Max Lane – As a lecturer at the University of Sydney in 2008, I taught a course, "An Introduction to Asia." Its perspective was historical, and given the Western-centrism of history education in the West, it was clear that the relationship between the West and Asia, especially the colonial era, became a topic of discussion at the beginning of the curriculum. I decided to open the first lecture session by throwing a question to 200 students in the lecture hall. The question was: "What was the West's contribution to Asia in the 20th century?"
Immediately quite a few raised their hands. "Democracy," said one. And it turned out quite a few said the same. Another answer that came up often: "women's liberation." Some also mentioned the issue of economic exploitation, but indeed the dominant idea was the West brought modernization. Political modernization equals democracy. Social modernization includes equal rights for women.
It was very clear that thoughts like that reflected the success of the ideological hegemony of Western supremacy in the mentality of those students. We should not be surprised. Ideas that justified colonialism had been very strong in Western society for 200 years. That Asian countries had won independence did not affect this hegemony. In the mass media, stories about Asian countries' efforts to catch up with Western-style modernity appear every day. Many Asian countries that experienced a pendulum from parliamentary democracy to dictatorship back to liberal democracy again are described as going through the difficult process of those countries modernizing themselves in the Western style. News about achievements in reform for women's position is also often reported in the same tone.
For me as a lecturer at that time, it was clear that thoughts like that had to be challenged.
I answered that in political and cultural terms, the 'contribution' of colonial practice introduced two concepts to Asian countries that later succeeded in having influence. As a lecturer whose main knowledge is about Indonesia, I used Indonesia as the main example.
"Democracy?" I asked. "Just the opposite! Colonialism introduced to the Dutch East Indies the concept and practice of modern dictatorship and also racism based on skin colour. These two things did not exist in the Nusantara archipelago before colonialism."
Nusantara society that was previously ruled by king or sultan or traditional leader could indeed also not be called democratic, but the dictatorial system under colonialism was far more modern and efficient both in concept and implementation. The colonial power system in the Dutch East Indies could indeed also literally be called a dictatorship. The Governor-General of the Dutch East Indies was never elected through a general election of citizens. Even the Indonesian people were not considered citizens with rights, but merely as kawula, subjects. The Governor-General was appointed from The Hague.
The Governor-General also had dictatorial rights. He could arrest and ban at will. He could order the military and police to raid at will. He could close newspapers at will. Vergadering – open public meetings – could be disbanded at any time. Vergaderingen that were not banned or disbanded were watched by Dutch intelligence who could shut them down at any time. Complete reports of what was said and by whom entered the government's files continuously. Officials were not merely civil service employees but local rulers who were all-powerful. Officials were part of the culture of pejabatisme (Officialism). All this was regulated through a bureaucratic, police, and military structure that covered the entire Dutch East Indies. Pramoedya Ananta Toer called it the colonial "Rumah Kaca" (House of Glass), where all could be watched.
This is the main contribution of the West in the political field: modern dictatorship. I think that on average, although every Indonesian who has ever read or heard about colonialism also knows about this fact, on average they also do not fully internalize the core of its substance: the dictatorship of capital. It must also be noted that this dictatorship mainly functioned to keep the flow of Indonesia's wealth being sucked to the Netherlands, where it fattened the accumulation of capital there.
What is very interesting is that the situation of a society living under this dictatorship also helped give birth to the concept of 'opposition' that grew in Indonesian culture. Actually, in pre-Indonesian cultural life there were also concepts of opposition that were very visible every time there was a peasant people's rebellion in the feudal era – just read Pramoedya's Arok Dedes to get one picture. But the situation of colonial dictatorship gave birth to its own concept or language of opposition at that time.
For Sukarno, Hatta, and Sjahrir, the stance they held was the stance of "non-cooperation." The political elite of society was divided into what was called "Co" and "Non-Co." Indeed, in the Dutch East Indies at that time there was something called the Volksraad, a "People's Council," but all its members were appointed by the Dictator Governor-General. Those who accepted a position in the Volksraad were called "Co" and were fought by those who called themselves "Non-Co." Sukarno, as an orator who could communicate with the people, often said there were those "sana" (over there) and those "sini" (over here). To part of the Javanese people, he could also use the metaphor of Kurawa and Pandawa.
The "Non-Co" nationalists very firmly drew their line against those who entered colonial power. The drawing of a firm line between political attitudes became a strong characteristic of Indonesian political culture from the early 20th century. Later, when there was an attempt to argue that society's ideal of being able to take all decisions through deliberation and consensus meant Indonesia did not know opposition, this actually contradicted Indonesia's historical experience. Understandably, in every country in the world there are different, even opposing, views about how to advance the country.
Was that sana and sini attitude something that lived only in colonial times? Not at all. The struggle between political parties in the 1950s was always coloured by the existence of opposition and alternative platforms different from those in power. In 1960-65, there was a struggle between the 'progressive-revolutionary' and the 'counter-revolutionary', according to the eyes of the left, and between the authoritarian Sukarnoists and the democrats, in the eyes of liberal intellectuals. Then after 1965, opposition continuously grew, especially through students, artists, and the urban poor.
Sana and sini never disappeared.
But, back to the question of the West's contribution in colonial times. Was there really no positive contribution? In my opinion, colonialism itself had no positive aspect whatsoever. But "the West," or especially Europe, like all social phenomena, stands on contradictions. Pramoedya Ananta Toer once wrote an essay saying that the novel Max Havelaar by Eduard Douwes Dekker was a work that "killed colonialism," a claim that recently became controversial in Indonesia itself.
If Pramoedya is right, it means one of the West's contributions was to play a role in the process of colonialism's own defeat. I think that role existed, but actually only as an unintended consequence. Dutch liberals of the 19th century did criticize colonial policy, but they could not yet imagine colonialism not existing. They wanted a better colonialism, with colonial administrators who were wiser, smarter, and liberal (like themselves). They could only imagine that it would be Europeans who could eliminate the suffering and injustice of the peoples of the Nusantara. But the emergence of Dutch liberals, and then the Dutch left, pioneered the situation in which liberal, progressive, and socialist readings could circulate in the Dutch East Indies. But readings cannot move anything unless they are read, digested, and transformed into making. It was the nationalist activists who became agents of change, not the Dutch liberals who, as depicted in the novels This Earth of Mankind and Child of All Nations in their praxis in the colony were always annoying.
The praxis of colonialism in reality had nothing positive, starting with organizing the modern dictatorial system. Yes, post-Enlightenment liberal readings circulated, which still could not imagine the Netherlands pulling out, and in that sense, however critical they were of colonial policies, they still remained colonial and racist. Then the left readings of European and Russian socialists also circulated. But what determines a real and concrete legacy is its praxis above all. Readings are not agents of change, but their readers, if organized, can become a force.
Oh, I haven't yet written about racism as something newly brought by the West to the Nusantara. Be patient, okay.
– For the Indonesian language version in TEMPO, try here: https://www.tempo.co/kolom/kediktatoran-modern-rasisme-warisan-kolonialisme-2286887
Source: https://maxlaneonline.substack.com/p/what-did-the-west-give-asi