History is written by the winners? We hear this saying often, maybe we even believe it. However, perhaps there is a counter history written by the losing party. Is it possible that our ancestors also manipulated history? Starting from the Mongols, Majapahit, to the G30S/PKI. OK, friends, we are still in Indonesia. In Ghibah History, the new segment of ASISI Channel, we will reveal: is it true that our history has been bent? And how do I straighten it out? Come on, let's unpack it! ASISI Channel's latest book, Secrets of the Archipelago, has been published. This is a historical report & notes from my trip to dozens of Medang temples. Where can you get it? Check comments or bio. Those who already have it, I'm waiting for the review. And let's continue... Selviya: Wow, Mas ASISI Asisi: Yes Selviya: very often on social media and everywhere, including comments on many ASISI Channel YouTube videos, someone always says, "History is written by the winners." It is always like that. When we say that Majapahit controlled the archipelago, for example, we always comment, "Yes, history is indeed written by the victors." “History is not on the side of the losers.” According to Mas ASISI, what about that opinion or quote? ASISI: Yes, if you think about it, it's very common everywhere. In fact, as far as I know, there is a quite famous cultural figure who also popularized that history is written by the winners, so many people believe it. But actually, I think whether you win or lose, you are both human. History is written by humans. People who want to write. Not only winners, losers can also write. Selviya: Oh, so the loser can also write history? ASISI: Yes, there are many examples. Selviya: In our history? ASISI: Yes. I'll give you an example. Selviya: How? ASISI: Here, remember how Dyah Wijaya founded Majapahit? So, after Kertanegara's defeat from Jayakatwang's attack, Dyah Wijaya took refuge in Madura. Then, after leaving Madura, under Arya Wiraraja's instructions, he founded Majapahit. Dyah Wijaya then collaborated with the Mongol Army or the Mongol Chinese Army (Yuan Dynasty) who happened to want to control Java at that time. So, when the Mongol Army or Mongol Chinese Army, or Mongol Chinese came to Java, and collaborated with Dyah Wijaya and Laskar Majapahit, they immediately attacked Dhaha together. Selviya: What year was that? ASISI: Circa 13th century. Selviya: OK. ASISI: Well, when they attacked and then won, in its history, Majapahit then succeeded in defeating Daha. So the story goes, Dyah Wijaya finally "betrayed" the Mongol Army by attacking the Mongols, his allies, who also attacked together in defeating Daha. And the Mongols were helpless. Why is it helpless? Because at that time they were partying. The Mongol army was celebrating, then was suddenly attacked by Dyah Wijaya's army. Finally they were pressed. They have a lot to lose. Then they managed to board the ship, then the remaining ship returned to their country. Others who failed to escape were burned. Is that so? How do we know the record of this event? How do we know about this incident? Selviya: Is there a Majapahit source that recorded it? ASISI: There is a Majapahit source who recorded it. The event that Dyah Wijaya attacked Daha, who later founded Majapahit. This is in the Kudadu Inscription (1294 AD). But cooperation with the Mongols is not mentioned in the inscription. Selviya: Seriously? ASISI: Seriously! Selviya: How is Negarakertagama? ASISI: It's in Negarakertagama. It says that we worked together - and are well remembered - with the Tartar Army to defeat Daha. But Dyah Wijaya's betrayal of counterattacking the Mongol Army was not written there. So, it's not in our primary sources. But the question is, how can we know that there was betrayal? How do we know that Dyah Wijaya's betrayal occurred? Selviya: From where? ASISI: From China's own Notes. So like this, the generals returned to Kublai Khan, in Beijing. There, they had to write a report to the Emperor about the events that occurred. How could they lose? Finally they wrote. Their writings or reports are historical sources that explain to us that the betrayal incident did occur, that Dyah Wijaya attacked his allies. So his allies fled back to their country. Now, remember, the generals wrote separately. Ike Mese wrote his own report, while the other two generals wrote theirs. Each of these records can be checked against each other. It turned out to be a good fit. And when those generals wrote, they took risks, there was punishment behind the writing. So one general could be punished because of his friend's writings - the writings of another general - that this general might be weak, unable to organize his troops. So he gets punished and so on. The point is this, when they wrote that note, the risk was great. Selviya: Maybe it was Kublai Khan's tactic, Mas ASISI. ASISI: So, these separate reports apparently match each other. That means everything is correct. Well, because it's a foreign record, we call it a contemporary source. The question is, why is it called a contemporary source? Why aren't they called primary sources? Selviya: Because it wasn't written by our people? ASISI: Right. Because it was