Aceh history story (GAM and RI)
(History of Aceh)
Pat ujeun nyang hana blonde, pat prang nyang hana reuda.
Such is the sound of Aceh's philosophy of optimism that a rainy day will stop and war will end. And that optimism is proved in the Aceh conflict. A long vertical conflict with left victims everywhere, but ending too. That was the war between the Free Aceh Movement (Gerakan Aceh Merdeka, GAM) and the Government in the period 1998-2005.
Fortunately, the parties finally agreed to stop the war through the negotiating table in Helsinski, Finland. Later, the result of the negotiations was known as MoU Helsinski which became the basis of the birth of Law Number 11 Year 2006 About Aceh Government.
In fact, the Aceh conflict stems from a desire to separate from Indonesia. This indication is described by Wiratmadinata and Bisma Yadhi Putra in a book they wrote citing Simanjuntak.
The will to separate is based on subjective feelings. Basically the essence of ethnonationalism is the self-assertion of ethnic groups. This protrusion can strengthen group identity or express superiority and lead to aggressiveness. This spirit can undermine the integrity of the nation. "
Why does ethnonationalism thrive in Aceh? One of them arises because the public feels the authorities are more concerned with certain ethnicities, or commonly heard are protests about development complaints more centered on Java. That is, a regime can not be called nationalistic when its leaders are more concerned with their own ethnic welfare.
Therefore, Acehnese children in the midst of a bloody conflict, whether in the context of friendship at school or in the game area, often hear the presumption that Indonesia hates Aceh. Until finally, the Javanese as the tribe that is considered the most representative of Indonesia, is positioned as "the main enemy.
Strangely, the "hatred" is not absolute. In fact, there are Javanese who remain acceptable in society. One of the most accepted "accepted" sizes is not expelled, still interacted with. In fact, GAM's continuing recruiting of new members (mostly Acehnese) is actually willing to accept Javanese who want to join their arms with them.
Admittedly, during the Suharto era, the turmoil in the region or the conflict between ethnic hardly heard. He suppressed everything that smelled of tribe, religion, race and intergroup (SARA). The repression was carried out to immerse the regionalist sentiments which were regarded as tribal atavism.
despite the serious efforts made by subsequent rulers, Habibie, Abdurrahman Wahid and Megawati Soekarnoputri, to cushion the opening of a larger political tap, but the conflict continues to plague Indonesia in prolonged and still new ways.
This method has actually been practiced since Sukarno came to power. The central government solved the crisis of the 1950s not by eliminating the underlying distortions, but by sending troops.
That's it. The book is quite sharp and swooping, shuddering through its rocky reviews. Moreover, the Review in the Third Chapter entitled "Reading the Traces of the Acehnese Thoughts." In the first paragraph, they deliberately provoke the reader with a questionable review. "The Acehnese are never a single voice. From the first hinggakini. In terms of determining friends and enemies, historical records prove that Acehnese are always split. Even his turmoil makes the soil wet with tears and blood. "
Such reviews intrigue the readers. In the minds of the readers, the question arises: what is the trace of the minds of the Acehnese? I can not possibly tell that through this short article. In addition to the very limited space available, it will also reduce the reader's
interest to have this good book entitled Nationalism Vs Ethnonationalism in Aceh. A rock and phenomenal work of Wiratmadinata and Bisma Yadhi Putra.
*imformations more complete you can read on this page:
https://www.kompasiana.com/muhammadsyukri/resensi-kenapa-etnonasionalisme-berkembang-pesat-di-aceh_5871fa5d567b61192869d355?e_pi=7%2CPAGE_ID10%2C1072841689
