People I have spoken to in Aceh often said that the tsunami of December 2004 brought peace to their community. Despite the significant losses suffered in the disaster, it led to the restoration of peace in Aceh following prolonged conflict between the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) and the Indonesian government. The tsunami was followed by a peace agreement between the two parties a year later.
Aceh is in many ways unique. The political turmoil in the devoutly Islamic province has a long historical footprint since the early days of Indonesia’s independence. This included the Darul Islam/Indonesian Islamic Army movement, which sought to establish an Islamic state in the early years after independence, and GAM’s attempted secession from Indonesia from Suharto’s New Order era until 2005.
GAM was founded in 1976 by Hasan Tiro. In its founding declaration, GAM was established to liberate Aceh from “all political control of the foreign regime of Jakarta.” According to Hasan Tiro, there were town main justifications for Acehnese independence. First, Aceh was an internationally recognized sovereign state, as exemplified in the international treaty between the Sultanate of Aceh and the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1819. Therefore, after the end of Dutch colonial rule in 1949, sovereignty should have been returned to Aceh and not to the Indonesian government.
Second, the people of Aceh were not involved in the process of integrating Aceh with Indonesia. This was a violation of the right to self-determination. This point is also included in GAM’s founding declaration, which states that the integration process between Aceh and Indonesia was an illegal transfer of sovereignty: a shift of power from the old colonialist power (the Dutch) to the new colonialist regime (the Javanese).
These two factors were exacerbated by issues of political-economic inequality, such as uneven development and inadequate and overly centralized distribution of resource benefits. The conflict between GAM and the Indonesian government occurred in three phases: the initial phase during 1976-1979, the second phase known as the Military Operations Area (DOM) during 1989-1998, and the phase that lasted from the end of DOM until the peace agreement in 2005.
The conflict between GAM and the Indonesian government, particularly through the military apparatus, resulted in thousands of casualties from GAM, the military, and civilians. After DOM, nearly 2,000 people were recorded as having died, 3,439 were tortured, and there were 625 cases of rape and torture. This left deep sorrow and trauma for the people, especially the victims.
Gender-Based Violence: A Reconstruction
Conflict often leads to gender-based violence. Women are the most vulnerable group and the primary targets of violence in conflicts, particularly in settings with unequal and patriarchal political-economic structures. In conflict zones, as Cynthia Enloe points out, gender-based violence is often used as an instrument to maintain dominance, and power, and to disrupt the cohesion of targeted communities.
In conflict zones, gender-based violence is not merely an unintended byproduct or externality. It is a deliberate strategy by combatants. This is a well-known fact, with many examples noted in the recent conflicts in Rwanda, Bosnia, Uganda, and Syria. This is also true of the conflict in Aceh.
Although there have been numerous reports of violence against women during conflicts, detailed reconstructions have not been widely undertaken. This needs to be done to help piece together the brutal history of military violence against women during the conflict. It also serves as a reminder that while the conflict has been declared over through peace negotiations, it is not truly over for the victims and their families.
In 1993, Amnesty International published a report titled “Shock Therapy,” which attempted to reconstruct the human rights violations committed by the Indonesian military against civilians in Aceh from 1989-1993. Among the reconstructed accounts of the victims, only one details the brutal practices of the military against women. She is Djamillah Abubakar, the wife of Muhammad Jasin, whom the military suspected of being a GAM member. According to the report, Djamillah was stripped naked and then stabbed with a rifle.
The situation at that time was indeed very tense. The implementation of DOM was followed by large-scale military mobilization aimed at crushing GAM. Anyone could suddenly become a target and could be kidnapped, killed, or raped. In the mountainous areas of North Aceh, the skies were filled with the roar of military aircraft almost daily. Bombs were dropped on areas considered to house GAM bases. Fear spread everywhere.
Sudaman, 63, recounted in an interview with me that once a young man was captured on suspicion of involvement with GAM. The boy denied it but was forced to confess. He was eventually caught. His head was covered with a black cloth with a hole in his mouth. The military officers forced him to smoke through his mouth and then burned his body with a cigarette until he passed out.
