Thanks for your reply.

But, as I said before, there is a fundamental difference between a contract and a treaty.

This comes to the essence of the original questioner, to which I was replying. Treaties require a recognition of sovereignty, contracts do not.

As far as Aceh (and also Negri Sembilan) is concerned. Decentralisation "within" a state is one thing. Recognising all the decentralised parts as seperate polities is quite a different matter.

Yours,
Christopher

--Previous Message--
: Dear Mister Buyers;
:
: Of course such things happened,but not so
: strong as you describe.In a certain time the
: different sub-rajas of Negeri Sembilan were
: more independent.There is however no
: example,where the Dutch just dismememebered
: several states.Aceh was in a ceratin time
: already really decentralised by it's own
: history.Again:the Dutch at the highest thing
: only made use of a certain situation.
: It is impossible to make all kind of
: contracts with functionaries,because then
: the other will not agree.Don't thik,that the
: Dutch had superpower all the 3 1/2 centuries
: they were in Indonesia.Until 1900 they were
: in most of the state only nominal
: present.Only when you treatened the plans of
: Holland(which were not only in the economy
: field),you were pushed away for a time.Don't
: think either,that the Dutch were totally
: different from the English.
: Siak was a state,that had much areas under
: him,but also not always real power.It
: remained as a big state.The ohrer states
: wanted to be independent.That is normal in
: world history.And for that you need other
: powers.
: I think,when a people did very much
: enthousiasm in their rebellion,then they
: were made another kind of state(a bit
: decentralised).
: I have never really seen,that a state was
: just taken apart only for power.
: Anyway,I am happy,that the Indonesian
: monarchs have now the possibility to show
: the good things of their systems.
: In the beginning the Dutch made treaties
: with the Rajas,later that became
: contracts,because the Dutch wanted to
: protact the living of the people there,so
: wanted,that the rulers ruled good,so for
: that the Dutch needed tools to control that.
: The rulers were sovereign powers always.They
: transformed their sovereignity to the Dutch.
: Anyway:it is an interesting subject.Good we
: can give each other information.
:
: Yours sincerelly: Donald
:
:
: --Previous Message--
: Dear Donald,
:
: I agree with most of what you say, but there
: is a fundamental difference here.
:
: A treaty requires sovereign power on the
: part of the person signing it. A contract,
: on the other hand, does not require such a
: status on the part of the signatory and can
: be concluded with basically anyone.
:
: In the context of Malay states, although
: there was always a sovereign, the
: administration was very often decentralised.
: The state being basically divided up into
: fiefdoms. The sultan, or ruler would
: directly administer a certain part of the
: territory, but other parts would be
: administered by others. A Raja Muda would
: have one part, the Bendahara another, a
: powerful nobleman another part, or a great
: territorial magnate somewhere else.
:
: The Dutch would indeed make a contract with
: the sultan. However, they would find that,
: for example, they could not harvest their
: share of the bird's nests in the Bendahara's
: area without also signing an agreement with
: him. Or else, the Raja Muda was responsible
: for the port at the bottom of the river and
: had the right to levy export duties for
: anything that went through there. So then a
: contract would have to be signed with him.
: And so on and so forth. Little by little
: these became separate polities and the
: central authority diminished.
:
: If you look at the Malay peninsular, this
: was starting to happen when the Dutch were
: in Malacca. They were making individual
: contracts with the different magnates of
: Negri Sembilan. If they had remained there,
: the central authority of the YDP would have
: slowly dissappeared.
:
: If you look at Sumatra, you can clearly see
: this exactly what happened to the Siak
: sultanate. Contracts were made with
: individual local maganates, who eventualy
: emerged as separate rulers over separate
: polities. The Siak sultan's authority being
: truncated to only a small fraction of the
: original sultanate.
:
: The Celebes are also an example, where litle
: by little virtually every minor datu or
: arung had a direct contract.
:
: --Previous Message--
: Dear readers;
:
: Of course the situation in Indonesia is
: different,but not really like that as we
: think it is.I am glad,I live in
