Abstract
We are now approaching one of the most important phases in the history of the social movements in Banten, a phase of conspiracies and outrages which threatened the very existence of the colonial regime, and would probably have assumed vast dimensions if the rebellion had not been badly organized. To many contemporary observers the rising of 1888 seemed an isolated phenomenon.1 But it was no sudden action on the part of ignorant peasants infuriated to religious frenzy, as some would have us think.2 From the very first day it was obvious that this was a question of a prepared and planned uprising that stretched far beyond the confines of the townlet of Tjilegon.3 As will be shown, it was the culmination of a rebellious movement which for many years had been working above or below the surface. Events show that the tarekat — the closed association through which intelligence and communications could be distributed among the plotters — played an important role. Information passed along the tarekat so secretly that government authorities had hardly an inkling of what was happening. The outburst in Tjilegon on 9 July 1888 was literally a complete surprise to them.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
The outburst was not ascribed to general discontent but only to some petty incident, see Java Bode, July 16, 1888; an article in Soerabaiasch Handelsblad mentioned a connection with the activities of the notorious Sakam, see De Locomotief, July 14, 1888; another article referred to an “affaire de femme”, see De Locomotief, July 18, 1888; the assumption that the rising was linked with the Lampongs was refuted, see De Locomotief, July, 10, 11 and 18, 1888. See also the cable sent by the commander of the troops in Banten, no. 791, dated July 10, 1888, in MR 1888, no. 484.
An anonymous writer in the Java Bode, August 4, 1888, regarded the outburst of the revolt as the action of murderers and rascals, and claimed that it had nothing to do with deep-seated causes; see also Java Bode, July 16, 1888.
The preparations and plans for the uprising should not be thought of in terms of the strategy and modern organization of modern movements, but rather in terms of the working out of the various steps and actions to be taken; an important aspect of the preparations was the co-ordination of the various branches of the Kadiriah tarekat in Banten.
See minutes of the law suit (Proces Verbaal) against H. Abdulsalam, P.V. Apr. 9, 1889, in Exh. June 7, 1889, no. 51; also of that against H. Abdur-rachman from Kapuren, H. Mohamad Asnawi from Bendung Lampujang, H. Muhidin from Tjipeutjang, P.V. May 1, 1889, in Exh. June 24, 1889, no. 76; of that against H. Mohamad Arsad Tawil, P.V. June 3, 1889, in Exh. July 24, 1889, no. 74. 5 See Snouck Hurgronje, in his “Mekka” (1931), p. 276; cf. Missive of the Consul of Djeddah, Nov. 26, 1888, no. 797/19, in Vb. Jan. 11, 1889, no. 9.
See Snouck Hurgronje (1931), p. 277; cf. Missive of the Consul of Djeddah, Nov. 26, 1888, no. 797/19.
See IG (1891), no. 2, pp. 1771–1774. In this article, which was written by the retired Resident van den Bossche, it was refuted that Hadji Abdul Karim was in the same carriage with the resident. It is quite probable that rumours among followers had circulated the news; cf. IG (1891), no. 2, pp. 1139–1140.
Besides the event mentioned under note 7, two other facts were usually (referred to as indications of his miraculous deeds, namely: (1) he was saved when the whole region was flooded by the river Tjidurian; (2) after H. Abdul Karim had been fined, the resident was replaced and the regent retired; see IG (1891), no. 2, p. 1138. For another example of H. Abdul Karim’s keramat, see Snouck Hurgronje (1931), pp. 277–278.
IG (1891), no. 2, p. 1143. From the traditional point of view it is quite natural that prominent persons had various gifts bestowed on them when they arranged festivities at weddings, circumcisions, funerals, etc.; these gifts are the so-called sumbangan.
IG (1891), no. 2, p. 1144; by calling upon the kjais for assistance, the government authorities gave recognition to this “Imperium in imperio” ; this inspired in the religious men a great contempt for the authority of the law. For the hadjis’ assistance in introducing vaccination, see Roorda van Eysinga (1856), p. 66.
For H. Abdul Karim’s statement to this effect, see Report of the Controller (of Serang, May 19, 1889, no. 16, in MR 1889, no. 376.
