Generations of Acehnese born amid war

Generations of Acehnese born amid war

Let's review Aceh's past a bit. From 1942 to 1945, it was all
war, first with the Japanese ... then from 1945 to 1947 it was a
civil war, the Cumbok war, between the hulubalang and the ulema;
in 1948, tens of thousands of young Acehnese men fought the
Allies (during the Dutch aggression) again in Medan where between
2,000 and 3,000 were killed through to 1950. After relative peace
for a few years, 1953 saw the Islamic movement DI/TII break out
in Aceh; this continued until 1962 when Daud Beureuh (the Aceh
leader) stepped down ...

Rehabilitation was conducted, the Syiah Kuala University was
built to win the hearts of the Acehnese ... But in 1965 (the
conflict involving) the communist movement also spread to Aceh in
which thousands died, and lasted until 1970.

After a relatively stable period, war again erupted. In 1976
the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) was born and has been fighting for
separatism from Jakarta to this day. It has had its ups and downs
and monitoring institutions record around 15,000 deaths since
1976. A president-appointed independent commission looking into
violence in Aceh recorded 7,000 deaths alone during the military
operation period (1989-1998).

Thus the lives of generations of Acehnese born since 1942 have
been full of conflict; people still have nightmares from their
traumatic experience. In terms of human resources this is a
severe negative point, as the trauma has significantly limited
the Acehnese in terms of their education and ability to
compete ...

So we can imagine that with further violence seemingly
inevitable as the military plans new operations, another
generation could be lost and the nation could lose thousands of
people with great potential to contribute to the country.

Current public opinion on Aceh thus mostly refers only to the
present, solely from the perspective of the republic against
separatists, who naturally should be destroyed. But from the
perspective of those living in Aceh, where the potential of those
who are for the republic is still large and where Acehnese are
still very proud to be called those who established the republic
(with their contribution such as gold, which helped among others
to buy the republic's first airplane) -- this sense of pride is
constantly gnawed at by a stigma, often expressed in reckless,
sweeping statements that all Acehnese are GAM (members). While in
Aceh they say that not all Acehnese are GAM and not all GAM are
Acehnese, given that there could be some outside supporting
elements.

So, if it were well-managed, the potential of support for the
republic can be resumed; the offspring of those who died
defending the republic still proudly cite why their fathers died.
Yet this pride is neglected given the biased way of looking at
the Aceh issue, which is understandable given the limited
comprehension.

-- Hasballah M. Saad