The writer is grateful to Professor J.J. Fox (Department of Anthropology, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University), Dr H. Dick (Department of Business Development and Corporate History, Melbourne University), Dr Ward Keeler (Department of Anthropology, University of Texas), Dr W.H. Frederick (Department of History, Ohio University), Professor Cheah Boon Kheng (formerly in the School of Humanities, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia) and an anonymous reviewer for the Journal of Southeast Asian Studies for their generous comments on earlier drafts of this paper. Responsibility for the views expressed in this paper, however, remains with the writer.

¹ A number of episodes are listed in Waal, E. De, Onze Indische Financien, vol. 1 (‘s Gravenhage: M. Nijhoff, 1876), pp. 211Google Scholar–40. Some of the incidents that occurred between 1830 and 1850 are narrated in a colonial report; see Kartodirdjo, Sartono, ed., Ikhtisar Keadaan Politik Hindia-Belanda Tahun 1839–1848 (Jakarta: Arsip Nasional, 1973), pp. 3–6,Google Scholar 10–15, 22, 37–38. For detailed discussions of various incidents, see Niel, R. van, “The Introduction of Government Sugar Cultivation in Pasuruan, Java, 1830”, Journal of Oriental Studies 7, 2 (1969): 261–76;Google ScholarElson, R.E., Javanese Peasants and the Colonial Sugar Industry (Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1984), pp. 54–58;Google ScholarKnight, R.G., “The Indigo Industry and the Organization of Agricultural Production in Pekalongan Residency, North Java, 1800–1850”, paper presented at the Fourth National Conference of Asian Studies Association of Australia, Monash University, May 1982Google Scholar and M.R. Fernando, “Peasants and Plantation Industry” (Ph.D. thesis, Monash University, 1982),Google Scholar pp. 118–19.

² The best recent accounts of these protests is Kartodirdjo, Sartono, Protest Movements in Rural Java: a Study of Agrarian Unrest in the Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries (Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1973), pp. 64–105Google Scholar and Kartodirdjo, Sartono, “Agrarian radicalism in Java: Its Setting and Development”, in Culture and Politics in Indonesia, ed. Holt, C. (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1972), pp. 71–125.Google Scholar

³ Kartodirdjo, Sartono, The Peasants’ Revolt of Banten in 1888 (‘s Gravenhage: M. Nijhoff, 1966).Google Scholar

⁴ Blumberger, J. Petrus, De Nationalistische Beweging in Nederlandsch-Indie (Haarlem: Tjeenk Willink, 1931), pp. 8–11.Google Scholar

⁵ Shiraishi, Takashi, An Age in Motion. Popular Radicalism in Java, 1912–1926 (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1990), pp. xiiGoogle Scholar–xv and 339–42.

⁶ See, for example, Sartono Kartodirdjo, Protest Movements in Rural Java, p. 2.

⁷ Steinberg, D.J. et al. , eds., In Search of Southeast Asia (New York: Praeger, 1971), p. 239.Google Scholar

⁸ Benda, Harry, “Peasant Movements in Colonial Southeast Asia”, in Continuity and Change in Southeast Asia. Collected Journal Articles of Harry J. Benda, ed. Suddard, A. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972), pp. 221, 224.Google Scholar

⁹ These problems bedevil Sartono Kartodirdjo's writings, particularly his Protest Movements in Rural Java, as has been noted by various critics; see, for example, Journal of Asian Studies 34, 2 (1975): 566–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Modern Asian Studies 9, 4 (1975): 571–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰ Recent writings on colonialism advocate a mode of explanation that involves the colonial state and its subjects within the same analytical field. See, for example, Cooper, F. and Staler, A.L., eds., Tensions of Empire (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997), pp. 1–56.Google Scholar

¹¹ For an interpretation of a riot in East Java along these lines, see Fernando, M.R., “The Trumpet Shall Sound for Rich Peasants: Kasan Mukmin's Uprising in Gedangan, East Java, 1904”, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 26, 2 (1995): 242–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹² 12Telegram 149, Resident of Kediri to Governor-General, 29 Jan. 1907, Archives of the Ministry of Colonies (hereafter AMK), Mail Rapport (hereafter MR) 1907 no. 177, Verbaal (hereafter V) 27 Feb. 1908 no. 44, The General State Archives, the Hague (hereafter ARA). The basic unit of local administration was the residency headed by a resident. A residency was subdivided into afdeelings (comparable to present day kabupaten) and districts headed by indigenous officials, bupati and wedana respectively. This hierarchy of indigenous officials was on a par with the European side of the administration headed by assistant residents and controleurs at the levels of afdeelings and districts.

