Surviving Legend, Surviving ‘Unity in Diversity’: a Reading of Ken Arok and Ken Dedes Narratives1 Novita Dewi (National University of Singapore) Abstrak Tulisan ini mengkaji interpretasi-interpretasi ulang atas cerita Ken Arok dan Ken Dedes dalam drama yang ditulis oleh Muhammad Yamin, Ken Arok dan Ken Dedes (1928) dan Pramoedya Ananta Toer novel Arok Dedes (1999). Kedua teks ditafsirkan dengan berlatarbelakang masalah-masalah di Indonesia saat ini, yaitu pelestarian ideologi nasional yang dirumuskan berdasarkan prinsip bhinneka tunggal ika. Pembahasan berkisar seputar alasan-alasan reproduksi narasi tersebut untuk melihat apakah beragam representasi yang terkandung di dalamnya merefleksikan ketegangan dalam sejarah, masyarakat, dan politik Indonesia. Yamin menjadikan kebudayaan Jawa sebagai dasar dari karyanya, sedangkan Pramoedya menggunakan bahan yang sama dengan beberapa pemikiran baru. Sementara fokus drama Yamin adalah pada kesatuan nasional, Arok Dedes karya Pramoedya menekankan pada sikap kritisnya terhadap kondisi politik. Dalam hal ini jelaslah, wacana seringkali mengabaikan kenyataan bahwa ide-ide lokal dibentuk sebagai tanggapan terhadap berbagai bentuk otoritas. Myths, legends, hikayat, babad2 and vari- and socio-political messages were woven into ous other types of folk stories from the ancient these court texts at the time of production. As kingdoms have become familiar backdrops in such, these texts can be treated as referential literary works and stage performances through- and meaningful through the specific cultural, out Indonesian archipelago. Moral, cultural religious and political environments that pro- duced them. 3 Given that these folk stories travel 1 This article is a revised version of the paper pre- sented in the panel on: ‘Unity in Diversity in Folk- lore’ at the 3rd International Symposium of the Jour- tween two controversial heroes, Hang Tuah (embodi- nal ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA: ‘Rebuilding Indo- ment of loyalty to authority) and Hang Jebat (symbol nesia, a Nation of “Unity in Diversity”: Towards a of outlawry). Babad Tanah Jawi was written during Multicultural Society’, Udayana University, Denpasar, the reign of Pakubuwana IV of the Mataram kingdom Bali, 16–19 July 2002. in Central Java introducing the heroes and heroines who figure in the penetration of Islam into Java upon 2 Used indiscriminately hikayat and babad are often the decline of the Hindu-Javanese Majapahit king- associated with the literary classics from, respectively, dom. the Malay and Javanese kingdoms. The Malay Hikayat 3 Hang Tuah for example tells of the friendship be- The historian Oliver Wolters opines that court texts ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA 72, 2003 131 through times and continue to engage Indone- fold a picture of the socio-political structure in sian audiences, it is interesting to see the con- the past which, to say the least, speaks of unity. tinuity and change in the ways in which they Thus some awareness of the past may help have been coopted in modern reworking of the understanding the present-day condition. texts. This paper is to discuss the repeated in- The old Javanese chronicle Pararaton from terpretations of the story of Ken Arok and Ken which the account of Ken Arok and Ken Dedes Dedes, two historical figures from the 13th cen- is cited narrates the genealogy of the Singasari tury East Java kingdom of Singasari. The texts rulers and that of the subsequent Majapahit chosen for discussion are a play by Muhammad kingdom. To retell the story in brief, Ken Arok, Yamin, Ken Arok dan Ken Dedes (1928) and borne out of the union between an ordinary Pramoedya Ananta Toer’s novel Arok Dedes woman and god Brahma, was destined to be- (1999). The discussion revolves around the come a king. He began his career as an outlaw reasons behind the reproduction of the narra- and later managed to work at the service of tive to see if the diversified representations here Tunggul Ametung, the atrocious local gover- invariably reflective of particular tensions in nor of Tumapel. Ken Arok’s lust to Ken Dedes, Indonesian history, society and politics. One the governor’s wife, and his unchecked politi- of the current concerns in Indonesia is the pres- cal ambition compelled him to kill Tunggul ervation of the national ideology, i.e. Unity in Ametung and marry his widow. Having de- Diversity, now that the country is under a threat feated the neighbouring Kediri kingdom, this of disintegration. new ruler of Tumapel united the two sover- At this point one may ask why legends or eignties and made himself a king of Singasari folklores? What are the values of dwelling on with the approval of the Shivaite and Buddhist things of the past whilst coming to grips with priests alike. Under the order of his step-son contemporary issues? Under the rubric of Anusapati, the King was murdered at the point postcolonial project