JurnalPost.com — Aris Sanda likely never imagined that his journey to earn a living would be the final one of his life. The travel driver from Toraja, South Sulawesi, was reported to have been shot by an armed group allegedly affiliated with the Free Papua Organization (OPM) in the Wamena area, Jayawijaya Regency, Highland Papua, on 15 September 2026.
This incident does more than just add to the list of casualties in Papua. Aris's death reveals the bitter reality that civilians with no stake in power struggles are often the ones bearing the heaviest burden of political conflict.
Aris was simply a worker relying on the transportation sector for his livelihood. He transported passengers and helped distribute essential goods to remote areas. However, while en route to Mbua, his vehicle was intercepted by an armed group.
Circulating footage shows a man identified as Aris surrounded by armed individuals, being forced to express support for Papuan independence. Following the incident, Aris was found dead alongside his burned vehicle in the Lake Habema area.
Imagine the position of a worker suddenly confronted by armed men. There is no room for debate, questioning orders, or freely expressing one's stance. His safety was entirely in the hands of those who held the power to determine his life or death.
This is where the irony of political conflict becomes painfully clear. A person who simply wants to work loses the most fundamental freedom to determine their own stance.
When Power is Determined by Weapons
From a political sociology perspective, power does not always manifest through official positions, government institutions, or written regulations. Power can also be formed through the ability of an individual or group to force others to follow their will.
In conflict zones, this type of power becomes extremely dangerous when exercised through the threat of violence.
Weapons are no longer just tools to face armed opponents; they have transformed into a means to control the lives of civilians.
A driver can be forced to stop their vehicle. Merchants can lose access to markets. Workers can be viewed with suspicion simply for passing through certain areas. Even ordinary citizens can be coerced into declaring support for a political interest they do not actually choose.
This situation demonstrates how the space for public freedom narrows when the threat of violence becomes a part of daily life.
In the case of Aris Sanda, the alleged coercion of a political statement under the threat of weapons is a stark illustration of how someone can lose control over their own self.
Statements made under duress cannot be viewed as a form of political support born from conscience and freedom of choice.
Instead, such actions are better understood as an attempt to survive in a situation that endangers one's safety.
When someone follows the orders of armed individuals, it does not necessarily mean they agree with what is being ordered. It is possible that such compliance is the only option they believe will allow them to stay alive.
However, in the tragedy of Aris Sanda, that attempt to save himself did not prevent the violence that claimed his life.
Ordinary People as Victims of Political Strife
The conflict in Papua has a long history involving various interconnected political, economic, social, and humanitarian issues.
These issues cannot be understood through a single perspective. There is development inequality, experiences of discrimination, identity issues, differences in political views, and a history of violence that influences the relationship between society and the state.
However, the complexity of the conflict cannot be used as an excuse to justify violence against civilians.
Regardless of the political interests pursued by any party, ordinary citizens have the right to live, work, and carry out activities without threats.
Ironically, those with the least power to determine the direction of the conflict often face the greatest risks.
Drivers, merchants, farmers, teachers, health workers, and other laborers carry out their activities to meet their basic needs. They do not always have the option to leave high-risk areas because their jobs and families depend on their daily income.
For them, working is not just an economic choice, but a necessity for survival.
When conflict worsens, activities that should be routine can turn into a gamble with one's life.
Even more concerning, people can easily be labeled based on their origin, occupation, or alleged political leanings.
Terms like 'newcomers,' 'indigenous,' 'friend,' and 'foe' can be used to build social barriers that further increase mutual suspicion.
In reality, not every newcomer has a specific political interest. Likewise, the indigenous people of Papua cannot be treated as if they hold a single, uniform political view.
Such simplification of identity will only deepen divisions and distance society from a peaceful life.
Digital Propaganda and the Exploitation of Fear
Technological developments have changed how political conflicts are presented to the public.
While violence previously occurred mostly in hard-to-reach areas, these events can now be recorded and disseminated via social media in a matter of seconds.
The stage of conflict is no longer limited to streets, forests, or mountainous regions. Conflict also takes place on mobile phone screens, where images, videos, and narratives are contested to shape public perception.
In certain conditions, recordings of violence are used as propaganda tools to demonstrate strength, spread fear, or reinforce a group's political claims.
The problem is that the humans appearing in these recordings often lose their status as individuals with rights and dignity.
Victims are turned into objects displayed for the benefit of those controlling the situation.
