Pyttersen was the member of the Tweede Kamer for Schoterland who spoke in the Atjeh debate of 16 November 1897, opposing Van Kol’s motion chiefly on the ground of the historical uselessness of state commissions in war, and calling instead for the appointment of resolute commanders in Atjeh.
Argument
Pyttersen welcomed the Minister of Colonies Cremer’s statement that no change was to be expected from him in the line of conduct lately followed in Atjeh — “de Minister heeft ons ten opzichte van Atjeh volkomen klaren wijn geschonken.” — the Minister has poured us entirely clear wine with regard to Atjeh. He rejoiced in it, he said, not because he was so much taken with that line of conduct, but because he was convinced that a change of direction was the most harmful thing that could happen at that moment. However great the uncertainty in other respects, that at least the long duration of the war had been able to teach.
He could not therefore associate himself with Van Kol’s motion, though he sympathised with its humanitarian tendency. “Staatscommissiën zijn zeer zeker de slechtste instrumenten om een einde te maken aan een oorlog, wel een middel om dien te verlengen.” — State commissions are most certainly the worst instruments for making an end of a war — rather a means of prolonging it.
The precedent of Bonjol
In proof he revived the memory of a single historical fact. During the Padri-oorlog a commission had been appointed to investigate in what manner the fortress of Bondjoe could be taken by Dutch troops. The commission set about investigating and considering, and the final outcome was that no agreement could be reached: one wanted it thus, another so. Meanwhile the Dutch troops lay before that fortress and remained encamped before it for twenty-seven months, without being able to take it.
Then at last there came a man who knew what he wanted and possessed the strength to realise it, the strength and the knowledge, but also the courage to bear the responsibility: the then lieutenant-colonel Michiels. On 6 August Michiels took up the command of the troops encamped before Bondjoe, and ten days later, on 16 August, the fortress reputed impregnable had already been taken by Dutch troops.
Pyttersen declared himself convinced that the Netherlands Indies army at that moment still counted many men who could be the equals of a Michiels. Let such men be placed in a position to act; let them be granted the means they thought necessary to reach their object; let them be trusted. He held himself convinced that along this road, but along this road alone, that could be obtained for which Van Kol rightly strove: a pacificatie of Atjeh, an ending of the sad and disastrous war.
Reception
Cremer took up Pyttersen’s argument twice in his reply. Defending colonel Van Heutsz against Bahlmann’s charge of fanfaronnade, he said that Van Heutsz certainly belonged to those men in the Indies army who, more than others, had shown that they sought their strength not in words but in deeds; he was certainly one of those men such as Pyttersen wished for and had pointed to, one of those men with whom one would soon come to an end in the Atjeh business, “als men hem maar niet bindt met commissiën als die, waaraan deze afgevaardigde herinnerde.” — if only one does not bind him with commissions such as the one this deputy recalled. Discussing the motion, he observed that the purpose of the commission would be precisely a new change of policy, “anders begrijp ik het niet. Dit is ook door den heer Pyttersen aangetoond.” — otherwise I do not understand it. This has also been demonstrated by Mr. Pyttersen.
Cremer also referred to Pyttersen in connection with Van der Zwaag, noting that the deputy from Schoterland, who could indeed associate himself with the motion, was nevertheless still more in agreement with those who said that after the premise of the speech of the deputy from Enschedé the conclusion ought properly to be “Nederland weg uit Atjeh.”
Pyttersen voted against the motion.
See Also
- Atjeh debate in the Tweede Kamer (16-17 November 1897)
- Van Kol’s motion of 16 November 1897
- Andreas Victor Michiels
- Padri War
- J. T. Cremer
- Joannes Benedictus van Heutsz
- Van der Zwaag
- H. van Kol
- 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. 31–32, 51, 56.
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.