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