西スマトラにおける「共産主義」蜂起 (1926～27) の社会経済史的背景

B. J. O. スフリーケの再検討

抄録

The communist uprising, or more accurately the communist-led uprising, in West Sumatra of Indonesia in 1926/1927 was no doubt a political event, and for this reason most studies on the uprising have so far focussed on political aspects, perhaps with the single exception of the Schrieke's West Coast Report written in 1928. Political aspects were not the whole story of the uprising, however. The present writer attempts to analyze the social and economic history of West Sumatra roughly from the late 19th century to the time of the uprising, centering on Schrieke's socio-economic explanation.
Schrieke demonstrated causes of the uprising in the following logical sequence: 1) The West Sumatran traditional society, represented by socio-economic organization of the village community (nagari) was based on a subsistence economy consisting mainly of rice cultivation, communal ownership of land (most importantly rice fields), the authority of penghulu (chief of matrilineal lineages), and the matrilineal customary law or adat. 2) The penetration of a monetary economy after the introduction of money taxes in 1908 and the expansion of cash crop cultivation undermined the basis of traditional society by stimulating individualism at the expense of the communal character of the society. 3) This social change, however, was incomplete, causing only social instabilty and grievances in many circles of the society. 4) The Indonesian Communist Party was able to draw support from the population by ascribing the source of all grievances to Dutch colonial rule and by presenting a symbolic slogan, kemerdekaan (freedom). Schrieke may be correct in relating the fundamental causes of the uprising to the unstable situation of the society at a transitional stage. Looked at closely, however, there are points in his argument which call for reassessment. First, the importance of differing economic circumstances in various parts of West Sumatra is ignored, but in fact these were closely related to the uprising. Second, widening inequities in the distribution of wealth between rich and poor are overlooked. Third, the resentment of the population against taxation is viewed as a psychological phenomenon rather than as a serious expression of the actual weight of the burden of taxation, particularly on the poor. Fourth, change in the land ownership system is overestimated, either through use of incorrect data or by making wrong inferences, and consequently the extent of social change is somewhat exaggereted. Considering the fact that the land system was one of the most important pillars of the social system in general, the fourth point constitutes a serious weakness in Schrieke's argument. Correction of the above points seems to be important, since Schrieke's view on the uprising has never been challenged substantially by later scholars.