Royalty and Nationalism in Thailand and Colonial Indonesia, 1908 - 1942:

Case Study of the Courts of Thailand and Yogyakarta

Research MA Thesis
The Institute for History
Leiden University

Ghamal Satya Mohammad

ghamalsatya@gmail.com
S1416278

Supervisor: Dr. J. Thomas Lindblad

Colonial and Global History Programme

August 2016
 Contents

Royal titles in the courts of Thailand and Yogyakarta………………….. 3

Chapter 1. Introduction 5

Historiographical considerations………………………………… 9
Research question…………………………………….………….. 11
Research method…………………………………………………. 12
Organization………………………………………………………. 13

Chapter 2. The origin and foundation of nationalism: Similarities

and differences 15

2.1. The royal court of Yogyakarta and Thailand……………… 15

2.2. Kingship and legitimacy in Yogyakarta and Thailand……. 19
2.3. The different authorities of Yogyakarta and Thailand……. 24
2.4. Overview………………………………………………….. 29

Chapter 3. Modernization from different perspectives, 1850 – 1910 30

3.1. The origins of modernization policies……………………. 30

3.2. The position of indigenous religion in the modernization… 37
3.3. The establishment of modern education…………………... 42
3.4. Overview…………………………………………………... 49

Chapter 4. Royalty and Nationalism on the move, 1910 – 1930……. 51

4.1. Nationalism from the royalty………………………………. 52

4.2. The network of young nationalists, 1920 – 1930………….. 62
4.3. Overview…………………………………………………… 69

Chapter 5. Reaffirming identity: Thailand and Yogyakarta

during 1930 – 1942……………………………………….. 70

5.1. New Identities in Thailand and Yogyakarta………………. 70

5.2. Reaffirming the royal identity, 1938 – 1942………………. 82
5.3. Overview…………………………………………………… 91

Chapter 6. Conclusion………………………………………………… 93
Bibliography ..……………………………………………………………. 99

2
Royal titles in the courts of Thailand and Yogyakarta

The court of Thailand

Rama (the king of Thailand from Chakri dynasty)

Chao fa (title of a prince or princess of the highest rank – here it refers to

‘prince’)

Phra ong Chao (title of a second-rank prince or princess – here it refers to ‘prince’)

Mom Chao (M.C; title of a grandson or granddaughter of a king)

Mom Rajawongse (M.R; title of a son or daughter of Mom Chao)

Mom Luang (M.L; title of a son or daughter of Mom Rajawongse)

Chao Phraya (the highest title of nobility or high official)

Phraya/Phya (title of a nobility or second rank official)

Phra (title of a nobility or third rank official)

Luang (title of nobility or fourth rank officials)

Nai (title of an official without nobility status)

The court of Yogyakarta

Sultan Hamengku Buwono (The Sultan of Kasultanan Yogyakarta)

Kanjeng Gusti Pangeran (K.G.P.A.A. Paku Alam; The ruler of

Adipati Ario Pakualam Pakualam – here it refers to ‘Prince
Pakualam’)

Kanjeng Gusti Pangeran Haryo (K.G.P.H; title of a high senior prince –

here it refers to ‘prince’)

Kanjeng Pangeran Haryo (K.P.H; title of a senior prince – here it

refers to ‘prince’)

Bendara Pangeran Haryo (B.P.H; title of a senior prince – here it

refers to ‘prince’)

3
Gusti Raden Mas (G.R.M; title of a junior prince – here it
refers to ‘prince’)

Gusti Raden Ayu (G.R.Ay; title of a junior princess)

Bendara Raden Mas (B.R.M; title of a grandson of a king)

Bendara Raden Ajeng (B.R.Aj; title of a granddaughter of a

king)

Raden Mas (R.M; title of a son of a prince or

princess or lower)

Raden Ayu or Raden Ajeng (R.A. or R.Aj; title of a daughter of a

prince or princess or lower)

Raden Tumenggung (R.T; title of a high courtier or official

in the rank of a regent)

Raden Ngabehi (R.Ng; title of a middle rank official)

4
 Chapter 1

Introduction
It is not long ago since the elites by noble birth (the royal family) were ‘accepted’ as
the main, if not the sole, source of admiration. Their long-term establishment as the political
elite is an evidence of their “enchantment” in society, even though on such condition of
“inequality”. The royal family would take part in state politics in a certain dynastic realm,
which then ensured their hereditary right to rule. Until 1760, the ‘enchantment of inequality’
as a consequence of the monarchy state still prevailed and was considered ‘modern’.1 By the
end of the 18th century, inequality was no longer viewed as absolutely enchanting, and
progressed to substantial transformation. From then on, “nationalism”, or the affection and
identity of one’s own “nation”, became increasingly popular. An eminent scholar on this
subject such as Anderson (1983) argues that modernization process from printing press to
western education played a significant role in the development of nationalism. The ‘great
revolutions’ in England (Industrial Revolution) and French (French Revolution), as
Hobsbawm (1962) puts it, contributed to the concept of nationalism with an alternative to
the state model: a nation-state. French monarchy, following the French Revolution was
changed into a ‘republic’. Its reigning monarch and royal family members were either
beheaded or confined to prison. The Marxist idea, which started to gain prominence in the
1860s, regarded all monarchs and the royal families as obstacles to economic and social
progress.
The changes in political system and new ideas under a ‘modern political system’
suggests royal tradition to be in conflict (in the form of ‘either/or’) with egalitarian principles.
In practice, however, we often find that the combination between the two worked quite well.
One successful example from Europe is England. Since the people forced a constitutional
monarchy in 16th century, the king and queen of England only became symbols of the
country. The royal family of England did not have the privilege to rule the government

1
I quoted the phrase “enchantment of inequality” from an informal discussion with Anthony Reid (Emeritus
Professor of History at Australian National University) during a conference at Universitas Indonesia, Depok
(mid-August 2015).

5
anymore. At the same time, the royal family of England was, and still is, able to retain more
or less its social standings in the society. With a slogan, “God save the Queen” the British
devoted their nationalism towards the “Nation” and the “Monarch” up until the present. With
this combination, England’s nationalism became the guiding principle to its people. During
the age of imperialism, the power of the monarch of England and its popularity spread across
continents. In the 19th century, a series of demonstration of imperial might (subjugation) in
the East made Queen Victoria ‘the Empress of India’. In Asia, one example of a nation with
a combination of monarch and constitution is Japan. This country was changed from
centuries of isolation after the “Meiji restoration” (1867) following the Western model. The
Meiji restoration transformed the daimyo (landlords)-dominated government of Tokugawa
dynasty into a country of an effective bureaucratic machine. Along this transformation, the
‘emperor’ and ‘emperor system’ (tennosei) led Japan into modernization. At this time, some
of the old traditions being practiced in the monarchy still continued. As in England, the
monarch in Japan is regarded as the representation of the ‘ancient continuity’.2 The ‘people’s
nationalism’ in these two countries advanced into a combination of “nation”, “parliament”,
and “monarch”. The two countries diffused the idea of monarchy, nationalism and
democracy together. About this condition, Grenfeld argues that,

“Originally, nationalism developed as democracy; where the conditions of such original

development persisted, the identity between the two was maintained. But as nationalism
spread in different conditions and the emphasis in the idea of the nation moved from the
sovereign character to the uniqueness of the people, the original equivalence between it
and democratic principles was lost. One implication of this, which should be emphasized,
is that democracy may not be exportable. It may be an inherent predisposition in certain
nations (inherent in their very definitions as nations – that is, the original national concept),
yet entirely alien to others, and the ability to adopt and develop it in the latter may require
a change of identity.”3

2
It may be of interest to quote it here that, speaking to his official after Japan’s defeat in December 1945,
Emperor Hirohito still considered himself not as a human with limited capacity, but as a descendant of the
Gods. See: Peter Michael Wetzler, Hirohito and War: Imperial Tradition and Military Decision Making in
Prewar Japan (Honolulu, University of Hawaii Press: 1998): 3.
3
Liah Grenfeld, Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity (Cambridge, Harvard University Press: 1992): 12.

6
On the contrary to the notion that modernization brings forward the idea of nationalism,
Grenfeld argues on the existence of a ‘unique character’ or ‘identity’ of each country that
determine a nation. From this model, she proposes to see the development of nationalism
from its own unique process, rather than as product of knowledge transfer.
Recent focus of Southeast Asia studies has moved from the explanation based on
“Western impact and Asia’s response” to the explanation of “indigenous dynamism”. But in
the context of the study of nationalism in Southeast Asia, it still receives less attention. From
Western impact and Asia’s response model, nationalism is explained as merely a product of
western ideas of political wisdom. This model tends to place the monarchy system in
Southeast Asia as ‘traditional’. The introduction of Western education disseminated the
ethical rationale into the people and brought forward nationalism. But this factor is
overlooked when explaining the social change in Southeast Asia during the 19th to 20th
century. As explained by Grenfeld, an explanation to the development of nationalism in
Southeast Asia should able to connect the identity of the indigenous to nationalism. A
comparative-historical study of nationalism between two countries in Southeast Asia with a
common ground in culture and conception of kingship may explain clearer what factors that
relevant to the development of nationalism. My research will highlight in particular the court
of Thailand and the court of Yogyakarta.4 The common ground between the two courts are
the ‘Indic’ (Indian) influence in the royal traditions which dated back before the present
dynasty existed. Traditionally, the king is perceived as the source of all political power within
the states.5 The religious character in royal traditions of the courts of Bangkok and
Yogyakarta creates strong character of the courts in both places.
In the first half of the 20th century, the courts of Thailand and Yogyakarta were almost
at complete opposite sides in terms of political situations. Yogyakarta was part of colonial
Indonesia under the Dutch colonial government. In a territory referred to by the Dutch as

4
To emphasize on the royalty as unit of comparison, this research will give emphasis on the court where it
originated. The court of Yogyakarta refers to the Kasultanan Yogyakarta and Pakualaman royal houses,
while the court of Thailand refers to the royal house that became the epicenter of Thai politics, which
centered in Bangkok. From this point on, I will use “the courts of Thailand and Yogyakarta” to refer to the
three royal houses.
5
Robert Heine-Geldern, Conceptions of State and Kingship in Southeast Asia (Ithaca, Cornell Data Paper
Number 18: 1956): 10.

7
Vorstenlanden, or the principalities, two royal houses in Yogyakarta: Kasultanan and
Pakualaman (here it refers to “the court of Yogyakarta”) were entitled the rights to govern
Yogyakarta principalities in Central Java. Other half of Vorstenlanden, Surakarta
principalities, were under the administration of two royal houses: Kasunanan and
Mangkunegaran. Each royal house financed its own expenses, but they increasingly
depended on Dutch financial support. Thailand, on the other hand, retained full political
sovereignty.6 The court of Thailand, under the ruler of Chakri dynasty controlled the center
of mainland Southeast Asia, from the central bank of Chao Phraya river into Chiang Mai in
its North and Pattani in its South. Since late 19th century until the end of World War II,
Thailand served as a buffer zone between two colonial powers: The British in Burma and
French in Indochina.
My research looks into the role of the courts of Yogyakarta and Thailand, including
the royal families, in the search of identity and nationalism during 1908 - 1942. In terms of
territory, Thailand is of course larger than Yogyakarta principalities. In terms of political
influence, the courts of Yogyakarta and Thailand have demonstrated similar quality to
‘adapt’ to changes in the society and to uphold ‘ancient continuity’. Yogyakarta is the only
place where the traditional courts can still serve as a local political ruler (swatantra). The
present Sri Sultan Hamengku Buwono X (r. 1989 – present) of Kasultanan Yogyakarta is a
governor of Special Region of Yogyakarta – which size is equal to the size of the earlier
territory of Yogyakarta under Dutch and Japanese rule. Together with Prince Pakualam IX
(r. 1938 – 2015) as vice governor, Sri Sultan Hamengku Buwono X governs Yogyakarta in
a republican setting of Indonesia. His role as a Sultan and a governor is a legacy of his father,
the late Sri Sultan Hamengku Buwono IX (r. 1940 – 1988). During his reign, Sultan
Hamengku Buwono IX served both as a governor and minister under Soekarno (in office
1945 – 1967) and Soeharto (in office 1967 – 1998) presidencies. It is worth to mentioned
here that in the period of 1973 - 1978, Sultan Hamengku Buwono IX was the vice-president

6
From its foundation in the late 18th century, the kingdom was called Siam. This name changed to Thailand,
meaning ‘the land of the free’ from 1939 up until the present. In this paper, I will use the term Thailand to
refer to Siam before 1939.

8
of Indonesia.7 In Thailand, too, the power of the present King Bhumibol Adulyadej (Rama
IX, r. 1946 – present) as a symbol of national unity is quite strong. A traveler to Bangkok
today would notice how the capital is decorated with King Bhumibol’s portraits and the
king’s yellow flags despite the military rule in Thailand since the revolution of 1932. It was
King Bhumibol who brought an amicable settlement between the military and Thaksin
Shinawatra’s faction during the political turmoil of Thailand in 2014. In spite of limited
power given to the two rulers after political change in the early 20th century, the king in
Thailand and the sultan in Yogyakarta still have political significance.
My research highlights the development of nationalism in Thailand and colonial
Indonesia with focus on the royalty at the courts of Thailand and Yogyakarta. Not only that
the comparative study of this subject is still given less attention, but in the historiography of
Indonesia there seems to be a tendency to neglect the royalty in the nationalist movement.
As I will explain in later chapters, the royalty took part actively in the discourse of
nationalism.

Historiographical considerations
This thesis applies a comparative-historical method. It explores the characteristics
and determinants of historical phenomena by focusing on causal processes.8 The court of
Yogyakarta and the court of Bangkok are two units of analysis. Earlier comparative study on
this matter, Java –Thailand: A Comparative Perspective by Niels Mulder (1983) focus on
the culture of the two places and did not touch upon royalty and nationalism. But it gives a
baseline on the comparative study between Thailand and Yogyakarta.9 Earlier studies of
nationalism in colonial Indonesia and Thailand are focusing on the development of a new
(educated) elite class. The classical work on this subject is Van Niel (1960) The Emergence

7
Arguably, at the time he became vice president, Sultan Hamengku Buwono IX was the second most
important person in Indonesia. His appointment as a vice president of the Republic gives the gravity of a
sultan in the Republic of Indonesia.
8
Matthew Lange, Comparative-Historical Methods: An Introduction (London, SAGE Publications Ltd.:
2013): 14.
9
Mulder stated that, “Consequently it became apparent that comparison among more or less related cultures
could lead to refinement of description of both of them while opening eyes for those commonalities,
regularities, and variations that may lead to later theoretical understanding. See: Niels Mulder, Java –
Thailand: A Comparative Perspective (Yogyakarta, Gadjah Mada University Press: 1983): vi.

9
of modern Indonesia Elite. His work gives emphasis on the change among the elites in Java
during the period 1900 – 1927. According to Van Niel, the Dutch Ethical Policy contributed
to the emergence of priyayi (administrative or bureaucratic elite of Java) who received
modern education. But Van Niel did not explain much on the development of the royal family
from Vorstenlanden in this process. Similar to Van Niel, other scholar such as Sutherland
(1979) in The Making of a Bureaucratic Elite: The Colonial Transformation of Javanese
Priyayi also focuses on the priyayi in general. In this topic on colonial Indonesia,
considerable attention has been given to the development of “urban elite”, “educated elite”,
“modern elite”, “bureaucratic elite”, “political elite”, and “indigenous organization” that
represent the emergence of “national consciousness”.
In the study of nationalism in Java, few scholars have discussed the role of the royalty
in the nationalist movement. The study by Larson (1987) Prelude to Revolution: Palaces and
Politics in Surakarta, 1912 - 1942 shows that the royal houses of Kasunanan and
Mangkunegaran in Surakarta supported the activities of nationalist organization such as the
Sarekat Islam in Surakarta during the period 1912 - 1942. However, Larson only limits its
work on Surakarta principalities. The work by Nagazumi (1967) The Origin and The Earlier
Years of Boedi Oetomo, 1908 - 1918 explains in limited extent the role of the court of
Yogyakarta in Boedi Oetomo, the first national organization. Nagazumi describes how Boedi
Oetomo became the organization for lower priyayi and royal family members of the
principalities with primary concern in education.
The study by O’Malley (1977) Indonesia in the Great Depression: A Study of East
Sumatra and Jogjakarta in the 1930’s and his article (1978) on Pakempalan Kawulo
Ngajogjakarta (PKN) points to the role of mass organization from Yogyakarta, Pakempalan
Kawoela Ngayogyakarta (Association of the Subjects of Yogyakarta) that related to
Kasultanan of Yogyakarta. Another important work for this study is from Scherer (1975)
Harmony and Dissonance: Early Nationalist Thoughts in Java. Scherer compares nationalist
thought of Soewardi Soeryaningrat, Dr. Soetomo and Dr. Tjipto Mangunkusumo. She
explains that the three figures were the representative of different nationalist thoughts in Java
at their time. In regard to the role of royal family, Scherer explains on the ‘benefit’ that
Soewardi had as a member of the royalty from Pakualaman. With his connection to the

10
royalty, Soewardi did not need to be as radical as Tjipto Mangoenkoesoemo to influence the
wider public and yet still being regarded as the leader of the nationalist.
In the case of Thailand, the topic of nationalism in Thailand emphasize the royalty
and the 1932 coup party (the People’s Party). This topic is divided in the period before 1932
and after 1932. The court of Bangkok occupies the focus of attention during the period before
1932. After 1932, the royal family is superseded by the attention toward the People’s Party.
To explain nationalism from the royalty, “official nationalism” model from Anderson (1983)
tells how this country differ from the condition in colonial Indonesia. In Thailand,
nationalism was a product of the absolute monarch during the period of King Vajiravudh
(Rama VI, r. 1910 – 1925).
A study by Vella (1978) Chaiyo! King Vajiravudh and the Development of Thai
Nationalism is helpful to understand how official nationalism took place. Vella explains King
Vajiravudh’s efforts to bring official nationalism into practice, such as in school curriculum,
in youth organization, in the military campaign, and in article publications to the public.
Other study of nationalism during the reign of King Vajiravudh is the work by Greene (1999)
Absolute Dreams: Thai Government under Rama VI, 1910 – 1925. Greene mentions many
historical events during the reign of King Vajiravudh that was not covered in the study by
Vella on the same subject.
After the period of King Vajiravudh, the study of nationalism in Thailand focused
on King Prajadhiphok and the 1932 Revolution. Batson (1984) seminal work The End of the
Absolute Monarchy in Siam highlights on the events and developments in Thailand during
the period of King Prajadhipok until around 1935.
Although these works do discuss the royalty and nationalism, they focus on specific
period in Thailand or Yogyakarta. None of the works here is about a comparative study of
royalty and nationalism in the period 1908 – 1942.

Research Question
The studies of royalty and nationalism in the courts of Yogyakarta and Thailand are
still limited in number. The court of Thailand received more attention by scholars due to the
role of the court of Bangkok in politics of Thailand. The court of Yogyakarta, on the other

11
hand, was less studied in relation to nationalism because of the much emphasized on
nationalism from educated elites outside the courts. Comparative study of the royalty and
nationalism in the courts of Thailand and Yogyakarta is not yet studied by earlier scholar.
Considering this situation, this thesis intends to contribute to the study of royalty and
nationalism in Thailand and colonial Indonesia, with a case study of the courts of Thailand
and Yogyakarta. I address one main question: “How did the royal courts of Yogyakarta and
Thailand reconcile the idea of nation with egalitarian idea during 1908 - 1945?” To support
this investigation, three sub-questions are posed: “What was the origin and foundation of
nationalism in Thailand and colonial Indonesia?”, “Why did it change in the period of 1908
– 1945?”, “How did the royal family react to the challenges of nationalism?”

Research Method
This research uses historical research method to explain the problems pose in the
research question. It means that relevant primary sources as well as secondary sources will
be studied and interpreted. The primary sources in this research consist of newspaper articles,
published articles, and archives written during the period under research. Newspaper articles
from Thailand that are used for this study include Thai-based English-language newspaper
such as The Siam Observer, Bangkok Daily Mail, and Bangkok Times Weekly Mail. For
Western-based English-language newspaper, this study uses The Washington Post and The
New York Post. Newspaper articles from colonial Indonesia include Indonesian-language
newspaper Oetoesan Indonesia and Javanese – Indonesian-language newspaper Kawoela.
The English-language materials from Thailand that became the primary source for
this study, including: A Siam Miscellany by “Asvabahu”, the pen name of King Vajiravudh
(1912) and The Buddhist Attitude towards National Defence and Administration: A Special
Allocution by Prince Vajiranana. Colonial Indonesia sources, including: “Het Javaansch
Nationalisme in de Indische Beweging” in Soembangsih: Gedenkboek Boedi Oetomo, by
Soewardi Soeryaningrat (1918)
The archives used in this paper include Sabda Dalem Sri Sultan Hamengku Buwono
IX (12 December 1941) and Oendang-Oendang Pepatih Dalem (Koti Samutyokan)

12
Jogjakarta (3 August 1942). For the archival documents covering events in Thailand, I rely
on translated documents from secondary sources.
All the materials for this study are carefully chosen according to the period and
connection with the topic of this study. For instance, to explain nationalist thought of the
court of Bangkok in the period of 1908 - 1930, I will look upon selected writings of King
Vajiravudh during 1910 – 1925, and so on. The selected materials were then analyzed and
interpreted to answer the research questions.
The secondary sources used in this research are selected according to the topics of
royalty and nationalism in Yogyakarta and Thailand. Most of the secondary sources of this
study are published materials in English, Dutch, and Indonesian languages. I rely on
secondary sources in English to interpret key documents on Thailand. For instance, a book
by Pridi Banomyong (2000) Pridi by Pridi: Selected Writings on Life, Politics, and Economy
is useful because it provides numbers of translated documents regarding the People’s Party
of Thailand and Thai Constitution of 1932. Other important book that provides translated
Thai documents is Siam’s Political Future: Documents from the End of the Absolute
Monarchy by Benjamin Batson (1974). Aside from these sources, I also use memoirs,
biographies, and articles written by key figures of Thailand and Yogyakarta after the period
of this research. They are considered as firsthand accounts and will be used accordingly, such
as “Political Memoirs of Mom Rajawongse (M.R.) Seni Pramoj”, in Portraits of Thai Politics
by Jayanta Kumar Ray (1972), Tahta untuk Rakyat: Celah-Celah Kehidupan Sultan
Hamengku Buwono IX (Throne for The People: The Life of Sultan Hamengku Buwono IX)
by Atmakusumah (ed. 1982), and The Old Siamese Conception of the Monarchy by Prince
Dhani Nivat (1954). They provide insights and historical facts that are useful to this research.

Organization
The organization of this paper follows the structure of research questions, and each
chapter will directly relate to the relevant sub-question. There are six chapters in total. The
first chapter is the introduction. The second chapter examines the origin and foundation of
royalty and nationalism in the courts of Thailand and Yogyakarta. The third chapter presents
comparative study between Ethical policy in colonial Indonesia and Modernization policy in

13
Thailand with focus on modern education in the two places during 1850 - 1900. Here the
second and third chapter are intended to answer sub-question one. The fourth chapter
investigates the change in the nationalism and identity of Thailand and Yogyakarta during
1908 – 1930. The fifth chapter discuss about nationalism and identity in the period of 1930
– 1942. The fourth and the fifth chapter serve to answer sub-question two. The explanation
for sub-question three is integrated into all chapters. The sixth chapter is the conclusion.

14
 Chapter 2
The origin and foundation of nationalism: Similarities and differences

The courts of Yogyakarta and Thailand were among the oldest in Southeast Asia that
survived the political change in the period of the 20th century. Their royal ancestries dated
back to at least the 13th century of the Majapahit Empire in Java and the kingdom of Sukhotai
in the mainland Southeast Asia. The royal history of Yogyakarta court extends even further
to the period of Old Mataram - Singosari that occupied Central and East Java around 8th –
12th century. With such a long history and the close proximity to each other, one might
wonder about parallel features between the courts of Yogyakarta and Thailand. The similar
characteristics between them were the high degree of Indic influence and its ‘cultural
adjustment’ to their own local settings, termed by Coedes (1968) as the “Indianized states of
Southeast Asia”.10 Later development soon generated differences between the two royal
courts. Firstly, from the period of 16th century onwards, Islam gradually came to be the major
religion of Java. While Hindu – Buddhist influence has continued to dominate Thailand until
the present era, the teaching of Islam in Java assimilated the earlier Hindu-Buddhist tradition
of the court of Majapahit into an Islamic tradition. The Islamic states of Java emerged from
the foundation of the courts of Demak (c. 1475 -1548) – Pajang (c. 1568 – 1586) - and
Mataram (c. 1587 – 1755). In addition, from the 19th century onwards the Dutch colonial
power became ‘the ruler of all Java’. This is in contrast with Thailand where the period of
19th century marked the rise of the court of Thailand as one hegemonic power in mainland
Southeast Asia. This chapter discuss their similarities and differences that will explain the
origin and foundation of nationalism from Thailand and Yogyakarta before the period of 20th
century.

2.1. The royal courts of Yogyakarta and Thailand

The court of Yogyakarta
The Islamic court of Mataram was founded by Panembahan Senopati (Sutawijaya, r.
1584 – 1601). For more than 150 years the Islamic court of Mataram from its capitals Plered

10
George Coedes, The Indianized States of Southeast Asia (Honolulu, East-West Center: 1968): 2.

15
and Kartasura ruled the major territory of Java and its inhabitants.11 The history of Mataram
was filled with series of conflicts that led to the separation of the kingdom in 1755. The third
ruler of Mataram, Sultan Agung (r. 1613 – 1645), obliterated the emerging forces of Tuban,
Lasem, Jepara, to Surabaya in the Northern Coast of Java. His mancanegara (periphery)
consisted of the land of Priangan in Western Java to Madura island. In the time of Sultan
Agung, the Dutch Vereenigde Oost Indische Compagnie (VOC) in Batavia was an emerging
trading post. The VOC became Sultan Agung’s adversary to rule Java under Mataram. His
first and second attack on Batavia, in 1628 and 1629, ended up in failure. After Sultan
Agung’s death, Mataram was badly shaken by internal conflicts and the secession of its
vassal kingdoms. Moreover, Mataram rulers after Sultan Agung increasingly relied on the
VOC which increasingly became a ‘war band’ in the affair of Java and its surroundings. The
VOC demanded land concessions and economic privileges from its involvement in a
conflict. The period of Mataram kingdom as one royal house came to an end during the reign
of Paku Buwono II (r. 1726 – 1743). In his last two years as a king of Mataram, the Mataram
capital at Kartasura was ransacked by the coalition of the Chinese and Javanese, led by Mas
Garendi (Sunan Kuning). Pakubuwono II succesfully reclaimed back the throne of Mataram
with the help of the Dutch VOC. As a grant for helping to oust the rebel, the VOC received
a narrow strip along the entire coast and along all rivers flowing into the Java sea from
Mataram in 1743.12
In response to this decision, Prince Mangkubumi (the future Sultan
Hamengkubuwono I), and Raden Mas Said (the future ruler of Mangkunegaran Surakarta in
1757) declared war against Mataram court. The war escalated further when Pakubuwono II
signed a contract which ceded the entire territory of Mataram to the VOC on 11 December
1749.13 It was ended, at least partially, with the split (also known as palihan nagari) of
Mataram territory in two: Kasunanan Surakarta (under Sunan Pakubuwono III, r. 1749 -
1788) in its capital of Surakarta and Kasultanan Ngayogyakarta (under Prince Mangkubumi,

11
Kraton Plered was situated in the present day Bantul, Yogyakarta. Kraton Kartasura was situated in the
present day Sukoharjo, near Surakarta.
12
M.C. Ricklefs, A History of Modern Indonesia Since c. 1300 (Hongkong, Macmillan: 1993): 92.
13
Ricklefs, A History: 95.

