Helius Sjamsuddin
*)This paper was presented in Second International Symposium on Humanities: Linguistics and History, Fakulty of Letters Gadjah Mada University Yogyakarta, 6-7 April 1993.
IN his “The Next Assignment”, a presidential address to the American Historical Association in New York in 1957, William L. Langer proposed that historians should use Freudian psychoanalysis as a tool in understanding individuals in history.[1] Since then there are many books and articles have been published which convey for for and against this kind of “tool” which is called “psychohistory”. The debate is still going on concerning the use and abuse of this type of history. Although I am still sceptical to this mode of history, especially in this particular article, but as an academic exercise it will be worth trying.
Relevant Approach: Psychohistory?
The subject of this study is on Hidayatullah: the Banjarese prince, the Mangkubumi, the Sultan—the last in the Nata line of dynasty. He was one of historical actors whose role and leadership in the Banjarmasin War (1859-1863?) has raised some considerable questions. For some people he was a hero who had fought the Dutch and therefore he was (and is ) suitable to be put in the “pantheon“ of Indonesian national heroes. For some other people, however, he was not regarded as a hero because he had surrendered. Be that as it may, what I am trying to do here is not to judge him in black and white picture as such.
Since Hidayatullah’s trait was mainly characterized by inconsistency which caused him to be considered as a “weak leader”, this study is an attempt do delve the “causes“ or possibly the “underlying causes” of his “wavering“ character. My proposition starts from his bitter childhood-rearing and this painful experience went on until his youth and adulthood when he had to face the uncertainty of his candidature as successor to the Banjarmasin throne. He was raised by his divorced mother while at the same time he was treated unfairly by his own father, step-mother and half-brother.
I should admit that this study is highly hypothetical if not speculative because I rely only on scarce sources, especially on Dutch ones. For psychohistory, it needs more records on Hidayatullah’s childhood and youth which were, unfortunately, unavailable. For this weakest point I am wholly responsible when I come to my own tentative conclusion.
Prelude to Internal Discord
The period of seven years prior to the Banjarmasin war of 1859 were crucial in the internal politics of the Banjarmasin Sultanate, specifically among the members of Nata’s dynasty. The state of affairs was worsened by the fact that the Dutch were also fishing in the trouble waters of Banjarmasin politics.
On March 1852, the crown prince of the Banjarmasin Sultanate, Sultan Muda Abdul Rakhman, died. His sudden death caused great concern, not only among members of the royal family but on the part of the Dutch government as well. The thorniest problem was who should replace him. There were three candidates awaiting the chance, and each had his own supporters: Pangeran Hidayatullah, Pangeran Tamjidillah, and Prabu Anom. In this discussion I will not go further with the third candidate.
Abdul Rakhman had been appointed as crown prince (Sultan Muda) at the time of the coronation of his father, Sultan Adam (1825-1857), in 1825. Since then he had been active in aiding his father in the task of government. The Sultan Muda was eldest son of Sultan Adam and Nyai Ratu Kemala Sari. He had three brothers and three sisters. On the order of his grandfather, Sultan Sulaiman (1801-1825), Abdul Rakhman was married to the daughter of Pangeran Mas’ud, hence the sister of Pangeran Antasari. Sulaiman wanted to reunite his family with the legitimate dynasty which had been pushed aside in order to avoid possible turbulence in the future concerning the succession to the throne. Sulaiman had already given a first example of this by marrying his daughter, Gusti Hadijah, to Pangeran Mas’ud, the son of the exiled Pangeran Amir.
First-cousin or second-cousin marriage was very common among the Banjarese royal families. Abdul Rakhman’s marriage to his cousin (Antasari’s sister) produced a son, Rakhmatillah, who died a few days after his birth, and the baby’s mother (Ratu Abdul Rakhman or Ratu Sultan) died about a year later. For Abdul Rakhman, his marriage with Antasari’s sister was his first one. His second marriage was with Nyai Aminah, a Chinese-Dayak woman with whom he had lived for some time. In 1817, a few months after their official marriage (a very short time after the birth of Rakhmatillah), Nyai Aminah gave birth to a son, Pangeran Tamjidillah. With the death of Ratu Abdul Rakhman, Nyai Aminah became the first wife in rank, and Tamjidillah became the senior son.
