Anton Stolwijk, 2021. Aceh: Kisah Datang dan Terusirnya Belanda dan Jejak Yang Ditinggalkan, Jakarta: Yayasan Pustaka Obor.
Anton Stolwijk’s book, Aceh has received dynamic responses in the world of the academics and common readers. First published in Dutch in 2016 titled Atjeh: het verhaal van de bloedigste strijd uit de nederlandse koloniale geschiedenis (Atjeh: Kisah pertempuran paling berdarah dalam sejarah penjajahan Belanda), the book garnered amazing audiences and numerous critics. It was finally translated into Indonesian and published for the first time in December 2021.
The reactions from Indonesian academic and common readers have been predictably similar, except the extent of the critics has gone down to the lowest level as the word ‘trash’ was used as the adjective to the book. The critics variedly come from Acehnese independent non-profit civil organizations to the national social media influencer.
The book consists of 26 chapters, elaborated within 233 pages, exclusive of references and images appendices. Periodical narratives spanned from the 1873 to the final withdrawal in 1942.
The author travelled to Sabang, Greater Aceh, West and Middle Aceh within 7 years span.
Read: Harrison Ford & Zulkifli Hasan; Yes, Yes!
Oral stories, archival studies, ethnographies, and popular investigative journalism are the methodology that consistently drawn throughout the book. Since the post independent era, this is perhaps the first kind of work that delve into the memory and archival resources of colonial war in Indonesia, connecting from the remembrances of colonial war generational victims.
Or if you are into cinematography arts, then it may resonate with the pattern of historical science fiction where the story and settings flips through the past and present time flashback.
The Return of Historical Pseudo-science?
Bonnie Triyana, a director of www.historia.id describes in his foreword that the work is ‘like a live report from the past’. I couldn’t agree more that the unfortunate 7 years efforts and tailored narratives has looked like a return of 19th century pseudo-scientific travelogues where commonality surrounded native bashing found a fit with author’s high sense of culture and intellects. In essence, one of pseudo-scientific characters in social science include prejudices and selective amnesia. This book has done a similar way.
Before going into fitting the archival narratives, the author takes the readers into the current development and irony reality of the Acehnese. It followed with the author’s ‘honesty’ connected to the past. Prejudice, fallacy argument, premature investigation, race and religious bias, Marxist centric, and double standard illuminate the process of the analytical approach.
Prejudice, fallacy, and premature investigations are seen for instance, when the author inserted that the triggers of Dutch aggression are decline of power and the absurdities of the Sultanate (p.12). One of the points include a quote to raise doubt that the queen was a man imposter (p. 5).
Other example is accusing thievery to the late prominent noble Harun Keuchik Leumik who has been known as savior of tangible heritage, including the coin heritage (p.10).
In chapter 20, the writer accused the genealogical construction of the latest leader as a lie. Since the mode of the book is popular historical journalism, little effort is given for a balance dynamic extensive scrutiny of the dynamic sources used.
The other problem is race and religious bias such as reflected in chapter 2 and 8. The narrative on habib in chapter 2 shows stagnant orientalist bias towards the Arab.
The history of the habib in Aceh has been the consumption of critics and haters based on his surrender. But smearing the habib as merely being a womanizer, money maker, and fame-obsessed are the stagnant characteristic of orientalist thoughts on the Arabs, who mostly keen in repeating the eyes of Snouck Hurgronje.
Habib married many times when he was away or settling to a new place, an attitude bound to happen to any long voyage traveler those days where religious marriage was what differed the legitimacy.
No sources mentioning the abuse, abandonment, or divorce of wives. No evidences that clarify that he cheated for money or exposed strategy for fame indulgent.
In Chapter 8, on topic of poets and jihad, the narratives trace through the journey in finding a meaning of Dayah Tanoh Abee during the period of anti-colonialism. It was not a surprise to read a typical orientalist inheritable knowledge on holy spirit of war and sacred places for instance.
It was not only problematic on the psychological analysis of a poet of hikayat prang sabi and the evolution of people’s innovation towards the dayah, but also obsessed on the fetish ideas of fairies for the martyrs.
Applauder of the good side of colonialism
The highlights from Chapter 12 to chapter 21 emphasized on the good side of colonialism. Peace and betrayal of Teuku Umar and Cut Nyak Dhien are linked to the debt of honor, that the Dutch has given enormous material pleasure and security but ended up betrayed.
Newspapers were the major sources used to retrieve information on how the Dutch in the capital perceived the issue. Teuku Umar’s letter signifying systematic islamophobia-racial problem of belonging has skipped the attention.
Moreover, the focus on Cut Nyak Dhien was on Dutch noble charity for giving eye surgery, elaborating pitiful sacrifice for her struggle was paid with the death of husbands and the loss of property. Narratives on the infamous bad Dutch policy and governance that may impact the situation is significantly omitted.
The similar tone is in chapter 17 on the surrender of the last Sultan. Highlight on what the Dutch gave to the Sultan including houses, monthly pension and a well treatment are the keys. An implicit comparison was made between Acehnese who forgot the last Sultan and the Dutch treatment.
In Chapter 16 the reflection of debt of honor and increasing progress on industrial establishment in Aceh was displayed. In this chapter, the flow of narratives surrounds the natural resources in Aceh and contrast the effort to the Dutch historical development where Sumatra’s oil was in great demand in Europe.
Only in this chapter the Acehnese was not described problematic but a peace and welcoming people in non-warring newly ‘found’ area. However, the author neglects to comment on the Dutch exploitation of oil and systematically excluded the local from the development.
From Chapter 18 to 26, the narrative highlights the policy of “One Bullet One Cow”, as the author relied on the testimony of Let. J. Kempees, is a rule imposed on the village whose local launched shot at the convoy.
A died soldier must be repaid with a cow. The sanction of inability was the killing of hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children and the detailed number of burnt villages, tampered with the colonial-constructive mental policy and image making through the experimental hospital in Sabang and the Psychic Acehnese killings as revealed in chapter 22. However, arguments of the author has done little justice as inadequacy of colonial critic concern.
Finally, this book supported the increasing critics towards Eurocentric historical narratives of Southeast Asia, such as delivered by Farish A Noor (2018:16) who believes that it aims at raising power influence of colonial legacy, not for the sake of coloniality resolution.
References: Noor. A. Farish, 2018. America’s Encounters with Southeast Asia, 1800-1900: Before the Pivot, Australia: Amsterdam University Press.