¹³ Telegram 238, Resident of Kediri to Governor-General, 29 Jan. 1907, MR 1907 no. 177.

¹⁴ Telegram 5, Resident of Kediri to Governor-General, 29 Jan. 1907, MR 1907 no. 177.

¹⁵ Telegram 162, Resident of Kediri to Governor-General, 29 Jan. 1907, MR 1907 no. 177.

¹⁶ Telegram 9, Resident of Kediri to Governor-General, 30 Jan. 1907, MR 1907 no. 177.

¹⁷ Bataviaasch Nieuwsblad, 29 Jan. 1907, “Weer een Opstootje”.

¹⁸ Bataviaasch Nieuwsblad, 30 Jan. 1907, “Het Opstootje bij Baron”; Bataviaasch Nieuwsblad, 31 Jan. 1907, “Het Opstootje bij Baron”; Bataviaasch Nieuwsblad, 1 Feb. 1907, “Het Opstootje bij Baron”; Bataviaasch Nieuwsblad, 2 Feb. 1907, “Het Opstootje bij Baron”; De Locomotief, 29 Jan. 1907, “Opstand te Baron bij Kertosono”.

¹⁹ See M.R. Fernando, “The Trumpet Shall Sound for Rich Peasants”.

²⁰ Guha, Ranajit, “The Prose of Counter-Insurgency”, in idem, ed., Subaltern Studies, vol. 2 (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1983), pp. 1–40.Google Scholar While agreeing with Guha that it is necessary to be aware of this aspect of colonial and nationalist discourses on peasant insurgency, I consider it unnecessary to launch a metaphysical examination of the discourse of every uprising.

²¹ Koloniaal Verslag (hereafter KV) 1907, p. 7.

²² Sartono Kartodirdjo, Protest Movements in Rural Java, pp. 93–97.

²³ Sartono refers to only one item, the “report of the Dermadjaja case in mailrapport No. 387/1907” (see Protest Movements in Rural Java, p. 93). This is an erroneous reference to “Rapport over het op den 29^den Januari 1907 plaats gehad hebbende opstootje in het gehucht Bendoengan, dessa Barong, district Waroedjadjeng afdeeling Berbek Residentie Kediri”, MR 1907 no. 381, V 27 Feb. 1908 no. 44.

²⁴ This is evident from another notorious incident — the Bratodiningrat affair — involving a supra-village native official and the head of local government of Madiun Residency; Onghokham, , “The Inscrutable and the Paranoid: An Investigation into the Sources of the Brotodiningrat Affair”, in Southeast Asian Transitions, ed. McVey, R.T. (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1978), pp. 112–57.Google Scholar

²⁵ The central government decided to appoint the controleur, Johan, to conduct the inquiry under Henny's supervision after considering early reports on the affair. See Director of Justice to Governor-General, 27 Jul. 1907 and besluit [decision] of 24 Aug. 1907 no. 2, MR 1907 no. 1178, V 27 Feb. 1908 no. 44. Johan's lengthy report, entitled “Verslag omtrent de op 29 Januari 1907 in het gehucht Bendoengan der dessa Barong, afdeeling Berbek, residentie Kediri, plaats gehad hebbende ongeregelheden”, its critique by O.E.N. Hermens (Resident of Kediri) in a letter dated 28 Dec. 1908 and Henny's reply to it entitled “Memorie van verdediging den Resident van Kediri aangeboden” (3 Dec. 1908) together with ancillary documents, are enclosed in AMK, MR 1910 no. 717, V 10 Sep. 1910 no. 69.

²⁶ The following account is based on information from “Rapport over het op den 29^den Januari 1907 plaats gehad hebbende opstootje in het gehucht Bendoengan, dessa Barong, district Waroedjajeng, afdeeling Berbek residentie Kediri”, MR 1907 no. 381, V 27 Feb. 1908 no. 44 and “Verslag omtrent de op 29 Januari 1907 in het gehucht Bendoengan der dessa Barong, afdeeling Berbek, residentie Kediri, plaats gehad hebbende ongeregelheden”, MR 1910 no. 717, AMK V 10 Sep. 1910 no. 69.

²⁷ Assistant Resident of Nganjuk [Berbek] (C. C. M. Henny) to Resident of Kediri (E. Constant), 5 Mar. 1907, La. A.A. zeer vertrouwelijk, MR 1907 no. 1178, AMK, V 27 Feb. 1908 no. 44.

²⁸ Henny obtained information about secret Islamic brotherhoods (tarekat) in Jedda from an informant at the consulate, hardly an authoritative source. It is no wonder that Henny's views about curbing the activities of pilgrims from Indonesia in Jedda found little support from Snouck Hurgronje, Adviser on Native affairs, who criticized Henny's persistence in taking stands on Islamic affairs without sound knowledge to back him up. See Gobee, E. and Adriaanse, C., eds., Ambtelijke Adviezen van C. Snouck Hurgronje, vol. 2 (‘s Gravenhage: M. Nijhoff, 1959), pp. 1395–99, 1474–94.Google Scholar

²⁹ This account of Henny's views is based on a lengthy statement he prepared partly to defend his actions and partly to criticize his superiors who did not share his views on the wider implications of Dermojoyo's disturbance; “Memorie van verdediging den Resident van Kediri aangeboden”, 3 Dec. 1908, MR 1910 no. 717.

³⁰ This matter is dealt with in Henny's to Resident of Kediri, 5 Mar. 1907, and other relevant documents deposited in V 27 Feb. 1908 no. 44.

³¹ “Rapport over het op 29^den Januari 1907 plaats gehad hebbende opstootje in het gehucht Bendoengan, dessa Barong, district Waroedjadjeng afdeeling Berbek residentie Kediri”.

³² Adviser on Native Affairs (G.A.J. Hazeu) to Governor-General, 11 Oct. 1909, 117, geheim, MR 1910 no. 717.

³³ Hermens’ interpretation is given in two anonymous newspaper articles entitled “De onlusten te Barong”, in De Locomotief on 4 Feb. 1907, and “De aanleiding tot het verzet bij Barong”, De Locomotief, 5 Feb. 1907. Hermens admitted to having written these articles when Henny characteristically accused of his complicity with native officials in a reactionary plot. Hermens said that he wrote the articles in question on the basis of information gathered by several native officials in Blitar Regency where he was the Assistant Resident at the time of the affair. Resident of Kediri to the Director of Interior Administration, 28 Dec. 1908, MR 1910 no. 717.

³⁴ Anon., “De opstand te Baron”, De Locomotief, 30 Jan. 1907.

³⁵ This account of Dermojoyo's early years is, unless otherwise stated, based on information from “Verslag omtrent de op 29 Januari 1907 in het gehucht Bendoengan der dessa Barong”.

³⁶ Presumably following Henny's lead, Johan claimed that Talban had an impressive array of mentors including Haji Sanep, Haji Dulkamit, Kyai Bardagi, Kyai Dulwahab and Haji Sajang, before coming under the influence of Haji Mohamad Omar, a leading local religious teacher. Thereafter, he said, Talban went to study with Raden Bagus Suradi, who was closely associated with the house of Sunan Kalijaga.

³⁷ The best account of the pesantren of Tegalsari and Kasan Besari is Fokkens, F., “De priesterschool te Tegalsari”, Tijdschrift voor Indische Taal-, Land en Volkenkunde 24 (1877): 318–36.Google Scholar See also Guillot, Claude, “Le role historique des perdikan ou ‘villages francs’: le cas de Tegalsari”, Archipel 30 (1985): 137–62. Talban's meeting with Kasan Besari and his subsequent studies with him are said to have occurred under supernatural circumstances.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁸ Hazeu to Governor-General, 11 Oct. 1909 no. 117, geheim.

³⁹ Steenbrink, Karel A., De Islam bekeken door koloniale Nederlanders (Utrecht-Leiden: Interuniversitair Instituut voor Missiologie en Oecumenica, 1991), p. 87.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ For a detailed and reliable account of pesantren education in the late nineteenth century, see Hurgronje, C. Snouck, Verspreide Geschriften, vol. 4, Geschriften betreffende den Islam in Nederlandsch-Indie (Bonn & Leipzig: Kurt Schroeder, 1924), pp. 155–205.Google Scholar See also Kumar, A.L., The Diary of a Javanese Muslim. Religion, Politics and the Pesantren 1883–1886 (Canberra: Faculty of Asian Studies, The Australian National University, 1985).Google Scholar

⁴¹ Benda, Harry, The Crescent and the Rising Sun (The Hague and Bandung: W. van Verhoeve, 1958), pp. 16–18;Google ScholarGeertz, C., “The Javanese Kijai: The Changing Role of a Cultural Broker”, Comparative Studies in Society and History 2 (1959–1960): 231–34.Google Scholar

