The Djogdja Documenten Revisited: Repatriation, Silence, and the Seized Archives of the Decolonization War
Rika Theo (12870528) [email protected]
Master Thesis Archival and Information Studies Supervisor: dr. Michael Joseph Karabinos Second reader: prof. dr. Charles Jeurgens
Table of Contents
I. Introduction ...... 4 1. Background ...... 4
2. The aim, scope, and research question ...... 7
3. Methods ...... 9
II. Conceptual Framework ...... 12 1. The framework of silence ...... 12
2. State-based archival repatriation and its silences ...... 14
III. Archival Repatriation in Two Contexts ...... 20 1. Indonesia: The making and re-making of national history ...... 20
2. The Netherlands: Confronting colonial past ...... 24
IV. Silences in the Repatriation Process of the Djogdja Documenten ...... 28 1. The initial cooperation ...... 28
2. The trigger and confusion of the Djogdja Documenten return ...... 31
3. Protracted negotiation and uncertainty ...... 35
4. The basis of return ...... 38
5. The 1983 Reboot: Indonesia’s expanded definition on the Djogdja Documenten ...... 41
V. The Archival Silence of the Djogdja Documenten ...... 49 1. Examining the provenance and its changes ...... 49
2. The silence of the remaining seized archives ...... 55
3. The silence in the description ...... 59
4. The post-return silence: The Djogdja Documenten at ANRI ...... 62
VI. Conclusion ...... 67 Bibliography ...... 72 Appendix 1: The remaining records related to Hatta ...... 77 Appendix 2: Examples of similar records described to be originals by ANRI and NAN ...... 80
Table of figures:
Figure 1: The secret archives of the Netherlands-Indie were opened in 1990, with pictures of ARA’s two archivists from the Tweede Afdeling who worked on the inventory process: M.G.H.A. De Graaff and A.M. Tempelaars. Reprinted from Haagsche Courant, July 26, 1990...... 46 Figure 2: Screenshot of the description of Djogdja Documenten. Reprinted from NL-HaNA, NEFIS en CMI, 2.10.62 https://www.nationaalarchief.nl/onderzoeken/archief/2.10.62/invnr/%40II.~1.~1.1~499?query=nefis%2 0cmi&search-type=inventory ...... 61
I. Introduction
1. Background
When I first encountered the archive of the Netherlands Forces Intelligence Service (NEFIS) en Centrale Militaire Inlichtingendienst (CMI)1 in the National Archives of the Netherlands (NAN), I was deeply astonished. It contains a myriad of records displaced from Indonesia during the 1945-1949 decolonization war against the Netherlands2. Their existence was unknown to me and, I suppose, to many Indonesian people -perhaps except the archivists and historians. As an Indonesian, I witnessed a sliver of the country’s histories in these records, even though they were arranged and described in NEFIS’s perspective. I saw records that evidenced not only the early Indonesian Republican government, but also various socio-political organizations with their diversity of views and stances on independence struggles. I read letters from informants to the Dutch intelligence, conflicts, and divisions among the people that were not much told in the Indonesian official history book. Other records contained very personal documents - diaries, photos, private letters, and personal belongings. I found bloodstains on one of the documents, a reminder of the violence and horrifying antagonism of the decolonization war.
Among this wealth of seized archives, only a selection namely the Djogdja Documenten that has been sent back to Indonesia. Many other seized archives of the decolonization war were left out in the Netherlands. Only Indonesians privileged enough to come there will be able to see them. The knowledge of Dutch is required because, despite the main
1 The seized archives or “Buitgemaakte en Gevonden Documenten” consists of 4000 inventory numbers of records that were confiscated, obtained, and looted in the Dutch East Indies. It is part of the inventory of Nationaal Archief, Den Haag, Netherland Forces Intelligence Service [NEFIS] en Centrale Militaire Inlichtingendienst [CMI] in Nederlands-Indië, nummer toegang 2.10.62, inventorinummer: 3013-7112. 2 This period was known in Indonesia as the independence struggle era when the Dutch military returned to Indonesia after Japan surrendered at the end of the World War II. In contrast, the Netherlands has long called this period in a euphemistic term ‘politionele acties’.
language used in the documents are Indonesian, the inventory was described in the Dutch language. This encounter did inspire the pursuit of this research.
The academic research about the Djogdja Documenten and the NEFIS seized archives has not yet much continued since the last extensive research done by Michael Karabinos (2015) on the former and Okeu Yulianasari (2012) on the latter. Few new research continued their works. Nurjaman (2020) discussed briefly the Djodgja Documenten repatriation in his research on decolonizing the archives in the return of the Dutch East Indies static archives. Another mention is in Jos van Beurden’s (2017) dissertation that analyzed the return of colonial cultural objects. Meanwhile, the description of the NEFIS/CMI seized archives at the NAN has been improved by Leiden University’s historian Harry Poeze in 2016. Now we can see details of events and names found in each document and a glimpse of the records’ provenance. Nevertheless, the room to improve it to be more inclusive is still open.
The Djogdja Documenten that were returned to Indonesia in 1975-1976, comprises 396 inventory numbers. They were documents inscribed by the state institutions and the leaders of the Republics of Indonesia, seized in December 1948, when the Netherlands’ troops attacked the Republican's capital Yogyakarta and detained the government leaders. Their seizure and removal from Yogyakarta linked together all the records and recreated them as an entity: a single collection compiled together by NEFIS. Their purpose was changed into one intended by NEFIS, and thus, became—as a unit—a Dutch creation (Karabinos, 2015; p.374). They are the example of what Jeurgens and Karabinos (2020) refer to as colonized records: “the records which were originally created, owned and used by local institutions and people but were collected, looted, bought or copied and shipped to Europe” (p.207).
The repatriation of the Djogdja Documenten originated from an unprecedented request from Indonesia, made rather informally during the early years of the microfilm exchange project between the two national archives. After series of formal and informal negotiations, the records were transferred in their original form from The Hague to Jakarta in two batches, and then one more time in 1987. However, Indonesian archivists still believed that more archives can be considered as Djogdja Documenten and existed in
the archives of the Algemene Secretarie (General Secretary) and the Procureur General (Attorney General) of Batavia at the NAN (Karabinos, 2013, p.385).
In the Netherlands’ legal view, the archives can be returned if they are created by the other sovereign state or government administrations. However, many Indonesian Republican archives captured in other areas outside Yogyakarta are seen in the NEFIS/CMI archives and elsewhere in the National Archives. Yet, there has been no official initiative or even discussion on the return or any further actions for these seized archives. Despite the finding aid is now more accessible after Poeze’s work, we still have not heard any archival research conducted to examine the rest of the seized archives.
The Djogdja Documenten repatriation is considered one of a few success stories of archival claims in the world. Yet, it still leaves many unanswered questions. For example, little was known about the selection process of the seized archives to become the Djogdja Documenten. Why were other Indonesian government archives from the 1945-1949 period left aside? Who decided which archives to be returned and under what criteria were the selection? We could not find the answers to these questions in the descriptions of the archives at the NAN and ANRI.
The return of the colonized archives has been positively seen as a step of decolonizing the archives, or even as literally decolonizing the archives (Lowry, 2017). Is it the case for the Djogdja Documenten return? This is a pivotal question today, whose answer may serve as one of the imperatives to take further actions for the 1945-1949 seized archives. Before answering that question, I would argue to do one important step: to locate the silences.
This research borrows Michel-Rolph Trouillot (2004)’s framework of silence in historical production. Any single event enters history with some of its parts left out, resulting in the absence of certain things and peoples in history. This silence reflects unequal control of the means of historical production, which enters all four instances of history-making: fact creation (the making of sources), fact assembly (the making of archives), fact retrieval (the making of narratives), and the retrospective significance (the making of history in the final instance) (p.195). This limits our ability to access the past or even leaves us with the challenge of “unthinkable histories” (Trouillot, 2004).
In the history of the 1945-1949 decolonization war period, the inherent silence that this research particularly highlights is the second instance, when facts are assembled in the archives. Silence happens not only when archives are destroyed, displaced, classified, or neglected. The fact assemblers control and condition the facts in the process of selecting, arranging, and describing the narrative. In the long decades of debates and contestation of this period, archives are arguably complicit as the silent collaborator of silences in knowledge and history-making of this period. What we witness here is what Trouillot called ‘archival power at its strongest, the power to define what is and what is not a serious object of research and, therefore, of mention’ (p. 99).
The Djogdja Documenten is an archival collection that was molded not only by the inscribers (the Indonesian Republican leaders), the collecting agency (the NEFIS/CMI), but also by the Dutch and Indonesian government, and especially by the national archives, ANRI and NAN, at the time of repatriation and afterward. Silence in the fact assembly of the Djogdja Documenten is located in all parts of its various creations. Given this research’s purpose to analyze repatriation as part of decolonizing the archives, the repatriation part of the Djogdja Documenten is the research focus. In short, this research investigates the silences and gaps around the repatriation of the Djogdja Documenten in the context and process of the repatriation, and stemming from that, the archival silence of the Djogdja Documenten in both national archives.
2. The aim, scope, and research question
This research aims to locate the silences emanating from state-based archival repatriation, the role of archival institutions in the making and revealing of these silences through repatriation, and in their archival practices that shape the Djogdja Documenten. It adopts the framework of silence to analyze what has been missed, excluded, obscured and sidelined in the archival repatriation of the Djogdja Documenten.
The silences that happened prior to repatriation, in the process of repatriation and silences after the repatriation were investigated in relation to the making and representing of the archives, or what Trouillot refers to as fact assembly. In locating the silence, the power of archival institutions, whether in creating, facilitating, and enforcing
silence or in filling and exposing the silence, during the events and process of repatriation was particularly examined. Subsequently, the research analyzes the archival silences of the Djogdja Documenten in the national archives of the Netherlands and Indonesia in the post-repatriation.
The silence of archival repatriation is not merely a question of the limits of archival repatriation; inasmuch as recognizing the silences in repatriation is part of the debates of decolonizing archives. Locating the silences around the repatriation of the Djogdja Documenten means unveiling the gaps, absences, exclusion, even collective omission in the political process of the repatriation, but also in the archives through the selection, description, ordering, and fragmentation. The analyses of silences in this fact assembly should bring into view what has been left out or obscured amidst their significance to the narratives making in both countries. In connecting archival repatriation, silences, and decolonization contexts, this research took a more epistemological perspective and moved beyond the main theme of sovereign ownership in archival repatriation.
It should be said that there is nothing complete about this research. The legal issues of repatriation were briefly explored, even though this remains the main challenge of archival repatriation. Neither does this research explore the broader and current development of repatriation, especially one more apparent in the heritage sector. The relatively less interest, debate, and media attention of archival repatriation compared to the artifact repatriation (Banton, 2018) is admittedly an instance of silence that deserves separate research.
Research question:
Analyzing the repatriation of the Djogdja Documenten from the Netherlands to Indonesia, what are the silences emanating from this state-based repatriation in the instance of fact assembly?
a. What are the silences or gaps in the context and events that shaped the repatriation of the Djogdja Documenten?
b. What are the silences during the repatriation process? What are the roles of the national archives of both countries in relation to the silences happened in the repatriation process?
c. What are the archival silences in the post-repatriation of the Djogdja Documenten in both national archives?
3. Methods
Archival repatriation is a phenomenon that requires the examination and understanding of context concerning the distinct circumstances of each repatriation case. Given this situation, this research was designed as a case study research to investigate the repatriation of colonized archives in the context of the growing decolonization debate. A case study was selected because this research approach conducts an “empirical inquiry to investigate a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident (Yin 1994, p. 13 as quoted in Williamson, 2002). Besides, a case study provides evidence for hypothesis generation and for exploration of areas where existing knowledge is limited (Williamson, 2002, p.111) as in the case of the Djogdja Documenten repatriation.
The research began by conducting a thorough literature review for the main concepts namely (archival) silence and state-based archival repatriation. Both concepts were synthesized to be the analytical tool in investigating the research question and its sub- questions.
The analyses were done in three phases that investigate each research sub-question.
First, the silences or gaps in the context and events that shaped the repatriation of the Djogdja Documenten were analyzed. A literature review was conducted on the context that shaped the repatriation between Indonesia and the Netherlands. Primary source (archives) and secondary reading materials such as academic journal articles, opinion articles, and news related to the issue were consulted.
The analyses focused on the evolving post-colonial narratives in both countries and the gaps within them. The research asked what the main narratives in both countries were, what have they omitted or sidelined, and how these narratives shaped the decisions of state-based repatriation. As context changes across time, the research continued to examine how the narratives have evolved, what are the remaining silences, and how they can shape the current imperative of archival repatriation.
Secondly, the process of the Djogdja Documenten repatriation was revisited by examining the records of the repatriation process and policy that were kept in the National Archives of the Netherlands. The following questions were asked:
• In this state-based repatriation, what are the political compromises and how did they create silence? • How was the Djogdja Documenten selected to be returned and what were the silences in this selection? • Did the protracted negotiations contain silences? • Were there conditions of political secrecy of the seized archives that hinder the repatriation process? • What was expressed as the basis of the repatriation for both countries and what has been left out as a result of this? • How did the two archival institutions deal with silences in this repatriation process?
To answer this question, the research consulted records of the Tweede Afdeling and Nederlandse Ambassade in Indonesië at the NAN. Due to the temporary closure of NAN in several periods of the Covid-19 pandemic, not all the records related to the Djogdja Documenten could be consulted. The records of the Netherlands’ Ministry of Foreign Affairs 1975-1984 are among other important records that in the end could not be consulted.
Subsequently, interviews with relevant persons in this matter were conducted. As it was not possible to visit ANRI in Jakarta due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the interview was an alternative way to gain information and perspective of the Indonesian side.
Unfortunately, not so many people related to the issue were still available or willing to be interviewed online. Two Indonesian key persons were interviewed, one was Djoko Utomo, the former director of ANRI and the other was Intan Lidwina Wibisono, an archivist at ANRI with knowledge of the inventory of the Djogdja Documenten.
Finally, the archival silence of the Djogdja Documenten was examined. The research asked questions such as: What was included and excluded through archival practices (e.g. description and arrangement)? Were there records destroyed, made obscured, sidelined, or classified for certain reasons? What are the barriers of access that possibly silence the archives?
The provenance of the Djogdja Documenten was analyzed to locate the silences from how the archives were formed and how the provenance was described at the NAN. From there, it continued to trace out the remaining seized archives that were left out at the NAN. The analyses went further to observe the silences in the archival description at the NAN, in particular the online catalog of the NEFIS/CMI archives. Finally, the post-repatriation process at ANRI was examined by analyzing the interviews, ANRI’s archival guidelines, and other secondary data such as news articles, academic articles, and books.
II. Conceptual Framework
In this section, the framework of silence (including archival silence) is first explained, followed by the silence emanating from archival repatriation of the colonized archives. Both are then analyzed and connected to the concept of decolonizing the archives.
1. The framework of silence
Silence, generally speaking, represents absences, lapses, blank voids of something that remains untold or is not happening. It can be the absence of sound, speech, text, or other signs (Carter, 2006). Trouillot (2004) takes a further understanding of silence as an active and transitive process in which “one ‘silences’ a fact or individual as a silencer silences a gun” (p. 48). Carter (2006) calls this unnatural silence, characterized by the use of power, both overt and covert, in the silencing (p.228).
The concept of silence has been worked and developed in a great diversity of meaning and use. Aidan Russel (2019) makes an overview of different uses of silence in multiple disciplines. For example, trauma theory explores the connection between silence and violence. The studies of totalitarianism and state terror point out silence and its secrets as a technique to acquire, reproduce, and define power, while subaltern perspectives view silence as a strategic response to domination (Russel, 2019, p. 6). In memory studies, silence is often referred to as forgetting, denial, yet sometimes shown as a necessary suspension of speech on the processes of remembrance, mourning, and living together again (Russell, 2019, p. 4).
In history, silence underscores the constructed nature of our knowledge about the past. In his seminal works on this issue, Trouillot (2004) explains that silence enters history- making at four critical points: the making of sources, archives, narratives, and the making of history in the final instance. All four processes are the result of human processes, which are neither neutral nor natural. This makes any historical narrative is “a particular bundle
of silence, the result of a unique process, and the operation required to deconstruct these silences will vary accordingly” (Trouillot, 2004, p. 26).
As “spaces and technologies of access to the past” (Lustig, 2020, p.68), archives inevitably embody the silences analyzed in both memory studies and history. Silence in the archives lives through the absence-presence of texts as archival institutions constantly have to decide what to include and exclude (Carter, 2006). The creation of silences, to put it simply, lies in the words not written, records not kept, stories that never end up, hidden, or made obscured on the official authorized papers or records (Trouillot, 2004). In practice, “silences can enter the archives when records are destroyed, never created, kept secret, forged, appraised or de-accessioned out of a collection” (Eadon, 2019, p. 12). Silences can manifest in the description when narratives and voices of certain groups in the records are left out and marginalized (Duff and Harris, 2002), or simply in the unprocessed collection backlogs which risks the records to be lost to oblivion.
The archival silence can be explained by recognizing archival practices as human processes imbued with power. As Verne Harris (2002) put it, archives are "expression and instrument of power’ which represent only a ‘sliver of social memory’ (Harris, 2002). Archival appraisal and description, for instance, do not merely appraise and describe existing documents but are creative processes to represent records (Yeo, 2010; Yakel, 2003). In deciding what to represent, what to include and exclude, power is exercised. It mostly operates subconsciously, given that the decision is always influenced by the archivist’s world view, identities, and experiences; and it may operate overtly when the archivist and archival institution has an obvious political agenda (Casswell, 2016).