16
r. 1755 - 1792) in its capital of Yogyakarta.14 Prince Mangkubumi, after he became the ruler
of Yogyakarta, hold the title Sultan (Islamic ruler) as for Sultan Agung. His ruling title was
“Sultan Hamengkubuwono Senopati ing Ngalaga Khalifatullah Abdurrachman Sayidin
Panatagama Sinuhun ing Ngayogyakarta Kaping I”. This title is continued by his successor
of the throne of Yogyakarta. Another royal house in Yogyakarta, Kadipaten Pakualaman did
not emerge directly from the palihan nagari of 1755. It was founded in the year 1813 as a
result of a conflict between the Sultan Hamengku Buwono II and the British interregnum
government. The brother of Sultan Hamengku Buwono II, Prince Notokusumo, was granted
a status and a territory to establish a small principality in the East of Yogyakarta. He became
the ruler of Kadipaten Pakualaman with a ruling title Kanjeng Gusti Pangeran Adipati Ario
Paku Alam I (Paku Alam I, r. 1813 – 1829). From this period onwards, two royal houses are
established in Yogyakarta. They are equal in status as part of the Vorstenlanden of
Yogyakarta.
It is important to mention here that the court of Yogyakarta was founded as a ‘rebel
court’, as compared to other courts in the principalities. Sultan Hamengku Buwono I was
proclaimed by the rebel faction as a contending susuhunan (a title for a king) of Mataram as
early as 1749. Ricklefs stated that Sultan Hamengku Buwono I was “the most able ruler from
the Mataram royal family since Sultan Agung”.15 He strongly opposed any attempt by the
Dutch to intrude the sovereignty of Javanese kings in Yogyakarta and Surakarta. Only
gradually, the influence of the Dutch increased, whereas the sovereignty of Yogyakarta was
lost due to a combination of factors, such as internal conflicts within the palace and the
efforts by the Dutch to control the courts. By 1873, a concept of familial relations was
established to address one another, between the rulers of Vorstenlanden and the Dutch
colonial government.16 The Governor-General was formally addressed as the ‘grandpa’ or
eyang, and the Governor of Yogyakarta as a ‘little brother’ of the Sultan.

14
The war continued until 1757 when Raden Mas Said, one of the leaders in the war against Mataram and
the VOC, agreed to receive a portion of land in Surakarta. He became the ruler of Mangkunegaran court in
Surakarta with the title Kanjeng Gusti Pangeran Adipati Mangkunegara I. His title bore him a junior to
Surakarta royal court, similar to Paku Alam court in Yogyakarta.
15
M. C. Ricklefs, Yogyakarta under Sultan Mangkubumi, 1749 – 1792: A History of the Division of Java
(London, Oxford University Press: 1974): 344.
16
George D. Larson, Prelude to Revolution: Palaces and Politics in Surakarta, 1912 – 1942 (Leiden,
KITLV: 1987): 19.

17
 The court of Thailand
In Thailand, a different situation shaped the development of the court. The court of
Thailand owed its foundation to the court of Ayutthaya from the first half of the 14th century.
During its course for about five centuries, the court of Ayutthaya strengthened the control of
the area in the center of Thailand to the north (Sukhotai territory) and to the south (Pattani
territory). The history of Ayutthaya up until the establishment of the court of Bangkok was
filled with the struggle of hegemony over the mainland, between kingdoms such as Sukhotai,
Chiang Mai, Luang Prabang, Burma, and the Malay states in the south. The hegemonic
power used a ‘tributary system’ as a way to control its vassal. The royal blood line of
Ayutthaya begun by King Uthong (Ramathibodi I, r. 1351 - 1369) when he established the
kingdom of Ayutthaya. During the reign of King Trailok (r. 1448 – 1488), the kingdom of
Sukhotai in the North and Ayutthaya in South was integrated peacefully under Ayutthaya.
Having royal lineage from both the royal family of Sukhotai from his mother and Ayutthaya
from his father, King Trailok became the successor of both Sukhotai and Ayutthaya
dynasties. Kasetsiri said that the unification of the two kingdoms was a success both
“spiritually” and “culturally” as it used a “permanent non-military basis” such as the
influence of the sangha (Buddhist monk) community, a way that became an imprint for the
court of Thailand to unite its outer territories in the later period.17 There were a total of six
dynasties that ruled Ayutthaya between 1351 – 1767. Ayutthaya also experienced several
major wars against the Burmese which made the Siamese as a vassal of the Burmese.18
The Thai emerged again as an independent kingdom from the period of King
Naresuan (1590 – 1605). During his period, Ayutthaya became the destination of European
traders. Different from the rulers of Mataram dynasty, the kings of Ayuthaya did not rely on
Western war bands such as the VOC or the French to help them in the political affairs of the
kingdom. Compared with Mataram, the period of the 17th to early 18th century Thailand was
relatively peaceful from internal struggle. In the period of King Narai (r. 1656 – 1688), the

17
Charnvit Kasetsiri, “Buddhism and Political Integration in Early Ayutthaya: 1351 – 1448”, Archaeology
(Borankhadi) 4: 4 (April 1973), in Charnvit Kasetsiri, Studies in Thai and Southeast Asian History (Bangkok,
The Foundation for The Promotion of Social Science and Humanities Textbooks Projects: 2015): 172 – 173.
18
Chris Baker and Pasuk Phongpaichit, A History of Thailand (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press:
2014): 11- 13.

18
English, French, and the Persian tried to influence the court. The growing influence of
Contantine Phaulkon (a French-Greek) alarmed the Thai royal officials, but Phaulkon
remained in the court due to King Narai’s admiration to western curiosities.19 After the
king’s death, Phaulkon was killed, and the French was expelled from Ayutthaya.20 The
greatest threat of the court of Ayutthaya, therefore, was not the Westerners but the Burmese.
In the second half the 18th century the conflict with the Burmese developed again into series
of war. In 1767, after a year of siege, the royal Burmese troops finally occupied the capital
and ended the reign of Ayutthaya. During this year of turbulence, a new court emerged in
the river basin of Thonburi. A former Ayutthaya General, Taksin was able to pacify the
internal conflicts due to the Burmese attack. Taksin (r. 1776 – 1782) became the king of
Thonburi which aimed to reinstate the former influence of Ayutthaya in the mainland
Southeast Asia. He reintegrated former vassals of Ayutthaya such as Luang Prabang and
Vientiene (both are now part of Laos) to his kingdom. The conflict within the sangha
community and Taksin’s officers over his claim as a new Buddha Boddhisatva (incarnation
of the Buddha) ended king Taksin’s reign. General Chakri, a former general of the court in
Thonburi was enthroned as the new king. He established the Chakri dynasty from Bangkok,
at the opposite side of Thonburi in the Chao Phraya river. His reign title was “Phra Bat
Somdet Phra Paramorucha Mahachakkriborommanat Phra Phutthayotfa Chulalok” or King
Yotfa (Rama I, r. 1782 - 1809). During his reign, King Yotfa strengthened the kingdom with
royal marriage and tributary system to Chiang Mai, Cambodia, and Pattani. In 1890, during
the heyday of colonialism in Southeast Asia, the court of Thailand had become a true
hegemonic power in mainland Southeast Asia.

2.2. Kingship and legitimacy in Yogyakarta and Thailand

Kingship is a basic element of royalty. Legitimacy, on the other hand, is the
acceptance of a ruler’s status to govern the people. Royal tradition played role as the source
to bind the population and the royal elites together in one ‘common identity’. In Yogyakarta

19
W.D (real name unknown), ‘Brief History of Siam, with a Detail of the Leading Events in Its Annals’, The
Chinese Repository, XX, 7 (July 1851): 348.
20
Baker and Pasuk Phongpaichit, A History: 14.

19
and Thailand, the conception of kingship derived from the tradition of religion. Scholars
such as Moertono and Wales describe the combination between the old tradition and a newer
tradition (Buddhist and Islam) as the characteristic of kingship in the two places.21 The basic
conception of kingship in Yogyakarta and Thailand was adopted from Hinduism – Indic
civilization. The king was regarded as a royal god (dewaraja), or a great deity in the human
form, blessed by Hindu God Siva the Destroyer or Wishnu the Sustainer. With this concept,
every command of the king would be associated with the will of the Supreme Being. In the
contemporary Java, the idea of a royal God only persists in the wayang mythology, a popular
Javanese shadow play.22 The influence of Islam modified the old conception of kingship into
the Islamic tradition of a virtuous caliph – or ruler in the Islamic tradition of royalty. The
sultan of Yogyakarta ruled the people according to Al-Qur’an (Islamic bible) and Al-Hadits
(the teaching of prophet Mohammad). The title sultan for the ruler of Kasultanan royal house
was a demonstration of the court’s adherence to Islamic law and tradition. The sultan was
‘kalifatullah’ (God’s representative on earth) and ‘sayidin panatagama’ (‘the leader who
manage and rule according to Islamic religion’). With the influence of Islam, the sultan of
Yogyakarta was not consider a deity, but given the right and responsibility as a
‘representative’ of the supreme being, which still made his rule absolute.23
In Thailand, Buddhism modified the previous conception of kingship from an
absolute royal god to Boddhisatva or an emanation of the Buddha.24 The king of Chakri
dynasty uses a royal name Rama, or a hero-God from Hindu Mahabharata. Prince Dhani
Nivat (1954) stated that the king is a ‘lord of righteousness’ whose task is to abide steadfast
and inspire the population to do good deeds. The relationship between the king and his
people is reflected in the teaching that a king is essentially “elected by the people”.
Moreover, according to the ancient Buddhist teaching of Thammasat, a king does not

21
For the study of Java in this matter, see Soemarsaid Moertono, State and Statecraft in Old Java: A Study of
the Later Mataram Period, 16th to 19th Century (Ithaca, Cornell Modern Indonesia Project: 1981); For the
study of Thailand, see H.G. Quaritch Wales, Siamese State Ceremonies: Their History and Function with
Supplementary Notes (Richmond, Curzon Press: 1992).
22
One of the most popular wayang stories, Wahyu Makutarama tells about the ancient guiding principle of a
just ruler, the Astabrata (eight kingly virtues), which derived from the story of Mahabharata.
23
Moertono, State: 29.
24
Wales, Siamese: 31.

20
automatically become a truly respected king.25 He should put his every effort to become the
lord of righteousness before he can be called the chakravatin, or the universal sovereign.26
As it was in Java with the influence of Islam, the characteristic of a king from Buddhism
does not render its absolute character. Another element of kingship in Thailand is the
paternalistic nature of a king toward his people. Thailand conception of monarchy regarded
the king as a father of the people “..whose advice was sought and expended in all matters
and whose judgment was accepted by all.”27 Given with these elements, Yogyakarta and
Thailand shared similar conception of kingship, that is the king as an absolute ruler under
religion of Islam or Buddhism respectively.
With regard to the conception of kingship, the king requires ‘legitimacy’ with a
characteristic following the tradition in specific society. In the courts of Thailand and
Yogyakarta, there was a tradition to retain legitimation of kingship through religious-cultural
means. Hence, the element of legitimacy in Yogyakarta can be more situational than in
Thailand. There are three aspects of cultural legitimacy for a sultan in Java - Yogyakarta.
Firstly, there is a belief that anyone can be a king according to the Divine’s will. The courts
of Yogyakarta recognized certain sign of legitimacy from revelation from God (wahyu) with
the so called ‘pulung keraton’. This revelation could fall into anyone who is destined to be
king. Pulung keraton was visualized in different forms such as “a star of bright luminance”,
a “dazzling blue”, “green, or white ball of light”, and its appearance could not be anticipated
nor predicted.28 The royal ancestors of Mataram dynasty was told in the Javanese Babad
Tanah Jawi to receive pulung keraton as a legitimacy to rule.29 In the context of the history
of Java, the pulung keraton was suitable with the character of Javanese court which
experience perpetual political change. Secondly, the source of legitimacy for Javanese king
lies in the possession of pusaka ageng or ‘major heirloom with divine power’ of the court.
This is also related to situational element of legitimacy as it required an effort of the ‘right

25
Prince Dhani Nivat, ‘The Old Siamese Conception of Monarchy’, in The Siam Society Fiftieth Anniversary
Commemorative Publication – Selected Articles from the Siam Society Journal. (Bangkok, Siam Society:
1954): 94.
26
Dhani Nivat, ‘The Old Siamese Conception of Monarchy’: 92.
27
Dhani Nivat, ‘The Old Siamese Conception of Monarchy’: 93.
28
Moertono, State: 56.
29
J.J. Ras, Masyarakat dan Kesusastraan di Jawa (Jakarta, Pustaka Obor: 2014): 268.

21
king’ to control pusaka ageng, as well as the ability to contain its spiritual power. Examples
of pusaka ageng of Yogyakarta court, include the spear of Kyai Plered, keris (dagger) Joko
Piturun, the vest of Antakusuma, and the spear of Barukuping.
Thirdly, legitimacy of the king comes from the structured tradition of Javanese court
for legitimacy in the form of a specific ritual. It is the recognition of Widjojo Koesoemo
flower, the sacred flower of Java that can only be obtained at a specific site near the island
of Nusakambangan (Southern Sea).30 In the 19th century, this tradition became intensified as
an important court ceremony, conducted each time after the enthronement of a new Javanese
king. There are also other court rituals of great importance in Yogyakarta. The yearly ritual
to mount Merapi is connected with the ancient image of Javanese king as ‘the lord of the
mountain’. In this ritual, the court retinues would bring sesajen (offering) to the deity in
Merapi. Another ritual, the labuhan of the Southern Sea is related to the legend of the
relationship between the reigning king or sultan of Java and Nyi Loro Kidul, the goddess of
the Southern Sea. Garebeg ritual, the celebration of the birth of the prophet Mohammad
involves the people in general. This ritual also functioned as a demonstration of Sultan’s
authority toward his realm, as it required attendance from all bupati (regent) in his territory.
Any sign of hesitation, in the old days, would mean disloyalty to the sultan. When the
authority of the sultan declined, so did the numbers of his regent that could present in
Garebeg. This ritual always involved the sultan, his royal officials, and the Dutch governor
of Yogyakarta. Cultural legitimacy, therefore, was very important for Yogyakarta as it
became the only ‘direct’ source of legitimacy over the throne.
Interestingly, the sovereign court of Bangkok also perceived legitimacy of kingship
through religious – cultural means as an important factor despite the already wide influence
of the court toward its entire kingdom. The legitimacy of the king of Thailand was structured
under royal traditions that originated from the time of Ayutthaya.31 There was no
‘situational’ concept of legitimacy in the form of a sign from divine source such as pulung

30
Even though the tradition was more documented as a tradition of Kasultanan of Surakarta, there was also
some reports on this tradition from the court of Yogyakarta as well. For more information on Widjojo
Koesoemo, see: Ghamal Satya Mohammad, ‘Widjojo Koesoemo Between Tradition and Science: 1830 –
1939’ (Bachelor thesis, Leiden University: 2014).
31
Wales, Siamese: 5.

22
keraton, which could immediately shift the legitimacy of a dynastic ruler to the chosen one.
The would-be king would claim to have the character of extraordinary barami (in Pali,
parami), or ‘virtue’ according to Buddhism, which subject to approval by the royal elites
and the sangha (Buddhist monk) community.32 Once chosen as a king, the legitimacy of the
king derived from the use of sacred objects in the court rituals. Therefore, the legitimacy of
kingship in Thailand remains a ‘structured’ one. The main aspect of the court ritual is the
presence of the Siamese royal regalia, such as the Great White Umbrella of State (Brah sveta
chatra), the Sword of Victory (Brah sen kharga jayasri), the fan (Batvalvijani), and the Great
Crown of Victory (Brah maha bijaya mankut) with a total of 20 items. Unlike Yogyakarta
which recorded the narrative of its major heirlooms, the story regarding Siamese Royal
Regalia is not much known. But the Siamese royal regalia occupies the highest value as
symbols of the monarch that “befit the high dignity of the king” through the “power” it
possess.33 For instance, there was a belief that the Great White Umbrella is a vessel of the
goddesses who “care for earth”. In the Great Sword of Siam, the court believes in its power
to control ‘lightning’, ‘thunderbolt’, and ‘poisons’.
Beside the royal regalia, the court of Thailand holds Eight Weapons of Sovereignty,
such as the bow (Brah sen dhanu), the trident (Brah sen tri), the discus (Brah sen cakra),
and the Gun of the Saton (Brah sen pu’n kham menam saton) with a total of eight items.34
Compare to the ‘mystery’ of the story in royal regalia, these weapons are well known in
Thailand due to the their connection with the historic battles during the time of Ayutthaya.
The Siamese Royal Regalia and Eight Weapons of Sovereignty would be exhibited as part
of the ceremony during important court rituals. One of the rituals, the Drinking of the Water
of Allegiance (bidhi srisaccpankan), is a great importance for the legitimacy of the state
specifically. This ritual takes place twice a year in the fifth month (Chaitra) and the tenth
month (Bhadrapada) of the Thai calendar, conducted at the royal chapel in the capital or its
comparable in the provincial government. During the ritual, the monks would recite sacred
mantras, and then all the court officials –from royal family into civil service members -

32
Charles F. Keyes, Thailand: Buddhist Kingdom as Modern Nation State (Colorado, Westview Press:
1987): 39.
33
Wales, Siamese: 84.
34
Wales, Siamese: 83.

23
would drink the water from a water vessels contacted with the Great Sword of Siam. On the
ceremony, the brahmans (Sangha or Buddhist priest) would read out the Oath. I will quote
a translation of the first sentence of the Oath that was made during Rama IV’s reign, as
follow:

“We, the slaves of the Lord Buddh, beg to offer to His Majesty, Prabath Somdetch Pra Chula
Chaum Klow [King Rama IV] the king, this personal oath, pledging our loyalty, in the
immediate presence of the god Buddh, the sacred teachings and the sacred priests… If we see
with our eyes, hear with our ears, or know that others are about to do evil to his Majesty, but
delay with evil intent, with ingratitude, and lack of honesty... We pray the deities of lands and
forest… may plague us with evil, destroy our lives, effect our destruction and death by
breakage, by severance..”35

Similar to Garebeg ceremony in Java, the Drinking the Water of Allegiance ceremony was
functioned as a ritual to control the state and its apparatus with cultural means. The court
ritual was as a tool for legitimacy of kingship, which also functioned as political legitimacy
of the king. Thailand used cultural tradition as a legitimacy in culture and politics, while
Yogyakarta used cultural tradition only for cultural one. But in both Thailand and
Yogyakarta, cultural tradition was a tool to create a common identity between the ruler and
the people. The common identity for the people was shaped by royal traditions.

2.3. The different authorities of Yogyakarta and Thailand

The term “authority” means the ability to implement the concept of kingship and
legitimacy of the ruler to govern the kingdom. There are two contrasting situations that can
be observed in relation to the authority of the sultan of Yogyakarta and the king of Thailand.
At the court of Yogyakarta, the sultan was a ‘vassal ruler’, or a subordinate to the Dutch in
colonial Indonesia. The court had to abide to the political contract signed by the sultan and
the Dutch governor of Yogyakarta. The decline of the sultan’s authority was not in an instant
but rather a gradual development. Before the period of 19th century, the court of Yogyakarta
did not perceive itself as inferior to the VOC, nor that the VOC had the actual power at that

35
Wales, Siamese: 194.

24
time to subjugate the court under Western ‘dominance’. The court of Yogyakarta was part
of the ‘divided Java’, along with the authority of Surakarta and the Dutch since the second
half of the 18th century. Traditionally, the territorial authority of Javanese court depended
upon the influence of the king and its court into the periphery, where the vassal would send
‘tribute’ or submission to the center power. The territory of Yogyakarta, in this regards,
followed three division of areas: the negara (inner realm – highest authority of the sultan),
negaragung (outer realm – considerable authority of the sultan), and mancanegara
(periphery – less authority of sultan). The contest of the territorial authority of former
Mataram court was more prevalent between Yogyakarta and Surakarta in this century, with
the Dutch functioned as an ‘arbitrator’ whose authority was accepted by all. The many
decades of relative peace (1757- 1825) in Java shifted the perception of the Javanese elites
from the struggle over the sovereignty of Mataram into the effort to preserve peace as their
priority.36 Simultaneously, the Dutch began to view the courts of Java as their subordinates.
The demise of the VOC in 1799 was followed with the gradual establishment of the
Dutch ‘colonial authority’. Colonial ‘administrators’ such as Governor-General Herman
Willem Daendels (in office 1808 - 1811) and British Lieutenant-Governor-Thomas Stamford
Raffles (in office 1811 – 1816) imposed the policy to weakened the authority of the court,
such as annexation of the Yogyakarta territory.37 This annexation was a gradual process,
starting from the annexation as a result of a new agreements between Yogyakarta and the
Dutch in 1811, the split of Yogyakarta territory to establish Pakualaman in 1812, and the
annexation as a consequence of the Java War (1825 – 1830). By 1850, all Yogyakarta’s
former mancanegara territory had already belonged to the Dutch. In the internal affairs of
the palace, the Dutch had the right to appoint the suitable patih (vizier) in the Yogyakarta
keraton (court). The Dutch increasingly played a role as a decision maker to nominee a sultan
in the 19th century onward. The role of the Dutch as an ‘arbitrator’ was enhanced in the 19th
century as having the authority to keep the royal stamp of Yogyakarta.38

36
Ricklefs, Yogyakarta: 633.
37
Ricklefs, Yogyakarta: 552.
38
Soeratman, Darsiti. Kehidupan Dunia Keraton Surakarta, 1830 – 1939 (Yogyakarta, Taman Siswa: 1989):
67.

25
 From 19th century onwards, the Dutch challenged the authority of the royal court by
using the court symbol and regalia such as royal parasol to be used by its own officer from
the rank of Dutch high officer to Javanese high priyayi. In terms of financial matters, the
court of Yogyakarta increasingly depended on the Dutch assistance. The court budgets and
expenditures should get the approval from the Dutch. Not to mention that the sultan received
‘financial aids’ by the Dutch government. In the context of traditional authority of the sultan,
the effort by the Dutch to tighten the control of the monarchy was a threat to the existence
of Yogyakarta royalty. At first, the court responded by defying the colonial authority. But
severe punishment such as banishment of the court member, including the sultan, would
follow if such an act was known to the Dutch government. The fear of a new war after 1830
made the Dutch to gradually abolished the regular troops of the court of Yogyakarta.
At the end of 19th century, a combination of effective administration and control of
the population created a stable colonial authority where the sultan and the royal family of
Yogyakarta became part of the colonial system of the Dutch Colonial government. There
was no innovation in traditional bureaucracy or Javanese law code from within the court
circle, except the ones introduced by the Dutch such as land reform or the abolition of
lungguh system (land appointed to a person by the king) and the introduction of the Adat
law (customary law) in Java, which regulated the indigenous affairs in Colonial Indonesia.
Nevertheless, the sultan and his royal family still remained at the apex of indigenous society.
At the same time, they had very limited authority in terms of political, economy, and military
power. This situation became characteristic of Javanese nationalism in the 20th century. The
sultan and the princes, fearing the sanction of the Dutch that could affect their positions,
usually did not give an open support for nationalist movement. The royalty, without showing
open hostility to the Dutch, held the spirit of ‘anti-colonialism’. One form of early anti-
colonialism from the Javanese can be found in the prophecy of Joyoboyo. According to this
prophecy, the Javanese would attain prosperity after series of calamities and conflicts. In one
version of this prophecy, the Dutch (the “Pringgiers”) would be expelled by the army from
Turkey (the “Ngroem”).39 Another more popular version of this prophecy in the 20th century

39
J.A.B. Wiselius, ‘Djaja Baja: Zijn Leven en Profetieen’, Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Laan-, en Volkenkunde
van Nederlandsch-Indië, 19, 1 (1872): 190 – 191.

26
is the arrival of the ‘yellow people’ (the Japanese) who would expel the Dutch from Java.40
The Japanese were to stay in Java for the lifespan of a corn (maize) plant (“seumur jagung”)
before the Javanese could be entirely free from foreign rule.
In the sovereign court of Thailand, the king exercised his authority over its entire
kingdom. In this regard, the court of Thailand was more similar to the Dutch as one
hegemonic power instead of the small authority of Yogyakarta. Up until late 19th century,
the authority of the king of Thailand to his vassal states such as Chiang Mai and Pattani was
implemented under “tributary system”.41 Traditionally, the territory was governed according
to muang luang (the capital and its surrounding – with the highest authority of the king),
muang (the greater realm – considerable authority of the king), and the periphery (the vassal
states – less authority of the Thai king). Under the tributary system, the vassal states of the
court were required to send tributes periodically to Bangkok. As part of the tributary system,
the king maintained familial relationship in the form of marriage exchanges with his vassal.
The bond between the central court and its vassal was loose. At first, tributary system was
suitable for the court of Bangkok since it could able to exercise authority to domestic rulers.
The growing influence of the western colonial power such as the British and French in the
mainland made the court of Bangkok to find the means to secure the kingdom’s territorial
integrity. Another reason for a reform was to ensure the provincial elite’s authority to the
central government.42 Therefore, from the period of 1892 – 1915, Prince Damrong, the then
Minister of the Interior implemented an administrative and territorial reform (Thesaphiban
system) in entire Thailand. With the Thesaphiban or provincial administration system, the
country was divided into provinces, each with its provincial capital. The vassal court as a
semi-independent institution in Thai’s traditional administration was abolished, and replaced

40
Denys Lombard, Nusa Jawa: Silang Budaya: Kajian Sejarah Terpadu Bagian 3: Warisan Kerajaan-
Kerajaan Konsentris (Jakarta, Gramedia: 1996): 104.
41
Under the tributary system, the court of Thailand received tributes from its vassal states regularly. It was a
show of recognition from the vassal states in Thailand’s domain. In return, Thailand would provide help to
the vassal in case of difficulty.
42
Tej Bunnag, The Provincial Administration of Siam, 1892 – 1915: The Ministry of the interior under
Prince Damrong Rajanubhab (Kuala Lumpur, Oxford University Press: 1977): 137.