⁴² Kussendrager, R.J.L., Natuur- en Aardrijkskundige Beschrijving van net Eiland Java (Groningen: J. Oomkens, 1841), p. 262;Google ScholarRicklefs, M.C., War, Culture and Economy in Java, 1677–1726 (Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1993),Google Scholarpassim; and Carey, P.B.R., “Pangeran Dipanagara and the Making of the Java War” (Ph.D. diss., Oxford University, 1975), passim.Google Scholar

⁴³ Koentjaraningrat, Javanese Culture (Singapore: Oxford, 1985), p. 22.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Ranneft, J.W. Meijer, “Volksverplaatsing op Java”, Tijdschrift voor Binnenlandsche Bestuur 47 (1915): 59–85.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Figures are from Boomgaard, P. and Gooszen, A.J., eds., Changing Economy in Indonesia, vol. 11, Population Trends 1795–1942 (Amsterdam: KIT, 1991),Google ScholarTable 2, and Boomgaard, P. and Zanden, J.L. van, eds., Changing Economy in Indonesia, vol. 10, Food Crops and Arable Lands, Java 1815–1942 (Amsterdam: KIT, 1990),Google Scholar Tables 2B and 3A.1.

⁴⁶ The figures are from the population count for 1905; KV 1907, app. A.

⁴⁷ Onghokham, “The Residency of Madiun: Priayi and Peasant in the Nineteenth Century” (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1975), pp. 214–28.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ KV, 1855, p. 6.

⁴⁹ Onderzoek naar de Mindere Welvaart der Inlandsche Bevolking op Java en Madura, Ekonomie van de Desa [in de] Residentie Kediri, p. 5.

⁵⁰ Gelpke, J.H.F. Sollewijn, Naar Aanleiding van Staatsblad, 1878 No. 110 (Batavia: Landsdrukkerij, 1901), pp. 33–37.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Poensen, C., Brieven over den Islam uit de Binnenlanden van Java (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1886), p. 7.Google Scholar Poensen lived in Kediri area for a long time and was well acquainted with the social and religious practices of local population. For a modern account of the historical development of santri and abangan traditions in this part of Java, see Jay, R.T., Religion and Politics in Rural Modjokuto (New Haven: Yale University, 1963).Google Scholar

⁵² Onderzoek naar de Mindere Welvaart der Inlandsche Bevolking op Java en Madura, Ekonomie van de Desa [in de] Residentie Kediri, p. 5.

⁵³ It is difficult to obtain statistics of santri in Java. One source offers the following statistics relating to the number santri in certain parts of Java in 1870: Semarang 17,877; Surabaya 10,820; Madiun 6,221; and Kediri 6,810; KV 1871, p. 102 and App. A, no. 8, “aantaal santris of leerlingen der priesterschools”.

⁵⁴ KV 1866, p. 9.

⁵⁵ Dermojoyo's links with the bupati of Pasuruan, Probolinggo, Malang, Sidoarjo, Mojokerto and Madura are described in “Verslag omtrent de op 29 Januari 1907 in het gehucht Bendoengan der dessa Barong, afdeeling Berbek, residentie Kediri, plaats gehad hebbende ongeregelheden”. In view of the patchy information, it is difficult to say exactly what was Dermojoyo's relationship with his social superiors among the corps of indigenous supra-village officials (pangreh praja). Johan's remarks give the impression that the bupati concerned sought Dermojoyo's services as a “spiritual advisor and teacher”. Dermojoyo is said to have enjoyed the “friendship” of the bupati of Pasuruan at that time. Commenting on these relations between Dermojoyo and several priyayi, Hazeu says that such links of “friendship” or “brotherhood” were natural, for during the wandering in his youth Dermojoyo became intimate with many people, including priyayi, as a result of his knowledge of primbon or divining manuals. Hazeu to Governor-General, 11 Oct. 1909, no. 117.

⁵⁶ The following account is, unless otherwise stated, based on information from “Rapport over het op den 29^den Januari 1907 plaats gehad hebbende opstootje in het gehucht Bendoengan” and “Verslag omtrent de op 29 Januari 1907 in het gehucht Bendoengan”.

