If Dipke, Saurav and company are truly representative of Gen Z, then there is reason to worry about the direction in which the country is headed. One can only hope that they represent a vocal section of their generation rather than the generation as a whole.
The years from one’s twenties through one’s thirties are among the most energetic and productive years of adult life. Ideally, that energy should find expression in education, entrepreneurship, professional excellence, innovation, institution-building and other forms of constructive nation-building. Political engagement, too, is an important part of citizenship. But there is a difference between political participation and allowing oneself to become a pawn in larger political games. When youthful energy is repeatedly dissipated in sloganeering, confrontation and disruptive agitation, one has to ask who ultimately benefits from it.
Indian history offers abundant evidence of what youthful energy can accomplish when it is attached to a larger purpose. The freedom struggle itself was powered by the young. Bhagat Singh was only 23 when he was executed; Chandrashekhar Azad was 24 when he died. Khudiram Bose was barely 18 when he went to the gallows. Subhas Chandra Bose was still in his twenties when he resigned from the Indian Civil Service, choosing instead the path of the freedom movement. Their methods and political philosophies differed, and history may debate some of their choices, but there can be little doubt about the intensity of their commitment to something larger than themselves. They did not regard youth merely as a season for personal advancement; they saw it as a time for service and sacrifice.
Nation-building after Independence has taken less dramatic but equally important forms. Generations of young Indians have entered laboratories, universities, factories, farms, the armed forces, civil services and businesses and helped transform a poor, independent country into a major economy and technological power. India’s achievements in space, information technology, pharmaceuticals, engineering and entrepreneurship have depended heavily on scientists, engineers and professionals doing some of their most imaginative work while still young. Today, a new generation is building start-ups, developing technology, creating employment, competing and finding solutions in fields ranging from digital payments and renewable energy to biotechnology and artificial intelligence.
Nor must nation-building always involve heroic sacrifice or spectacular innovation. A young teacher working conscientiously in a remote school, a doctor serving an underserved community, an entrepreneur creating twenty honest jobs, an engineer solving a local problem, or a civil servant improving the delivery of a public service may contribute more enduringly to the country than someone who commands a television camera or a crowd.
That is the standard against which today’s youthful activism should be judged. Anger can awaken a society and protest can correct injustice, but neither is an achievement by itself. The real test is what remains after the slogans have faded: stronger institutions, greater opportunity, better governance and a country more capable than the one this generation inherited.
This is not to suggest that the grievances being raised are necessarily without merit. The paper-leak issue, for instance, is a serious problem. Competitive examinations affect the futures of many young people, and any leakage, manipulation or corruption surrounding them strikes at public confidence in the fairness of the system. Those responsible should be identified and held accountable, loopholes must be closed, and safeguards should be put in place to prevent recurrence. Young people have every right to demand such action, and peaceful protest is a legitimate democratic means of applying pressure when institutions appear unresponsive.
But acknowledging the legitimacy of a grievance does not require endorsing every method adopted in pursuing it. Bringing normal life to a halt, inconveniencing millions of people, damaging economic activity or turning every grievance into an exercise in political paralysis cannot become the default method of seeking redress. A democracy needs protest, but it also needs proportionality, responsibility and respect for the rights of citizens who are not participating in that protest.
There is also a larger question that young political activists should ask themselves: are they advancing a cause, or merely advancing somebody else’s political strategy? Political parties and interest groups have always sought to harness youthful anger because young people provide enthusiasm, numbers and visibility. The danger arises when legitimate frustration is converted into permanent mobilisation, with slogans replacing engagement with policy and solutions. At that point, the original issue can become secondary to the political spectacle surrounding it.
Of course, the opposite argument deserves consideration. Young citizens should not be told that nation-building means remaining silent, concentrating only on their careers and leaving politics to an older generation. Challenging corruption, administrative incompetence and institutional failure can itself be an act of nation-building. Many important democratic reforms have emerged precisely because young people refused to accept the status quo. The real question, therefore, is not whether Gen Z should be politically active, but what kind of political culture it chooses to create.
If Dipke, Saurav and their associates want to speak for their generation, their credibility will depend on whether they can move beyond agitation towards constructive solutions. They should be demanding transparent investigations, institutional reforms, stronger examination safeguards, accountability for wrongdoing and measurable timelines for implementation. That would convert anger into a programme of reform.
If, on the other hand, disruption becomes an end in itself—or if legitimate grievances are merely being used as instruments in a political contest—then the concern becomes much more serious. A generation with potential risks spending its most productive energies fighting battles designed by others.
Gen Z has every right to be impatient with a system that fails it. But impatience is most powerful when coupled with judgment, discipline and a sense of purpose. The country needs its young people to question authority and demand accountability. It also needs them to build, create, innovate and strengthen institutions. Protest and nation-building need not be opposites; at their best, responsible protest should be one of the instruments through which nation-building takes place.
An earlier version of the article was published in Times of India Blogs.