Far from being neutral, archivists and archival institutions are likely complicit in fostering the silence. They can, intentionally or unintentionally, reproduce the existing oppressive power structures through archival practices. Robinson-Swett (2018) argues more strongly that archivists are often the power brokers for archival silences, whose hands are tied in many cases of silence. An apparent example of this is the case of colonial records researched by Ann Laura Stoler (2010). She reveals how the colonial records are products of colonial state machines and technologies that bolstered the production of the colonial power.
This research particularly concerns the silence in the moment of fact assembly, the silences in the archives that make up the silence in the historical narratives. Excavating or at least locating this silence is important for an archive “is not a place where we recycle history’s waste. It is first and foremost an epistemic space” (Mbembe, 2015). Archives can define the stories that ‘matter’. It can forbid describing what happened from the point of view of some of the people who saw it happen or to whom it happened, hence with the exercise of that power, it can sanitize “facts”, and worse, resulting in societal memory being compromised (Trouillot, 2004, p. 162).
The impact goes even further. In the words of Anne Gilliland, “the absence of records from public view, the absence of certain details in records that are available, or the absence of records altogether, are what drive not only frustrations and disappointments with the archive but also archival fantasies” (Gilliland, 2017, p. XV). If it comes to the extreme, “silences can be the hotbed of imaginings, part-truths, and the so-called alternative facts, which in turn can thwart certainty and knowledge-based action” (Ibid., XVI).
The risk is there, but so is the opportunity because silence does not equate to muteness (Carter, 2006). An apparently silent archive can give new facts or tell new stories over time (Gilliland, 207, p. XVI). In the epistemic shift from one that views archives as neutral sites to one today with a growing call to adopt social justice, it is time to uncover and highlight what has been left out in the archives (Lustig, 2020). The awareness of the silences in the archives is the starting point to find the gaps and remedy them.
2. State-based archival repatriation and its silences
Throughout the history of the repatriation of displaced3 archives, it has been and continued to be the problem of the states, resolved between states, using states' perspective and measures. The resolution of archival disputes centers on the legal and
3 The records that have been removed from the context of their creation and where the ownership is disputed" (Lowry, 2019, p. 350). There are many other reasons behind their 'mobility', with each case bears its own complexity. The complexity resulted in various terms used to describe it, such as "migrated archives", “disputed archival claims”, “expatriate archives” and “shared/joint archival heritage” (Ibid).
political nature of the displaced archives (Auer, 2017; Kecskeméti, 2017; Lowry, 2017), but has many gaps which will be explained in this section.
First, archival claims have been treated as legal issues, but legal approaches often failed or proved too problematic in resolving the dispute. Determining the lawfulness of the displaced archives is complicated, subject to varying interpretations, and requires fact- intensive history, which frequently caused the status of displaced archives lost in 'legal limbo' (Cox, 2017, pp.200-202).
Legal complexities are particularly apparent for archives displaced during war and occupation, as identified by Cox (2017) and Auer (2017). Applying international conventions is difficult since this kind of archives can be defined as both cultural property and sources of intelligence or enemy property. The latter was allowed for capture according to the law of armed conflict, while the former receives more robust legal protections yet still subject to exceptions for military needs. Moreover, the succession of power between states implicates the separate legal regime, which makes it more complex in determining the properties belong to predecessor and successor states (Cox, 2017).
At the international front, United Nations, UNESCO, and ICA have made multiple resolutions and recommendations, yet “the issue of displaced archives has not been brought under normative acts in international law” (Auer, 2017, p. 123). The most notable failure of the multilateral effort to fill the legal gap is perhaps the 1983 Vienna Convention. The Vienna Convention was passed by the UN, but it could not be implemented since too few countries ratified it, especially not the states holding the displaced archives. In Kecskeméti’s words, “the Vienna conference becomes a political platform that produced a political statement rather than a workable convention” (2017, p.16). Thirty years after Vienna, there has been no serious multilateral action for the displaced archives (Lowry, 2017), although some valuable terms were produced and discussed in the international meeting on archives4.
4 For instance, the XXXth International Conference of the Round Table on Archives in Thessaloniki, 1994. One of the resolutions was to reaffirm the mission of archives in guaranteeing every nation's right to historical continuity, recalls the accepted archival principles that archives are inalienable and imprescriptible, and should not be regarded as "trophies" or as objects of exchange (Bastien, 1995).
Besides convention and laws, states’ political will and logistical considerations define the fate of the displaced archives (Lowry, 2020, p.6). But this is again a complicated process emanating silences. Repatriation of displaced archives, especially ones seized by the military operation, has an inevitably political nature, given that the archives resulted from armed conflict and occupation, colonization, and decolonization (Cox, 2017, p.196). By many, such as states with a shared colonial past, archives are considered national patrimony, while their removal not only implicate issues of sovereignty, self- determination, and national pride, but also reveal traces of injustice, violence, and trauma. The protracted negotiation, the delay, neglect, and inertia in the state-led repatriation embodies the political push and pull between states, and inside each state (Cox, 2017).
But even before the repatriation, the political dimension of displaced archives results in their very secrecy and silences. As explained by Auer (2017), “Very often displaced archives are kept hidden, only known to a restricted number of persons. To keep the secret, free access and use have to be denied, which makes them, in the literal sense of the word, useless material for anybody other than their holders, and even they must avoid referencing the material” (p.123). This political secrecy and classification may contribute to the reluctance in returning the displaced archives.
Repatriation of archives that mainly happens through states’ negotiation at times results in a compromised and practical agreement. In so doing, repatriation serves more as gestures of friendship and goodwill, rather than the object of negotiations aimed at righting past wrongs and injustices or correcting illegalities (van Beurden 2017, Lowry 2019). As it has mostly done in states partnership scheme, internal and external factors of each state shape the decisions, such as in selecting the archives to be returned. In a form of mutual partnership, the repatriation project becomes a site of negotiation, in which dissonances are minimized (Scott, 2014). Here, the gaps of what could have been done but not done are often left without mentioned, overshadowed by the achievement of joint cooperation. Furthermore, the unequal power between parties may affect the resolution, leading to unequal or even neo-colonial terms.
A compromised approach such as 'joint heritage' has been the solution for some countries, including Indonesia and the Netherlands. This approach, endorsed by the International Council of Archives (ICA) and United Nations of Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), applies to the archives where succession is shared between states and cannot be broken up (Cox, 2017). The archival holdings are entirely preserved in one of the states, but the other states have equal access and moral property rights (Kecskeméti, 2017). This approach has drawn a growing interest as shown in the ICA’s latest 2018/2019 international survey of Disputed Archival Claims. The majority of respondents in the survey (21 respondents) are willing to consider joint heritage to resolve their archival dispute, while only four respondents believed that joint heritage could not resolve their claims (Lowry, 2020).
Even though this concept seems to be a win-win solution for both states by bypassing the stalemate and finally forefronting greater 'access' of the displaced archives, silence may still appear. Cynthia Scott, who examined the shared cultural heritage project between Indonesia and the Netherlands, points out that dissonances existed but they were lessened by treading carefully the contestation of the colonial past and defining the past as different from the present. She underlines that distancing the past from the present is done at the expense of not addressing the underlying ethical dilemmas' (Scott, 2014, p.189).
Taking a critical stance on the state-based approach, Anne Gilliland (2017) argues that “associated arguments about displaced archives inalienable relationship to sovereign states are overly predicated upon outmoded physical- and nation states-based thinking” (p.180). Using a post-nationalist perspective, she suggests the archival field to “acknowledge, respect, advocate for and act upon the realities of always-in-motion diasporas of records in which multiple parties have rights, interests and diverging points of view than to try to negotiate ownership, protection and physical relocation of records across complex and contested histories and boundaries, power imbalances and stewardship capabilities (p.180).
This approach offers a fresh perspective and encourages us to look at return more broadly than the state-based ownership lens. However, this may seem to not really address the
ethical problem of colonized and colonial archives, where archives were deeply entangled with trauma, injustice, and violence. To that end, Van Beurden (2017) suggests human rights and justice as alternative approaches for return. In the justice approach, he relates the ' capabilities' issue often raised in repatriation to the 'justice and capabilities' concept by Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum. This concept suggests shifting the focus to the redressable injustice, such as the unequal capabilities between parties. Capabilities are about what a person wants to do, what he or she can do, and what he or she is enabled to do; to realize justice requires an enabling environment (Sen 2010: 235; Nussbaum 2011: 20 as quoted in van Beurden, 2017, p.95). He argues that, in dealing with colonial objects, "The party that claims an object is easily considered the weaker one that does not have certain capabilities, but the possessing party cannot often open up for injustice committed in the past and for dialogue and mediation (van Beurden, 2017, p.95).
Another approach is from the critical displaced archives theory which 'looks beyond legal structure to consider relations of care' (Lowry, 2019, p.199). In practice, Lowry explains that repatriation requires equitable conversation, not confined to nation-states, but invites many voices to speak through and around the records, such as subjects, users, archivists, and others. It requires acknowledgment of the power asymmetries, that the political power required for repatriation and digitization initiatives derives from possession and possession reinforces power. Hence, multiple participants should be involved in dialogues about custody, access, and uses of records.
These approaches serve as alternatives to think and understand the repatriation in the post-colonial relationship, especially amidst the problematic gaps of the legal and state- based political approach. However, for archival institutions and archivists, the effort may begin with recognizing the silences and their role in those silences, before taking actions so that “the archival heritage created by oppressors and oppressed alike, within the country or in exile, is not kept hidden away, locked up, unintelligible, unsearchable and unusable” (Ketelaar, 2017, p.x).
For the colonized archives in the pursuit of decolonization, it goes even further than the matter of access. The homecoming of colonized archives should not only mean to expose, redress, and reconcile the past’ violence of colonialism, but also to contest and dismantle
the colonial logic that remains in the archival practices and infrastructure to the present (Jeurgens and Karabinos, 2020; Karabinos, 2016; Stoler, 2010). This is a process that has not yet happened for the Djogdja Documenten, as noted by Nurjaman (2020), “The decolonization that was done is only to restore the physical form of the archive, without changing the system and archive structure” (p.83).
Jeurgens and Karabinos (2020) suggest that “archival institutions that have colonial and colonized records in custody cannot be held responsible for the processes in which these records were created, but they are responsible for the interfaces, the archival infrastructures, the representational systems they create to define, manage, categorize and give access to these records” (p.217). That, for the repatriated archives, obviously means examining the archival practices and infrastructure in the national archives of both countries. This research starts by examining the silences as the first step towards that attempt.
III. Archival Repatriation in Two Contexts
This chapter explains the evolving context from past to present related to the repatriation of 1945-1949 seized archives. The two different contexts of Indonesia and the Netherlands are here juxtaposed to show the different gaps and narratives in the former colony and colonizer.
1. Indonesia: The making and re-making of national history
Since the early talk of gaining access to the Indonesian 1945-1949 records in the Netherlands, Indonesian officials and historians have often pointed out the importance of these documents to fill the gap of Indonesian records over this period. In the congress of the International Association of Historians on Asia, which took place in August 1974, Yogyakarta, the delegation of Indonesia, and the Netherlands discussed the cooperation in the field of history between the two countries5.
An Indonesian historian Sartono Kartodirdjo suggested sending Indonesian historians to inventory 1945-1950 archives in the Netherlands. This inventory of archives was suggested to be microfilmed and sent back to Indonesia for the basic source of Indonesian history in the Revolution period. A report of this discussion, written by JJP de Jong, said this effort was expected to fill the poignant vacuum that exists in Indonesia concerning knowledge of its independence struggle during this period6. this Indonesian counterpart of Van der Wal's source publication on Dutch India relations 1945-1950
The gap was mentioned several times in the discussion about the return of the Djogdja Documenten. In the 1974 Dutch document titled 'Kwestie teruggave culturele en historische voorwerpen en archieven aan Indonesie', the Netherlands mentioned about the gaps, saying:
5 Nationaal Archief, Den Haag (NL-HaNA), Nederlandse Ambassade in Indonesië 1962-1974, nummer toegang 2.05.188, inventarisnummer 590. 6 Ibid.
Gaps in the Indonesian museum and archive holdings will usually not be able to be filled. There are, however, a number of important exceptions7.
The exception mentioned here comprises several archives and historical artworks located in various Dutch institutions, which being possessed without adhering to private law acquisition (in Dutch: privaatrechtelijke eigendomstitel). For this kind of archives located in ARA (Algemeen Rijksarchief), the document listed the buitgemaakte archivalia 1945-1949, including the Djogdja Documenten, and the Nieuw-Guinea archief. It also noted that archives of Algemene Secretarie and the Procureur Generaal have some original buitgemaakte documenten. In other words, these were among the archives that in theory could be officially returned, to the former colony.
However, to understand the gap, we need to examine what constitutes the gap for Indonesia on the other side. The 1945-1949 decolonization war has resulted not only destruction of lives and places, but also in archives. They have been either disposed of, burned, or if they could be saved, they remain scattered in various individual holdings. Archives in this period are rare but valuable because they recorded as much colonial violence as the independent struggle that made a new nation-state. For Indonesia, the archives witnessed a defining decolonization period, the very process of liberation that shapes the new nation-building. They are not only filled with a series of diplomatic negotiations with the Netherlands but also a violent confrontation with the colonist and internal upheaval among parties and socio-political groups. The records of this period are as well valuable government records as they could contain information about the early years of how the new governance Republic of Indonesia was conducted and its transformation (Hapsari and Ridayanti, 2019).
The introduction document of ANRI's service to static archive in 1945-1950 period said that information about various events that happened in the early years of the Indonesian government is very incomplete. For instance, it happens in the archive of the Indonesian
7 Nationaal Archief, Den Haag (NL-HaNA), Algemeen Rijksarchief (ARA), Tweede Afdeling, nummer toegang 2.14.04, inventarisnummer 190
Ministry of Internal Affairs. ANRI only has three boxes of records of the ministry for the whole 1945-1949 period (Hapsari and Ridayanti, 2019, p.iv).
The reason for this dated back to the decolonization war. At the beginning of the Republic, the Ministry of Internal Affairs was located in Jakarta as the first capital. It was moved to Purwokerto, Central Java, after the Nederlandsch-Indische Civiele Administratie (NICA)8 troops attacked the Ministry on December 29, 1945 (Abdulgani, 1965, p.162). Some of its archives could be saved from the attack. However, at the second attack on Yogyakarta in 1949, almost all archives of the Ministry of the Internal Affairs had to be burned (Abdulgani, 1965, p.210).
The former director of ANRI Djoko Utomo said that the records in the period of 1945- 1949 do not even need to be appraised because they are very scarce while being an important source of a historical period (personal interview, December 9, 2020). This shows the imperative to fill in the gap of records in this period. The microfilm exchange with the Netherlands and the return of the Djogdja Documenten were its initial key efforts to remedy the very incomplete records. Besides, ANRI took several actions internally, such as conducting an oral history project of various Republican figures to tell their stories on this period and reaching out to individuals who still keep records of this period. There was also a recent effort by an ANRI archivist to locate and re-inventory the returned archives.
Nevertheless, it is important to underline that ANRI’s imperatives and efforts to fill the gaps of 1945-1940 records always entangle in the changing Indonesian socio-political context. The Djogdja Documenten return took place during the first two decades of Soeharto’s New Order government. Under this authoritarian regime, history writing and education were strictly directed by the state, with national unity as its unidimensional main tenet. This was not a new approach, but a continuation from the state-centered historiography9 installed by the previous regime that stressed and sanctified the anti-
8 The Netherlands Indies Civil Administration was a semi-military organisation, tasked with the restoration of civil administration and law of Dutch colonial rule after the capitulation of Japan in Indonesia. 9 Known as Indonesiasentris (Indonesia-centric) nationalist historiography, it refers to “the whole exercise of history writing whose primary aim and/or ultimate result, whether intended or not, is recognition and justification of the legitimate existence of Indonesia as a nation-state” (Curaming, 2003). It was originally developed as a direct
colonial revolutionary struggles. However, Soeharto’s regime took it further by infusing the meta-narrative of an integral state with the army as its backbone (Reid, 2005, p.74). Other narratives that were seen unfit to the state version were suppressed, as national harmony and unity were enforced at the expense of freedom of speech in the country.
Being a state institution, the national archive most likely follows the policy of the central government, and in this way is complicit in the making of the state-centered history writing. Whether it is conscious or unconscious, archivalization is shaped by the state, especially in the case of an authoritarian state. For ANRI, it explains the times when the gaps and the silence in the archives were left on purpose. The authoritarian regime politics contributed to ANRI’s closure on a selected archive of this period to the public (see chapter Iv.4). Read another way, it should be acknowledged that ANRI was also complicit in sustaining the silence in the state-centered narrative.