In the case of Aris Sanda, the footage showing the alleged coercion of political support raises serious questions about how a person's body, voice, and safety can be exploited to convey political messages.
In front of the camera, someone might appear to be speaking. However, the camera does not always show the full extent of the pressure they are under.
A statement recorded under the threat of weapons cannot be equated with a statement given voluntarily.
This issue becomes even more complicated when such recordings spread widely through social media.
Their dissemination can prolong the suffering of the victim's family, reinforce public fear, and create space for the emergence of misinformation.
Therefore, the public needs to be more cautious in responding to violent content. Not every viral recording needs to be reshared, especially when it depicts victims in a helpless state.
Concern for victims should be manifested through efforts to uncover the truth and seek justice, not by turning human suffering into a spectacle.
The State Must Not Allow Citizens to Gamble with Their Lives
The tragedy of Aris Sanda also raises important questions regarding the state's responsibility to provide protection to the public.
Security is not an additional facility enjoyed only by people in urban areas or regions far from conflict.
Safety is the right of every citizen, including those living and working in remote areas.
The state has an obligation to ensure that the public can use public roads, transport essential goods, conduct business, and obtain basic services without being overshadowed by the threat of violence.
Securing transportation routes and logistics distribution in conflict-prone areas needs to be a serious concern. Disruptions to transport workers can also hinder the lives of people who depend on supplies and services from outside the region.
However, a security-only approach is not enough to resolve issues that have persisted for decades.
Public protection must go hand-in-hand with fair law enforcement, respect for human rights, improved welfare, and the opening of dialogue spaces involving the Papuan people.
Violence against civilians must be prosecuted according to the law without disregarding the rights of other community members.
The state must also ensure that every security enforcement action is carried out proportionally and does not exacerbate the suffering of citizens who are not involved in the conflict.
Success in maintaining security cannot be measured solely by the number of operations or the deployment of personnel, but by the ability of the community to live their daily lives with a sense of security.
No Political Struggle Justifies the Killing of Civilians
Every political movement certainly has ideas, goals, and perspectives it wishes to fight for.
However, no political goal can justify hostage-taking, intimidation, torture, or the killing of citizens who are not involved in hostilities.
If a group claims to represent freedom, but at the same time strips others of their freedom through the threat of weapons, a moral contradiction arises that is difficult to justify.
How can freedom be fought for by eliminating someone's right to live?
How can a struggle claim to defend human dignity if civilians are used as tools to demonstrate power?
Violence against the helpless does not strengthen the humanitarian values of a struggle. On the contrary, such actions undermine the moral legitimacy of the goals being pursued.
Therefore, armed groups involved in the Papua conflict must stop actions that endanger civilians.
Respecting the safety of citizens is not a sign of weakness or political defeat. It is a humanitarian boundary that should not be crossed by any party.
Likewise, efforts to resolve the conflict must provide space for the voices of the people who have been living in fear.
They are not just objects of policy, parts of conflict statistics, or symbols in a political battle.
They are human beings who have families, jobs, hopes, and the right to determine their own lives.
Human Safety Must Be Above Political Interests
The death of Aris Sanda should be a reminder that prolonged conflict carries a very high humanitarian cost.
Behind various political statements and debates regarding power, there are people who just want to live their lives in peace.
A driver wants to take their passengers to their destination. A merchant wants to open their business without fear. Children want to go to school, while families hope their loved ones can return home safely.
These desires are not excessive demands.
A sense of security is a basic need that should not have to be gambled with every time someone goes out to work.
This tragedy also reminds us that civilians must not be continuously placed as the party that must bear the consequences of decisions and battles between groups that possess weapons or power.
Justice for victims, protection for workers, and a humane resolution to the conflict must be a shared concern.
Ultimately, no political propaganda is more valuable than a human life.
No victory is worth celebrating if, to achieve it, innocent people must lose their lives.
Because independence and freedom lose their meaning when the human right to life is sacrificed in the name of a struggle.
Bibliography
Salwia, S. (2021). Papua's Desire to Separate from Indonesia and Its Relation to Humanity. Rhizome: Journal of Humanities Studies, 1(2), 45–51. https://doi.org/10.56393/rhizome.v1i2,458
Note: This opinion piece was compiled with reference to reports on the Aris Sanda incident on 15–18 September 2026 and studies regarding conflict and humanitarian issues in Papua.
Comments 0
Write a Comment Share your response