Atjeh onneembaar — Atjeh impregnable — was the thesis argued by H. van Kol in the Tweede Kamer on 17 November 1897, and printed under that editorial heading in Atjeh in de Tweede Kamer (1897), that the subjection of Atjeh by force was in principle unattainable because the Dutch method of warfare increased rather than diminished the enemy’s fighting strength.
The argument from blood revenge
Van Kol’s central proposition rested on Acehnese adat: “Wie het volkskarakter kent, weet dat elk Atjeher die sneuvelt, aan zijne talrijke bloedverwanten den plicht der weerwraak oplegt: al is het jaren later, de trouw aan de „Vendetta” eischt het dooden der vijanden die hem versloegen.” — Whoever knows the national character knows that every Acehnese who falls imposes on his numerous blood relations the duty of blood revenge: though it be years later, fidelity to the „Vendetta” demands the killing of the enemies who slew him.
From this followed his account of the effect of Dutch operations: “Wij kunnen woningen vernielen en mannen dooden, zelfs vrouwen en kinderen doen vallen, maar wij verminderen de weerbaarheid der strijders niet, wel de onmacht der vredelievend gezinden. Wij wekken aldus verbittering en steunen de oorlogszuchtige deelen der bevolking, die niets liever dan een guerilla-oorlog wenschen.” — We can destroy dwellings and kill men, can even cause women and children to fall, but we do not diminish the fighting capacity of the warriors — only the powerlessness of the peaceably disposed. We thus rouse bitterness and support the war-loving parts of the population, who wish nothing better than a guerrilla war.
The character of the guerrilla
He described the pattern of that guerrilla: “Na eene nederlaag maken zij zich uit de voeten, verdwijnen in ontoegankelijke binnenlanden om later, versterkt en met nieuwe hulptroepen, terug te komen; zij zijn overal en nergens en alleen te bereiken wanneer zij lust en tijd hebben om te vechten.” — After a defeat they make off, disappear into inaccessible interiors, to return later strengthened and with new auxiliaries; they are everywhere and nowhere, and are only to be reached when they have the inclination and the time to fight. The result of Dutch policy was therefore: “Wij vormen een verbitterd volk in een verwoest land, dat wij met bajonetten bezaaien, en waar wij allen, groot en klein, tot vijanden hebben gemaakt.” — We are forming an embittered people in a devastated land, which we sow with bayonets, and where we have made enemies of all, great and small.
He put the question: “Zal men zulk een volk tot onderwerping brengen of het uitroeien, waar het eene kwart eeuw lang heldhaftig weerstand bood aan vreemde indringers?” — Shall one bring such a people to submission, or exterminate it, where for a quarter of a century it has heroically withstood foreign intruders?
The two testimonies
Van Kol supported the thesis with two witnesses, one Dutch and one Acehnese. The Dutch witness was Fransen van de Putte, who had called out to the chamber in September 1876 — twenty-one years before — “Geeft niet toe aan den volkswaan van een dag; tracht niet door krachtige middelen een einde aan den oorlog te maken; het zal u niet gelukken!” (Handelingen II 1876/77, p. 49). The Acehnese witness was Toekoe Baid, who in his banishment had said to a senior official who had gained his confidence: “als de mannen gedood zijn, zullen de vrouwen oorlog voeren, en als deze gevallen zijn zullen de kinderen, groot geworden, den krijg hervatten.” — when the men are killed, the women will wage war, and when these have fallen the children, grown up, will resume the fight.
Related arguments in the debate
The thesis was reinforced by Troelstra’s parallel argument that the Dutch position was “reddeloos”: whoever had followed the Atjeh literature knew that the last word usually spoken was that the Dutch would gladly work vigorously and tackle the matter energetically, but that their strength, financially and in the matter of obtaining the troops needed to hold out against that fanatical population, did not permit it. Van der Zwaag observed that however unequal the advice of the Indies specialists might be, they agreed remarkably in this, that whatever tactics were followed one would not for a long time be able to withdraw from the wasps’ nest if one persisted on the road of violence.
Against the thesis stood Cremer’s contention that no people’s war was being waged at all, the population attaching itself to the strongest and to him who protected it, and his report that in the XXV Moekims the population had itself driven off the bands of Toekoe Oemar and killed their leader.
See Also
- H. van Kol
- Toekoe Baid
- Isaac Dignus Fransen van de Putte
- Pieter Jelles Troelstra
- Kafir
- Prang Sabil
- Atjeh debate in the Tweede Kamer (16-17 November 1897)
- 1876
- 1897
Source
Atjeh in de Tweede Kamer: Debatten bij de behandeling der begrooting van Nederlandsch-Indië voor 1898, uitgave van de Sociaaldemokratische Arbeiderspartij in Nederland (Amsterdam: J. A. Fortuijn, 1897). Koninklijk Instituut voor de Tropen, Br P95-178, pp. 67–68, 43, 26.
Acknowledgement of sources. The material in this article derives from Atjeh in de Tweede Kamer: Debatten bij de behandeling der begrooting van Nederlandsch-Indië voor 1898 (Amsterdam: J. A. Fortuijn, 1897). Dutch passages are quoted in the original with an English rendering.