Revisiting the Youth Pledge<\/p>\n
By Harkiman Racheman<\/p>\n
MEDAN, North Sumatra (JP): The commemoration of the Youth
\nPledge on Oct. 28 this year carries great significance. In line
\nwith the current atmosphere of multidimensional reform, the
\nhistoric Youth Pledge, signed and approved by representatives of
\nyoung intellectuals from diverse parts of the archipelago, may
\nnow need to be reinterpreted, reexplored, or even reassessed
\nwithin the renewed framework of post-Soeharto modern Indonesia.<\/p>\n
To begin with, in the year 1928 a group of young intellectuals
\nwithin social organizations such as Jong Sumatranen Bond, Jong
\nJava and Jong Ambon took the unprecedented initiative to hold a
\nlarge-scale national gathering in Jakarta. They were there to
\nformulate and hence determine the cultural blueprint for the
\nupcoming new nation which was later called Indonesia.<\/p>\n
At the youth congress, it was unanimously decided that the new
\ncountry was to be established principally on the ground of \"one
\ncountry, one nation and one (state) language\". For the first time
\nin modern Indonesian history, young intellectual leaders from
\nvarious sociopolitical and ethnic and cultural persuasions
\ngathered together to formally voice their self-determined
\nnationalistic desire to live in one country, as one unitary
\nnation and to \"deeply respect\" Bahasa Indonesia as the unifying
\nstate language. (They did not agree to speak only Bahasa
\nIndonesia, because such a move could have been wrongly
\ninterpreted.)<\/p>\n
It is seldom realized that the Youth Pledge itself contains
\nthe essential unifying principles and values instrumental to
\nIndonesians to start molding together their ideal country. More
\noften than not, the pledge is thought of as a common
\nsociocultural coming together of diverse elements in the country
\nfor the sake of national space-sharing. Hence, it has been also
\nwrongly construed that the Indonesian youths met to discuss
\nconditions pertaining to that common goal.<\/p>\n
Indonesia was, is and will always be a country as pluralistic
\nas its flora and fauna. Following through on this metaphor, these
\nplants or animals also project the diversity of the country's
\nethnic, religious and cultural experiences and backgrounds which
\ndo not necessarily merge easily. It is no wonder then that
\ndivisive sentiments are very much a living reality in the past
\njust as they are today.<\/p>\n
And it has to be said that such immature in-group feelings can
\nalways pose a serious threat to the multiethnic unitary nation.
\nThe dominant cultural group can obviously continue to impose
\ntheir distinctive cultural values on other lesser groups. The
\ndominant religious group, to mention another example, would
\nnaturally strive to maintain some sense of control in matters
\nrelated to national decision-making.<\/p>\n
As has been clearly exemplified by the Soeharto regime, in a
\ncorrupt government these divisive forces can easily be turned
\ninto a means for dirty politicking.<\/p>\n
It is in this particular context that the Youth Pledge offers
\na useful perspective. With the national consensus evident in the
\n1928 event, the disturbing dichotomy between majority and
\nminority interests should be finally settled. At the 1928 event,
\nthe ethnic Javanese majority, to use a now classic example, could
\nhave easily secured their right to nominate their mother tongue
\nas the official language of the aspiring nation.<\/p>\n
However, it didn't happen due to their multicultural tolerance
\nand sympathy. What this indicates is that in the future the Youth
\nPledge should continue to be appreciated as a necessary buffer
\ntoward extreme expressions of majority-minority conflicts of
\ninterest.<\/p>\n
It cannot be overemphasized that the Youth Pledge is a formal
\ndeclaration of the tremendous willingness of the entire
\npopulation to live together in unity as well as diversity. It
\nalso guarantees that the country, with its diverse components
\nliving together in modern multiculturalism, will not lead toward
\na much rejected cultural amalgamation, but rather a harmoniously
\nformed cultural cluster.<\/p>\n
The signing of the pledge by the young intellectuals, most of
\nthem in their 20s, therefore constitutes a crucial point of
\ndeparture in any effort to modernize Indonesian culture as a
\nwhole. The liberated young minds had chosen consciously to leave
\nbehind past-oriented values of traditionalism to welcome the
\nfuture-oriented principles of modernism.<\/p>\n
With the pledge itself, the direction of the nation's cultural
\nidentity became transparent and predictable. If divisive forces
\nin the past is a disturbing setback, then the cultural
\nmodernization engineered by the Youth Pledge can only be a step
\nforward. It can function as a bridging gap between the old
\nIndonesia and the new Indonesia which we aspire to.<\/p>\n
Hopefully, this year's commemoration will function as a
\nreminder to the new government to walk back on the once decided
\ntrack which leads toward real unity in cultural diversity, as
\nopposed to pseudo uniformity imposed by the New Order.<\/p>\n
The writer graduated from Victoria University of Wellington,
\nNew Zealand. Based in Medan, he is currently a freelance writer
\nand a university teacher.<\/p>\n
Window: ...the Youth Pledge should continue to be appreciated as a
\nnecessary buffer toward extreme expressions of majority-minority
\nconflicts of interest.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/revisiting-the-youth-pledge-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}