Abdul Rakhman also had other wives who are unimportant for our discussion, until he married a lady known as Ratu Siti. As has already been indicated above, Sultan Sulaiman’s plan to bring together descendants from both sides of Banjarmasin dynasty seemed to have fallen to pieces when the baby Rakhmatillah died. Nevertheless, Sultan Sulaiman did not give up his determination to get a successor to the throne whose father and mother were both from royal blood. His second son, Pangeran Mangkubumi Nata, had a daughter, Ratu Siti. She was his favorite granddaughter, and when she reached a marriage age, Sulaiman again ordered his grandson Abdul Rakhman to marry Ratu Siti. The eldest son who would be born from this marriage would be the successor to the throne.
For his part, Mangkubumi Nata initially was sceptical about the prospect that his would-be-grandson would be appointed as successor to the throne. His scepticism was based on historical precedents for usurpation even though according to the adat or old tradition, the eldest son from royal parents should be automatically appointed as successor to the throne. Therefore the Mangkubumi refused permission for his daughter’s marriage “ if it was not put in proper form, adopted and fixed that the son, who eventually would be born from this marriage, would be the successor of his father as the reigning king of Banjarmasin and also the chief of religion and the guardian of ancestral institution”. After consultation between Sultan Sulaiman, his eldest son Sultan Adam, and his grandson Abdul Rakhman, together with the princes, the grandees and the lesser chiefs of the Banjarmasin Sultanate, Mangkubumi Nata’s stipulation was agreed to. The resolution, as an explicit desire of the Sultan, was announced and then the marriage took place. Unfortunately this pledge was unwritten and therefore there was no proof of its authenticity when it was needed later in supporting the candidate who was born from this marriage. And indeed, in 1822, from the marriage between Abdul Rakhman and Ratu Siti was born a son, Pangeran Hidayatullah.
The question of the succession caused great concern among the members of the Royal Council after the death of Sultan Muda Abdul Rakhman in 1852. They preferred to stick to the Banjarese adat which stipulated that only the eldest son from a royal mother had the right to succeed his father as successor to the throne. Therefore they championed Pangeran Hidayatulah instead of Pangeran Tamjidillah as successor. Resident van Hengst, however, for the sake of Dutch interests, fought for Tamjidillah and despised Hidayatullah. The conflict of the two half-brothers and their supporters was very complicated and therefore needs more explanation.
Background of Childhood
Employing material from his pedecessors and his own informants, Colonel A.J. Andresen, Government Commissioner and Military Commander between April and December 1859, wrote his Memorie van bezwaren in 1861. This source provides relatively full information on the background to the Banjarmasin War, especially concerning the childhood and adulthood of both Tamjidillah and Hidayatullah.[2]
Both Tamjidillah and Hidayatullah were the sons of Sultan Muda Abdul Rakhman, but from different mothers. Tamjidillah (b. 1817) was five years older than Hidayatullah (b. 1822). They were both in fact eldest sons: Tamjidillah from his mother Nyai Aminah, and Hidayatullah from his mother Ratu Siti. Tamjidillah’s mother was considered by the Banjarese to be of a low origin, a Chinese-Dayak woman. Tamjidillah was in a sense even an anak ompang (bastard), for he was born only a few months after his mother officially married his father. Unlike Tamjidillah, Hidayatullah’s mother was from royal blood. She was the daughter of Mangkubumi Nata, a brother of Sultan Adam. There was an oral pledge between the two families before the marriage that the eldest son from this marriage would be the successor to the throne, and that was Hidayatullah.
The expectation and the reality were, however, entirely different things. Their childhood background and upbringing made these two princes develop in different directions. Since Hidayatullah’s birth, the people expected that he would be their future king. But the marriage of his parents was source of distress for his mother. Nyai Aminah’s influence on the Sultan Muda Abdul Rakhman was great. It seemed that Ratu Siti could not compete with Nyai Aminah. Serious quarrels between both wives followed, and finally Ratu Siti was forced to ask for diforce. Then she was put under the protection of Sultan Adam, and with her son Hidayatullah, they lived with one of the daughters of the Sultan and Kemala Sari in Martapura.
Andreson wrote that in his youth, Hidayatullah was “hot tempered, obstinate and disobedient in nature. Thin-skinned and proud, accompanied by one of his adherents, he often spent several days in the wilderness when he thought he was wronged by his father or would not get his way“[3]. But as will become clear below, almost overnight, and for no clear reason, his character later changed drastically for the better. He became soft and gentle; he had sympathy and generosity towards persons who served him; he was loved and esteemed by those arround him and by all people who happened to come in contact with him. He was not devoted to wealth, he was generous towards his subordinates or less important members of the royal family; he frequently gave all that he had, and more than once he paid the debts of others although it cost him much. So he became the popular choice as the future king.
