By Abdur-Razzaq Lubis [1]
Introduction
There are four views of the fundamental nature of ethnicity.
The first emphasizes the ascriptive, or primordial nature of ethnic group membership and socialization. Those who emphasize the ascriptive and primordial aspects suggest a link between ethnicity and kinship, common ancestry as well as cosmic destiny.
The second view that ethnicity is situationally defined, that ethnic boundaries are malleable and permeable. The situational view of ethnicity treats the conditions of mobilization of ethnicity. It tries to account for when groups make use of ethnicity as a resource in competition for other resources. The third view that recognizes a person may have dual, or multiple identities.
The fourth view deals with hybrid identities in our postmodern world, and is, of course, not incompatible with either 1 or 2.
‘Much of western literature asserts that there are six major Batak cultures: Toba, Karo, Dairi- Pakpak, Simalugun, Angkola, and Mandailing. This division into ethnic units is somewhat misleading since villagers often have little use for such general words as ‘Angkola‘ and identify themselves in much more local terms as members of a ceremonial league or a group of village clusters. The sixfold division may reflect relatively new ethnic designations as members of different homeland groups come into contact and competition with each other‘ (Rodgers-Siregar 1993).
The use of the ‘Batak‘ as a common label for these groups has a chequered career. ‘Linguists and ethnologists, anthropologists and historians have always found the term necessary because of the strong common elements in all these societies. At some periods, however, those who were converted to Islam, especially Mandailings, have sought to repudiate any association with the non-Muslim Tobas by rejecting the Batak label altogether. This tendency has been strongest among Mandailing migrants to the East Coast of Sumatra and Peninsular Malaysia‘ (Castles 1975:67).
In spite of the Mandailings rejection of the Batak label, western writers persist in insisting that the Mandailings are an integral part of the Batak ethnic group, and this has been accepted uncritically by their Malaysian and Indonesian counterparts. In their own words, the justification of this: ‘As Indonesianists and anthropologists, we too find the category Batak and its subcategories useful, even necessary: they define, label our expertise, and are thus embedded in the social forms of our profession‘ (Smith-Kipp and Kipp 1983:5). The term is used not without realization that ‘Although all are Batak, each subgroup has its own dialect or language, thinks itself as a separate ethnic unit, and has its own customs and traditions‘ (Bruner 1972:221).
In light of this, ethnologists, linguists and anthropologists have ignored their subjects‘ historicity and the prerogative of their ‘subject‘ to redefine themselves, the denial of which is tantamount to the transgression of cultural rights. In pursuance of the Batak label, they have given meaning and substances to the otherwise dubious and offensive category.
The notion of justice in the origin of the mandailing people
The Mandailing people, an ethnic group from the southwest corner of the province of North Sumatra today, went through a process of cultural hybridization and creolization centuries ago by incorporating into its gene pool the diverse people from the archipelago and beyond; adopting as well as adapting cultures from across the continents. The many clans of the Mandailing people have both indigenous as well as foreign infusions. The saro cino or Chinese-style curved roof indicates Chinese influence in Mandailing architecture. (Z.P. Lubis 1999:8). The legacy of Indian influences, either direct or via other peoples, include key political terms such as huta (village, generally fortified), raja (chief) and marga (partilineal exogamous clan) (Gonda 1952).
There are several hypotheses about the origin of the Mandailing people, mainly based on the proximity and similarity of sounds. One theory closely associated with the idea of governance is that the name Mandailing originated from Mandala Holing. Current in Mandailing society is the usage ‘Surat Tumbaga H(K)oling na so ra sasa‘ which means that the ‘Copper H(K)oling cannot be erased‘. What is meant is that the adat cannot be wiped out; in other words, the adat is everlasting. Both examples emphasize that justice has a central role in Mandailing civilization, which is upheld by its judicial assembly, called Na Mora Na Toras, the traditional institution of Mandailing governance. [2] The institution of Namora Natoras has two meanings. In the first instance it refers to the traditional leaders themselves, all males, who are nobles (namora) and elders (natoras), and secondly the institution, the parliament, governing council and judicial assembly, itself made up of these leaders. The namora-mora represents the nobility or land-owing clan (marga tanah) of a fortified village (huta) or district (banua). [3] A huta is a village republic, a self-governing unit with a parliament headed by the traditional chief (raja).
The huta set up by the land-owning clan (marga tanah) has a defined territory and a given number of citizen-residents. The huta chief or raja comes from the land-owning clan. In the case of Mandailing Julu (Upper Mandailing), the land owning clan is the Lubis clan, In Mandailing Godang (Lower Mandailing), they are from the Nasution clan. The other clans are led by kapala ripe. The natoras represent the non-nobility clan, whose participation in the judicial assembly is essential for the proper functioning of governance and the adat. The dynamics of the namora natoras is governed by adat, a body of customs and customary law known as Dalian Na Tolu. In short, the nobles and elders can only act according to the prescriptions and within the constraints of the adat. The Namora-Natoras exercised control over land, the administration of justice, the regulations of markets (onan) and workings of the Mandailing social order. At the center of each huta, stand the ruler‘s dwelling called the bagas godang and a council hall called the sopo godang. The governing councils of the namora-natoras are held in the sopo godang. The sopo godang and bagas godang, are still to be found in Mandailing, Sumatra and in Perak, Malaysia—reminders of the seat of the namora-mora.
