I

n commemorating the Youth Pledge, which falls on Oct. 28, we first need to contemplate the role of Indonesian as a unifying language, promulgated in the historic event of 1928.

Since then, the language has achieved its status as both the national and official language of Indonesia. Also, it has become the lingua franca of peoples in diverse regions in the archipelago.

This tremendous development, due to conflicts initiated by Indonesian scholars affiliating themselves in diverse language ideologies and schools of thought, Indonesian has the added functions of being a lingua academica (a medium of instruction in schools), lingua cultura (as a medium of promoting cultural products) and lingua emotiva (as a medium of self-expression in works of arts like popular music).

To be fair, this development cannot be separated from the past language cultivation program feverishly carried out by the Indonesian Language Center and from language contacts that contributed to the modernization of Indonesian.  Yet, the use of the language has been abused by the elites, being imposed on language users from diverse regions through legislation or formal language policy.

A recent case in point is the formulation of 30 recommendations on the status and functions of the Indonesian language declared in the Congress of Bahasa Indonesia in 2013.

Of these recommendations, none touched on the current status and functions of heritage languages.

Given that the country is blessed with a wealth of living heritage languages, the elevation of the national language to a national level of importance in the name of unity in diversity reflects the hegemony of a common language (the national language).

In the context of a multilingual and multicultural nation-state like Indonesia, the slogan '€œunity in diversity'€ does more harm than good, as it may lead to the destruction of the rich linguistic and cultural ecologies that the country possesses.

With this in mind, the promotion of the Indonesian language as the language of unity among people is motivated by the ideology of political nationalism, rather than by the spirit of multilingualism that is vibrant among the grass roots in many regions across the archipelago.

More pluralist-oriented scholars have warned against the hegemony of the national language over hundreds of heritage languages, the majority of which are on the brink of extinction.

Ascribing the disappearance of the latter to the increased use of the former, they advise that language policy and planning activities be more inclusive, to embrace the interests of those who are still ardently preserving their heritage languages through either formal documentation practices or informal everyday linguistic practices.  

The pressure of safeguarding heritage languages emanates from both internal and external factors; that is, it is due to the effects of globalization where English becomes the dominant lingua franca trans-nationally, as well as due
to the imposition of using the Indonesian language in almost all domains of life.

In the context of globalization, external pressure has often masked internal pressure, thus giving the impression that the use of English as a language of wider communication is the sole factor that causes language shifts to occur.

It is English that is seen as having an imperialistic force, gobbling up the world'€™s living languages and language varieties.  Yet, Indonesian also carries a powerful hegemonic force always sustained through the feverish
campaign of the politics of nationalism '€” Indonesian as the language of unity.

In hindsight, as Indonesian language planning became the exclusive activity of the elites with no spaces given to language users to participate, language policy was and now is created within the framework of the politics of prescriptivism known popularly through the slogan '€œBahasa Indonesia yang baik dan benar'€ (correct and good use of Indonesian).

It is important to highlight here that intellectual endeavors to revitalize (as the 2013 Indonesian Language Congress did) the slogan may no longer be germane in the emerging context of language as an urban phenomenon known as '€œmetrolingualism'€, where people perform mixed linguistic practices or do trans-languaging without being limited by legal or formal regulation of language practices.

In such a context, people show their resistance to prescriptivism and do trans-languaging instead, crossing from one language or language varieties to other languages.    

A clear case in point is the use of non-standard or low variety (e.g. Jakartan colloquial varieties) of Indonesian, a variety deemed improper in certain contexts of use, with a mixed flavor of English and even heritage languages.

While the standard variety is considered too stilted and archaic, the non-standard one prevails among young people living in urban spaces. It is the widespread use of the non-standard variety that causes people either to shift from their heritage languages or switch languages, with the latter being the vibrant practice hitherto.