Hidayatullah’s father Sultan Muda Abdul Rakhman always cared little for him. Hidayatullah was like a stranger in his father’s house and was hated by his step-mother Nyai Aminah. When he came to manhood, he settled himself at Karang Intan (an apanage land at the Riam Kiwa), where he was joined by his mother Ratu Siti. He seldom stayed at his father’s residence and busied himself with hunting.
This kind of separate way of life and neglect in his youth were the reasons why in his daily life, particulary in his relation with Europeans, Hidayatullah was “less open, but rather shy, withdrawn, and timid”.[4] I think this kind of family background had a great impact on him psychologically, forming his character and attitude towards his surruondings especially when statemanship or leadership was concerned.
In contrast to Hidayatullah, Tamjidillah developed in another direction. Andresen noted that Tamjidillah as a child was notorious for being “proud, rude, unfair and hard towards his subordinates; double-dealing, greed and covetousness were and remain the main features of his character. He was the darling of his parents and he made use of this to enrich himself at the cost of his brothers and sisters”.[5] To cover up his low birth, he spent most of his time in European circles in Banjarmasin. He even took to drinking alcohol, thereby confirming his abandonment of the laws of Islam, which he actually never much cared about anyway. A still more worrying thing in the light of other people’s religious standards was the fact that he allowed his two sisters to live together with two European officials in Banjarmasin. All these doings made him very unpopuler. Neither royal family nor religious leader nor the people were devoted him.
When Sultan Muda was still alive, he tried to justify his attitudes towards his sons, why he cared little for Hidayatullah and why Tamjidillah was his favorite. He frequently simply answered, “Hidayat will be comfortably off and rich enough when he becomes Sultan; people incline to him. Tamjid will have nothing after my death; no one will then care for him, and for that reason I must do it while I am alive”.[6] He gave Tamjidillah all kinds of presents while Hidayatullah got nothing. So at the time of Abdul Rakhman’s death, Tamjidillah was already rich – the riches which he got by hook or by crook. But unlike Tamjidillah, Hidayatullah was poor. Hidayatullah, neglected by his father, stayed in high favour with his grandparents. Tamjidillah, on the other hand, for his own safety stayed away from them.
So for years there was always a tense feeling of enmity between the two bothers. Tamjidillah hated Hidayatullah because he considered him as a stumbling block to his way to the throne; Hidayatullah hated Tamjidillah because the latter was the favorite of his father. This animosity increased for years and was fed by circumstances.
Hidayatullah in Dutch’s Eyes
When the crown prince Abdul Rakhman died in March 1852, nobody doubted that Hidayatullah would replace him and in due course become the Sultan of Banjarmasin. But that was not the case because the Dutch did not support him. Resident J.G.H. Gallois (1848-1853) four years earlier (1848) had written that Hidayatullah “keeps himself busy with hunting, fishing, and his wives. Therefore little good is to be expected from this king, who lives only for his on pleasure, and not at all for the needs and interests of the people, over whom he is called by his birth one day to reign”.[7] Resident van Hengst said that Hidayatullah was of an “independent character”, “violent”, and “hot tempered”. Hidaytullah’s attitude towards the Dutch government was “hostile”. He was “openly hostile to us”, wrote van Hengst. Once van Hengst felt insulted, when he visited Martapura, to see on Hidayatullah’s prauw the Dutch flag put below the Sultan’s flag. Then Hidayatullah protected in his estate a great number of runaway convict laborers from Dutch coalmines. He only gave the Resident empty promises of their extradition. For these reasons Hidayatullah was considered to be very guilty against the Government and therefore he should never become successor to the throne.[8]
Among van Hengst’s lines of reasoning in supporting Tamjidillah were: (1) Tamjidillah had more experience in government than Hidayatullah; (2) Tamjidillah had had greater support from his (late) father Abdul Rakhman (not to mention his mother Nyai Aminah) than Hidayatullah; (3) since Tamjidillah lived mostly in Banjarmasin, he had established better relations with European circles than Hidayatullah; (4) Tamjidillah was prepared to guarantee Dutch interests more willingly than Hidayatullah.[9]
To make the story short, the installation and the declaration of Tamjidillah as eventual successor to the throne took place at the keraton of Martapura on 8 August 1852. The ceremony passed smoothly without disturbance. Hidayatullah was absent on the pretext of being ill. Thereafter Tamjidillah became Sultan Muda, and finally when Sultan Adam died on 1 November 1857, two days later on 3 November he was hurriedly installed as the new Sultan of the Banjarmasin Sultanate by the Resident. The ceremony took place without the Banjarmasin regalia which were retained by Hidayatullah. Directly after the ceremony, Tamjidillah and the Resident signed a contract which extended Government lands at the expense of Sultan’s lands.
