The Indonesian archipelago was taken by the Dutch,so just they needed the cooperation of the rulers;that was just a matter of time.
The rulers had sovereign power,or had that with their people.
Aceh(I don't know about Negeri Sembilan)was not decenrtalised.In the north was the actual sultanate.More to the south was the area of so-called stateletts.These were attached to the sultan with contracts;but in fact very on their own and most of them were states of very recent time and very recent settlement.Pepercolonies.

Ruling is what the Western countries did.
All states in Indonesia are organised people settlements

--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?
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: