1 I use ‘autochthonous’ and ‘native’ interchangeably as a translation of the Dutch words inlandsch, inheemsch, and autochtoon, all of which refer to full-blooded Indonesians; I do not use ‘indigenous’ as it has a particular nuance in contemporary Indonesian public debate in terms of mirroring the global discourse on the rights of indigenous peoples.

2 See Dubois, Laurent, ‘La république métissée: Citizenship, colonialism, and the borders of French history’, Cultural Studies 14, 1 (2000): 15–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Iam-Chong Ip, ‘Welfare good or colonial citizenship: A case study of early resettlement housing’, in Remaking citizenship in Hong Kong: Community, nation and the global city, ed. Ku, Agnes S. and Pun, Ngai (London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2004), pp. 37–53Google Scholar.

3 See Erasmus, Zimitri, ‘Creolization, colonial citizenship(s) and degeneracy: A critique of selected histories of Sierra Leone and South Africa’, Current Sociology 59, 5 (2011): 635–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Tjiook-Liem, Patricia, De rechtspositie der Chinezen in Nederlands-Indië 1848–1942: Wetgevingsbeleid tussen beginsel en belang (Leiden: Leiden University Press, 2009)Google Scholar.

5 Locher-Scholten, Elsbeth, Women and the colonial state (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2000)Google Scholar; Nordholt, Henk Schulte, ‘Modernity and cultural citizenship in the Netherlands Indies: An illustrated hypothesis’, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies 42, 3 (2011): 435–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Locher-Scholten, Women and the colonial state.

7 Nordholt, ‘Modernity and cultural citizenship’.

8 Ibid.: 440.

9 Elson, Robert, ‘Constructing the nation: Ethnicity, race, modernity and citizenship in early Indonesian thoughts’, Asian Ethnicity 6, 3 (2005): 148CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Having been marginalised by the pure-blooded Dutch streaming to the colony, a certain segment of the Indo-European population felt the state oppressed them as much as it oppressed the native population.

10 For a short while, Indies student organisations of various ethnic and racial backgrounds in the Netherlands picked up the progressive idea, but their enthusiasm eventually waned when Perhimpunan Indonesia embraced the idea of an ‘Indonesian-ness’ that was attached more closely to race and ethnicity.

11 Elson, ‘Constructing the nation’: 155.

12 Isin, Engin F. and Turner, Bryan S., ‘Citizenship studies: An introduction’, in Handbook of citizenship studies, ed. Isin, Engin F. and Turner, Bryan S. (London: Sage, 2002), pp. 1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Isin, Engin F., ‘Citizenship in flux: The figure of the activist citizen’, Subjectivity 29, 1 (2009): 367–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Eckert, Julia, ‘Introduction: Subjects of citizenship’, Citizenship Studies 15, 3–4 (2011): 309–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sundar, Nandini, ‘The rule of law and citizenship in central India: Post-colonial dilemmas’, Citizenship Studies 15, 3–4 (2011): 419–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Soysal, Yasemin Nuhoglu, Limits of citizenship: Migrants and postnational membership in Europe (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994)Google Scholar; Dubois, ‘La république métissée’; McNevin, Anne, ‘Political belonging in a neoliberal era: The struggle of the sans-papiers’, Citizenship Studies 10, 2 (2006): 135–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sundar, ‘The rule of law and citizenship’.

14 Isin, ‘Citizenship in flux’.

15 Ibid.: 379. ‘Habitus’ is a term reintroduced by Pierre Bourdieu to overcome the separation of structure and agency. He defines it as ‘the system of structured and structuring dispositions which is constituted by practice and constantly aimed at practical — as opposed to cognitive — functions. See Wacquant, Loic J.D., ‘Towards a reflexive sociology: A workshop with Pierre Bourdieu’, Sociological Theory 7, 1 (1989): 42CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Isin, ‘Citizenship in flux’: 384, original emphasis.

17 Regeeringsreglement 1854, Art. 109. In 1920, the colonial authorities revised the grouping into European, Foreign Oriental, and Native, effectively putting the native population at the lowest rung of the ladder.

18 I thank Patricia Tjiook-Liem for pointing this out to me.

19 For a concise history of legal rulings on Dutch citizenship that reverberated in the colony, see Sik, Ko Swan, ‘Nationality and international law in Indonesian perspective’, in Nationality and international law in Asian perspective, ed. Sik, Ko Swan (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1990), pp. 125–76Google Scholar.

20 Ibid., p. 133.

21 Wet van 12 December 1892, Staatsblad no. 268, Overgangsbepaling, p. 90. Tjiook-Liem points out the irony that based on article 12 of this law, the Indies native population found themselves ‘as strangers in the land where they belonged’ (Tjiook-Liem, De rechtspositie der Chineezen, p. 435). To ensure non-citizens and aliens remained under Dutch jurisdiction, Dutch lawmakers introduced the act on ‘the Status of Netherlands Subject other than Nederlander’ in Staatsblad 1910 No. 55 (Ko, ‘Nationality and international law in Indonesian perspective’, p. 134). This ruling was mainly addressed to Chinese born of Chinese fathers, to whom China had granted citizenship.

22 Paul van der Veur estimated that in 1930, 47.3 per cent of employed Indonesian-born Europeans worked in the civil service, railways and tramways, and the telegraph and telephone services, while 10.4 per cent worked in independent occupations. Their privileged European status did not necessarily translate into a European standard of living. Only 10 per cent of Indonesian-born European wage earners earned more than the estimated minimum wage to maintain a European lifestyle; van der Veur, Paul, ‘The Eurasians of Indonesia: Castaways of colonialism’, Pacific Affairs 27, 2 (1954): 126CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 Th. Petrus Blumberger, J., Indo-Europeesche beweging in Nederlandsch-Indië (Haarlem: Tjeenk Willink, 1939)Google Scholar.

24 IEV was not the first initiative at civic organising by Indo-Europeans. In 1912, Douwes Dekker initiated the Indische Partij, later transformed into Nationaal-Indische Partij/Sarekat Hindia, with Cipto Mangunkusumo and Suwardi Suryaningrat. Inspired by revolutionary–nationalist sentiment, it failed to attract mainstream Indo-Europeans, though. For an account of other initiatives by Indo-Europeans, see Blumberger, Indo-Europeesche beweging.

25 Blumberger, Indo-Europeesche beweging, p. 51.

26 Soepomo, De reorganisatie van het agrarisch stelsel in het gewest Soerakarta ('s-Gravenhage: L. Gerretsen, 1927)Google Scholar; Breman, Jan, The village on Java and the early colonial state (Rotterdam: CASP Erasmus University Rotterdam, 1980)Google Scholar. See Soepomo and Breman on the ways Central and West Java peasants avoided oppressive compulsory labour services for the colonial state and for the native authorities. See also Stoler, Ann Laura, Capitalism and confrontation in Sumatra's plantation belt, 1870–1970 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1985)Google Scholar.

27 Permanent transfer here refers to transferring the land permanently from the native legal regime into Dutch eigendom, although I do not discount de facto massive land grabs made possible by the Agrarian Law of 1870. While de jure protection did exist in Staatsblad 1875 No. 179, as Soepomo brilliantly shows in his keynote speech at the Indies Jurist Congress in 1936, its implementation was not as rosy. Soepomo, ‘Het vervreemdingsverbod van inlandsche gronden’, Indisch Tijdschrift van Het Recht, Bijlage (1936): 85–145.

28 Eigendom was only applicable to land no larger than 71,000 m², and only for expanding towns and villages, or to set up work or industrial establishments. The limited acreage practically prevented land under eigendom from being utilised as agricultural estates or from being concentrated into massive landholdings.

29 ‘Verslag van de Commissie voor het grondbezit van Indo-Europeanen. Summier Overzicht van de Beginselen en Hoofdzaken der Agrarische Wetgeving en van de Voor Europeanen in Nederlandsch Indie Verkrijgbare Rechten of Grond’ (Batavia, 1936), pp. 10–18.

30 The land should be intended strictly for agriculture or horticulture, while the tax was set at no more than 1 florin per bouw per year. In special circumstances Europeans could also be exempted from administrative costs and other expenses required to obtain the certificate. Further, such a leaseholder could keep the land for a maximum of 25 years and could mortgage it for loans. Ibid., p. 16.

31 Ibid., p. 17.

32 Stoler, Ann Laura, Carnal knowledge and imperial power: Race and the intimate in colonial rule (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002)Google Scholar.

33 van der Kroef, Justus M., Dutch colonial policy in Indonesia 1900–1941 (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1953)Google Scholar.

34 Volksraad, Handelingen van de Volksraad 1930/1931, pp. 319–20.

35 Ibid., p. 321.

36 Ibid., p. 320.

37 I thank the anonymous reviewer who pointed out to me the relationship between IEV and VC. An organisation established in 1929 by full-blooded, Netherlands-born Dutch blijvers, VC aimed to counter the government's ‘overly-friendly’ Ethical Policy that allegedly brought about Indonesian nationalism. By 1931, VC had successfully placed five representatives in the Volksraad. de Jong, L., Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden in de Tweede Wereldoorloog, Deel IIa, Nederlandse-Indië I (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 1984)Google Scholar. See also a fascinating account of de Vaderlandsche Club in Drooglever, P.J., De Vaderlandsce Club 1929–1942, Totoks en de Indische Politiek (Franeker: Uitgeverij T. Wever BV, 1980)Google Scholar. In the subsequent years, VC and IEV joined forces to pioneer Dutch colonisation in Dutch New Guinea. See Bosma, Ulbe, ‘Nederlands Nieuw-Guinea en de late empire builders’, Tijdschrift voor Sociale en Economische Geschiedenis 6, 3 (2009): 2–25Google Scholar.

38 Volksraad, Handelingen 1930/1931, p. 374.

39 Ibid., p. 1275.

40 Revue Politik, in Indisch-Maleisch Pers Overzicht (henceforth IPO), 23 Aug. 1930, p. 341. There were more protests published in, among others, Swara Publik (in IPO, 14 Feb. 1931) and Pewarta Surabaya (in IPO, 24 Apr. 1931). ‘Indos’ was a popular term for biracial Indo-Europeans.

41 Isin, ‘Citizenship in flux’: 384.

42 ‘Verslag van de commissie voor het grondbezit van Indo-Europeanen, Deel 3, Eindconclusies’, Batavia, 1936.

43 Boedi Oetomo, in IPO, 22 Aug. 1931, p. 347.

44 Volksraad, Handelingen van den Volksraad, 1931/1932, p. 808, emphases added.

45 Thamrin and IEV chairman De Hoog exchanged heated remarks when he questioned the IEV's membership criteria, which seemed to deliberately include full-blooded, Netherlands-born Europeans. Volksraad, Handelingen 1931/1932, p. 808.

46 It is important to recognise the calculated usage of landskinderen as opposed to inlandsche kinderen in Volksraad debates. IEV's N. Beets brought landskinderen into the Volksraad, having borrowed it from a government official. The latter asked a rhetorical question about who had the first claim to land, to which he answered himself, ‘the citizens, the children of the land’ (de staatsburgers, de landskinderen) (Volksraad Handelingen 1930/1931, p. 1192). The usage of landskinderen side-by-side with ‘citizens’ indicated a positive concept, with echoes of citizens possessing rights, obligations, and a social contract with the state. Beets adopted landskinderen and used it to express Indo-European sentiments towards the East Indies. Inlandsche kinderen, on the other hand, was a slippery term often used pejoratively, which Ann Stoler unpacks in Along the archival grain (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009).