In the meantime, on the night of Sultan Adam’s death, there had been another development. A great number of people had gathered at Hidayatullah’s residence. They unanimously wanted Hidayatullah to be inaugurated as the new Sultan. Hidayatullah himself wanted to become Sultan, but apparently at that time he did not want to risk facing Dutch opposition, let alone to rebel without any preparation on his part or that of his loyal followers. Hidayatullah’s ambivalence in this situation perhaps disappointed his followers, and for Hidayatullah himself it meant the loss of his first chance to be the Sultan. This was probably the reason why during Tamjidillah’s installation no disturbance took place. He even took the position of Mangkubumi when this office was offered to him by the Dutch a few months later.
Hidayatullah and the Banjarmasin War
At least we can roughly differentiate three phases of Hidayatullah’s role immediately before and after the outbreak of the war in 1859. In the first phase, Hidayatullah was ambivalent. In the next phase he was at the head of the rebellion, and in the last phase he surrendered.
Regarding the first phase, this was characterized by his contradictory disposition. On the one hand he seemed to support, or probably take part, although secretly, in planning the rebellion. But on the other hand he had reported the impending rebellion (the attack of Dutch coalmine Pangeran) to the Dutch authorities in Banjarmasin in April 1859. After the killing of the Europeans at the coalmine of Kalangan, he gave his protection to the European families who were still alive. He had prevented Antasari from attacking Banjarmasin before the Dutch reinforcements arrived from Java. He denied, as Andresen reported in their first meeting in Martapura in June 1859, his involvement in planning the uprising.[10] Nevertheless he hastened away from Martapura whatever his excuses were.
After his flight from Martapura, he established himself among other rebel leaders and the people of Hulu Sungai (Benua Lima). The latter was the most dense population in the whole kingdom of Banjarmasin. It was the most fertile area. It had the most hajis and devout Muslims compared to the other parts of the kingdom. These were the bases of Hidayatullah’s mass supporters. During his stay in Hulu Sungai, however, Hidayatullah still had correspondence with Andresen and Government Commissioner F. N. Nieuwenhuijzen (1859-1860), Andresen’s successor. It seemed that Hidayatullah had hopes of reconciling himself with the Dutch government. Nieuwenhuijzen, however, sent him an ultimatum instead. This gave Hidayatullah no choice but to accept the leadership of his subjects. Now he entered the second phase as one of the rebel leaders.
To his loyal followers and other rebel leaders, however, Hidayatullah was more a symbol of their struggle than an active leader in battle. His name was used as a rallying point in order to get more followers. It seems that many other rebel leaders initially waged the war for him. He also now considered the war jihad or sabilillah (holy war) against the Dutch “infidel”, although he avoided an open confrontation with the Dutch patrols. Nevertheless the Dutch set a premium on his head of fl. 10.000. In this kind of guerilla war, Hidayatullah was in a state of incessant movement with his family and followers.
The last phase of Hidayatullah’s struggle was to surrender on 28 January 1862. Major W.A. van Rees describe his beggarly condition when he entered Martapura. “[…] Hidayat[ullah] was sickly, in rags, and was only able to get a small amount of rice to eat once a day; his scanty meal was supplemented with bamboo-shoot vegetables”.[11] Because he was afraid of being exiled to Java which would detach him forever from his land and people, he fled, but not for long. Suffering from hardship of food shortage and wandering in the jungle to avoid the pursuit of the Dutch soldiers, Hidayatullah eventually gave up. Van Rees again wrote:
[…] In the end, after midnight on 28 February, a man, with two women, a child, and five followers, all in rags, were escorted into the fort of Martapura. Their poor condition inspired pity. Their faces undoubtedly showed signs of endurance, want, and fatigue. For three days they had not got any food except tree rootes and leaves. The man was Hidayatullah, the Pangeran, the Mangkubumi, the Sultan (underlined in the original); the women were his daughters; the child was Pangeran Saleh, Hidayatullah’s son.[12]
Thus ended Hidayatullah’s struggle. At 9 pm on 3 March 1862, the steamship Bali left Kalimantan for Java taking Hidayatullah to his banishment. He was accompanied by his mother, wives, children, and other members of the family. The Government chose Cianjur in the Residency of Preanger, West Java, as the place of his exile. Here he and his family lived with a monthly pension of fl. 1.000 until he died in 1904. Thus the received fl. 1.600 less than Tamjidillah, who got fl. 2.600 in Bogor. The latter had been exiled at the beginning of the war. Even in their exile, the Dutch still discriminated between them.
Conclusion
I have already discussed at length Hidayatullah’s career from his boyhood until his exile to Java. Although for psychohistory we still lack evidence in constructing his complete biography and understanding his wavering character, a rough sketch as conclusion probably can give us a general picture of this paradoxical and controversial figure.
As we have learnt from Andresen, Hidayatullah’s royal blood did not prevent his childhood being disrupted. When Hidayatullah was a boy, his mother Ratu Siti (Ratu Sultan) was divorced by his father, the crown prince Sultan Muda Abdul Rakhman, because the latter chose his favorite concubine Nyai Aminah, a Chinese-Dayak woman, as his wife. Nyai Aminah who produced Tamjidillah exerted a great influence on Abdul Rakhman. After the divorce, Hidayatullah lived with his mother in Martapura under the auspices of his grandparents Sultan Adam and Ratu Kemala Sari. When he had grown up, he lived with his mother at his apanage at Karang Intan. He was an infrequent visitor to Martapura, let alone to Banjarmasin.
As a boy, Hidayatullah was deprived of the love of his father. He was discriminated by his own father who made Tamjidillah his favorite son. His father had already treated his mother differently from his step mother Nyai Aminah, and now him from his half-brother Tamjidillah. Everything was lavished on Tamjidillah, and nothing was left for him, not even sympathy, let alone love. Hidayatullah reisisted his father’s conduct towards him by being stubborn. The fact that he ran and hid in the wilderness for a few days when his father had not approved his wish, was a form of reaction which his father did not understand. Instead he regarded him as a headstrong child. Later on his running away from Martapura on 18-19 June 1859, probably was similar to this kind of reaction as also when he roamed the jungles leading the guerilla war for almost two years between 1860 and 1861.
In the course of time, how and why he changed and become generous to the people in his surroundings, is hard to explain. But his hatred and mistrust for Tamjidillah (and probably, better, the mutual hatred and mistrust between these two half-brothers) which started from boyhood, never changed. Every effort of the people outside, especially from the Dutch, to reconcile Hidayatullah and Tamjidillah, was a fiasco. Deep rooted mutual hatred and mistrust became the prime mover of intrigues between Hidayatullah and Tamjidillah in the years between 1852 and 1859. This was also reflected in Hidayatullah’s attitude towards the Dutch, whom he considered to be the main supports of Tamjidillah. His ambivalent character can probably be explained mainly in terms of hatred and mistrust. He hated Tamjidillah’s mother, because his mother had been dispossessed of the love of his father and status at court by Nyai Aminah. He hated and mistrusted Tamjidillah, because Tamjidillah had deprived him of the love of his father and had taken away his right to be the Sultan. He mistrusted the Dutch because the Dutch supported Tamjidillah.
Some Dutch writers were sympathetic to Hidayatullah. Andresen, for instance, who knew him personally after their three meetings in June 1859, and from their correspondence after Hidayatullah fled from Martapura, and even from information he could gather during his eight months administration in Banjarmasin, looked upon Hidayatullah with pity. In his Memorie van bezwaren, Andresen at the same time blamed Tamjidillah as the main cause of trouble, and criticized his predecessors who had blindly supported Tamjidillah, although they had known that Hidayatullah had the right to the throne according to the adat and the will of Sultan Adam as well.[13] Their reports to Batavia had misled the Government which had chosen Tamjidillah instead of Hidayatullah as the rightful Sultan. He admitted that Hidayatullah had a “wavering, shy and suspicious character”, but the people loved him and he had great influence among them. Hidayatullah was also very religious. For the Banjarese, a Sultan was not only the head of government but also the head of Islamic religion in the realm. Hidayatullah possessed such qualifications which Tamjidillah did not have. Andresen trully believed that Hidayatullah would become a good Sultan if the Dutch Government gave him a chance instead of Tamjidillah. Apart from this, Andresen was certain that Hidayatullah did not take part in planning the uprising and murder of the Europeans at the beginning of the war. He ran away from Martapura because he suspected that the Dutch would find him guilty and therefore would banish him to Java.[14]
Kielstra shared Andresen’s opinion concerning Hidayatullah and Tamjidillah. But unlike Andresen, he did not criticize Andresen’s predecessors or the Government. As recompense for what the Dutch had done by interfering in Banjarmasin politics, he tried to induce the Government to learn from the history of the fall of the Banjarmasin Sultanate, and as a result to govern of the people who had come under direct Dutch rule.[15]
Another Dutch writer who used the pseudonym Indophile [one who loves the Indies], was also sympathetic if not compassionate towards Hidayatullah. According to him, Hidayatullah was “the victim” of the intrigues of the Banjarese grandees and the lack of discernment of the Dutch representatives in carrying out Dutch authority. He also admitted that Hidayatullah had a “weak character” and therefore it was doubtful if he really was the chief of the rebellion. This was more “in his name, than under his command”.
