Sultan Alaeddin Muhammad Shah of Acheh (in Van der Kemp’s spelling Alaëddin Mohammed Shah) was the Sultan of Acheh named in the Achehnese correspondence of October 1826 as the reigning sultan at Banda Acheh, in succession to Jauhar Alum (d. November 1823). He is known to Van der Kemp’s readers chiefly through his letter of 13 October 1826 to the Governor of Penang, in which he complained that Said Akil’s adventure in Deli was a violation of the treaty of 1819. The letter is one of the few direct Achehnese voices preserved in the Roosegaarde Bisschop collection.
Background: the disputed succession after 1823
When Jauhar Alum died in November 1823, the Achehnese succession was disputed. The Queen-Mother, with the Three Sagis — in practice with Panglima Polim — exercised power at Acheh, “if authority could be spoken of”; and she was the custodian of Jauhar Alum’s legitimate son and heir, then a minor. As Governor Fullerton’s minute of 21 March 1825 was to observe, “the present occupier of the throne is not the legitimate heir. A disputed succession will probably ensue on the legitimate son now under custody of the Queen-Mother coming of age”. Sultan Alaeddin Muhammad Shah is to be understood against this background: he was the Achehnese sultan in possession of the capital at Acheh when the British records speak of “the present occupier”, and not the legitimate heir.
The letter of 13 October 1826
It was this Sultan who, learning of Said Akil’s attempt to make himself master of Deli, addressed a “brusque letter” to the Governor of Penang in the usual Achehnese manner. The English translation, preserved at Prince of Wales’ Island and dated 13 October 1826, runs in part:
“It is reported that Syed Akil, son of the late Syed Hussain, intends seizing upon Delli; and as Delli is a dependency of Acheen, the Sultan requests very earnestly, that the Governor of Pulo Pinang [have] consideration towards him, as Syed Akil is a subject of the Company, and the Sultan trusts that the engagement formerly made in the time of the late Sultan will be observed, viz: that the enemies of the Sultan shall be considered the enemies of the Company.”
The Sultan thus invoked both the dependence of Deli on Acheh and the mutual-defence clause of the treaty of 1819 (Van der Kemp suggests article 1 was probably intended) in support of his complaint. The reference to “the late Sultan” is to Jauhar Alum, whose treaty with Raffles of 22 April 1819 the new Sultan now claimed to inherit.
Place in Van der Kemp’s narrative
The Sultan’s letter is introduced by Van der Kemp in the course of his narrative of Said Akil’s doings at Deli (lines 1552–1588). The Sultan, Van der Kemp observes, “in the usual Achehnese manner” reminded the Governor of Penang of the obligations of the treaty of 1819. The complaint was taken up by Anderson in his letter of 2 November 1826 to Akil, requiring him to abstain from interference in Deli and to return to Penang. The Sultan’s intervention thus contributed to the British pressure that eventually, in 1828, forced Akil’s withdrawal. At the same time the letter is a small landmark in the long story of the treaty of 1819: it shows that, even after both the Bengal government’s dispatch of 4 August 1824 and Fullerton’s minute of 21 March 1825 had declared the treaty a dead letter, the Achehnese sultans themselves continued to invoke it as a living instrument.
See Also
- Sultan Jauhar Alum
- Queen-Mother of Acheh
- Panglima Polim
- Said Akil
- Sultan of Deli
- Shahbandar of Deli
- John Anderson
- Robert Fullerton
- Acheh treaty of 1819
- Said Akil’s Deli adventure (1824-1828)
- Fullerton’s minute on Acheh (21 March 1825)
- Dead letter
Source
Raffles’ Atjeh-overeenkomst van 1819, by P. H. van der Kemp, in Bijdragen van het Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde van Nederlandsch-Indië, 6e Volgr., Deel VII (1900), pp. 159-239. Universiteitsbibliotheek Vrije Universiteit, LS.08781.