One of his neighbors was also killed. His chest was slashed with a machete, and he was decapitated. The head was then shown to all the villagers as a warning that this was what would happen if any resident was found to be involved in the independence movement.
Specifically, the reconstruction of gender-based violence during DOM in Aceh can be known through the testimony of Romin. The 69-year-old still vividly remembers the military’s brutality against women in Aceh during DOM: stories that he said would always make his hair stand on end. One night, his friend’s wife went out to buy food at a nearby stall. Unfortunately, she never returned to her husband and children. His friend’s wife was captured by the military. She was stripped, raped, and then had both her palms nailed to the wood as if she had been crucified.
The military frequently conducted house inspections to detect GAM members or sympathizers. During a house inspection in Romin’s village, another rape occurred. This time, his neighbor’s wife and daughter were raped by the military.
Finally, Romin tearfully recounted another dark story. A woman from his village was suspected of being involved with GAM, which had female fighters among its ranks. She was then captured and forced to confess. The woman he knew denied the accusations because she did not know about the charges laid by the military. However, her honesty did not free her. She was forced to confess. She was stripped, and the military officers burned her breasts and genitals with cigarettes.
The accumulation of violence by the military, especially against women, turned the community’s fear into anger. This fostered deep hatred towards the government, particularly the military. Romin also felt that the military was trained only to massacre. “They seemed very trained to slaughter us,” he said. “However, in my heart, I still believe that not all of them are like that.”
As Kirsten Schulz has written, the Acehnese people’s anger over human rights violations during DOM led a new generation to support GAM. This also resulted from the lack of response to demands for justice for victims of human rights violations. After the DOM phase ended, GAM transformed from a specialized military movement into a popular movement. Support for Aceh’s independence came from various groups, including victims and their families, until the Helsinki Peace Agreement was signed in 2005.
The historical narrative of human rights violations, particularly gender-based violence, during the conflict in Aceh needs to be corrected. Although the government, through President Joko Widodo, recently acknowledged the human rights violations that occurred during the conflict in Aceh and apologized to the Acehnese people, this is not enough. There are so many victims, and for those who are still alive, an apology cannot heal their trauma and wounds. The women of Aceh still demand justice to prosecute the perpetrators to this day.
Challenges: The Institutions of Violence and Patriarchy
If we revisit history books, such as those by Siska Weiringa, John Rossa, or Vincent Bevins, we find a common thread: the military apparatus acts as an institution of violence and patriarchy. Gender-based violence has become a practice for the military during conflicts. This shows a persistent and deeply rooted pattern.
This condition continues to recur in Indonesia today, including in the ongoing conflict in Papua. Filep Karma provides an example of how gender-based violence occurs in Papua. Citing the Biak massacre in 1998, which resulted in 130 Biak residents becoming victims, with 8 people dead, 3 missing, 4 severely injured, 33 arbitrarily detained, 150 subjected to severe torture, and 32 unidentified bodies found, Filep recounts the experience of a woman who survived the military slaughter:
I saw a man showing us a small knife, the kind you use to shave, and then he said, ‘We will use this to cut your vagina, from top to bottom, from left to right.’ I witnessed a girl; they raped her, and then she died. Blood was everywhere because her vagina and clitoris were cut and she was repeatedly raped. They also beat other women with bayonets and then cut their necks and breasts.
In that accident, twelve women and girls were stripped, beaten, and raped by the military. Human rights violations in Papua, including gender-based violence, remain a significant issue to this day.
Amid the ongoing conflict, such acts must be stopped. There must be no more victims. Therefore, serious reforms are needed to dismantle the violent and patriarchal nature embedded in military institutions, especially those tasked with handling conflicts. A humanistic approach and gender sensitivity must be prioritized. This is another major task that must be urgently addressed, alongside bringing the perpetrators to justice.