On Oct. 28, 1928, the spirit of nationalism was explicitly ignited by youths who pledged, “One motherland, one nation, and one language”. In one language, the young minds understood and visualized a common goal of freedom and independence to break free from the shackles of colonial injustice.
Years later, some of us may ask ourselves whether the youths today speak of the same ideals in one language, with one understanding of nationalism as it was in 1928.
Unity, patriotism and nationalism, the essential implications of the pledge, all illustrate a mesmerizing image of a certain societal culture of solidarity. Many of our youths today would agree that the sentiments incorporated into the previous terms had played a vital role in the long years of struggle for independence.
The sacrifices had paid us off very well with the right to self-determination and the opportunity for a people to progress toward an independent democratic nation, whose succeeding generations of its founding fathers may increasingly prevail.
Today, however, the importance of the mood upon which our nation was built is sometimes questioned. Some remarks that are understandably and alarmingly easy to find insinuate: “Why the nationalism? The struggle is over, we don’t really need it anymore,”, “My country hasn’t helped much in making my life easier,” and, “Nationalism is not necessary in this increasingly integrated global society.”
A dispersed view on the significance of nationalism has come to exist among our youths. Have we lost a common comprehension of the ideals proclaimed by their predecessors 82 years ago? Do we not speak the same language among ourselves anymore in perceiving our ambitions as a united people?
The previous remarks that can be found among some of today’s youths often contain a degree of naiveté, misconception and idealism — an understandable trend that can be found in environments where the commitment to contemplating or resolving social and political questions is less present.
In the first remark, the naiveté is not realizing the seriousness of a conflict of interests in foreign affairs (to whatever extent this conflict is allowed to escalate) by assuming that the strife for survival and a livable life ended when independence was attained.
In the second remark, the misconception that occurs is one’s dissociation from the state, which is to operate for the interest of the society that builds the nation concerned. It fails to apprehend that a country is to be defined by its people.
The third remark contains a sense of idealism that views the world as a large international community, implying the necessity for a large-scale multicultural integration. Given today’s global political circumstances and differing national interests among states, the latter would be a very difficult process to implement.
Furthermore, it fails to see that people’s privileges are often bound to not only their citizenship, but also their nation. Such views of nationalism reflect an unnecessary and unfortunate loss of a sense of solidarity and the ambition to prevail as a people of a nation.
So how must we view it otherwise? In what ways would nationalism be of applicable importance to us?
To prevent misunderstanding, we will first identify the essence of “nationalism” as is brought across in this article. It has occurred that in the past, “nationalist” sentiments have created atmospheres that disregarded the notion of “morals” involving acts of the state.
When a population is so deeply committed to an ideology that embraces the exclusiveness of a nation as to inaccurately perceive actuality, the term nationalism has been tainted.
However, as opposed to a form of nationalism that explicitly identifies a society with the state, we desire one that is characterized by responsibility and commitment toward the welfare of the people, achieved through their solidarity as a nation.
Nationalism offers a sense of belonging that may be used as a basis for the collective effort of a people progressing toward a common goal. This is a vital necessity in order to attain a strong bargaining position in the global community.
By the latter, we would gradually avoid being made a political minority by any environment or under any circumstance that could possibly harm the welfare of the society we belong to, feel associated with, or are inevitably associated with by other societies.
It is, therefore, in a citizen’s own best interest to develop a sense of nationalism, or at the very least, acknowledge the importance thereof.
Previous generations who lived through the endeavor to achieve a common perception of freedom and independence would be saddened by a lack of nationalistic sentiment among some of the youths today.
It may be questioned whether the slightest of this mood remains in the spirits of today’s youths on Youth Pledge Day, or whether its ideology is progressively being perceived through a political lens.
Either way, through pure patriotism or political motive, nationalism will always be essential to the survival of the peoples of a nation in any time frame.
The time has come for today’s youths to continue the struggle that our grandfathers set forth. It is time to constructively amend the ways by which our state as well as our society and culture have operated in the effort to attain the welfare of the nation and its people.
We are not unconditionally bound to what is now and what has been, but to achieve the positive change we want to see we must remain united in and devoted to our national cause at heart.
We must express our ambitions and interests as a nation in one language as to be comprehensible to all parts of our society — it is the key to a collective effort that can lead to enormous achievements.
Let every anniversary of Youth Pledge Day remind us of how enormous achievements are attainable in unity, as was proven by the generation of our founding fathers.
The author is a student of physics and astronomy at Leiden University, The Netherlands.