Arguing the current imperative of archival return for Indonesia, therefore, should be departed from the context of current socio-political changes in the country. More than two decades of the post-authoritarian regime, the ongoing nation-building project has now become more nuanced with (at least gradually) open space of contestation against the state’s meta-narrative. The spirit of rewriting and re-imagining Indonesian history has been there since the fall of Soeharto. Formal historians have discussed it in various national seminars, official history books have been re-updated, critical takes of the past state-centered historiography were more and more conveyed in the academic journals (for instance, works of Asvi Warman Adam who focuses on the ‘bending’ of 1965 history, and works of Bambang Purwanto on deconstructing the Indonesian-centric historiography and addressing its methodological issues). At the more grassroots level, ‘informal’ historians, independent archives, and even mainstream media in Indonesia started to provide various versions of what has been silenced in the past.
counter to the Dutch colonial historiography (Neerlando-centric historiography) that used the perspective of the white powerful Dutch men and neglected the role of indigenous commoners (Suwignyo, 2014). It is an irony that the same colonial approach was reproduced in Indonesiasentris historiography, which is very much ultranationalist and counting heavily on rhetoric (Purwanto, 2001).
Regardless of this spirit and steps toward the plurality of narratives, the main grand narrative of the past still traps the country (Aspinall, 2015; Suwingnyo, 2014). The country has not moved beyond Indonesia-centrism. Analyzing the renewed Indonesian history books, Suwignyo argues that the path of colonial historiography is intact, “in the sense that history is still made as a tool for biased policy, emphasizing the central role of a particular group of people, instead of constructing the past critically” (2014, p.130). The most obvious example can also be seen in realpolitik, where outdated nationalism is recycled by politicians to gain popular support based on emotional appeals, such as in the discourse of foreign threats and national dignity (Aspinall, 2015, p. 78).
In this incremental progress of re-making and re-imagining Indonesian history amidst the lingering of state-centered paradigm lies exactly the imperative. It is high time for continuous efforts to stimulate a more pluralized, localized, bottom-up, and critical view of history. They can reinvigorate nationalism, not in an outdated state-project, but meant as nation-building being a common project based on the sharing of common destiny and common future (Anderson, 1999). As Anthony Reid (2005) pointed out, “Indonesia’s histories will be plural as its people are plural. A new generation will learn to cope with difference and conflict in the past as in the present”. In this imperative towards the pluriversity of knowledge, archival institutions have epistemic possibility and responsibility to make the long-silenced-colonized archives accessible.
2. The Netherlands: Confronting colonial past
Coming to terms with the colonial past, including how much the colonial violence is acknowledged, included, and addressed officially and publicly, is a difficult issue in the Netherlands, yet we notice that the narrative has been gradually shifting. For a long period, the colonial past particularly its violence has been seen as "single black pages in an otherwise white book” (Bijl 2012, p.452). It was silenced "in the colonial facade of glory, peace, and development, enormously influencing the way colonial violence has been legitimated, interpreted and obscured" (Raben, 2012, p.496). Colonial history has not entered the main narrative of the nation as an integral epoch or watershed, but rather
as something put in bracket (Goss, 2000, p.34). This context was indeed at play in the repatriation of the Djogdja Documenten.
To the Dutch government at large, the Djogdja Documenten repatriation was more based on legal, diplomatic, and scientific interest (See Chapter III section 4 on the basis of return). Van Beurden (2017) noted that there was “little archival evidence of awareness on the Dutch government side of the forced inequality and colonial injustices and the need to redress it” (p.136). Euphemisms were also used to hide the colonial past. This for instance appears in the term used for the repatriation at that time. While Indonesia initially used the term ‘restitution’ which then shifted to a more neutral term ‘return’ in 1975, the Dutch government preferred a broad term ‘transfer’ (overdracht). As stated in the Dutch note on art treasures and archives of Indonesian origin10, “It also seems advisable to avoid the term "return" (teruggave) as much as possible in the terminology and to use the term "transfer" (overdracht).”
However, as the context evolves, how the Netherlands confronts the colonial past is shifting. In recent years, Dutch academics increasingly addressed and brought to the front the question of why decolonization war is forgotten or marginalized (see for instance Bijl, 2012; Oostindie, Hoogenboom, and Verwey, 2016; Luttikhaus and Harinck, 2017; Scagliola, 2007; Raben, 2012). The violence of the decolonization war increasingly entered not only academic debate but also public and government debates. There was a possibility of the Dutch being “on the wrong side of history,” said the former Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs Ben Bot (2005). Critical articles and books discussing the event have been published and received public attention (Knoester, 2018).
Several events have taken the debate to a new height. It was largely evoked in 2008, when nine widows of the victims in the 1947 massacre in Rawagede, Indonesia, won the legal action against the Dutch state in a civil court. In 2011, the court rejected the state’s invocation and ordered the Netherlands to pay the reparation and officially apologize. In 2016, the Dutch government granted 4.1 million euros for a four-year research project called the 'Independence, Decolonisation, Violence, and War in Indonesia 1945-1950. It
10 Nota inzake de zich in Nederland rijksinstellingen bevindende kunstschatten en archiefonderdelen van Indonesische oorsprong, in NL-HaNA, ARA, Tweede Afdeling, nummer toegang 2.14.04, inventarisnummer 190.
is the first large-scale state-backed scientific investigation in the Netherlands on this issue that has drawn contrasting public opinions (Walsum, 2019). The approval of the funding was triggered by historical research11 that found structural and systematic violence has been done by the Netherlands’ military in this period. Those unexpected events have widely opened the public debate on colonial mass violence. It disturbed the national master narrative in the Netherlands that normalized the mass violence by calling it excesses of the police action to restore order in a Dutch area12 (Luttikhuis and Moses, 2012).
The debate continued when King Willem Alexander of the Netherlands made an apology for “excessive violence on the part of the Dutch in 1945-1949”, in his official visit to Indonesia (Gorbiano, 2 September 2020). At the same visit, an Indonesian cultural heritage object from the colonial era, the dagger (keris) of the Prince Diponegoro, was returned after it had long been missing in a Dutch museum. The return of the dagger gained a warm welcome that lightly evoked the awareness of many colonial objects stored in the Netherlands. However, there was no mention at all of Indonesia’s colonial and colonized archives in the Netherlands, neither in the King’s speech nor in the official statement about the return of the dagger.
The archival return was neither specifically mentioned in the recommendations on the handling of colonial cultural objects, made by the Advisory Committee on National Policy Framework for Colonial Collections’ to the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture, and Science on 7 October 2020. The Committee recommended the Dutch government unconditionally return cultural goods looted in former Dutch colonies if the country of origin requests it. It advocates lenient handling of requests for restitution, with a starting point that what has been stolen should in principle be returned (Raad van Cultuur, October 7, 2020). The advice has created a heated polemic in the Dutch media up to date and reinstated the discussion about seized colonial objects and colonial violence.
11 De brandende kampongs van Generaal Spoor (The burning villages of General Spoor), a doctoral thesis by a Swiss-Dutch historian Remy Limpach on Dutch mass violence during the Indonesian War of Independence 1945 - 1949. The thesis was commercially published in the Netherlands in September 2016. 12 The Netherlands did not acknowledge Indonesia’s independence in 1945, but in 1949, the date of the internationally mediated sovereign transfer agreement to Indonesia.
Up to the writing of this research, the issue of the Indonesian seized archives has still been largely missing in the Dutch decolonization debate, especially in the official and public debate. Nevertheless, silence is not equal to muteness. It implies voices (Carter, 2012) that wait to be located and unveiled. At this time, at least, it has evoked, one more time, an awkward conversation of the return of colonial objects between the former colony and colonizer. It should also be noted that decolonizing the archives has started, although slowly, to present in the Dutch academic discussion. For instance, the roundtable discussion on decolonizing archives in the Netherlands was held in the ‘Rethinking the VOC? Old genres, new trends in research and analysis’ symposium at the NAN in 2017. Several academic works have also explored this topic (such as Karabinos, 2019; also Jeurgens and Karabinos, 2020).
The explained contexts both in Indonesia and the Netherlands seem to be separate issues, but in fact, they are inextricably linked. Both can be seen as the epistemic gaps that need to be filled and even more, become an imperative of ‘opening’ the silence of the seized archives. The development of narratives may or should differ in the former colony and colonizer, but both have the same needs to improve the knowledge and narratives related to their colonial frontier.
IV. Silences in the Repatriation Process of the Djogdja Documenten
This part takes a closer look inside the lengthy repatriation process between the Netherlands and Indonesia to examine whether it contains, creates, perpetuates, or enforces silence. It specifically traces out how the process arrived at the conclusion and definition of the Djogdja Documenten as the chosen seized archives to be returned. The macro-analyses on the political context of return have been explained in detail by Karabinos (2013; 2015), Scott (2016), and van Beurden (2017). They mapped out how the repatriation process is shaped by the transformation of post-colonial relations between former colonizers and newly independent states, entangled in the changes of national politics and the broader international politics.
This analysis continues their research by taking a different turn by examining the process of repatriation that formed the Djogdja Documenten. Conducted under a bilateral framework with its legal and political complexity, the repatriation was another process that re-created the Djogdja Documenten, as it decided how and which among the 1945- 1949 archives to be returned. Special focus is given to the role of both archives and the making of their choices in perpetuating or fixing archival silence during this process.
1. The initial cooperation
After the 1949 sovereignty transfer agreement, several archival cooperation between Indonesia and the Netherlands existed, despite being very limited and sporadic due to disruptive political relations. In the 1950s, for instance, there were cultural works of a Dutch government-financed organization Stichting voor Culturele Samenwerking (STICUSA or Foundation for Cultural Cooperation) and a Dutch-initiated microfilm project on the Dagregister of Batavia Castle which was left unfinished (Karabinos, 2015). The talk of the return of the seized Indonesian archives and historical objects, similarly, was re-instated at times but came out without any result (Scott, 2016; Van Beurden, 2017). A stronger stance of Soekarno’s anti-imperial nationalism policy furthered by the
dispute of West New Guinea (now West Papua) worsened the relations and diminished the talk of return and archival cooperation.
Diplomatic relations were restored after the regime change in Indonesia brought Soeharto into power, de facto in 1966. The anti-communist regime provided a friendly diplomatic climate with Western countries while opening Indonesia to their aid, trade, and investment. The restored relations with the Netherlands, including the plan of Dutch developmental aid to Indonesia, paved a way to improve cooperation in the cultural sector (Scott, 2016). The contact between the two archives resumed. The early cooperation manifested in the invitation of two Indonesian students to study in the Netherlands’ archival school, namely Machfud Mangkudilaga in 1966, and Soemartini in 196713. Both became two central figures and ARA’s points of connection in ANRI later on.
The signing of the Cultural Agreement on sciences, culture, and arts on July 7, 1968, stipulated an intensified archival cooperation and the setting up of a Dutch cultural center, Erasmus House, in Jakarta (van Beurden, 2017). However, it did not include an agreement to return cultural property (Scott, 2016).
Neither did the cultural agreement automatically activate the archival cooperation, even though it laid out the foundation. The state archivists of both countries played a very important role in the shifting archival cooperation between the ex-colonizer and ex- colony. ANRI’s director Raden Adjeng Soemartini (1970 to 1990) made many attempts beginning in 1970. Soemartini kickstarted and sustained the former colonizer-colonized’ archival cooperation by, in the words of Karabinos (2013), accepting the colonial nature of archives and working with the former colonial power. How she stressed the cooperation as ‘mutual interests’ and offered numerous Dutch colonial documents in Jakarta in exchange to be microfilmed implies her reaching out using a framework of archives as a shared colonial heritage.
The microfilm exchange project was the focal starting point of the initial archival cooperation along with the sending of ANRI’s archivists to have archival training in the Netherlands. It was recorded that in June 1970, President Soeharto asked the visiting
13 NL-HaNA, ARA, Tweede Afdeling, nummer toegang 2.14.04, inventarisnummer 201
Dutch Minister of Culture, Recreation and Social Welfare, Marga Klompée, for several historical manuscripts and included the option of sending microfilms instead of original copies (Van Beurden, 2017). According to Soemartini, the visit is the impetus for this renewed archival cooperation. In her interview with Kompas newspaper (26 January 1992), Soemartini recalled that during the visit, she tried to make Klompe visit ANRI. With the help of Harsja Bachtiar14, she proposed the memorandum containing the need to establish archival cooperation between ANRI and ARA. “From the beginning, I have emphasized cooperation with an equal position. So, we didn't beg but complement each other. We have something here, if you need it, I will give it, and vice versa. Apart from that, in the memorandum, I also suggested the need for Dutch assistance to accept our people sent there to study archives,” said Soemartini explaining her standpoint (Kompas, 26 January 1992).
In a memorandum dated June 25th, 1970, Soemartini opened the proposal by mentioning the mutual interest in the microfilm exchange, “such that the Netherlands would acquire all microfilms of documents containing information of interest to the Netherlands from Indonesia, and vice versa”15. ANRI offered several archives to be microfilmed for the Netherlands, such as the ‘Burgerlijke Stand documents, Doop en begraaf rolls, genealogical and biographical cards collection, death wills and notary acts, church archives, and other Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie (VOC) material, such as Dagregisters, Resolutions, etc. Only after that did she convey Indonesia's interest in a number of archives:
• Public documents and other materials from the period 1945-1950; • Political reports, especially concerning activities of the Indonesian nationalist movements since the beginning of the twentieth century; • Memories van Overgave of the various government administrators; • Parliamentary records pertaining to Indonesia
14 A historian and at that that time the dean of the Faculty of Letters, University of Indonesia. 15 ANRI’s memorandum sent by Soemartini to M.Klompe, in NL-HaNA, Nederlandse Ambassade in Indonesië 1962- 1974, nummer toegang 2.05.188, inventarisnummer 590.
The list shows which archives are of importance to Indonesia at that time. Even more, it reveals Indonesia’s definition and expectation on archives it wished to have. After two years of negotiation in the period which also witnessed Soeharto’s official visit to the Netherlands, the agreement between the two states was signed on September 1, 1972, in The Hague. Both agreed to have an exchange of microfilms to facilitate research. The reciprocal supply of microfilms will be for the records thought to be of importance for the history of the countries concerned. This agreement, however, did not mention the records from 1945 to 1950, nor the Djogdja Documenten.
The initial plan that started with the microfilm project without yet touching the subject of Indonesia's 1945-1950 seized archives reflects how both sides played modestly and took cautious stances. For ANRI, the choice was probably related to its modest situation, its weak archival infrastructure, and its focus on building up the archival system in the country. That the Netherlands gave a cautious but welcoming reaction is also understandable since it was still at the starting point in cultivating the previously fragile relationship with Indonesia.
Thus, the aim to exchange archives that ‘are not the exclusive property of one of the parties but represent a mutual interest’16 is emphasized and implemented here. It can be seen that the ambiguous definition of ‘mutual interest’ between ex-colonizer and ex- colonized was still hidden in this initial stage. The different takes on it will be shown in the later stage, starting when Indonesia insisted more strongly on the return of 1945-1949 archives.
2. The trigger and confusion of the Djogdja Documenten return
The talk about the return of 1945-1950 archives unfolded the following year. It has rarely been mentioned the role of Hatta in suggesting the return of archives on Indonesia’s independence struggle from the Netherlands to Indonesia. As quoted by Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad (19 April 1973), Hatta said that Indonesia would ask the Netherlands for copies of all documents about the Indonesian struggle for
16 NL-HaNA, ARA, Tweede Afdeling, nummer toegang 2.14.04, inventarisnummer 201.
independence, arguing that the Netherlands was the only country that had full documentation of the independence struggle. Hatta had brought the idea to Indonesia Vice President Sultan Hamengkubuwono IX, who approved the plan to request copies from the Netherlands (NRC Handelsblad, 19 April 1973).
A 1974 opinion article in Indonesia Raya newspaper written by the pers attache of the Indonesian Embassy in Den Haag, H.J. Siri speculated that the idea probably came to Hatta when he visited libraries, archives, and secondhand bookshops during his 1971 visit to the Netherlands. It seems that the idea had been circulated in Indonesia because in 1973, the Dutch Ambassador Hugo Scheltema, as quoted in Antara news agency, said that Hatta’s proposal is being implemented17.
In the same year, ANRI sent Soeri Soeroto, dean of Faculty of Letters, UGM, to study and make an inventory of the archives based on the framework of microfilm exchange. Soeroto’s work was not for the 1945-1949 archives, but he focused on the colonial archives of the 19th century and 20th century (1895-1942) period18. This explained that at that moment, the 1945-1950 archives have not yet been included in the implementation of microfilm exchange. Instead, the microfilm project began with the colonial archives.
The summary of Indonesia-Netherlands archival cooperation stated that “implementation was requested in 1974 about Indonesian desires for the restitution of archives captured by Dutch troops in the period 1945-1949”19. Yet, there were confusion and unpreparedness inside ARA and the related ministries in dealing with the unexpected request. On May 28, 1974, Ribberink sent a letter to the Director-General of Cultural Affairs, conveying the concern of his staff archivists that the records can impact the living Indonesian officials. For that reason, he stressed a preference to return the archive in microfilm. “By allowing the filming to be guided by our staff, Indonesia, where little
17 NL-HaNA, Nederlandse Ambassade in Indonesië 1962-1974, nummer toegang 2.05.188, inventarisnummer 590. 18 Ibid. 19 Archief Samenwerking Nederland Indonesie, in NL-HaNA, ARA, Tweede Afdeling, nummer toegang 2.14.04, inventarisnummer 190
material from the years 1945-50 remains, can be served, while privacy is safeguarded by ourselves”20.
