Long before the concept of the rule of law became a defining mantra of modern states, the Majapahit Kingdom had already put it into governmental practice. In the 14th century, when much of Southeast Asia was still governed by unwritten customary law, Majapahit enforced a written legal code known as the Kutara Manawa Dharmasastra.
This law code was applied from 1293 until around 1500 CE, covering nearly the entire lifespan of Majapahit as a kingdom. During the reign of Dyah Hayam Wuruk Sri Rajasanagara (1350–1389), a period widely regarded as the height of Majapahit’s power, the Kutara Manawa served as the primary reference in all judicial proceedings.
The Kakawin Negarakretagama explicitly states that the king did not issue verdicts based on personal will; he was bound by written law.
This fact is reinforced by the Bendasari Inscription, the Trowulan Inscription dated 1358, and the Kidung Sorandaka, all of which record the existence and application of this legal text. In the context of the 14th century, this was no small achievement.
A Law Code Governing Everyday Life
Kutara Manawa was not a symbolic document. It functioned in detail. The code contains around 275 articles, organized into 20 chapters and grouped according to types of offenses.
Chapter I sets out general provisions on fines. Chapter II details eight categories of murder (astadusta). Chapter IV discusses eight forms of theft (astacorah). Other chapters regulate coercion (sahasa), physical fights (atukaran), land matters (bhumi), and defamation (duwilatek).
Majapahit did not yet recognize a strict separation between criminal and civil law. Nevertheless, both were substantively present side by side.
Murder, assault (walat), theft, and the illegal cutting of another person’s trees were regulated alongside rules on trade (adol-tuku), pawn agreements (sanda), inheritance (drewe kaliliran), debts (ahutang-apihutang), as well as marriage and divorce (kawarangan).
In other words, Kutara Manawa governed not only crime, but also the rhythms of everyday life in Majapahit society.
Indian Law, Javanese Interpretation
The influence of Indian legal traditions in Kutara Manawa is unmistakable. Texts such as the Manavadharmasastra and Kutaradharmasastra are explicitly cited as sources. Yet the Majapahit law code was far from a simple translation.
Article 109 explains that the law applied in Majapahit was drawn from the “essence” of Indian legal teachings and then adapted to local conditions. One clear example appears in the regulation of livestock pawn agreements.
Under Kutara Manawa, a pledged buffalo or cow was considered forfeited after three years, whereas the Manavadharmasastra set the period at five years.
Several provisions are also attributed to the teachings of Bhagawan Bregu, a key figure in ancient Indian legal tradition. This shows that the compilers of Kutara Manawa worked by synthesizing rather than copying, an approach to lawmaking that was contextual and adaptive.
Sanctions in Kutara Manawa Law
Kutara Manawa did recognize the death penalty as the maximum punishment. Murder, severe assault, theft, land destruction, damage to irrigation systems, and unauthorized tree cutting could all lead to execution.
Notably, capital punishment could also be imposed for acts that disrupted agricultural activity. Abandoning rice fields, damaging water channels, or neglecting livestock were regarded as serious threats to the kingdom’s food security.
In practice, however, Kutara Manawa more often prioritized fines and restitution. Fines were paid to the king, while victims received compensation amounting to several times the value of the loss.
These penalties were regulated in a detailed and graduated scale: Satak Rawe (250); Samas (400); Domas (800); Setali (1,000); Rwang Tali (2,000); Patang Tali (4,000); Salaksa (10,000); Rwang Laksa (20,000); Patang Laksa (40,000); and up to Saketi Nem Laksa (160,000), calculated in silver currency.
In certain cases, even a death sentence could be commuted through payment—except for grave offenses such as sorcery, slander against the king, or acts deemed to endanger royal authority.
Social Order and Legal Supremacy
Kutara Manawa also records a remarkably detailed concern for social conditions, including the age of criminal responsibility. Children under the age of ten were considered incapable of distinguishing right from wrong and were therefore not subject to criminal punishment.
In law enforcement, the king did not act alone. He was assisted by two dharmadyaksa and seven upapati, judicial officials with specific functions. This structure underscores that Majapahit law was institutional rather than personal.
Majapahit may have collapsed politically, but Kutara Manawa left a lasting legacy: long before the rise of modern states, the archipelago had already embraced written law, procedural justice, and the principle that even power itself must submit to rules.
