Alas no. I am afraid that they are not the same. That was the whole point of highlighting the difference between a treaty and a contract. The terms have a very different meaning, not only in ordinary language and usage, but very much so in law. For example, in the case of the Indian rulers, they enjoyed sovereign immunity in the law courts. This was upheld here in the UK as late as 1954, when the English brother-in-law of the Amir of Bahawalpur tried to sue him in the English courts. At that time, Bahawalpur was still in treaty relations with Pakistan and had not yet been integrated. As for Aceh, it always was very decentralised. Power was exercised on behalf of the Sultan by powerful ministers and regional magnates, throughout its history. Indeed, for a considerable period of time it had female rulers, who did not exercise any direct power themselves. At other times, even the sultans may not have exercised direct power outside Bandar Aceh. However, their status as sovereign was never in doubt. We can of course discuss Zululand in a new subject thread, but that did not form any part of the original question here. We were asked us to compare the status of the rulers of India and Malaya with Indonesia. In law and in practice, they were very different. --Previous Message--
: Dear Mister Buyers;
:
: Sorry I said it not clearly enough
: before.The area of Aceh was laready
: decentralised by it's onw history.There was
: a sultanate and the areas under.These were
: not really part of the sultanate, but
: recognized the Sultan as it's suzerain(when
: you want to give him the most power in the
: system),or symbolic chief.But in fact he not
: really was.But the sultanate Acehin itself
: wasn't decentralised.That was the northern
: part of the Aceh area,the later so-called
: direct ruled area.In fact the real ruling
: power was decentralised,but the system as
: sultanate remained.So not there also more
: new stateletts.
: The Aceh case and the 101
: stateletts/uleebalangships was quite unique
: in Indonesia.Peper was quite important,so al
: kind of people went to the South of the
: so-called Aceh area and founded
: peppercolonies,but were not conquered(as the
: sultans did before with certain areas)by
: them in the new situation.Before Aceh was a
: conquering nation and has much influence in
: f.i. the Eastern Coast of Sumatra:f.i. in
: states like Deli;Asahan and surrounding
: areas.
: But the ullebalangships were for a part
: organised by people from the actual
: sultanate,asked for official papers/symbols
: of recognition by the Sultan,but in fact
: just wanted to be lord in their own right.
: Some of these stateletts were ruled by
: orinal dynasties;already ruling some
: stateletts for centuries.
: For a part you are right,but still this area
: is unique in it's stateformations and is not
: done/created by the Dutch East Indish
: Government, who just made use of the
: situation and of course stimulated
: that.Never a western country was powerfull
: enough to totally disunite a state.
: F.i. in Zululand the English disunited the
: kingdom,but later it was recreated again by
: it's own people(see the present situation).
: Bone and Gowa on Sulawesi also were
: disunited by the Dutch after 1905,but were
: made one state again after their
: restoration.But in Aceh to restore the total
: area as a sultanate would never be tolreated
: by most of the uleebalangs,because they were
: alerady real stateletts and not merely
: districts and former areas of a big
: sultanate.
: It is very strange,that all over the
: Indonesian archipelago the dynasties are
: revived;f.i. at Indonesian royal festivals
: and -meetings.But never there was one symbol
: dynastychief present for the total Aceh
: area.Also some of the uleebalang-dynasties
: were present at such events.
: In Luwu also some of the Toraja vasals and
: sub-rajas try to be recognized as real
: independent(one way or another)dynasties
: nowadays.But in fact that isn't really
: tolerated.
: Yes,it is all a subtle difference.Real
: states,or former parts of a kingdom like
: part of Sumatra.
: Again:in the independence struggle in Aceh
: from ca. 1873 the local rulers recognized
: him as their sultan(their religion told them
: to do so),but in fact hardly gave him any
: real power.
: In Bone and Gowa(so-called monarchy
: democracies)this was really unthinkable.
: The sentiments of Aceh sultanate and the
: uleebalangships you can compare with
: England,Holland and the relationship with
: the colonists from the beginning until the
: present time.
: Anyway,let we stop this discussion.I made my
: point and you yours.Maybe you can reread my
: reactions,so that you can understand my
: explanations,which are sometimes a bit
: ununderstandable for you.I was quite busy
: this week.
: The Dutch already had the area,but only
: neeeded the cooperation on paper with the
: rulers.But in fact it was all the same as
: what the English did,although other words
: were used.
: Thank you for your attention.
:
: Yours sincerelly: D.P. Tick gRMK/Pusaka.
:
:
:
:
: --Previous Message--
: Donald,
:
: Sorry to say this but in your previous post
: your wrote:
: "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."
:
: Now you say that "Aceh(I don't know
: about Negeri Sembilan)was not
: decenrtalised."
:
: As for recent settlements, that is very much
: the pattern of Malay history throughout the
: centuries. New settlements springing up all
: the time. Typically, when a settlement
: became too large or a port silted up, a
: headman or prince would gather his clan and
: followers, go down the coast or river and
: set up a new settlement. This would either
: be in virgin territory or in an area
: previously settled but abandoned. It does
: not necessarily mean that allegience to the
: sultan or sovereign ceased everytime a new
: settlement was created.
:
: What happened with the Aceh sultanate was
: that the Dutch chipped away at the
: subordinate magantes along the East and West
: coasts of Sumatra. They were given separate
: contracts, their caps (seals of authority)
: taken away and Dutch ones substituted. When
: Aceh proper was conquered 1879-1903, the
: sultanate was eventually abolished, and the
: "Teukus" who were closer to the
: centre were again given separate contracts
: within a new Dutch province of Aceh.
:
: Once again, I would like to point out the
: fundamental difference between a treaty and
: a contract. The former recognises
: sovereignty, the latter does not.
:
:
:
1
Message Thread
« Back to index