Three months later, he informed the Embassy Council for Press and Cultural Affairs A.L. Schneiders that the microfilming of the archives in the period of 1943-1950 will be made shortly, after the consultation with the Ministry of Internal Affairs is completed. But the microfilming of archives selected by Soeroto can be started. It was because Ribberink still needed to convince the Minister of Internal Affairs of the importance of microfilming the Djogdja Documenten, followed by his request to transfer the archive from the ministry to ARA. While this request was agreed upon, the Ministry required Ribberink to ask for the Ministry’s consent before the microfilm can be transferred21. This signifies the sensitivity of the seized archives of 1945-1949 for the Dutch government, and can also be shown from the secrecy of these archives as they were closed for a long time under national security reasons in the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
Meanwhile, in Indonesia, the Djogdja Documenten issue was also raised in the International Association of Historians of Asia (IAHA) Congress, which took place in Yogyakarta, August 1974. An Indonesian historian, Sartono Kartodirdjo, suggested sending a historian to inventory the 1945-1950 archives in the Netherlands. Furthermore, a report written by an attending Dutch historian on that meeting revealed the confusion of the archive’s exact location, when it said they were in the archives of the Ministry of Internal Affairs rather than Foreign Affairs (Karabinos, 2015).
The confusion grew further, this time on the form of the return—would it be microfilm or physical documents? On September 3, 1974, the Dutch Ambassador for Indonesia P.W. Jalink asked the Ministry of Foreign Affairs whether microfilming of the Djogdja Documenten takes place for the Netherlands to have their copies after the physical return to Indonesia, or that it was thought of sending only the copied material to Indonesia. He said:
20 NL-HaNA, ARA, Tweede Afdeling, nummer toegang 2.14.04, inventarisnummer 190, X1.6 Dossier overdracht Yokya-documenten. 21 Ibid.
I hope that the latter will not be the case and that the original documents will be returned, if necessary, after 'screening' and, if necessary, clearing up any scrutiny notes that may have been placed on the documents from the Dutch side. After all, it seems very unlikely to me that the Indonesian authorities will be happy with just the material that has been copied. Furthermore, it seems to be very difficult to defend why this material, which belongs to Indonesia par excellence, could not be returned in its original form. It seems to me that too skimpy an attitude in this matter would not benefit the atmosphere in the discussions about the position of historical objects from Indonesia in general22.
The question was answered by Th.M.P. Klaus, Chief Director of Asia, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, on October 10, 1974. He found Indonesia's wishes to always be vague on the return, as no individual pieces are ever specified. Additionally, there was “different understanding in Indonesia over the question of the archives: from work level and official level”. At the work level, ANRI’s proposal and the Indonesia delegation in the IAHA congress talked about microfilm. The official Indonesian government, however, such as the Director-General Cultural Affairs Ida Bagus Mantra, took a much more far-reaching position on the return of original pieces. He concluded that “regarding Djokja-archives, in the official consultation, people feel most in favor of the transfer of microfilms to Indonesia for the time being (following Soemartini's request and in line with Sartono's proposal)”. In general, people want to advise a flexible attitude in this specific matter. Consultations will take place with me on any politically sensitive passages before handover”23.
This conclusion was drawn from a particular reading of the Indonesian side, which in turn became the Netherlands’ reasoning to prefer microfilm return. That the Dutch government did not make an effort to clarify the matter with the Indonesian government may imply its passive stance which is likely related to the sensitivity of the seized archives to them.
22 NL-HaNA, Nederlandse Ambassade in Indonesië 1962-1974, nummer toegang 2.05.188, inventarisnummer 590. My translation from Dutch to English. 23 Ibid.
At the end of the year, Soemartini was more invested in the Djogdja Documenten. She wrote to the Dutch Embassy in Jakarta asking for financial assistance in sending an Indonesian historian to The Hague specifically to inventory the Djogdja Documenten (Karabinos, 2015). Reading the development in Indonesia, Ribberink did almost a similar push in The Hague. He was back to convince the Ministry of Internal Affairs, explaining that for the Indonesia history world, the Djogdja Documenten is “almost an indispensable source of information”. He stressed that the Indonesian claim of this material continues to be stronger, that recently the continued existence of the Cultural Agreement was even called into question. The archives have been checked by his archivist, M.G.H.A de Graaff, if there were contents that still put any living people at risk, of which he said there were not24. The Djogdja Documenten, according to Ribberink, was at that time, ‘transport- klaar’ (ready to send) from the ARA. Yet, the actual transfer required further processed and approval from the related ministries.
3. Protracted negotiation and uncertainty
In January 1975, the Netherlands government represented by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued an official statement that it is ready to intensify cooperation to help Indonesia in building up archives and museums. Further, the Dutch government is prepared to hand over documents of Indonesian Republic origin which came into Dutch possession in 1945-50, after an inventory has been made by the Government Archives Department25.
However, in practice, the decision on the return of the Djogdja Documenten was delayed by the dissonance between the related ministries in the Netherlands, especially from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs26. In the report of the interdepartmental consultation regarding the Djogdja Documenten written by de Graaff27, agreement with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has first to be reached before the Ministry of Internal Affairs permits to
24 NL-HaNA, ARA, Tweede Afdeling, nummer toegang 2.14.04, inventarisnummer 190, X1.6 Dossier overdracht Yokya-documenten 25 NL-HaNA, ARA, Tweede Afdeling, nummer toegang 2.14.04, inventarisnummer 190 26 NL-HaNA, ARA, Tweede Afdeling, nummer toegang 2.14.04, inventarisnummer 201 27 NL-HaNA, ARA, Tweede Afdeling, nummer toegang 2.14.04, inventarisnummer 190
transfer documents or film. The meeting concluded that the issue should be further discussed.
Ribberink expressed his regret over this situation in his letter to the Director-General of Cultural Affairs, Ministry of Culture, Recreation and Social Welfare28. He was afraid it would stall the cooperation with the ANRI. The Director-General of Cultural Affairs called Ribberink afterward, saying that the ministers decided to return the documents. The Tweede Afdeling of ARA would implement it, while the Ministry of Culture and Foreign Affairs would handle the relation with the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
A month later, Ribberink received a reply letter from the Ministry of Internal Affairs. It explains that the interdepartmental meeting has made arrangements and guidelines regarding the return of the Djogdja Documenten. “The responsibility for the restitution, it was expressly stated, lies with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, so that under no circumstances can documents - in whatever form - be handed over to Indonesia, before my colleague has given his approval. Since this condition has not (yet) been met, the transfer of the microfilms should be delayed”29. This letter shows that up to that moment, the ministries were still indecisive on the form of return.
The slowness of the implementation of the return commitment was again brought by Ribberink to the Director-General of Cultural Affairs. Stating the fact that the Djogdja Documenten has been ready for transport since December 1974 and that there was a great deal to do in the cultural field with Indonesia, he asked if the Minister of Culture can do something about it. Ribberink also raised the issue that UNESCO will address the problem of colonial archives in the coming year. The Djogdja Documenten is an example of archive that according to UNESCO resolution must be returned.
With such protraction and uncertainty, the decision was finally made in the middle of 1975. The Djogdja Documenten was to be transferred in original form, together with the copies of the accompanying Dutch documents. The Dutch documents are the NEFIS’
28 Ibid. 29 Ibid.
routing slips, containing the content and origin of the records as well as how NEFIS processed the records.
After the Ministry of Foreign Affairs completed the screening of the records, the transfer would be done in two batches. In the Ministry of Internal Affairs’ letter to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the first batch comprises 83 folders with the records between Nefis document number 5223 to number 5325. The numbering was not consecutive, with missing numbers which were the records unrelated to the Djogdja Documenten. The size and contents of the second shipment, however, were still not determined at that time30.
At the end of 1975, the Djogdja Documenten were handed to Indonesia. Out of the 4.5- meter-long seized archives, the size of selected archival material that was returned was barely 20 cm31. The second transfer took place in May 1976. It consisted of 277 eenheden (envelops and maps), within the number 5326-5808, and packed in six boxes. The microfilm that had been made on the Djogdja Documenten was never transferred.
It should also be noted that the difficult process shows how the return of the archives of 1945-1949 came unexpected and treated very cautiously, especially by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. These archives clearly show the ‘mutual interest’ between the ex- colonizer and ex-colony is not mutual. Unlike another microfilm project on pre-1942 archives which involved several Indonesian historians and archivists, there were eventually no Indonesian archivists involved in making the selection of the Djogdja Documenten32. Although the request was asked with insistence by the Indonesian government, the term, conditions, and definitions were set by the Netherlands, particularly the ministries. Both ARA and ANRI, however, played a role in pushing and keeping the commitment of return to be implemented.
30 Ibid. 31 NL-HaNA, ARA, Tweede Afdeling, nummer toegang 2.14.04, inventarisnummer 201 32 Personal interview with Djoko Oetomo, former ANRI’s archivist and director (9 December 2020).
4. The basis of return
Article 19 drafted by a cultural sub-committee of the Committee for Indonesian Affairs in the Round Table Conference (RTC) of August 1949 discussed specifically the return of objects of cultural value. It stipulated that “Objects of cultural value which have their origin in Indonesia and which came into the possession of the Netherlands government or the former Dutch East Indies authorities by means other than as specified in private law for the acquisition of property shall be handed over to the Government of the RIS [Republik Indonesia Serikat, Republic of the United States of Indonesia] pursuant to the transfer of sovereignty by the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the RIS (Legene and Postel-Coster, 2000, p.272). The article also provided for the possibility of an ‘exchange of objects of cultural or historical value’ between both sides.
However, this article was not used as a reference for the Djogdja Documenten return. The Netherlands argued that it no longer played a role because Indonesia unilaterally terminated the RTC agreement in 1956. “Any positive position of the Dutch government towards the transfer (restitution) will therefore require further regulation concerning the realization, which can very well be placed in the context of the existing Cultural Treaty,” as said in the document titled Nota inzake de zich in Nederland rijksinstellingen bevindende kunstschatten en archiefonderdelen van Indonesische oorsprong33 (Note on art treasures and archive parts of Indonesian origin located in Dutch government institutions).
In its analyses on the basis for return in the 1970s, the Netherlands refers to the aspect that the objects do not have private property title.
An integral and unconditional return of all Indonesian origin objects in state ownership is not desirable. After all, this would also mean that an essential relationship with Dutch culture and history would be lost for the Netherlands, which would mean impoverishment. Moreover, such a decision by other countries, with
33 NL-HaNA, ARA, Tweede Afdeling, nummer toegang 2.14.04, inventarisnummer 190
which the Netherlands was previously associated, could be regarded as a precedent and could also lead to claims on items in the Dutch archives34.
The Netherlands saw the basis of return for Indonesia in the resolution of Zaire (1973) which mentions the return of "expropriated" native pieces. The Netherlands, however, abstained at the time. The Netherlands also abstained on this matter during the XVIII session of the General Conference of UNESCO (Oct-Nov 1974). But it made a statement to be positive about seeking solutions through bilateral consultations when requested35.
The conclusion at this early stage was that there are two sufficient grounds for the Netherlands to return all the captured objects and archives. First, if there were a lack of a private ownership title. Secondly, the importance of the good mutual relationship that will develop more, particularly in the field of cultural-scientific cooperation36.
Furthermore, it said that the Dutch government can declare its willingness to extend the microfilm project which runs for archives until 1942, to archives until 29 December 1949 for the time being. Interestingly, there was noted advice, to not adopt a too formalistic position on Indonesia, but to respond pragmatically based on bilateral consultations that already started in the context of the cooperation between museums and archives based on reciprocity.
According to this document, the collaboration is seen to offer a solution to the problem of objects of collective past, for the purpose to strengthen the Indonesian national identity, promoting science and the Indonesian development effort, and to the benefits of Dutch scientific interests37. Interesting that it has no mention of colonial past or relations. A pragmatic and not too formal approach was advised, considering that the Indonesian side was doing the same approach. Besides, it shows that the role of institutional cooperation was well-considered instead of the bilateral diplomatic channel.
34 In a document titled: Kwestie teruggave culturele en historische vorwerpen en archieven aan Indonesia. Ibid. 35 Ibid. 36 Ibid. 37 Ibid.
The return of the Djogdja Documenten was given a particular treatment in the issue of return. The advice was to take a relatively less reserved position for these archives, “because Indonesia's wishes in this regard are clearer and focus”38. Indonesia was also viewed to have enormous emotional motivation on these archives, especially where data on the first years of the Republic of Indonesia is found39.
Thus, microfilm transfer was seen as the first step, but the willingness to transfer the originals could still be agreed upon. However, the willingness came with a note: “It seems to be advisable to maintain the qualification ‘officially registered with the Rijksarchief because this includes a lot of private correspondence and also because any archive components present at the Ministry of Defense are excluded”40. In line with these suggestions, the Netherlands declared the willingness to return the Djogdja Documenten in January 1975.
A firmer basis of return was agreed by both sides in the Joint Recommendations by the Dutch and Indonesian Team of Experts, Concerning Cultural Cooperation in the Field of Museums and Archives Including Transfer of Objects, signed on November 1975. Part IV of Joint Recommendation on Archivology number 1 stated the acknowledgment of the general principle that archives ought to be kept by the administration that had originated them. Consequently, original archival material produced by the functionaries of the Government of the Netherlands Indies, the Japanese Military Government in Indonesia during World War II, the Government of the Republic of Indonesia, the Governments of the various member states, and the territories of the United States of Indonesia and the Governments of the United States of Indonesia and currently located in the Netherlands should be returned to the Republic of Indonesia following the Netherlands legislation on archives.
Moreover, Joint Recommendation IV.3 stipulated an agreement to leave the so-called overgebrachte brieven -the archives of the Procureur Generaal and the Algemeene
38 Nota inzake de zich in NL rijksinstellingen bevindende kunstschatten en archiefonderdelen van Indonesische oorsprong. NL-HaNA, ARA, Tweede Afdeling, nummer toegang 2.14.04, inventarisnummer 190 39 Ibid. 40 Ibid.
Secretarie - concerning Dutch individuals and groups in ARA, while documents originated by Indonesian organizations and Government institutions in Indonesia be transferred to Indonesia.
5. The 1983 Reboot: Indonesia’s expanded definition on the Djogdja Documenten
How do we approach situations where we think some silences could be filled by material which exists but is not available (Fowler, 2017, p.22)? ANRI’s Soemartini tried several times to ask for the return of more 1945-1949 seized archives in the Netherlands. After seven years from the 1976 return, Soemartini brought back the issue in the meeting of the Netherlands-Indonesian Steering Committee on Museums, Monuments, and Archives (Jakarta, 15 and 16 February 1983). Soemartini stated that the Indonesia side would like to be informed when the rest of the Djogdja Documenten will be handed over. She referred to the speech of Netherlands Ambassador P.W. Jalink who said, “There are more to come,” when the first part of the Djogdja Documenten was transferred.
Not only that, Soemartini asked for access to archives deposited in other repositories in the Netherlands:
[…] priority has been given to material kept at the ‘Algemeen Rijksarchief’, but it is of importance to the Indonesian side to get access to material found in other repositories in the Netherlands. It is therefore sincerely hoped that through cooperation with the Dutch Committee arrangements could be made to gain access to these other institutions…. It should be noted that archivally speaking the Algemene Secretarie papers transferred to the Netherlands in 1953 form an inseparable part of the collection kept in Jakarta and at the Bogor repositories (sic). It would be desirable to maintain these archives in their entirety and not keep the parts in separate collections.
It was in this request that we saw the broader definition of the Djogdja Documenten according to the Indonesian side. It knew that there were still Indonesian Republican government papers in other archives, hence it requested access to these archives.
The Director-General of Culture, Ministry of Welfare, Public Health, and Culture (WVC)41 R. Hotke, who led the Netherlands delegation, replied that access to the archives of the Netherlands Ministries of Defense and Foreign Affairs was still under discussion in the Netherlands. About the Djogdja Documenten, Hotke made sure that the Netherlands would investigate it. The meeting concluded that both sides should prepare a further five- year plan.
In its working plan, Indonesia proposed further microfilm projects and inventory assistance for the archives of Algemene Secretarie and Procureur Generaal (1945-1949). Interestingly but not unsurprisingly considering its many attempts for getting the Djogdja Documenten, Indonesia proposed the transfer of physical archives to be done in 1987- 1988. The Netherlands responded that microfilm transfer was recommended for politically sensitive archives. Furthermore, even this required elicit consent from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, especially for the so-called Indische archief, Rapportenarchief Indonesie, and the Rapportage Indonesie, as noted in ARA’s five-year working plan42.
Nevertheless, Soemartini’s request reopened the return issue, and consequently, the inquiry about the previous return. In his correspondence with Ribberink, Hotke admitted what Soemartini revealed during the Jakarta meeting was new to him, as he always believed that the return of the Djogdja Documenten is a closed file, that it has been returned in its entirety to Indonesia43. In his reply to Hotke, Ribberink agreed that the Djogdja Documenten should have formed a closed file and should have been returned to Indonesia in their entirety, adding that it remained unclear to him why the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Internal Affairs did not do this in 1975.
[…] It seems to me that their actions conflicted with the commitments made to Indonesia by the government at the time. Since the NEFIS archive, in which these documents were housed, is still held by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, I regret to
41 Ministerie van Welzijn, Volksgezondheid en Cultuur (WVC) 42 Signed by Ribberink on March 22 1983, in NL-HaNA, ARA, Tweede Afdeling, nummer toegang 2.14.04, inventarisnummer 266. 43 Letter on March 9 1983 in NL-HaNA, ARA, Tweede Afdeling, nummer toegang 2.14.04, inventarisnummer 266.
refer you to the deputy secretary-general of that ministry for further information. At the time, the ARA did no more than take care of the filming of the pieces that would be returned to Indonesia44.
