Gen Z Protest: Democracy And Dissent

There is finally a quietus to the turmoil around student protest. We will know in due course whether this withdrawal is sustainable or merely a temporary hiatus. In a country as diverse and stratified as ours, there will never be a dearth of divisive issues. Managing these fault lines while pursuing the path of minimum resistance to the larger public good is always a challenge. In the aftermath of this fervent movement, it is worth reflecting both on the response of the citizenry and on that of the state.

What began as a grievance over paper leaks escalated into widespread agitation. Diverse groups—from activists and artists to farmers’ unions and opposition parties—lent their weight to the movement, driven by motives ranging from genuine concern to political expediency. The power of social media to mobilise public sentiment was on full display.

Yet angst on this scale cannot be manufactured by bad-faith actors alone. Political opportunists may fuel the flames, but the fire itself is ignited by systemic failures left unaddressed for far too long. Education and employment remain the principal sources of youth anxiety, and both have suffered from chronic neglect.

School education has long been crying out for reform. Student and teacher absenteeism, inadequate faculty training, and outdated pedagogy continue to plague government schools and many low-cost private institutions. While a small minority of elite schools maintain high standards, the overwhelming majority struggle to deliver even basic learning outcomes. Ill-equipped for competitive examinations, students increasingly depend on a flourishing private coaching industry, where quality preparation is often a function of financial capability. The transition from the right to education to the right education remains an unfinished project.

Higher education presents a different but equally pressing challenge: a severe demand-supply mismatch. Coveted seats in premier institutions are far too few for the millions competing for them, resulting in unhealthy competition and debilitating stress. The problem is compounded by an admission system that places excessive reliance on a single high-stakes examination. Whether it is NEET, JEE, CUET or Class XII board scores, one day’s performance often determines the trajectory of a young life.

Many countries have adopted broader admission frameworks that assess applicants through a combination of school performance, standardised tests, essays, interviews, and extracurricular achievements. Such models may not directly apply to India, but they underscore an important principle: life is a Test match, not a T20 game, and students deserve a second chance. Moving away from single-shot testing toward normalised, multi-attempt examination cycles throughout the year would de-escalate crisis-level stress. Robust safeguards against paper leaks remain indispensable, but their urgency diminishes once the single-examination bottleneck itself is eased.

Employment is vital not merely as a source of income but as a foundation of dignity, purpose, and personal growth. Yet job creation has failed to keep pace with the expanding working-age population. India’s demographic dividend can be realised only through sustained industrialisation and manufacturing-led growth capable of generating employment at scale.

There is a broader lesson here for society. Economic progress requires uninterrupted civic and commercial activity. No ideology, however noble, should be allowed to paralyse everyday life. The right to protest is fundamental, but so is the right to order and peaceful civic life.

Democratic societies must therefore evolve less disruptive modes of dissent, while executive authorities must respond with restraint, proportionality, and non-lethal methods of law enforcement. Violence is unequivocally condemnable, as is excessive force by the state. Equally, indefinite fasts, road blockades, and incendiary rhetoric are inherently confrontational and move us away from reasoned democratic discourse.

The unconventionality of this movement was reflected in Gen Z’s use of social media and humour. A wise person once quipped that "one has to be sincere, not serious"—a principle that seems to have become a way of life for young citizens. Wrapping serious political messaging in tongue-in-cheek satire, their communication was lampooning without being flippant, funny yet far from frivolous.

This represents a distinct break from traditional conversational etiquette. The prude Gen X in me may be appalled by this cock-a-snook attitude, but there is a begrudging appreciation of its efficacy. A strait-laced mindset struggles to resist professing inherited wisdom - can Gen Z learn to distinguish between impishness and irreverence? They say - “be sceptical, not cynical.” In a perfectly parallel mode, the youth may embrace mirth, jettison ribaldry, though.

The executive did eventually respond, albeit under duress. The establishment of fast-track courts, promises of stringent legislation, inquiries to plug loopholes, and action against officials culminated in the much-emphasised resignation of the education minister. One can understand the symbolic value of such a resignation, but symbolism alone is insufficient. The focus must shift from personalities to policy, from political semantics to institutional reform. Deliberations require more light than heat; form must not cloud substance.

The movement leaves Gen Z—and indeed all generations—with important questions to ponder. Does it call for triumphal jubilation or sombre reflection? Peaceful dissent must coexist with the rule of law, functional institutions, and unhindered daily life. Dissent is indispensable to democracy; disruption is not.

(Note: The author is the Managing Editor of Dainik Jagran.)