbances and rebellions. Members of the power élite may assume leadership and organize the mechanism and means of a social movement. In this context social unrest may be regarded as a conditional factor rather than a consequence of the movement. See note no. 1.
The term “degree” here refers to both spatial and temporal dimensional aspects, and to goal-orientation aspects as well. The degree of rebellion ranges from outlawry, brigandage and rioting, to rebellion and revolution.
Hoek (1862), p. 100.
Report of Resident Tobias, in TNI (1870), no. 2, p. 321. Consult also: “Overzicht van de staatkundige betrekkingen met de Iniandsche vorsten op Java, 1596–1830”, written in 1844, in document no. 2962 of the Algemeen Rijksarchief, the division of the Ministry of Colonies. (Hereafter referred to as Overzicht).
For Noriman, see TNI (1865), no. 1, p. 88; also TNI (1870), no. 2, p. 322.
The names of Mas Tanda and Mas Djakaria are mentioned in the Bantenese historiography which is known as Sedjarah Hadji Mangsur; see Javanese MS in the collection of Snouck Hurgronje, number 10.
TNI (1870), no. 2, p. 323; for more information about the communication systems of rebels, TNI (1859), no. 1, p. 163. Special agents were employed,, among whom members of the secret service were sometimes to be found. This was also the case during the 1850 revolt.
Report of Resident Tobias, in TNI (1870), no. 2, pp. 320–321; see also O.I.B. Jan. 18, 1819, no. 19 and O.I.B. Jan. 30, 1819, no. 18; Overzicht (1844). See further, Roorda van Eysinga, Vol. IV (1832), pp. 88–89; Hoek (1862), pp. 106–107.
Hoek (1862), pp. 106–107; van Deventer, Vol. I (1891), p. CLXVI.
Report of Resident Tobias, in TNI (1870), no. 2, p. 324; See also O.I.B. Jan. 24, 1843, no. 6; Overzicht (1844).
O.I.B. July 3, 1819, no. 10, 11, and 33; these refer to the appointment of P. Suramenggala as Regent of the Northern Regency; of P. Senadjaja as Regent of the Southern Regency; of R. B. Mulafar as patih in the Northern Regency; and furthermore, the appointment of 7 chiefs of Djajengsekar troops. See als Overzicht (1844).
Francis, Vol. II (1856), pp. 53–54.
De Waal, Vol. I (1876), p. 219.
In 1820 Mas Raje headed a movement against the introduction of smallpox vaccination; in 1822 Anjer was attacked by 500 armed rebels; see de Waal, Vol. I (1876), p. 219; Report of Resident Tobias, TNI (1870), no. 2, p. 326. In this report it: is pointed out that detailed accounts of early risings are quite scarce in the Archives of Banten.
Cf. the five sources: Roorda van Eysinga, Vol. IV (1832), p. 227; Roorda van Eysinga, Vol. III, part 2 (1842), pp. 313–315; TNI, S. VII, vol. 3 (1845), p. 90; Francis, Vol. II (1856), pp. 54–56; Hageman (1856), pp. 165–166.
O.I.B. Sept. 28, 1827, no. 11, which stated that Djakaria had already lost a large part of his followers; see also Overzicht (1844) ; Report of Resident Buyn, in TNI (1859), no. 1, 144; Francis, Vol. II (1856), p. 66.
Roorda van Eysinga, Vol. III part 2 (1842), p. 313; Francis, Vol. II (1856), p. 66.
The list of the members of the Djakaria family banished to the Outer Provinces is to be found in O.I.B. Sept. 16, 1846, no. 18. They were: Mas Agus, Mas Maji, Unjar, Nuraipa, Mas Tjingak, Sakudin bapa Kamidin, Tjulang bapa Arbaja, and Nidian; see also O.I. B. Apr. 14, 1840, no. 6, which mentions Mas Djebeng, Mas Anom, Mas Serdang, and Mas Adong.
See MS Sedjarah Hadji Mangsur, in the collection of Snouck Hurgronje, no. 10, pp. 22–23. For Sultan Ishak, see the list of sultans, note 16 tot Chap. III.
Francis, Vol. II (1856), p. 66: see also Report of Resident Buyn, in TNI (1859), no. 1, p. 144.
O.I.B. Apr. 14, 1840, no. 6; O.I.B. Sept. 16, 1846, no. 18. Three of Djakaria’s sons had escaped out of exile, viz. Mas Anom, Mas Serdang, and Mas Adong, see O.I.B. Nov. 28, 1842, no. 2.
Roorda van Eysinga, Vol. IV (1832), pp. 227–231.
The roaming of rebel bands led by Kjai Gede, Mas Djebeng, Njai Gumpara, Mas Lamir, Mastar Djago, and Hadji Tassin, is mentioned in O.I.B. Sept. 6, 1831, no. 16; O.I.B. Jan. 6, 1833, no. 19; O.I.B. Apr. 14, 1840, no. 6. See also Political report, 1839–1849, with special reference to Banten, in Exh. Jan. 31, 1851, 27 bis. Concerning the years of the outbreak of rebellions, cf. Veth, who refers to 1832, 1834, 1836 and 1839 as the years when the rebellions broke out; see Veth, Vol. II (1898), pp. 404–405.
O.I.B. Dec. 18, 1840, no. 10.
Nopal is derived from Nopalea Coccineletfera, a kind of a shrub cultivated for cattle forage, or the cultivation of cochineal, an insect producing red colouring matter. See Bruggeman (1939), p. 252; also van Hall and van de Koppel, Vol. II A (1948), p. 744.
O.I.B. Nov. 28, 1842, no. 2.
According to O.I.B. Sept. 16, 1846, no. 18, 26 persons were banished to Menado, Banka, and Timor respectively; according to O.I.B. Apr. 14, 1840, no. 6, 35 persons, to Menado and Banjuwangi respectively; according to O.I A Jan. 24, 1843, no. 6, 12 persons.
Javasche Courant, Jan. 14, 1846. Report of Resident Buyn, in TNI (1859), no. 1, p. 145; see also Missive of the Resident of Banten, Jan. 30, 1846, no. 130, in Vb. Feb. 27, 1846, no. 45.
Report of Resident Buyn, in TNI (1859), no. 1, p. 153.
Report of Resident Buyn, in TNI (1859), no. 1, pp. 158, 161.
Rumours were circulating during the fasting periods in 1844 and 1845. At that time the sons of Mas Djakaria had evidently escaped out of exile; see O.I.B. Nov. 28, 1842, no. 2.
Report of Resident Buyn, in TNI (1859), no. 1, pp. 149, 163; see also O.I.B. Aug. 8, 1846, no, 25.
Report of Resident Buyn, in TNI (1859), no. 1, p. 160.
See O.I.B. March 3, 1846, no. 7; also O.I.B. Aug. 8, 1846, no. 25 and O.I.B. Aug. 28, 1846, no. 1.
Report of Resident Buyn, in TNI (1859), no. 1, p. 149. The plan was that Tanara and Pandeglang would be overrun; communication would be maintained with the surrounding countries of Batavia and South Bogor. In case of defeat the rebels would retreat to Tjaringin.
Political report: 1839–1849, in Exh. Jan. 31, 1851, no. 27 bis, esp. with reference to Banten. Njai Perbata operated from Sawarna in South Banten; her goal was the restoration of the sultanate.
Report of Resident Buyn, in TNI (1859), no. 1, p. 144.
Mention was made of the tendency towards concentration of land on the one hand, and the dispossession of the small peasants on the other; see Report of Resident Buyn, in TNI (1859), no. 1, pp. 106–107. The former process was due to the usurpation of land rights or illegal appropriation of sawah negara as sawah jasa. See Chap. II, pp. 38 ff. Dispossession was also caused by mortgaging or selling sawahs, see Resumé (1871), pp. 93–94, 119. The renting of land during Raffles’ rule also gave rise to a small group of landowners with large holdings, see van Deventer, Vol. I (1891), p. 147; see also Bastin (1954), pp. 107–112, esp. p. 109 on which people with large holdings are listed.
At the time of writing this study, a report of the military campaign to suppress the Wachia revolt was available, see Vb. Jan. 15, 1851, La C, no. 23. For the news about the outbreak, see Javasche Courant, March 6, 1850.
See Chap. III, pp. 85, 88; also Political report of Banten, 1850, in Exh. Dec. 14, 1852, no. 438.
The appointment of Tjondronegoro as Regent of Serang and Kusumanegara as Regent of Tjaringin; O.I.B. March 10, 1848, no. 23 and O.I.B. Oct. 21, 1849, no. 17.
See Kielstra (1917), pp. 67–68; also Multatuli, Volledige Werken, Vol. I (1950), p. 87; O.I.B. Sept. 30, 1851.
This happened during the administration of Resident Melwerda, the 6th resident of Banten, who held this position from 1822 to 1827. See TBB, Vol. II (1888), p. 270.
Van Rees (1859), p. 27.
Report of the military campaign, in Vb. Jan. 15, 1851, La C, no. 23; cf. van Rees (1859), p. 67.
