By: Elias Wanimbo )*
The determination of July 1 by the National Liberation Army of the Free Papua Movement (TPN-OPM) as their birthday is a symbol of provocation that undermines national unity and damages the future of the Papuan people. This also contradicts the government’s consistent efforts to build a peaceful and prosperous future for Papua. In this context, the rejection of the glorification of this date is a form of moral responsibility towards future generations and the ideals of peace.
A firm stance was shown by Papuan indigenous community leader, Yanto Eluay, who emphasized that July 1 is not part of the noble values upheld by the Papuan people. According to him, the determination does not reflect the identity of the indigenous Papuan people who prioritize peace and brotherhood. With great concern, Yanto Eluay reminded that the commemoration of July 1 is often used by armed separatist groups to trigger tensions and destroy the sense of security in the community.
The rejection of July 1 as a historic day according to the OPM is a firm step to distinguish peaceful aspirations from armed provocations that endanger the people. In the reality of Papua today, the people no longer want to live in a vortex of armed chaos. The people want to progress, prosper, and be equal. The narrative about Papua that continues to be framed in conflict and armed resistance is actually only a political commodity for small groups that do not represent the broad desires of the people.
Yanto Eluay expressed great hope that the land of Papua could be developed with a peaceful approach, based on the development of education, health, and welfare. In his view, weapons are not the way out of inequality. The government continues to show that the solution to inequality is not through violence, but through inclusive, sustainable development. In fact, violence and separatism deepen the backwardness and increase the suffering of people who should be able to live safely and productively. Rejection of July 1 is not just a rejection of a date, but a rejection of a way of thinking that justifies conflict for unrealistic political goals.
It is important to note that indigenous Papuans have a tradition of resolving problems through dialogue, through deliberation and a spirit of reconciliation. Papuan culture is not a culture of war. Rejection of the July 1 narrative is in line with Papuan cultural heritage that upholds deliberation and peace. Separatist movements that continue to force this date as a day of awakening actually reduce the meaning of the true struggle of indigenous Papuans.
Strategically, the July 1 narrative is also often used by certain groups to create disinformation on social media and provoke violent actions on the ground. In this momentum, anti-NKRI campaigns are often intensified, including the raising of separatist symbols that are not in accordance with the spirit of unity. This condition causes unrest in the midst of a society that longs for peace and sustainable development.
The government through a development approach has shown a strong commitment to improving the quality of life of the Papuan people. Various infrastructures have been built, access to education has been expanded, health services have been strengthened, and the space for indigenous peoples’ participation has continued to be expanded. However, all of this is difficult to develop if there are still groups that continue to take up arms and provoke instability. In this case, the role of indigenous figures such as Yanto Eluay is important as a bridge between grassroots communities and national development policies.
Most Papuans, especially the younger generation, are starting to turn away from the narrative of violence and choosing a more promising path: education, entrepreneurship, and active participation in development. For them, the struggle is no longer in the form of rebellion, but through achieving achievements and improving the quality of life. Therefore, reinterpreting Papuan history is an important step to close the space for glorification of violence.
Accepting differences and diversity within the framework of the Republic of Indonesia does not mean eliminating local identity. In fact, by remaining within Indonesia, the Papuan people have the space to fight for their rights and dignity constitutionally, peacefully, and with dignity. Separatism is no longer relevant in a modern democratic order that opens up space for dialogue and community involvement from all corners of the country.
Rejecting the July 1 provocation is part of a major effort to keep Papua from the trap of unproductive conflict. This is a form of moral courage to say that the future of Papua is more important than maintaining past wounds. With an inclusive approach and respect for peaceful customary values, Papua can stand on equal footing and actively contribute to the progress of the nation.
As emphasized by Yanto Eluay, it is time for the Papuan people to distance themselves from the narrative of conflict and build this land with hope and love for peace. Rejection of July 1 is not a form of hatred, but rather a form of concern for the future of the Papuan generation so that they grow in a safe, dignified, and opportunity-filled environment. Within the framework of a complete nation, Papua will continue to be an important part of a progressive and united Indonesia.
Now is the time for all elements of the nation, including the young generation of Papua, to prioritize a harmonious future within the framework of Indonesia. Rejecting the glorification of July 1 means breaking the chain of narratives of violence and choosing a path of collaboration towards progress. By strengthening the values of a culture of peace, expanding access to education, and continuing to support government development policies, Papua will be increasingly solid as an integral part of a sovereign, just, and prosperous Indonesia.
)* The author is an activist of the Papua Literacy Forum