Ibidem; see also Chap. V, pp. 165 ff.
Snouk Hurgronje (1931), p. 277.
After he had been driven out of Tjilegon, Hadji Wasid decided to take refuge in the mountains of South Banten, expecting the return of H. Abdul Karim, see Report of the Controller, May 19, 1889, no. 16.
IG (1891), no. 2, p. 1140; cf. Snouck Hurgronje (1931), p. 278.
See Missive of the Resident of Banten, Oct. 15, 1889, no. 320, in MR 1889, no. 743, referring to the reign of the “radja ireng” (black king) ; see also Report of the Controller of Serang, May 19, 1889, no. 16, referring to the period when the Dutch would have been driven out of the country and an Islamic state would have been founded.
Missive of the Resident of Batavia, Feb. 7, 1876, La EII, in MR 1876, no. 112.
Missive of the Resident of Batavia, Feb. 12, 1876, La EVII, in MR 1876, no. 141.
Missive of the Resident of Bativa, Feb. 9, 1876, La EIV, in MR 1876, no. 112. 20 Missive of the Resident of Batavia, Feb. 7, 1889, La EII.
Missive of the Resident of Batavia, Feb. 12, 1889, La EVII.
For H. Abdul Karim’s occupation in Mecca after this journey, see Snouck Hurgronje (1931), pp. 278–281; see also Missive of the Consul of Djeddah, Nov. 26, 1888, no. 797/19.
See above, Chap. V, p. 167.
See P.V. Jan. 3, 1889, in Exh. Feb. 23, 1889, no. 68; Tubagus Urip was a venerated rebel, a popular hero, and a comrade in arms of Tubagus Buang, who launched a rising in the beginning of the 19th century.
IG (1891), no. 2, p. 1150; cf. Missive of the Resident of Banten, Oct. 15, 1889, no. 320. From comparisons made between the article in IG (1891), no. 2, pp. 1137–1206, and the relevant government records, it may be inferred that the author of the article in question must have had at his disposal sources from governmental origin. According to Snouck Hurgronje the author was nobody but the Controller of Serang, de Chauvigny de Blot; see Snouck Hurgronje’s note of Aug. 15, 1892, in Gobée and Adriaanse, Vol. III (1965), pp. 1986–1999. For his criticism on the said article, see below, pp. 192 f.
IG (1891), no. 2, p. 1150. The earliest date found in the available records in connection with the planning of the plot is the year 1886; see Missive of the Resident of Banten, Oct. 15, 1889, no. 320.
In 1886 a warning had already been issued by the Attorney General in connection with the stirring up of the population of Banten by religious leaders, see WNI (1888–89), p. 111. See also the well-known articles by Brunner in Java Bode, Sept. 4 and 7, 1885, about the Holy War or “perang sabir”.
See Snouck Hurgronje (1931), p. 273, also quoted by the Consul of Djeddah in his missive of Sept. 4, 1889, no. 1079, in Vb. Oct. 8, 1889, no. 48.
See Missive of the Resident of Banten, Oct. 15, 1889, no. 320; it is not known in what year Hadji Mardjuki left Mecca. In the pilgrim register of 1887 he was already listed under the name of Hadji Mardjuki.
Ibidem; see also Missive of the Consul of Djeddah, Sept. 4, 1889, no. 1079, and Report of the Controller of Serang. May 19, 1889, no. 16, dealing especially with H. Mardjuki’s role in the conspiracy.
Missive of the Resident of Banten, Oct. 15, 1889, no. 320; he must have arrived at the beginning of February 1887, for his travel ticket was numbered 200 and dated 9 February, 1887.
Report of the Controller of Serang, May 19, 1889, no. 16; chataman is derived from chatam or katam which means having finished reading the Qur’an; chat aman refers to the celebration held on the occasion when a murid has finished the “reading” of the Qur’an; see Snouck Hurgronje, in VG, Vol. IV, part 1 (1924), pp. 164, 265.
Report of the Controller of Serang, May 19, 1889, no. 16; in this report it was mentioned that the prices of djimats varied between 50 cents and two guilders 50 cents.