Report of the military campaign, in Vb. Jan. 15, 1851, La C, no. 23; cf. van Rees (1859), p. 86.
Van Rees (1859), p. 86; Kielstra (1917), p. 170.
See Note on P.V. March 26, 1889, in Exh. May 14, 1889, no. 121.
R. B. Djajakarta was arrested on 15 April 1850, simultaneously with R. B. Suramardja; see Report of the military campaign, in Vb. Jan. 15, 1851, La G, no. 23.
Ibidem.
Djajakarta was exiled to Menado; Suramardja and Mustafa, Lurah Nasid, Diad, Derik and 8 others to Ternate; 12 to Ambon; 130 to Banda. 30 of them were exiled for 10 years, 56 for 8 years, and 44 for 5 years; there were many village heads among them; see O.I.B. Oct. 30, 1850, no. 2.
Five lurahs were compelled to try and capture the rebels and were threatened with punishment if they did not succeed. It was reported that in a later stage of the campaign all village heads were mobilized to chase the rebels; see Report of the military campaign, in Vb. Jan. 15, 1851, La G, no. 23.
The prosperous village Tegal Tongling was burnt to the ground and so were all other villages that offered assistance to the rebels, see van Rees (1859), pp. 58, 66.
See de Waal, Vol. I (1876), p. 221; mention is also made of preparatory activities for launching disturbances in 1855; in 1864, 500 armed men mustered at Bongkok and were ready to overrun Rangkasbitung, see Koloniaal Verslag, 1864, p. 4.
Consult Political report, 1851, in Exh. May 27, 1853, no. 225, esp. with reference to Banten.
O.I.B. Dec. 2, 1851, no. 12.
Missive from the Resident of Banten to the Gov. Gen., Sept. 22, 1862, in Vb. Nov. 18, 1862, no. 23.
Cable from the Resident of Banten to the Gov. Gen., Sept. 19, 1862, in Vb. Nov. 18, 1862, no. 23.
Missive from the Resident of Banten to the Gov. Gen., Aug. 4, 1866, in Vb. Oct. 8, 1866, C12.
O.I.B. Apr. 20, 1866, no. 5, referring to the dismissal of Mas Sutadiwiria; see also the missive from the Resident of Banten to the Gov. Gen., Aug. 4, 1866.
Natadiningrat’s retirement, according to O.I.B. March 10, 1866, no. 13, was granted by the government on his own request. The charges against him could not be confirmed, since a confrontation with two participants in the conspiracy did not reveal anything. It was decided that he must live in Serang, so that all his activities could be controlled; see O.I.B. May 17, 1867, no. 26. This issue reappeared in Banten politics in connection with the candidacy of A. Djajadiningrat — his grandson — as Regent of Serang, see A. Djajadiningrat (1936), pp. 111–113.
Of the 32 suspects, 9 were from the district Tjikandi, 13 from Kolelet, 3 from Lebak, 4 from Kramat Watu, and 1 from Tangerang. See list of captives, Aug. 3, 1866, in Vb. Oct. 8, 1866, C12. Tjikandi Udik and Tjikandi Ilir were two landed estates situated on the eastern part of the residency of Banten; being outside the jurisdiction of the government authorities, they could safely harbour fugitives. Furthermore, the landlord did not employ a police force. Only the so-called tjungkaks — village foremen — were appointed to assess taxes services. For the history of the Tjikandi estates, see Faes (1895).
The initiation rites of the Ilmu Tarik movement strikingly resemble those of most of the brotherhoods. Owing to these resemblances the present author is inclined to identify this Ilmu Tarik as a kind of Sufi brotherhood. The documents do not give concrete indications on this matter.
See considerations and advice of the Supreme Court, Nov. 18, 1869; also Alwan’s testimony; both documents in Exh. Sept. 6, 1870, Z11.
Missive from the Resident of Banten, Oct. 19, 1869, La DVI; also the resident’s missive of Sept. 17, 1869, La MVI; both missives in Exh. Sept. 6, 1870, Z11.
Considerations and advice of the Attorney General, Nov. 18, 1869, in Exh. Sept. 6, 1870, Z11.
On the basis of the advice of the Council of the Indies, the Governor General ordered that Djajakusuma be set free, O.I.B. May 24, 1870, La X.
For his kinship relations, see Appendix III; see also Missive of the Resident of Banten, Oct. 19, 1869, La DVI.
Consult the minutes of the investigation made by the Regent of Serang, the Controller of Serang and the chief-djaksa, see P.V. 16, 17, 18 and 21 Nov. 1869, in Exh. Sept. 6, 1870, Z11.