not written by our people. Why? Because there is a cultural barrier. Selviya: But for them, the Chinese, it's a primary source. ASSIGNMENT: Primary. As for the history of the Yuan dynasty when it attacked Java, that is a primary source for them. But for us, from a Javanese or Indonesian perspective, because there is a cultural barrier, we consider primary sources to be less strong, more popularly known as contemporary sources. Selviya: Foreign notes. Oh, so that's an example of when the losing side writes their version of history. So we have two versions. Javanese version, and also Mongol version. ASISI: Just imagine now. Selviya: Poor Mongols too. ASISI: But it wasn't the first time the Mongols had experienced something like this. At that time the Mongols were already affiliated with China. Yes, right? When Kublai Khan then adopted the culture of the Han tribe or Han nation. Then he was pleased with the culture of the Han people and founded the Yuan dynasty. But in the early days of the Mongols, when they were still led by Genghis Khan, they also experienced the same thing. So, Genghis Khan led his army and conquered many places. After the time of Genghis Khan, the Mongols also expanded their power to Europe. He made many conquests, including Baghdad. Well, we actually know about the Mongol invasion from the records of the defeated side. Because the Mongols did not record their own history. This is ironic. Selviya: They don't write the history. ASISI: They just conquer, conquer, and conquer. But don't write the history. Who wrote it? Nations defeated by the Mongols. So, have you ever heard that the Mongols are known as a barbaric nation, a cruel nation, like to destroy? Especially when they attacked Baghdad. Until it is said to be "a flood of blood", like that. But we have to understand or understand that the records were written by those who lost, those who were destroyed by the Mongols. Automatically, how could the person who lost praise him or pay heed to those who attack them. Of course it's impossible. Selviya: Yes, it was definitely written according to the facts they experienced. Or maybe it could be exaggerated, we don't know. Two possibilities could occur. But the possibility is usually written based on what they experienced. ASISI:But now imagine if these defeated parties had not written, how would we know about the greatness of the Mongols in conquest? How do we know how far their territory extended if the defeated parties did not keep track of it? Including the case of the Yuan dynasty earlier. If we only rely on Majapahit primary sources, for example from the Kudadu inscription, or from Negarakertagama and only that, how do we know that there was Dyah Wijaya's betrayal? Because of what? Negarakertagama also wrote it, but the part about Dyah Wijaya's betrayal was not included. The Kudadu inscription also writes about it, but here it says that Dyah Wijaya fought with his own strength. So it is not written that he was shoulder to shoulder with the Tartar army in the Kudadu inscription. Selviya: In your opinion, what are the qualities of a warrior? ASISI: Well, it depends on the point of view. I myself like Majapahit. Yes, I like Majapahit. But I have to treat them like ordinary people. Ordinary people have a falling point and a rising point. For example, you are positioned to become Dyah Wijaya, where according to Pararaton, your wife, namely Gayatri, will be presented to the Mongol King. Would you hand over your wife as an offering to the Mongol King? Selviya: If I were his wife, I definitely wouldn't want to give him up either. ASISI: You don't want to, right? This means that Dyah Wijaya also had a reason why he betrayed. It could be because they don't want to submit, nationalistically, because they love their country. But romantically, it could be that he doesn't want to give up the wife he loves most. Selviya: That's true. Indeed, those are the tactics in war and so on. When we talk about war, of course there is no black and white. We can't say this is 100% right, 100% wrong. He's called a human, there are always reasons behind him doing this and that. That's what makes history interesting for us to study. ASISI: Right. There are humans behind war, there are humans behind history. So, as long as there are humans, there must also be reasons. However, sometimes we find reasons that are completely difficult to accept morally. For example, King Jayakatwang attacked King Kertanegara. In Negarakertagama, Pararaton, even the Kudadu Inscription , which is a primary source carved during Dyah Wijaya's lifetime in Jayakatwang, has been labeled as evil. It's been labeled as such. So it's not from me, but those sources label it that way. So, from there we know that motivation determines the value of a historical figure. Jayakatwang's motivation is written in Pararaton, namely to avenge his ancestors who were defeated by Rangga Rajasa. Selviya: Perhaps it is a coincidence that no source from Daha itself records anything about him. ASISI: Well, that's it. No source from Daha then recorded Jayakatwang's main reasons, his motivations, and his goals or successes. It wasn't recorded. Selviya: We look at Jayakatwang now from