47 Volksraad, Handelingen 1931/1932, pp. 809–10.

48 Volksraad, Handelingen 1931/1932, p. 1076.

49 ‘Grondrechten voor Indo-Europeanen’ [Land rights for Indo-Europeans], Het Vaderland, 19 Nov. 1931, http://kranten.delpher.nl/nl/view/index?image=ddd%3A010013830%3Ampeg21%3Aa0211 (last accessed 2 July 2014).

50 ‘Grondrechten voor Europeanen: Overvloed van studie-materiaal’ [Land rights for Europeans: Floods of study material], Sumatra Post, 29 Sept. 1932, http://kranten.delpher.nl/nl/view/index?image=ddd%3A010361722%3Ampeg21%3Aa0074 (last accessed 2 July 2014).

51 Anonymous, ‘Grondrechten voor Indo-Europeanen’ [Land rights for Indo-Europeans], Het Vaderland, 30 Nov. 1931, http://kranten.delpher.nl/nl/view/index?image=ddd%3A010013848%3Ampeg21%3Aa0257 (last accessed 2 July 2014). In the first round of inquiries, European and native officials aired their scepticism about the feasibility of the Indo-Europeans' demand. Dutch Residents and native Regents in West Java rejected IEV's request in light of the social and political tensions in the region.

52 Bintang Timoer, in IPO, 31 Oct. 1931.

53 Ibid.; Anonymous, ‘Grondrechten voor Indo-Europeanen’.

54 Swara Tama, in IPO, 13 Feb. 1932. For many Indo-Europeans, this rejection was unexpected and disappointing, because PPKD was part of the larger Catholic community in the Indies, which counted numerous Indo-Europeans as its members.

55 Anonymous, ‘Lampoeng di tepi Djoerang’, Soeara Lampoeng, 30 July 1932.

56 Swara Katholiek, in IPO, 17 Mar. 1934.

57 Lentera, in IPO, 7 Nov. 1931.

58 Swara Katholiek, in IPO, 30 Jan. 1932.

59 Swara Katholiek, in IPO, 13 Feb. 1932.

60 Pewarta Deli, in IPO, 15 Oct. 1932.

61 Pemandangan, in IPO, 7 Apr. 1934, p. 205. If Indonesian-language newspapers focused on reporting Indonesian reactions, the Dutch-language newspapers in the East Indies and in the Netherlands appeared distant. They limited their reports to the factual progress of the Spit Commission's work.

62 ‘Verslag Commissie voor het Grondbezit van Indo-Europeanen, Deel 3’ (Batavia, 1936), p. 2.

63 Onze Stem: Organ van het Indo Europeesch Verbond, Congress Nummer, 1935, p. 74.

64 Ibid., p. 78.

65 Ibid.

66 Whereas a native farmer had to pay a tax of 10 guilders every three years for two to three bouws (1.4–2 hectares) of land, an ‘impoverished’ Indo-European farmer working his small agricultural leasehold was charged only 10 to 25 cents tax per bouw per year for up to 25 bouws (17.25 hectares).

67 Volksraad, Handelingen 1935/1936, p. 739.

68 Radio, in IPO 16 May 1936.

69 Pemandangan, in IPO, 21 Mar. 1936.

70 In IPO, 1 Aug. 1936.

71 Mr Mohammad Yamin acted as secretary, and Mr Syarifudin and Dr Mr Sukamto as second and third secretaries.

72 Pemandangan, in IPO, 28 Mar. 1936.

73 Pemandangan, in IPO, 18 July 1936.

74 Ibid.

75 Isin, ‘Citizenship in flux’: 371.

76 Sinar Deli, in IPO, 1 Aug. 1936.

77 Ibid., p. 495.

78 Tjaja Timoer, in IPO, 15 Aug. 1936.

79 Pemandangan, in IPO, 11 Sept. 1936.

80 Pemandangan, in IPO, 10 Oct. 1936.

81 Ibid., pp. 651–2.

82 Volksraad, Handelingen 1936/1937, p. 1287.