Missive of the Consul of Djeddah, Sept. 4, 1889, no. 1079, which dealt exclusively with H. Mardjuki, with special reference to Mardjuki’s opinion of the revolt of July 1888, For H, Mardjuki’s attitude, see also Snouck Hurgronje in his missive to the Governor General, June 7, 1889, also in Gobée and Adriaanse, Vol. III (1965), pp. 1080–1086.
Report DDI, p. 217; for a description of H. Wasid’s appearance, see Extract M.J. July 19, 1888, in MR 1888, no. 496.
Report DDI, p. 137; for the Wachia rebellion, see above, Chap. IV, pp. 123–127.
Ibidem.
Ibidem.
See IG (1891), no. 2, p. 1192; maleman refers to the celebration held on the 21st, 23rd, 25th, 27th, and 29th of the month Puasa (Ramadan); see also Geertz (1960), p. 78.
Missive of the Consul of Djeddah, Sept. 4, 1889, no. 1079. For the idea of a general revolt, see above, p. 188.
For the role played by H. Abdulsalam from Bedji in gathering about 300 murids to escort H. Wasid, see P.V. May 1, 1889, in Exh. June 24, 1889, no. 76.
Report DDI, pp. 204–205.
Report DDI, pp. 205–207.
Report DDI, p. 211.
Snouck Hurgronje’s note of Aug. 15, 1892; see also A. Djajadiningrat (1936), p. 234.
Snouck Hurgronje, in VG, Vol. IV, part 2 (1924), p. 426.
Missive from Snouck Hurgronje to the Gov. Gen., June 7, 1889; passim; see also his note of August 15, 1892, passim.
Ibidem; also in Gobée and Adriaanse, Vol. III (1965), p. 1993.
See the minutes of the court trials, which are listed in Chap. VIII under note 96; the government spies who gave testimony remained anonymous; see their statements in Exh. June 24, 1889, no. 76. For the difficulty of getting information from the people, see Snouck Hurgronje in his missive to the Gov. Gen., June 6, 1904, in Gobée and Adriaanse, Vol. III (1965), pp. 1959–1960.
See Report DDI, Appendixes D and H; Appendix H is included in this work, see Appendix VIII. For confessions made by captives, see Chap. VIII under note 120 and 125.
H. Mohamad Arsad’s role in the insurrectionary movements of 1888 and May 1889 was quite controversial; see Missive of the Resident of Banten, May 21, 1889, no. 152, in MR 1889, no. 368; see also Missive of the Regent of Serang, May 15, 1889, no. 7, in MR 1889, no. 368. For the accusation levelled against H. Mohamad Arsad, see P.V. June 3, 1889, in Exh. July 24, 1889, no. 77. The man who made a plea for his rehabilitation was Snouck Hurgronje himself; see his article in VG, Vol. IV, part 2 (1924), pp. 417–436. For Mohamad Arsad’s appointment as Head Panghulu of the Court in Serang, see O.I.B. Aug. 25, 1887, no. 21.
O.I.B. March 5, 1860, no. 12.
IG (1891), no. 2, p. 1154; cf. Missive of the Controller of Serang, May 19, 18891, no. 16. Close associates of H. Mardjuki and H. Wasid were H. Abubakar from Kaganteran, H. Asnawi from Bendung Lampujang, H. Iskak from Sanedja, H. Tubagus Ismail from Gulatjir, H. Mohamad Arsad, the Head Panghulu of Serang, H. Mohamad Arsad Tawil from Tanara, and H. Achmad, the Panghulu of Tanara. The policy of banishing all those who had taken part in the festivities on the ground that their attendance showed that they must have been members of the conspiracy has been criticized by Snouck Hurgronje, see his missive to the Gov. Gen., June 7. 1889.
Missive from Snouck Hurgronje to the Gov. Gen., June 7, 1889.
IG (1891), no. 2, pp. 1154–1155. This decision does not necessarily contradict H. Mardjuki’s statement referred to above, since he only made mention of the collection of weapons — not specifically fire-arms — as an essential part’ of the preparations for revolt; see Missive of the Consul of Djeddah, Sept. 4, 1889, no. 1079.
IG (1891), no. 2, p. 1155; see also A. Djajadiningrat (1936), p. 24, where mention was also made of the so-called udjungan, i.e. fencing with sticks.
See P.V. Apr. 9, 1889; see also P.V. May 1, 1889; present were H. Wasid, H. Usman, H. Sapiudin of Leuwibeureum, H. Nasiman of Kaligandu, H. Alpian of Dukuhmalang, H. Mohamad Arip of Bodjonegoro and H. Dulgani of Bedji.
See P.V. Apr. 9, 1889. In a letter to the Resident of Banten, H. Abdulsalam refuted the charges made against him by furnishing an alibi for the period of the rebellion; see H. Abdulsalam’s letter, undated, in Exh. June 7, 1889, no. 51.
P.V. May 1, 1888; for the special significance of the Lebaran Hadji in 1888, which was celebrated as a hadj akbar, see the advice of Snouck Hurgronje, Sept. 7, 1888 in Vb. Sept. 11, 1888, no. 44; cf. Groneman (1891), pp. 68–69; also Vredenbregt, in BKI, Vol. CXVIII (1962), p. 147.
P.V. May 1, 1889. In this section of the lawsuit records, mention was made of H. Sapir from Bedji and H. Djupri from Tjekek (Pandeglang) who also lodged in H. Tjamang’s house.
See footnote of the Procès Verbaal of 9 April, 1889.
P.V. May 1, 1889; see above, note 41.
See Report of the Controller of Serang, May 19, 1889, no. 16; circular letter from the General Secretary, June 4, 1889; Missive of the Resident of Batavia, July 24, 1889 La T4, in MR 1889, no. 515; Missive of the Resident of Madiun, Sept. 20, 1889, La UI in MR 1889, no. 768. The latter refers to a certain religious teacher, Sungeb, who was later also known as H. Mardjuki. He was of Bantenese origin, settled in Blimbing (Blitar) and after having moved twice he returned to Banten in 1888. The identification of this Hadji with Hadji Mardjuki is incompatible with the report of the Controller of Serang and that of the Consul of Djeddah. For another theory on H. Mardjuki’s whereabouts after the Tjilegon rising, see Henny’s note on the Satariah tarekat, in IG (1921), no. 2, pp. 808–830.
Missive of the Resident of Batavia, July 24, 1889, La T4; another meeting was reported to have taken place in the same month, in the hamlet Lontar (Serang Dalem), in the district Blaradja (Tangerang).
Ibidem; H. Wasid’s answer means: “The war of the heart or the Holy War”.
Ibidem.
Ibidem; see also Chap. V, p. 161; no kjais were to be found in Batavia at that time; the only kjai, Kjai Mansur from Pademangan, in Senen, had died shortly before. The head of the Naksibandiah tarekat was H. Abdul-madjit, Head Panghulu of the courth of Djakarta, who lived in Kebondjeruk, in the district Manggabesar; a prominent member was R.M. Prawiradiningrat, Head Djaksa in Batavia. H. Tjamang was of Bantenese origin, but had lived in Djakarta for many years. The tarekat was keenly opposed by Sajid Usman from Djati Petamburan, referred to in Chap. V.; see Snouck Hurgronje in VG, Vol. IV, part 1 (1924), pp. 71–85.
Missive of the Resident of Madiun, Sept. 20, 1889, La UI; cf. Report of the Controller of Serang, May 19, 1889, no. 16. In this respect the two documents correspond with each other.
See above, with special reference to the meeting in H. Umar’s house, pp. 194–195; however, no single name of a hjai or hadji from Ponorogo appears on the list of hadjis in IG (1891), no. 2, pp. 1156–1157.
Ibidem; compare with the names appearing in Appendix VI.
P.V. May 1, 1889; see also Report of the Controller of Serang, May 19, 1889, no. 16 and IG (1891), no. 2, p. 1157.
Ibidem; see also P.V. June 3, 1889.
P.V. May 1, 1889; Report of the Regent of Serang, undated, in Exh. July 24, 1889, no. 77.
Report of the Controller of Serang, May 19, 1889, no. 16.
P.V. May 1, 1889.