27
by civil administration of the province.43 After 1915, there were no longer any vassal states
in Thailand. All this reform took place in less than two decades of the history of Thailand.
In order to implement thesaphiban system, Thailand needed to have a clear and
unchallenged political authority in its realm, as it would deal with influential leaders in the
local level. The command of the military, in this regard, was important to ensure that
legitimacy of the central government would be observed. The military was an important
element of the court of Bangkok since its foundation in 1782. Since the early Bangkok
period, the king was a commander of the Thai army. King Yotfa (Rama I) was a former army
general at Taksin’s court in Thonburi. He experienced the periods of turbulence from the
time he ascended to the throne. With the command of a more advanced Thai regular troops,
Rama I expanded his control to the peripheries. The period of 19th century to early 20th
century saw increasing prominence of Thai military. The command of more advance Thai
military was needed to secure the territory of Thailand from outside power such as the British
and French. With the aftermath of French gunboat incident (or the Paknam crisis) in 1893,
Thailand lost the influence of Lao territory in the upper of Mekong river such as Luang
Prabang, to the French colony.44 In 1904 and 1907 another Thai influenced of Lao territory
at the lower Mekong river such as Sayaburi and Battambang were annexed to the French.45
In 1909, the British forced Thailand to surrender the Malay states of Kedah, Kelantan,
Trengganu and Perlis. Combined with the loss of territory to France, Siam had lost 233.099
square kilometers of territory during the period of 1893 - 1909.46
Despite the conflicts with the colonial power resulting in the annexation of its
territory, the authority of the court of Thailand was still strong. Thailand sought to maintain
its sovereignty which was achieved since the attack of the Burmese in 1767. Compared with
Yogyakarta, the origin of Thai nationalism, or the source of identity in Thailand, is its
sovereignty. The policies such as territorial and administration reform were needed to raise

43
Bunnag, The Provincial: 140.
44
On 13 July 1893, French gunboats attacked Thailand’s forts in Bangkok. The French won the military
engagement against Thailand. It gave the French a bargaining position to force a treaty to Thailand.
45
Richard Shaw Stetson, Siam’s Diplomacy of Independence, 1855 – 1909, in the Context of Anglo – French
Interest (Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, New York University: 1969): 100, 114.
46
Stetson, Siam’s Diplomacy: 141.

28
the standard of the country in order to maintain the sovereignty of Thailand. The reform in
judicial aspect of Thailand, for instance, resulted in the acceptance of Western powers to
Thai codes. One example of the acceptance of Western power to Thai codes can be seen in
the Treaty between Great Britain and Siam in 1909. It regulated not only new territorial
jurisdiction but also recorded the willingness of the British to be recognized under modern
Thai codes, namely the penal code, the civil and commercial codes, the codes of procedure,
and the law for organization of courts, the ones that surely benefited the British in Thailand.47
It was in contrast with the court of Yogyakarta where the Dutch was the one to introduce
judicial reform in the court. The vision of Thai court to modernization combined the ancient
tradition of royalty with the western principles in the military, politics, and legal matters.

2.4. Overview
The courts of Yogyakarta and Thailand emerged as sovereign courts at first. But this
situation changed in 19th century when Yogyakarta became a subordinate to the Dutch
colonial government. It resulted in the dependency of the court of Yogyakarta to the Dutch.
At the same time, it triggered anti-colonialist sentiments at the court of Yogyakarta. Dutch
subordination of the court of Yogyakarta became the common ground that unite the royalty
and the people of Java. Dutch colonialism was the origin of nationalism from the royalty. In
Thailand, it was Thai sovereignty that led to the birth of nationalism. The vision to maintain
its sovereignty was the drive of modernization in Thailand. This chapter also explains that
royal tradition played a central role as a foundation of nationalism in Yogyakarta and
Thailand. It was the mechanism from the royalty to create a common bond between the ruler
and the people.

47
‘Treaty Between Great Britain and Siam’, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 3, No. 4,
Supplement: Official Documents (October 1909): 299.

29
 Chapter 3
Modernization from different perspectives, 1850 - 1910

In this chapter, I discuss the effort toward ‘modernization’ that took place in Thailand
and colonial Indonesia. Untouched by colonial rule, Thailand increasingly saw the threat of
Western dominance in Asia which might also in turn affected the sovereignty of the country.
Modernization of the kingdom was considered as a way to resist the West penetration. For
the Dutch, who became the ruler of all Java, the need was to turn the land into profit. For
nearly 70 years after the Java War, the Dutch focus was to build the colonial economy. The
period of 1830 – 1870 was the period of Cultivation System (Cultuurstelsel). The period of
1870 – 1890 was the period of liberalization in colonial Indonesia in which the Dutch
attracted foreign firms to invest in the colony. It was only in 1901 that the Dutch introduced
‘Ethical Policy’ which aimed to ‘enlighten’ the indigenous with Western knowledge. In
Thailand, similar policies were already pursued several decades earlier. The effort from a
different perspective in Thailand and colonial Indonesia created two different outcomes.
Firstly, in the field of religion, the Dutch weakened the potential strength of Islam as an
element of political change in the population. This condition was in contrast with Thailand
where the court of Bangkok incorporated Buddhism as part of the modernization policy
which centered in the court. Secondly, the search of modern education in Bangkok did not
neglect the monastery as part of government education project. The Dutch government, on
the other hand, introduced a secular education and neglect the pesantren. Thus, we will see
in this chapter how the perspectives from Bangkok and Batavia contributed to the
development of Thailand and Yogyakarta.

3.1. The origins of modernization policies

Modernization policy in Thailand
The effort toward modernization began as a royal tradition in Thailand. King
Mongkut (Rama IV, r. 1851 - 1868) was the first monarch of Thailand to introduce the policy
to ‘become modern’ to respond the increasing threat of colonial power in its territory.

30
Thailand had every reason to distrust the west in view of the 17th century Ayutthayan
experience of Phaulkon, the Greek-French adventurer to the court of King Narai. But in the
19th century, Thailand was a small country compared to the military might of the British and
French. Most of the time, Thailand had to adjust with the need of the West to retain its
sovereignty. In 1826, the Treaty of Burney opened the economic prospect of Thailand’s
foreign trade with the British. From this time onward, Westerners from England, Germany,
and the United States came to Thailand.48 But at this period there was still no further interest
from Thai royalty to the study of western science, the tool for modernization, before the
period of King Mongkut. His experience as a Buddhist monk taught him the importance of
religious knowledge and Western science. At first, Mongkut was educated in the Grand
Palace where he studied Pali language, Thai, and military science. Later on, Mongkut learned
English, Latin, Astronomy during the time as a Buddhist monk. When he became king at the
age of 40, King Mongkut promoted his interest of western knowledge in the court circle and
aimed for the country’s modernization.49 From the period of King Mongkut onwards, Thai
royal family was obliged to be skillful with English and western subjects such as Arithmetic.
King Mongkut invited British tutor, the famous Anna Leonowens, to teach western science
to his children.50 It was during the period of King Mongkut that the British naval show-off
force appeared in Bangkok waters to enforce the Treaty of Bowring in 1855, which called
for further economic concessions and ‘free trade’ with the British. As a means to balance the
British in Thai economy, the court of Bangkok invited other Western power to ratify the
same treaty as the British in Thailand. The curiosity toward western science in combination
with diplomatic reception to the French and British envoys ultimately led to his death in
1867. During the ’science trip’ event to view the eclipse in a place called Hua Wan, near the
Samrotyoi beach in the province of Pattani, King Mongkut caught malaria.51 He was
succeeded by his son, Chulalongkorn (Rama V, r. 1868 - 1910).

48
Rong Syamananda, A History of Thailand (Bangkok, Chulalongkorn University Press: 1993): 115.
49
John Blofeld, King Maha Mongkut of Siam (Bangkok, Siam Society: 1987): 67.
50
Anna Leonowens was a British woman hired as a tutor for the children of King Mongkut. She was
immortalized in the movie picture ‘The King and I’ (1956). For a recent study of Anna Leonowens, see:
Alfred Habegger, Masked: The Life of Anna Leonowens, Schoolmistress at the Court of Siam (Madison,
University of Wisconsin Press: 2014).
51
Blofeld, King: 85.

31
 King Chulalongkorn expanded the interest of Western knowledge into the policy of
modernization. He realized that Thai government sectors were ineffective and needed reform
according to western example. In a letter to his brother Prince Damrong, he stated that:

“... Our country is surrounded by countries which are strictly ruled by more powerful nations.
We must have relations along the frontier. One cannot remain aloof as before. There are three
ways to safeguard our country internally and externally; to negotiate settlements, to maintain
strength to keep peace, and to reform the administrative system...”52

Before the modernization policy was implemented, the king in 1871 travelled to the British
colony of Singapore and the Dutch colony of Java. As stated by Sartrapoong, the journey
was a “success”, for the king of Thailand was given an appropriate and royal reception by
the British and the Dutch.53 Thailand at that time needed recognition by colonial power as a
sovereign country. This event was a continuation of King Mongkut’s ideal to reach the west
through its own standard of diplomatic gesture. Furthermore, the reason for this journey was
to conduct a survey on the situation in the Western colonies in Southeast Asia. During his
visit of 1871, King Chulalongkorn was not able to visit the principalities. But he would then
visited Java again in 1896 and 1901.54 Making it a kind of royal custom for the king and
royal family of Thailand to visit Java during the period of 1871 - 1932.55

52
Letter of King Chulalongkorn to Prince Damrong Number 132/454 (18 January 1895), National Library of
Thailand, Bangkok, as quoted in Stetson, Siam’s Diplomacy: 143.
53
Kannikar Sartraproong, A True Hero: King Chulalongkorn of Siam’s Visit to Singapore and Java in 1871
(Bangkok, Tana Press and Graphic: 2004): 231.
54
King Chulalongkorn eventually visited the principalities in his second and third visits. But he did not visit
Yogyakarta.
55
The full journeys of Thai kings and royal family in the long period of 1871 – 1932 have not been fully
studied by scholars so as to reveal their geopolitical significance. In 1929, the Dutch Governor General in
Batavia made a speech to welcome King Prajadhiphok (Rama VII) in which he said that, “I am sure this
development has been greatly stimulated by the repeated personal visits to Java paid by the King of Siam and
by members of the Siamese Royal family, and I trust that also this visit of Your Majesty will promote and
strengthen the bonds of good will prevailing between Siam and the Netherlands Indies and will be effective
to a steady development of our common interest in the commercial and economic fields.” This speech was
quoted from the article entitled “Siam and Java” (interestingly, not ‘Siam and the Dutch’), in Bangkok Daily
Mail (1 July 1929).

32
 When he returned back to Thailand, King Chulalongkorn made a “silent coup” to
unite the fragmented areas of Thailand into one national body.56 He implemented several
reforms in the government, such as the provincial administration, the command of the
modern armed force, financial reform, and the abolition of slavery. I have explained about
provincial administration in earlier chapter. In the armed force, King Chulalongkorn raised
the numbers of troops into 15.000 royal soldiers and 3.000 marines between the period of
1870 – 1880 alone.57 Revenues from taxes were strictly regulated, as the tax farmers (mostly
the Chinese) now had to send their tax collecting directly to a Revenue Office in Bangkok.
The abolition of slavery in 1874 was a measure to regulate labour more efficiently in
Thailand. The economic aspect of the abolition of slavery was that the ‘free men’ would
have to work more for three months in a year or pay the government 18 baht, while
previously the slaves who were the majority of ordinary Thai citizens only had to work for
eight days or pay 1 baht 50 stangs.58 In all these reforms, we can see that the court of
Thailand had a pragmatic approach without neglecting the financial aspect toward a stable
government. Thailand was supervised by experts from Western countries such as Germany,
Denmark, France, and England in the government ministries and state projects. Along with
this development, one key feature of modernization policy by Thailand was the improvement
of education sector à la Thai. Primary education throughout the population was given by the
service of the sangha community. The royal elites received the privilege to receive the higher
education, with a gradually increasing number of the ordinary people. This approach created
a pattern of modern elite which centered in Bangkok.

The Dutch Ethical Policy

‘Ethical Policy’ is equivalent to modernization policy in colonial Indonesia. It refers
to wide range of aspect from economic, social, and also political modernization in colonial

56
The term silent coup to refer to provincial administration reform of King Chulalongkorn was coined in the
classic work of Reginald Le May (1936). See: Reginald Le May, An Asian Arcady (Cambridge: W. Heffer
and Sons, Ltd., 1936): 54.
57
A.J. Loftus, The Kingdom of Siam: Its Progress and Prospects (Huntingdon, 1891): 5.
58
Bunnag, The Provincial: 57.

33
historiography.59 As an idea, Ethical Policy originated from the ‘sympathy’ of the Dutch
toward the condition of the indigenous population in colonial Indonesia at the end of the 19th
century. At that time, the Dutch realized that so much profit had been given from the colony
since their early ventures in the East but the natives (such as the Javanese) were still poor
and backward. Van Deventer, a Dutch lawyer and a former colonial official wrote an article
about “debt of honor” (Een ereschuld) in 1899. In this article, van Deventer stated that the
people of the Netherlands were indebted to the natives in the colony from the huge profits
they acquired up until that time. He stated further that this debt was based on ‘fairness’
(rechtvaardigheid) and ‘honesty’ (eerlijkheid). According to Van Deventer,

“Denzulken worde dan in herinnering gebracht, dat in Nederland de welvaart der gegoede
klassen, waartoe zij behooren, ten nauwste samenhangt met het behoud onzer koloniën in
Oost-Indië en dat er geen beter middel bestaat om dat behoud te waarborgen, dan een politiek
van rechtvaardigheid en eerlijkheid. Want alleen daardoor zullen wij ons duurzaam kunnen
verzekeren van een macht, waartegen de sterkste landingslegers niet zouden zijn opgewassen:
de achting, de liefde, de trouw der talrijke bevolking van insulinde. Nog is het niet te laat: de
groote meerderheid der Inlanders is tevreden, of althans niet ontevreden, onder Nederlands
heerschappij, weet niet beter of het behoort zoo.”60

The article by Van Deventer urged the Netherlands government in The Hague to launched
the Ethical Policy. Going further back in the 1860s, the book by writer Multatuli (Eduard
Dowes Dekker) Max Havelaar also showed the need to develop the colony in ethical way.61
But only from the end of the 19th did the Ethical Policy gained momentum. This idea was
elevated further in 1901, when Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands’ delivered the Ethical
Policy. She stated,

59
Elsbeth Locher-Scholten, Ethiek in Fragmenten: Vijf Studies over Koloniaal Denken en Doen van
Nederlanders in de Indonesische Archipel, 1877 – 1942 (Utrecht, HES Publisher: 1981): 201.
60
C.Th. van Deventer, “Een Ereschuld” (March – June 1899), in H.T. Colenbrander and J.E. Stokvis, Leven
en Arbeid van Mr. C.Th. van Deventer, Vol. 2 (Amsterdam, P.N. Van Kampen en Zoon: 1916): 42 – 43.
61
Max Havelaar has been translated into many languages, as well as Indonesian language. On the Dutch
language version of Max Havelaar, see: Multatuli, Max Havelaar (Amsterdam, Van Oorschot: 1949).

34
 “As a Christian Power, the Netherlands is duty-bound to improve the legal position of the
native Christians in the Indian Archipelago, to lend firmer support to the Christian mission,
and to permeate the entire governmental system with the realization that the Netherlands has
a moral obligation towards the population of these areas.”62

On the reason behind the Ethical Policy, Queen Wilhelmina explicitly stated that the
“Christian mission” and “moral obligation” from the Dutch imperial domination were the
motives behind the drive for humanitarian concerns in the colony. Religious and moral
motives surpassed the financial concern and created an urge toward the implementation of
Ethical policy in the colony. It was on the contrary to the financial situation of the
Netherlands at that time, which suffered from heavy spending due to ‘colonial wars’ in area
such as Aceh War (1873 – 1904) and Bali War (puputan, 1906, 1908).63
As a product of the Dutch colonial government, the Ethical Policy was not the same
as the policy which came from the indigenous people itself as in Thailand. In the Ethical
Policy, the Dutch supremacy in colonial Indonesia was regarded as a virtue from the Dutch
as the ‘top elite’ in the colonial society down to the indigenous people, including to the
Javanese royal elite, which was considered as the group ‘in need of help’. P. Brooshooft, a
journalist and ardent supporter of Ethical Policy stated that,

“What shall become the drive toward the realization of this duty is the humanism, that is the
feeling of justice, the realization that we have to give the Javanese, who have been dependent
to us against their own will, something of our best. That is the noble desire of a strong man
to help the weak with a sense of justice.”64

With the implementation of Ethical Policy, improvements were made in the structure of
colonial population, which included basic ideas such as: education, irrigation, emigration,

62
Ernest van Raalte and Chris de Moor, Troonredes, Openingsredes, Inhuldigingredes, 1814 – 1963 (‘S-
Gravenhage, Staatuitsgeverij: 1964) as quoted in Harry J. Benda, ‘The Pattern of Administrative Reforms in
the Closing Years of Dutch Rule in Indonesia’, Journal of Asian Studies, 25 (1966): 592.
63
Eduard J.M. Schmutzers, Dutch Colonial Policy and The Search for Identity in Indonesia, 1920 – 1931
(Leiden, Brill: 1977): 13.
64
P. Brooshooft, De Ethische Koers in de Koloniale Politiek (Amsterdam, 1901): 7, as quoted in Locher-
Scholten, Ethiek: 239.

35
and welfare.65 However, there were several disadvantages of the Ethical Policy that related
to the development of the court of Yogyakarta. Firstly, ethical policy created a new modern
elite in colonial Indonesia oriented toward the West (including Batavia and The Netherlands)
that gradually neglected the traditional political institution (the keraton) and its culture. It is
true that the Ethical Policy promoted the Javanese elite such as the priyayi class a better
chance in Western education and government position. But the emergence of western
education and the opening of new positions in bureaucracy shifted the allegiance of many of
these elites to the Dutch colonial government. Secondly, another problem of ethical policy
is its failure to address equality among the Dutch and the indigenous in colonial bureaucracy.
R.M. Koesoemo Joedha, a prince from the royal house of Pakualaman was one of the
promising members of the Yogyakarta elite. From the age of eight, he went to the
Netherlands and received primary and secondary education there. In 1904, he became the
first Javanese to pass the Dutch examination for higher official (Grootambtenaars-examen)
from Leiden. Upon his return to Java, Koesoemo Joedha worked as an aspirant controlleur
in the Dutch administration.66 However, half a year later he was soon transferred to the native
credit division (Volkskredietwezen). Similar fate also happened to R.M. Sajogo, a cousin of
Koesoemo Joedha. Together with Koesoemo Joedha, he was educated in the Netherlands
and passed Dutch examination for higher official. Upon his return to Java, he was not raised
as a high officer. Instead, he became a mantri polisi, one of the lowest positions in the
indigenous administration.67 A third disadvantage of Ethical Policy to the court of
Yogyakarta was the association of Islam as ‘problematic’ in the colony, given the fact that
the majority of populations were Muslims. As I will explain in the next section, there was a

65
Schmutzers, Dutch: 14.
66
The Dutch colonial bureaucracy was divided according to the Dutch (European) administration and
indigenous administration. The ranks in Dutch administration, from the top to the lowest, include: resident,
assistant resident, first class controleur, second class controleur, and aspirant controleur. The ranks in
indigenous administration include: regent, district head, under district head, 1st class funder district head, and
2nd class under district head. In: Clive Day, The Policy and Administration of the Dutch in Java (Kuala
Lumpur, Oxford University Press: 1972): 418.
67
Mantri Polisi was not listed in the ranks of indigenous administration by Clive Day, but according to
Sutherland this rank was equal to “untrained functionaries” and “youth who had just left the OSVIA”. On
the discussion of indigenous administration, the case of Koesoemo Joedha and Sajogo, see: Heather
Sutherland, The Making of a Bureaucratic Elite: The Colonial Transformation of the Javanese Priyayi
(Singapore, Heinemann Educational Books: 1979): 52 – 53.

36
gradual effort to reduce the influence of Islam. It was in contrast with Thailand where the
court of Thailand incorporated the religion of Buddhism as part of its modernization policy.

3.2. The position of indigenous religion in the modernization

Buddhism as an integral part of the court of Bangkok
One strength of the court of Bangkok is its support to the existing people’s religion
of Thailand: Theravada Buddhism (“the way of the elder”). It has been the religion of the
majority of Thai people since at least the time of Ayutthaya. The court of Thailand also
continues the tradition to uphold Buddhism in the court. The kings of Thailand, from
Mongkut to Prajadhipok spent some time as a Buddhist monk during their lifetime. It was to
fulfill their task as the “defender of religion”.68 In turn, the king encouraged all Thai males
to receive Buddhist education in the monastery (wat). The process of Theravada Buddhism
to become an integral part of the court and the whole Thailand took place gradually. It can
be said that the effort to integrate the Buddhist institution in Thailand was also in line with
the struggle to unite the kingdom under the influence of Bangkok. This process began by
King Yotfa, the founder of Chakri dynasty, who revived the sacred Buddhist ritual of
Ayutthaya and reformed the Sangha institution along the establishment of ‘the new Buddhist
kingdom of Thailand’ centered in Bangkok.69 At that time, the Buddhist institution and its
sangha in Thailand were still not unified. The kingdom was divided into different practices
of Buddhism, and the practices often mixed with local beliefs. For instance, the practice of
the Buddhism in the North was different than the Buddhism practiced in the central plain.
King Mongkut was an early reformer who made a concentrated effort to unify all kinds of
Buddhism practice in Thailand with the standard of Buddhist scriptures instrumented from
Bangkok. The Buddhist order supported by King Mongkut and the royal court was known
as the Dhammayut or Thammayutnikai. The Buddhist order of Dhammayut sought to ‘purify’

68
The word ‘religion’ here refers solely to Buddhism. Only during the reign of King Vajiravudh (Rama VI)
onwards that religion (sasana) also included all religion recognized in Thailand. For discussion on the king
as defender of religion, see: Yoneo Ishii, Sangha, State, and Society: Thai Buddhism in History (Honolulu,
The University of Hawaii Press: 1986): 67.
69
Keyes, Thailand: 40.

37
the practice of Buddhism away from local variants by emphasizing on the teaching of
Tripitaka (the ancient Buddhist text).70
During the time of King Mongkut, there existed two kinds of Buddhist institution in
Thailand: the monastery and the sangha supported by the court of Bangkok and the local
monastery and the sangha not supported by the court of Bangkok. The local temple and its
sangha were related to the local political hierarchy. The vassal court of Chiang Mai in North
Thailand, for instance, was linked to the abbot and the local sangha of Chiang Mai. The
influence of Bangkok was limited in the local population, as the authority in the local area
was strong between the sangha and local leadership. The independence of the local sangha
was also demonstrated in the ordination of the new sangha. According to the earlier tradition,
the sangha belonging to any temple could confer an honorific title to its junior independently.
Moreover, the sangha did not have to be registered in a specific monastery. King
Chulalongkorn realized that this ‘local authority’ of the sangha was in conflict with the
court-supported sangha. Therefore, beginning in 1900s King Chulalongkorn extended the
reform of Thai Buddhist institution into an effort to register all sangha under the authority
of Bangkok.
In 1902, Sangha Administration Act was promulgated. Three basic principles of this
law, including: the incorporation of all sangha into one unified structure which based from
the court of Thailand, the hierarchical order of the sangha that permitted the higher sangha
to revoke the decision of the lower sangha, and the establishment of standardized sangha
curriculum throughout Thailand.71 With the ‘control’ of Buddhism, the court of Thailand
gained more influence in the population. The highest rank in the Thai Buddhist order since
1902 is the ‘supreme patriarch’ (Sangharat – literally, “the king of the sangha”). The
appointment of the position of supreme patriarch depends on the recommendation of the
king of Thailand. The candidate for the supreme patriarch also has to be the brother of the
king. Thus, making it the affair of the court as well. Due to the strategic position of supreme
patriarch, the person should also be the king’s trustee. At the time of the promulgation of

70
Ishii, Sangha: 64.
71
Charles F. Keyes, ‘Buddhism and National Integration in Thailand’, The Journal of Asian Studies, 30, 3
(May, 1971): 555.

38
Sangha Administration Act in 1902, the supreme patriarch of Thailand was Prince
Vajiranana (also known as Wachirayan), the brother of King Chulalongkorn. In a speech
before the announcement of the Sangha Administration Act, Supreme Patriarch Vajiranana
said,

“Although monks are already subject to the law contained in the vinaya [regulation for the
Sangha], they must also subject themselves to the authority which derives from the specific
and general laws of the State. In addition, they should also follow local customs which are
not contrary to these other two sets of law. In sum, monks must obey three types of laws: the
law of the land, the vinaya and custom. This act is the law of the land; thus, it should be
known, understood, and followed correctly.”72

From this speech, Prince Vajiranana stressed on the ‘law of the land’ that exist vis-à-vis the
religious law for all sangha. The implementation of this law helped to integrate the sangha
community in Thailand under direct order of the court.
The integration of the monastery and the sangha into the court of Thailand also meant
that the royalty would find it easier to get the support from the sangha in relation to important
political decision. I quote here the statement of support from Prince Vajiranana about the
king’s plan to join World War I (1914 – 1918). He stated,

“The defence against external foes is one of the policies of governance, and is one that cannot
be neglected. War generally occurs suddenly…Therefore, war must be prepared for, even in
time of peace, otherwise one would not be in time and one would be in a disadvantageous
position toward one’s foe.”73

As illustrated by a statement above, the sangha - court of Thailand relationship created a

support system between the government as an instrument for action and the religious

72
Keyes, ‘Buddhism and National Integration in Thailand’: 555-556.
73
The speech of Supreme Patriarch Vajiranana was also translated into English, probably to reach the wider
English audience, in Prince Vajiranana, The Buddhist Attitude towards National Defence and Administration
(no place of publication: 1916): 19.

39
community as an instrument to raise moral support of the population. It succeeded in creating
a “religio-national identity” of Thailand.74

The decline of political Islam in the court of Yogyakarta

For centuries, Islam has been the religion of the majority of Javanese population. The
early process of Islamization of Java took place in a traditional way that follow the Javanese
custom of ‘mondok’, or the way of spending some time to learn Islamic knowledge in a
religious school (pesantren). As an Islamic kingdom, the royal family of Mataram was
associated with pesantren and Islamic center in Java such as Giri and Demak, either by
becoming a santri (pious student of Islam) or through marriage ties with the descendant of
prominent Islamic ulama (Islamic scholar or authority in Islamic religion).75 In the
beginning, the court of Yogyakarta continued the earlier tradition of Mataram to uphold
Islam as a religion of the state, along with the position of sultan as the “defender of Islamic
religion”. However, in terms of political influence, Islam gradually lost prominence in the
court of Yogyakarta from the second half of the 19th century due to the Dutch imposition in
the cultural and religious sphere.76 Already in the 1810s, the promising candidate to integrate
Islam to the court of Yogyakarta, the ulama-prince Diponegoro, was not chosen as the
successor of the throne of Yogyakarta. He was then to lead the war against the principalities
and the Dutch from his base in Selarong, Central Java. In the context of combining the
religious authority with political authority, Prince Diponegoro was the last prince of
Yogyakarta able to do so. The end of Java War in 1830 marked the end of the ‘old order’ in
Java, and its demise was changed into the new colonial rule of the Dutch throughout Java.
While the Dutch continued to let Yogyakarta exist as semi-autonomous court in colonial
Indonesia, its ‘potential’ political power especially the relationship between the court and
Islamic ulama was severely reduced.

74
Jacob I. Ricks, ‘National Identity and The Geo-Soul: Spiritually Mapping Siam’, Studies in Ethnicity and
Nationalism, 8, 1 (2008): 121.
75
In Java, the most prominent Islamic ulama is the Wali Songo (the Nine Saints) of Java. Giri was associated
with Sunan Giri, one of the Wali Songo. Demak was associated with the first Islamic Sultanate of Java and
the mosque of Demak.
76
M.C. Ricklefs, Polarising Javanese Society: Islamic and Other Visions, c. 1830 – 1930 (Leiden, KITLV:
2007): 53.