Sultan Alaeddin Muhammad Shah of Acheh (in Van der Kemp’s spelling Alaëddin Mohammed Shah) was the Sultan of Acheh named in the Achehnese correspondence of October 1826 as the reigning sultan at Banda Acheh, in succession to Jauhar Alum (d. November 1823). He is known to Van der Kemp’s readers chiefly through his letter of 13 October 1826 to the Governor of Penang, in which he complained that Said Akil’s adventure in Deli was a violation of the treaty of 1819. The letter is one of the few direct Achehnese voices preserved in the Roosegaarde Bisschop collection.
Background: the disputed succession after 1823
When Jauhar Alum died in November 1823, the Achehnese succession was disputed. The Queen-Mother, with the Three Sagis — in practice with Panglima Polim — exercised power at Acheh, “if authority could be spoken of”; and she was the custodian of Jauhar Alum’s legitimate son and heir, then a minor. As Governor Fullerton’s minute of 21 March 1825 was to observe, “the present occupier of the throne is not the legitimate heir. A disputed succession will probably ensue on the legitimate son now under custody of the Queen-Mother coming of age”. Sultan Alaeddin Muhammad Shah is to be understood against this background: he was the Achehnese sultan in possession of the capital at Acheh when the British records speak of “the present occupier”, and not the legitimate heir.
The letter of 13 October 1826
It was this Sultan who, learning of Said Akil’s attempt to make himself master of Deli, addressed a “brusque letter” to the Governor of Penang in the usual Achehnese manner. The English translation, preserved at Prince of Wales’ Island and dated 13 October 1826, runs in part:
“It is reported that Syed Akil, son of the late Syed Hussain, intends seizing upon Delli; and as Delli is a dependency of Acheen, the Sultan requests very earnestly, that the Governor of Pulo Pinang [have] consideration towards him, as Syed Akil is a subject of the Company, and the Sultan trusts that the engagement formerly made in the time of the late Sultan will be observed, viz: that the enemies of the Sultan shall be considered the enemies of the Company.”
The Sultan thus invoked both the dependence of Deli on Acheh and the mutual-defence clause of the treaty of 1819 (Van der Kemp suggests article 1 was probably intended) in support of his complaint. The reference to “the late Sultan” is to Jauhar Alum, whose treaty with Raffles of 22 April 1819 the new Sultan now claimed to inherit.
Place in Van der Kemp’s narrative
The Sultan’s letter is introduced by Van der Kemp in the course of his narrative of Said Akil’s doings at Deli (lines 1552–1588). The Sultan, Van der Kemp observes, “in the usual Achehnese manner” reminded the Governor of Penang of the obligations of the treaty of 1819. The complaint was taken up by Anderson in his letter of 2 November 1826 to Akil, requiring him to abstain from interference in Deli and to return to Penang. The Sultan’s intervention thus contributed to the British pressure that eventually, in 1828, forced Akil’s withdrawal. At the same time the letter is a small landmark in the long story of the treaty of 1819: it shows that, even after both the Bengal government’s dispatch of 4 August 1824 and Fullerton’s minute of 21 March 1825 had declared the treaty a dead letter, the Achehnese sultans themselves continued to invoke it as a living instrument.
See Also
- Sultan Jauhar Alum
- Queen-Mother of Acheh
- Panglima Polim
- Said Akil
- Sultan of Deli
- Shahbandar of Deli
- John Anderson
- Robert Fullerton
- Acheh treaty of 1819
- Said Akil’s Deli adventure (1824-1828)
- Fullerton’s minute on Acheh (21 March 1825)
- Dead letter
Source
Raffles’ Atjeh-overeenkomst van 1819, by P. H. van der Kemp, in Bijdragen van het Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde van Nederlandsch-Indië, 6e Volgr., Deel VII (1900), pp. 159-239. Universiteitsbibliotheek Vrije Universiteit, LS.08781.