Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T16:50:11.569Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dutch-Indonesian Relations 1940–19411.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2009

J. M. Pluvier
Get access

Extract

The development of pre-war Indonesian nationalism may be divided into four periods. The first period witnessed the shy initial attempts to achieve improvements in the cultural, economic, political and religious fields, stimulated more or less by the then prevalent Ethical Policy of the Dutch administration. During the late tens and the early twenties the political scene was dominated by the Sarekat Islam and the Partai Komunis Indonesia, at first collaborating, later competing with each other, but, whatever their mutual relations, both responsible for an amount of vociferous agitation and political vivacity which highly upset Dutch official and private circles. The abortive communist revolts of 1926–7 led to a harsh repression of everything communist, while the Sarekat Islam was losing its hold over the masses with which it had lost contact already after it had thrown out the leftists. At this stage real nationalism began to fill the vacuum caused by the disappearance of the P.K.I, and the powerlessness of the S.I. There is no doubt that the previous agitation had been motivated by genuine nationalist feelings, but these had either been subordinated to or run parallel with more internationally inclined movements such as Islamic reformism and Marxist socialism. After 1926, however, nationalism – and professedly Indonesian nationalism for that matter – was made the basic principle of political action. This became clear when the oldest party, the very cautious, in its origins very aristocratic and hardly more than Central Javanese Boedi Oetomo decided to include Indonesian nationalism into its programme. The new trend received its most clear expression, of course, in Soekarno's Partai Nasional Indonesia, which advocated a Free Indonesia, to be achieved by non-cooperation with the Dutch administration and the broadest possible co-operation with other political parties.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Southeast Asian History , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , March 1965 , pp. 33 - 47
Copyright
Copyright © The National University of Singapore 1965

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2. Cf. Pluvier, J. M.: The Soetardjo PetitionGoogle Scholar in: Journal of the Historical Society University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, vol. II 1963/4, especially pp. 51–59.

3. Sjahrir, S., Out of Exile, p. 218Google Scholar. — So Thamrin asked whether the Dutch Cabinet in London was still representing the lawful government, as art. 21 of the Constitution stipulated that the seat of government should be on Dutch territory, cf. Handelingen (= Proceedings) Volksraad 1940–41, pp. 753, 783, 1235.Google Scholar

4. Picard, H. W. J., De Waarheid over Java, p. 13.Google Scholar

5. On the Indonesian attitude: I P O — 1940, pp. 345 et seq. (I P O stands for “Survey of the Indonesian and Malay language Chinese Press”, issued weekly by the Information Service).

6. I P O — 1940, pp. 458–459.

7. Soeara Katholiek 7.6.1940: I P O — 1940, p. 457.

8. Cf. van Ertryck, J, De plannen Jonkman-Mansvelt, in: Koloniaal Tijdschrift, 1941, pp. 2–13Google Scholar; Jonkman, J. A., Nederlandsch Indië in de oorlog, in: Koloniale Studiën, 1940, pp. 487–496Google Scholar; Bataviaasch Niewsblad 11.10.1940; for Indonesian reactions: I P O — 1940, pp. 995–996; 1041–1044.

9. Handelingen Volksraad 1940–'41, p. 3–9Google Scholar; Indonesian comments in I P O — 1940, pp. 485–489, 528, 543, 548–549, 556–557.

10. de Kadt, J., De Indonesische Tragedie, p. 36.Google Scholar

11. Bijlagen (= Annexes) Volksraad 1940–'41, Onderwerp (= Subject)35, Stuk (= Document) 1. and 2. — The Dutch words for Indonesian are “Indonesiër” (subst.) and “Indonesisch” (adj.), for Indonesia: “Indonesië”.

12. Handelingen Volksraad 1940–'41, pp. 558–559.Google Scholar

13. Kritiek en Opbouw, 16.7.1939.

14. in Dutch: “inheemse” and “uitheemse onderdanen-niet-Nederlanders” respectively.

15. Bijlagen Volksraad 1936–'37, Onderwerp 36.; also: I P O — 1936, p. 509.

16. Report of the Visman Committee (see note 22), vol. II, p. 109. Also: Bijlagen Volksraad 1939–'4O, Onderwerp 1, Algemeen Gedeelte (= General Part). Stuk 8.

17. Bijlagen Volksraad 1940–'41, Ond, 36Google Scholar, Stuk 1 and 2.Google Scholar

18. Handelingen Volksraad 1940–'41, pp. 558–539.Google Scholar

19. Bijlagen Volksraad 1939–'4O, Ond. 96Google Scholar, Stuk 13Google Scholar; ibid. 1940–'41, Ond. 37.Google Scholar

20. Handelingen Volksraad 1940–'41, pp. 558–559.Google Scholar

21. I P O — 1940, pp. 855–861, 946–948; I P O — 1940, pp. 140–141.

22. Verslag van de Commissie tot Bestudeering van Staatsrechtelijke Hervormingen, 2 vols. 1941Google Scholar. Chairman of the Commission was Dr. F.H. Visman.

23. Wertheim, W. F., Nederland op de Tweesprong, p. 11Google Scholar, cf. Report of the Visman Commission, Vol. II, pp. 209–211, 346.

24. Handelingen Volksraad 1940–'41, p. 579.Google Scholar

25. I P O — 1940, pp. 805–807.

26. I P O — 1940, p. 793.

27. Handelingen Volksraad 1940–'41, pp. 733 et seq.Google Scholar

28. ibid., pp. 1233–1238.

29. I P O — 1940, pp. 1151–1157, 1218.

30. Pemandangan 21.12.1940; I P O — 1940, pp. 1239–1241.Google Scholar

31. Bijlagen Volksraad 1940–'41, Onderwerp 1, Algemeen Gedeelte, Stuk 5, 11 and 12Google Scholar: ibid, Onderwerp 1Google Scholar, Afdeling IV, Stuk 23.Google Scholar

32. Handelingen Volksraad 1940–1941, pp. 2007–2010.Google Scholar

33. I P O — 1 9 4 1, pp. 44–46, 53–66, 87–106, 145–146; Handelingen Volksraad 1940–'41, pp. 2061–2062, 2110–2130, 2140–2143Google Scholar; cf. the article on Thamrin in; Koch, D.M.G., Batig Slot; Figuren uit het Oude Indië.Google Scholar

34. I P O — 1940, pp. 703–704, 719, 743.

35. ibid., pp. 1036–1038.

36. ibid., pp. 1200–1202, 1242–1243.

37. I P O — 1941, pp. 259–261.

38. ibid. pp. 261–263.

39. ibid. pp. 387–390, 421–424, 572–575, 623–624, 740–744, 769–770, 784.

40. van Helsdingen, H. W., De Plants van Nederlandsch Indië in het Koninkrijk, Vol. I, p. 216.Google Scholar

41. Handelingen Volksraad 1941–'42, pp. 3–6.Google Scholar

42. Veenstra, J. H. W., d'Artagnan tegen Jan Fuselier, p. 26.Google Scholar

43. I P O — 1941, pp. 906–909.

44. Blumberger, J. Th. Petrus. De Nationalistische Beweging in Nederlandsch Indie. p. 24.Google Scholar

45. I P O — 1941, pp. 227, 748–749, 780–782.

46. ibid., pp. 814–816.

47. ibid., pp. 880–882, 948–951, 976–980.

48. ibid., pp. 1038–1039.

49. Handelingen Volksraad 1941–'42, pp. 619–622, 1086–1089.Google Scholar

50. ibid., pp. 204 et seq.

51. ibid., p. 781.