Historical transformation of indigenous leadership: islamization, migration and colonialism
The coming of Islam to Mandailing brought with it many values of the universal religion and global culture. More significantly however, Mandailing society was historically transformed by a radical brand of Islam–Wahabbite Islam brought by the Padris. In 1820, the Padris invaded the Mandailing homeland. The socio-economic, political, ecological, environmental and spiritual disruption caused by the war-triggered movements of people within and around Mandailing. Indeed, the most important exodus of Mandailing migration from the Mandailing homeland in Sumatra to the west coast of the Peninsula was during and after the Padri War (1816–1833). [4] The Mandailings served as commanders and troops on both sides of the war. Two famous Padri of Mandailing origin were Tuanku Rao and Tuanku Tambusai. [5] The anti-Padri and pro-adat faction was led by Patuan Naga [6] and Raja Goodman. [7]
For about a decade the Mandailing homeland was under Padri domination. Governance was exercised by a Padri-appointed kali (originally Qadi, Arabic for ‘judge‘) (Castles 1975:71) Through these kalis (= ulama) some of whom were the namora-mora (plural for rajas) themselves, Islamic values were incorporated into the institution of Namora Natoras. While Padri domination had ‘greatly modified the power structure..., there was no tendency for states to consolidate. In many territories power seemed to be almost equally divided between several branches of the ruling lineage‘ (Castles 1975:71). Many of the namora-mora weathered the storm and when peace was restored, the established clans reasserted their rights and some of the rajas were reinstated.
The Padri episode was yet another historic incursion by Minangkabau into the Mandailing homeland, and it was during this time that many Mandailings came to Islam at the point of the sword. [8] As it turns out the interpretation and application of Islam in Mandailing is very different from that of the Minangkabau. The Minangs are matrilineal and adopt a position of custom based on Islamic law (adat basandi syarak), the Mandailings are partilineal and adopt a position of adat on par with Islamic law. This is reflected in the maxim ombar do adat ugamo. The latter understanding is closer to the Madinan tradition (amal of Madina) [9] than to the Shaf‘ie madhhab (school of thought) dominant today in the Peninsula and the Indonesian archipelago. The challenge of traditional Mandailing leadership is to retain this historically unique way of maintaining and reconciling their traditional customs with their new-found religion in the face of globalized modernist Wahhabite (Arab)-Islam and regional Malay Islam.
The Mandailings have been going to Klang (pai Kolang) in the west coast of the Peninsula ‘for centuries‘. [10] The mass migration of Mandailings to Klang and other parts of the peninsula preceded any substantial migration of Mandailings to the east coast of Sumatra (Ihoetan 1926:5).
In keeping with the tradition in Sumatra, the Namora Natoras have been know to ‘merantau whole clans at the same time under united command‘, leading a band of followers to a new site (Parlindungan 1964:27). Mandailings migrate together with the mora (wife-giving) and anakboru (wife-taking) clans, and kahangi (relations) including women and children.
Through chain migration, the Mandailing became a recognizable group in the Peninsula by 1840s, engaging in mining, trading, mercenary activities, and economic and political mediation. The arrival of large groups of Mandailing caused shock waves and changed the political and socio-economic landscape of the peninsula, the effects of which can be felt to this day.
In 19th century Peninsula, the Mandailings were embroiled in the Rawa War of 1848, the Pahang War (1857–1863), the Selangor War (1867–1873) and the Perak War (1875–1876). Inadvertently, the Mandailings in the Peninsula gained notoriety as troublemakers, rebels and insurgents, a stigma inherited by the Mandailings to this day. The distribution of the Mandailing community in the west coast states of the Peninsula can be traced back to their dispersion as a result of these wars.
In the Pahang and Selangor wars, the Mandailings found themselves fighting against the proxies of the British. In Perak, the Mandailings made a strategic decision to change sides and became allies of the British and served as storm troopers and bounty hunters of the British. They accepted British sovereignty and were rewarded with mines, land and positions as tax collectors. In contrast to their previous unsettled existence, they now founded settlements (buka negeri) and became rubber and coffee cultivators. From then on, the Mandailings were incorporated into the British civil service as administrators, policemen, foresters, etc.. They assimilated into Malayan society, going along with colonial social engineering with regard to the political-economic functions of the various ethnic migrant groups.
What is most striking about the Mandailing migration in the 19th century is the fact that they were, by and large led by the Namora Natoras. Many of the Mandailings in Malaysia today are descended from these earlier migrants; the author being one of them. Adapting to new conditions, the Namora Natoras continued but innovated upon the institution of Mandailing governance as a form of self-governance in the new land, making collective decisions through traditional modes of consultation. The Mandailing migrants continued to practice their own political systems in 19th century Peninsula, in contrast to the Malay political systems.
The Mandailings perpetuated their genealogical (tarombo) knowledge based on the clan system. Their social structure and customary law (Dalian Na Tolu) tied the new settlements symbolically, politically and by kinship to the old. This created the mother-child village complexes. Due to this strong connection, many ‘Malaysian‘ Mandailings retain the memory of their ancestral villages in Sumatra, and are known to make cultural pilgrimage to Sumatra from the 19th century to today. These visit were only interrupted by WWII, the Independence Revolution, the Communist Insurgency, the Social Revolution and Konfrontasi.
Before the Dutch made feudal chiefs of the Namora-Natoras, it was difficult to tell them and their sons from the rest of the population except on ceremonial occasions (Castles 1972:118). Things began to change when the Padris started to push into Mandailing from Minangkabau. In retaliation against the Padris, Raja Gadombang, the raja of Huta Godang went to Rao and asked the Dutch to put his realm under Dutch rule in 1832. The following year, the Dutch made Raja Gadombang the Regent of Mandailing (Endar Moeda 1903:66). Upon the death of Raja Gadombang in 1835 (Endar Moeda 1903:66), the ‘Jang dipertoen kota Siantar, who has shown his loyalty to the Dutch, was appointed as Regent‘ (Endar Moeda 1903:69).
The Dutch introduced the office of Jang Dipertuan upon their occupation of Mandailing, but it is not clear whether it existed before Padri times. The title itself is of Minang origin. It appears that the office of ‘Yang di Pertuan of Lower Mandailing‘ was discontinued thereafter. Furthermore, ‘there never seems to have been a chief with jurisdiction over a whole ‘tribe‘; not (sic) whole ‘tribes‘ go to war with one another, though they did attempt to unite against non- Batak invaders‘ (Castles 1975:69).
Disenfranchised by Dutch colonial rule, Sutan Mangkutur, the brother of Raja Gadombang,rose against the Dutch in 1839–1840. The rebellion was put down and the leaders exiled (Endar Moeda 1903:69). Another rebellion broke out in Mandailing against the Dutch in 1842 (Endar Moeda 1903:69). From 1865 to 1874, there were two uprisings in Mandailing against the Dutch led by Raja di Baringin and a group of ‘malim‘, respectively (Endar Moeda 1903:70). A principal cause of dissatisfaction was the Dutch Controller‘s (Gouv. Rechspraak) attempts to take over the administration of justice from the namora-mora (Inheemscherecht spraak). The appropriation of the status and powers of the namora-mora amounted to ruling over the namora-mora and real colonization. Sutan Mangkutur‘s resistance to this usurpation eventually led to an armed insurrection.
The Dutch took away from the Namora-Natoras their major judicial powers (1875), departed in a few cases from the hereditary principle (after 1890), abolished their legal immunities (forum privilegiatum, about 1900), and introduced direct taxation (1908) that lowered their prestige and made them subject to financial and administrative penalties if arrears developed (Castles 1972: 117). The high-handedness of some colonial Dutch officials in exacting taxes on the Mandailing people and their treatment of the namora-mora is well documented. [11] Some of the namora-mora were imprisoned without trial or sacked for no apparent reason.
In order to check on Dutch abuses, the namora-natoras—now reduced to provincial parish head (kepala kuria)—formed the Kuria Association (Koeriabond). Two of their leading spokesmen were Sutan Kumala Bulan (Lubis), [12] Kepala Kuria of Tamiang, and Baginda Kalidjungdjung (Daulay), Kepala Kuria of Pintupadang. Both were frowned on in administrative circles as ‘politicians‘, and were not typical of their class (Castles 1972:119). In contrast, British intervention into the states of Perak and Selangor in 19th century saw the appointment of Namora-Natoras as British-appointed penghulu. [13] During and after the war, all the Perak Malay chiefs who were hostile to British rule had been forcibly removed or pensioned off. Those who remained were coopted, together with Mandailing in-comers like Raja Bilah and Imam Perang Jabarumun (Ya‘qub 1934:7).
The penghulu were in charge of a mukim (parish), the equivalent of a kepala kuria [14] in Mandailing. The leading Namora-Natoras in Perak not only enforced British laws and regulations, for example kerah tax or corvee labor, but helped the British put down several insurrections and disturbances of peace (Ya‘qub 1934:20–22, 32).
In the state of Pahang, changes introduced by the British met with opposition from the native chiefs. The help of the Mandailings was again enlisted to put down the Pemberontakan Tok Bahaman in 1891 (Ya‘qub 1934:23–26; Hashim 1980:12).
The leading Namora-Natoras in Perak fared well under the British and they took pains to prove their loyalty (Ya‘qub 1934:16) Raja Haji Muhammad Ya‘qub, the last of the great leaders of the Mandalings in Perak, was awarded the ‘Justice of Peace‘ in 1920 and the ‘Malayan Certificate of Honour‘ in 1931 for his ‘kebaktian‘ (Ya‘qub 1934:36–37). The investiture was reported by the English press of the day (Times of Malaya 27 July 1931).