This displays ARA’s limited role in the decision-making of the transfer, with the strategic decisions regarding the selection being more the domain of the two ministries. This positions ARA at that time as the implementing actor of the decision of the ministries.
In the Dutch interdepartmental meeting over the SAOR (Statische Archives Overseas Rijksdelen) archives, the reason for the limited transfer of the Djogdja Documenten was explained. It was because “…after 1948 the Jogya files were split up and got mixed up with Dutch dossiers. To recollect and reorder them is a rather time-consuming operation”. The reason for the mixing up was not mentioned here, but there are at least two possibilities. First, during the operation of NEFIS. Even though the seized archives were formed by NEFIS, they were then used to make reports that were sent to other Dutch institutions. Secondly, after they were transferred to the Netherlands. Boxes of records were unpacked and appraised. The records were then moved several times to various ministries. In both circumstances, the records could get mixed up. We still do not know the exact reason, the only thing known later is the Dutch dossiers that contain the seized archives. In the 1980s, ARA found other seized records in the archives of the Algemene Secretarie and the Procureur General.
This mixing up of the records, however, was not explained to the Indonesian side during the Joint-Commission meeting later that year in The Hague. The Netherlands’ delegation instead stated that “…all documents seized by the troops during the 2nd attack - without mentioning if they are of one archive, has been transferred back in 1975-76. The speech of Jalink was a misunderstanding”45.
Director Asia and Oceania of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs then sent a letter to the Netherland Ambassador in Jakarta, specifying that Jalink’s speech referred to the transfer
44 Letter on March 14 1983 in NL-HaNA, ARA, Tweede Afdeling, nummer toegang 2.14.04, inventarisnummer 201 45 Report of Indonesia-Netherlands Joint Commission Meeting on the Implementation of Cultural Accord, May 24- 27 1983 in NL-HaNA, ARA, Tweede Afdeling, nummer toegang 2.14.04, inventarisnummer 266.
of the first part of the archives in November 1975. What Jalink meant by "there will be more to come" referred to the second part that was transferred later in July 1976. Whether this explanation represents the full truth, however, seems to be doubtful given that the existence of other seized archives was known to the related Dutch government bodies.
The cautious attitude of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was demonstrated further at home. It objected to the use of the Djogdja Documenten without its knowledge in research by Drs Maas "Indie verloren, rampspoed geboren". It reminded ARA that the Ministry held political responsibility to investigate possibilities of accessibility to the SAOR archives. “Your policy with regard to the Djogdja Documenten, therefore, seems to me to be undesirable, as the Indonesian side is already suspicious of whether all Djogdja Documenten were indeed returned in the mid-1970s.” The publication of the document by a Dutch researcher, thus, was said as “a stone in the pond of the already existing fragile trust, with all possible negative consequences”46.
In this same 1983 letter to ARA, the Ministry explained that 16 documents of the Djogdja Documenten were withheld at the decision of the Ministry of Internal Affairs because they could harm the interests of still living, prominent Indonesians, among whom was Hatta.
Until 1986, there had yet to be a solution to Indonesia’s expanded definition of the Djogdja Documenten. The rest of the Djogdja Documenten as part of NEFIS/CMI archives were deposited under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs at that time. The two national archives continued their efforts to continue the return process. In Jakarta, Soemartini asked about the state of the affairs of her request to M.M. van Erkel, Director of International Affairs of the Ministry of WVC at the bilateral meeting on culture and education. Meanwhile, in The Hague, Ribberink conveyed his support for a further return to the Ministry of WVC. He argued that the strict criteria of previous return might no longer apply, hence: “It seems to me that the time has now come to hand over to Indonesia after microfilming on the ARA all the looted archives that reside in the inventoried file
46 Letter from Directure of Asia and Oceania of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to ARA, November 30th 1984, in NL- HaNA, ARA, Tweede Afdeling, nummer toegang 2.14.04, inventarisnummer 266.
NEFIS / CMI”47. Ribberink explained that Indonesia’s ultimate request covers all seized archives. It included the documents from the archives of the Algemene Secretarie and Procureur General held by the ARA, although this should wait until they were inventoried.
It was in the process of inventorying the Algemene Secretarie archives in 1982 that ARA found a bundle of documents belonging to the State Secretary of the Republic of Indonesia dated between February to July 1945. Among them, the papers of A.G. Pringgodigdo48 that recorded the making of Indonesia’s constitution. The A.G. Pringgodigdo papers were returned to Indonesia in November 198749.
The inventory process of the whole Algemene Secretarie archive itself took six years to complete, which lead to the lifting of the secrecy of this so-called geheim archief (secret archive). They were finally opened for research purposes in 1990 (Algemeen Dagblad, August 1, 1990). It even included the second part (deel II) of Algemene Secretarie which contained the secret and cabinet archives of Van Mook and the High Representative of the Crown that witnessed the recolonization policies and strategy. The Indonesian government archives were found in the third part (deel III) named ‘archief van de Algemene Secretarie gedeponeerde archieven’ together with the archives of the Netherlands’ delegations during the negotiations with the Republic, archives of various departments, and archives of the office for Japanese affairs50.
47 Ribberink’s letter on August 1987 to Director of Bilateral Cooperation at the Minsitry of WVC. NL-HaNA, ARA, Tweede Afdeling, nummer toegang 2.14.04, inventarisnummer 266. 48 A.G. Pringgodigdo was then the Secretary of BPUPKI who made the minutes of meeting on the formulation of the state’s philosophy and constitution. 49 Description of A.G. Pringgodigdo archives in K.6 Archivalia van R.M. mr. Abdul Gaffar Pringgodigdo, Secretaris van Staat van de Republiek Indonesië, 1944-1945, in NL-HaNa, Inventaris van het archief van de Algemene Secretarie van de Nederlands-Indische Regering en de daarbij Gedeponeerde archieven, (1922) 1944-1950, nummer toegang 2.10.14. 50 Deel I Algemene Secretarie consists of archives until 1942 has been kept in ANRI until today. Deel IV is at NAN, consists of full table of contents, index and the concordans as well as a number of appendices.
Figure 1: The secret archives of the Netherlands-Indie were opened in 1990, with pictures of ARA’s two archivists from the Tweede Afdeling who worked on the inventory process: M.G.H.A. De Graaff and A.M. Tempelaars. Reprinted from Haagsche Courant, July 26, 1990.
After that, several archives were transferred between ARA and NAN during 1986-1991. ARA’s archivist Evert van Laar sent a letter to ANRI in 1991, mentioning a list of archives to be sent to Indonesia. It comprised “documents of several bodies of the Netherlands East Indies before 1942 and some captured archives that ARA found as being not belonging to the Algemene Secretarie archives” 51.
It was followed with one more return in 1994. The Netherlands returned three boxes containing archives and documentation, such as the documents of the Netherlands delegations in the 1946-1949 sovereignty negotiation and documents of the BFO
51 NL-HaNA, ARA, Tweede Afdeling, nummer toegang 2.14.04, inventarisnummer 318
conference in Bandung. The Netherlands completed the microfilm project exchange by sending all parts of the Algemene Secretarie archives in microfilm to Indonesia52.
To conclude, this chapter illustrates the silences emanating from the repatriation process, dominantly shaped by the political dynamics and diplomatic considerations. The former is shown throughout the protracted negotiation between Dutch concerned departments, signifying the caution and hesitation, especially from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in returning the 1945-1950 archives. This in part is due to the secrecy of the 1945-1950 archives at that time that obviously follows the sensitive discussion of the Dutch military actions in Indonesia.
The diplomatic considerations predominantly influenced the return decisions, rather than the interest of confronting the shared colonial past. This case exemplifies that political compromises are usually what drive repatriation (Cox, 2007). As in every compromise, even the successful one like this case, something needs to be chosen and others to be left out in pursuit of mutual benefit. For instance, here, we saw that the microfilm project started with the less-sensitive colonial records, a compromise to Indonesia’s initial interest for the 1945-1950 records.
Subsequently, the silence in the mixing up records with other Dutch dossiers and the fact that it was not disclosed to the other side can be considered the “physical expression of the culture of secrecy” of the ex-colonial power (Auer, 2017). The silence of the 1945-1950 archives lies in this negligence. When the return was framed more in the diplomatic interest instead of in addressing colonial injustice, the mixing of documents was not viewed as an urgent issue to be resolved first. It even became the reason for returning the limited numbers of Djogdja Documenten records.
The two national archives seem quite modest at the beginning of the archival collaboration, accepting political compromises in the selection of archives to be microfilmed. They worked to exchange archives that represent a ‘mutual interest’, by
52 Speech Ambassador at the Arsip Nasional RI, 20 January 1994. NL-HaNA, ARA, Tweede Afdeling, nummer toegang 2.14.04, inventarisnummer 318
harmonizing the ambiguous definition of ‘mutual interest’ between ex-colonizer and ex- colonized. The exclusion of 1945-1950 archives in this initial phase was accepted and followed by both sides.
However, this timid attitude changed in the later stage. Both national archives continuously questioned, challenged, and unraveled the previous arrangement of the Djogdja Documenten return, such as by repeatedly querying the other Dutch government bodies. The role of ANRI and Soemartini were more prominent in scrutinizing the 1970s return and insisting on more archives, while Ribberink played a substantial role in locating and proceed a further return.
V. The Archival Silence of the Djogdja Documenten
The previous chapter has discussed the process that shaped the repatriation of the Djogdja Documenten, investigating the silences in it as well as how the national archives of both countries treated the silences. This chapter continues by locating the archival silences throughout the archival practices that (re-)created the Djogdja Documenten and the archival infrastructure that represents it.
1. Examining the provenance and its changes
First, let us trace the provenance of the Djogdja Documenten as told by the records themselves and compare it to the description in the NAN. Before the term Djogdja Documenten was used, the Indonesian commentators at that time most often refers to the 1945-1949 archives as 'buitgemaakte archieven' (Karabinos, 2013, p.285). Djogdja53 Documenten became a key term used in the correspondences among the Netherlands ' government officials, to refer to the Indonesian records seized by the Dutch troops when it attacked Yogyakarta in 1949.
The Djogdja Documenten as a fragment of the 1945-1949 seized records from Indonesia was articulated in the summary document (DOA/IN no.163 dated 31/10/74) about the presence of Indonesian cultural objects, handwritten manuscripts, and archives in the Netherland. The document mentioned the Djogdja Documenten as part of 'Indonesische Documenten 1945-1950', which were defined as “the records brought together with 10.000 other documents in one collection, all were stored in the Ministry of Internal Affairs”54. Here, Djogdja Documenten was explained as: "the Republican archival material looted during the second police action"55.
53 In the Dutch correspondence records, the term has been written inconsistently as Djogdja, Djogja, Djokja, Djocja, or sometimes Yokya Documenten, all is a derivative of Yogyakarta. 54 NL-HaNa, ARA, Tweede Afdeling, nummer toegang 2.14.04, inventarisnummer 190. 55 NL-HaNa, ARA, Tweede Afdeling, nummer toegang 2.14.04, inventarisnummer 190.
The document clearly said that other original Indonesian documents existed, such as ones found in the Ministry of Defense. Whilst this document listed Indonesian seized records in various places, only the Djogdja Documenten was finally returned in 1976. The reason for that involves the lengthy process as explained in the previous chapter.
In the current finding aid at the NAN, the Djogdja Documenten was arranged under the ‘Buitgemaakte en Gevonden Documenten’. It is a part of a large inventory of Marine en Leger Inlichtingendienst, Netherlands Forces Intelligence Service (NEFIS) en Centrale Militaire Inlichtingendienst (CMI) (2.10.62). It is not easy to locate the Djogdja Documenten, even the seized records, among the abundance of files that recorded NEFIS/CMI activities in this collection.
The NEFIS/CMI archives contain records created, obtained, and looted in the Netherlands East Indies following its administrative, intelligence, and military operation. Few records were also given to the NEFIS by the Indonesian informants. The NAN’s catalog describes the archives containing "materials that offer insight into the espionage and intelligence of the Dutch armed forces and government in its former colony", pointing out NEFIS’s operational context.
The catalog explained that the NEFIS and CMI archives were packed and transported to the Netherlands by boat, before the sovereignty transfer agreement between the Netherlands and Indonesia was signed on 27 December 1949. Even though the archives were considered military archives, they were stored and later unpacked at the Ministry of Union Affairs and Overseas Departments and later transferred to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. It noted that the archives were not complete since the first check, but it remains unclear what has been destroyed or transferred to other authorities.
The NEFIS/CMI archives were categorized together with some other archives into the so- called SAOR archives. In 1979, the Ministry of Internal Affairs wished to dispose of the SAOR archives, but after consultations between several ministries, and later also the National Archives, it was decided to transfer the archive to various bodies56. 1979 was the
56 As quoted from the description of NEFIS/CMI inventory, in the section of history of archive management (Geschiedenis van het archiefbeheer).
year after the first and second transfer of the Djogdja Documenten, which made it interesting to know why the Ministry of Internal Affairs thought the archives were not worth keeping. One would naturally presume that it may be related to the risk of the records to national interest or security? Besides, the thought to dispose of the records indicates that possession over colonial and colonized indeed gives considerable power, including in silencing the records. Fortunately, part of these archives was later transferred to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1981, and, after some contentment, they were finally placed in the National Archives and available for the public.
In terms of size, the NEFIS archive comprises 75 meters of records and is arranged in 7334 inventory numbers. In this NEFIS archive, the ‘Buitgemaakte en Gevonden Documenten’ are considered sensitive with the confiscated Indonesian materials, many of which came directly from the Indonesian Republic’s official agencies. This specific collection comprises 3115 folders, including the Djogdja Documenten.
The seized archives not only consist of the records captured in 1948-1949 but throughout the decolonization war from 1945 to 1949. Most documents were seized/looted/confiscated from Indonesian civilians, journalists, political parties, military and paramilitary troops, and government officials, but some were also given to NEFIS by the Indonesian informants. They were used as raw materials for NEFIS/CMI's reports (Yulianasari, 2012). The Dutch military and colonial administrations used the reports for their recolonization efforts, particularly to influence international opinion (Karabinos, 2015; Yulianasari, 2012).
The seized records served as documentary evidence to support the Dutch's accusation on the incapability and dysfunctional Indonesian republican government, especially by relating it to the opium trade, insurgency, and communism (Karabinos, 2015). To that aim, the reports containing the original, copy, or translated version of these raw documents were sent to various bodies. This is one of the reasons that the seized records are scattered in various places, for instance in the archive of Algemeene Secretarie, Procureur General, Rapportage Indonesia, and even in the archives of international bodies and other countries outside the Netherlands.
From this process, Karabinos (2015) concludes that NEFIS/CMI was the creator of the Djogdja Documenten as a collection. What makes them into a single being is the seizure and capture of documents in the attack of Yogyakarta. "On their own, taken outside the context of their capture and removal from Yogyakarta, two documents within the Djogdja Documenten from different creators are no more linked than two documents that were not seized from the same creators" (Karabinos, 2015, p.374).
This category can be expanded and clarified. NEFIS/CMI has accumulated, re-activated, and re-used the records during the Djogdja attack for a completely different purpose compared to those of the originating creators. The records were seized and captured at the time of the attack which ethically never belongs to the one who captured them. It became documentation that was used according to the new purpose. In this sense, perhaps it is more accurate and appropriate to call NEFIS/CMI a collecting agency.
How NEFIS/CMI collected and recreated the archives can be found in a letter of Director of CMI, J.M Somer, in March 1949. The letter attached a draft publication about the Indonesian government archive seized in Yogyakarta, made by an official of the Dutch Ministry of Union Affairs and Overseas Territories. According to the draft, several Republican archives were seized when the Dutch airstrikes invaded Yogyakarta. The archives included the personal archives of Mohammad Hatta, archives of the Ministry of Defense, and other ministries, government bodies, and official leaders. These archives were sent to Batavia where they were later translated and carefully studied.
[…] welke arbeid, hoewel nog lang niet voltooid, thans voldoende voorlopige resultaten heeft opgeleverd om de Nederlandse Regering een duidelijk beeld te gevem van het bedrog en de leugen, de systematische vijandigheid eb arglistigheid, waarmede de Republikeinse Regering steeds op elk terrein van aanraking het Nederlandse gezag is tegemoet getreden na de Renville- overeenkomst, een overeenkomst die juist beoogde de voorwarden te scheppen voor eerlijke en wezenlijke toenadering van partijen in het Indonesisch geschil.
(which work, although far from being completed, has now produced sufficient preliminary results to give the Dutch Government a clear picture of the deceit and
lie, the systematic hostility and treachery with which the Republican Government always attacks the Dutch authority in every area that has been agreed after the Renville Agreement, an agreement precisely intended to create the conditions for fair and substantial resolution between parties on the Indonesian dispute.)57
It is shown in the draft that the seized records were processed to meet the new purpose, namely to be the evidence of how the Indonesian Republican government violated the Renville agreement. In other words, the Djogdja Documenten was a distinct combination of an organic product, since they were a natural outcome of NEFIS intelligence activities, and a purposeful product, namely documentation made for providing evidence to support recolonization effort. As a fact assembler, NEFIS’ wielded its power in controlling the facts, by ‘collecting’ certain records that support its intelligence purpose, then re- contextualizing and re-purposing them.