Majapahit's point of view, where Majapahit was the party that was betrayed. Just like the Mongols, when they wrote about Java and Dyah Wijaya, their writing was definitely full of bitterness and heartache. And actually, Mas ASISI, from there we can learn that history always has two versions of the story. and the narrative can be greatly influenced by the author. That's why history is subjective. Whatever it is, inscriptions, palm prints or foreign notes, they all contain the subjectivity of the author. ASISI: That's right, there definitely is. So history in the past was not like today, like the book National History of Indonesia (SNI) which was written as objectively as possible. But in ancient times there must have been an author's side, for example the point of view, values, feelings that he then put into it. However, a good historian can distinguish between parts that contain subjectivity and parts that are reports. For example, Negarakertagama, a writing by Prapanca. The sections that record Prapanca's opinion about Majapahit are of course subjective. But the facts about the existence of Majapahit, its size, the appearance of its streets, what the trees are like, which way the palace faces, and so on are certainly objective. Because that is his observation. But whether he considers the palace magnificent or not, Selviya: The question is whether his daughters are beautiful or not. Prapanca said this princess was very beautiful, then there was another princess who turned out to be ordinary. Subjectivity comes into play there. ASISI: But sometimes these values also represent the content of the era at that time. Remember, the book Sutasoma, written by Mpu Tantular, praises that Sutasoma, who has white skin, is favored by the gods. Meanwhile, other black characters are disliked. From here we immediately see the records of that era, that white skin or clean skin seemed to be the favorite at that time, compared to people with slightly darker skin. Selviya: Being considered beautiful, being considered... ASISI: Maybe the standard of beauty at that time. Selviya: Apparently not much has changed. Now it remains the same. ASISI: So you see, now it's clear that history is not always written by the victors, but history is definitely written by humans. People who want to write. Both winners and losers. Even in modern times, in the 20th century, there was the G30S/PKI incident and the eradication of the PKI. Many say this event is an example that history is written by the winners, namely the New Order. But recently, several parties who are suspected of being involved in G30S/PKI. Now those who lost, who became victims, have started to talk everywhere. Finally we have a perspective, not just from the New Order point of view, now from other angles. Therefore, I still don't agree that history is written by the winners. That's just jargon for those trying to be sarcastic. Just sarcastic. “Wow, history must be written by the winners, history is written by the winners. It's your own fault if the loser doesn't want to write." Selviya: Just if there is a historical narrative that doesn't suit one's taste, or doesn't suit one's ethnicity or whatever, it's definitely because it was written by the winner. ASISI: Like that, right? Selviya: Right, right. ASISI: It doesn't have to be like that, though. I have always believed that history is written by those who want to write. What if they don't want to write? The Mongols were proof that he was a winner. Yes, they were victorious during the time of Genghis Khan, but they didn't want to write history. Selviya: Ultimately history is written by the losers. ASISI: Finally we now have a history that understands early Mongol history. This also includes the Dyah Wijaya era. Finally we have it. Imagine, if we relied on our own history, written by the winners themselves, there would be no betrayal of Dyah Wijaya. Selviya: So we don't know. ASISI: Just the plates. Selviya: However, speaking of domestic sources, I often hear or even read often. Again on social media, many people complain about why we have so few historical sources. Why is our recording, our archiving, not as complete as China or Korea? Indeed, Majapahit is considered complete, because we have Negarakertagama, Pararaton, Sutasoma, and others. There are also many inscriptions. But why can't we be that complete? There are still many periods and years that are blank in history. What differentiates us from outsiders, fellow Asians? AISI: Maybe it's more about culture, because we know that China has a very long culture. They have been writing for thousands of years. Selviya: Older, huh? ASISI: Older. Even if we compare it with other cultures, for example Rome or Babylonia, or even older, Egypt, they have recorded their history even though it is still mixed with mythology and gods, but they have written it. The problem is, we only know about writing around the fifth century. When the Kutai Kingdom appeared and the Taruma Kingdom appeared on the historical stage, they began to write inscriptions. Then secondly, our tendency is not only to read and write. The media is also influential. Since ancient times, inscriptions have been written on metal or on stone. Regarding literature, we probably use lontar most for spiritual reasons. This is what makes the difference. For example, in China, there were poets and traders who also wrote, not only religious figures. But on our side, most literature is written by religious figures for spiritual purposes. The problem is that the choice of terrain or media for writing is also very important. Do our merchants not write to report to the king, or what? ASISI: So far no records related to trade reports have been found. So far they have not been found, most of them are only inscriptions of king's decisions and lontars with spiritual aims by poets and religious figures. So, when our ancestors decided to use palm leaves, this decision was not inconsequential. Because there are spiritual reasons too, that palm leaves are considered sacred, where gods reside. For this purpose, palm leaves were then used as a medium for writing. Well, the problem is that palm leaves don't last long. Our ancestors were also aware that palm leaves do not live long. Therefore, there is a culture of copying. Selviya: How long will the lontar last if it is well cared for? ASISI: Yes, there is no certainty, but about a hundred years. Selviya: That took the longest, huh? ASISI: About that. Our ancestors realized that palm leaves couldn't last long, so they created a copying mechanism. Well, there is one real mystery. If there really was copying, why didn't the history of Medang in the Central Java period leave writings in the form of lontar? Most of the writing we receive is in the form of inscriptions. However, during the Kadiri period, followed by Singhasari and Majapahit, there were a lot of palm leaves and there was already a culture of copying. Why is there a disconnect between Medang and Kadiri in terms of copying? Selviya: Is that disconnect because they don't write? Or the writing is there, they might also have written it, but either because of a natural disaster, on Merapi because of the mountains around Central Java which then erupted, ultimately destroying the existing manuscripts. Then the writings were rewritten, at a time when Medang finally moved the center of its power from Central Java to East Java. Is it like that, is there a possibility in that direction? ASISI: It's not certain yet, because there is no data at all. Whether Medang wrote lontar is still not certain. But in the reliefs, there are indeed images or shapes of keropak, for example, or palm palms held by several ascetics, such as at Morangan Temple, there are reliefs of three hermits, one of whom is carrying a palm palm. Then there are several Goddesses in the Hindu pantheon who also carries a book. Then at Kedulan Temple, there is a relief or statue of Agastya, where one of the people below it, the figure under Agastya's feet, is also carrying a palm leaf. This means that, archaeologically, visually it does exist, the Medang people have seen the lontar as a book. However, to this day we have not found any remains from Medang. Selviya: Yes, that means it's likely been damaged, either by war or by disaster. ASISI: Yes, the question is, why is there no copying? In fact, some of the Majapahit palm leaves are certainly damaged, but there are copies. That's what remains a mystery to this day, there is a disconnect here. Selviya: Maybe it's not that there was no copying, but that the copy hasn't been found, or the copy was also damaged, could it be like that? ASISI: The possibility is always there, we just have to talk using data. To date there is no data, meaning it is still a mystery. Selviya: That's fair, like that, right? ASISI: Well, writing history is not easy. In writing history, we have to understand the records of the era, the content of the era at that time, the contextual events of that time, then the context of the media used, the inscriptions for this purpose, the lontar for this. So that's a lot. That's why, on my channel, I always say, if you hear a historical statement, always ask the source, it's very important. Don't believe it easily. For example, there is a statement that Gajah Mada boarded a plane and then went to Bali, for example like that, immediately ask where the source came from. The source was then 5W1H-righted. Selviya: It certainly doesn't make sense, when the plane was discovered, when did Gajah Mada live? That alone doesn't make sense. AISI: That's the way history is written, the source is number one. It is very important to have sources. If there is no source, just say there is no data. Selviya: So how do we deal with it? We certainly want our history to be complete and coherent, but the existing historical sources are limited. Finally, in many periods of our history, the years are empty. What do you think, Mas Asisi? Actually, there are also efforts from our own people to fill the void. For example, like Babad Kadiri, it is an attempt to fill the historical void. Well, the method they use is to summon the spirits of ancestors, who are considered ancestors. They mediate to obtain historical information that they may not have at that time. ASISI: Then, for example, Babad Tanah Jawi, he wrote because he wanted to know the history of the ancestors of the