‘Unacceptable’, ‘biased’, ‘lack of historical perspective’ and ‘unscientific’. Those words are used by stakeholders during the second meeting in parliament. This time, representatives of various foundations, but also relatives and historians were present. In February, researchers presented their study of the war of independence in Indonesia between 1945 and 1949. The main conclusion is that there was ‘structurally excessive violence’ by Dutch soldiers, with the knowledge of the military and political top.
“The conclusions of the study still lead to great unrest among some of the Dutch with an Indo-Dutch and Moluccan background, veterans and others, such as totoks (born of European parents),” said Rocky Tuhuteru of the Pelita foundation.
Reprehensible and unacceptable
Veteran Leo Reawaruw of Maluku4Maluku also cracks the report and finds passages ‘reprehensible and unacceptable’. Especially the fact that the report states that there was ‘structural excessive violence’, the veteran says is unacceptable. “All sides have used occasional violence. That is not acceptable, but it is inherent in a war,” he says. He points out that the research report also does not address the years after 1950, which are important for Moluccan society.
The criticism is also echoed by historian Cees Somers, who states in the House that the research was ‘inadequately independent’ and accuses the authors of viewing a historical situation through the current spectacles. “That produces a one-sided, distorted picture,” he said.
Peggy Stein, chairman of Indisch Platform 2.0, spoke of the ‘deep apologies’ issued by Prime Minister Rutte in response to the investigation. This happened a few hours after the publication of the investigation and is considered ‘premature’. The apologies were addressed to the people of Indonesia, but also other people involved and veterans. The cabinet also distanced itself from the old official position that ‘extreme force was only used in exceptional circumstances’.
Greater importance
Stein: “The conversation about the aftermath that the cabinet intended has been sacrificed to the apparently greater importance of improving the mainly economic relationship with Indonesia with an anti-colonial story,” she says.
According to Stein, the investigation also involves falsifying history. “The decolonization investigation has not respected the principles of scientific integrity. They have opted for the extra-scientific premise of anti-colonialism. The pre-established conclusions are then selectively substantiated with sources. In a perpetrator-victim approach, the distinct groups on the Dutch side are branded as perpetrators. Only casualties on the Indonesian side. That’s ignoring the historical context, that’s just falsifying history.”
The House of Representatives will discuss the report at a later date. Several MPs hinted that a follow-up study may be necessary.