The struggle for identity from the age of colonialism to post–merdeka
In the early 19th century, Stamford Raffles proposed a policy that the Islamic lands of Aceh and Minangkabau should be kept apart by making the Batak lands a Christian block. [15] Raffles was also the architect of the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824 that irrevocably and arbitrarily divided the cultural unity of Sumatra and the peninsula (John Bastin 1953:81–85).
The Dutch authorities also maintained a ‘wedge policy‘—the strategy of keeping the two Islamic bulwarks of Aceh and Minangkabau separated by a belt of non-Muslims in the Bataklanden (Castles 1972:26).
The origins of the term ‘Batak‘ as a form of self-ascription in the pre-colonial period is elusive. [16] The Malay (Muslim) and Batak identities were once mutually exclusive, at least on the east coast of Sumatra. The Batak/Malay distinction was not racial but cultural. If a Batak converted to Islam, he ceased to be Batak and became Malay. ‘In the early decades of this century Mandailing migrants found themselves stereotyped as ‘Batak‘, which in the migrant areas meant either heathen, or Christian. In heavily Muslim East Sumatra, the association with pork consumption was a distinct disadvantage. Most Mandailing were in fact Muslim by this time. Large numbers of them simply dropped their diagnostically Batak clan names in the 1900-1930s period and blended in with Malay Muslim society in East Sumatra. They ‘became Malay‘ or ‘masuk Melayu‘ (entered Malay), as the local phrase has it‘ (Rodgers-Siregar 1993:156).
This was not the case for the west coast Mandailing. Islamic conversion entailed movement away from the Batak label, but did not mean adopting the Malay ethnic identity. The Mandailing people, originally oriented more to Sumatra‘s west coast than east coast, may have had an early model for maintaining their cultural identity in the Rejang, who Marsden described as Muslim but not Malay (Smith-Kipp 1993:39, n.18). The continuing saga to define Mandailing identity came to the fore in a landmark court case in urban Medan. [17] A dispute between the Bataks and the Mandailings in Sungai Mati, Medan, in 1922, over rights to be buried in a tanah wakaf (religious endowment land), regardless of ethnicity accentuates this. The keeper of the burial ground had refused permission to Bataks including Mandailings claiming to be Batak, to be buried there, on the grounds that the deed specified that the cemetery was for Mandailings only. The dispute was not between Christians and Muslims, but between people of north and south Tapanuli origin. A ‘madjelis Sjara‘iah (Commissie van Advies) was formed in 1923 to settled the dispute according to Islamic law. When the Governor-General intervened and decided in favor of the Batak, the Mandailing community appealed to the highest court in the land, the Rad van Justitie, which reversed the Governor-General‘s decision. The fight was led by the namoranatoras such as Mangaradja Ihoetan, Sjech Moehammad Jacoeb, Abdoellah Loebis and others.
The struggle for identity in the age of colonialism did not challenge colonial hegemony, but was an attempt at self-determination within the colonial order. It was however tied to urban land entitlements, in this case, that of the right of burial. When the 1930 census approached, the ‘Comite Kebangsaan Mandailing‘ (Mandailing National Committee) in Panyabungan, petitioned, with some success, not to be listed as Mandailing-Batak in the census. The ‘Mandailingers‘ were still listed under ‘Bataks‘ in the census, though the term ‘Mandailing-Batak‘ was not used (Castles 1972:188 and n. 42). Compare this with British Malaya. The Mandailing were labeled ‘foreign Malays‘ and then simply as ‘Malays‘ in the name of ‘administrative convenience‘ (Wright and Cartwright 1908:222). In the Federated Malay States (FMS) census of 1911, ‘Mendeling‘ was ‘Malay Population by Race‘; likewise in the British Malaya census of 1921. By 1931, ‘Mendeling‘ was altogether removed from the census (Hirschman 1987:574–575; Hirschman 1986). Although the definition of race remained uncertain, the term itself persists in the administrative and academic language to this day. But unlike in Sumatra, the Namora-Natoras in British Malaya did not object to the recategorization of the Mandailings under ‘Malay Population by Race‘, reducing their ethnicity to a sub-group of the Malays. Being Malay was perhaps more acceptable than being Batak.
In Mandailing, the institution of Namora Natoras was further undermined by nationalist movements in the 1920s onwards (Castles 1972:117). The nationalists found the adat and the now feudalized Namora Natoras increasingly irrelevant in the struggle for independence. The anti-Dutch movement was spearheaded by leaders such as Buyung Siregar, Mahindin Nasution and Abu Kasim Dalimunte (Harahap 1987:7). [18] The Namora-Natoras were not altogether indifferent to the new movement; Sutan Kumala Bulan, for example, allowed the use of the bagas godang and sopo godang in Tamiang to conduct ‘kursus-kursus politik‘ and ‘kaderisasi politik‘ for Mandailing nationalists. He even provided protection to the nationalist Adam Malik from the Dutch.
During the Japanese Occupation, the institution of traditional governance met its demise in both Dutch East Indies and British Malaya. In Mandailing, the Japanese military abolished the Namora-Natoras in 1942 (Z. Lubis 1987:17–18). The role and functions of the Namora-Natoras were never reinstated by the post-merdeka Indonesian republican government, who perceived traditional institutions of governance as a feudalistic and a colonial legacy. In Perak, the institution of Namora Natoras died with the death of Raja Haji Muhammad Ya‘qub during the Japanese Occupation.
The waning of the Namora-Natoras and the emergence of the ideology of nationalism, paved the way for a new generation of Mandailing leaders whose preoccupation was no longer their own people but the liberation of Indonesians and Malayans from colonial rule. Ironically, the Mandailing members of the nationalist movement found inspiration in the poetry of Willem Iskander, a pro-Dutch namora, and were said to have ‘unearthed the ideas of national independence/ liberation‘ from his work (Harahap 1987:7). So strongly connected was the nationalist movement amongst the Mandailings with the works of Willem Iskander that, in the archives of the Politieke Inlichtingen Dienst, the colonial secret police, the movement was labeled Groep Si Roemboek-Roemboek (Harahap 1987:7).
Kamaluddin Nasution, one of the Mandailing leaders of the nationalist movement, escaped the Dutch net and fled to Perak in 1932, where he changed his name to Abdul Rahman Abdul Rahim and became a political analyst in the Malay nationalist daily, Utusan Melayu (Harahap 1987:7 see footnote). Another Mandailing political refugee was the journalist Halalloedin Hamzah Ahmad Nor Abdul Shukor, who edited ‘Suara Islam Sa-Malaya‘, a publication that was very much against the British proposal of a Malayan Union (Roff 1972:7).
Aminuddin Baki, a Malayan-born Mandailing who became the foremost educationist in the Malayan nationalist movement also hailed from Chemor. He was directly responsible for getting Bahasa Melayu recognized as the national language and as the medium of instruction in schools in the post-Merdeka Malaya (Tajuddin 1987).
For the sake of nationalism, the minority Mandailing took up a larger political cause. In Malaya, it was Malay nationalism and in Indonesia, Indonesian nationalism. Traditional institutions of governance no longer seemed relevant and were anyway undermined by political mobility determined by ideological prowess and party politics, rather than traditional status and adat. Nationalism was taken to its logical conclusion in the new nation-states. The concern of the post-merdeka national leadership was to put into place a complete state hegemony, one which had no genuine sympathy for provincial ethnic and cultural identity. In the Peninsula, the Mandailings not only identified with Malayan (and subsequently Malaysian) nationalism, but were also compelled to identify with the constructed ‘Malay‘ identity, to the extent of compromising and suppressing their own identity and culture. The process of acculturation and assimilation was assisted by a measure of colonial and post-colonial social engineering.
In order to protect the traditional way of life of the Malays, which was oriented around the rice cycle, as well as to ensure steady food production for a growing population, the British administration enclosed the rice-producing lands in Malay reservations. Non-Malays could not obtain grants or buy land in the reservation. A ‘Malay‘ was defined as a ‘person belonging to any Malayan race who habitually speaks the Malay language or any Malayan language andprofesses the Moslem religion‘ (Malay Reservation Enactment, 1933). [19] This definition entitled immigrants from the Dutch East Indies to own land in Malay reservations.
Once the Mandailing in Malaya found themselves redefined as Malays by the colonial authorities, it was only a matter of time before their political-economic functions were prescribed accordingly. Finding themselves in a common predicament, they closed ranks with other ‘Malays‘, during the course of the nationalist movement, the Japanese Occupation, during the ‘Emergency‘ period and the post-Merdeka scenario of communal politics. Subject to the same state conditioning, the identification of latter-day Malaysian Mandailings with Malays is almost complete in the Peninsula.
With the loss of identity, the Malaysian Mandailings neglected their language and culture and also lost connection with their Indonesian counterparts. The creation of Indonesia followed by social upheaval and the Indonesian Konfrontasi against the formation of Malaysia further distanced the Mandailings from their homeland.
The Mandailings in Malaya played a key role in the 1969 racial riots between the ‘Malays‘ and the ‘Chinese‘, which was to change the course of Malaysian political economy (Reid 1969: 258–278). Datuk Harun Idris, blamed by some writers as directly responsible for the riots, was in fact not Malay but Malay of Mandailing descent. After the riot, the national ideology of Rukun Negara was proclaimed and the New Economic Policy (NEP) was formulated to address the economic imbalances between the major ethnic groups (Faaland, Parkinson and Saniman 1990: 23–5).
‘For 60 years (from 1922 to 1985) the Mandailing nation has been buried, two generations have passed, until our children no longer know that we are Mandailing‘ (M.L. Lubis:262). Mangaraja Lelo Lubis, one of the first to document the Mandailing adat during the post-merdeka period, was saddened by the fact that ‘many sons and daughters of Mandailing claim to be Batak-Mandailing, Batak Islam and Southern Batak‘ (M. L. Lubis:262). He called the Mandailings to ‘raise the Mandailing nation from the depths, and to establish it again by forming an association of Mandailing people‘ (M. L. Lubis:262–263) Attempts were then made to set up Yayasan Parluhutan Mandailing in 1984. Two years, later the Himpunan Keluarga Besar Mandailing (HIKMA) (M.L. Lubis:263) and Yayasan Pengkajian Budaya Mandailing (Yapebuma) were established in the same year in Medan.
In terms of forming Mandailing-based organizations, the Malaysian Mandailings beat their Indonesian counterparts with the setting up of Ikatan Kebajikan Mandailing Malaysia (IMAN) in 1979 (Harahap and Siahaan 1987:193). IMAN admits persons who claim to be Mandailing and who can name as Mandailing one or both parents (Undang-Undang Tubuh, Ikatan Kebajikan Mandailing Malaysia: 1) However, as many Angkolans in Malaysia see themselves as Mandailing, the IMAN membership includes many Angkolans as well as Mandailings. IMAN succeeded in registering 1,500 members by 1982. It was estimated at the time that there were 30,000 Angkolan and Mandailings in Malaysia (Harahap and Siahaan 1987:193). The IMAN constitution states that the organization‘s objectives are to conduct research, studies, preservation, as well as the advancement and promotion of the Mandailing ethnic language, culture and arts ‘with the purpose of enriching the culture and arts of the Malays from many descents‘ (Undang-Undang Tubuh, Ikatan Kebajikan Mandailing Malaysia 2) Implicit in this declaration is IMAN‘s acceptance of the label ‘Malay-Mandailing‘.
In 2000, the Malaysian National Archives and IMAN organized the Majlis Pengkisahan Sejarah Masyarakat Mandailing di Malaysia. [20] In conjunction with this, the two organizations released a book entitled Mengenal Kaum Angkola-Mandailing by Basyral Hamidy Harahap. [21] The book outraged the Malaysian Mandailing community. The two organizations were accused of being ‘buta sejarah mandailing‘ and scorned for allowing the Mandailings to be called Batak (Berita Harian, August 24, 2000). As a result, a splinter group calling itself LAMA (Lembaga Adat Mandailing Malaysia) was formed. A competitor to IMAN, this group was quick to criticize IMAN for embracing the Batak label, but is silent about Malay-Mandailing identity.
Throughout the history of IMAN, the inconsistencies between Mandailing, Melayu and Batak labels have never been resolved. Therefore, IMAN has used the terms Mandailing, or Mandailing-Angkola, Mandailing-Batak and Mandailing-Melayu at various times, without questioning the ontological differences between the terms.
The challenges of globalization and regional autonomy
In 1992, the people‘s representative assembly (DPR) of North Sumatra incorporated Mandailing and Natal into a new district (kabupaten) called MADINA (short for Mandailing- Natal). In 1995, the Home Ministry announced that its priority in the province of North Sumatra was the formation of this kabupaten in view of its population, economic potential, geographical size and maintenance of peace in the context of regional autonomy (Harahap & Nasution, 1997: 12). In response to this, a Lembaga Adat Budaya for the district of MADINA was formed in Panyabungan in 2000. The council is made up of customary leaders (tokoh adat), with the avowed objectives of fostering and supporting the organization and social unity. They also aimed to preserve traditional culture, to create a just and prosperous society, to promote community participation and development through the traditional culture of Mandailing Natal, as well as to give constructive ideas to the Bupati.
Despite its powers and functions being circumspect in the governance of Mandailing society, the Namora-Natoras continue to exercise observance of the adat to this day. However the adat has been reduced to ceremonial aspects of weddings, funeral and other rites of passage. The historical evolution of Mandailing society has structurally diminished the power base of the traditional leadership (Z. Lubis 1987:18–19). One of the consequences is that ancestral land (tanah pusaka) is now easily sold.
Secession is the language of nationalists, whereas globalization can bring about a convergence of values with an emphasis more on interrelationships and less on autonomy. With the current revival of Mandailing cultural identity in West Malaysia, the cultural ties that were interrupted by the trauma of independence and nation-building are being re-established.
The revival of the Mandailing ceremonial drums, the Gordang Sambilan, has been symbolically important for the revival of Mandailing identity on both sides of the Straits. The Gordang Sambilan was revived in Mandailing by the present day Namora-Natoras. The Gordang Sambilan festival is now held annually, in the form of an inter-village competition. In Malaysia, IMAN has been successful in promoting the Gordang Sambilan, and getting it recognized as the official musical ensemble in the state of Selangor (http://www.selangor.gov .my/muzium/ MuBlaiBudayaE.htm). It is performed at the Selangor Arts Festival under the Malaynized name ‘Gendang Sembilan‘ (http://www .tourism-malaysia.ca/colormalaysia/Selangor.htm).
Globalization brings with it a certain degree of secularization, increased consumerism, growing lack of respect for nature, democratization of the media and a general weakening of ‘traditional‘ values. In Indonesia and Malaysia alike, some obvious elements of global culture are couched as Indonesian or Malaysian culture. In response to these, Mandailing intellectuals and activists are seeking to revitalize their endangered cultural heritage and contribute to endangered human diversity.
Some of the very qualities that were suppressed, sacrificed, ignored or forgotten during the age of nationalism and Islamization, will contribute to the survival and success of the Mandailings in the age of globalization. Ties between Malaysian and Indonesian Mandailings broken by colonialism, nationalism and regionalism is being mended.
The urgent issues in Mandailing are environmental, in particular, illegal logging, forest burning and water management. The struggle for identity is critical to the struggle for regional and local autonomy since identity implies political representation and economic entitlements, which are key to self-determination. Mandailing ethnic identity is seen as a core element in the development of the personality, intimately linked with the perception of self, socialization, language learning, indigenized Islam, economic well-being and regional autonomy.
In order for indigenous peoples to recover control over their own habitats, traditional governance has to be integrated with existing political structures. Mandailings can be empowered through a process of recovering their tradition of consultative governance, and learning to engage with the newly constituted pemda (district authority) in promoting participatory planning and decision-making. Ultimately, the strengthening of the Mandailing people as a stakeholder in national and regional development will allow them to better realize their options in the face of globalization.
[1] The author is the project leader of The Toyota Foundation research grant on Mandailing migration, cultural heritage and governance since 1998. The author was awarded the Asian Public Intellectual (API) Fellowship by The Nippon Foundation in 2001. The author would like to thank his wife, Khoo Salma Nasution, for editing the original paper at short notice, with whose advice and assistance, this article have been made possible.
[2] Unless otherwise stated, this part is based on the indispensable work of Zainuddin Lubis, Na Mora Na Toras: Pemimpin Tradisional Mandailing, Universitas Sumatera Utara, 1987, as well as Lance Castles‘s ‘Statelessness and Stateforming Tendencies Among The Batak Before Colonial Rule‘ in Anthony Reid and Lance Castles (eds.), Pre-Colonial State Systems in Southeast Asia, The Malay Peninsula, Sumatra, Bali-Lombok, South Celebes, MBRAS, Kuala Lumpur, 1975.
[3] A federation of a few banjar, pagaran and lumban make up a huta (fortification or settlement) or banua (country).
[4] One of the most vivid account of this migration is found Pande Maradjar, ‘Perpindahan Orang Mandailing‘ in the magazine Mandailing, No 11, Tahoen ke 2, Chamis 29 Maart 1923, pp. 2–3. Account of Mandailing migration is also found in Tarikh Raja Asal dan Keluarganya and Riwayat Hidup Tuan Abu Bakar. The Tarikh was written by Raja Haji Muhammad Ya‘qub bin Raja Bilah, a penghulu of the tin-rin Blanja district in Kinta, in 1934. The Riwayat was written by Abu Bakar anak Raja Pinayungan Lubis circa 1930s. See also Donald Tugby, Cultural Change and Identity: Mandailing Immigrants in West Malaysia, University of Queensland Press, 1997.
[5] Tuanku Tambusai or Tambuse was made a ‘Pahlawan Nasional‘ (National Hero) by the Indonesian government in 1993. (Pahlawan Nasional Tuanku Tambusai (Hamonangan Harahap/Muhammad Salleh) Sejarah Ringkas Kehidupan dan Perjuangannya, Tim Pengumpulan, Penyusunan dan Penulisan Sejarah Perjuangan Tuanku Tambusai di Propinsi Sumatera Utara, Medan, 1996).
[6] Patuan Naga, the raja panusunan of Panyabungan in Mandailing Godang (Lower/Greater Mandailing), rallied both Mandailing Godang and Mandailing Julu (Upper/Lesser Mandailing), ‘new Muslims, old Muslims, pagans and Lubus‘ (an indigenous people/rakyat terasing in Mandailing) against the Padris, but even this tour de force did not succeed in holding back the Padris (Castles 1975:71).
[7] Raja Gadombang, the raja of Huta Godang invited Dutch intervention into Mandailing in 1832 to push back the Padris. He became the son-in-law of Tuanku Rao, but later broke with his father-in-law and became the chief confederate of the Dutch in their pincer movement through Mandailing against the Padris (See Dja Endar Moeda, op. cit p. 66 and Lance Castle 1975:71).
[8] Dja Endar Moeda, however, put the date of the spread of Islam in Mandailing as late as 1859. Dja Endar Moeda, 70.
