Era of “Musuh Bisik” : the occupation of Kedah by Siam from 1821 to 1842（part.2）

HANDLE Web Site

Bibliographic Information

Other Title
  • ムソビシの時代:1821年−1842年のシャムによるクダー占領期（part.2）

Search this article

Abstract

This article is the second half of the second issue of the paper. In the middle of the Malay Peninsula in the early 19th century, Penang, a powerful trading center of the British East India Company（ EIC）, attracted the surrounding port cities, including the opium trade. Noi, the politically powerful lord of Nakhon Si Thammarat, a prominent port city in southern Siam, also planned to expand his influence to the west coast of the peninsula. According to the textual sources, Nakhon Si Thammarat occupied Kedah on 21 November 1821 and brought back many prisoners. According to Thai sources, Nakhon Si Thammarat considered Kedah’s failure to pay tribute to the Bungamas and the Burmese assistance in clearing Siam as reasons for punishment of the Central Court of Siam. On the other hand, for Kedah and Penang EIC, the attack of Nakhon Si Thammarat was a surprise attack, and the Kedah Sultan fled to Penang and a large number of refugees flowed in from Kedah. There is a discrepancy between the Siamese perception of the incident and the perceptions of Kedah and EIC material; Kedah and EIC assert that it was the plan of Noi in Nakhon Si Thammarat. The Nakhon Si Thammarat was approved by the Siamese court to take Kedah and further south, Perak, as its own direct territory, and blocked the movement of the rival port city of Songkhla lords. The period of occupation of Kedah by Nakhon Si Thammarat from the attack on Kedah in 1822 to 1844 is called the“ Musuh Bisik era” in Kedah, and the historical memory of the ordeal is still passed down as an inland farming tradition that has no written record. Under the rule of the Buddhist lordship of Noi's sons, anti-Siam movements grew in Kedah, which led to a series of uprisings by the relatives of the Kedah sultan and people immediately after the occupation. The Tunk Kudin's Rebellion （1832）, an anti-Siam uprising to retake Kedah, failed, but the rebellion with Mohamad Saad in 1838-39 extended to the siege of Songkhla and approached a part of Patani. On the other hand, Wan Mat Ali fought against the Muslim soldiers of Siam in the waters around Langkawi on the west coast. In this battle, Jihad was shouted and some Muslim warriors from outside of Kedah joined the Muslim Volunteer Force, and the war ended in the siege of Songkhla. This rebellion was suppressed by the counterattack of Nakhon Si Thammarat's army, but the capital city's King Rama III was displeased that the situation in the south was not communicated to the capital city and that the southern lords were involved in the forbidden opium trade through intelligence gathering and that they deliberately did not provide information. Then, with the sudden death of Noi in 1839, the tide changed. Siam Central gave up the Malay Muslim rule of Kedah by the Buddhists; Kedah was divided and returned to the Sultan' s relatives and the Sultan as ruler. Many memories of this “period of Musuh Bisik” survive, including the village heroes who took part in the battle. Few of them have been documented, unlike the detailed records collected by the EIC. However, the memory of the anti-Siam rebellion in the village remained in the village and was passed on. This “non-written historical memory” of the people’s memories contains important information for the history of Kedah. A survey of memory lore in the rural inland areas revealed that rural Malay Muslims who experienced Musuh Bisik had the following historical perceptions. The first is the long-lasting fear and ill feelings about Siam. The second is that the occupation of Musuh Bisik by the infidels was the impetus for the Muslim warriors of the Malay world to join as a volunteer army from Acheh, Patani and others, giving rise to the fight as anti-Siam and jihad. Finally, the heroic tales of “Musuh Bisik” handed down in the form of unrecorded historical traditions, some of which have evolved into tales of leaps and bounds, show that the Kedah people are conscious of “the era of Siamese and British colonialism” and are seeking “our own history” which is not official history. It was. The meaning of the“ practice of history” by those who are not satisfied with the “historical facts” that researchers have elucidated and shown is also a mirror of the present day.

Journal

Keywords

Details 詳細情報について

Report a problem

Back to top