40
 There were at least two efforts from the Dutch to decrease political Islam in the court
of Yogyakarta and colonial Indonesia in general. First and foremost, the Dutch restricted the
development of ulama by giving specific limitation for those who wanted to undertake the
hajj pilgrimage to Mecca.77 For the Dutch authority, hajj pilgrimage to Mecca was related
to the rise of political Islam which could bring unrest in the colony. In the early period of
19th century, the Dutch restricted the chance to undertake hajj pilgrimage by increasing the
passport cost in 1825 and 1831. From 1859 until the beginning of 20th century, the security
for the pilgrim was tightened. The returning pilgrims had to undergo the so-called ‘haji-
examination’ before they were conferred with the title ‘haji’ in front of their names.78 The
suspicion of the Dutch toward Islam and the hajj was lowered at the end of the 19th century
with the effort of Adviser of the Indigenous Affair, Dr. Christiaan Snouck Hurgronje. On
political Islam that connected to the pilgrimage, he stated:

“Van belang is hoofdzakelijk het feit, dat sedert ongeveer twee en eene halve eeuw een nog
al aanzienlijk getal Inlanders te Mekka jaren doorbrengt om er te studereen. Deze
omstandigheid heft ten gevolge gehad, dat de daar heerschende methoden van studie en
onderwijs gaandeweg de vroeger van Voor-Indie geimporteerde hebben verdrongen, en wat
nog meer zegt, dat de – gelukkig niet de meerderheid vormende – hiervoor vatbare
studereenden in dat international-Mohammedaansche milieu met panislamitische
denkbeelden kennis maken, die op hunne gezindheid jegens het Europeesche bestuurvan hun
vaderland ongustig kunnen werken…De eenige middelen, die zich aanbevelen, zijn
indirecte, langzaam maar zeker werkende, die den zin der Inlanders in andere richting leiden.
Elke stap, dien men de Inlanders verder brengt in de richting onzer cultuur, leidt hen evenver
af van de bedevaartzucht.”79

According to Snouck Hurgronje, the rise of political Islam could be prevented with a gradual
assimilation of the indigenous population to the culture of the Netherlands. In this matter,
the court of Yogyakarta only became the ‘bystander’ in the ebb and flow of the Javanese
pilgrimage to Mecca because they did not have any authority to involve in this regulation.

77
Among muslim population of Indonesia, the title ‘haji’ is very prestigious to this day.
78
J. Vredenbregt, ‘The Haddj. Some of its Features and Functions in Indonesia’, Bijdragen tot de Taal-,
Land- en Volkenkunde, 118, 1 (1962): 99.
79
C. Snouck Hurgronje, Nederland en De Islam (Leiden, Brill: 1915): 58.

41
Secondly, in the late 19th century the Dutch colonial government passed the law to regulate
all ‘ulama official’ from the rank of Imam (leader of a mosque) into lower position in the
mosque administration under Dutch territory (except the principalities) to become part of the
bureaucratic corps.80 In the context of political authority and religion, we are reminded of a
similar effort by the court of Thailand to integrate all sangha under the authority of
Bangkok. In colonial Indonesia, the Dutch managed to integrate the religious institution of
Islam to the Dutch secular bureaucracy.
Another factor related to the development of Islam in the colony was the degree of
participation of the new generation of Javanese Muslim to Islamic education. According to
Dhofier, the unsupportive role of the Dutch toward Islamic education contributed to the
creation of santri and abangan distinction in Java.81 In the early 20th century, pesantren had
to compete with the emerging western-style education. The elites among the population,
such as Yogyakarta royal family were more keen on receiving western-style and secular
education. The earlier tradition of the court to send member of the royal family to pesantren
was no longer being practiced in the 20th century and replaced by the practice to send the
children to the best western-style education that they could get. Therefore, we do not see the
‘religio-national identity’ as one element of the court of Yogyakarta. The identity which
emerged in Yogyakarta was ‘modern’ and ‘secular’ Javanese.

3.3. The establishment of modern education

The effort to create Thai model of modern education
Education cannot be separated from government, as it provides the necessary skills
for an official to govern ‘properly’ following the established administration system. In the
court of Thailand, education was of primary interest for the royal family and high nobles to
govern the country from the basis of royal descents. To prepare suitable candidates for

80
Ibnu Qoyim Ismail, Kiai Penghulu Jawa: Peranannya di Masa Kolonia (Jakarta, Gema Insani Press:
1997): 87.
81
The term santri and abangan were coined by Clifford Geertz. Santri is the Muslim who adhere to Islamic
rules, and the abangan is the Muslim who do not observe strict Islamic rule and incline toward Javanese
tradition and belief. See: Clifford Geertz, Religion of Java (Chicago, University of Chicago Press: 1976); On
the unsupportive role of the Dutch to the pesantren, see: Zamakhsyari Dhofier, Tradisi Pesantren: Studi
Pandangan Hidup Kyai dan Visinya Mengenai Masa Depan Indonesia (Jakarta, LP3ES: 2011): 22.

42
government position in Thailand, the Corps of Royal Pages was established as the Thai
court’s learning institution in the civil service and military science. The king would choose
his officers from the members of the Royal Pages. Besides the government, Buddhist
institution also played role in education. Since the period of Ayutthaya, the monastery has
become the institution for Buddhist learning. According to Buddhism, all males were
required to spend some time in the monastery to learn Buddhist scripture, and therefore, also
learn to read and write. In relation to the vision of modernization, the court of Thailand
sought to learn western knowledge by opening English school in Bangkok and sending
students abroad, especially to England. It combined the western-style education and
traditional monastery education in Thailand.
During the period of King Chulalongkorn, the study of western knowledge became
institutionalized in the form of a ‘school’. In 1872, after his return from a journey to
Singapore and Java, King Chulalongkorn established the first English school in Bangkok. It
was intended to give basic knowledge of Western science to the royal family who would
need to interact more closely with the westerner. Francis George Patterson, an Englishman,
was hired to teach English, French, and mathematics. However, the early Western education
in Thailand was not organized in a firm manner. In less than a year the pupils dropped
significantly from nearly 50 pupils in the beginning of 1872 to less than five students in
1873.82 Interestingly, the remaining students of Patterson would be important government
figures in King Chulalongkorn period later on, including: Prince Damrong Rajanubhab
(Minister of Public Instruction), Prince Devawongse (Minister of Foreign Affairs), Prince
Phanurangsi (Minister of War), and Prince Vajiranana (Supreme Patriarch).83 After the
closing of the school taught by Patterson, the government established several other English
schools, including Suan Anand (named after the palace of Suan Anand) led by American
Missionary Dr. Mcfarlan in 1879 and the New School led by an Indian Baboo Ramsamy in
1888. A separate English department was also established in the new school of the Corps of

82
David K. Wyatt, The Politics of Reform in Thailand: Education in the Reign of King Chulalongkorn (New
Haven, Yale University Press: 1969): 70.
83
Wyatt, The Politics: 71.

43
Royal Page at Suan Kulap, Bangkok which established by Prince Damrong (the then
Minister of Public Instruction) in 1884.
Apart from providing education of Western knowledge from the court member, the
court also sent members of royal family and high nobles to study abroad. As early as 1875,
several Thai students were sent to Raffles Colleges in Singapore and to colleges in England.
Other countries such as France and Germany also began to receive Thai students from the
end of 1870s onwards. The new skills and ideas that these students could offer to the court
of Bangkok after their education were consider helpful to Thailand. However, their rather
progressive ideas sometimes were not appreciated by the court of Thailand. Prince Prisdang,
for instance, was the first Siamese who graduated from university in England. He obtained
a degree in engineering from King’s College, London in 1876. After graduation, he joined
Thailand’s diplomatic service as Thai Minister for European countries and The United
States. In 1885, Prince Prisdang made a proposal for the first Siamese constitution, which
call for “equality before the law” and a change towards a “civilized” form of government
such as the European system.84 King Chulalongkorn immediately rejected this western
influenced proposal in the same year. In his reply, King Chulalongkorn reflected his concern
of the idea. According to King Chulalongkorn, Thailand still did not need a constitution.
King Chulalongkorn stated, “How much we suffered we know [sic] and remembered well.
Therefore, why should we not want less power which will only bring us happiness and
security to the kingdom? You must understand that we shall not be king if we are forced to
step down like the kings of Europe.”85 The idea of Prince Prisdang then faded after his return
to Thailand.
The effort to combine the Western education and Buddhist institution for education
in Thailand begun in the reign of King Chulalongkorn. He planned to broaden the
educational facilities to general public, because broader chance for education would also
provide better trained and qualified workers of Thailand. Therefore, during the time when
Prince Damrong became the Minister of Public Instruction in the 1880s, the Prince’s primary

84
Sumet Jumsai, ‘Prince Prisdang and The Proposal for The First Siamese Constitution, 1885’, Journal of
the Siam Society, 92 (2004): 101.
85
Chai-anand Smudhvanich, Documents in Thai Politics and Government, 1874 – 1934 (in Thai): 76 – 81,
as quoted from Jumsai, ‘Prince Prisdang and The Proposal for The First Siamese Constitution, 1885’: 111.

44
task was to extend the education project to general public.86 In 1884, Prince Damrong
executed the plan to establish school in the monastery of Thailand. He realized the strategic
role of monastery and the sangha as a learning institution both as a religious and general
knowledge. In order to do so, the government improved the education facilities in the
monasteries, as well as free distribution of Thai textbook.87 The education project focused
on the monasteries in Bangkok area at first. Gradually, the provincial monasteries also
became Thai institution for general education.
The exclusive reliance on monasteries to provide mass education only lasted for short
period. In the period of 1900 onwards, Thailand achieved a new ‘level’ of modern education
in the country. It was due to the emergence of various types of school, from private schools,
missionary schools, the schools of specific ministries, and monastery education in Bangkok
and the provinces. In 1910, a new regulation classified types of school in Thailand, from
elementary education (munlasuksa), primary education (Prathomsuksa), secondary
education (Matthayomsuksa), and higher education (udomsuksa).88 When King Vajiravudh
(Rama VI, r. 1910 - 1925) ascended to the throne of Thailand, the modernization of
education sector continued in Bangkok and the provinces, with a challenge to expand and
employ schools with competent teachers. Compared to the situation in the second half of the
19th century, the number of schools jumped from only 16 schools in 1884 to 622 schools in
1910.89 The government also provided scholarships to ordinary people as long as the person
demonstrated academic merit to receive education abroad.90 Thus, in Thailand we see how
the court did not lose the chance to combine the existing religious institution into its

86
Wyatt, The Politics: 112.
87
Wyatt, The Politics: 223.
88
From this period onwards, the monastery schools were part of elementary education (Munlasuksa) level.
In: Wyatt, The Politics: 250.
89
The data for 1910 include the monasteries (numbering to 420) in Thailand. The rest include public and
private school (elementary education), general school and special school (primary education), secondary
education, and school for higher education such as Medical School, King’s College Sixth Form (prototype of
Chulalongkorn University), Midwives school, and Royal Military College. In: Wyatt, The Politics: 356.
90
In 1919, there were 31 Thai students who were sent abroad, ranging from England (majority of Thai
students), the United States, Germany, France, The Phillipines, and Hongkong. From their titles, about 26 of
them were public officers (nai, not a royal family), 4 of them were royal family (Mom Chao and Mom
Luang), and 1 person without any title (military officer). Their major varied from medicine, engineering,
agriculture, commerce, and teaching. In: The Siam Observer (1 October 1919).

45
education system during the early stage of modern educational development. We also see
the role of the royalty to plan and to implement modern education so that it could correspond
to Thai character.

The Dutch secular mode of modern education for the Javanese

Education for the Javanese in Yogyakarta was divided into ‘religious’ and ‘secular’
types of education. The pesantren served as traditional education institution to the Javanese
from the ordinary people up to the royal family of Yogyakarta. The secular type of education
was conducted outside the pesantren, by the help of a ‘private tutor’ such as parents or
Javanese guru (teacher). For instance, royal family member would hire private tutor to teach
their sons and daughter the proper knowledge of reading and writing in Javanese, while the
pesantren would be the place to learn Arabic and Islamic studies under supervision of a
Javanese ulama. With regard to the preparation of candidates for courtier, a special training
was traditionally done by private tutor. The court of Yogyakarta did not have special
institution such as Corps of Royal Pages as in Thailand for this matter. Therefore, in terms
of internal politics, the selection of the sultan’s close-aide courtiers after period of succession
was a fragile matter, for there was no ‘standardize’ ground for the sultan to appoint an officer.
On the other hand, the Dutch also developed its own model of education in the colony which
later would influence the court of Yogyakarta. The model by the Dutch was separation of
“European education” and “indigenous education” in colonial Indonesia. According to
Kroeskamp, this distinction was not meant to create dualism in education based on races,
but it was intended to distinguish between the education curriculum based on European
curriculum and the indigenous education (Christian mission curriculum).91 However, if we
look at the language instruction in education, the distinction based on races is visible. I quote
R.A Kartini in which she said,

“As early as 1895 there was a decree that without the special permission of His Excellency
the Governor-General no native child (from six to seven years old) who could not speak
Dutch would be admitted to the free grammar school for Europeans. How can a native child

91
H. Kroeskamp, Early Schoolmasters in a Developing Country: A History of Experiments in School
Education in 19th century Indonesia (Assen, Van Gorcum & Comp.: 1974): 26.

46
 of six or seven years learn Dutch? He would have had to have a Dutch governess, and before
he is able to learn the Netherland language, the child must first know his own language, and
necessarily know how to read and write.”92

According to this statement by Kartini, the distinction between the Dutch and the indigenous
had been established since the earliest education. Instead of providing equal education to the
Dutch and the indigenous, the colonial government focused on the establishment of schools
that could benefit the Dutch colonial state. From the second half of the 19th century onward,
there were more Javanese who were educated and hired to fill the position such as medical
doctor, government sector, teacher, and police institution. The level of education became a
way to determine whether a person could be accepted in the bureaucracy. Gradually, the
Dutch modern education became accepted by the Javanese elites in Yogyakarta as a proper
model of education.
Before the period of 1900, the development of modern education in Java was
rather slow. The primary factor that contributed to this situation was the ‘Dutch’ model that
did not integrate the existing model of indigenous education into their plan for modern
school. Rather, it introduced a new model of education in Java. The first Dutch school –
Europeesche Lagere School (ELS) - was opened as early as 1817, but it did not interest the
indigenous to the Dutch school. Western approach and the traditional indigenous approach
to a problem were different at the very basic. In reading, for instance, Javanese text would
require its reader to sing (nembang), while western text did not. The elimination of tembang
(metrical form) as part of the subject in government school before 1871 made the Javanese
parents felt unease to the Dutch curriculum.93 By pulling out their children from school,
Javanese parents could still choose to educate their children by private tutor, where the lesson
could be adjusted according to certain needs. The re-instalment of tembang in the
government school in 1871 diminished the negative perception toward the Dutch school in
Java.94

92
R.A. Kartini, Letters of a Javanese Princess (New York, Norton: 1964): 56.
93
Kroeskamp, Early Schoolmasters: 342.
94
Kroeskamp, Early Schoolmasters: 342.

47
 In the second half of the 19th century onwards, modern education began to enter
deeper into the need of the Javanese because the Dutch regulation required certain education
level for acceptance in the government. More schools, including the school for higher
education level for the indigenous were open in the cities, including Batavia (School Tot
Opleiding van Inlandsche Artsen - STOVIA), Bandung (Opleiding School voor Inlandsche
Ambtenaaren- OSVIA), Surabaya (Nederlandsch Indische Artsen School - NIAS), and
Surakarta (Hollandsche Indische Kweekschool). The increase of school facilities after 1900
was due to the implementation of Ethical Policy as the driving force of providing the
indigenous with modern education. It brought an improved standard in the colonial
bureaucracy that became the backbone of colonial system.
Yogyakarta was rather late in following the trend of modern education. While the
first kweekschool (teacher school) was established in Surakarta as early as 1852, Yogyakarta
did not have an effective modern school prior to 1890. The Sultan was reluctant to accept
Dutch education or to allow Dutch to be spoken in the court. However, Sultan Hamengku
Buwono VII (r. 1877 – 1921) opened the first modern school for the elites of Yogyakarta in
1890. The school was built in Srimanganti, a part of the Sultan’s kraton of Yogyakarta.
Sultan Hamengku Buwono VII regulated that those who wanted to succeed their father in
the court should have certificate of completion from that school.95 It is clear that the aim was
to create the first school for court officials of Yogyakarta. As it was in the other area of Java,
the ‘certificate’ of education became part of the requirement for acceptance into the court
bureaucracy. Shortly, the school also received low level courtier (abdi dalem) to be educated
there. The Dutch contributed to the school financially and integrated it into Eerste School
met Basa Kedaton.96 After the establishment of this school, other modern schools with Dutch
support were opened in Yogyakarta, such Kweekschool, Protestant School, and primary

95
Abdurrachman Surjomihardjo, Kota Yogyakarta Tempo Doeloe: Sejarah Sosial 1880 – 1930 (Depok,
Komunitas Bambu: 1998): 67.
96
The Fundamental Education Decree of 1892 stated that primary school in the colony was divided into two
categories: The Eerste School, intended for the children of indigenous chiefs and prominent persons; The
Tweede-School, intended for the children of the indigenous population in general. See: Kroeskamp, Early
Schoolmasters: 430.

48
school reaching a total of 86 schools by 1908.97 The Dutch also opened primary school for
ordinary people, Tweede School after 1900.
The willingness of the indigenous Javanese in Yogyakarta to accept the modern
school was due to the Dutch government and Yogyakarta court’s joint regulation. The
gradual progress of modern school replaced the position of pesantren and private tutor in the
society. While formally the court of Yogyakarta placed Islam as the religion of the kingdom,
modern education clearly gave no adequate support for Islamic education. The establishment
of Muhammadiyah, an Islamic organization by Kyai Haji (K.H.) Ahmad Dahlan from the
village of Kauman, Yogyakarta in 1912 was a response of the Islamic community in
Yogyakarta to the Western influence that penetrated the society. Muhammadiyah launched
its own Muhammadiyah Islamic school in Yogyakarta and its surroundings to fulfil the need
to learn Islam in modern school. Until the late colonial period, the effort by Muhammadiyah
only posed as an ‘alternative’ to modern education in Yogyakarta that was already under
heavy influence of Dutch secular education.
Despite the reluctance of the Sultan to open modern education in Yogyakarta before
1890, the royal family of Yogyakarta was among the first indigenous to receive modern
education in the colony. In particular, the family of Pakualaman was known to achieve high
level of education. They were the first to support the new colonial era with indigenous
lawyer, indigenous doctor, engineer, as well as certified woman teacher.98 Together with
other educated elites, the young keraton elites contributed to shape the modern era in the
20th century, and participated in the discourse of nationalism in colonial Indonesia.

3.4. Overview
The period of 1850 – 1910 was the transition period from the old society to the new
society influenced by the West. In both Thailand and Yogyakarta, this period was marked
by progress toward Western model of the state. The key aspect was centralization and
modern education. In Yogyakarta, the Dutch penetration in 1850 onwards changed the court

97
Basa Kedaton means the special language being used only in the kraton; Surjomihardjo, Kota Yogyakarta:
71.
98
Sutherland, The Making: 47.

49
into the Dutch orbit more than before. A possible element of political power in Yogyakarta
was reduced, such as Islam, but at the court of Thailand, Buddhism was incorporated into
court institution. It made the court of Thailand had greater control of the population. In the
two places, modern education created new educated elites with diverse social background.
The royalty also took part in modern education and became among the first to receive
modern education.

50
 Chapter 4
Royalty and Nationalism on the move, 1910 – 1930

In the previous chapter, I argued that modernization in Thailand and colonial

Indonesia brought the two countries into a new development. Due to the different
perspectives of modernization, the two countries emphasized different element of education.
The court of Thailand integrated traditional element of Thailand such as the monasteries and
the sangha into their modernization project. It created Thai elites with a strong element of
Buddhism. In colonial Indonesia, the Dutch suspicion towards Islam curtailed the activities
of pesantren and the ulama. The link between Yogyakarta with pesantren and the ulama
outside the court gradually decreased. The influence of Dutch modern education with its
secular approach paved the way to the creation of modern and ‘cultured’ Javanese. In the
period of 1910-1930, it shows that this identity was not static, but it changed according to
“the age in motion”.99 The official nationalism of Thailand by King Vajiravudh was a
product of his time, which related to the search of a ‘true’ Thai who was loyal to his king. In
Yogyakarta, the royal family members who were able to express the idea of nationalism
more freely were those outside the immediate court circle. Raden Mas (R.M.) Soewardi
Soeryaningrat contributed strongly to the secular and anti-colonialist elements of
nationalism. In this period, the interaction between the elites educated abroad and at home
created new form of nationalism. Thailand nationalism found its more egalitarian identity,
as it moved from absolute monarchy to constitutional monarchy. In colonial Indonesia, a
local - ‘Javanese nationalism’ started to shift into ‘Indonesian nationalism’, encompassing
the region of Yogyakarta – Java – Indies –into the new conception of “Indonesia”. This
process in both countries was possible from the dynamism that became the character of this
period, where the traditional elites and the new elites participated in the creation of a new
identity.

99
I borrowed this term from Takashi Siraishi. I refer to the dynamism of the nationalist movement that
characterized the early 20th century in Java. Takashi Siraishi, An Age in Motion: Popular Radicalism in Java,
1912 – 1926 (Ithaca, Cornell University Press: 1990).

51
4.1. Nationalism from the royalty
Official nationalism from King Vajiravudh
In 1910, King Vajiravudh (Rama VI) succeeded to the throne of Thailand after his
august father, King Chulalongkorn, had passed away. He inherited the authority as an
absolute monarch from his father. He was well equipped with western knowledge as he had
been educated in England from his childhood to college in Oxford. His coronation in
November 1911 made him the first Thai monarch who received education from abroad. The
coronation ceremony was also a demonstration of Thailand sovereignty status as well as
King Vajiravudh’s vision of Thai nationalism as he wanted to build an image of modern
Thai which is equal to the West. The diplomatic gesture to acknowledge Thailand’
sovereignty can be seen from the arrival of 25 royal representatives and special
representatives of fourteen governments, including powerful countries such as England,
France, the United States, Russia and Japan to the coronation ceremony.100 For the king, the
ceremony was a good start. He commented that the success of the coronation ceremony
”..shows that we Siamese…are the first nation [in Asia] to have attempted, and accomplished
with unqualified success, such a great undertaking involving the great nations of the
world.”101 Similar to the king’s view of the coronation, foreign newspapers also reported
about the coronation in positive tone. One article in The New York Times praised the success
of the coronation ceremony.102 The Manchester Guardian highly attributed the elaborate
preparation of the coronation to Thai modernization. It stated, “For one notable characteristic
of young Siam is that, however deeply its students, princes, or commoners may have imbibed
the teachings of the West, they remain true Siamese in spite of all temptations to belong to
other nation.”103 Thus, King Vajiravudh, in his early year as king, already cemented a strong
opinion of Thailand’s success in modernization. On the one hand, Thailand sought to be
modern according to the western standard. On the other, Thailand still retained its traditional
aspect of the kingdom. Washington Post confronted the two aspects of modern and

100
Walter Francis Vella, Chaiyo! King Vajiravudh and the Development of Thai Nationalism (Honolulu,
University of Hawaii Press: 1978): 19.
101
Vella, Chaiyo!: 21.
102
The New York Times (3 December 1911).
103
The Manchester Guardian (1 December 1911).

52
traditional Thailand by highlighting on the huge numbers of royal family that the monarch
of Thailand had to manage. It stated,

“Officially he [King Vajiravudh] is styled Half-Brother of the Sun, Brother of the Moon,
Arbiter of the Ebb and Flow of the Tides, and Lord of the Golden Umbrella. Also, he has
1,203 brothers and sisters, 604 stepmothers, and other relatives in proportion… Besides
looking after his [late King Chulalongkorn] wives, the king took care of all the surviving
wives of all his predecessors. They formed a little city of about 5,000 women. A similar duty
devolves upon his successor. The new king must take care of all his ancestors wives, of all
his own wives, who will increase by leaps and bounds every year, and all of his brothers and
sisters.”104

During his reign of fifteen years, King Vajiravudh retained this aspect of the monarchy by
becoming a ‘patron’ to the royal family, and also to the entire country.
King Vajiravudh used his authority and power to introduce ‘official nationalism’
which he found to be the most appropriate one in Thailand situation. He formulated a slogan
of “nation (chat), Buddhism (satsana), and the king (phramahakesat)” for Thailand to
stressed on the unity of the three elements as one in Thailand. To put it into practice, King
Vajiravudh established several mass organizations in Thailand. The most important
organization during the time of King Vajiravudh was the Wild Tiger Corps (Sua Pa),
established in 1911. It was a civil-based paramilitary corps of Thailand which purpose was
to assist Thailand military forces. According to King Vajiravudh, the aim of the Wild Tiger
Corps was to “…instill in the minds of the people of our own race love and loyalty towards
the high authority that controls and maintains with justice and equity the political
independence of nation, devotion to Fatherland, King, and Religion, and not the least of all
the preservation of mutual friendship.105 Once accepted as member of the corps, the person
(restricted to male only) would join the rank just as the king’s loyal troops. Wild Tiger Corps
was also founded on the basis of military hierarchy where social hierarchy of Thailand such
as princely rank or wealth status was not recognized. Ranks in the Wild Tiger Corps had to

104
Washington Post (4 February 1912).
105
Stephen Lyon Wakeman Greene, Absolute Dreams: Thai Government under Rama VI, 1910 – 1925
(Bangkok, White Lotus: 1999): 42.

53
be recognized by all its members with a goal to bring “a new spirit of unity to the nation”.106
The regular activities of the Corps were “war maneuver” and “drill” which being practiced
by the whole units. The king also took part to inspect the drill and participated in the war
maneuver, which reminded us of the theater play when he was still a crown prince. The Wild
Tiger Corps remained in existence until the end of King Vajiravudh’s reign. His successor,
King Prajadhipok disbanded this corps in the first year of his reign.107 Beside the Wild Tiger
Corps, King Vajiravudh also created an organization for the younger generation of Thailand,
the Tiger Cubs (Luk Sua) or Thai Boy Scouts in 1911. The Tiger Cubs aimed to ‘unite’ the
Thai under ‘royal patronage’ since their early youth.
Together with the creation of national organizations, King Vajiravudh used the press
as a tool to spread his ideas to the people. He himself wrote numerous articles about social
politics, and often with different pen names.108 King Vajiravudh’s writing during the period
of 1912 – 1914, for instance, reflected his view on the principles of official nationalism. In
the article on “Education and Unrest in the East”, Vajiravudh expressed the need for the
people to “carry out the work as effective as the Europeans” by getting education along the
same lines as the Europeans themselves.109 He mentioned Japan as the sole example for
Thailand in Asia. “The Japanese..”, according to King Vajiravudh, “…have not been content
to simply talk and boast of their knowledge; nor have they wasted their time in running down
their own country and speaking ill of their own people before foreigners.” Moreover, he
stated that “..what suits one country does not necessarily suit another country as well”.110
This hints at the country’s progress of modernization along Thai’s own character. In other
section, he stated that the unrest in the East (he uses India as an example) was caused by
unemployment. According to King Vajiravudh, the inability of the government to create job
opportunity for the university graduates would lead to the creation of ‘nationalists’. These

106
Vella, Chaiyo!: 36.
107
Vella, Chaiyo!: 53.
108
King Vajiravudh had several pen names, including Sri Ayudhya, Ramachitti, and Asvabahu. The latter
was the king’s pen name for the writing about social and politics of Thailand. In: Kenneth Perry Landon, The
Chinese in Thailand (New York, Russel&Russel: 1973): 33.
109
Asvabahu, ‘Education and Unrest in The East’, A Siam Miscellany: A Reprint of Articles Written by
“Asvabahu” to the “Siam Observer” and Appearing in its Columns during The Period of August 5, to
December 31, 1912 (Bangkok, Siam Observer Printing Office): 19.
110
Asvabahu, “Education and Unrest in The East”: 21.

54
people would then become journalists to criticize the government. Once being suppressed
by the government, they would become more bitter against the government. In the next phase
after that, King Vajiravudh explained that,

“..these gutter journalists began to allow their thoughts to wander toward politics, and it was
not long before they actually blossomed out into so-called “Nationalists.” Secret associations
began to spring up, whose business was agitation, and sedition if they dared to preach it…
Matters became worse and worse. The Indian government had to deport some of the more
violent agitators. But It was too late to have any good effect. From sedition, the young Indians
proceeded to crimes of violence, and even to assassination and bomb outrages. The unrest
was soon an apparent fact ”111

In this excerpt of his writings, it is clear that King Vajiravudh differentiated his teaching of
‘love to the country’ with respect to the nation, king and religion to the ‘nationalist
movement’, which he viewed as radical and troublesome for the society. He did not mention
about anti-colonial movement in India or other place in Asia. On other occasions, King
Vajiravudh’s official nationalism emphasized the national unity of all races living in
Thailand. He attacked the Chinese who did not become Thai citizens after all the fortunes
that the Chinese acquired in Thailand, by labelling them as the “Jews of The East”.112 From
his writings, King Vajiravudh’s official nationalism was designed to integrate all people of
Thailand into one. However, during his reign, resentment toward absolute monarchy
increased, especially the demand for a more egalitarian aspect in the field of social, political,
and economic life in Thailand.

Soewardi Soeryaningrat’s Anti-Colonialism Ideal

Under Dutch colonialism, the two rulers of Yogyakarta had to maintain a good
relationship with the Dutch Colonial government under threat of dethronement or exile. The
acceptance to colonial authority meant the granting of the courts’ privilege in society. Under
colonial government supervision, the two royal houses of Yogyakarta were able to organize

111
Asvabahu, ‘Education and Unrest in The East’: 25.
112
Asvabahu, ‘The Jews of the East’ (1914), in Landon, The Chinese: 34 – 43.

55
royal ceremonies with pomp, including the ceremony of the enthronement of the sultan and
the Pakualam (jumenengan dalem), the ceremony of the birthday of the sultan, and the right
to govern the principality of Yogyakarta. The first grade prince and princess (the immediate
kin of the ruling monarch) retained their privilege in social (highest social rank) and
economy (receive regular ‘royal’ salary). In such a situation which require no particular
demand for ‘self-improvisation’, only few princes who managed to progress beyond their
basic privileges. Most of these princes were from the royal family of Pakualaman. Since the
reign of Prince Paku Alam V (r. 1878 – 1900), Pakualam princes were keen on receiving
higher education in a hope that when they graduated, high government positions would be
available for them.
Among them, Prince Soeryaningrat (the son of Prince Pakualam III, r. 1858 - 1864)
was one of the old generation princes of Pakualaman who only received traditional Javanese
education. His two sons became the ‘early nationalist’ of Java.113 The first son, R.M.
Soeryopranoto, was an active member of Sarekat Islam (SI), an Islamic political
organization from 1912. Prince Soeryopranoto was also known as the ‘prince of strike’ (raja
pemogokan) due to his involvement in leading the labor unrest under the banner of Sarekat
Islam (SI).114 The second son, R.M. Soewardi Soeryaningrat (later changed his name into Ki
Hadjar Dewantara) was an influential nationalist until the period of the Republic. Scherer
explained that the reason behind Prince Soeryaningrat family’s ‘radical’ position was the
financial difficulty and seclusion from the court power that the family received at that
moment.115 It is true that only the immediate kin of the ruler who could enter the best
education (for European children) and receiving monthly salary. However, with that
explanation Scherer did not take into account other royal family members outside the
immediate kin of the ruler. Yet only the two sons of Prince Soeryaningrat who became the
‘nationalists’ from Yogyakarta royal family. One explanation for their involvement in the
nationalist movement is the ‘choice’ they took and the network that they had gained from

113
I follow the term ‘early nationalist’ of Java from Savitri Prastiti Scherer, Harmony and Dissonance:
Early Nationalist Thought in Java (Ithaca, Cornell University Press: 1975).
114
Bambang Sokawati Dewantara, Raja Mogok, R.M. Soerjopranoto: Sebuah Kenangan (Jakarta, Hasta
Mitra: 1983).
115
Scherer, Harmony: 86.

56
their education. The two brothers, not having had the privilege to be educated at OSVIA
such as the ruling Pakualam’s immediate circle, attended school for higher education
together with ordinary Javanese.116 They became an activist in their respective schools (R.M.
Soeryopranoto attended Agricultural School in Buitenzorg, while R.M. Soewardi
Soeryaningrat attended STOVIA in Batavia). A list of social origin of STOVIA students and
graduates in 1875 – 1904 below gives an illustration of the network that Soewardi had while
attending the school.

Table 1. The Social Origins of STOVIA Students and Graduates, 1875 – 1904

Number of Number of Still at

Father position students graduates school
Sons of higher native officials
King 1 - -
Prince 3 1 1
Regent 10 6 1
Patih 14 11 5
Head-jaksa 7 3 2
Under collector 17 3 4
Wedono 61 11 13
Head penghulu 17 7 3

Indigenous army officer 16 4 3

Sons of middle-ranking officials

Jaksa (prosecutor) 12 4 2
Assistant Wedono 41 12 7
Dokter Jawa 37 5 5
Teacher 93 22 29
Mantri 83 19 16
Vaccinator 11 2 2

116
Bambang Sokawati Dewantara, Nyi Hajar Dewantara Dalam Kisah dan Data (Jakarta, Gunung Agung:
1979): 44.

57
Continue – Table 1. The Social Origins of STOVIA Students and Graduates, 1875 – 1904

Number of Number of Still at

Father position students graduates school
Sons of lower officials and private persons
Native veterinary surgeon 1 - -
Clerk 25 8 4
Prison warder (cipier) 3 - -
Telegraph operator 5 1 -
Typograph (letterzetter) 2 - -
Drafttsman (tekenaar) 1 - 1
Superintendent (opzichter) 3 1 -
Soldier 7 1 1
Village head 30 11 4
Trader (handelaar) 7 - 1
Farmer 16 3 -
Artisan (handwerklieden) 12 1 1
Pilot (loods) 1 - -
Watchman (oppasser) 3 1 -
Tram conductor 2 - 2
Cart driver 2 - -
Village police 1 - -
Labourer (koelie) 1 - -
House servants (bedinde) 10 2 -
Officers on half pay
(ambtenaar op wachtgeld) 2 - -
Private and no profession 67 13 4
Unknown 110 11 10
Total 736 190 121

Source: Jaarlijksch Verslag der School Tot Opleiding van Inlandse Artsen te Weltevreden
Over den Cursus 1904 – 1905 (Batavia, Landsdrukkerij: 1906): 61 – 62.

58
From Table 1, we infer that the number of royal family members who attended STOVIA
was very low during the entire period of 29 years. Most of the students came from middle to
low ranking families. The interaction among diverse students of STOVIA provided the
understanding of nationalism for Soewardi that was exceptional for Yogyakarta royal family
of his time. His idea of nationalism was not limited to Javanese nationalism (such as adopted
by many Javanese in this period) but ‘Indische’ nationalism. Soewardi’s letter to his fiancée,
R.A. Sutartinah (later changed name into Nyi Hadjar Dewantara) around 1907 tells his view
on the fate of different ethnic groups in colonial Indonesia. He stated, “At this school
[STOVIA] I met my best friends from Andalas, Sulawesi, Ambon, Timor, and from all the
places in the Netherlands Indies soil. Now I understand, not only in Pakualaman, but also all
of Nusantara are waiting for the arrival of a liberator.”117
The national awakening of the indigenous people in colonial Indonesia began with
the creation of an organization from ‘below’, although it was the elites who played the
dominant role. In 1905, Dr. Wahidin Soedirohoesodo, a retired Javanese doctor began a tour
throughout Java to set up a studiefonds in support of the education of future generation of
Javanese. His effort was met with various responses from Javanese royal family and the
regents in Java. In the end, Dr. Wahidin failed to gather the support he wanted. However,
his meeting in STOVIA during the year 1908 inspired the students to create an organization
for the indigenous which harbor many goals. On 20 May 1908, the students of STOVIA
established Boedi Oetomo (BO), the first modern, social and political oriented organization
in Colonial Indonesia. BO succeeded in attracting many Javanese priyayi and young
Javanese, letting them gather together for the first time. It became a ‘stepping stone’ for the
creation of other organization in colonial Indonesia, from Islam, radical, to moderate.118
With the sponsorship of Prince Notodirodjo from Pakualaman, BO successfully held its first
congress in Yogyakarta at the same year. To many people, both the young and the old
generation, the first congress of BO in Yogyakarta aroused great interest. Dr. Wahidin spoke

117
Dewantara, Nyi Hajar: 55.
118
Akira Nagazumi, The Dawn of Indonesian Nationalism: The Early Years of Boedi Oetomo, 1908 – 1918
(Tokyo, Institute of Developing Economies: 1972): 156.

59
about the importance of Javanese culture and identity, despite the influence of Western
education in the colony.119
With regard to the general principle of BO, some of the young and progressive
Javanese gradually felt that it was not suitable for their political ideals. For the congress
agreed to create BO in a direction of ‘social’ organization with moderate political view, the
view shared by older generation of Javanese priyayi. BO promoted Javanese nationalism as
the organization’s ideal, with particular focus on education. In response, the courts of
Yogyakarta and Surakarta supported BO, while the more progressive members left this
organization, including Soewardi Soeryaningrat, Soeryopranoto, and Dr. Tjipto
Mangoenkoesoemo in 1909. The two brothers soon joined Sarekat Islam, an Islamic
organization founded by Haji Samanhudi and Oemar Said Tjokroaminoto. In 1912, Douwes
Dekker, Dr. Tjipto Mangunkusumo, and Soewardi Soeryaningrat (known as ‘Tiga
Serangkai’) established the Indische Partij (IP). For Soewardi, this organization was a
realization of his vision on the unity of all ethnic groups who were colonized by the Dutch.
This vision of nationalism was called ‘Indische nationalism’.
The important contribution of Soewardi Soeryaningrat to the development of
nationalism was his anti-colonial writing, the first of its kind, directed against the Dutch
government. This article, “Als Ik Eens Nederlander Was,…” (If I Were A Dutchman,…) was
published in Bandung, during the year 1913. Along with the free -publication of the article,
it also appeared in De Express newspaper.120 The original bilingual versions of this article –
both in Malay and in Dutch, indicated that it was a well-planned move by Soewardi and his
associates which aimed to reach wider population of Colonial Indonesia. At that time, the
Dutch planned to celebrate the commemoration of 100 years of Dutch independence from
French occupation. The people was then asked for donation in support of the celebration.
Soewardi Soeryaningrat, Dr. Tjipto Mangunkusumo, Abdoel Moeis, and Wignyodisastro
established Comite Boemipoetra (Indigenous Commission) to reject this celebration. At first,
the Dutch Colonial government did not believe that Soewardi Soeryaningrat, a member of

119
Nagazumi, The Dawn: 46.
120
The version of this article in De Express can be found in: “Als Ik Eens Nederlander Was”, De Express
(19 July 1913).

60
Pakualam royal family, gave such open criticism of the government. They rather accused
Dr. Tjipto as the mastermind behind the writing of the article.121 However, about a week
after the publication of “Als Ik Eens Nederlander Was,…”, Soewardi published another
article, “Een voor Allen, Maar Ook Allen voor Een” (One for All, But also All for One)
which confirmed that it was he who wrote the first article.122
The first article was considered provocative and dangerous by the Dutch because it
did not only reject the Dutch celebration of independence, but also demanded independence
for the colony. The concluding chapter clearly reflects the idea of independence, in which
Soewardi said, “Neen, voorwar, als ik Nederlander was, ik zou nimmer zulk jubileum willen
vieren hier in een door ons overheerscht land. Eerst dat geknechte volk zijn vrijheid geven,
dan pas onze eigen vrijheid herdenken.”123 In response, the Dutch imprisoned Soewardi
Soeryaningrat, Dr. Tjipto and Douwes Dekker altogether. Pakualam royal family showed its
support of Soewardi. Prince Soeryaningrat, who visited his son in the prison, encouraged
Soewardi that “a true hero would not lick his own spit”.124 The Tiga Serangkai was then
sentenced to live in exile in the Netherlands.
After the banishment of Tiga Serangkai, nationalist movement in colonial Indonesia
continued to progress. With the foundation of Volksraad (People’s Council) in 1918, the
voice of indigenous population was represented in the Volksraad meeting by representatives
such as Dr. Radjiman Wedyodiningrat and Dr. Tjipto Mangunkusumo (he returned early in
1914 due to asthma). Organizations and political parties emerged in colonial Indonesia,
including SI, Indonesian Communist Party (PKI), BO, Muhammadiyah, and youth ethnic
group organizations such as Tri Koro Dharmo. In the following years of 1920 - 1930, the
connection between the youth in the Netherlands and also within colonial Indonesia

121
Scherer, Harmony: 91.
122
De Express (28 July 1913).
123
R.M. Soewardi Soeryaningrat, Vlugschrift No. 1: Als Ik Eens Nederlander Was… (Bandung, Indlansch
Comite tot Herdenking van Neêrlands Honderdjarige Vrijheid: 1913): 16.
124
As explained by Bambang Sokawati Dewantara, the son of Soewardi, Prince Soeryaningrat visited
Soewardi in the prison with the appearance of Pakualaman royal parasol (kraton’s regalia) and royal
entourages to show the dignity of the royal family. Prince Soeryaningrat told Soewardi that a true hero would
not lick his own spit (seorang pahlawan sejati tidak akan menjilat ludah sendiri), which means that he
should not withdraw from this path. It also means that Prince Soeryaningrat acknowledged the conduct of
Soewardi. In: Dewantara, Nyi Hajar: 64 – 65.

61
strengthened the nationalism ‘for’ all the people of the colony. Soewardi Soeryaningrat also
remained active during his exile in the Netherlands. He established the Indonesische Pers
Bureau (IPB) from The Hague to distribute news from the Netherlands to Indonesia and vice
versa.125 Soewardi returned back to Java in 1919 after Governor-General Johan Paul van
Limburg Stirum (in office 1916 – 1921) revoked the sentence of Tiga Serangkai.

4.2. The network of young nationalists, 1920 – 1930

The rise of the pro-constitutional monarchy and the pro-absolute monarchy groups
The 1920s can be regarded as a period of uncertainty for Thailand. World War I
(1914 – 1918) had ended with victory for the Allies. Thailand, whom also took part in the
War and sided with the Allies in the final episode of the war, enjoyed greater confidence as
a nation. The success in choosing the ‘winning side’ made Thailand became part of The
League of Nations, becoming one of the only few members from Asia in the League.126 Once
again, Thailand felt proud of its path of modernization. The threat to the sovereignty, the
primary concern of the court of Thailand in dealing with the West, also decreased after the
war. However, the problem of Thailand which increasingly shared by the educated class was
the lack of egalitarian principle in the country. King Vajiravudh’s effort to instill official
nationalism to the people was met with growing dissatisfaction. Especially during the early
years of the 1920s when the economy also began to decline and the government was unable
to provide job opportunity. In 1925, when King Vajiravudh passed away in Bangkok, he left
a personal debt amounting to 5.5 million baht in addition to 4.6 million baht of “outstanding
advances” owed to the state treasury.127 His successor, King Prajadhipok (Rama VII, r. 1925
- 1935), the brother of King Vajiravudh, entered the center of Thai politics in the same year
with a heavy task to improve the failing financial and political situation of Thailand. In the
following years, King Prajadhipok faced more aggravating ‘problem’ of Thailand’s absolute
monarchy: the rise of the pro-constitutional monarchy group.

125
Ki Hadjar Dewantara, “Tentang Indonesisch Pers Bureau di Den Haag”, Dari Kebangunan Nasional
sampai Proklamasi Kemerdekaan: Kenang-Kenangan Ki Hadjar Dewantara (Jakarta, Pustaka Penerbit
Endang: 1952): 97.
126
For the role of Thailand in the League of Nations, see: Stefan Hell, Siam and The League of Nations:
Modernisation, Sovereignty and Multilateral Diplomacy, 1920 – 1940 (Bangkok, River Books: 2010).
127
Ministry of Finance, Report of The Financial Adviser, B.E 2469 (1926/1927), in Greene, Absolute: 169.

62
 The emergence of the pro-constitutional monarchy group cannot be separated from
the network of Thai students at this period. As stated by Batson, the students who were
educated abroad formed a distinct group in Thailand. They demanded much more radical
change in the society, especially since the reign of King Prajadhipok.128 One figure in 1924
tells that there were 372 Thai students who were educated abroad. The distribution of these
students according to the country of education, include France (24 students), England (301
students), and the United States (47 students).129 Among these students, those who were
educated in mainland Europe were more active in politics in this period. They were exposed
to the current affairs of the world that gave birth to ‘anti-colonial movement’. In Bierville,
France, for instance, the Congress International Democratique was held in August 1926
where democracy, socialism and communism became topics of discussion among
progressive students. Due to Paris becoming one of the centers of progressive movements in
Europe at this period, Thai students in France received more influence from progressive
ideas. It is not surprising that Association Siamoise d’Intellectualité et d’Assistance Mutuelle
(SIAM), the organization of Thai students in France (established in 1923) was active in
politics. Prince Charoonsakdi, Thai minister in Paris and Thai student advisor wrote to king
Prajadhiphok that he was “frightened” by the members of SIAM because they discussed
“very advanced political views” of “our own [Thai] domestic politics”.130 The most
prominent member of SIAM, Pridi Banomyong was nearly recalled in 1926 due to student
unrest in France. Pridi was then allowed to continue his education after his father, an ordinary
Thai government official, sent a petition to king Prajadhipok. The comment by King
Prajadhipok to Pridi reflected his positive believe in Pridi and the progressive students of
Thailand:

128
Benjamin Batson, ed. Siam’s Political Future: Documents from the End of the Absolute Monarchy
(Ithaca, Cornell Data Paper: 1974): 55.
129
Compared to 1919, the number of students who were having education abroad in 1924 was very high. I
assume that it is because the number provided here is the sum of all Thai students who still remained abroad
from earlier years. In: Bangkok Times (15 April 1924), as quoted in Benjamin A. Batson, The End of the
Absolute Monarchy in Siam (Singapore, Oxford University Press: 1984): 78.
130
Batson, The End: 80.

63
 “This Nai Pridi is intelligent but inclined to be a little brash, as is common among the young.
Once he enters the government in a responsible position he will probably work well, and I
don’t much believe that he will become a “serious danger to the government” as Prince
Charoonsakdi has reported. If the government doesn’t use him in a manner commensurate
with his knowledge, the things might develop in an undesirable way.”131

If Pridi was allowed to continue his education, SIAM was then disbanded by the order of
King Prajadhipok. But the network of the ‘Thai students in France’ was already being
established, with individuals such as Pridi Banomyong, Chom Charuratana, Phibun
Songkhram, and Wichit Wathakan. They were part of the pro-constitutional monarchy group
who would later involve in the 1932 revolution.
In England, Thai students educated here were mostly supportive to absolute
monarchy. There was no student unrest from Thai students in England such as what
happened in France at the same period. This situation related to the fact that many Thai
students in England was associated with Bangkok royal family. Samakkhi Samakhon
(Association for Thai Students Overseas) was under influence of the Thai royal family since
its foundation by King Vajiravudh (at that time, a crown prince) in 1900.132 King
Prajadhipok was also a student in England before his enthronement. Beside the two kings,
many other Bangkok royal family members were educated in England. On the discourse of
‘democracy’ and ‘monarchy’ for the kingdom of Thailand at this period, Prince Chula
Chakrabongse a Thai student in England stated his support to the monarchy. He wrote,

”We hear it said that this is the period of Democracy, so every country ought to embrace this
form of government, or else that country is not progressive but reactionary… If a country
thinks it needs Democracy, let it have Democracy. If a Democratic country thinks
Absolutism is better, let it embrace Absolutism. The only thing is to make sure… Hobbes
said that many good laws remain unpassed in a stupid assembly, but they would be put into
effect at once by a good and strong king.”133

131
Chao Phya Mahithon to Chao Phya Phichaiyat, 10.1/7, National Archives of Thailand, Seventh Reign,
Royal Secretariat, translated by Benjamin Batson in: Benjamin Batson, ‘Review: Thawatt Mokarapong,
History of the Thai Revolution: A Study in Political Behavious (Chalermnit, Bangkok: 1972)’, Journal of the
Siam Society, 61, 2 (July 1973): 189 – 190.
132
Greene, Absolute: 3.
133
This is a republication article from Samaggi Sara (date unknown), in Bangkok Daily Mail (23 July 1929).

64
But not all aspects of Thai monarchy were accepted by Thai students in England. Despite
the conservatism of the students in England to the monarchy institution, they usually
criticized Thai royal tradition, which they labelled as “old”. Samaggi Sara, the journal of the
Samaddhi Samakhon often expressed its admiration toward the modern West. One article of
Samaggi Sara on “Nationalism and Change” in 1928 criticized three fundamental aspects of
Thailand: Buddhism, cultural tradition of Thailand, and Thai nationalism. According to this
article, Thailand did not adopt the right method for a promising change in the society because
it did not accept greater degree of western influence.134 Such was the example of Western
minded influence of Thai students in England. Toward the end of the 1920s, it solidified into
a separated group of educated elite, different from the pro-constitutional monarchy group
who consisted of the Thai graduates from French and the military officers who had received
training in pre-war Germany.135

From Soewardi’s Indies Nationalism to Indonesian nationalism

During the 1920s, it became clear that independence from colonial rule was an
aspiration for indigenous people in colonial Indonesia. The difference lied in the view toward
the conception of nationalism and the way to achieve its nationalist goal. The absence of
central power of the indigenous in colonial Indonesia made nationalism a diverse conception
in different place and different people. Boedi Oetomo, supported by the court of Yogyakarta
and Surakarta, sought to strengthen Javanese nationalism through culture and education.
Following the Javanese character of Boedi Oetomo, there were youth organizations that
represented different ethnics of in colonial Indonesia, from Tri Koro Dharmo (established
in 1915 – changed into Jong Java in 1918), Jong Sumateranen Bond (established in 1917),
Jong Minahasa (established in 1918), and Jong Ambon (established in 1918). Similar to
Thailand, the period of 1920s marked the emergence of the new generation of youth that
participated in politics and national identity. They would later replace the local nationalism

134
Bangkok Times (4 February 1929), in Batson, ed. Siam’s Political: 57 – 59.
135
It was Prince Damrong who expressed his satisfaction by stating that no students educated in England
played an important in the 1932 coup. In: “Dormer to Orde”, F7317/4260/40, (8 September 1932) Public
Record Office of England, London. As quoted in Batson, The End: 83.

65
with ‘Indonesian’ nationalism. Important development also took place in the Netherlands,
where the students used the term Indonesia as a name for their political, non-cooperative
organization. The youth in colonial Indonesia and the Netherlands created a new Indonesian
nationalism that became the new identity of the people in colonial Indonesia.
One important factor of this change can be traced back from the role of Soewardi
Soeryaningrat in the Netherlands. Soewardi, Dr. Tjipto Mangoenkoesoemo, and Dr. Douwes
Dekker (Tiga Serangkai), made a deep influence in politics to the students from colonial
Indonesia in the Netherlands. Since their arrival, Indische Vereeniging (Associations of the
Indies – established in 1908) became more concern in politics.136 Before coming back to
Java at the end of 1918, Soewardi wrote about the ‘political importance’ of Indies
nationalism as a conception for the nationalist movement in the colony. He opposed Javanese
nationalism, which he said only had a ‘cultural importance’ and very limited in scope in the
struggle against the Dutch. Soewardi wrote about ‘solidarity of the Indonesians’ together
with Indies nationalism. In his own words:

“Het Indisch nationalism, dat is ons aller strijdleuze, die alle Indonesiërs kan samenbrengen
in een verbond van nationalisten. Dat is de liefde voor ons aller vereenigd vaderland, dat nu
nog Nederlansch-Indië heet. Het Indisch nationalism is het wachtwoord in onze
broederschap. Schouder aan schouder staan de Sumatranen, de Minahassers,de
Amboineezen, de Javanen en alle andere overheerschte groepen van Indonesië, bereid en
gereed tot den strijd voor ons gemeenschappelijk welzijn, voor ons aller ideal.”137

According to Soewardi, Indies nationalism was a tool of nationalist movement in order to

unite all the people in the colony. ‘Indonesia’, on the other hand, referred to the land and
people of Netherlands Indies.
After Soewardi was departed back to Java, new generation of students in the
Netherlands modified the Indies nationalism (with colonial connotation) into Indonesian
nationalism (with an independent Indonesia connotation). The students such as Mohammad

136
Robert Elson, The Idea of Indonesia; A History (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 2008): 22.
137
Soewardi Soeryaningrat, “Het Javaansch Nationalisme in de Indische Beweging”, Soembangsih:
Gedenkboek Boedi-Oetomo, 20 Mei 1908 – 20 Mei 1918 (Amsterdam, Tijdschrift Nederlandsch Indie
Oud&Niew: 1918): 29.

66
Hatta, Natzir Pamuntjak, Achmad Soebardjo transformed the principles and name of
Indische Vereeniging (IV) into a politically-oriented Indonesische Vereeniging
(Perhimpoenan Indonesia, PI) as early as 1922. PI was the first Indonesian organization to
use the term Indonesia in its name.138 Their political view was anti-colonial and ‘non-
cooperation’, with a goal to achieve the independence of Indonesia. From that time on, PI
became the promoter of Indonesian independence from abroad.139 PI also participated in the
congress such as Bierville, France in 1926 and the League of Anti Colonialism and
Imperialism in Brussels, Belgium, in 1928. In response to the activity of the PI in politics,
the Dutch government heavily warned the students not to participate in it. As a result, only
a very few royal family members from Yogyakarta involved in PI during their study in the
Netherlands. Noto Soeroto, the son of Prince Notodiredjo from Pakualam, was the founder
of IV and a member of the PI for two years.140 He was expelled from PI in 1924 due to his
writing that somewhat praised Joannes Benedictus van Heutsz, a Dutch general in the Aceh
War, in his obituary dedicated to him.141 From 1922 onwards, the radical students simply
removed the older and pro-Dutch students from the scene. They created a network of ‘non-
cooperator’ nationalists from their base in the Netherlands. Their influence grew high among
the ‘Indonesian students’ in the Netherlands, while the influence of Noto Soeroto and the
supporter of Javanese nationalism became smaller and confined in a very narrow group.142
The establishment of the PI in the Netherlands did not immediately influence the
nationalist movement in colonial Indonesia. Javanese nationalism with moderate political

138
Elson, The Idea: 46.
139
In the same year of the foundation of PI, Jama’ah al-Chairiah al-Talabijja al-Azhariah al-Djawiah was
founded in Egypt. See: William R. Roff, ‘Indonesian and Malay Students in Cairo in the 1920’s’, Indonesia,
9 (1970).
140
Knowing that Noto Soeroto was involved in IV, Prince Notodirodjo persuaded Noto Soeroto to stop its
activity in the organization immediately, as it would “..antagonize the European colonial official, who will
probably think or say: ”There you are, there’s another one of those inexperienced Javanese starting to write
against us.” in Notodiredjo to Noto Soeroto (June 12, 1909), Noto Soeroto family archive, as quoted from
Madelon Djajadiningrat-Nieuwenhuis, ‘Noto Soeroto: His Ideas and the Late Colonial Intellectual Climate’,
Indonesia, 55 (April 1993): 45.
141
J.B. van Heutsz was also a Governor-General of the Netherlands Indies (in office, 1904 – 1909); Harry A.
Poeze, Di Negeri Penjajah: Orang Indonesia di Negeri Belanda, 1600 – 1950 (Jakarta, KPG: 2014): 179.
142
In 1924, Noto Soeroto, Iljas, and Amaroellah established Indonesischë in The Vreemde, an organization
that promotes Javanese and Dutch culture to its members. They were secluded from the activities of the PI,
which drew the attentions of many students from Colonial Indonesia. See: Poeze, Di Negeri: 179.

67
view such as Boedi Oetomo still prevailed as the prominent organization for the Javanese
elites from Yogyakarta and Surakarta. Only at the end of the 1920s did Boedi Oetomo begin
to lose its member considerably, a sign of its decrease in popularity. The opponent of
Javanese nationalism in this period was not the Indies nationalism, but the growing influence
of Indonesia nationalism. Van Miert stated that the Indo-European background of Douwes
Dekker, one of the initiators of Indies nationalism beside Soewardi, was one reason that the
idea of Indies nationalism was met with many oppositions.143 When the National Indische
Partij (NIP) was disbanded by the colonial government in 1923, Indies nationalism
completely lost its political backer. After that, Tiga Serangkai decided to change their
political activities to education sector. Soewardi Soeryaningrat was the first to enter
education sector. In 1920, he helped his brother R.M. Soerjopranoto to run an indigenous
school, Adhi Dharma (established in 1915). In 1922, Soewardi made his own school of
Taman Siswa, established in Yogyakarta. Douwes Dekker followed Soewardi’s move by
opening Ksatriaan School in Bandung, during the year 1924. Dr. Tjipto helped the Algemeen
Studieclub by Dr. Soetomo in Surabaya.
As it was for the Indonesian students in the Netherlands, the drive toward Indonesian
nationalism came from the youth. Influenced by the Indonesian Nationalist Party (PNI) led
by nationalists such as Soekarno and the PI-Netherlands graduates, the youth organizations
found the way to become united under a new secular, non-cooperative Indonesian
nationalism. In the so-called ‘Second Youth Congress’, which was held on the 28 October
1928, the youths from organizations such as Jong Java, Pemoeda Indonesia (Indonesian
Youth), Persatuan Pemoeda Peladjar Indonesia (Associations of Young Students of
Indonesia - PPPI) created a congress resolution: The Sumpah Pemuda (Youth Pledge). The
three principles of Youth Pledge: Indonesia as motherland, Indonesia as one nation, and
Indonesia as one language were the basis of the emergence of Indonesian nationalism. From
1928, the youth organizations started to merge under the new Indonesia Muda (Young
Indonesia) organization. By 1931, Indonesia Muda had combined Jong Java, Jong Celebes,

143
Hans van Miert, Dengan Semangat Berkobar: Nasionalisme dan Gerakan Pemuda di Indonesia, 1918 –
1930 (Jakarta, Hasta Mitra: 2003): 160.

68
Pemoeda Indonesia, Sekar Roekoen, Pemoeda Soematra under its organization.144 It had a
substantial impact for the popularity of Indonesian nationalism, as it conveyed a message
that the term Indonesia was the new ‘trend’ in the nationalist movement based from the
youth.

4.3. Overview
Royalty and Nationalism in Yogyakarta and Thailand showed different
developments in the period 1910 – 1930. The progressive ideas from the West that penetrated
the minds of young intellectual were implemented differently according to the situation in
the respective country. But in general, this period marked the beginning of a ‘heterogeneous’
backgrounds of educated elites in Yogyakarta and Thailand. In this development, the royal
family of Yogyakarta and Thailand took part as one active element for progress. In the first
place, the royal family of Yogyakarta and Thailand still acquired the status as the top elites
in the society. Both also had privilege to govern their respective court. Their extent of
‘nationalism’, however, was different. The royalty of Yogyakarta supported Javanese
nationalism. But not all royal family members were convinced with Javanese nationalism.
Due to educational experience with students from different ethnic backgrounds, young
Soewardi Soeryaningrat of Pakualaman introduced Indies nationalism and anti-colonial
nationalism for the people in colonial Indonesia. In the 1910- 1925, King Vajiravudh was
the one who directed official nationalism to Thai people. In the 1920s, Thai nationalism of
King Vajiravudh began to decline due to the rise of new educated elites who demanded
equality in Thailand. They organized a plan to change drastically the shape of the nation. In
Colonial Indonesia, too, nationalism began to change course to the new Indonesian
nationalism due to the young educated elites at this period.

144
Kerapatan Besar-Indonesia Moeda Jang ke-I (29 Desember 1930 – 2 Januari 1931) di Surakarta (1931):
1.

69
 Chapter 5
Reaffirming identity: Thailand and Yogyakarta during 1930 – 1942

In the period 1910 - 1930, both Thailand and Yogyakarta formulated a ‘new identity’
for their nationalism. While a group of Thai educated elites demanded constitutional
monarchy, the court elites still persisted with absolute monarchy. This conception of
constitutional monarchy was brought by Thai students who had been educated from French
and the powerful clique of Pridi Banomyong. In colonial Indonesia, the students educated in
the Netherlands and the colony had initiated the Youth Pledge of 1928 to affirm the identity
of Indonesia. But it was not easy task to initiate these conceptions further into practice. The
court of Thailand still refused to change the absolute monarchy into a constitutional
monarchy. The court of Yogyakarta was still reluctant to support this new identity, in the
fear of losing their Javanese identity. The Dutch also did not support the idea of Indonesia.
The period of 1930 – 1942 marked a gradual change to ‘penetrate’ this ‘barrier’ for the new
identity to take place in the two countries. As we will see in this chapter, there were
individuals and groups who pushed further the new identity to Thailand and Yogyakarta at
this period. The final period discussed here, 1939 – 1942, was a time of consolidation
determining the identity in both Thailand and Yogyakarta.

5.1. New Identities in Thailand and Yogyakarta

Constitutional monarchy as the new identity for Thailand
The period of 1930 – 1940 was the period of a new identity of Thailand from the
absolute monarchy of Thailand that placed the people as the king’s “children”, into the
constitutional monarchy that gave the ‘supreme power’ to all the people of Thailand. During
his first years in power, King Prajadhipok already knew that a change of government was
inevitable. But he did not anticipate that the change would be dictated by his people. The
king considered many different ways to improve the quality of the monarchy to meet the
principle of democracy and progress. As early as 1926, he wrote a memorandum to Dr.
Francis B. Sayre, an American Adviser in Foreign Affairs to Siam, in which the principal

70
point was to discuss about constitutional monarchy of Thailand.145 But at that time
Prajadhipok believed that for country with a rooted tradition of absolute monarchy such as
Thailand, it was not easy to adopt such radical change. What Thailand needed, according to
Prajadhipok, was a “good king”. In regards to parliamentary system, King Prajadhipok stated
his “doubt” if it would work in Thailand. He also expressed his refusal to the idea of
representative government.146 In another occasion, King Prajadhipok stated that,

“It will certainly be better for the people first to control local affairs before they attempt to
control state affairs through parliament. I sincerely believe that if reforms are gradually
introduced in this way, a democratic form of government could possibly be introduced
without too much harm. But the process must be gradual and carefully administered in
doses.”147

As a measure to introduce a ‘check and balances’ in the authority of the king, King
Prajadhipok appointed the Supreme Council of Thailand with five original members,
including Prince Bhanurangsi, Prince Bhoripat, Prince Naris, Prince Damrong, and Prince
Chantaburi since the beginning of his reign.148 They were all senior royal family members
who already worked under King Chulalongkorn administration. The proposal to adopt
constitutional monarchy was rejected by the Supreme Council. The Privy Council, the
princely group who was given the task to study the Constitutional monarchy also rejected
the idea for Thailand in 1927.149 Therefore, the leading royal family members did not agree
with the adoption of constitutional monarchy in Thailand. In his effort to find the possibility
of a constitutional monarchy in Thailand, King Prajadhiphok did not request the involvement
of ordinary people of Thailand outside the royal family to look into the matter.

145
‘King Prajadhipok’s Memorandum’, Papers of Prince Damrong, 47/32, National Archives of Bangkok,
as cited in Batson, ed. Siam’s Political: 15.
146
‘King Prajadhipok’s Memorandum’: 15.
147
Prudhisan Jumbala, “Prajadhipok: The King at the Transition to Constitutional Monarchy in Siam”, in
Suchit Bumbongkarn and Prudhisan Jumbala, eds. Monarchy and Constitutional Rule in Democratizing
Thailand (Bangkok, Institute of Thai Studies Chulalongkorn University: 2012): 132.
148
Batson, The End: 32.
149
Batson, The End: 134.

71
 The ‘revolution’ came close in Thailand when the economy was falling by 1931. It
was the period of the worldwide economic depression. The question of a ‘good king’ to
control the situation was raised, as the public would easily blamed the government in such
economic failure. In his correspondence to Prince Dhani Nivat the Minister of Public
Instruction about education in Italy, King Prajadhipok wrote about his admiration to the
Fascist system of education. King Prajadhipok said,

“This is very “interesting.” They are able to teach their children to support the fascist system
of government, but can we teach the Thai people to support the “absolute monarchy”? I very
much doubt it, for if we begin now it is already too late… Actually, if we adopted the “Fascist
system and established a “fascist party” it might be desirable and the best “way out.” But
could we do it? If not, perhaps we should prepare for a change to a “constitutional monarchy”
at the earliest possible moment, and direct education along that path.”150

Before the court of Thailand could find the best possible solution to raise the public trust to
the monarchy, the change was brought by force from a coalition of power between the
civilians and the military outside the court circle. On 24 June 1932, the coup group under
the name the People’s Party seized the control of the government. The leader was the
notorious Thai student in France, Pridi Banomyong with other members such as Chom
Charuratana, Phibun Songkhram, and Wichit Wathakan from the French graduates’ circle.
Other important figure of the People Party was a military general named Phraya Phahon,
who was educated in Germany. The military wing of the People’s Party immediately
occupied Bangkok and detained high princes of Thailand. On the day of the coup, the
People’s Party distributed pamphlets in Bangkok, the “Announcement of The People’s Party
No. 1”. The pamphlet begun with a phrase “All the People..” It continued,

“When this king succeeded his elder brother, people at first hoped that he would govern
protectively. But matters have not turned out as they hoped. The king maintains his power
above the law as before. He appoints court relatives and toadies without merit or knowledge
to important positions, without listening to the voice of the people. He allows officials to use

150
”King Prajadhipok to Prince Dhani”, Seventh Reign, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 38/17, National
Archives of Bangkok, in Batson, ed. Siam’s Political: 96.

72
 the power of their office dishonestly, taking bribes in government construction and
purchasing, and seeking profits from changes in the price of money, which squanders the
wealth of the country. He elevates those of royal blood (phuak chao) to have special rights
more than the people. He governs without principle. The country’s affairs are left to the
mercy of face, as can be seen from the depression of the economy and the hardships of
making a living – something the people know all about already.”151

From this ‘revolutionary’ pamphlet of the Peoples’ Party, it was clear that the attack was
directed at the absolute monarch and the royal family of Thailand. The adversary to the
absolute monarch and the royal family, according the People’s Party, was “the people” who
were abused by their power and privilege. The People party proposed a solution to create a
government by an assembly, “so that many minds can debate and contribute”.152 They
invited the king to stay on the throne, but threatened to depose the king on charge of state
treason and changed the form of government completely to republic if the king refused to
accept their demands.153 What is also interesting in the pamphlet is that the People’s Party
sought for Thailand’s “complete independence”.154 King Prajadhipok, having no desire to
bring Thailand into civil war decided to agree with the demand of the People’s Party.
From the period of 24 June 1932 onwards, the bloodless coup in Thailand ended the
absolute monarchy rule. The king was given a symbolic position as a constitutional monarch,
but the royal family was completely stripped from their privileges in the politics, social, and
economy of Thailand. The attempt to seize control of the royal family properties was halted
by Phraya Manopakorn, the new Prime Minister of Thailand.155 Prince Boriphat, one
powerful member of the Court of Bangkok was sent to exile in Bandung, West Java.156 The
royal branch of government such as the Supreme Council was abolished. The new National
Assembly was elected democratically in November. In all this political development, it is

151
‘Announcement of The People’s Party No. 1 (1932)’, in Pridi Banomyong, Pridi by Pridi: Selected
Writings on Life, Politics and Economy (Chiang Mai, Silkworm Books: 2000): 70.
152
‘Announcement of The People’s Party No. 1 (1932)’: 71.
153
‘Announcement of The People’s Party No. 1 (1932)’: 71 – 72.
154
‘Announcement of The People’s Party No. 1 (1932)’: 73.
155
Batson, The End: 245.
156
Prince Boriphat was the only high prince who was sent to exile by the decision of the new government.
After the coup, several other high princes voluntarily lived abroad, including Prince Damrong (Penang),
Prince Purachatra (Singapore), and King Prajadhipok (Cranleigh, England).

73
not hard to notice that the 1932 revolution was an affair to shift the power from the king and
royal family into the People’s Party and the ordinary Thai people. The cultural tradition of
Thailand and the king’s legitimacy that became the fundament of the Thai monarchy did not
change at all. As quoted from Wilson, on the day of a National Assembly meeting to draft a
new constitution, the chair of the committe announced that “..debate would have to be over
quickly because the royal astrologers had selected 10 December as most auspicious day for
promulgation and in the meantime it must be copied in three great manuscripts.”157 The
National Assembly meetings then proceeded to fulfil the date. In December, the
proclamation of 1932 Constitution of Thailand was followed with state rituals and
celebrations.158 The influence of the king also remained high as a unifying symbol of
Thailand even after the 1932 Revolution. Despite the attack of the king and royal family in
the Announcement pamphlet of the People’s Party, the new constitution of 1932 still placed
the monarchy as a source of legitimacy in Thai political system.
Political stability was the price of the 1932 revolution that could not easily be
maintained by the new constitutional government. The monarchy, after having ruled
Thailand for centuries with absolute power, refused to remain idle completely in response to
the new government of Thailand. But their response varied according to what they chose fit.
In 1933, with the financial support of King Prajadhipok, Prince Bowaradej launched a
military offensive to the new government.159 The battle took place between the new
government force led by Phibun Songkhram against the provincial army of Prince
Bowaradej in the outskirt of Bangkok. This conflict ended with the victory of the new
government and raised Phibun Songkhram into prominence in Thai politics. Prince
Bowaradej was exiled to Saigon, where he lived to his death. Other leaders of the ‘rebellion’
were either captured or killed in action.160 This event became the only major physical conflict
erupted between the reactionary group (the monarchy) and the new government. Leading
princes who allegedly involved in the rebellion moved to Penang included Prince Damrong

157
David A. Wilson, Politics in Thailand (Cornell, Cornell University Press: 1962): 15.
158
Wilson, Politics: 15.
159
Scot Barme, Luang Wichit Wathakan and the Creation of Thai Identity (Singapore, ISEAS: 1993): 85.
160
Batson, ed. Siam’s Political: 99.

74
and Prince Sawat.161 The majority of royal family, however, did not involve in the rebellion.
With the wealth they acquired from pre-1932 situation, they chose to secure their economic
and social positions in the new era of Thailand. A few members of the royal family decided
to join the new government as the Adviser of the new government. They were called
“democratic royal princes”, with the leading figures such as Prince Aditya (Regency
Council), Prince Sakol (Adviser in the Ministry of the Interior), and Prince Wan (Adviser in
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs).162
Within members of a new government of Thailand after 1932, series of conflicts
took place that only ended temporarily in the beginning of the first Phibun government (1938
– 1941). Resentments also ascended between the initiators of the 1932 revolution
themselves. For instance, by the order of the first Prime Minister of Thailand Phraya
Manopakorn, Pridi Banomyong was sent to ‘study abroad’. Many people in the government
dislike Pridi for his alleged support to Communism. In 1933, it was Phraya Manopakorn
who was deposed from power. Phraya Phahon launched the ‘second coup’ to the government
and made him the second Prime Minister in 1933.163 The government lost much prestige
when King Prajadhiphok abdicated from the throne of Thailand in 1935. Therefore, despite
the importance of constitutional monarchy to distribute the power to the people and instill
the nationalism ‘from the ordinary people’, Thailand fell into political instability. The
change from the absolute monarchy to the constitutional monarchy gave rise to the ‘military
dictatorship’ in Thailand.

Yogyakarta under the influence of Indonesian nationalism

During the 1930s, Yogyakarta became a center of the emerging Indonesian
nationalism. The development in this period suggested a significant progress in Yogyakarta
just in time when the nationalist activities in Batavia and other colonial cities received

161
Barme, Luang Wichit: 85.
162
M. Sivaram, “Siam in Transition”, Siam Today 1 (1936), as cited in Batson, The End: 253.
163
Batson, ed. Siam’s Political: 98.

75
difficulties as a result of heavier surveillance by the Dutch Colonial authority.164 With regard
to the Sultan and the Pakualam positions in the nationalist movement, we have discussed
that the Courts of Yogyakarta, under the aegis of the Dutch colonial government, hardly
make any statement of support to the nationalist. On the other hand, the Kasultanan and the
Pakualaman courts in Yogyakarta were supportive to the moderate and cooperative methods
in relations with the Dutch government, with a particular interest to Javanese nationalism.
By 1930s, there was a gradual shift in the perception toward ‘Indonesian solidarity, and
Indonesian nationalism from the proponent of Javanese nationalism. It was evidenced by
Boedi Oetomo, an organization of kraton circle, which suffered a decline in membership
during the first half of 1930. In 1935, Boedi Oetomo only had 736 members.165 Boedi
Oetomo was overshadowed by the emergence of two Yogyakarta-based organizations led by
members of the royal family. Firstly, I refer to the role of Ki Hadjar Dewantara (R.M.
Soewardi Soeryaningrat) and Taman Siswa. In 1930, Taman Siswa had ‘woken up’ from its
eight year of “abstinence from public speech” (tapa diam), denoting on the period of absence
from mass propaganda.166 Starting from this period, Taman Siswa became an agent of
Indonesian nationalism in education sector. Secondly, Prince Soerjodiningrat from the
Kasultanan established an organization for Javanese peasants, the Pakempalan Kawoelo
Ngayogyakarta (Associations of Subjects of Yogyakarta - PKN) in 1930. The involvement
of prince from Kasultanan royal family as the initiator and the leading figure in a mass
organization was quite unique. With PKN, the idea of Indonesian solidarity, one principle
for nationalism, was promoted to the ordinary people. Different than in Thailand at this
period, the new ‘identity’ of Indonesia was accepted by royal family members from the
courts themselves. They promoted Indonesian solidarity within their respective positions in

164
After the 1926 PKI rebellion, the Dutch government became more repressive to Indonesian nationalist
movement. One example of the intense surveillance of the Dutch was the dissolution of Indonesian
Nationalist Party (PNI) in 1929.
165
Boedi Oetomo then fused into Partai Bangsa Indonesia (PBI) to create the new Partai Indonesia Raja
(Greater Indonesia Party - Parindra). However, as a national party, its growth was still “unimpressive” in
numbers. See: Susan Abeyasekare, ‘Partai Indonesia Raja, 1936 – 1942: A Study in Cooperative
Nationalism’, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 3, 2 (1972): 263.
166
The policy of tapa diam was a strategy used by the leader of Taman Siswa to focus primarily on the
establishment of schools, from Yogyakarta to many of its school branches. In: Sajoga, ‘Riwajat Perdjuangan
Taman Siswa, 1922 – 1952’, Buku Peringatan Taman Siswa 30 Tahun (1952): 207.

76
the society. Creating a kind of ‘Indonesian nationalism with Javanese clothes’ that
characterized Indonesian nationalism in Yogyakarta.
Taman Siswa in Yogyakarta was the pioneer in national education of Indonesia. At
the time when colonial education only targeted education for the elites, Taman Siswa offered
the importance of volksschool (the low-rank school for ordinary people). According to the
school leader (dictateur) Ki Hadjar Dewantara, education (onderwijs) and upringing
(opvoeding) should aim to free the people so they could take part in the ‘national unity’.167
In the 1930, before the First Congress of Taman Siswa took place in Yogyakarta, the school
already had 52 branches and 6.500 pupils in total, with 23 branches in East Java, 13 in
Central Java, 9 in West Java, 3 in Sumatra, 3 in Kalimantan, and one in Madura.168 The first
congress was an essential step for Taman Siswa because it resulted in the agreement of all
the branches on the vision of ‘Indonesian national solidarity’. After the first congress, Taman
Siswa became a broad national movement in education, which centered in Yogyakarta.
Taman Siswa could turn into a tool for national agitation whenever they see appropriate. In
1932, for instance, the Grand Meeting (Rapat Besar) of Taman Siswa in Yogyakarta led by
Ki Mangunsarkoro decided to “..eliminate all subjects that connected to colonialism,
especially in the children education level”.169
As a response, the government passed the Wilde Scholen Ordonnantie in the same
year. This regulation required Taman Siswa and other private schools (sekolah partikelir) to
follow Dutch curriculum, and to have authorization for schools and teachers before the study
could begin. In a short time, wild school ordinance became a national issue in education.
Many organizations, including Boedi Oetomo, Muhammadiyah, Pendidikan Nasional
Indonesia (Indonesian Education Party – the new PNI), Jong Islamieten Bond, and Indonesia
Muda sent a protest to the Dutch government.170 In 1933, amid the pressure in the Volksraad,
the Dutch government revoked the Wild School Ordinance. This ‘victory’ was not only
important for Taman Siswa’s existence, but also for the acknowledgement of indigenous
schools.

167
Sajoga, ‘Riwajat Perdjuangan Taman Siswa, 1922 – 1952’: 195.
168
Sajoga, ‘Riwayat Perjuangan Taman Siswa, 1922 – 1952’: 207.
169
Sajoga, ‘Riwajat Perdjuangan Taman Siswa, 1922 – 1952’: 216.
170
Sajoga, ‘Riwajat Perdjuangan Taman Siswa, 1922 – 1952’: 220 – 221.

77
 Despite the school’s minimum educational facilities as well as financial difficulties,
Taman Siswa school particularly in Yogyakarta showed a high rate “educational excellence”
for its time.171 Many of its students passed government examinations. Taman Siswa appeared
as a threat to the Dutch government due the affiliation of the teachers with nationalist parties
and public meeting that inspire nationalism among the population. The existence of Taman
Siswa meant the active part of indigenous education in promoting Indonesian nationalism.
Because, according to Ki Hadjar Dewantara,

“Education with colonial spirit offers nothing to our own national livelihood. The reliance to
that kind of education would only entangled us into dependency. This situation cannot be
eliminated only with political movement. Therefore, we should not only focus on outward
movement, but we also need to emphasize on the importance to spread the seed of living
with freedom [benih hidup merdeka] to the people, that is education with our own national
sentiment.”172

At the end of the 1930s, Taman Siswa continued to flourished in Yogyakarta and other areas
of colonial Indonesia. The data for 1942 shows that Taman Siswa had 199 branches and 207
higher institutions which spread from Sumatera, Java, Bali, Kalimantan to Sulawesi with
total students numbering to 20.000.173 In the development of Taman Siswa, both the
Kasultanan and Pakualaman of Yogyakarta played role as an exponent of Taman Siswa in
various forms of support.174 It shows that the relationship between Taman Siswa and the
court authorities was the key factor of the emergence of Taman Siswa in this period.

171
Ruth T.McVey, ‘Taman Siswa and the Indonesian National Awakening’, Indonesia, 4 (October 1967):
192
172
Sajoga, ‘Riwajat Perdjuangan Taman Siswa, 1922 – 1952’: 192.
173
Sajoga, ‘Riwajat Perdjuangan Taman Siswa, 1922 – 1952’: 220 – 221.
174
The courts of Yogyakarta played important part to support Taman Siswa. The fact that Taman Siswa
emerged from Yogyakarta cannot be neglected as evidence of the two kraton support for this organization.
Pakualaman royal family was closely connected to the foundation of Taman Siswa. Sultan Hamengku
Buwono VIII also gave support to Taman Siswa. For Pakualam royal family’s relation with Taman Siswa,
see: Kenji Tsuchiya, ‘The Taman Siswa Movement – Its Early Eight Years and Javanese Background’,
Journal of Southeast Asia Studies, 6, 2 (September 1975): 165 – 167; For Kasultanan royal family’s relation
with Taman Siswa, see: “Sambutan Hamengkubuwono IX”, Buku Peringatan: 30, and John Monfries, A
Prince in a Republic: The Life of Sultan Hamengkubuwono IX of Yogyakarta (Singapore, ISEAS: 2015): 30.

78
 Another promoter of Indonesian nationalism from Yogyakarta was the PKN. It was
founded by Prince Soerjadiningrat from Kasultanan Yogyakarta in 1930. Unlike Soewardi
Soeryaningrat, Prince Soerjadiningrat did not get formal education. He was taught in
Javanese arts and basic knowledge such as reading and writing from private tutor at the
keraton. He learned other skills and subjects mostly by self-taught. His background as the
Kasultanan court’s agrarian inspector made him know by experience that the peasants were
constantly exploited because they did not know how to read and write. The fact that the royal
family played little role in the people’s welfare was an object of his concern. In the beginning
of 1930s, great depression affected the economy of Yogyakarta. The urge to create an
organization for the peasants increased more than before. With the approval of Sultan
Hamengku Buwono VIII (r. 1921 – 1939), Prince Soerjodiningrat established PKN. He was
assisted by several high princes of Kasultanan Yogyakarta, including Prince Tedjokusumo
(sub-chairman for social affairs of PKN), Prince Djojowinoto (sub-chairman for political
affairs of PKN), Prince Hadikusumo (sub-chairman for economic affairs of PKN), and
Prince Hadiwinoto (treasurer).175 In only two years after its establishment, PKN already
reached about 300.000 members.176 PKN also had its branch for the youth, the PKN Moeda
(Young PKN) which organized its first congress in 1934.177 PKN was surely a mass
organization with considerable significance for Yogyakarta, and, as Taman Siswa school, it
concerned on the basic need of the people to earned a better living condition. The activities
of the PKN, including short courses on agricultural techniques, organizing schools in the
villages, and advocacy for its members attracted many people from the rural area of
Yogyakarta. The popularity of the PKN shows that, despite the nationalists and the
communists influence in Java during this period, many people who lived in the rural area of
Yogyakarta principality still put their faith to the sultan and the royal family.
Prince Soerjadiningrat and other princes of Kasultanan Yogyakarta viewed that their
service in PKN was part of their task as the Javanese noblemen. Prince Soerjadiningrat used
the phrase “Royal family for the people” (Bangsawan untuk Rakyat) to describe his

175
William Joseph O’Malley, Indonesia in the Great Depression: A Study of East Sumatra and Jogjakarta in
the 1930’s (unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, Cornell University: 1977): 344.
176
Oetoesan Indonesia (20 July 1933).
177
Oetoesan Indonesia (31 July 1934).

79
connection to the members of PKN.178 In contrast with PKN’s ‘potential’, Prince
Soerjadiningrat did not turn PKN into political organization. The organization limited its
activities to social and education sectors for Javanese peasants. However, during the time
when political parties were thrived in this period, it became a matter of speculation among
intellectuals about the true intention of Prince Soerjadiningrat with PKN. Noto Soeroto, for
instance, had a doubt if the prince with “thousands of supporters” did not involve in
politics.179 The Dutch was also quite concerned with the growth of PKN. One editorial
article of Oetoesan Indonesia reported about the editor of Dutch-language newspaper Java
Bode, H.C. Zentgraaf who dislike the activities of the PKN because of the numerous numbers
of its members. This article satirically said that, for the Dutch, any organization such as
PKN was “…niet direct gevaarlijk maar kan toch gevaarlijk worden.”180 Oetoesan
Indonesia reminded PKN that it could not escape from the “real demand” as an “organization
that live” (organisasi hidup), referring to the PKN potential if it became a political
organization.181 But these opinions did not change the ideal of Prince Soerjadiningrat. In his
speech at the Third PKN Congress, he spoke about the duty for the people of high standing
to help the peasants. On his view of the peasants, Prince Soerjadiningrat said:

“The decline of the living quality of the population as well as the peasants creates difficulties
in the country. On the other hand, the welfare of the population will bring about the welfare
of the country. We have to feel the merit and suffering of the people altogether. We cannot
choose only to feel their happiness, but then forget the bitter condition of the people at the
same time.”182

The Prince and PKN’s contribution to Indonesian nationalism was the fostering of the term
Indonesia with ‘soft approach’ to the people of Yogyakarta. Prince Soerjadiningrat did not
speak about the glory of the court of Yogyakarta or Javanese nationalism. His many speeches

178
Oetoesan Indonesia (13 January 1933).
179
Noto Soeroto Diary (November 5, 1933), as cited from Djajadiningrat-Nieuwenhuis, ‘Noto Soeroto: His
Ideas and the Late Colonial Intellectual Climate’: 65.
180
Oetoesan Indonesia (20 July 1933).
181
Oetoesan Indonesia (20 July 1933).
182
Oetoesan Indonesia (31 July 1933).

80
in the PKN congress and the editorial columns of Kawoela (the PKN monthly newspaper)
mentioned ‘Indonesian’ or the ‘motherland solidarity’ where the Javanese was one part of
it. As a Javanese prince with hundred thousands of followers in PKN, he did not promote
Javanese nationalism but Indonesian solidarity nonetheless. PKN, for instance, agreed on
the idea to have a “national culture”. One editorial article of Kawoela stated that,

“We agree on the idea of national culture [kebudayaan persatuan]. However, it should not
mean the end of local culture. We need to create a national culture that can arrange the need
of all Indonesian people. On the other hand, local cultures should exist side by side with
national culture, because the establishment of national culture does not guarantee that it
would be better than local culture…Our conclusion: local culture cannot be eliminated even
though there is a national culture that pleases all Indonesian people!”183

The significance of Kawoela to accept the idea of national culture was not only related to
cultural sense, but it was about the concept of nationalism that showed the inclination to be
absorbed in the idea of greater Indonesian nationalism. On the other hand, at this time the
Dutch government still reluctant to use the term Indonesia. One government Nota in 1939
stated that the usage of the term Indonesian was a “political agitation” and it contained
connotation that was “unacceptable” to the government.184
Prince Soerjadiningrat and the Kawoela were not absent in the discourse of national
independence during this period. One edition of Kawoela published an article (with pen
name Rahardja) which described about freedom for all the people. It said,

“Freedom [mardika] can bring happiness to both men and women. With freedom, women
can attain higher level of knowledge. Men, on the other hand, will achieve high morale and
manners. Both men and women will get benefit from the state of freedom. But Freedom
needs to have its limit. We have to remember that we are the nation that created by Pangeran
Kang Murbeng Dumadi [Almighty God] indifferent to any nation. We do, however, have our
own morale. It is the line and border of freedom for Eastern Nation.”185

183
Kawoela (December 1938).
184
Elson, The Idea: 92.
185
Kawoela (July 1938).

81
By the term freedom (mardika), this article means freedom from colonial rule. But it cannot
be said that it represented Kawoela or Prince Soerjadiningrat, as the author used a pen name
to deliver its message. The appearance of this article in Kawoela showed that notion of
independence is not absence in PKN. Outside the writing on the press and speeches, Prince
Soerjadiningrat used symbolic gestures to display his affection toward the idea of Indonesia.
He was frequently invited to attend meeting and congresses of other organizations in which
he occasionally stood during the singing of Indonesia Raya (chosen as the nationalist anthem
since 1928), the one that brought complaints by the Dutch. When asked by the Dutch
authority about his standing gesture in Indonesia Raya, his explanation was simply that his
Javanese courtesy taught him not to sit while others stood up.186 Thus, in this period, Prince
Soerjadiningrat paved the way for more democratic courts of Yogyakarta.

5.2. Reaffirming the royal identity, 1938 - 1942

The return of the royal family
At the start of the year 1939, General Phibun Songkhram began to assume the
leadership as the third prime minister of Thailand. He came to power after another bloodless
coup of Thailand led by himself succeeded in overthrowing Phraya Phahon from the seat of
prime minister. Phibun’s political ideal was to change the identity of Thailand into his idea
of official nationalism. Previously, many leaders of 1932 Revolution felt the need to include
the royal family in the new government, resulting in several princes being appointed as
Advisers. The plan to commemorate the 1932 revolution day (24 June) as an official
celebration was rejected by Phraya Phahon’s government on the ground that it would irritate
the royal family and their supporters.187 Under Phibun, his first plan was to create 24 June
1939 as “Thai National day”. This means that the Thai government endorsed completely the

186
O’Malley stated that Prince Soerjadiningrat was “facing a dillema” whether he had to stand up during the
singing of Indonesia Raya. But considering his speeches and the view of Kawoela toward Indonesia, I do not
think that he was confused as O’Malley had suggested. Rather, Prince Soerjadiningrat used symbolic gesture
that was common to the Javanese. When the complaints mounted from the Dutch, he decided to send his
family member to represent him in the standing for Indonesia Raya. I quoted this data on Prince
Soerjadiningrat standing during the singing of Indonesia Raya from: O’Malley, Indonesia in the Great: 320,
350.
187
Barme, Luang Wichit: 139.

82
‘struggle’ of the revolution against the king and the royal family. Phibun was the one who
commanded the government’s army to strike the rebellion army of Prince Bowaradej. The
creation of Thai National Day, therefore, connected to the glorification of his role in the
1932 revolution. On the day of 24 June 1939, the nation celebrated the revolution with
military parade, community events, and so on. Official announcement was prepared by
Director General of Fine Arts Department, Luang Witchit Wathakan to be distributed to all
schools in Thailand. An excerpt of the text is as follow:

“Seven to eight years ago the country was in a precarious position. Our armed forces were
weak, the economy was disintegrating and the people were in need. The wealth of the nation
was being wasted and progress was dreadfully slow. The government ruled the people like a
master rules a slave… Then on 24 June 1932 a group of military men and civillians joined
forces and changed the administration of the country.”188

Here we see that the role of the military in the revolution was emphasized by Witchit
Wathakan. It was different than the “Announcement of the People’s Party 1932” which
stressed on the participation of all the people of Thailand. The “Announcement” of 1932
originally said: “Therefore the people, government officials, soldiers, and citizens who know
about these evil actions of the government, have joined together to establish the People’s
Party and have seized power from the king’s government.”189 Moreover, Phibun government
officially changed the country name of “Siam” to “Thailand” during the national day of
1939.190 In his version of official nationalism, Phibun launched “hyper-nationalism” of
Thailand. He enforced a general convention to all Thai people to follow the same Thai
language, the same dress (Western attire), and the same daily habit (i.e. eating, drinking,
sport) in the so-called ‘Rathaniyom’ (state convention).191 Thai economic policies also
followed Phibun’s direction of nationalism with the campaign of “Thai Economy for the

188
Barme, Luang Wichit: 140 – 141.
189
“Announcement of The People’s Party No. 1 (1932)”: 71.
190
Barme, Luang Wichit: 147.
191
Incidentally, Phibun Songkhram introduced fascist ideas into Thailand’s nationalism. This would not
have been done by King Prajadhipok in 1932. For hyper-nationalism of Thailand, see: Barme, Luang Wichit:
144 – 170.

83
Thai people”.192 With hyper-nationalism, he asked all Thai people – including the Chinese,
the Malay - to become ‘fully Thai’.
During Phibun period, the royal family virtually did not take part in the formulation
of hyper-nationalism. Several ‘democratic princes’ played some role as Advisers, including
Prince Wan who became an important Adviser to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. But their
influence was limited in Thai politics at that time, with many other princes chose to stay put
from political life. The royal family made a ‘come back’ to Thai politics when Japanese
invasion to Southeast Asia came nearer in 1941. One prominent figure of the royal family to
take the lead at that moment was M.R Seni Pramoj. He was the Thailand Minister
Plenipotentiary to the United States during 1940 – 1945. He disliked the measures
implemented by Phibun government with its hyper-nationalism, especially those related to
persecuting the Chinese in Thailand.193 In Washington, he found the momentum to oppose
Phibun. In the first place, Seni agreed with Phibun to declared Neutrality in the World War
II. In November 1941, Seni spoke about Thailand’s pledge for independence, stating if Japan
attack Thailand, “Japan will go through Thailand over our dead bodies.”194 When Japan
attacked US military base in Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1942, Seni Pramoj issued a
declaration inaugurating the Free Thai (or the Seri Thai) Movement from Washington DC
without his government consent.195 Seni Pramoj’s measures in Washington focused on war
propaganda against the Japanese in Thailand. In 12 December, he broadcasted a speech in
BBC, All India Radio, and Singapore Radio to urge all Thai to “fight” for the
independence.196 He also wrote an article in Washington Post to response a critics that
Thailand will soon “wave the white flag” to Japan. He stated,

“The Thai will to resist was strong, I can assure you, as evidenced by our struggle of centuries
to maintain our independence… As to the reported alliance between conquered Thailand and

192
Under Phibun, the “Thai people” referred to Thai farmers, workers, and consumers. In: Akira Suehiro,
Capital Accumulation in Thailand, 1855 – 1985 (Chiang Mai, Silkworm Books: 1996): 130.
193
M.R. Seni Pramoj, ‘Political Memoirs: Mom Rajawongse Seni Pramoj’, in Jayanta Kumar Ray, Portraits
of Thai Politics (Calcutta, Orient Longman: 1972): 149.
194
Washington Post (28 November 1941).
195
M.R. Seni Pramoj, Political Memoirs: Mom Rajawongse Seni Pramoj’: 150.
196
E. Bruce Reynolds, Thailand’s Secret War: OSS, SOE, and the Free Thai Underground during World
War II (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 2010): 14.

84
 the conquering Japanese, I am convinced equally that history will reveal the melancholy
farce which the Japanese are enacting before the world in this regard… I myself cannot trust
any news from Thailand of so fantastically unbelievable a nature. For this reason, I am
continuing in this country to bend my every energy, as the appointed official representative
of the Thai people, toward the eventual defeat of Japan and the triumphant of the
democracies, among which I am proud to count my native land.”197

From Washington, Seni sent telegrams and letters to his friends and royal family members
abroad requesting support in the Free Thai Movement. Seni also sent telegram to King
Ananda Mahidol (Rama VIII) who was studying in Switzerland to declare his will to
“struggle for the freedom of our country”.198 He then asked Thai students in the United States
to enlist in the military for the Free Thai movement, which resulted in many students joined
Free Thai Movement.199 The Thai in America seemed to cooperate well with Free-Thai
Movement. Therefore, when Phibun declared war to England and the United States on 25
January 1942, Free Thai Movement already being formed abroad.
In England, the situation was not all that positive but turned to be in favour of Seni
Pramoj and the Free Thai Movement. King Prajadhipok had just passed away in May 1941.
Prince Chula Chakrabongse, the son of prominent Prince Chakrabongse, declined invitation
to join Free Thai Movement due to personal choice and illness.200 Other royal family
members in England sympathetically joined Free Thai Movement, including Queen
Rambhai Barni (the widow of the late King Chulalongkorn), Prince Chakrabandhu, and
Prince Suphasawat.201 Although very small in number, they were still quite influential in
the eyes of Thai people. They were the ones to organize the resistance from England against
the Phibun government and Japan. In 1942, Prince Suphasawat organized Special Operation
Executive (SOE) based in England. He commanded the supports of Thai students in England

197
Washington Post (19 December 1941).
198
Reynolds, Thailand’s: 14.
199
Sorasak Ngamcachonkulkid, The New History of the Seri Thai Movement (Bangkok, Institute of Asian
Studies Chulalongkorn University: 2010): 151.
200
H.R.H. Prince Chula Chakrabongse, The Twain Have Met or An Eastern Prince Met West (London, G.T.
Foulis & Co. Ltd: 1956): 238.
201
Reynolds, Thailand’s: 24.

85
who called the prince with the code name “Major Arun”.202 When the war progressed in
1943, it was Prince Suphasawat who made a deal with Pridi Banomyong, the leader of Free
Thai Movement in Thailand. His appeal to Pridi was to ask for “general amnesty of all
political prisoners” which means the return of the royal family in Thai political life. Pridi, in
need of the support of the royal family to oppose Phibun, agreed with Prince Suphasawat.203
But at that moment it was still unclear who would win the war, whether it was the Allies and
the Free Thai Movement or the Japanese with Phibun government. Nevertheless, the Thai
royal family had made a comeback in Thai politics. The decision of MR. Seni Pramoj and
Prince Suphasawat to reject the Japanese ‘occupation’ from abroad was important to
determine the view of the Allies toward Thailand as ‘partly’ in support of the Allies, rather
than to recognize her fully as an enemy in 1942. This decisive moment in Thai history helped
to win the trust of the royal family to the people of Thailand. The return of royal family to
Thai politics had the implication that the position of the monarchy became stronger in
Thailand. The country reaffirmed the identity of the nation created by King Vajiravudh, that
was the unity between the nation (chat), Buddhism (satsana), and the king (phramahakesat).

The consolidation of Sultan Hamengku Buwono IX

At the end of the 1930s, Yogyakarta experienced a political succession for the throne
of Kasultanan court. The political succession of this period is important due to the war that
came close to Java. A strong leader was needed for Yogyakarta.204 In the light of the
changing political situation in the coming years, decisions from a capable sultan were
needed. Especially when it comes to the views toward “Indonesian nationalism”, “pro-
Dutch”, and “Indonesian independence”. From the beginning, Sultan Hamengku Buwono
VIII did not appoint a crown prince. Therefore, the choice to appoint G.R.M Dorodjatun as
his successor was made shortly before Sultan Hamengku Buwono VIII passed away in

202
Reynolds, Thailand’s: 151.
203
In Thailand, the royal family did not initiate to organize themselves into resistance against Japanese or
Phibun. They were constantly being watched by spies of Phibun government. With the assurance of Pridi and
Prince Suphasawat, several members of royal family who resided in Thailand joined Free-Thai Movement.
One of the Free Thai Movement members in Thailand was Prince Dhani Nivat the late Thai Minister of
Public Instruction. See: Ngamcachonkulkid, The New: 154.
204
Pakualam court already experienced political succession in 1937 and enthroned Paku Alam VIII as the
ruler of Pakualam principality in Yogyakarta.

86
October 1939. G.R.M. Dorodjatun was one of the few princes from Kasultanan who received
western education since his early childhood.205 His education pattern followed the line of
education for the ‘high princes of Java’. He went to Fröbel (Dutch kindergarten), ELS B and
Neutrale Europese Lagere School in Yogyakarta for his early education. After that, he went
to Hogere Burgerlijke School (HBS) in Semarang and Bandung. During the time of his
education, Dorodjatun did not live in the palace. His father sent him to live with several
Dutch families to familiarize himself with the custom of the Dutch as well as to teach him
“discipline” and “simplicity”.206 At one point, his father sent Dorodjatun to HBS-B in
Haarlem, the Netherlands where he completed his secondary school in 1934. After that,
Dorodjatun continued his study of Indology at Leiden University.
During this important phase in his life, Dorodjatun did not involve in politics. He did
not make a contact with the PI nor with Indonesian nationalists in the Netherlands that might
raise suspicion from the Dutch authority. He sometimes met Indonesians from Roekoen
Peladjar Indonesia (Indonesian Students Solidarity –ROEPI), a non-political organization
where his brothers, Tinggarto and Raisoelngaskari became its members.207 Instead of
Indonesian politics, he was active as a member of Leidsche Studenten Corps (the student
militia) and Sociëteit Minerva in Leiden.208 Among many of his Dutch friends were Princess
Juliana who studied in Leiden at the same time as Prince Dorodjatun. He was also active in
Debating Club of Professor Schrieke, whom he said to be one of his favourite teachers.209
As a high prince from Yogyakarta, he probably knew that his movement was observed by
the Dutch authority. Involvement in politics could mean a ‘dead letter’ for his promising

205
Four sons of Sultan Hamengkubuwono VIII who received high educations to the Netherlands were
G.R.M Dorodjatun (Sultan Hamengkubuwono IX), G.R.M. Tinggarto (Prince Prabuningrat), G.R.M.
Raisoelngaskari (Prince Bintoro), and G.R.M. Ila’oel Kirami. In: Poeze, Di Negeri: 288.
206
Atmakusumah, ed. Tahta untuk Rakyat: Celah-Celah Kehidupan Sultan Hamengku Buwono IX (Jakarta,
Gramedia: 1982): 28.
207
These Indonesian students were Maruto, Priyono, Maria Ulfah, and Soeripno. See: Atmakusumah, ed.
Tahta untuk Rakyat: 32; and Poeze, Di Negeri: 288.
208
The Leidsche Studenten Corps merged into Sociëteit Minerva in 1972. For information on Dorodjatun’s
membership in student organization at Leiden, see: Poeze, Di Negeri: 288; Dorodjatun also served as a board
member in several student organizations such as Sociëteit Minerva (as a commissioner) and a chairman of
Verenigde Faculteiten (association of students from different faculties) at Leiden University. In:
Atmakusumah, ed. Tahta: 30.
209
Atmakusumah, ed. Tahta: 31.

87
career in the kraton. For once, he went to see a meeting of NSB from his own “curiosity”.
In next day, he was called to the Ministry of the Colony.210 But his time in the Netherlands
was shortened because of the escalation of World War II in Europe. In 1939, before he could
finish his bachelor scriptie, Sultan Hamengku Buwono VIII called him home and he boarded
the last ship from Europe heading for Java. Arriving in Batavia in the same year, Prince
Dorodjatun was greeted by his father and several family members. The next moment before
the courtesy meeting with Governor-General Tjarda van Starkenborgh Stachouwer (in office
1936 – 1942) in Batavia, Sultan Hamengku Buwono VIII gave him Keris Kanjeng Kyai Joko
Piturun, the pusaka ageng of Kasultanan Yogyakarta. It was a symbol that he was chosen as
the Sultan Hamengku Buwono IX.
Critical decisions of Prince Dorodjatun before he became sultan were to make
political consolidation within the royal family and to strengthen the monarchy’s position in
Colonial Indonesia. Earlier in the history of Java, the problem of the courts of Java was due
to the lack of unity within the princes. The double allegiance of patih between the court of
Yogyakarta and the Dutch government made the situation more difficult to the unity of the
court because the patih would usually defend the Dutch position. When Prince Dorodjatun
was appointed by the Dutch to lead a small group of high princes in ensuring a smooth
transition of power, he used this opportunity to gather all the princes for a meeting of
succession. At that moment, he asked the princes if there was anyone who wanted to be the
next Sultan.211 The result was that he got assurances that all princes agreed to him as the next
Sultan. His next move was to ensure that a political contract with the Dutch would give him
certain advantage as the ruler of Yogyakarta. As his successors before him, political contract
was usually made between each sultan and the Dutch government.212 For Prince Dorodjatun,
his ‘opponent’ at that time was Governor of Yogyakarta Dr. Lucien Adam. With his
knowledge in Dutch and Western Science, Prince Dorodjatun was able to deliver fine

210
Atmakusumah, ed. Tahta: 31.
211
Dorodjatun in fact continued the Old Mataram tradition to ask the princes directly in a meeting of
succession, whether they have any objection of one prince’s candidacy to the throne. For Dorodjatun’s
meeting of succession, see: Atmakusumah, ed. Tahta: 40.
212
Political contract was the foundation of laws, government, and judicial in the principalities. In this
regards, it can also be called ‘constitution’ for the monarchy under colonial rule. See: Soedarisman
Poerwokoesoemo, Kasultanan Yogyakarta: Suatu Tinjauan tentang Kontrak Politik (1877 – 1940),
(Yogyakarta, Gadjah Mada University Press: 1985): 3.

88
arguments and analyzed all the points offered by Governor Adam, as compare to earlier
rulers who had less language skills and knowledge to do so.213 The discussion took about
five months because Dorodjatun insisted on the following points: the elimination of patih
position, the need to have an Advisory Council to the court with democratic principle (free
speech) and the need to have Yogyakarta army legion under Sultan’s command.214 Lucien
Adam opposition to these demands made the political agreement was difficult to achieve.
Hence, as Dorodjatun explained in his biography, during this deadlock, supernatural
occurrence came to him and told him to “just sign the contract”.215 He followed the decision
and therefore concluded the contract in favor of the Dutch demand. In 18 March 1940, Prince
Dorodjatun was enthroned as Sri Sultan Hamengku Buwono IX in Yogyakarta. His speech
during the enthronement ceremony underlined his identity as a Javanese above his western
education. He also stated that he would prefer ‘tradition’ in his reign as long as it did not
obstruct progress. He stated:

“Dat de taak die op mij rust, moeilijk en zwaar is, daar ben ik mij tenvolle van bewust, vooral
waar het hier gaat de Westerse en de Oosterse geest tot elkaar te brengen, deze beide tot een
harmonische samenwerking te doen overgaan zonder de laatste haar karakter doen verliezen.
Al heb ik een uitgesproken Westerse opvoeding gehad, toch ben en blijf ik in de allereerste
plaats Javaan. Zo zal de adat, zo deze niet remmend werkt op de ontwikkeling, een voorname
plaats blijven innemen in de traditierijke Keraton. Moge ik eindigen met de belofte dat ik de
belangen van Land en Volk zal behartigen naar mijn beste weten en kunnen.”216

Sultan Hamengku Buwono IX did not speak about ‘Indonesia’ during the years 1939 - 1942.
He was committed to the task to improve the welfare of his subjects in Yogyakarta, as well
as to improve the relation between “East and West” during this period.

213
Poerwokoesoemo, Kasultanan Yogyakarta: 68.
214
All the points here are described by Sultan Hamengku Buwono IX in his memoir. See: Atmakusumah, ed.
Tahta: 43; Monfries tried to match these points with the report by Governor Adam upon the matter and found
contradicting statements. Monfries therefore made his own speculation but concluded with a statement that it
was a “minor historical mystery”, see: Monfries, A Prince in a Republic: 73 – 78.
215
Sultan believed that a spirit of Sultan Agung came to him during the condition of “half sleep and half
awake” (famous in Javanese cultural tradition) and said, “Tole, tekene wae, Landa bakal lunga saka bumi
kene” (My boy, just signed it, for the Dutch will leave this country anyway) in: Atmakusumah, ed. Tahta: 44.
216
Atmakusumah, ed. Tahta: 53.

89
 Starting from the beginning of his reign, Sultan Hamengku Buwono IX was
determined to maintain a good relationship with the people of Yogyakarta. He also wanted
the people to stay close with the kraton, for instance to let them know the progress of
bureaucracy reform of his government. In this regard, Yogyakarta already had PKN with
hundred thousands of members to distribute the news and important messages from the
kraton. Furthermore, he incorporated PKN under his influence by appointing Prince
Soerjodiningrat as part of his court circle. The Sultan introduced Hoedyana – Wara monthly
magazine with editorial members such as Prince Soerjadiningrat, Prince Puruboyo, Prince
Tedjokusumo and Prince Prabuningrat.217 Prince Soerjadiningrat, having served in PKN for
about ten years, was indeed an asset for the sultan. Later during the Japanese occupation,
Sultan Hamengkubuwono appointed him as Panitya Jaga Waluya (committee of Public
Safety) of the court.218 Beside the intensification of public press, Sultan Hamengku Buwono
IX made direct appeal to the public. He made it a routine for him and his entourages to
conduct an inspection to the villages to meet the people and local chiefs.219 He also made
a good contact with prominent organizations in his principality such as Taman Siswa
school.220
The efforts of the Sultan to consolidate all elements in Yogyakarta proved to be
useful when the Japanese penetrated Southeast Asia. In 7 December 1941, the Japanese
attack of Pearl Harbor started World War II in the Pacific. The people of Yogyakarta was
also nervous about what would happened to them. Several days after the attack on Pearl
Harbor, Sultan Hamengku Buwono IX made a speech in a radio to calm the people. He said,

“My people, I have been anxious if the Indies would soon experience war… Now there has
not been any war here, but will it still be like this tomorrow or the next days? No one will
know the answer. But there are people who become stressful with this uncertainty…My
People, in order to deal with this situation, it is necessary to help each other. It is our duty to
think about others. You should prioritize whatever become your duty for the benefit of

217
P.J.Suwarno, Hamengku Buwono IX dan Sistem Birokrasi Pemerintahan Yogyakarta, 1942 – 1974:
Sebuah Tinjauan Historis (Yogyakarta, Kanisius: 1994): 91.
218
Suwarno, Hamengku Buwono 107.
219
Suwarno, Hamengku Buwono: 90.
220
Suwarno, Hamengku Buwono: 103.

90
 others…And put your trust to the court officers who will defend you in time of trouble. I will
help you too, and if its needs be, I will help you personally… Three things that you should
do during this difficult time: firstly, give your love to others; secondly, have peace [tentram];
thirdly, be trustful to others…My people, let us divide the task together: You fulfill your
duty, and I will fulfill mine.”221

Due to the earlier effort by the Sultan to reach his people, the people put their trust in the
Courts of Yogyakarta during the time of trouble. This situation was soon demonstrated by
the people’s loyalty to the sultan. When the Japanese troops arrived in Yogyakarta on 5
March 1942, the Sultan could control his people by asking them not to seize this opportunity
for personal benefit. The people also obeyed the Sultan when he decided to be part of the
Yogyakarta Ko (sultan) under the Japanese occupation.222 Therefore, in the period from 1939
to 1942, Sultan Hamengku Buwono IX succeeded in consolidating all elements of
Yogyakarta under his influence. It was the key for Yogyakarta to go through the period of
the Japanese occupation, and to ensure the unity of Yogyakarta in the period afterwards.

5.3. Overview
In the period 1930 – 1942, the ‘new identity’ penetrated further into Thailand and
Yogyakarta in two different ways. The revolution of 1932 changed the situation radically
which ended the rule as absolute monarch. Whereas in Yogyakarta, Indonesian identity
penetrated in a gradual process. But in both Thailand and Yogyakarta at this period, this
chapter has shown that the progress of the acceptance of a new identity especially in 1930 -
1939 was equally important. Similar to Thailand that still retained the king and the royal
family as part of its national identity, Yogyakarta preserved its Javanese identity along with
the support to Indonesian nationalism. PKN was an example of the Javanese persistence to
preserve their Javanese identity while accepting the idea of Indonesia. In Thailand, the
revolution that accused the king for the problems in the country still viewed the king and the
royal family in high regards. At least for Thailand, this situation persisted until 1938 when

221
“Sabda Dalem Sri Sultan Hamengku Buwono IX” (12 December 1941), Archive of Keraton Kasultanan
Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta.
222
“Oendang-Oendang Pepatih Dalem (Koti Samutyokan) Jogjakarta” (3 August 1942), Archive of Keraton
Kasultanan Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta.

91
the Phibun government took power as the third Prime Minister of Thailand. Under Phibun,
Thailand was directed into hyper-nationalism which glorified the Revolution of 1932 and
the people. The period of Japanese occupation gave the chance for the royal family to unite
against Phibun. With the help of Pridi, the royal family made a comeback to Thailand that
would determine the character of Thailand as a nation. In a milder way, Yogyakarta also
experienced a critical period in the years 1939 – 1942. Sultan Hamengku Buwono IX
succeeded to consolidate the princes and the people of Yogyakarta under his influence,
including Prince Soerjadiningrat and the PKN. He strengthened the trust of the people to the
court of Yogyakarta and thus reaffirmed the identity of the royalty to the people of
Yogyakarta.

92
 Chapter 6
Conclusion

This thesis discusses the relationship between the royalty and nationalism in the two
traditional courts of Southeast Asia, the courts of Thailand and Yogyakarta. It poses one
main question, “How did the royal courts of Yogyakarta and Thailand reconcile the idea of
nation with egalitarian idea during 1908 - 1942?” There are three sub-questions to support
the main question: “What was the origin and foundation of nationalism in Thailand and
colonial Indonesia?”, “Why did it change in the period of 1908 – 1942?” and “How did the
royal family react to the challenges of nationalism?”
From their establishments, the court of Thailand and Yogyakarta shared several
similarities and differences. They were both emerged in the 18th century after a series of
internal conflicts and ‘outsider’ intervention. The royal house of Thailand – the Chakri, and
the two royal houses of Yogyakarta – the Kasultanan and Pakualaman - were products of
interaction between the local elites of that time. The presence of the Dutch in the political
affairs of Yogyakarta made the situation different in the two courts. In the first half of the
19th century, this difference was sharpened even further by the increasing influence of the
Dutch in the court of Yogyakarta. From this moment on, Yogyakarta was fully a subordinate
to the Dutch Colonial government. They retained a semi-sovereign status to govern the
principality of Yogyakarta. The court of Thailand, on the other hand, is a sovereign court. In
the 19th century, the court of Thailand increased its control of mainland Southeast Asia, from
Laos to the Malayan Peninsula.
Nationalism is related to the identity of a nation. It can hardly arise without the
consciousness of the people to form a nation based on common identity. In Thailand and
Yogyakarta, the ruler and the people shared common identity based on cultural tradition at
first. Royal rituals were performed by the royalty to keep the people under its influence.
Sacred objects were controlled to legitimize the kingship and authority of the royalty. This
study shows that intensification of royal rituals was not only visible in the court that lost its
political influence such as Yogyakarta. It was also present in the court of Thailand that

93
became one political center in the mainland. The court of Yogyakarta used the royal tradition
to show the idea of ‘cultural persistence’, while the court of Bangkok used royal tradition to
spread the hegemony of the court to outer territory. Royal tradition, therefore, contributed to
the creation of a common ‘Thai identity’ and ‘Javanese identity’. These identities were the
foundation of nationalism in Thailand and Yogyakarta.
In regards to the origin of nationalism, this thesis argues that there is a relationship
between the establishment of the courts of Thailand and Yogyakarta to the birth of
nationalism from the royalty. The origin of nationalism from the court of Thailand can be
attributed to the struggle against the Burmese invader in the 18th century. From then on, the
matter about sovereignty of Thailand was part of Thai nationalism. In Yogyakarta, the origin
of nationalism is attributed to the courts’ subjugation to Dutch colonialism, which fostered
an anti-colonial sentiment. The royal house of Kasultanan and Pakualaman glorified the
moment when their predecessor the court of Mataram was still independent from the Dutch.
The prophecy of Joyoboyo tells about the spirit of anti-colonialism of the Javanese since the
period of 19th century.
At the end of the 19th century, the common identity between the ruler and the people
was expanded further into the idea of common welfare. From this moment onwards, ordinary
people in Thailand and colonial Indonesia had more chance to participate in the government
and in modernization projects of the country. The emergence of Western powers such as
England and France at the Thai border became the drive of Thailand’s modernization. The
royalty of Thailand gradually realized the importance of modern education and the need to
provide education to the people to support modernization. They merged the traditional
Buddhist monasteries into the educational system supervised by the government. With this
policy, the people religion of Buddhism was strengthened into a national identity of
Thailand. In Yogyakarta, on the other hand, the shift of political influence between the court
of Yogyakarta to the Dutch colonial government made Kasultanan and Pakualaman royal
houses only became passive participants in the creation of state policy. Ethical Policy from
the Dutch had a different perspective of modernization. From its basic foundation, Ethical
Policy was formulated by the Dutch and not by Indonesians. It was aimed to support the
Dutch colonial state. The educated elites among the indigenous were expected to support the

94
Dutch with ‘modern’ character, such as secular one. Traditional Islamic education from
pesantren did not become part of the Ethical Policy as Buddhist monastery in modernization
policy of Thailand. This measure affected the character of 20th-century educated elites from
Yogyakarta. Following the character of modern education from the Dutch, the Yogyakarta
elites were secular, modern, and intellectual Javanese. They embraced the west but at the
same time did not neglect Javanese culture, the source of their pride and identity.
In the early 20th century, the character of the monarchy gave way to different kind of
nationalism in Thailand and Yogyakarta. In the state of absolute monarchy such as in
Thailand, nationalism emerged from ‘above’. The official nationalism of King Vajiravudh
was a product of the king who controlled all aspects of Thailand. King Vajiravudh’s
nationalism was the ‘modern’ attempt for the state to influence the people of Thailand in
support of the king, religion, and nation. He showed the splendor of Thai sovereignty to
foreign guests as well as Thai public in the court ‘spectacles’ during his enthronement
ceremony. He also organized the state-sponsored organizations to enhance his official
nationalism into practice. In the colonized state of Yogyakarta, nationalism emerged from
‘below’. The subordinate position of the Sultan of Yogyakarta and the Pakualam to the Dutch
made them unable to promote nationalism which related to the foundation of the courts of
Yogyakarta. The courts could only promote ‘cultural nationalism’ in the form of Javanese
nationalism. ‘Political essence’ of nationalism from Yogyakarta, on the other hand, derived
from its educated elites. Instead of nationalism from the sultan or the Pakualam, it was R.M.
Soewardi Soeryaningrat who delivered the voice of nationalism to the Dutch Colonial
Government and wider public. His educational background as a student of STOVIA in
particular connected him to the network of young nationalists at that time, different than
many other members of royal family from Yogyakarta. In his article, “Als Ik Een
Nederlander Was..”, Soewardi’s nationalism was anti-colonial in character. It followed the
earlier form of nationalism from Yogyakarta as the subjugated kingdom of the Dutch.
Soewardi’s vision of national identity was not only limited to Yogyakarta, but also the unity
of the entire territory of colonial Indonesia. From the nationalism by Soewardi and King
Vajiravudh, Yogyakarta and Thailand found their basis of nationalism. Their ideas of
nationalism became the ground for the development of nationalism in the period of 1908 –

95
1942. In Thailand, the idea of constitutional monarchy emerged to oppose absolute
monarchy. In Yogyakarta, the idea of the unity of the entire territory of colonial Indonesia –
the Indonesian nationalism - gained acceptance by the royal family from Kasultanan and
pakualaman.
This thesis demonstrates that nationalism from ‘below’ changed the state imposition
of nationalism, whether in the absolute monarchy of Thailand or the Dutch-influenced state
of Yogyakarta during the period of 1908 – 1942. The pattern started from the emergence of
educated elites in Thailand and colonial Indonesia. These elites were educated in the cities
such as Bangkok or Batavia, and also abroad such as England or the Netherlands.
Educational experience was essential to link the network of educated elites to their ideas of
nationalism. Thailand provides a clear and unique case in this matter. Since the elites of
Thailand were educated in several countries, the students there created their own ‘cliques’
and characters that related to the political change in Thailand. The clique of Pridi
Banomyong and Thai students in France was the drive of 1932 Revolution in Thailand. It
succeeded in overthrowing the absolute monarchy and created the new Thailand with a new
identity based on equality. From the Netherlands, the members of Perhimpunan Indonesia
(PI) became the promoters of Indonesian nationalism from abroad. When they returned to
the colony, they continued their activities to promote Indonesian nationalism. Different than
in Thailand, the vision of one identity in colonial Indonesia was not accepted until at least
the late 1920s. The collaboration between the ex-PI – the Netherlands graduates and youth
organizations in colonial Indonesia succeeded in formulating the Youth Pledge (Sumpah
Pemuda) in 1928. From this point onward, the identity of Indonesia was accepted gradually
into Yogyakarta.
In the court of Thailand and Yogyakarta, nationalism was part of the state project
and vision to unite the court and the people with one common identity. But in the period of
1908 – 1942, another type of nationalism that emerged in this period, the ‘people’s
nationalism’, came forward and challenge nationalism from the court. From the people’s
nationalism, the courts were asked to change their identity that related to politics as well as
cultural. People’s nationalism even forced the court of Thailand to replace the absolute
monarchy into constitutional monarchy in the 1932 revolution. The consequence of the 1932

96
Revolution was the removal of the King Prajadiphok and Thai royal family from politics.
With the resource that they had, the royal family tried to come back to control the central
politics again soon afterwards. But the combination of the civil and military elements of the
People’s Party was able to resist the reactionaries. In Yogyakarta, people’s nationalism
influenced the courts of Yogyakarta in gradual development. The courts of Yogyakarta
began to accept the idea of Indonesian nationalism from the period of 1930s. Taman Siswa
and PKN became the promoters of Indonesian nationalism from Yogyakarta. The two
organizations emerged from the basic needs of the people to have better education and
receive information from the authority. The initiator of Taman Siswa and PKN were
members of the royal family from Pakualaman and Kasultanan, Soewardi Soryaningrat and
Prince Soerjadiningrat. They were supported by the court of Yogyakarta from various
means. Therefore, it can be said that the court of Yogyakarta reacted positively to Indonesian
nationalism starting from the 1930s. In terms of culture, the core of Javanese nationalism,
PKN support toward national identity of Indonesia in the late 1930s tells us that Indonesian
nationalism already influenced the court of Yogyakarta in a considerable degree.
From here, people’s nationalism might look to be in dominant position in Thailand
and Yogyakarta. But in the period of 1939 – 1942, the people’s nationalism was contested
again by the royalty. The Japanese occupation under Phibun government made the royal
family of Thailand consolidated their power to make a comeback in Thai politics, led by
M.R. Seni Pramoj and the Free Thai Movement. In Yogyakarta, Sultan Hamengku Buwono
IX consolidated all elements of his court in this period, including Prince Soerjadiningrat and
the PKN. Under his rule, Yogyakarta reaffirmed its Javanese identity and left Indonesian
nationalism ‘untouched’. In Thailand, the comeback of the royal family to Thai politics also
reaffirmed the royalty as one identity of Thailand.
This comparative study shows that the egalitarian idea was a dominant political force
in the period of 1908 – 1942. It forced the courts of Thailand and Yogyakarta to change into
more democratic, more egalitarian, government. The absolute monarchy of Thailand was
changed by the people’s revolution of 1932. From then on, it became a constitutional
monarchy and placed the king only as a symbol. In Yogyakarta, the court adapted itself into
Indonesian identity and appealed more to the people. The slogan ‘the royal family for the

97
people’ from PKN as early as 1932 was a realization that the royal court’s existence is to
serve the people. Further development of the royalty during Japanese occupation and the
early years after the war is also important for comparative explanation. But we have to leave
it now for another study.

98
 Bibliography

Archives

“Sabda Dalem Sri Sultan Hamengku Buwono IX” (12 December 1941). Archive of Keraton
Kasultanan Yogyakarta. Yogyakarta.

“Oendang-Oendang Pepatih Dalem (Koti Samutyokan) Jogjakarta” (3 August 1942).

Archive of Keraton Kasultanan Yogyakarta. Yogyakarta.

Newspaper articles

Bangkok Daily Mail (1 July 1929).

Bangkok Daily Mail (23 July 1929).

De Express (19 July 1913).

De Express (28 July 1913).

Kawoela (December 1938).

Kawoela (July 1938).

Oetoesan Indonesia (13 January 1933).

Oetoesan Indonesia (20 July 1933).

Oetoesan Indonesia (31 July 1933).

Oetoesan Indonesia (31 July 1934).

The Manchester Guardian (1 December 1911).

The New York Times (3 December 1911).

The Siam Observer (1 October 1919).

Washington Post (4 February 1912).

Washington Post (28 November 1941).

Washington Post (19 December 1941).

99
 Source Publication

Asvabahu (King Vajiravudh), A Siam Miscellany: A Reprint of Articles Written by

“Asvabahu” to the “Siam Observer” and Appearing in its Columns during The
Period of August 5, to December 31, 1912 (Bangkok, Siam Observer Printing Office).

Snouck Hurgronje, C. Nederland en De Islam (Leiden, Brill: 1915).

Jaarlijksch Verslag der School Tot Opleiding van Inlandse Artsen te Weltevreden Over den
Cursus 1904 – 1905 (Batavia, Landsdrukkerij: 1906).

Banomyong, Pridi. Pridi by Pridi: Selected Writings on Life, Politics and Economy (Chiang
Mai, Silkworm Books: 2000).

Batson, Benjamin. A. ed. Siam’s Political Future: Documents from the End of the Absolute
Monarchy (Ithaca, Cornell Data Paper: 1974).

Kartini, R.A. Letters of a Javanese Princess (New York, Norton: 1964).

Kerapatan Besar-Indonesia Moeda Jang ke-I (29 Desember 1930 – 2 Januari 1931) di
Surakarta (1931).

Soembangsih: Gedenkboek Boedi-Oetomo, 20 Mei 1908 – 20 Mei 1918 (Amsterdam,

Tijdschrift Nederlandsch Indie Oud&Niew: 1918).

Soeryaningrat, R.M. Soewardi. Vlugschrift No. 1: Als Ik Eens Nederlander Was… (Bandung,
Inlandsch Comite tot Herdenking van Neêrlands Honderdjarige Vrijheid: 1913).

‘Treaty Between Great Britain and Siam’, The American Journal of International Law, Vol.
3, No. 4, Supplement: Official Documents (October 1909): 297 – 304.

Vajiranana, Prince. The Buddhist Attitude towards National Defence and Administration (no
place of publication: 1916).

Books and articles

Abeyasekare, Susan. ‘Partai Indonesia Raja, 1936 – 1942: A Study in Cooperative

Nationalism’, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 3, 2 (1972): 262 – 276.

Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of

Nationalism (London, Verso: 1983).

Atmakusumah, ed. Tahta untuk Rakyat: Celah-Celah Kehidupan Sultan Hamengku Buwono
IX (Jakarta, Gramedia: 1982).

100
Baker, Chris and Pasuk Phongpaichit, A History of Thailand (Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press: 2014).

Barme, Scot. Luang Wichit Wathakan and the Creation of Thai Identity (Singapore, ISEAS:
1993).

Batson, Benjamin A. The End of the Absolute Monarchy in Siam (Singapore, Oxford
University Press: 1984).

________________. ‘Review: Thawatt Mokarapong, History of the Thai Revolution: A

Study in Political Behavious (Chalermnit, Bangkok: 1972)’, Journal of the Siam
Society, 61, 2 (July 1973): 186 – 196.

Benda, Harry J. ‘The Pattern of Administrative Reforms in the Closing Years of Dutch Rule
in Indonesia’, Journal of Asian Studies, 25 (1966): 589 – 605.

Blofeld, John. King Maha Mongkut of Siam (Bangkok, Siam Society: 1987).

Bumbongkarn, Suchit and Prudhisan Jumbala, eds. Monarchy and Constitutional Rule in
Democratizing Thailand (Bangkok, Institute of Thai Studies Chulalongkorn
University: 2012).

Bunnag, Tej. The Provincial Administration of Siam, 1892 – 1915: The Ministry of the
Interior under Prince Damrong Rajanubhab (Kuala Lumpur, Oxford University
Press: 1977).

Chakrabongse, H.R.H. Prince Chula. The Twain Have Met or An Eastern Prince Met West
(London, G.T. Foulis & Co. Ltd: 1956).

Coedes, George. The Indianized States of Southeast Asia (Honolulu, East-West Center:
1968).

Colenbrander, H.T. and J.E. Stokvis. Leven en Arbeid van Mr. C.Th. van Deventer, Vol. 2
(Amsterdam, P.N. Van Kampen en Zoon: 1916).

Day, Clive. The Policy and Administration of the Dutch in Java (Kuala Lumpur, Oxford
University Press: 1972)

Dewantara, Bambang Sokawati. Raja Mogok, R.M. Soerjopranoto: Sebuah Kenangan

(Jakarta, Hasta Mitra: 1983).

_________________________. Nyi Hajar Dewantara Dalam Kisah dan Data (Jakarta,

Gunung Agung: 1979).

101
Dhofier, Zamakhsyari. Tradisi Pesantren: Studi Pandangan Hidup Kyai dan Visinya
Mengenai Masa Depan Indonesia (Jakarta, LP3ES: 2011).

Djajadiningrat-Nieuwenhuis, Madelon. ‘Noto Soeroto: His Ideas and the Late Colonial
Intellectual Climate’, Indonesia, 55 (April 1993): 41 – 72.

Elson, Robert. The Idea of Indonesia; A History (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press:
2008).

Geertz, Clifford. Religion of Java (Chicago, University of Chicago Press: 1976).

Greene, Stephen Lyon Wakeman. Absolute Dreams: Thai Government under Rama VI, 1910
– 1925 (Bangkok, White Lotus: 1999).

Grenfeld, Liah. Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity (Cambridge, Harvard University

Press: 1992).

Heine-Geldern, Robert. Conceptions of State and Kingship in Southeast Asia (Ithaca, Cornell
Data Paper Number 18: 1956).

Hell, Stefan. Siam and The League of Nations: Modernisation, Sovereignty and Multilateral
Diplomacy, 1920 – 1940 (Bangkok, River Books: 2010).

Hobsbawm, Eric. The Age of Revolution: Europe 1789 – 1848 (London, Weidenfeld and
Nicolson: 1962).

Ishii, Yoneo. Sangha, State, and Society: Thai Buddhism in History (Honolulu, The
University of Hawaii Press: 1986).

Ismail, Ibnu Qoyim. Kiai Penghulu Jawa: Peranannya di Masa Kolonia (Jakarta, Gema
Insani Press: 1997).

Jumsai, Sumet. ‘Prince Prisdang and The Proposal for The First Siamese Constitution, 1885’,
Journal of the Siam Society, 92 (2004).

Kasetsiri, Charnvit. Studies in Thai and Southeast Asian History (Bangkok, The Foundation
for The Promotion of Social Science and Humanities Textbooks Projects: 2015).

Keyes, Charles F. Thailand: Buddhist Kingdom as Modern Nation-State (Colorado,

Westview Press: 1987).

______________. ‘Buddhism and National Integration in Thailand’, The Journal of Asian

Studies, 30, 3 (May, 1971): 551 – 567.

102
Kroeskamp, H. Early Schoolmasters in a Developing Country: A History of Experiments in
School Education in 19th century Indonesia (Assen, Van Gorcum & Comp.: 1974).

Lange, Matthew. Comparative-Historical Methods: An Introduction (London, SAGE

Publications Ltd.: 2013).

Landon, Kenneth Perry. The Chinese in Thailand (New York, Russel&Russel: 1973).

Larson, George D. Prelude to Revolution: Palaces and Politics in Surakarta, 1912 – 1942
(Leiden, KITLV: 1987).

Le May, Reginald. An Asian Arcady (Cambridge: W. Heffer and Sons, Ltd., 1936).

Locher-Scholten, Elsbeth. Ethiek in Fragmenten: Vijf Studies over Koloniaal Denken en

Doen van Nederlanders in de Indonesische Archipel, 1877 – 1942 (Utrecht, HES
Publisher: 1981).

Loftus, A.J. The Kingdom of Siam: Its Progress and Prospects (Huntingdon, 1891).

Lombard, Denys. Nusa Jawa: Silang Budaya: Kajian Sejarah Terpadu Bagian 3: Warisan
Kerajaan-Kerajaan Konsentris (Jakarta, Gramedia: 1996).

McVey, Ruth T. ‘Taman Siswa and the Indonesian National Awakening’, Indonesia, 4
(October 1967): 128 – 149.

Miert, Hans van. Dengan Semangat Berkobar: Nasionalisme dan Gerakan Pemuda di
Indonesia, 1918 – 1930 (Jakarta, Hasta Mitra: 2003).

Moertono, Soemarsaid. State and Statecraft in Old Java: A Study of the Later Mataram
Period, 16th to 19th Century (Ithaca, Cornell Modern Indonesia Project: 1981).

Mohammad, Ghamal Satya. ‘Widjojo Koesoemo Between Tradition and Science: 1830 –
1939’ (Bachelor thesis, Leiden University: 2014).

Monfries, John. A Prince in a Republic: The Life of Sultan Hamengkubuwono IX of

Yogyakarta (Singapore, ISEAS: 2015).

Mulder, Niels. Java – Thailand: A Comparative Perspective (Yogyakarta, Gadjah Mada

University Press: 1983).

Multatuli. Max Havelaar (Amsterdam, Van Oorschot: 1949).

Nagazumi, Akira. The Dawn of Indonesian Nationalism: The Early Years of Boedi Oetomo,
1908 – 1918 (Tokyo, Institute of Developing Economies: 1972).

103
Ngamcachonkulkid, Sorasak. The New History of the Seri Thai Movement (Bangkok,
Institute of Asian Studies Chulalongkorn University: 2010).

Niel, Robert van. The Emergence of the Modern Indonesian Elite (The Hague, Van Hoeve:
1960).

O’Malley, William Joseph. Indonesia in the Great Depression: A Study of East Sumatra and
Jogjakarta in the 1930’s (unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, Cornell University: 1977).

_____________________. ‘The Pakempalan Kawulo Ngajogjakarta: An Official Report on

the Jogjakarta People’s Party of the 1930s’, Indonesia, 26 (1 October 1978): 111 –
158.

Panitia Buku Peringatan Taman Siswa 30 Tahun. Dari Kebangunan Nasional sampai
Proklamasi Kemerdekaan: Kenang-Kenangan Ki Hadjar Dewantara (Jakarta,
Pustaka Penerbit Endang: 1952).

Poerwokoesoemo, Soedarisman. Kasultanan Yogyakarta: Suatu Tinjauan tentang Kontrak

Politik (1877 – 1940), (Yogyakarta, Gadjah Mada University Press: 1985).

Poeze, Harry A. Di Negeri Penjajah: Orang Indonesia di Negeri Belanda, 1600 – 1950
(Jakarta, KPG: 2014).

Ras, J.J. Masyarakat dan Kesusastraan di Jawa (Jakarta, Pustaka Obor: 2014).

Ray, Jayanta Kumar. Portraits of Thai Politics (Calcutta, Orient Longman: 1972)

Reynolds, E. Bruce. Thailand’s Secret War: OSS, SOE, and the Free Thai Underground
during World War II (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 2010).

Ricklefs, M.C. Polarising Javanese Society: Islamic and Other Visions, c. 1830 – 1930
(Leiden, KITLV: 2007).

___________. A History of Modern Indonesia Since c. 1300 (Hongkong, Macmillan: 1993).

___________. Yogyakarta under Sultan Mangkubumi, 1749 – 1792: A History of the

Division of Java (London, Oxford University Press: 1974).

Ricks, Jacob I. ‘National Identity and The Geo-Soul: Spiritually Mapping Siam’, Studies in
Ethnicity and Nationalism, 8, 1 (2008): 120 – 141.

Roff, William R. ‘Indonesian and Malay Students in Cairo in the 1920’s’, Indonesia, 9
(April, 1970): 73 – 87.

104
Sartraproong, Karnnikar. A True Hero: King Chulalongkorn of Siam’s Visit to Singapore
and Java in 1871 (Bangkok, Tana Press and Graphic: 2004).

Scherer, Savitri Prastiti. Harmony and Dissonance: Early Nationalist Thought in Java
(Ithaca, Cornell University Press).

Schmutzers, Eduard J.M. Dutch Colonial Policy and The Search for Identity in Indonesia,
1920 – 1931 (Leiden, Brill: 1977).

Siam Society. The Siam Society Fiftieth Anniversary Commemorative Publication – Selected
Articles from the Siam Society Journal. (Bangkok, Siam Society: 1954).

Siraishi, Takashi. An Age in Motion: Popular Radicalism in Java, 1912 – 1926 (Ithaca,
Cornell University Press: 1990).

Soeratman, Darsiti. Kehidupan Dunia Keraton Surakarta, 1830 – 1939 (Yogyakarta, Taman
Siswa: 1989).

Stetson, Richard Saw. Siam’s Diplomacy of Independence, 1855 – 1909, in the Context of
Anglo – French Interest (Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, New York University:
1969).

Suehiro, Akira. Capital Accumulation in Thailand, 1855 – 1985 (Chiang Mai, Silkworm
Books: 1996).

Sutherland, Heather. The Making of a Bureaucratic Elite: The Colonial Transformation of

the Javanese Priyayi (Singapore, Heinemann Educational Books: 1979).

Suwarno, P.J. Hamengku Buwono IX dan Sistem Birokrasi Pemerintahan Yogyakarta, 1942
– 1974: Sebuah Tinjauan Historis (Yogyakarta, Kanisius: 1994).

Syamananda, Rong. A History of Thailand (Bangkok, Chulalongkorn University Press:

1993).

Surjomihardjo, Abdurrachman. Kota Yogyakarta Tempo Doeloe: Sejarah Sosial 1880 – 1930
(Depok, Komunitas Bambu: 1998).

Tsuchiya, Kenji. ‘The Taman Siswa Movement – Its Early Eight Years and Javanese
Background’, Journal of Southeast Asia Studies, 6, 2 (September 1975): 164 – 177.

Vella, Walter Francis. Chaiyo! King Vajiravudh and the Development of Thai Nationalism
(Honolulu, University of Hawaii Press: 1978).

Vredenbregt, J. ‘The Haddj. Some of its Features and Functions in Indonesia’, Bijdragen tot
de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde, 118, 1 (1962).

105
W.D (real name unknown), ‘Brief History of Siam, with a Detail of the Leading Events in
Its Annals’, The Chinese Repository, XX, 7 (July 1851): 345 – 363.

Wales, H.G. Quaritch. Siamese State Ceremonies: Their History and Function with
Supplementary Notes (Richmond, Curzon Press: 1992).

Wetzler, Peter Michael. Hirohito and War: Imperial Tradition and Military Decision Making
in Prewar Japan (Honolulu, University of Hawaii Press: 1998).

Wilson, David A. Politics in Thailand (Cornell, Cornell University Press: 1962).

Wiselius, J.A.B. ‘Djaja Baja: Zijn Leven en Profetieen’, Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Laan-, en
Volkenkunde van Nederlandsch-Indië, 19, 1 (1872): 172 – 217.

Wyatt, David K. The Politics of Reform in Thailand: Education in the Reign of King
Chulalongkorn (New Haven, Yale University Press: 1969).

106