⁵⁷ For a discussion of the matter, see “Historische Nota over de dessabestuur op Java”, KV1877, app. N, pp. 5, 9–10 and Berg, L.W.C. van den, “Het Inlandsche Gemeentewezen op Java en Madura”, Bijdragen tot Taal-, Land en Volkenkunde 52 (1901): 29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar On the way village heads were chosen in Berbek Regency, see Onderzoek naar de Mindere Welvaart der Bevolking op Java en Madura, Ekonomie van de Desa [in de] Residentie Kediri, pp. 110, 112–13 and 115.

⁵⁸ Poensen, C., “Iets over de Javaansche desa”, Mededeelingen van wege het Nederlandsche Zendingsgenootschap (hereafter MNZG) 37 (1893): 232–53.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ The Kujunmanis mill belonged to the firm of Liem Tjie Swie Tjien Tjek Hong Soe while Baron mill belonged to the firm of Hoeij, Liem Tek; Regeringsalmanak voor Nederlandsch-lndie 1907, pt. 1 (Batavia: Landsdrukkerij, 1907), app. EE. In 1907 both enterprises were under the control of Liem Tek Hoeij; “De Opstand te Baron”, De Locomotief, 31 Jan. 1907.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ In the Kediri area, cultivating cane for sale was a popular practice among peasants, particularly peasants with large areas of land. Consequently the growing opposition of sugar mills to buy cane and force peasants to lease land became a major source of conflict. The local peasants resented land leases because they brought less money compared with the sale of cane and other crops. This matter is dealt with in Kolff, G.H. van der, Bevolkingsrietcultuur in Nederlandsch-lndie (Groningen: Thieme, 1925).Google Scholar

⁶¹ “De Opstand te Baron”, De Locomotief, 31 Jan. 1907.

⁶² KV 1901, app. TT and KV 1906, app. NN.

⁶³ This process occurred under new legislation. See Staatsblad 1906, no. 83.

⁶⁴ In the well-known inquiry into the living conditions of the indigenous population — the “Diminishing Welfare” inquiry conducted in early 1900s — specific questions were asked about “rural capitalists” or big landholders who engaged in money-lending and other obnoxious practices that unfavourably affected the rest of rural population. In their answers to those questions, Dutch local officials made harsh remarks about so-called rural capitalists.

⁶⁵ The following account is based on “Rapport over het op den 29^den Januari 1907 plaats gehad hebbende opstootje in het gehucht Bendoengan …”, “Verslag omtrent de op 29 Januari 1907 in het gehucht Bendoengan der dessa Barong …”, and two articles from De Locomotief. “De onlusten te Barong” (4 Feb. 1907) and “De aanleiding tot het verzet bij Barong” (5 Feb. 1907).

⁶⁶ Ronojoyo was a member of Amatraji's family while both Kartono and Kartodikromo were his brothers-in-law. Resident of Kediri to Director of Interior Administration, 28 Oct. 1908.

⁶⁷ Onghokham, , “The Jago in Colonial Java, Ambivalent Champion of the People”, in History and Peasant Consciousness in South East Asia, ed. Turton, A. and Tanabe, Shigeharu, Senri Ethnological Studies, vol. 13 (Osaka: National Museum, 1984), pp. 327–44.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ For a colourful discussion of the subject, see Poensen, C., “Iets over Javaansche dieven”, MNZG 22 (1878): 100–140.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Henny, “Memorie van verdediging den Resident van Kediri aangeboden”.

⁷⁰ Henny persisted in his opinion despite the debacle in Kediri as shown by his long polemical article, “Stille Kracht”, Indische Gids 43, 2 (1921): 808–830, 895–919. For a discussion of another notorious incident showing the paranoia of Dutch local officials, see Onghokham, “The Inscrutable and the Paranoid: An Investigation into the Sources of the Brotodiningrat Affair”.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Korver, A.P.E., Sarekat Islam. Gerakan Ratu Adil (Jakarta: PT Grafitipers, 1985).Google Scholar

⁷² “De aanleiding tot het verzet bij Barong”, De Locomotief, 5 Feb. 1907.

⁷³ For a discussion of the misconception of homogeneity of village communities in Java, see Breman, Jan, “The Village on Java and the Early-Colonial State”, Journal of Peasant Studies 9, 4 (1982): 189–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷⁴ See Hefner, Robert W., “Islamizing Java? Religion and Politics in Rural East Java”, Journal of Asian Studies 46, 3 (1987): 533–54,CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Young, K.R., “Local and national influences in the violence of 1965”, in Cribb, R., ed., The Indonesian Killings 1965–1966 (Victoria: Monash University, Centre of Southeast Asian Studies, 1990), pp. 63–99.Google Scholar