Naning War
The Naning War, also known as the Naning Conflict or Naning Revolt, was a conflict in the region surrounding Malacca, which was part of the Straits Settlements under British control. The conflict was fought between British East India Company, which had taken over Malacca and its neighboring areas from the Dutch in 1824, against the Malay chiefdom of Naning, located adjacent to Malacca.
The causes of the Naning War stemmed from the expanding British interests in the Malay Peninsula and a dispute over the extent of British jurisdiction, particularly their right to impose taxation on Naning. The British, after two military expeditions, ultimately defeated Naning and fully incorporated its territory under Malacca's jurisdiction.
This conflict is one of the earliest instances of British intervention in the Malay states. However, the high monetary cost of the war prompted the British to adopt a more cautious approach in their future dealings with the Malay states. Rather than pursuing aggressive military action, they increasingly relied on political influence, a strategy that eventually led to the Treaty of Pangkor in 1874 and the establishment of the 'Resident System'.
Today, Dol Said, the chief of Naning, is celebrated as a nationalist hero in Malaysia for his resistance against foreign aggression.
Background to the conflict
Naning was a small inland Malay chiefdom of about. It was located about from the city of Malacca and within the borders of the present-day Masjid Tanah constituency, which borders Negeri Sembilan. It, along with Sungai Ujong, Rembau, Kelang, Johol, Jelai, Jelebu and Ulu Pahang, was one of the nine luaks that made up the first iteration of Negeri Sembilan. Like its neighboring chiefdoms, it traditionally acknowledged the suzerainty of the Kingdom of Malacca and, after Malacca's fall, that of the Sultan of Johor. However, from the 17th century on it had gradually come under the dependency of the Dutch in Malacca. This relationship was formalized in 1757 when the Sultan of Johor ceded his nominal rights of suzerainty over Naning and its neighboring chiefdoms around Malacca to the Dutch. However, Naning's position as a dependency of the Dutch appeared to be more nominal than real. Although the Dutch invaded and forced Naning to sign a treaty in 1643, whereby Naning would pay a yearly tribute of one-tenth of their produce and accept Dutch advice in governing, the treaty was never enforced. By 1765, the Dutch commuted the tenth to a nominal yearly tribute of 400 gantangs of paddy, which was about one one-thousandth of the total crop produced in Naning at that time. The Dutch also did not interfere with the administration of Naning, which was exclusively governed by its traditional Penghulus.During the brief British occupation of Malacca from 1795 to 1818 when the Napoleonic Wars were raging in Europe, a treaty was signed between the British and the new Penghulu of Naning, Dol Said in 1801. The treaty included a clause for the British to continue receiving the right to one-tenth of the produce of Naning as stipulated by the earlier 1643 Dutch treaty. However, this was commuted to a yearly payment of 400 gantangs of paddy due to the poverty of Naning. In 1807, the British residents of Malacca also issued a directive depriving the Penghulu of his power of passing the death sentence although there was no evidence to indicate that this was enforced.
The British formally took control of Malacca and its surrounding territories from the Dutch with the signing of the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824. Following the takeover, the British started to examine the extent of their control over the acquired territories to maximize revenue from the lands. The British governor Robert Fullerton took the 1643 Dutch and 1801 British treaties at face value and assessed Naning to be part of Malacca. He instructed the Superintendent of Lands in Malacca, William Thomas Lewis, to conduct a census in Naning as well as an assessment of the potential of the land in anticipation of extending the Malacca land system, including the levying of a ten-percent tax on all produce, to Naning. There were also plans to transform the Penghulu of Naning Dol Said and his traditional chiefs into salaried officials of the East India Company.
However, Dol Said contested the British juridical claims over Naning and the imposition of the ten percent tax and chose to continue sending the traditional payment of 400 gantangs of rice instead. He also carried out what the British considered to be increasingly aggressive actions that challenged their rule. These included passing sentence on a murder case in Naning instead of referring it to Malacca as required under the 1807 directive, as well as the seizing of some fruit from lands which the British considered part of Malacca's territory. These perceived transgressions led Fullerton's successor, Governor Robert Ibbetson to decide in early 1831, to send in British troops to enforce British jurisdiction over Naning and to punish Dol Said, believing his resistance could embolden the locals in Malacca to defy the British.