Sunnah and Sultanate in Java at that time. Then their ancestors were compiled, starting from the Pandava era, the era of the gods, the Pandava era, the era of the banners, and so on until it was connected to their era. Selviya: Don't forget Wangsakerta. ASISI: That's right, Wangsakerta. Selviya: As we always say, there are a lot of hoaxes there, a lot of analysis by modern historians included, and it seems as if the book was made to look like an ancient book, even though in fact it is only recent. Some might say this is an attempt to distort or distort history. But what if it was actually their attempt to fill a historical gap. Rather than empty, it's better to be filled. ASISI: Look, I emphasize, history is not about what we want. That's firm, yes. History is not about what we want. But history is data. Data from the past that we are trying to uncover again. So the easy analogy is like this. There was a murder incident many years ago. Well, historians are like police, detective who is trying to solve the case. So various pieces of evidence are collected, direct evidence, direct eyewitnesses, key witnesses, and so on. There are unrelated witnesses, there is weak evidence, and so on. The job of detectives and police is to uncover that. However, for example, there is no such evidence. For example, there is a lack of evidence. Will the police fabricate the evidence themselves? Then submitted to court. Of course it will be rejected. That means manipulating a case. Well, that analogy should be used by historians. Or all of us. That history is not what we want. But history is data, which we are trying to reopen in the present. Selviya: So in police terms it is falsification of evidence. ASISI: Well, that's not allowed. Selviya: Let's not falsify history. ASISI: Well, that's a hoax. Selviya: Maybe his intentions are good. But don't let our good intentions make us create hoaxes or even falsify history. Like that? ASISI: Right. What is the point of this discussion? History is written by those who want to write. What is important in our efforts to understand history is the source. Lastly, history is not about what we want, what we like. But history is evidence of the past that we are trying to reopen. We'll dismantle it again. Selviya: What is also important in history is that we remain honest and have integrity. If yes, say yes. ASISI: If not, say no. If there is no data, say there is no data. That's why everything is clear on the Assisi canal. If that was my personal opinion, I would definitely say this is what I think. If that's the opinion of experts, I always say according to A, according to B. In fact, I follow Mpu Prapanca's example. When he compiled Negarakertagama, his sources were always mentioned by their profession. For example, I called person A, an epigrapher, person B, a philologist. I always mention it. If the source is from a primary source, I will mention where it comes from. So I want the AISI channel to neatly mention historical sources. Selviya: And caution is really necessary. Because history is actually a very open science. Anyone can write history. As before, history is written by those who want to write. Especially nowadays. Because in ancient times there were limited groups who could, I don't know, could or might write? ASISI: Yes, more precisely, yes. Selviya: The people who were allowed to write were the Brahmins, in ancient Java. When they wrote, it was for the sake of worship, right? So, when they want to lie in writing, it contradicts their purpose in writing. Now it's very different. Anyone can write. A small child holding a cellphone can already write. Anyone can. Including us too. We are given the freedom to write based on sources. That's why everyone has a choice, right, Mas Asisi? What kind of history do you want to write? Writing history by following a methodology, following rules and based on valid evidence? Or write history based on his own will or his own interests? That's actually a choice we need to ask ourselves. Which side do we want to take? ASISI: In history, writing history, or conveying history, honesty is important. Honest and unbiased. So what? So that our value can be seen there. Our honesty shows. The value of historical content or historical writing comes from its honesty, from its sources. It's not just the beauty of the discussion. Or even convince with a pleasant, melodious voice, comforting music, nothing like that. But historical validity is what matters. Selviya: But it is important for us to write history. At least the history of our lives. Is it true? ASISI: Right. So, basically we will write our own history for future generations. That's the premise. What do you want your children or future generations to remember as? Do you want to be remembered as a good or bad parent? Do you want to be remembered as a jerk or as a useful person? People who have a good influence on society. Whatever it is, it all starts from today. Our way of life is basically the writing of history. Writing our own history. Selviya: So, we write our history by doing our best today? Whatever our field of work. ASISI: Right. And never forget. Continue studying history so we don't forget our identity.