Author – Garima Sharma

Youth is considered to be a period of significance as it is a threshold, an eventual arrival at the status of adulthood. This status of Adulthood itself is problematic in nature because of the predominantly accepted terms and conditions of being an adult are standardised and are not inclusive of all. This period has meaning in relation to the specific circumstances of social, political and economic conditions. When we view the period of youth as a social process then certain questions are raised on the meaning of adulthood and being an adult. Pertaining to social, political and economic conditions, young people gain varied range of experiences resulting in different groups and identities of youth. Therefore, youth is not a universal experience but social & political yet personal. 

These social-political experiences shape young people and their ideologies. The social and political processes also contribute in deciding what comprises of an adulthood/who becomes an adult and who does not. All the social, political and economic institutions are ‘adult’ run enterprises which point out the peculiar power relationship between young and adult. It also points out the less or no agency of a young person in their decisions because of the operation of political and social processes in such a way. So, the social processes affect young people’s experiences which in turn cater to differentiating groups of young people from each other, sharpening and reinforcing deeper social divisions rather than breaking them down. 

India is a country of youth, more than half of its population is under the age of 30. When young people take matters to the road and dissent openly, it becomes a huge threat to the residing party in power. The very image of Sitaram Yechury in 1977 as the JNU Students’ Union leader confronting the then Chancellor Indira Gandhi to resign, on the account of Emergency, is iconic in terms of youth unrest and protest. From that to the Mandal Agitation and to Student activism in full form during CAA NRC Protests, it is evident that predominantly youth in universities are exercising their right to protest and dissent against ills of government. Both the government and adulthood represents power and autonomy. Therefore, it gives youth a variable to express anger and agitation against the power and powerful. The youth in postcolonial context mobilised majorly on the local grievances and campus politics with the context of national liberation. The contemporary young people find themselves to be a part of historical movements like Bharat Swabhimaan Andolan (Lokpal andolan), Nirbhaya Movement, Rohith Vemula Protest, JNU Protest and now CAA NRC.  

We all must have heard this endlessly that how youth is the hopeful future of a nation and it’s progress is equivalent to the country’s progress. This hope comes with certain delusions, can also be termed as expectations, that the young people shall follow the path carved by their descenders. Young people are considered both society’s hopeful future and a threat to society who are at risk of falling down from the queue of setting foot in the ‘mainstream’. They are regarded as both ‘at risk’ and ‘risk to society’. Young people are ‘at risk’ not because of their youth, but because of the operation of economic and political processes that failed the youth. Young people are also considered as ‘risk to society’ because they have the capacity to disrupt the social pattern that is inherently and cohesively biased, unjust. 

This assumption of dual representation, of which the more negative image is prominent, provides legitimation for the state to intervene, control and protect. Mostly this intervention becomes the surveillance on the young people, be it in college, residence or on streets. When the state intervenes with an intention of positive outcomes and progress, it usually costs the mobility and freedom of the youth. State interventions are drawn mostly on the development and psychological theories which share that young people need to go through certain development stages obeying the conventions of society to become a functional adult. 

Dualism of young people has been constantly portrayed in everyday media. They are represented as both symbol and victims of modern (western) society. Media habitually represents young people in an overwhelmingly negative light. The positioning of young people is either as a threat to the accepted social values or as vulnerable ones. When we conceptualise some groups of young people as ‘at risk’ or the idea of ‘mainstream’ gives credibility to the notion that all other young people are mostly similar in a way. This defies the concept of youth as a social process and further defies the individualised experiences of young people in contemporary times. 

It is not a new phenomenon where we witness the news channels debating with multiple panels on the young generation and its methods of disagreement. There is a constant exchange of high-pitched dialogues among the panellists on how the youth of India is unnecessarily creating havoc and ruckus in the name of protest. The media predominantly influenced with the right wing agendas making it a necessary move to maintain propagandas against the left wing. This is something to be noted as the media widely reports young people and young leaders as communist, left liberals, urban naxals, educated fools, McDonald generations etc. In a country like India which lacks in structural interventions and affirmative actions to encourage representation of youth and its participation in elections and politics, there are layers of barriers for the young political aspirants to voice their issues in the parliament. There are multiple factors that discourage youth to engage in the mainstream politics; like dynasty politics, muscle power control, surveillance, money power, under or no reporting of political violence against women, men of marginalised communities. Yet the youth on the university and campus levels stood up and voiced their dissent against the muffling of the rights and freedom of marginalised communities. There is a definite rise in the youth’s interest towards politics and political actions in order to achieve a welfare and just society for all. Several young student leaders, like Umar Khalid, Kanhaiya Kumar, Shehla Rashid, Safoora Zargar, Jignesh Mevani, Chandrashekhar Azad and many more, have definitely left a mark in the mobilisation of young people and have proven to be an integral influence on political engagement of youth. The core of youth’s political engagement is the solidarity with many people from different walks and ideologies of life to create a huge impact together. 

To be able to voice an opinion on disagreement with the powerful entity is a rightful duty of an active citizen of a democracy. The discourse of majoritarian rule is majorly rejected by the young people engaged in politics as the majoritarian ideology never proves to be inclusive of social justice and solidarity. There is a strong drive in the youth to reimagine and rebuild the social justice structures to acknowledge the marginalisation and marginalised communities. While the issues raised by the young leaders have been relevant to the local concerns, they also transcends their immediate location and appeals to the larger national consciousness. 

Can all the marginalised youth voice their challenges and opinions as freely as the university youth is able to? This question is a crucial one as there are number of young people, who belong to the marginalised communities, studying at the public universities and actively engaging with youth politics at national levels. Whereas the marginalised and institutionalised youth, who yet does not have access to university or educational spaces, is still struggling to define and voice their challenges and systematic oppression. The social construct of youth suggests that the social processes consequentially disable the autonomy of young people to be able to shape their lives, as they want and desire. The struggle to survive and make it to the next day is a reality for such youth that most of the times leaves no room or ability to dissent, especially against the oppressor. Young people, therefore, experience the exclusion and marginalisation at an immediate and personal level. The prevalence of social polarisation of youth is very evident as well. 

While there is emerging hope with the campus youth engaging and committing themselves to the discourse of political agitation, there is definitely a huge gap between the institutionalised marginalised youth in realising their agency and voice for themselves. 

References

1. Wyn, J. & White, R. (1997). Rethinking youth London: SAGE Publications Ltd doi: 10.4135/9781446250297.
2. White, J. W. (1997). The concept of youth. In J. W. White, Rethinking Youth (pp. 8-25). Crows Nest NSW, Australia: Allen & Unwin Pty Ltd.
3. White, J. W. (1997). Youth Marginalisation. In J. W. White, Rethinking Youth (pp. 8-25). Crows Nest NSW, Australia: Allen & Unwin Pty Ltd.
4. Flanagan, C. (2009). Young people’s civic engagement and Political development. In A. Furlong, Handbook of Youth and Young Adulthood (pp. 293-300). New York: Routledge.
5. Cartmel, A. F. (2007). Politics and Participation. In A. F. Cartmel, Young People and Social Change: New Perspectives (pp. 121-137). New York: Open University Press.
6. Nayar, M. (2020, 02 05). The History of Student Protest in India. Retrieved from The Wire: https://thewire.in/politics/the-history-of-student-protests-in-india

The author is an educator and researcher at Ambedkar University.