P.V. Nov. 17 and 21, 1869. As to the forced labour that he employed for his coconut garden in Kadikaran, see Chap. II, p. 42.
Missive of the Resident of Banten, Oct. 19, 1869, La DIV.
Ibidem.
Considerations and advice of the Attorney General, Nov. 18, 1869; Letter from Alwan, see note 76. See also Missive of the Resident of Banten, Oct. 19, 1869, La DVI.
Abdulkarim was also identified as Louis Meyer; further information about him is to be found in Considerations and advice of the Attorney General, Nov. 18, 1869.
Missive of the Resident of Banten, Oct. 19, 1869, La WVI.
Ibidem.
As to the terms “brigandage”, “banditry”, and “outlawry”; following Hobs-bawm’s conception, as forms of individual or collective rebelliousness these phenomena are in themselves socially neutral; see Hobsbawm (1963), p. 13. According to the political thought that colours the onlooker’s point of view, these phenomena appear either as vicious criminality or as idealistic rebelliousness. The colonial ruler adopted the former point of view and in his reports or writings he always referred to “rooverijen” (robberies) without recognizing any of their insurrectionary aspects or aspects of social protest.
Instance from the early period of Dutch rule in Banten: a premium was promised for the capture of Mas Djamir, O.I.B. Dec. 18, 1819, no. 10; also Usin and Kasin, O.I.B. Jan. 6, 1833, no. 19; and for that of Mas Lamir, O.I.B. Apr. 14, 1840, no. 6.
E.g., Mas Djakaria and his family were regarded as robbers, see Overzicht (1844). Noriman, Mas Bangsa, Hadji Tassin, etc., see Hoek (1862), p. 106; van Deventer, Vol. I (1891), pp. CLXVI, 469–469. See also O.I.B. Sept. 6, 1831, no. 16.
For the magico-religious aspects of brigandage, see Wulfften-Palthe (1949), also Meyer, in Indonesië, Vol. III (1949–1950), pp. 178–189.
For the story of Tjonat, see Pangemanann (1900). His operations were mostly confined to Djakarta and Bogor, but he also had to take refuge in Tjikandi for some time. For a short account of Kemudin, see WNI (1888–1889) pp. 989–990.
A. Djajadiningrat (1936), pp. 4–5.
A. Djajadiningrat (1936), pp. 172–173; relevant to our problem are the practices of bands of coconut thieves and fishpond thieves in Banten of more recent times, as described by Meyer (1946, pp. 19–27) or in his article in Indonesië, Vol. III (1949–1950), pp. 184–187.
Although written in a romanticized form, the book by Boeka about Pah Troena (sic) depicts social situations in 19th-century Java which are quite relevant to our problem of the power relationship between the civil servants, the ordinary peasants, and common robbers; see Boeka (1901).
In order to give an impression of the social power of banditry or brigandage we have to refer to other areas of 19th-century Java, such as Surakarta and Jogjakarta, where robbery was rampant in the 1870s and 1880s; see Vb. May 4, 1868, no. 18 and Vb. July 16, 1868, no. 5; also Groneman (1887). In Banten it was still endemic in the 1890s, and was referred to as “itching ants”, see A. Djajadiningrat (1936), p. 108.
See A. Djajadiningrat (1936), p. 172, for malpractices of this kind on the part of the secret service: see also van Sandick (1892), p. 163, for Neumann’s practices. Snouck Hurgronje pointed out false testimonies made against people suspected of taking part in the Tjilegon rebellion; see his Note of August 15, 1892; also Snouck Hurgronje, in VG, Vol. IV, part 2 (1924), p. 427.
Van Sandick (1892), p. 161; a classic example is Ken Arok, the founder of the Singasari dynasty in the beginning of the 13th century.
Corrupt practices in Banten are described in Bataviaasch Handelsblad, Mail editie, 1885, pp. 509–511, 620–621.
IWR, Vol. XXIV, no. 1192 (1886), p. 70.
IWR, Vol. XXIV, no. 1192 (1886), p. 71.
Van Sandick (1892), pp. 163–164.
Missive of the Resident of Banten, Oct. 20, 1886, no. 2665/18, in MR 1886, no. 681; see also Java Bode, Sept. 15, 1886; A. Djajadiningrat (1936), pp. 94–95.
Even in the search for the chief instigators of the Tjilegon affair, Sakam’s name was mentioned, see De Locomotief, July 14, 1888.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1966 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kartodirdjo, S., Wertheim, W.F. (1966). Social Unrest. In: The Peasants’ Revolt of Banten in 1888. Verhandelingen van het Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde, vol 50. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-6357-8_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-6357-8_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-6351-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-6357-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive