Raja Uti, Malay-Barus And Foreign InfluencesThe Toba-Batak of Northern Sumatra and their institution of sacral rulers, that is to say, of the “divine king” (Singamangaraja) and of the “priestly kings” connected with the above-mentioned god-king (i. e. Sori-mangaraja/Baligeraja, Jonggi Manaor and Ompu Palti Raja) are the focus of our attention.
The fact that the Toba-Batak despite their really typical “tribal“ structure have the political institution of sacral rulers, which is in sharp contrast to the former social order, to all appearances may (at least partly) be put down to cultural adoptions from the indianized empires in the more immediate and distant vicinity.
The question which still remains to be answered should be asked why these concepts were completely changed and redesigned beyond recognition? Is it due to the inability of the Toba-Batak to transform concepts adopted from the “high culture”-societies in the wake of the so-called indianization so that those were disfigured beyond recognition in the course of time (cf. Heine-Geldern 1959)? Or do we not rather need to search for its causes in the social structure and the world view (ideology) of the Batak themselves? As soon as the cultural adoptions are investigated in the light of the social structure and the emic perspective of the “receiving” (cf. Situmorang 1993a), the listing of Indian notions of kingship and state will be superseded by the evidence of an active and creative adaptation of the Indian model to the existing social order.
The assumption on which the „indigenization“ guided by social structure and ideology is based can only be verified, providing the fundamentals of the social order of the „receiving“ society and culture are known, as is the case with the precolonial Toba-Batak: Working on the hypothesis that among the precolonial Toba-Batak the kinship relations provided the basic pattern for the economic and political organization (Lukas 1999), it is required to query if and to what extent the concept of divine kingship deriving from a “state“- and “high culture“-context had to be transformed due to its irreconcilability with the kinship-based social structure of the Toba-Batak.
Let us turn our attention to the institution of the sacral rulers of the Batak. Since the 16th century there have been “divine kings” among the Batak, who held the title Singamangaraja. The title of those sacral rulers consists of two Sanskrit-words, „Lion” (singa from Sanskr. singha) and “great king” (mangaraja from Sanskr. maharaja) (Parkin 1978:181, 129; Heine-Geldern 1923:951, 903f).
In all probability, the Singamangaraja continued a previously existing ancient tradition of sacral rule. According to oral traditions of the Batak, it is assumed to have been a legendary king from the “land of the setting sun” (TB. Hasundutan) named Raja Uti, who passed on to the first Singamangaraja the power and authority to rule.
This Raja Uti obviously represents a pre-Islamic ruler of Barus on the Westcoast of Sumatra. Barus, which used to be called P’o-lu-shih6 in the ancient Chinese sources and Fansur7 in the Arab accounts, was already in the 2nd century A.D. an important export harbor for camphor8 and benzoin9. An inscription of stone dis-covered in the region of Barus at Lobu Tua (Labu Tua) proves the presence of about 1.500 Tamil merchants (Sastri 1932; Parkin 1978:51, 81-83, 106, 262f). From the second half of the 7th up to the 16th century Barus appears to have been a Batak-kingdom, which was indianized and shaped by the Hindu or Buddhist tra-ditions respectively. It was governed by members of the Batak-clan (marga) Pasaribu.
In those days Barus the “receiving” (cf. Situmorang 1993a), the listing of Indian notions of kingship and state will be superseded by the evidence of an active and creative adaptation of the Indian model to the existing social order.
The assumption on which the “indigenization“ guided by social structure and ideology is based can only be verified, providing the fundamentals of the social order of the „receiving“ society and culture are known, as is the case with the precolonial Toba-Batak: Working on the hypothesis that among the precolonial Toba-Batak the kinship relations provided the basic pattern for the economic and political organization (Lukas 1999), it is required to query if and to what extent the concept of divine kingship deriving from a “state“- and “high culture“-context had to be transformed due to its irreconcilability with the kinship-based social structure of the Toba-Batak.
Let us turn our attention to the institution of the sacral rulers of the Batak. Since the 16th century there have been “divine kings” among the Batak, who held the title Singamangaraja. The title of those sacral rulers consists of two Sanskrit-words, “Lion” (singa from Sanskr. singha) and “great king” (mangaraja from Sanskr. maharaja) (Parkin 1978:181, 129; Heine-Geldern 1923:951, 903f).
In all probability, the Singamangaraja continued a previously existing ancient tradition of sacral rule. According to oral traditions of the Batak, it is assumed to have been a legendary king from the “land of the setting sun” (TB. Hasundutan) named Raja Uti, who passed on to the first Singamangaraja the power and authority to rule. This Raja Uti obviously represents a pre-Islamic ruler of Barus on the Westcoast of Sumatra. Barus, which used to be called P’o-lu-shih6 in the ancient Chinese sources and Fansur7 in the Arab accounts, was already in the 2nd century A.D. an important export harbor for camphor and benzoin.
An inscription of stone discovered in the region of Barus at Lobu Tua (Labu Tua) proves the presence of about 1.500 Tamil merchants (Sastri 1932; Parkin 1978:51, 81-83, 106, 262f). From the second half of the 7th up to the 16th century Barus appears to have been a Batak-kingdom, which was indianized and shaped by the Hindu or Buddhist traditions respectively. It was governed by members of the Batak-clan (marga) Pasaribu. In those days Barus
The Batak believed that the Singamangaraja knows everything that is said or done. No-one dares to contradict him. In prayers the Singamangaraja is invoked as Lord of the region Bangkara, “whose sombaon (deified spirit of the ancestors) is Sulusulu, torch of the gods, the torch of sombaon, which is intended to enlighten/reveal truth as well as lies” (Pleyte 1903:47f; cf. Warneck 1909:128, Situmorang 1993a:96).
Exceptionally powerful sahala
The Batak ascribed an exceptionally powerful sahala (TB.: magic force/power) to the Singamangaraja. Whenever he passed by people, mothers would make their children’s faces turn to him with the intention to come in for his sahala. His sahala caused rice to grow but it could also be dangerous or even prove fatal. Showing no respect to him could have disastrous consequences to the fields and cattle.
Wondrous birth of Singamangaraja I.
As legend has it, the mother of the first divine king, the wife of the chieftain of Bangkara was taking a bath and was about to do her hair when a jambu barus-fruit dropped from the sky. As a result of eating it, she got pregnant after a month passed. After three years had gone by without her being delivered of a child, her husband consulted a seer/shaman (datu) so as to find out the cause of that inconvenient miracle.
This seer told him that the child in the womb of the wife had been fathered by the god Batara Guru by means of a divine fruit which the woman had eaten. The seer predicted that the child would not be born until further four years had passed by. Four years later the birth of Singamangaraja I. augured terrible thunder storms, heavy earthquake and other portents.
The village was swarming with spirits and tigers hunting and tearing each other to pieces. According to custom, the placenta was buried under the house but it was struck by lightening, ascending it to heaven. The child’s father received a book of Batara Guru, containing laws as well as instructions concerning the calendar, the magic, the good and bad days. Right at the beginning of the book Batara Guru ordered the child to be called Singamangaraja (Pleyte 1903:5-15; Situmorang 1993a:68, 82; Lumbantobing 1967:23-31).
Heine-Geldern describes those oral traditions as “a shivaitic legend mixed up with Batak elements“ (Heine-Geldern 1959:369). The portents boding the birth of Singamangaraja exactly correspond to Javanese notions about the birth of a king, who is equally referred to as the incarnation of Batara Guru (bhattâra Guru).
The verification of this instance is based on a passage from the Nagarakertagama, in which the Javanese poet Prapañca describes the frightening natural phenomena auguring the birth of the prince and the future King Hayam Wuruk 1334: “When our King and Lord had a rest in its mother’s womb in Kahuripan, miraculous portents indicated that it was a supernatural being. The earth was shaking, the steam was rising [from the volcanoes], the ash dropped (from the sky), the thunder was rumbling, flashes of lightening tearing the space asunder [...] This was a striking evidence of Bhatâra Girinâtha`s readiness to become the incarnation of the ruler” (quoted from Heine-Geldern 1959:370; translation and supplementations are my wording, H. L.).
Batak and Java: A Cultural Relation
There is another scientific evidence to confirm this thesis of a cultural relationship between the Batak of Sumatra and Java, which is implied by the name of the birth of Singamangaraja I., Manghuntal. The word manghuntal means in Toba-Batak „to shake something, to make something quake” (cf. Situmorang 1993a:68, 82f) and it is undoubtedly linked with the unusual natural phenomena accompanying the birth of Singamangaraja I.
Guru, the name of the divine father Singamangaraja I: Heine-Geldern can prove that bhatt̢ra Guru Рwas one of the most common names for Shiva (cf. Parkin 1978:160; Graaf 1949:23f; Koentjaraningrat 1990:337)16. From this we can draw the conclusion that Singamangaraja I. was respected as a son of the god Batara Guru (Shiva) according to the above-mentioned legend. All Singamangaraja were hence regarded as the incarnation of Batara Guru.
In fact, a further chain of evidence is meant to support this interpretation in hand: the Batak appealed prayers to their worshipped Singamangaraja similar to that of a god (Heine-Geldern 1959:370). Likewise, Bhatâra Girinâtha, the “Lord of the Mountain“ of whom it is related in the above-quoted story about the miraculous event describing the birth of the Javanese King Hayam Wuruk, is only a synonym for bhattâra Guru and Shiva17. Hayam Wuruk was considered to be the incarnation of Vishnu, the incarnation of bhattâra Guru (Ishvara, Bhatâra Girinâtha) and the embodiment of Buddha as well (Schrieke 1957:87, 314f, fn. 14).
Sacrifice
Offerings were made to Singamangaraja which were also offered to him in his absence. For, strictly speaking, god is assumed to be omnipresent. Accordingly, he is endowed with the capacity both to make apparitions at night and to answer to the prayers of those that sacrificed to him with the object of collecting the offerings made to him.
There is no doubt that the divine kingship goes back to striking and quite different indianizing influences mixed up with one another at different periods of time. Moreover, they gave rise to forming an integral part of the existing socio-cultural organization of the Batak. It is therefore afterwards almost impossible to find out the Buddhist and Hindu influences in the Batak civilization, in general, and those in the divine kingship, in particular.
1. The names of three Batak gods (debata na tolu, that is, Batara Guru (Maheshvara, Shiva), Soripada (shri Pada, i.e. Vishnu) and Mangalabulan (Mahakala).
2. The Batak sacrifice of a horse derived from ancient-Indian ashvamedha.
3. The prohibition to make offerings of a pig to gods of Indian origin.
4. The prohibition of the consumption of pork during the sacrifice of a horse.
5. The permanently effective prohibition on the Singamangaraja of eating pork and dog meat.
Besides these intensive and manifold Hindu influences, however, there are only a few significant archaeological Hindu relics. By contrast, archaeological research succeeded in recovering numerous remnants of Buddhist cultures in Sumatra20. Hindu influences might have entered the Batakland in at least two different periods as well as from two different directions:
Early stage of the transmission of Hinduism (from the 2nd century21 up to about the 11th or 12th century) over Barus located on the West coast of Sumatra, before Buddhism was predominant in Sumatra. The survival of ashvamedha among the Batak seems to refer to it.
Hindu influences, which reached to Batakland from the south via “Malayu-Minangkabau“ (i.e. the Empire of Malayu and Pagaruyung-Minangkabau) in the 13th and 14th century.
Buddhist features, which survived in the traditions as regards the Singamangaraja:
When he was young Singamangaraja I. is said to have exhibited an exceptional kindness and charity to all of his fellow-beings. Every time he showed his readiness to pay debts of those that were unable to settle them; in addition, he redeemed prisoners put in chains due to their indebtedness or crimes, and caused them to be released. In doing so, as well as gambling he squandered a major part of his parents’ possessions with the result that his relatives refused to support him in the end.
According to Heine-Geldern, all these acts of charity in the Batak community of the 19th century with its “barbaric and cruel customs“ appear to be “rather foreign and out of place”. But added to this, it must be mentioned as follows: There is no doubt about the fact that kindness and charity are in odd contrast to the values of the tribal Batak community.
Much more important, however, is the fact that Singamangaraja is granted to all without exception as opposed to the particularistic ethics of the Batak. This obviously refers to the transmission of the universal norms characteristic of Buddhism! In other words: Less charity in itself is peculiar but rather the fact that the support of Singamangaraja is neutral to kin-relations!
The Singamangaraja walked with bowed head, which is reminiscent of the gait of Buddhist monks.
As a token of his power the first Singamangaraja is awarded a white elephant by legendary Raja Uti. It is doubtful whether it is a clear evidence for the Buddhist influence, as it is Heine-Geldern’s assumption. Admittedly Heine-Geldern’s information about the significance of the white elephant is accurate. In fact, Buddha in the shape of the elephant descended from heaven on earth. However, the white elephant was equally considered to be a riding animal of god Indra at the same time, who was the supreme god in ancient Hindu-Pantheon after all.
Moreover, the divine white elephant (hastiratna, “elephant-treasure“) closely bound up with the cakravartin-conception in most of the indianized empires of Southeast Asia irrespective of whether they were Buddhist, Hindu, Hindu-Buddhist or Islamic - acted as the symbol of power and glory proper for a great King (Soen 1959:76, 78, 99f; Hagesteijn 1989:46; Zimmer 1973:118f, 127; Kemp 1969:54 fn. 27; Overbeck 1975:52-54, 67; 1976:174, 232, 255-262).
It is therefore true that the white elephant can by no means be described as an exceptionally Buddhist symbol, as it is Heine-Geldern’s effort. Yet it is an obvious evidence for cultural adoptions from neighboring or even from more remote indianized empires of Southeast Asia. Based on some marked details - e. g.: the white elephant; a Batak legend according to which Raja Uti “at present” lives in Siam; the principle of height differentiation according to which the Raja Uti was seated up on a high place in the roof of his house, overlooking those to whom he gave audience etc. - Heine-Geldern suggested that the Raja Uti-legend could be traced back to the “kingdom of Siam”, that is, Ayudhya (Heine-Geldern 1959:388-400). Other scholars even went further, claiming that the name Uti is supposed to stand for a corrupted form of Ayudhya.
Whether Buddhist influences are only confined to Theravada-Buddhist once, as Heine-Geldern assumes, has to be called into question, since there was a predominance of Tantric Mahayana-Buddhism mixed up with Shivaitic elements in Sumatra at the time of the advent of Singamangaraja. The Tantric Buddhism of the indianized Empire Pannai, which was located in Padang Lawas (southern Batak region; see fig. 2) must have had an exceptionally marked impact on the culture of the Batak.
reinforced his political relations with those regions in a sacral manner by copulating with those spiritual daughters in the ring-rituals (Zoetmulder 1965b:331-333, 337; cf. Koentjaraningrat 1990:43).
An amazing evidence for both Indian influences and correspondences with other indianized civilizations of Indonesia including those of the Southeast Asian mainland are, in my view, Raja Uti’s seven donations for the first Singamangaraja as well as the required return gifts: Despite the only partially correspondences, the seven insignia of royal power (knife, spear, turban, ikat-scarf, mat, jug, white elephant) which Raja Uti hands over to the first Singamangaraja, are reminiscent of the seven treasures (ratnâni, sapta ratana), which the cakravartin, the righteous and virtuous ruler of the world, like the great gods Indra, Agni, Soma, Rudra, or (in Buddhism) a Bodhisattva is obliged to possess.
These properties are as follows: a wheel ( = cakra, symbolizing that the King is representing the hub or the center of the world respectively), an elephant, a milk-colored horse ( = horse of the sun which is to carry the monarch on its back, inspecting the world), a precious stone ( = magic jewel cintâmani, designed to comply with every wish expressed), a woman ( = perfect royal female companion, ideal partner), a treasurer ( = perfect administrator), an adviser or general (Gonda 1969:38, 60, 123-128; Zimmer 1973:124-8; Soen 1959:78).
These paraphernalia of the cakravartin are in keeping with the royal ornament, the so-called upacara30, that is, the Javanese insignia of royal dignity, which are intended to exert a more considerable influence, or the so-called pusaka, the sacred heirlooms of Indonesian kings and tribal chiefs.
Those objects were thought to be determined by intrinsic values of a special power/force passing over to the person wearing these items, and thus enables him to perform his royal duties in adherence to etiquette. The firm belief in that attribution even survived the islamization. Regalia (Mal. kebesaran), which were thought to harbor spiritual force were equally found with islamized Malays and Minangkabau. Elephants, yellow color, state-umbrella etc. used to be exclusively the prerogatives of the sovereign (Anderson 1990:17).
The kings of Java and Southwest Sulawesi were also in possession of living regalia, for instance, hunchbacked people, albinos, gnomes, hermaphrodites, transsexuals (Gonda 1969:38f; Anderson 1990:27, 29). The latter is reminiscent of mythical figures (hermaphrodite, albino, girl with huge ears, egg-laying cock, unicorn etc.) demanded by Raja Uti and bizarre, wondrous objects which must have been seven in number! Similar to the rulers of the Javanese, Makassarese and Buginese (Southwest Sulawesi) the insignia of royal dignity were viewed as genuine subjects of the king’s power and authority. The insignia of power, awarded to Singamangaraja I. by Raja Uti are referred to as pusaha in Batak.
This Toba-Batak word undoubtedly corresponds to the Javanese and Malay/Indonesian term pusaka. In analogy to the pusaha, the inalienable magical heirloom of a lineage, which prove their unity and sovereignty by documentary evidence, the pusaha of the Singamangaraja used to act as a sign for his divine sahala (Situmorang 1993a:94) as well as a “container” of power.
The use of upacara and pusaka in Java and Sulawesi as well as of the pusaha with the Toba-Batak was based on a widespread concept of power in Indonesia. Among other things, the belief associated with it was that that power may be gained or accumulated respectively through the possession of certain objects or people „bursting” with magic forces. According to an ancient tradition,
rulers therefore strove for gathering objects and rallying people round containing or possessing an exceptional power. Consequently they did not only collect objects such as spears but also unusual and weird people, judging by their outward appearances (albinos, clowns, dwarfs, fortune-tellers etc.).
In this way they believed to be capable of absorbing their strength and of increasing their power on the basis of being in possession of those objects and people. Conversely, the loss of those objects or people – no matter in what way it occurred – was interpreted as an actual decrease of the royal power and was many a time conceived as an unmistakable portent of an imminent collapse, that is, of an unexpected decline of the royal power (Anderson 1990:27-29).
An examination into Indian influences as well as modifications (which occurred within the framework of the adjustment to the tribal culture) would be fragmentary without taking into account the socio-cultural conditions of the „receiving/integrating” societies and cultures.
Beyond the discovery of the mere process of the cultural transfer, it is imperative to study the selection, the elimination, the modification and the adjustment of the transfer in reliance on the active socio-cultural structures and on the conditions of the interethnic competition behind it.
It follows that function and implications of features adopted prior and after its integration need to be carefully examined. Apart from the diffusion, it is required to show some interest in the „inner” work, the self-development of a society and culture as well as the interrelation of their elements. Only then it becomes clear that each indianization in Southeast Asia is to represent a special case of indigenization (due to the dependence on the culture and society concerned) at the same time.
Among the pre-colonial Toba-Batak it was impossible to discern a separate political sphere or exclusive political institutions. It was the kinship, and besides that, the religious relations that functioned as political relations. The authority system of the Toba-Batak was polycentric: Owing to the dominant role of kinship in precolonial Toba-Batak society there was no room for the development of a central authority or supra-regional system (state organization).
Even the active adoption of the foreign concept of god-kings, widespread in the indianized states of Southeast Asia, in the form of the „god-king”-institution (Singamangaraja), which could be explained as an attempt to establish authority with reference to a power source beyond the realm of kinship, failed to lead to the setting up of a monocentric authority in Toba-Batak society.
Inasmuch as kinship still continued to play a dominant role in Toba-Batak society, the political authority of the god-kings as well as of the priest-kings was limited by the lineage organization as well as by the alliance structure. Handicapped by the kinship organization the god-kings (and the priest-kings) consequently tried to found their authority mainly on a divine (non-kin) sahala, i. e. a spiritual legitimizing power, as manifested in their predominantly religious articulation of authority.
The fact that there used to be a co-existence of two entirely different concepts of power among the Batak – a (TB.) tondi-sahala based on the genealogical ties and a divine tondi-sahala - could therefore be interpreted as a clear evidence for the adoption of divine kingship from other indianized empires in Southeast Asia. At the same time this cultural adoption reveals the active indigenization and the adjustment of the Indian „model” dictated by the social structure and ideology of the “receiving society”. Supposing this hypothesis is right then the effects of indianization on the Batak concept of power can be summed up as follows: With reference to the tondi-sahala-concept, the adopted and differently modified Indian model by other Southeast Asian societies only provided an additional basis of justification due to which the indigenous theories of power were neither annulled nor modified.
Accordingly, the co-existence of legitimizing traditions is characteristic of the Batak society. While the local leaders continue to cling to their autochthonous sahala-tondi-concept, the Singamangaraja imposed the concept of divine kingship on the former going beyond the basis of kinship.
In some respect the sahala–concept of the Batak bears some resemblance to other equally “Indian“ theories of power in Southeast Asian such as the particularly well-documented Javanese concept of power (Jav. kasektèn) (cf. Anderson 1990:17-77; Magnis-Suseno 1981:84-98). Merely the kinship foundation of the concept of power turns out to be a special feature of the Batak.
The most significant impact of that adaptation of the Indian concept of power on the Batak culture is apparent from the fact that at no moment, not even in the times of serious menace by foreign enemies (e. g. the Islamic Padris from Minangkabau and the Dutch), the god-king did succeed in establishing political unity among the Toba-Batak. Contrary to scientists who interpret the god-king institution as a stateforming tendency, it rather represents an adoption of a foreign concept, which was in the process modified, without, however, transforming the polycentric authority system of the Toba-Batak as such.
loading...