The following records refer to the ambivalent attitude of the Regent of Serang, Gondokusumo. Report of the Controller of Serang, May 19, 1889, no. 16; Missive of the Director of the Department of Interior, July 20, 1889, no. 3895, in MR 1889, no. 597; cf. Snouck Hurgronje’s note of Aug. 15, 1892. See also WNI (1888–1889), p. 110; A. Djajadiningrat (1936), pp. 232–235; Insulinde, Jan. 7, 1896.
Report of the Controller of Serang, May 19, 1889, no. 16; Report DDI, Appendix H.
P.V. May 1, 1889.
Ibidem; accompanied by H. Mohamad Sangadeli, H. Tubagus Ismail seems to have visited certain kjais in Tangerang, in the environment of Djakarta, in Bandung and in Tjiandjur.
P.V. May 1, 1889; Report of the Controller of Serang, May 19, 1889, no. 16; also IG (1891), no. 2, p. 1158.
Report of the Controller of Serang, May 19, 1889, no. 16; according to the Controller the date of the meeting was 16 June; 20 hadjis from Tjilegon were present; see also IG (1891), no. 2, p. 1159.
Ibidem.
Missive of the Consul of Djeddah, Sept. 4, 1889, no. 1079; cf. IG (1891), no. 2, p. 1159.
IG (1891), no. 2, p. 1159.
Letter from H. Abdulsalam to the Resident of Banten, undated, in Exh. June 7, 1889, no. 51.
IG (1891), no. 2, p. 1159; for an account of the Djawah colony, in which H. Mardjuki occupied a prominent place, see IG (1915), no. 1, pp. 538–540.
IG (1891), no. 2, pp. 1159–1160.
P.V. May 1, 1889.
Ibidem.
See Geertz (1960), pp. 30–35, where he deals with the Javanese prognostical system; also van Hien, Vol. I (1934), pp. 110–188.
Report DDI, Appendix D; Report of the Controller of Serang, May 19, 1889, no. 16.
P.V. Dec. 6, 1888, in Exh. Jan. 28, 1889, no. 74; for the location of H. Makid’s house with respect to that of the Assistant Resident, see the map of Tjilegon.
See a note from Raden Penna of Dec. 6, 1888, in Exh. Jan. 18, 1889, no. 74.
Report DDI, p. 202.
Report DDI, p. 161.
Java Bode, July 11, 1888; WNI (1888–1889), pp. 700–702; see also A. Djajadiningrat (1936), pp. 33–36.
See Appendix III.
WNI (1888–1889), pp. 700–712.
A. Djajadiningrat (1936), pp. 33–36.
P.V. May 1, 1889.
Ibidem.
Ibidem.
See testimony of spy D, in Exh. June 24, 1889, no. 76. This holy grave is not included in the list of holy places in the districts of Kramat Watu, Tjilegon and Anjer, see Appendix G of the Report of the Director of the Department of Interior. It is an age-old tradition to visit holy graves, either of forefathers or of regional saints or heroes, in order to obtain their blessings for important undertakings. In this case it need not necessarily be the grave of an Islamic saint.
P.V. May 1, 1889; this record also mentions the fact that H. Mohamad Sangadeli had sent home his murids on July 7, because there would be a disturbance (rusuh) on the next Monday; see Missive of the Resident of Banten, May 2, 1889, no. 124, in Exh. June 24, 1889, no. 76; also IG (1891), no. 2, p. 1162.
Report DDI, pp. 3–4.
Report DDI, p. 5.
Missive of the Regent of Serang, May 6, 1889, in MR 1889, no. 368; see also P.V. June 3, 1889.
IG (1891), no. 2, p. 1161.
Report DDI, p. 7; P.V. May 1, 1889.
Missive of the Resident of Banten, May 21, 1889, no. 152, in MR 1889, no. 368; see also P.V. May 1, 1889. 111 Missive of the Resident of Banten, May 21, 1889, no. 152; P.V. May 1, 1889; see also IG (1891), no. 2, pp. 1161–1162.
P.V. April 9, 1889.
Ibidem.
Report DDI, pp. 8–9.
Missive of the Regent of Serang, May 6, 1889; also Missive of the Resident of Banten, May 21, 1889, no. 152.
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). The Insurrectionary Movement. 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_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-6357-8_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-6351-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-6357-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive