Defending the Sultan's Land

Defending the Sultan’s Land: Yogyakarta, Control over Land and Aristocratic Power in Post-Autocratic Indonesia Bayu Dardias Kurniadi September 2019 A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of The Australian National University © Copyright by Bayu Dardias Kurniadi 2019 All Rights Reserved 1 Original work I declare that this thesis is the result of my own individual work and research and has not previously been submitted for a degree at any tertiary education. Canberra, 5 September 2019 Bayu Dardias Kurniadi iii Abstract The thesis investigates the political economy of the revival of aristocratic politics in post- authoritarian Indonesia. It attempts to explore why some aristocrats have staged successful political comebacks in post-Suharto politics, while others have failed to do so. Using the case of the Yogyakarta Sultanate as my main case study, I argue that those aristocrats who have been the most successful in post-Suharto politics are those who – over time – have developed and maintained their capacity to control land as an essential power resource. This thesis uses the theoretical framework of land access. According to this framework, control over land is determined not only by legal ownership but can also be established through a web of informal power relations. By opening access to land, it can be used as a resource of power accumulation, just as would be the case if its status was legal property. Subsequently, access can be transformed into legal property, codifying the official control over the power resource of land. Applied to the case of the Yogyakarta Sultanate, this thesis shows how the royal houses’ initial land property rights were first downgraded to land access after 1945; how the sultan defended this access amidst rapid political and social change until the 2010s; and how he ultimately succeeded in re-establishing property rights over land in 2012. During the colonial period, the Yogyakarta Sultanate gained land control (in the form of property rights) from the Dutch as a result of the system of indirect rule. Tolerated by the Dutch, the Sultanate used land as the basis of its political economy through a land lease and apanage system. The sultan gave usage rights to his aristocrats in return for loyalty and military assistance. The peasants worked on the land in a crop sharing system under intermediaries. The socio-political upheaval of the 1940s and 1950s threatened the Sultanate’s land control, as its land property rights were gradually undermined by the Japanese occupation, the revolution and the establishment of democracy. The sultan, however, succeeded in defending land access through a series of political manoeuvres. These manoeuvres also helped him to circumvent the restrictions on aristocratic land ownership imposed by the Basic Agrarian Law of 1960. Even as the New Order regime pressured him to implement the Law in Yogyakarta in 1984, he found loopholes to prevent its full execution. Thus, when Suharto fell in 1998, the Sultanate had a sound power base built on land and the clients that depended on its usage. From this power base, Sultan Hamengku Buwono X launched a campaign for the full restoration of aristocratic powers. Supported by his loyalists living on and benefitting from traditional land, he succeeded spectacularly: he first regained the position of governor that the Sultanate had lost after Hamengku Buwono IX’s death in 1988; then managed to get approval for the permanent entrenchment of the sultan’s family in that position; and finally was able to restore the Sultanate’s land property rights. Subsequently, he used his governorship to identify, register and certify this land. After having analysed the Yogyakarta Sultanate in detail, the thesis tests whether the findings derived from this case hold in other areas. It finds that the level of land control also determined the outcome of aristocratic revival campaigns in Ubud, Ternate, Gowa and Palembang. In the first two cases, the aristocracies defended some forms of land control after 1960, allowing them to emerge as moderately powerful actors in the post-Suharto era. The latter two, by contrast, failed to have an impact as the Sultanate’s land bases had been destroyed either during the colonial period or through land reform. Hence, the thesis highlights the central role of land as a political resource available (or unavailable) to aristocracies after 1998. This perspective, in turn, adds a significant nuance to the literature on aristocratic politics that has often been dominated by anthropological studies in the mystical, religious or otherwise spiritual control of royals over their former subjects. iv Acknowledgement A thesis is not only an academic journey but also an adventure of a lifetime. Praise be to God for always showing me the way to completing these journeys and adventures. Over the years, many people have contributed to the completion of this thesis. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my chair and supervisor Assoc. Prof. Marcus Mietzner, whose guidance and knowledge helped me immensely during my candidacy. His prompt responses to my inquiries – ranging from administrative to academic needs – have forced me to continuously pay attention to my thesis. Secondly, I also would like to thank my panel members, Prof. Edward Aspinall and Prof. Robert Cribb. Their inputs were very valuable, and I am thankful to have been supervised by them. I also thank Greg Fealy and Sally White for their support and many insightful conversations. Above all, my biggest gratitude goes to my family: Erlin Erlina, Jilan Nirmada Rencang Kencana and Rezalinajwa Dara Bening. I have always been amazed how my wife managed the family whilst both of us were writing our thesis at the ANU. I am also very indebted to my son and daughter for their minimal complaints in passing through the ‘thesis years.’ Further, my appreciation goes to other family members who contributed a lot to this thesis: Basar Sumarna, Oom Haromi, Rully Saepul, Aan Rizaldi Kurniawan and Taufan Pamungkas Kurnianto. While at the ANU, my colleagues have become true friends – they were always open to stimulating discussions. They include Colum Graham, Ahmad Muhajir, Burhanuddin Muhtadi, Haula Noor, Danang Widoyoko, Usman Hamid, Tom Power, Liam Gammon, Chit Win and Samsul Rijal. I also thank the Indonesian community in Canberra, including the families of Katiman, Riza Nurdin, Nunung, Irsyad Zamzani, Najib Kailani, Falikul Ishah, Reno and Imam. In Indonesia, many academic colleagues assisted me across different cities. In Yogyakarta, I thank my colleagues at the Department of Politics and Government, Universitas Gadjah Mada, including Amalinda Savirani, Cornelis Lay, Ari Dwipayana, Purwo Santoso, Sigit Pamungkas, Nanang Kurniawan, Wawan Mas’udi, Pratikno, Haryanto, Abdul Gaffar, Mada Sukmajati, Ratnawati, Nur Rohmah and Arga Pribadi Imawan. In Bali, I am thankful to the family of Ari Dwipayana who provided me with access and experience to life in a Balinese Puri. I also thank Subhan Tomaito (Ternate) and Gasali Rahmawan (Gowa). Last but not least, I would like to express my gratitude to my mother (Sutimah) and my father (Sudaryono) who both passed away while I was working on this thesis. By completing this thesis, their last wish has come true. v Table of Contents Original work ........................................................................................................................... iii Abstract .................................................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgement ..................................................................................................................... v Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................... vi List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ ix List of Maps ............................................................................................................................. xi List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... xi List of Charts ............................................................................................................................ xi List of Pictures ......................................................................................................................... xi Note on the Spelling ................................................................................................................ xii Note on the Currency .............................................................................................................. xii Abbreviations and Acronyms ................................................................................................. xiii 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Research Questions and Focus of the Study ..................................................................... 5 1.3 Argument ................................................................................................................... 13 1.4 Theoretical Framework: Property

Load more