Most of us are familiar with what is loosely called the ‘Generation Gap’, wherein the old and the young fail to understand each other because they have different experiences, habits and expectations of the world. It has always existed in some form, and every generation has, in its turn, looked at the one after it with a mix of hope and unease. What is harder to say is whether what we are seeing now is simply the old unease repeating itself or something genuinely different.
One thing which is universally recognised in regard to the youth is that they, in general, have energy, stamina, strong will and zest for life. But certain other valuable characteristics of youth, which can be great tools for social transformation, are not fully recognised or utilised by society, as a result of which they get confused and disturbed. One such important trait of youth is their strong desire for something new—they want change, not the status quo.They are not tied down to the past and, instead, are open to accepting new things. Hence, it is easier for them to adapt to any kind of change compared to the older generation, and they are prepared to make every effort and sacrifice to bring about social change. Compared to this, the older generation has, no doubt, experience, but most of its ideas have already been applied to situations in life. So, the old order has to change, giving place to the new, as the saying goes, and, in this work of social transformation, the new blood has to play a vigorous role in ushering in a new era.
But have the potentialities of the youth been utilised for the work of national reconstruction so far? Well, if we take into view the Indian situation, we can say, in general terms, that the youth are restless and disappointed because their abilities have not been provided with enough channels for self-expression and fulfilment. We have, in recent times, watched this restlessness spill out onto our streets, with Gen Z crowds gathering in anger over broken systems, denied opportunities, examinations and processes they no longer trust. Their frustration is not manufactured; it is earned. But what has been equally striking, and equally troubling, is the manner in which that frustration is now being voiced. The language of protest has grown coarser, angrier, sometimes indistinguishable from abuse, and this is true across gender, class and region. It is not a fault confined to any one group of the young; it is a mirror held up to all of us who raised them.
The youth say that their energies, both mental and physical, are not being used in wider spheres of national development because the older generation denies them adequate participation, thinking that the youth are inexperienced and immature. Against this thinking, the youth argue that what the elders call ‘experience’ and ‘maturity’ is, in fact, a hindrance to breaking new ground, and that what is required at present is new initiatives, new ideas, adventure and innovativeness. On the other hand, the elder generation says that it, too, is interested in the growth, development and participation of the youth, but complains that the youth are indifferent to their own spiritual heritage. Because of this, they argue, there is a crisis of values, which has created an ever-widening emotional gap and an atmosphere of increasing violence in society.
One must ask, though, whether this ‘crisis of values’ is entirely of the making of the young, or whether it is, in good part, inherited from homes where restraint was never modelled, schools that measured marks but rarely character, and a public culture, amplified endlessly by television and social media, where shouting has replaced reasoned argument and insult has replaced disagreement. The question now is: How can this ‘gap’ be bridged? Who will serve as the link between the two generations?
All would agree that, to bridge this ever-widening gap and prevent further erosion of values, we need formal and informal educational institutions that can inspire the youth with higher principles and ideals, and fire their imagination with a new vision of society—one free of violence, where all can live peacefully as members of the human family. But this must begin at home, long before it reaches an institution: in the everyday language parents use in front of their children, in the value schools place on civility alongside academic achievement, and in the example elders themselves set when they are angry or aggrieved. Remember: restraint is taught, not inherited by accident.
Let us remember that India’s youth constitute a much larger proportion of the population today than older and other age groups. If, therefore, the youth are not enabled to become effective instruments of social change and their drift towards violence, drug abuse and other destructive tendencies is not halted, society will have a dark future.The youth of today are, quite simply, the Bharat of tomorrow—its ministers, doctors, teachers and parents. Hence, a nation like Bharat cannot afford to romanticise their anger while ignoring how it is expressed, nor can it afford to scold their language while ignoring the conditions that provoked it. What is expected of this generation, then, is not silence, but responsibility, along with the discipline to protest without descending into abuse and to demand accountability while still holding themselves accountable. That balance, once learned, will determine whether the awakening of Bharat’s youth becomes the making of the nation or merely its noise.