Causes of the conflict
The origins of the Naning conflict are multifaceted and cannot be attributed to a singular cause.Conflicting concepts of jurisdiction over Naning
One main cause of the conflict was over the uncertain status of Naning vis-a-vis Malacca. This stemmed in part from problems in interpreting the 1801 treaty between Britain and Naning and the earlier 1643 treaty signed between the Dutch and Naning. During a meeting of the Penang Council on 30January 1828, which discussed the status of Naning, the Resident-Councillor of Malacca, Samuel Garling, noted that the evidence based on the 1801 treaty and Dutch records "favors the independence of Naning" and that the British had "no ground" to claim sovereignty or jurisdiction over Naning. In particular, Garling pointed out the vagueness of the description of Naning as "Tannah Company" in the 1801 treaty and concluded that there was no "tenable ground" by which the British could establish a "claim of sovereignty" over Naning. Garling's assessment was supported by the acting Resident-Councillor of Penang, Anderson, who felt that the British right to subject Naning to the same government as Malacca was "not very clearly established". He felt that Dol Said should be considered a hereditary chief who had been exercising his rule without interruption, which was the prerogative of a sovereign in his own district.However, Fullerton disagreed and felt that based on the earlier treaties and Dutch records, Naning was completely under British sovereignty and that the Penghulu of Naning was like any of the other Penghulus appointed within Malacca territory and held his "powers of investiture from the Malacca Government". Fullerton regarded the 1801 treaty not as a treaty but rather as "articles or conditions" on Naning dictated by the then Governor of Malacca. He felt that Naning was "evidently a place subject to Malacca". Fullerton believed this to be substantiated by the Dutch records which indicated that the first ruler of Naning was appointed by the Dutch in 1642 who awarded him a seal of office as ruler of Naning. Prior to this, there had not been a single ruler over the territory. Fullerton thus believed that Naning had been an integral part of Malacca since Dutch rule in 1641 and that the British had inherited this when they took over Malacca from the Dutch.
Part of this confusion was what academic Jonathan Cave has described as a "collision of systems" between the British's ideas of sovereignty and the concept of traditional Malay rule and governance, which were based on Malay customs and adat. This was manifested in different understandings by both sides regarding the exact nature of the land jurisdiction over Naning that Britain had inherited from the Dutch, which was the cause of the conflict. To the British, Dol Said derived his authority and position from his appointment first from the Dutch and subsequently from the British. However, in his exchanges with the British, Dol Said continuously referred to his jurisdiction over Naning as stemming from the adat or 'customs' of the Malays which vested in him the 'sacrosanctity' of Malay kingship. To his followers, Dol Said's legitimacy stemmed from his ability to trace his authority from the Malaccan kingdom as represented by regalia which was associated with Malaccan royalty. However, the British officials had been largely contemptuous or condescending towards the importance placed on these Malay customs in their reports, dismissing it simply an excuse to act against a centralizing authority.
Excessive taxation
Another factor that contributed to the conflict was the issue of taxation. Writing during that period of time, Munshi Abdullah noted in his autobiography, that it has been the custom since ancient times for Naning to make annual payments according to its means to Malacca. This could take various forms including rice, poultry or fruit. Abdullah pointed out that the Dutch had previously invaded Naning and compelled it to pay an annual tribute to Malacca. This was subsequently commuted willingly by the Dutch to a nominal payment of 400 gantangs of rice which Naning accepted and paid. However, Abdullah claimed that when the EIC had decided to impose a tax of one-tenth of all the produce of Naning and its dependent villages instead of the annual tribute, Dol Said considered this to be an excessive demand and he refused to comply with it. When the British attempted to collect the full tenth, the Malays saw it as a breach of faith of what had been agreed upon as part of the 1801 treaty. There were also some fears by the neighboring chiefdoms that once Naning had been conquered, the same tax would be levied upon the adjacent chiefdoms as well.Part of the problem appeared to have arisen from the method by which Naning's output had been calculated by Lewis which greatly inflated the tax that could be collected. This probably affected Fullerton's perception of Naning, leading him to make an incorrect assessment regarding Naning's potential tax revenue. Lewis had estimated that Naning could yield at least 753,450 gantangs of rice a year and that the tax collected as part of the tenth would yield a revenue of $3,767 a year. However, this assessment appeared to have been compiled based on Lewis' own arbitrary assessment rather than any detailed study of the land in Naning. As Cave highlighted, Lewis did not appear to have taken into account the situation on the ground such as the variations in soil and types of crop nor did he conduct a topographical, cadastral or agronomic survey. After the conflict it was discovered that Naning could only produce around 130,000 gantang of rice and an annual profit of only $298.