It should have also been noted in the description that there is another 'shaper' of the archive who has re-activated it, as discussed in the previous chapter. The Djogdja Documenten would have never been a particular collection if it had not been re-compiled, selected, and made into being by the government bodies of the Netherlands in the 1970s. The Netherlands government is the secondary 're-creator', another fact-assembler of the Djogdja Documenten. Their intervention to the archive was prominent in deciding based on their terms which seized archives during the Djogdja attack that could be returned.
In this re-creation of the Djogdja Documenten, the silence enters the moment of fact assembly The choice of returning the archive to Indonesia as 'Djogdja Documenten' means to narrow down the return to only the captured archive in the Yogyakarta invasion, by referring to the above document. The other seized archives of Indonesia in the Netherlands were not selected to be returned and must remain in the Netherlands.
If the legal basis of the return has only allowed the Indonesian government archives, a remaining question is about the fate of other Indonesian government archives in the NEFIS seized archives. These archives were captured by NEFIS not only in the 1948
57 My translation.
attack, but also in the first attack in 1947, and more broadly during the recolonization effort from 1945 to 1949 in various areas.
For these reasons, it can be argued that the return of the Djogdja Documenten has silenced the other Indonesian seized archives. These Indonesian-made records that witnessed both the Dutch's recolonization effort as well as Indonesia's independence struggle remain in the NAN. Access to them has been opened since 2016 so that anyone can visit them in NAN. However, as the finding aid is still in the Dutch language, it still contains barriers to access for Indonesians.
The narrowing focus from 1945-1949 seized archives to the Djogdja Documenten also sidelines the complexity of the seized archives' provenance based on the originating creators in Indonesia. Knowing the original provenance is useful to understand the context and content of the archives as well. However, it demands thorough research that has not been done to date.
The challenge to do this research is that the original creator and context of creation are in many cases hard to be tracked. This is because the NEFIS/CMI's description that addresses the source on each record is often incomplete and written inconsistently. The information about the origin or the events that led to the capture of the document can be seen in NEFIS' routing slips58 of each bestanddeel (folder), but in some cases, the column describes the place as incomplete (Yulianasari, 2012, pp.3-4). The column was named 'vindplaats' (finding place), but this is not only filled in with the name of a place (can be a city or a more specific district), but also a person, institution, an archive, or simply stated as 'unknown'. This challenge in fact makes the research on tracing the original sources of the Djogdja Documenten and the seized archives are even more needed in the direction to unearth the silences of these archives.
58 This routing slip contains information including the original location of the documents, the owner of the documents, the contents of the documents and so on. Thanks to the recent description made by Harry Poeze that some information in the routing slips can now be read in the records description, such as the vindplaats and bemachtigd (capture) date.
Despite that it is challenging to trace all original sources, the vindplaats in some cases appear obvious, such as when it refers to the creator name of the archives (e.g.: Archief Hatta, Archief Soekarno, Archief Rep. Procureur General, etc.). This raises the question, whether the vindplaats were used in determining the archives to return during the 1970s transfer. Moreover, were the routing slips the key to decide which archives to send back, if used at all?
Among the records in the Djogdja Documenten, few records had no routing slips and some with unknown vindplaats. Some records even had vindplaats that stated that they came from the informants. Are these records only a few exceptions or were simply overlooked? Or, did the selection ignore the routing slips and merely saw the content of the records? It would be strange if the latter did happen. It would mean that the selection was based only on the provenance of NEFIS. Even though the routing slips are the colonial administrative tool, but it provides a way to trace the provenance of the original records creation in Indonesia.
2. The silence of the remaining seized archives
The selection by ARA and the Netherlands’ Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the 1970s period resulted in a collection of seized Indonesian documents during the invasion of Yogyakarta which was sent in two batches. The first batch consists of the records selected between NEFIS inventory number 5223 to 5325; while the second transfer comprises records selected between inventory number 5326 to 5808. In ANRI’s Daftar Arsip or inventory of the Djogdja Documenten, they were renumbered in 356 inventory numbers. This comprises all records sent in the first and second batch of transfers in 1975 and 1976, without the additional transfer in 1987 of Indonesian government records found in the Algemene Secretarie archive.
In today’s inventory of NEFIS/CMI archive published online on the NAN’s website, we can find many records related to Hatta or captured from the so-called ‘Archief Hatta’ (see the list of the remaining Hatta related papers in appendix 1). These records related to Hatta were said to be excluded from the Djogdja Documenten list by The Dutch Ministry
of Foreign Affairs under its concern that the content might harm a living person59. Yet, we still found 76 records from Archief Hatta returned in the Djogdja Documenten. Whether this selection was done by the influence of the Indonesian government or Hatta himself, however, was unknown as it was not found in the correspondence records of the NAN. This confusion over Archief Hatta is another silence that needs to be unraveled.
If we look closely at the NEFIS/CMI inventory on the website of NAN, NEFIS document number 5223 to 5808 are arranged for the records captured in 1948-1949. Among the records that were not selected to be returned as part of the Djogdja Documenten, there are still many records that originated from Indonesian government institutions. The most obvious sign of provenance can be seen from the finding place, which says that the records were obtained from, for instance, the archive of the Indonesian Defense Ministry, Soekarno, State Secretary archive, Attorney General, and the archive of Indonesia Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Some examples are as follows60:
- 6611 Four documents: with report, 2/25/1948, and two telegrams from AM Dasaad, 2/7 and 11/48, criticizing the Fox contract and relevant authorities Gani, Maramis, Laoh and Soemitro; with letter from AS Cowie to Dasaad regarding granting of oil concessions to Superior Oil Company, and the role of the Fox contract in this, 2/15/1948. NEFIS Document #: 5301; location: Archives Soekarno; obtained: 12/27/1948; original; translation. - 6802 Four documents on the purging of Republican forces at Solo in March 1948, 5/2/1948; with report on the military governor of Solo, 2-5-1948; with report on political troublemakers Setiadjit, Maroeto Daroesman and Amir Sjarifoeddin, 2-5- 1948; with note from Head of Department B of the Republican Prosecutor's Office to the Attorney General, on Mangkoenengaran's role in riots, undated. NEFIS Document #: 5493; location: Archives Republican Attorney General; obtained: 1/20/1949; original; translation.
59 NL-HaNA, ARA, Tweede Afdeling, nummer toegang 2.14.04, inventarisnummer 201. 60 Examples were taken from the records between NEFIS document number 5223 and 5808. Description followed the description of each inventory numbers on NAN’s online catalogue which is in Dutch. Translated into English using Google Translate.
- 6849 Eight West Java Republican Government Declarations and Arrangements; with general regulation for the board and civil servants, 1-10-1948; with rules of procedure of the board of directors, 17-8-1948; with regulations for the service of religious affairs, 1-10-1948; with announcement of the establishment of Pemerintah Republik Djawa Barat, 8/17/1948; with Political Manifesto of the Republican Government, 8/17/1948; with organization chart of the West Java government, 8/17/1948; with regulations governing the foundations of the emergency laws of the Republican government, 8/17/1948; with three pamphlets, typed and signed, about the formation of Pemerintah Republik Djawa Barat, about ORI money, and about the will to freedom. NEFIS document no.: 5540; location: Tjibening; obtained: 1/28/1949; original; translation. - 6869 Letter R. Sudjadi to the Acting Resident of East Sumatra about objections of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs against the donation of rubber For the benefit of the people of Labuhan Batu, because proceeds are intended to fund foreign representations, Rantau Prapat, 3-8 -1948; with letter from Saroso in Singapore to Sudjadi about the dire financial situation of the Republican foreign representatives, 1/16/1948; with telegram from Soemitro in New York to Saroso about the delivery of Sumatra products via Singapore to the USA, undated. NEFIS document number: 5560; location: Rantau Prapat; obtained: 2/15/1949; original; translation. - 6888 Note with annexes from the Republican Ministry of Defense on the course of the PKI/Muso uprising, 11/1/1948. NEFIS document no.: 5580; location: Archives Republican Ministry of Defense; obtained: 12/27/1948; translation.
These records fit the criteria of the Djogdja Documenten, that they were government archives seized during or after the invasion of Yogyakarta; yet, they were not selected. As there were no records of appraisal and selection process found at NAN, specific reasons why these records were left aside remain a mystery to us.
Apart from the Indonesian government records seized during the Djogdja invasion, the NEFIS/CMI seized archives contain many other Indonesian government records starting as early as 1945. There were, for example, records that were captured during the first
Dutch military attack (Operation Product) on July 1947-August 1947 against areas controlled by the Republic of Indonesia in Java and Sumatra. Other Indonesian government records were seized outside the two Dutch military attacks. These records, due to the narrow criteria of the Djogdja Documenten, have been left in silence, especially in relation to their possible contribution to Indonesia’s knowledge and history-making. Until today, they are not returned to, or ‘shared’ with Indonesia, or even made more accessible to Indonesian researchers and the public.
These government records, as shown in the above examples, illustrated a sliver of events, tensions inside the government and on the society, and how the governance was conducted in the early years of the new republic. The Indonesian government seized archives are not the only archives with such a role in the NEFIS/CMI archive. It contains an assemblage of Indonesian originating records, from Indonesian social and political organizations to personal documents that serve as evidence and memory of this period. To not leave them in silence or oblivion requires archival works, for instance, to make them more accessible and discoverable, as well as further research to examine how these records can be best ‘returned’ or ‘shared’ with the Indonesian side.
There were stories of personal efforts to ask for the archives. In 2009, a well-known Indonesian journalist, Rosihan Anwar, whose personal documents were seized during the 1947 Dutch military attack in Jakarta, was told that his high school photo album was in the NEFIS/CMI archive at NAN61. Anwar asked the help of the Netherlands Ambassador to Indonesia Dr. Nikolais van Dam and Jaap Erkelens from KITLV to have it back. “It was difficult. It appeared that it (the photo album) was treated as a spoil of war or oorlogsbuit and considered to be a state-owned or staatsbezit of the Netherlands,” said Anwar in his memoir (Anwar, 2010). In exchange, Anwar received a reproduction of the photo album made for him by NAN.
Pramoedya Ananta Toer, a renowned Indonesian writer, made a similar request. In September 1965, he sent a letter to the Netherlands via the Dutch embassy in Jakarta, asking for his seized documents to be returned (Setiawan, 2020). The documents consist
61 3034 Fotoalbum Rosihan Anwar; Bundel Sanoesi Pané, ‘Madah Kelana’, 1931. NEFIS documentnr.: 1212; vindplaats: onbekend; bemachtigd: apr-46; origineel. In NL-HaNA, NEFIS en CMI, 2.10.62, inv.nr 3034.
of his diary and his four manuscripts, namely three-quarters of a manuscript titled Di Tepi Kali Bekasi (On the Banks of the Bekasi River), a novel titled Sepuluh Kepala NICA (Ten NICA Heads), and two of his translation works. These personal requests, though incidental and submitted by prominent individuals, demonstrated how the archives are valuable memory objects and of emotional significance to the record subjects and the people related to them. Paying attention to the right of the record subjects is another important reason for not letting the archives dwell in silence.
This research’s focus on NEFIS/CMI seized archives does not mean, however, to dismiss the silence on other Indonesian records in the Netherlands that are still in silence, especially in terms of access for the Indonesians. Speaking of the archives at the NAN, there are the archives of Procureur General62 that contain Indonesian records of the 1945-1950 period that deserves equal research to locate the silence in and about it.
3. The silence in the description
After discussing the silence resulted from a specific selected category of the Djogdja Documenten, this part continues to examine the archival infrastructure of the returned Djogdja Documenten. The seemingly innocent archival practices of arranging and describing are forms of classification mechanisms that can restrict or obscure vision (Jeurgens, 2009, pp.13-15).
In today's catalog of the National Archives of Netherlands (NAN), the Djogdja Documenten has been inventoried as a part of the NEFIS/CMI archive (inventory number 2.10.62). It is filed under the sub-fonds 'documentatie’ (documentation), the series buitgemaakte en gevonden documenten (5.1), and under the sub-series named div.nrs. inbeslaggenomen, gevonden, en buitgemaakte documenten. In this archival arrangement that centers on NEFIS/CMI, the seized archives look obscured. This was more obvious in the very brief description of the sub-series (See Figure 2). The seizure as
62 Nationaal Archief, Den Haag, Procureur-Generaal bij het Hooggerechtshof van Nederlands-Indië, nummer toegang 2.10.17
an act of violence was trivialized and normalized into 'documentation', a regular intelligence operation of NEFIS/CMI as a colonial intelligence body.
In the sub-series which consists of 3119 files in total, the Djogdja Documenten can be found between inventory number 6533 (NEFIS document number 5232) to inventory number 7111 (NEFIS document number 5808). This information, however, is not available in the short description.
The description of the sub-series briefly explains that it consists of original and copies of some Japanese and many Indonesian documents, including the "Djocja documenten which were captured during the second police action". The description chooses to use a term of 'police action', without further explanation, not even the time, which is not only considered a contested term but also insensitive particularly to the subjects of these records.
Apart from it, there is no explanation about the transfer of the Djogdja Documenten since it was neither mentioned in this particular description nor the description of the larger NEFIS/CMI archive. Those unfamiliar with the NEFIS/CMI archive and Djogdja Documenten will have no reference about the return of the archive to Indonesia.
Figure 2: Screenshot of the description of Djogdja Documenten. Reprinted from NL-HaNA, NEFIS en CMI, 2.10.62 https://www.nationaalarchief.nl/onderzoeken/archief/2.10.62/invnr/%40II.~1.~1.1~499?query=nefis%20cmi&search- type=inventory Instead, the description of the return can be found in an apart document named 'the guide to the archive on relations between the Netherlands and Indonesia 1945-1963', written by P.J. Drooglever, M.J.B.Schouten, and Mona Lohanda. The guideline document explains:
Some of the Republican records for the period up to 1949 were seized by the Dutch during their military operations in Indonesia. That happened especially during the period between 20 December 1948 and 6 July 1949, when the Netherlands Army occupied the administrative seat of the Republic, Yogyakarta. It gave them ready access to the Republican archives. Most of these were restituted at the time of the take-over by the Republican administration on July 6, 1949. However, some of the seized documents were withheld at the time and inserted into the Netherlands intelligence archives. Restitution of these ‘Nefis-documenten’ to the Indonesian Government took place in the 1970s and later. A set of the so-called ‘Djocja- documenten’ is administered by the ANRI, where they are listed in a separate inventory (2019, p. 133-134).
Even though this description says vaguely that the Republican records were seized for the period up to 1949, the emphasis is on the document seizure during the second attack on Yogyakarta between 1948-1949. The description mentioned that some of the seized documents were returned in 1949, yet this research could not find any archival correspondence about the return of the Djogdja Documenten that mentioned this information. The description of the NEFIS/CMI archive in the catalog of the NAN does not mention it either. It will be interesting if not necessary to clarify this information and examine it in relation to the Djogdja Documenten.
The unavailability of information about the return of the Djogdja Documenten in the inventory's description is also rather strange compared to the more complete description of the archive of Algemene Secretarie van de Nederlands-Indische Regering en de daarbij gedeponeerde Archieven (2.10.14). The latter includes information about the return of the archives of A.G. Pringgodigdo (K6) and the archives of Ir. Soekarno as president of the Dewan Sanyo, 1943-1945 (K7). Both archives were returned after ANRI requested the follow-up return of the Djogdja Documenten.
As for the return of the Djogdja Documenten, the unavailability of the information also hides that the transfer has been done in two batches. Which records transferred in the first batch one and which in the second batch are unknown, so is the reason for doing that. Adding to this problem is the description of the originality of the files in both national archives. The description at the file level in NAN stated the files as the origineel (original) and/or vertaling (translation); while the description in ANRI consists of several categories: asli, copy, tembusan, turunan, pertinggal, and konsep. Interestingly, many files were deemed original by both ANRI’s and NAN’s description (see the examples in Appendix 2). These description issues undoubtedly require further research, especially in investigating the different categories and the archival authenticity, to be used for improving description in both ANRI and NAN.
4. The post-return silence: The Djogdja Documenten at ANRI
Discussing the return of archives is often about discussing the act of a nation in ‘reclaiming’ or ‘finding’ its history (Karabinos, 2015). For the return of the Djogdja
Documenten, Karabinos argues that reclaiming consists of two aspects. With the physical return of the archives, Indonesia has ‘reclaimed’ part of its past. Subsequently, 'by reclaiming its history Indonesia is able to write a more complete story of the revolutionary period (Karabinos, 2015, p. 292). The reclaiming in his argument has been brought gradually into practice. However, it seems that much time is required and some problems have to be solved first before the Djogdja Documenten begin to fill some of the gaps of 1945-1949 records and to produce knowledge in the written history of this period.
After the return to Indonesia, the Djogdja Documenten waited for a long time to be processed at ANRI. The inventory was made under the sub-directorate of post-1945 conventional archive processing and was only ready in 2004. It is called: Daftar Arsip Djogdja Documenten 1945-1949 (Archive List of Djogdja Documenten 1945-1949). The lengthy period of processing the archives was related to the internal programs of ANRI. According to the former director of ANRI Djoko Utomo, the Djogdja Documenten had not been prioritized even up to his tenure due to various other important activities. “There were a lot came up at that moment. There was an Aceh tsunami, in which the archives in Aceh had to be taken care of. Afterward, the negotiation with Gerakan Aceh Merdeka (GAM) resulted in the return of GAM to Indonesia, where we managed to archive that important historical event. There was also an early discussion of VOC archives digitalization”.
The Pringgodigdo archives, which came later as the ‘third’ transfer of the Djogdja Documenten in 1987, were utilized first to fill the gap in the history by ANRI and the Indonesian government. The archives contain the records of the first meeting of BPUPKI (Committee to Investigate Preparations for Independence) in drafting the Indonesian constitution (Kusuma and Elson, 2011). In May 1995, the archives were used as important sources to revise an official history book 'Risalah Sidang Badan Penyelidik Usaha-Usaha Persiapan Kemerdekaan' (Minutes of Meeting of the Committee to Investigate Preparations for Independence), published by the State Secretary of Indonesia.
This book is a third edition revision of the previous version which was written largely based on the 1959 book of Mohammad Yamin, a prominent Indonesian Republican leader involved in the governance of the early days of the Republic. Yamin's book used as source
A.G. Pringgodigdo’s archives which he borrowed and never returned. The archives were buried in his collections until it was found in 1989 and brought to ANRI. A.G Pringgodigdo archives contain almost similar documents as the A.K. Pringgodigdo63 archives, except that the A.K. Pringgodigdo archives have a document listing the complete name of BPUPKI members and the duration of their speech on 29-31 May 1945 (Tempo Magazine, May 19, 2008). The archives have proved several things that were dismissed by Yamin's book, but most importantly clarified a long debate on the birth of the state political philosophy Pancasila in the country.
Since both important archives of the Pringgodigdo brothers were missing, Yamin's book became the main reference. Yamin's book, however, has been criticized by various Indonesian-related leaders and historians as overemphasizing Yamin's role in the discovery of Pancasila and the state constitution. Further, Yamin's book has been used to write the history that fits the purposive narrative of Soeharto's New Order regime. Writing in the previously mentioned State Secretary's history book, the state historian Nugroho Notosusanto told the history of Pancasila that downplayed Soekarno's role (Matanasi, 2016; Kusuma and Elson, 2011; Tempo, May 19, 2008).
Another utilization of the Djogdja Documenten is its contribution to ANRI's Arsip Diplomasi Indonesia (the archive of Indonesian diplomacy) 1945-2009. This is a specially created fonds, comprises various records around three categories of Indonesian diplomacy namely political-defense, economic, and cultural diplomacy. Records of Djogdja Documenten greatly contribute to the records that make up these fonds. They are especially available in the inventory about political-defense diplomacy and economic diplomacy in 1945-1949.
Furthermore, the Djogdja Documenten has been suggested to be one of the reference sources in the forming of the Presidency Archive of Indonesia that is currently being developed. Yacob (2015) wrote that activities of the president and vice president of Indonesia in the early independence of the republic are shown in the Djogdja Documenten. This shows how the Djogdja Documenten, which were previously captured
63 The younger brother of A.G. Pringgodigdo.
by the former colonizer, is used by the post-colonial state in the writing of the national memory.
These are few usages of the Djogdja Documenten so far concerning the written of state version's historical narrative. Outside the state project, the utility of the archives took even some more time, to be precise: decades from its return. This related to the unavailable access to the archives for public eyes until early 2000. For the Djogdja Documenten which have been returned in the 1970s, it is because the inventory was not ready until 2004.
For the A.K. Pringgodigdo Archives (and A.G. Pringgodigdo archive subsequently), the archives were closed under political pressure in Soeharto’s New Order regime. Only years after the change of the regime in Indonesia, the archives were opened and thus accessible for public consultation at ANRI up to now.
Unfortunately, there remains a problem: some files of the A.K. Pringgodigdo archives are still missing. Recent inventory research on the archives of Algemene Secretarie van de Nederlands-Indische Regering en de daarbij gedeponeerde archieven 1942-1950 by an ANRI’s archivist (personal interview, 30 October 2020) could only found seven inventory numbers (5645, 5646, 5647, 5648, 5649, 5651, 5652) of the A.K. Pringgodigdo archives. It means that more than half of the 16 inventory numbers (5646-5656) listed in the NAN’s description during the transfer were not available. Also, nowhere to be found are the archives of Soekarno when he became the chairman (voorzitter) of Dewan Sanyo 1943- 1946. The archives, listed in inventory number 5657-5667 at the NAN’s inventory, were physically returned to ANRI together with the A.K. Pringgodigdo archives.
According to Intan Lidwina, the ANRI archivist interviewed in this research, finding the archives was very difficult, and so was reconstructing the archives because they were found scattered. “When they were discovered, the Pringgodigdo archives were not in its initial arrangement (while they were still at NAN), it became difficult to try to reconstruct the arrangement of the archives because I didn't know the original arrangement. My sole guideline was the description given by the NAN, but sometimes there were some numbers in the descriptions that looked alike” (personal interview, 9 November 2020).
These accumulated problems on the archival processes and access of the Djogdja Documenten at ANRI hindered the realization of the essential purpose of the return. To open the silence and fill the gap in history-making, the archival return is not merely about bringing back the archives, but requires a continuous commitment from the state, and particularly from archival institutions to make sure that the archives can be found, accessed, and used.
VI. Conclusion
Archival repatriation of colonized archives is a way towards decolonizing the archives. This is a cause to support, but we should also be aware of the silences that may entail in the state-based repatriation. Repatriation of archives that mainly happens through states’ negotiation at times resulted in a compromised and practical agreement. In so doing, repatriation serves more as gestures of friendship and goodwill, rather than the object of negotiations aimed at righting past wrongs and injustices or correcting illegalities (van Beurden 2017, Lowry 2019). This research has examined the silences surrounding the repatriation of the Djogdja Documenten, particularly in the instance of fact assembly. The finding has shown that the state-based repatriation contains silences that shaped how the archives were defined and represented, despite that repatriation is “an opportunity to redress the gaps and absences, loss and dispossession, trauma, and injustice of the past” (Bolin, 2020).
The different contexts of both countries, entangled in a shared colonial past, provide the background on the silences of the repatriation of Djogdja Documenten. For Indonesia, archival repatriation was done not only to fill the gap of the scarcity of records about independent struggles but was closely linked to the state’s national history project. Meanwhile, in the Netherlands, the narrative of colonial violence and decolonization war was still on the sideline, while the seized archives were still considered sensitive and closed from the public. This context partly explains why the return of Djogdja Documenten was not linked to efforts in confronting the colonial past, but more based on legal and cautious diplomatic considerations at the early stage of cultural relations between the two countries.
However, both contexts have evolved to something different today. The current change in democratic Indonesia brought various efforts in remaking and reimagining national history, despite the lingering outdated nationalism. In the Netherlands, debates of decolonization war and violence have increased in the last decade. Apology on past misconduct was officially made, large decolonization research was funded, seized colonial
artifacts were started to be returned, the recommendation of unconditional return of artifacts was accepted. However, in all these debates, in both countries, the discussion of the seized archives has not yet been continued. This new situation in both countries should give us a fresh look at the archival repatriation issue. The development of narratives may or should differ in the former colony and colonizer, but both have the same needs, which is to improve the knowledge and narratives related to their colonial frontier. Among the actions to that end, both can start ‘opening’ the silence of the seized archives.
But before opening the silence of the seized 1945-1949 archives, silences of the previous repatriation of the Djogdja Documenten should be recognized and addressed. This research has discovered silences emanating from the repatriation process, which were dominantly shaped by the political dynamics and diplomatic considerations. The former was shown throughout the protracted negotiation between Dutch concerned departments. Caution and hesitation, especially from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, prolonged the decisions in returning the 1945-1950 archives. This was in part due to the secret nature of the 1945-1950 archives at that time, resonating the sensitivity of the decolonization war issue for the Netherlands.
The diplomatic considerations predominantly influenced the return decisions, rather than the interest of confronting the shared colonial past. This case exemplifies that political compromises are usually what drive repatriation (Cox, 2007). An example here was that the microfilm project started with the less-sensitive colonial records, a compromise to Indonesia’s initial interest for the 1945-1950 records. Subsequently, the silence in the mixing up records with other Dutch dossiers and the fact that it was not disclosed to the other side can be considered the “physical expression of the culture of secrecy” of the ex-colonial power (Auer, 2017). The silence of the 1945-1950 archives lies in this negligence. It was even stated as the reason for returning only the limited numbers of the Djogdja Documenten records.
Despite the heavy political nature of the state-based repatriation, the two national archives played important role in both revealing and supporting the silence. At the beginning of the archival collaboration, both seemed quite modest by accepting political compromises in the selection of archives to be microfilmed. They worked to exchange
archives that represent a ‘mutual interest’, by harmonizing the ambiguous definition of ‘mutual interest’ between ex-colonizer and ex-colonized. The exclusion of 1945-1950 archives in this initial phase was accepted and followed by both sides. In doing so, both were complicit in this silence. This changed in the later stage to efforts in revealing the silence of the previous return. They continuously querying the other Dutch government bodies on the return issue, which lead to the repatriation of other seized archives. The role of ANRI and Soemartini were prominent in scrutinizing the 1970s return and insisting on more archives, while Ribberink played a substantial role in locating and proceed a further return.
Archival silence at present
Silence in the repatriation process happened in the past, but it lays a foundation for the silence we face today. This last analysis of the research located the archival silences that continue after the repatriation until today. First, the silence in the provenance. The Djogdja Documenten was the Republican archival material looted during the second police action in Yogyakarta and processed by the NEFIS. This provenance was largely made known and very clear in the current description. What still fuzzy and untold is the other shaper of these archives: the Dutch government during the repatriation. How and which archives constituted the Djogdja Documenten to be returned among other 1945- 1949 seized archives were decided based on their terms. Yet, we did not find sufficient information on these decisions in the archival description at NAN.
This silence leads to other silences. Many Indonesian government archives captured in the Djogdja attack remain not returned but stay in the NAN for reason unknown to us. If the legal basis of the return has only allowed the Indonesian government archives, why only the records seized in Djogdja that were returned out the Indonesian government archives seized by NEFIS in various areas from 1945 to 1949.
The selection process is similarly unclear which is another silence in the moment of fact assembly. Whether the NEFIS's routing slips were consulted in the selection making is unknown. Even though the routing slips are the colonial administrative tool, they provide a way to trace the provenance of the original records creation in Indonesia. Another
confusion is regarding Archief Hatta. The records related to Hatta were said to be excluded from the Djogdja Documenten list by The Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs under its concern that the content might harm a living person. Yet, many records from Archief Hatta were returned in the Djogdja Documenten. As there were no records of appraisal and selection process found at NAN, these silences remain unanswered.
Furthermore, the silence was found in the brief description of the seized archives in the NEFIS/CMI inventory at NAN. In this Dutch language description, the 1945-1949 seized archives are filed under the sub-series named div. nrs. inbeslaggenomen, gevonden, en buitgemaakte documenten. The problem is, no information provided to locate the Djogdja Documenten among the total 3119 inventory numbers in this sub-series. The description still plainly uses the contested term 'Politioneel acties' without further explanation. Apart from it, the transfer of the Djogdja Documenten is neither mentioned in this particular description nor in the description of the larger NEFIS/CMI archives.
What more obscure is the description of the originality of the records. Many records of Djogdja Documenten were deemed original by both ANRI’s and NAN’s description. There are some possible answers in explaining this situation, but nevertheless, this is another remaining silence that needs further works to unveil. From these examples, we can see that fixing archival silences requires many archival works, such as improving the biography of the Djogdja Documenten to be more inclusive.
In ANRI, the silences regarding access become the main concern. The Djogdja Documenten has been used especially in the writing of the state version's historical narrative, such as the use of the Pringgodigdo Archives in refining the national history. Outside the state project, however, the utility of the archives took more time. The lengthy period of processing the archives hampered access to the returned archives. Archives that were deemed sensitive to the regime such as the Pringgodigdo archives were closed to the public. Only years after the change of the regime in Indonesia, the Pringgodigdo archives were opened. Unfortunately, the long secrecy brought another silence, the missing of some files of the Pringgodigdo archives. These accumulated problems on the archival processes and access of the Djogdja Documenten at ANRI hindered the use of the returned archives.
The archival silences explained throughout this research shows that the story of the homecoming seized archive is also the story of the making and representing of the archives. Archival repatriation does not end in a merely one-time act of transferring ownership, but requires continuous efforts in locating and addressing the archival silences that continue in the present. Further commitment to repatriate the remaining seized archives should care not only in physical transfer, but also in improving the accessibility and inclusivity of these archives.
Bibliography
Abdulgani, R. (Ed.). (1965). 20 tahun Indonesia merdeka. Departemen Penerangan R.I.
Anderson, B. R. G. (1999). Indonesian nationalism today and in the future. Indonesia, 1-11.
Anwar, R. (2010). Napak Tilas ke Belanda: 60 tahun perjalanan wartawan KMB 1949. Penerbit Buku Kompas.
Aspinall, E. (2016). The New Nationalism in Indonesia. Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies, 3(1), 72-82.
Auer, L. (2017). Displaced Archives in the Wake of Wars. In J. Lowry (Ed.), Displaced archives (114-129). Taylor & Francis.
Banton, M. (2018). Precious Artefacts versus ‘Dusty Files’. The Round Table, 107(3), 359-361.
Bastien, H. (1995). Reference Dossier on Archival Claims. [Proceedings of the twenty-nineth, thirtieth and thirty first International Conference of the Round Table on Archives]. International Council on Archives.
Bijl, P. (2012). Colonial Memory and Forgetting in the Netherlands and Indonesia. Journal of Genocide Research, 14 (3–4): 441–61.
Bolin, A. (2020, February 12). What comes after art repatriation. Africa is a Country. https://africasacountry.com/2020/12/after-repatriation-what-next
Carter, R. G. (2006). Of things said and unsaid: Power, archival silences, and power in silence. Archivaria, 61, 215-233.
Caswell, M. L. (2016). ’The Archive’ Is Not an Archives: On Acknowledging the Intellectual Contributions of Archival Studies. Reconstruction, 16(1).
Cox, D. (2017). Revisiting the Law and Politics of Compromise. In J. Lowry (Ed.), Displaced archives (196- 214). Taylor & Francis.
Drooglever, P. J., Schouten, M. J., & Lohanda, M. (1999). Guide to the archives on relations between the Netherlands and Indonesia 1945-1963 (Vol. 1). Institute of Netherlands History.
Duff, W. M., & Harris, V. (2002). Stories and names: archival description as narrating records and constructing meanings. Archival Science, 2(3-4), 263-285.
Eadon, Y. (2019). Useful Information Turned into Something Useless: Archival Silences, Imagined Records, and Suspicion of Mediated Information in the JFK Assassination Collection. InterActions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies, 15(2).
Foucault, M. (2002). Truth and Power. In P. Rabinow (ed), The Essential Works of Michel Foucault 1954– 1984. Penguin.
Gilliland, A.J. (2017). Foreword. In D. Thomas (Ed.), The Silence of the Archive (XVI-XVII). Facet Publishing.
Gilliland, A. J. (2017). Networking Records in their Diaspora: A Reconceptualisation of ‘Displaced Records’ in a Postnational World. In J. Lowry (Ed.), Displaced Archives (180-195). Taylor & Francis.
Goss, A. (2000). From Tong-Tong to Tempo Doeloe: Eurasian Memory Work and the Bracketing of Dutch Colonial History, 1957-1961. Indonesia, 70, 9–36.
Hapsari, K. & Ridayanti, N. (2019). Layanan Akses Arsip Statis di ANRI. Subdirektorat Layanan Arsip Direktorat Layanan dan Pemanfaatan Arsip Nasional RI. https://anri.go.id/storage/attachment/Layanan%20Akses%20Arsip%20Statis.pdf.pdf.pdf
Harris, V. (2002). The archival sliver: Power, memory, and archives in South Africa. Archival Science, 2 (1–2), 64-85.
Jeurgens, K.J.P.F.M. (2005). Een brug tussen twee werelden. [Inaugural lecture, Leiden University]. Leiden University Scholarly Publications.
Jeurgens, C., & Karabinos, M. (2020). Paradoxes of curating colonial memory. Archival Science 20, 199– 220.
Karabinos, M. (2013). Displaced archives, displaced history: recovering the seized archives of Indonesia. Bijdragen tot de taal-, land-en volkenkunde/Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences of Southeast Asia, 169(2-3), 279-294.
Karabinos, M. (2015). The shadow continuum: testing the records continuum model through the Djogdja Documenten and the migrated archives [Doctoral dissertation, Leiden University].
Karabinos, M. (2015). The Djogdja Documenten: the Dutch-Indonesian relationship following independence through an archival lens. Information & Culture, 50(3), 372-391.
Karabinos, M. (2019). Decolonisation in Dutch Archives: Defining and Debating. BMGN - Low Countries Historical Review, 134(2), 129–141.
Kecskeméti, C. (2017). Archives Seizures. In J. Lowry (Ed.), Displaced archives (12-20). Taylor & Francis.
Knoester, M. (2018). Framing the Black Pages of Dutch History: Depictions of the Indonesian Decolonization War and its Afterlife in Dutch Opinion Journals and Dutch Social Memory [Master thesis, Uppsala University].