[9] For a critical discussion favoring the Madinan school over the other madhhabs within the Sunni school of thought, see Syakh Abdalqadir al-Murabit, Root Islamic Education, Madinah Press, 1993 (second edition). The first edition was published in 1982. On the Madinan amal, see Yasin Dutton, The Origins of Islamic Law, The Qur‘an, the Muwata and Madinan Amal, especially the chapter on ‘The ‘Amal of the People of Madina‘ (pp. 32–41), Curzon, Surrey, 1999.
[10] Pai Kolang is the term used to refer to Mandailing migration to peninsula (West Malaysia today), see Mangaradja Onggang Parlindungan, Ponggkinangolngolan Sinambela gelar Tuanku Rao, Terror Agama Islam Mazhab Hambali di Tanah Batak, 1816–1833, Tandjung Pengharapan, Jakarta, 1964. Pp. 369.
[11] H. Muhammad Said, Soetan Koemala Boelan (Flora), Raja, pemimpin rakyat, Penentang kezaliman Belanda masa 1912-1932, UI-Press, undated.
[12] Soetan Koemala Bulan was born in 1888, and is the son of Patuan Dolok. His mother was Siti Aminah, who in turn was the daughter of Patuan Naga, the same raja panusunan of Panyabungan, who rallied the Mandailings against the Padris.
[13] The penghulu or ‘village-headman‘ was the lowest level office and the only position perpetuated by the British from the pre-colonial system of government. The penghulu was responsible for a ‘mukim‘ (parish), traditionally the area served by a single mosque but now a division of local government consisting of a chief village or township, and a number of subsidiary villages or hamlets. The crucial innovation was that the Britishappointed penghulu was no longer answerable to traditional Malay authority but to a British district officer (Sadka 1968:113, 286).
[14] Originally Arabic Qariah (parish) introduced by Tuanku Rao.
[15] Raffles‘ statement was reflected upon by an indigenous Angkolan amateur historian, Mangaradja Onggang Parlindungan (1964:628).
[16] Anthropologists have by far ignored their subjects historicity. ‘The use of ‘Batak‘ as a common label for these groups as well as Karo and Dairi has had a chequered career. Linguists and ethnologists have always found the term necessary because of the strong common elements in all these societies. At some periods, however, those who were converted to Islam, especially Mandailings, have sought to repudiate any association with the non- Muslim Tobas by rejecting the Batak label altogether. This tendency has been strongest among Mandailing migrants to the East Coast of Sumatra and Peninsular Malaysia‘. ‘These groups‘ refer to Toba, Angkola, Mandailing and Simalungun (Bruner 1972:221).
[17] The affair was documented in a work aptly entitled Asal-Oesoelnja Bangsa Mandailing, with a subtitle, Berhoeboeng dengan perkara tanah Wakaf bangsa Mandailing, di Soengei Mati-Medan, published in 1926 as a celebration of the Mandailing‘s victory over the Batak. Mangaradja Ihoetan, who compiled the book, emphasized three times in his preface that the purpose of the Sungai Mati case was to remind future generations, especially those outside the homeland, not to give up or sell out their identity.
[18] For an account of the ‘kebangkitan nasional di Mandailing‘, see Jenderal A.H. Nasution‘s autobiographical Memenuhi Panggilan Tugas.
[19] This definition of Malay was enshrined in the Federal Constitution upon independence.
[20] The oral history session was held jointly by IMAN and the National Archives on May 13, 2000, in Kuala Lumpur. The author in a phone conversation with the editor had advised against its publication for obvious reasons. In the Malaysian edition the name of the second author of the original Indonesian version was edited out.
[21] The book is based on Orientasi Nilai-Nilai Budaya Batak, Suatu Pendekatan Terhadap Perilaku Batak Toba dan Angkola Mandailing by Basyral Hamidy Harahap & Hotman M. Siahaan, first published by Sanggar Willem Iskander, Jakarta, 1987.
__________
Abdur-Razzaq Lubis, is a sixth generation ‘Malaysian Mandailing‘, whose forebears migrated to the peninsula in the aftermath of the Padri War (1816-37). Lubis as he is known to friends, is an independent scholar.
He is the co-author of Raja Bilah, the Mandailings in Perak, 1875-1911 (MBRAS, 2003) resulting from a research project funded by the Toyota Foundation, and co-author of Kinta Valley: Pioneering Malaysia‘ Modern Development (Perak Academy, 2005). As an environmentalist and activist, he has written several works including Water Watch: A Community Action Guide (APPEN, 1998) and Jerat Utang IMF? Sebuah Pelajaran Berharga Bagi Para Pemimpin Bangsa - Khususnya Indonesia.
In 2001, he was awarded the Nippon Foundation‘s Asian Public Intellectual (API) Fellowship to carry out field work in Indonesia on the Politics of Indentity Construction: The Case of the Mandailing People. Abdur-Razzaq Lubis is the author of the website www.mandailing.org and author of The A-Z of the Malaysian Environment at www.surforever.com / sam/a2z/ a2z.html.
He is the Malaysian Representative of Mandailing All Clans Assembly (HIKMA) and Sumatra Heritage Trust (BWS).
Source: jai.or.id