Mr J. H. Bergsma — Johannes Hermannus Bergsma (1832-1887) — was a Dutch liberal politician who served as minister of Colonies (1897-1901) in the Vermeulen-predecessor cabinets. He is, in Vermeulen’s retrospective, the ethische politiek minister who “nadrukkelijk niet wilde poseren als hervormer” — emphatically did not wish to pose as a reformer — and who has accordingly “vergausd en thans vergeten” — been vilified and is now forgotten. Yet his scepticism about the ethische politiek is, in Vermeulen’s judgement, itself a form of ethics.
Mr. J. H. Bergsma was Minister of Colonies of the Netherlands immediately before J. T. Cremer, and appears in the record of the Atjeh debate of 1897 in two connections: as the minister who admitted that the cost of the Atjeh-oorlog could not be stated, and as the author of the government’s statement against mutilation of 22 September 1896.
The Bergsma question
Vermeulen preserves Bergsma’s answer to the ethische politiek consensus in the form of a thought-experiment that he posed to the Tweede Kamer:
“Als men aan 50.000 Europeanen en aan 20 millioen inlanders vroeg, of zij gemeentelijke raden en gewestelijke raden wensen te hebben [zouden] van de Europeanen misschien een honderdtal die vraag met ja beantwoorden en [zouden] die 20 millioen inlanders zeggen: ‘och, geef ons geen nieuwe bevelen, zorg er voor dat alles wat wij verdienen in onze handen komt, beschik niet te veel over onze tijd, laat ons werken voor ons zelven, leg ons geen te hoge belastingen op; wij willen wat billijk en nodig is gaarne betalen, mits de een niet meer moet opbrengen dan de ander, en laat ons dan verder ons zelf kalm ontwikkelen en tot rust komen. Dat zijn de wensen van de inlander’.”
— If one were to ask 50,000 Europeans and 20 million inlanders whether they wished to have municipal councils and regional councils, perhaps a hundred of the Europeans would answer the question with yes, and those 20 million inlanders would say: ‘oh, give us no new orders, see to it that all we earn comes into our hands, do not dispose too much of our time, let us work for ourselves, do not impose too high taxes on us; we will gladly pay what is fair and necessary, provided that one is not required to contribute more than another, and let us then further calmly develop ourselves and come to rest. Those are the wishes of the inlander.‘
Significance
Bergsma’s thought-experiment is, in Vermeulen’s retrospective, the type-specimen of the ethische politiek counter-argument from indigenous indifference. It places Bergsma in the company of the lesser-known but morally alert colonial politicians — the “vergseealsookte en thans vergeten figuren” — whose scepticism about the uplift agenda was, in Vermeulen’s verdict, itself a form of ethical engagement.
On Atjeh
Bergsma’s ministry covered the 1897-1901 period — the immediate pre-Oemar-defection years and the post-concentratie recovery. The troonrede of 1901 that officially proclaimed the ethical policy was, in part, a judgement on the comparative restraint of the Bergsma years.
The admission on the cost of the war
H. van Kol told the Tweede Kamer on 16 November 1897 that with so extensive a bureaucracy “moest de minister Bergsma nog slechts 5 maanden geleden verklaren, dat men nòch bij het Ministerie van Koloniën, nòch in Indië met juistheid kan opgeven hoeveel gelden speciaal voor Atjeh zijn uitgegeven.” — the minister Bergsma had, only five months ago, to declare that neither at the Ministry of Colonies nor in the Indies can one state with precision how much money has been spent specifically on Atjeh. Van Kol thought it very desirable that the sum should once be accurately calculated so far as possible, “als een ernstige waarschuwing voor volgende geslachten, en voor alle Regeeringen, die nog door koloniale veroveringszucht worden bezield.” — as a serious warning for following generations, and for all Governments that are still animated by colonial lust of conquest.
The statement on mutilation of 22 September 1896
On 17 November 1897 Cremer, answering the charges of cruelty, quoted with full endorsement the words with which Bergsma had closed an extensive argument on 22 September 1896 in answer to a question of Goeman Borgesius:
“Eens blijkt echter voldoende uit de gewisselde telegrammen, dat de Nederlandsche en de Indische regeering, beiden ten sterkste gekant zijn tegen het mutileeren, gelijk het terecht algemeen is afgekeurd. Mocht zich dit enkele geval hebben voorgedaan, hetgeen bij een leger uit verschillende elementen bestaande niet geheel onverklaarbaar is, dan zal zulks zeker niet meer gebeuren. De Gouverneur-Generaal heeft het ten strengste verboden.”
Cremer added: “Ik heb er niets aan toe te voegen; de tegenwoordige Regeering onderschrijft ten volle het toen gesprokene.” — I have nothing to add to it; the present Government fully subscribes to what was then said.
Continuity of policy
Cremer described himself in the same debate as the executor of a Royal authorisation obtained on the proposal of his predecessor, by which — in accordance with the proposals of the Governor-General — a definite plan of action towards Atjeh had been adopted, mentioned on page 7 of the Koloniaal Verslag. He also stated that fourteen successive Ministers of Colonies, thirteen predecessors and himself, had borne the responsibility for the war in its various phases, each for his own phase.
Bahlmann told the chamber that the chief reason the war had lasted so long was that at the accession of every new Governor-General or new cabinet the system was changed, and that the appointment of Cremer was for him a guarantee that no such change would now occur.
See Also
- Ethische Politiek
- Troonrede of 1901
- Concentratie-stelsel (1884-1896)
- Toekoe Oemar’s defection (1896)
- 1897
- 1901
- J. T. Cremer
- H. van Kol
- Goeman Borgesius
- Atrocities in the Aceh War as alleged in the Tweede Kamer (1897)
- Atjeh debate in the Tweede Kamer (16-17 November 1897)
- Koloniaal Verslag
- 22 September
- 1896
Sources
Schets eener parlementaire geschiedenis van Nederland van 1849 tot 1901, by Mr W. J. van Welderen baron Rengers, 4th rev. ed., Vol. IV: Oost-Indië 1891-1918 by Dr W. H. Vermeulen (‘s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff, 1955), p. 355, and “Overzicht van de ministers van Koloniën en de gouverneurs-generaal van Nederlandsch-Indië 1848-1918”, p. 375.
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. 10, 47, 79–80.
Acknowledgement of sources. This article combines material from the publications cited above; the material newly added derives from Atjeh in de Tweede Kamer (Amsterdam: J. A. Fortuijn, 1897) and Een strijd in Atjeh (Rotterdam: N.V. Drukkerij Korteweg for the Vereeniging „SIMAVI”, 1934). Dutch passages are quoted in the original with an English rendering.