The ongoing discourse surrounding the return of cultural objects has become a central concern in Indonesia, especially after the several rounds of recent repatriation from the Netherlands. Within this evolving discussion and curiosity, the recent scholarly contribution by postdoctoral researcher of New Futures from Indonesian Objects, Sadiah Boonstra, offers a significant intervention into how debates on Indonesian cultural objects are framed, negotiated, and reimagined in relation to historical colonial entanglements. Her book chapter, titled “Beyond the Point of No Return: The Re-emergence of Indonesian Debates About Concepts of the Return of Cultural Objects” , is included in the edited volume entitled Rethinking Histories of Indonesia: Experiencing, Resisting and Renegotiating Coloniality, edited by Sadiah Boonstra, Bronwyn Anne Beech Jones, Katharine McGregor, Ken M.P. Setiawan, and Abdul Wahid.
Collecting Indonesian Objects
At its core, the chapter interrogates how questions of equality and cultural authority shape debates about the return of Indonesian cultural objects from the Netherlands, Indonesia’s former colonial ruler. Sadiah Boonstra also provides a detailed account of how these objects came to be housed in the Netherlands. The chapter demonstrates that thousands of objects were removed from the Indonesian archipelago through a variety of processes, including military expeditions, scientific missions, and practices of gift-giving.
These objects were highly diverse, ranging from religious and spiritual artifacts to works of art and jewelry. However, it is crucial to recognize that their acquisition took place within profoundly unequal power relations. Such conditions enabled the Dutch to claim “official ownership” over these objects, even in cases where they were obtained through coercive or unlawful means, including the looting that also happened in Lombok during the nineteenth century.
Negotiation and Debates on the Return of Cultural Objects
Sadiah Boonstra argues that the return of cultural objects is far from a neutral act. Rather, it is deeply embedded in broader questions of historical justice, epistemic authority, and cultural sovereignty. Accordingly, the chapter does not approach return as a straightforward legal or administrative procedure, but as layered negotiations that shape what “return” signifies both in practice and in principle. Importantly, Sadiah Boonstra highlights that debates surrounding the return of cultural objects had already been articulated by Indonesian during the colonial period.
These discussions became more structured and assertive following independence, gaining particular momentum during the Round Table Conference of 1949. She notes that the Draft of the Cultural Agreement explicitly included requests for the return of cultural objects removed by colonial authorities from the Indonesian archipelago. Ali Sastroamidjojo further framed restitution as a key expression of cultural cooperation between Indonesia and the Netherlands, stressing that such cooperation should be grounded in equality and voluntariness. Subsequent revisions of the draft clarified that restitution should apply specifically to objects acquired through improper or unlawful means. In other words, objects that had been looted or taken without consent were to be eligible for return. This position clearly asserted Indonesia’s status as a newly sovereign nation-state that rejected the continuation of colonial intervention in the governance and management of its cultural objects. It was also shaped by the broader political context, in which the rise of nationalism further encouraged Indonesia to reduce and ultimately sever colonial influence.
Unfortunately, the final Draft of the Cultural Agreement was never ratified, reflecting the growing difference in perspectives between Indonesia and the Netherlands regarding the return of cultural objects. However, Sadiah Boonstra does not characterize the draft as a failed product. Rather, she argues that it left an important legacy for subsequent negotiations and debates on the return of cultural objects. The Government of Indonesia continued to pursue restitution through several rounds of negotiations with the Netherlands, although these efforts yielded little progress until the early 1970s. A significant shift occurred with the Joint Cultural Agreement of 1975, which provided a mandate for the return of selected objects and manuscripts to Indonesia. As a result, several important items were officially repatriated between 1977 and 1978, including objects associated with Prince Diponegoro (1785-1855), the thirteenth-century Buddhist statue Prajnaparamita, and the so-called Lombok Treasures.
After the 1970s, the return of cultural objects no longer appeared to be a central priority for the Government of Indonesia. However, as Sadiah Boonstra observes, restitution regained momentum in the 2010s, particularly following the return of objects associated with Prince Diponegoro by the descendants of Governor-General Jean Chrétien Baud (1789-1859) to the Museum Nasional Indonesia (MNI). This development was followed by several further restitutions, including those associated with the closure of the Museum Nusantara in Delft. In recent years, both Indonesia and the Netherlands have established restitution committees, resulting in the transfer of 472 objects in 2023. These included 355 items from the Lombok collection, four statues from the thirteenth-century Singosari Temple, a kris from Klungkung, and 132 works known as the Pita Maha collection.
In conclusion, Sadiah Boonstra’s scholarly contribution offers a critical reflection on the evolving meanings of restitution. During the Round Table Conference negotiations, cultural objects were understood as part of the broader project of constructing an Indonesian culture . By contrast, the return of significant objects in the late 1970s was framed and implemented through the lens of identity politics. Yet, beyond the act of return itself, the more pressing question concerns how these objects are understood, both in terms of their meanings and their significance for local and wider communities in Indonesia. Only through such engagement can these objects be meaningfully reintegrated into Indonesian knowledge systems and living cultural contexts.