In all likelihood, Hidayatullah was a “Hamlet type” actor in the history of the Banjarmasin Sultanate. His ambivalence caused him trouble, especially when his followers needed a leader with strong willpower at the time of crisis. On one side, presumably he was involved in planning the rebellion together with Antasari. But on the other, he categorically denied his involvement when he was interrogated by Colonel Andresen or Dutch Military Commander Major C.M. Verspijck. Unlike Tamjidillah and Antasari who respectively pursued their own goals through different ways, Hidayatullah was trapped in his hesitancy. He was not persistent enough to pursue his right despite all the support he had from his people.
Whether or not Hidayatullah was a hero is quite difficult to decide and is probably unnecessary. It will cause, unfortunately, an endless debate. Whatever might be the case, Hidayatullah played a large part in the Banjarmasin history. He was a tragic figure because of his ambivalence, a character formed from boyhood by his uncertain candidature for the Banjarmasin throne. He was a hero to his divorced mother who had been treated unfairly by his father. He was a hero in the fight against the Dutch and in opposing Tamjidillah at the time of the palace intrigue. He was a hero when he prepared the rebellion with Antasari. But his categoric denial that he had taken part in preparing the rebellion was unheroic. He was a hero again when he led the rebellion as Sultan. But his surrender twice in 1862 was again unheroic. This was his greatest shortcoming from the point of view of heroworshippers. Hidayatullah was a Hamlet type of hero, like the wavering Danish prince in Shakespeare’s tragedy. But it is probably unfair to blame everything on Hidayatullah. He was just a good religious prince in the middle of Macchiavellian political intrigue, a good man who became the victim of his own vacillation.
Bibliography
Andresen, A.J.. 1861. Memorie van Bezwaren.
Gallois, J.G.H.. 1851. Memorie van Overgave (21 April).
Kielstra, E.B.. 1890. “De Ondergang van het Bandjermasinsche Rijk”, IG (De Indishe Gids) II (1890), p.2389-2418; I (1891), p.12-39, 364-387, 819-845; II (1891), p.1360-1386, 1709-1731, 2191-2211; I (1892), p.11-43, 205-217.
Langer, William L.. 1958. “The Next Assignment” in The American Historical Review, LXIII, No.2 (January).
Van Hengst, P.H.A.B.. 1859. “Verantwoording” in Memorie van Overgave, No.29.
Van Rees, W.A.1865. De Bandjermasinsche Krijg van 1859-1863. Arnhem.
[1]William L. Langer, “The Next Assignment” in The American Historical Review, LXIII, No.2 (January 1958), p.283-304.
[2]A.J. Andresen, Memorie van Bezwaren (1861).
[3]Ibid..
[4]Ibid..
[5]Ibid..
[6]Ibid..
[7]J.G.H. Gallois, Memorie van Overgave (21 April 1851).
[8]See P.H.A.B. van Hengst, “Verantwoording” in Memorie van Overgave, No.29 (1859).
[9]Ibid..
[10]A.J. Andresen, 1861, Loc.Cit..
[11]See W.A. van Rees, De Bandjermasinsche Krijg van 1859-1863 (Arnhem: 1865).
[12]Ibid..
[13]A.J. Andresen, 1861, Loc.Cit..
[14]Ibid..
[15]See E.B. Kielstra, “De Ondergang van het Bandjermasinsche Rijk” in Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis, II (1890), p.2389-418.