Kusuma, A. B., & Elson, R. E. (2011). A note on the sources for the 1945 constitutional debates in Indonesia. Bijdragen Tot de Taal-, Land- En Volkenkunde / Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences of Southeast Asia, 167(2–3), 196–209.
Legêne, S., Postel-Coster, E. (2000). Isn’t it all Culture? Culture and Dutch Development Policy in the Post-Colonial Period. In J.A. Nekkers & P.A.M. Malcontent (eds.), Fifty Years of Dutch Development Cooperation 1949–1999 (271–88). Sdu Publisher.
Lowry, J. (2017). Introduction: Displaced Archives. In J. Lowry (Ed.), Displaced Archives (1-11). Taylor & Francis.
Lowry, J. (2019, June 6). Designing for Decolonisation: Equitable and Representative Professional Networks. ICA blog. https://blog-ica.org/2019/06/06/designing-for-decolonisation-equitable-and- representative-professional-networks/
Lowry, J. (February 2020). Disputed Archival Claims: An International Survey 2018/2019. [Report to the International Council on Archives’ Expert Group on Shared Archival Heritage]. International Council on Archives.
Lustig, J. (2020). Epistemologies of the archive: toward a critique of archival reason. Archival Science, 20(1), 65-89.
Luttikhuis, B., & Moses, A.D. (2012). ‘Mass Violence and the End of the Dutch Colonial Empire in Indonesia’. Journal of Genocide Research, 14 (3–4), 257–76.
Luttikhuis, B., & Harinck, C.H.C. (2017). Voorbij Het Koloniale Perspectief: Indonesische Bronnen En Het Onderzoek Naar de Oorlog in Indonesië, 1945-1949. BMGN - Low Countries Historical Review, 132 (2): 51–76.
Mbembe, A. (2002). The Power of the Archive and its Limits. In Refiguring the archive (pp. 19-27). Springer.
Mbembe, A. (2015). Decolonizing Knowledge and the Question of the Archive [public lecture]. Wits Institute for Social and Economic Research (WISER), University of the Witwatersrand.
Nurjaman, J. (2020). Dekolonisasi Arsip sebagai Warisan Budaya: Kajian Awal Pengembalian Arsip Statis Era Hindia Belanda. Khazanah: Jurnal Pengembangan Kearsipan, 13(1), 75-90.
Purwanto, B. (2001). Historisme baru dan kesadaran dekonstruktif: kajian kritis terhadap historiografi Indonesiasentris. Humaniora, 13(1), 29-44.
Robinson-Sweet, A. (2018). Excuses for Silence: A Review of The Silence of the Archive. Journal of Contemporary Archival Studies, 5(12), 1-4.
Raad voor Cultuur. (2020, October 7). Toon bereidheid tot teruggave koloniale roofkunst. https://www.raadvoorcultuur.nl/actueel/nieuws/2020/10/07/toon-bereidheid-tot-teruggave-koloniale- roofkunst
Raben, R. (2012). On genocide and mass violence in colonial Indonesia. Journal of Genocide Research, 14(3-4), 485-502.
Reid, A. (2005). Writing the history of independent Indonesia. Nation-Building: Five Southeast Asian Histories, 69-90.
Russell, A. (Ed.). (2018). Truth, Silence and Violence in Emerging States: Histories of the Unspoken. Routledge.
Scagliola, S. (2007). The Silences and Myths of a “Dirty War”: Coming to Terms with the Dutch– Indonesian Decolonisation War (1945–1949)’. European Review of History: Revue Européenne D’histoire, 14 (2): 235–62.
Scott, C. (2017). Renewing the ‘Special Relationship’ and Rethinking the Return of Cultural Property: The Netherlands and Indonesia, 1949–79. Journal of Contemporary History, 52(3), 646–668. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022009416658698
Scott, C. (2014). Sharing the divisions of the colonial past: An assessment of the Netherlands–Indonesia shared cultural heritage project, 2003–2006. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 20(2), 181–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2012.738239
Stoler, A. L. (2010). Along the archival grain: Epistemic anxieties and colonial common sense. Princeton University Press.
Suwignyo, A. (2014). Indonesian National History Textbooks after the New Order: What’s New under the Sun? Bijdragen tot de taal-, land-en volkenkunde/Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences of Southeast Asia, 170(1), 113-131.
Trouillot, M.R. (2004). Silencing the past: Power and the production of history. Beacon Press.
Thomas, D. (ed.). (2017). The Silence of the Archive. Facet Publishing. van Beurden, J. (2017). Treasures in trusted hands: negotiating the future of colonial cultural objects [Doctoral dissertation, Vrije University]. Sidestone Press.
Williamson, K. (2002). Research methods for students, academics and professionals: Information management and systems. Elsevier.
Yakel, E. (2003). Archival representation. Archival Science, 3(1), 1-25.
Yeo, G. (2010). Debates about description. In: Eastwood T, MacNeil H (eds.), Currents of archival thinking (89–114). Libraries Unlimited.
Yulianasari, O. (2012). Deciphering the NEFIS archives: Investigating Dutch Information Gathering in Indonesia, 1945-1949. [Master thesis, Leiden University].
Archives
Nationaal Archief, Den Haag, Algemeen Rijksarchief, Tweede Afdeling, nummer toegang 2.14.04, inventarisnummer 190
ARA, Tweede Afdeling, nummer toegang 2.14.04, inventarisnummer 201
ARA, Tweede Afdeling, nummer toegang 2.14.04, inventarisnummer 266
ARA, Tweede Afdeling, nummer toegang 2.14.04, inventarisnummer 318
Nationaal Archief, Den Haag, Algemene Secretarie van de Nederlands-Indische Regering en de daarbij gedeponeerde Archieven, nummer toegang 2.10.14
Nationaal Archief, Den Haag, Nederlandse Ambassade in Indonesie [standplaats Jakarta], nummer toegang
2.05.188, inventarisnummer 590
Nationaal Archief, Den Haag, Netherland Forces Intelligence Service [NEFIS] en Centrale Militaire Inlichtingendienst [CMI] in Nederlands-Indië, nummer toegang 2.10.62
Nationaal Archief, Den Haag, Procureur-Generaal bij het Hooggerechtshof van Nederlands-Indië, nummer toegang 2.10.17
News articles
Assegaf, F.M., Widiastono, H., & Tonny, D. (1992, January 26). Lebih Jauh Dengan Dra Soemartini. Kompas. p.2.
Bot, B. (2005, August 16). De Verkeerde Kant van de Geschiedenis. De Volkskrant. https://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/de-verkeerde-kant-van-degeschiedenis~a668380/
Gorbiano, M.I. (2020, March 10). Dutch monarch offers apology for past ‘excessive violence’. The Jakarta Post. https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2020/03/10/breaking-dutch-monarch-offers- apology-for-past-excessive-violence.html
Kusuma, A.B. (2013, October 10). Menggugat Arsip Nasional. MAULA. https://maulanusantara.wordpress.com/2013/10/10/menggugat-arsip-nasional/
Manafe, D. (2014, Agustus 18). Arsip Nasional akan bangun sekolah tinggi kearsipan. Berita Satu. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342413830_Peran_pendidikan_kearsipan_dalam_menghidu pkan_arsip_dan_kehidupan_sosial
Majalah Tempo (2008, May 19). Laporan Utama: Kontroversi Buku Yamin. https://majalah.tempo.co/read/laporan-utama/127200/kontroversi-buku-yamin# p.54-55
Matanasi, P. (2016, October 27). Dokumen negara yang hilang dan manipulasi sejarah. Tirto. https://tirto.id/dokumen-negara-yang-hilang-dan-manipulasi-sejarah-bYme
Setiawan, A. (2020, February 11). Pramoedya minta karyanya dikembalikan. Tirto. https://historia.id/kultur/articles/pram-minta-karyanya-dikembalikan-vZXWV/page/2
Vankan, L. (1990, August 1). Geheime archieven Nederlands Indië open. Algemeen Dagblad, p.5. https://www.delpher.nl/nl/kranten/view?query=geheime+archieven&page=1&cql%5B%5D=%28date+_ gte_+%2201-02-1990%22%29&cql%5B%5D=%28date+_lte_+%2231-08- 1990%22%29&coll=ddd&redirect=true&identifier=KBPERS01:003087001:mpeg21:a00051&resultsidentif ier=KBPERS01:003087001:mpeg21:a00051
Van Walsum, S. (2019, June 13). Onderzoekers Dekolonisatieoorlog Hebben de Schijn al Snel Tegen. De Volkskrant. https://www.volkskrant.nl/gs-bcf66a8b
Yacob, D.W.U. (2015). Merekam jejak awal Arsip Kepresidenan melalui Khazanah Arsip Djogdja Documenten. Majalah Arsip Edisi 67, p.23-25.
Appendix 1: The remaining records related to Hatta
The remaining Hatta related papers64 in the NEFIS/CMI archive are, for example:
Table 1: List of records related to Hatta in NEFIS/CMI inventory
NEFIS Description in the NAN's inventory document nr.
5225 6535 Afschrift persoonlijke brief van Hatta aan Merle Cochran, Amerikaans lid van de Commissie van Goede Diensten, Jogjakarta, 21-10-1948. NEFIS documentnr.: 5225; vindplaats: Archief Soedjono; bemachtigd: 20-12-1948; origineel.
5300 6610 Brief van Soekarno aan Hatta over bezetting topfuncties TNI, 2-6-1948. NEFIS documentnr.: 5300; vindplaats: Archief Rep. delegatie; bemachtigd: 4-1-1949; origineel; vertaling.
5307 6617 Brief luitenant-generaal Soedirman aan Hatta met verzoek andere gewapende organisaties dan leger en politie te verbieden in verband met binnenlandse roofpartijen, 14-7-1948. NEFIS documentnr.: 5307; vindplaats: Archief Soekarno; bemachtigd: 27-12-1948; origineel; vertaling.
5367 6677 Brieven Pakoeboewono aan voorzitter Badan Pekerdja KNIP, 7-5-1948, en Soekarno, 24-5- 1948 over Daerah Istimewa Soerakarta; met reacties op wetsontwerp, 28-5-1948; met besluit Soekarno, 15-7-1948., NEFIS documentnr.: 5367; vindplaats: Archief Hatta; bemachtigd: 4-1-1949; origineel; vertaling.
5369 6679 Brieven van A.B. Loebis te Singapore aan Hatta over financiële zaken, goudverkoop, gelddrukpers en vestiging vertegenwoordiging in Rangoon, 10- en 24-2-1948. NEFIS documentnr.: 5369; vindplaats: Archief Hatta; bemachtigd: 27-12-1948; origineel; vertaling.
5411 6721 Twee brieven van Mr. Djoemhana aan Hatta o.a. over deelname pro-Republikeinen aan en hun opstelling op West-Java Conferenties, 3- en 12-2-1948. NEFIS documentnr.: 5411; vindplaats: Archief Hatta; bemachtigd: 27-12-1948; origineel; vertaling.
5423 6733 Brief van Mochtaruddin aan Hatta over zijn activiteiten in het anti-Japanse verzet in Malaya en met betrekking tot wapensmokkel van Singapore naar Sumatra en zijn activiteiten als leider van de Pembela Kemerdekaan Republik Indonesia (PKRI) te Cheribon, 20-6-1948. NEFIS documentnr.: 5423; vindplaats: Archief Hatta; bemachtigd: 27-12-1948; origineel; vertaling.
5430 6740 Verslag van een bespreking tussen Polisi Militer en BID te Malang, over inlichtingenwerk in bezet en Republikeins gebied, 26-10-1948. NEFIS documentnr.: 5430; vindplaats: Archief mw. Hatta; bemachtigd: 27-12-1948; origineel; vertaling.
5446 6755 Brochure Mohammad Hatta, ‘Dasar politiek loear negeri kita’, Djokjakarta: Negara, 27-6- 1946.
64 This list was made by searching the term ‘Hatta’ in the records of NEFIS/CMI archive between inventory number 5223 and 5808 that were not considered as the Djogdja Documenten.
NEFIS documentnr.: 5446; vindplaats: Archief Rep. Min. van Defensie ; bemachtigd: 27-12-1948; origineel.
5479 6788 Richtlijnen Hatta over de mogelijkheden in de toekomst voor de Republiek als basis voor plannen, toelichtingen en voorlichting van leger en ministerie van defensie, 1-7-1948; met instructie van kolonel I. Lengah, Staf Sumatra Commando, over verschroeide-aarde-politiek, 23- 11-1948. NEFIS documentnr.: 5479; vindplaats: Postkantoor Djambi; bemachtigd: 17-1-1949; origineel; vertaling.
5498 6807 Brief van Emir Noor aan echtgenote over complot van Simatupang, Nasution en Hidajat contra Soedirman en Hatta, 22-10-1948. NEFIS documentnr.: 5498; vindplaats: Archief Rep. Procureur Generaal ; bemachtigd: 28-1-1948; origineel; vertaling.
5533 6842 Vijf documenten over opium- en suikersmokkel door H. Aidid; met instructie van minister Maramis, 21-6-1948; met leenovereenkomst tussen Bank Rakjat Indonesia en Hatta, 25-5-1948; met strijdprogramma Komisariat Masjumi Sulawesi, Jogjakarta, 5-12-1948. NEFIS documentnr.: 5533; vindplaats: onbekend; bemachtigd: 1-2-1949; origineel; vertaling.
5581 6889 28 documenten over militaire aangelegenheden in januari 1949 buitgemaakt door de T- Brigade in de omgeving van Djokjakarta; met dagorder/opdracht aan Gerilja Rakjat Indonesia (GERI), tot organisatie guerrillamacht; met brief Sultan Djokjakarta aan dessahoofd tot strijd tegen Nederlandse agressie, ongedateerd; met instructie hoofd IIe militaire district tot concentratie Chinezen, 6-1-1949; met kort verslag over arrestatie Nederlandse spionnen; met rapport over door Nederland verspreide vergiftigde thee, 15- 1-1949; met getikt pamflet, Javaanstalig, over proRepublikeinse houding Sultan en Pakoealam, 29-12-1948; met getikt pamflet Markas Gerilja met instructies aan volk over guerrilla; met bekendmaking Angkatan Perang Sabil over bezetting Bantul, 30-12-1948; met getikt pamflet ‘Suara Rakjat Merdeka’ over TNI-aanval op Djokja, Jogja, 13-1-1949; met instructie Hatta over overdracht bestuur op Sumatra; met verslag hoofd militaire onderdistrict Koetogede over acties Nederlandse troepen, 13-1-1949; met verslag militaire assistent-wedana over Nederlandse acties in Gondowulung; met zeven rapporten over militaire organisatie Imogiri, januari 1949; met ‘Frontnieuws’, 10-1-1949; met strijdverslagen; met bekendmaking commandant Bataljon I brigade III Divisi I over streng optreden tegen deserteurs, 13-1-1949. NEFIS documentnr.: 5581; vindplaats: ‘T’ Brigade; bemachtigd: 17-2-1949; origineel; vertaling.
5600 6908 Vijf documenten over Australian Military Mission; met verslag over gebruik van afluisterapparatuur in Hotel Merdeka te Sarangan en over doorzoeking bagage tijdens verblijf in Sarangan 17/18-9-1947; met verslag gesprek delegatie met generaal-majoor Poerbonegoro, 19-9- 1947; met verslag gesprek Amerikaanse journalist Bricks en familie van Hatta, 21-9-1947. NEFIS documentnr.: 5600; vindplaats: Madioen; bemachtigd: 7-1-1949; origineel; vertaling.
5659 6965 Brief van Dr. Tjoa Sik Ien aan Hatta over Republikeinse vertegenwoordigers in het buitenland (New York, Singapore, Bangkok, India), met scherpe persoonlijke observaties over alle personeelsleden, 10-8-1948; met brief aan Hatta over oneerlijk financieel beheer door Sumitro te New York en verzoek onderzoek, juli 1948. NEFIS documentnr.: 5659; vindplaats: Archief Rep. Min van BuZa; bemachtigd: 15-3-1949; origineel; vertaling.
5745 7049 Vijf documenten van Angkatan Pemuda Progressief Republik Indonesia over de chaotische toestand in de Republiek vóór de Madioenaffaire; met brief Angkatan Pemuda Progressief aan
Hatta met verzoek tot oprichting keurkorps van 200 man tot herstel rust en orde in Djokjakarta, 12-8-1948; met brief Emir Noor aan Hatta tot oprichting van Barisan Istimewa Corps Polisi Militer Penggempur, 12-8-1948; met cahier met voorstellen over stadsveiligheid Jogjakarta en guerrilla op Java en in Buitengewesten, 18-8-1948. NEFIS documentnr.: 5745; vindplaats: Archief Hatta; bemachtigd: 27-12-1948; origineel; vertaling.
Appendix 2: Examples of similar records described to be originals by ANRI and NAN
Description at NAN’s inventory:
Originality of the records is stated at the end of description. Origineel means original, vertaling means translation. Here we saw all records between NEFIS document numbers 5252 to 5258 are deemed original.
Description at ANRI’s inventory:
The originality of the records is stated in the third column named tingkat keaslian (level of originality). Asli means original, Salinan means copy. All records from NEFIS document number 5252 to 5258 are deemed original, except number 5253 and 5255.
Source: Daftar Arsip Djogdja Documenten 1945-1949, ANRI.