: Holland,where you have very good
: documentation about it.
: India is a different country as
: Indonesia.Maybe more organised in political
: matters.The Dutch were indeed more
: businesslike minded,but not only that.
: First they always tried to make contact with
: the supreme ruler,but if this ruler didn't
: want to,then they made with the
: sub-rulers.They never divided the area just
: as such,but always adapted to the situation
: existing.The Portugese were more the
: one's,who divided unwilling
: principalities;like on Timor.
: They Dutch were in W.-Timor,found there
: several kingdoms,who were already a bit
: divided then.They wanted to make
: contacts,but also wanted to be sure,that
: they had contact with all,so also signed
: contracts with sub-rulers,which they
: recognized for a time as rajas.Later the
: areas were united in bigger
: principalities.The original drawings of the
: political things.But you never must
: forget,that when they arrived,they didn't
: know much and local rulers could make them
: convince many things.
: They always followed the traditional
: statestructures.In Indonesia even the areas
: had fixed boundaries(maybe in a bit other
: way,as we are used.)I have maps of all the
: areas,which you can call principalities,of
: Indonesia.Of course sometimes just maps had
: to be drawn with the information about
: possesion of land given by local
: people.These maps were recognized by the
: Jaopanese occupation force later and mostly
: also by the new republican Indonesian
: government until the present time.
: And eople and royalty/nobility still use it
: as having rights over certain pieces the
: state.
: I don't know,if the contracts with the
: rulers have really the status in the global
: political field.But it just was made like
: that and when an area was disputed by 2
: countries,then the International Court of
: Justice always accepted,if already contracts
: were signed between Holland and a local
: prince,or between another country and a
: local Prince.
: Other information you always can ask me.
: There is a book about that written by K.E.M.
: Bongenaar;but written in Dutch.
: Thank you for your interest.
: Yours sincerelly: D.P. Tick gRMK
: secretary Documentation Centre of the
: Indonesian Principalities 'Pusaka"
: (Pusat Dokumentasi Kerajaan2 di Indonesia
: "Pusaka")
: Vlaardingen/the Netherlands
: www.royaltimor.com
: --Previous Message--
: The arrangement of things in the former
: Dutch
: East Indies was very different from those in
: Malaya or India, of for that matter French
: Indo-China.
:
: The Dutch were very much more business like.
: They didn't have treaties, which have a
: status in international law. Instead, they
: had contracts with the local ruler, regent,
: regency council or other native authority.
:
: The word "contract" tells you
: quite a lot about the purpose. Originally,
: the Dutch East India Company were primarily
: interested in trade, and more specifically,
: ensuring a monopoly over trade with the East
: Indies. The purpose of the original
: contracts were to secure trade and ensure
: that the local rulers did not trade with
: other nations. Each ruler had to sign a new
: contract on his succession, provided his
: succession was recognised or agreed with the
: Governor-General in Batavia. Gradually over
: time each ruler was required to agree to
: more and more conditions, which went beyond
: mere trade.
:
: As contracts, rather than treaties, the
: local rulers were not recognised as
: sovereigns, either by Dutch or international
: law.
:
: Because of the treaty system, the British
: would only ever recognise a single sovereign
: authority within a given polity. Which,
: contrary to the usual nationalist refrain of
: divide and rule, resulted in the
: consolidation and unity of states over time.
:
: The Dutch system, on the other hand, meant a
: willingness to sign contracts with whomever
: was willing to do so and supply the trading
: needs of the company. Often, this would mean
: than in a given polity, contracts would be
: signed with a multiplicity of local regional
: magnates, landlords and noblemen, not just
: the supreme ruler. This led to gradual
: dismemberment of the original polity into
: smaller and smaller entities over.
:
:
:
: --Previous Message--
: Did the various monarchs in Indonesia during
: the time of the Netherlands control have the
: same powers as the Princes of India &
: the Sultans of Malaya? Did the various
: states have specific boundaries as the
: states in India did? In other words were
: they sovereign internally over specific
: states?
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: