The Changing Face of Indonesian Colonialism
In this changing time, Indonesia needs to re-think its response toward colonialism and West Papua issue. I started writing my opinion pieces by publishing an article about how the nature of colonialism has not left our — Indonesian — administrative system even today. Amid the wave of protests over racial discrimination starting in the United States under the banner of Black Lives Matter (BLM), the discussion on colonialism is now becoming relevant again. BLM’s actions and ideas also gave birth to the idea of Papuan Lives Matter in Indonesia, a movement which focused on advocating the fundamental rights of the people living in Papua. The movement mainly fights for the freedom of speech and cultural-political expressions of the Papuans.
Following this movement, the Student Executive Board (Badan Eksekutif Mahasiswa, BEM) of the University of Indonesia (Universitas Indonesia) held a web-discussion on this matter (June 6, 2020). Unfortunately, there were many counter-responses to this initial means of dialogue to hear the voices of “others” represented by the speakers of that discussion. I will refrain from overstepping the boundaries in expressing disappointment towards such negative responses. Even so, let us revisit history and re-think our responses surrounding the issues of Papua, humanity, and our nationalism.
Colonial history — especially in Indonesia — is always a relevant topic to be discussed because it presents various points of view and diverse — often conflicting — opinions. Colonialism — or in its local Indonesian term, “penjajahan” — is commonly described as inhumane, evil, and illegitimate action. As a result of this, Indonesians condemn it and praise the national heroes who struggle to drive foreign invaders away from the archipelago. Indonesians’ reasons for hating colonialism are fairly easy to understand, colonialism presented exploitation, oppression, and deprived us — Indonesians — of our fundamental right to determine our destiny — usurping the right to govern the land that is truly ours. Even so, history tells us that the face of colonialism in Indonesia did not always seem that vicious.
In 1860, a famous novel titled Max Havelaar was published by a Dutch named Eduard Douwes Dekker (1820–87) who was an official that had served in Lebak. This novel prompted a shift in public opinion in the Netherlands and prompting strong protests from the liberals in the Dutch parliament. Shortly, the novel “pushed” an administrative transformation to the Dutch East Indies colonial management. Following the implementation of Regerings Reglement (the constitution of the colonies) of 1870, the economic hegemony by the Dutch state which had remained under the cultuurstelsel (the cultivation system; is also called “the forced cultivation system”) was abolished and the colony was “freed” toward a liberal economic system.
Thus far, the discussions about this era in Indonesia only focused on the negative effects of the economic liberalization in 1870. The economic expansion brought by this liberal policy eventually exploited and had worn out the population worse than the cultuurstelsel. However, at the same time, an important political transformation was carried out by the colonial government. On the outer islands (islands besides Java and Sumatra), the colonial government established contractual agreements with local authorities regarding their position in the colonial state.
These agreements were often made after the colonial government succeeded in reconciling inter-tribal or inter-regional conflicts that occurred in Kalimantan (Borneo), Sulawesi, and other eastern parts of the archipelago. Far from Indonesians’ vision about national unity, the Nusantara archipelago in the 19th century was still a landscape of lands and seas with scattered small countries who competed and fought with one another. Hinterland tribes were often hegemonized by coastal states. The unity that soon after formed between them was due to the “merit” of the Governor-Generals of the Dutch East Indies who asked them to merge into the auspices of the colonial state. The task of reconciling the tribes and small kingdoms of the outer islands was successfully fulfilled by Governor-General Carel Herman Aart van der Wijck (1840–1914; served, 1893–99) and Governor-General Johannes Benedictus van Heutz (1851–1924; served, 1904–09).
One would argue that without these two rulers, the unity of the country now called Indonesia would not exist. Both governor-generals were hated by people who were “reconciled” by them and by the European moralists and humanists. Vlekke (1959) stated that both of them were considered by European humanist scholars as supporters of “imperialism who uphold capitalist interests”. In fact, their efforts to “reconcile” the conflicting parties were conducted — according to their report — to improve the standard of living and civilization of local communities, as well as to maintain security and order. Therefore, in their report to the mother country, they mentioned that the short agreements (korte verklaring) they had made with the local leaders and kings were virtuous in purpose and was also a needed measure.
Van der Wijck and Van Heutz’s effort was one of the changes in the face of Indonesian colonialism. This nature was clearly different from the 17th century Dutch East India Company (Vereenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie, VOC) which did not care about the “standard of living” and “manners” of local populations because their purpose was solely for profit. The first episode of the changing colonial face above continued at the beginning of the 20th century.
In 1944, W. Preger — a Dutch administration scholar who received valuable information from Bogor Botanical Garden Curator Prof. Dr. L. G. Baas-Becking — published a book about the administration of the Dutch East Indies. This book illustrates the principles held by the Dutch colonial officers since 1900. The contents of this book are similar to a moral guide for a colonial officer when working in the Dutch East Indies under the nature of Ethical Policy. Entering the 20th century, the Dutch East Indies came under the administration of the Ethical Regime. The start of the Ethical Policy period was triggered by another controversial pamphlet — titled “Een eereschuld” by Conrad Theodor van Deventer (1857–1915) — which discusses about the Dutch “moral debt”. In short, the post of governor-general and the civil service corps (Binnenlandsch Bestuur, BB) were then filled with young souls who had a “noble” mission to prosper the land of the colony.
Preger wrote that colonial officials stayed true to the principle of universal good. The principles made them “sincerely” think about the welfare of the people at the lowest level. During this period, various discussions inside the Department of Economy were filled with topics of food security and the improvement towards the living standards of the colony. Important scholars such as Christiaan Snouck Hurgronje (1857–1936) sent letters of suggestions to the governor-general which urged him to immediately issue a new humanistic development policy. Hurgronje suggested that it must begin with educational development. According to him, one of the reasons that indigenous people experienced economic decline was an absence or lack of education. The educational sector and its facilities had not been touched by the colonial government since they first founded the Dutch East Indies colonial state in 1818.
To fulfil this request, the Dutch government in Europe even lent 40 million guilders (around USD 22.7 million or IDR 320 billion) to finance the construction of educational facilities in the colony. This issue was also addressed in Queen Wilhelmina’s speech in 1901 — where she declared the start of a benevolent Ethical Policy. At this point, the Dutch people — both in Europe and those serving in the Dutch East Indies — assumed that they were teaching “the correct way to be civilized” to the communities within the colony.
The Dutch even indicated a unique quality which was not demonstrated by other colonial powers. In implementing these new policies, the Dutch did not impose European standardized modernity. Anthropology scholars were mobilized to produce research on the local characteristics of the community so that the development of education and other aspects could be adjusted accordingly. Looking at these two episodes of Indonesian history from the Dutch side, doesn’t it seem that the Dutch colonialism or penjajahan actually has a good and noble intention?
Before answering my question, let us reflect the aspects of the new and changing face of colonialism to the present reality and phenomenon. In the reports of Governor-General Van der Wijck and Governor-General Van Heutz to the colonial minister in The Hague, they indicated that their effort to “reconcile” the tribal and inter-royal conflicts in the Nusantara archipelago were needed to ensure the safety of the warring parties. Why it was not the security of the Dutch? Because the focus of Dutch economic exploitation was in Sumatra and Java, while what was meant in the two rulers’ reports were the conflicts in Kalimantan and Sulawesi. By that logic, can Indonesians then accept their interfering efforts as “kind-hearted” efforts for the sake of security?
Therefore, asking Papua to accept military intervention in their territory is tantamount to asking Indonesians to accept the intervention of Van der Wijck and Van Heutz with gratitude — we must not forget that just like the Indonesian government which is now the current ruler of this archipelago, the Dutch colonial government at that time was also a legal ruler due to numerous agreements they had secured with the local leaders. Just like the case of the army of the two governor-generals who were partly foreign (from the Netherlands, Sumatra, and Java) and partly local, the troops in Papua are not entirely indigenous Papuans. If we now as Indonesians who have always felt colonized can accept the intervention of the two governor-generals, we should also then no longer question the military intervention for Papua’s “security”.
Moreover, we — as the people and government of Indonesia — often believed the argument about our “good and noble intentions” to develop Papua. Did the colonial government not hold to the same “good and noble intentions” — even equipped with noble principles about ‘universal good’? Even so, there was one aspect that the Dutch could not give to the natives, namely political freedom — the freedom to question the existence and legitimacy of the Dutch colonialists. We must remember that the discussions of the Indonesian National Party (Partai Nasional Indonesia, PNI) and other nationalist groups in the 1910s and 1920s were still in the stage of the “exercise of thought”. They were still considering the legitimacy and existence of the Dutch rulers in Indonesian land. However, this has been suppressed in such a way by the Political Intelligence (Polieteke Inlichtingen Dienst, PID).
In 1940, as Abeyasekere (1976) stated in her work, a nationalist figure Cipto Mangunkusumo wrote several letters and articles — published both in Dutch and Indonesian — explaining his desire for all Indonesians to work closely with the colonial government to survive the Second World War. However, this voice fell on the deaf ears of the government who did not give the slightest chance of cooperation with the Indonesians. Had the Dutch not been so fierce and repressive of the discussions and political movements of the nationalists, the nationalist movement would have certainly joined the colonial government. With this I ask, what distinguishes us and our — Indonesian — government from the Dutch East Indies colonial government in 1900 to 1942? When did we become so frightened by the discussion that questions our existence and legitimacy? Aren’t the negative responses toward discussions such as these indicate that our existence and legitimacy is actually invalid?
Amidst the waves of BLM protests and deep sympathy for the issue surrounding Papua, let us — Indonesians — re-think a few questions. Are we ready to gracefully accept the intervention of Van der Wijck and Van Heutz? Are we ready to graciously accept the belief that the Dutch’s “directives” under Ethical Policy is aimed to make us “civilized” and raise our standard of living? If the answer is yes, I will no longer question the issue of Papua — because what we do with Papua is similar in pattern to the face of colonialism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
*) The author would like to acknowledge Rafi Ronny Wazier (University of Indonesia) for his clarity enhancement of this article.
Further Readings
Abeyasekere, Susan. 1976. One Hand Clapping: Indonesian Nationalists and the Dutch, 1939–1942. Melbourne: Centre of Southeast Asian Studies Monash University.
Baudet, H. and I. J. Brugmans. 1987. Politik Etis dan Revolusi Kemerdekaan. Jakarta: Obor.
Gobée, E. and C. Adriaanse. 1991. Ambtelijke Adviezen van C. Snouck Hurgronje, 1899–1936 (Nasihat-nasihat C. Snouck Hurgronje semasa Kepegawaiannya kepada Pemerintah Hindia Belanda 1899–1936, Penerjemah Sukarsi). Jakarta: INIS.
Goor, J. van. 1994. De Nederlanse Kolonien: Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse Expansie, 1600–1975. ‘s-Gravenhage: SDU.
Koch, D. M. G. 1950. Om de Vrijheid: De Nationalistische Beweging in Indonesie. Jakarta: Pembangunan.
Ong Hok Ham. 1989. Runtuhnya Hindia Belanda. Jakarta: Gramedia.
Preger, W. 1944. Dutch Administration in the Netherlands Indies. Melbourne: F. W. Cheshire.
Vlekke, Bernard H. M. 1959. Nusantara: A History of Indonesia. The Hague: W. van Hoeve.