Lo and Gilbert for instance of the same kris by which he killed Tunggul recommend that indigenous knowledge the Ametung. The next chapter of the Pararaton likes of myths and legends be recuperated and tells the tale of victory and vengeance involv- examined as their complexity and contradictory ing the descendants of Tunggul Ametung and relations with the authorised social discourse Ken Arok, hence the curse of the kris getting help dismantle the propagation of the colonial its due. power (Lo and H. Gilbert nd:7). Similarly, an- Myth and history are intertwined in the choring her argument on Malinowski’s idea of Pararaton. This oscillation between the his- myths, Errington suggests that a text be seen torical and mythological aspects of the narra- from its source, meaning and function within a tive has been the site of contestation among particular time and social context (Errington historians focusing as it does on the signifi- 1979:26–42). For the same reason examining the cance of the text.4 This paper however neither legend of Ken Arok and Ken Dedes may un- 4 C. C. Berg, for example, has little trust in babad, in the early Southeast Asian are produced at times of hikayat and other ‘priestly cultivation’ to be used in turbulence or disorder; and that the appearance of studying the past. Meanwhile, challenging Berg’s view, such texts should thus be understood as a teaching the ancient historian and philologist J. P. Zoetmulder manual for the later generation. See his History, Cul- is of the opinion that returning to the very source is ture and Region in Southeast Asian Perspectives the first approach to take in studying the past vis-à- (ISEAS 1982). vis solely observing the cultural pattern of the society 132 ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA 72, 2003 aims nor intends to resolve the conundrum but 1959; 1967). His first published poem ‘Tanah to argue that such a text—in this case the story Air’ (1922) has made him the pioneer of Indo- of Ken Arok and Ken Dedes—can be regarded nesian modern poetry although the motherland as palimpsests of Indonesian society which in question is his homeland of Sumatra. Indo- have continued to give shape and colour to nesia is the subject of his second collection of the country’s cultural and political life to date. poems Tumpah Darahku, of which the publi- In fact, the writers under discussion have their cation date is historical, 28 October 1928 when own perceptions about this particular histori- the Second Youth Congress was held. Added cal juncture and treat it accordingly in their re- to his poetry book, his play Ken Arok dan Ken spective writing. Dedes was performed for the cultural night in Do the two writers in question have corre- the eve of the congress. This was indeed a sponding concerns of preserving the national- political move significant to him later. ist goals when they reframe the legend? There Here, Yamin’s political involvement in the is no doubt that both Pramoedya and Yamin making of the nation is something to gloss are fascinated with the idea of the nation and over. This Minangkabau scholar, according to its history as reflected in their works. Both share one critic, can be seen as ‘a government writer, common characteristics, namely their national- with a similar role to the court writers of past ist sentiment, but as the following discussion kingdom’ (Noer 1979:249–262) . This might be will show they are distinct from one another. an exaggeration of this critic, but it is hard to The discussion examines both writers in turn deny that Yamin sometimes appeared incon- by pointing out each writer’s perspective of sistence in his political stand as to please the historical past which helps shape the moulds ruling regime. (He was sometimes called of their works. It is interesting to point out that Sukarno’s ‘myth-maker’).5 While both views both writers are attracted, in different ways, to need to be further substantiated, what is more rework the narrative of Ken Arok and Ken important to resolve in this present discussion Dedes to convey their individual messages. is Yamin’s role as a producer of the text and the circumstances available for him at that time to Yamin: modern ‘court poet’? assume such a role. Muhammad Yamin’s literary achievement is Time will be spent to look at the Indone- inextricably linked with his political career. For sian political situation in the 1920s which was one thing his role in the advancement of Indo- conducive to the growth of nationalist leaders nesian literature is important to notice (Teeuw’s like Muhammad Yamin. There was a concern among the Dutch educated young people throughout the archipelago to create a national in question as endorsed by the other historian. Zoetmulder suggests that Indonesian historiography culture in addition to their chief agenda, i.e. concerns with the inextricably linked issues of culture establishing a political pressure group.