Once the Dutch took over Aceh, they abolished the sultanate and made it a province under a centrally appointed governor. They gave the former regional magnates individual contracts. So no, Aceh was not a state after that. The Dutch aim for most of its history in Indonesia was to try and bring all these territories under some sort of direct rule. To a great extent they had succeeded in this aim in many parts of, for example, Java and Southern Sumatra. The former nobles and landed aristocracy became absorbed into a sort of native civil service, being appointed as "bupati" to rule directly under Dutch authority. The traditional system was supposed to be modified according to the Ethical Policy announced at the turn of the twentieth century. This envisaged a system somewhat akin to the status of the Burmese Shan and Karenni states. Not quite treaty states like Malaya or India with sovereigns, but almost. However, this took another twenty years or so before it was implemented. It was only in the mid 1930's that, for example, the Rajas of Bali were restored. --Previous Message--
: Then you would not have considered Aceh or
: Surakarta for example a state like you would
: have Jaipur or Indore for example.
:
: --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?
:
:
:
:
:
442
Message Thread
« Back to index