Youth on political landscape

AVIJIT PATHAK

Sociologist

It is impossible to deny the fact that many of us tend to look at the mainstream electoral politics with heightened cynicism. Despite the ritualisation of periodic elections and even transfer of power, the ground reality does not alter fundamentally. We continue to live amid socio-economic inequality, culture of violence and elaborate network of corruption. Hence, there are moments when we wish to believe that if young minds join the political domain, we might see a new language of political activism— a qualitative change from the prevalent decadence. This is hope amid despair. And hence, it is not surprising that at this time of elections in Bihar, many media persons and political analysts have begun to ask whether young politicians like Tejashwi Yadav, Chirag Paswan and Kanhaiya Kumar would be able to bring about some refreshing change.

Some have managed to retain their consciousness, but will they succumb to efforts to isolate or co-opt them?

Well, it is not wrong to have hope in the youth. Quite often, we associate this stage of the life-cycle with creative zeal, radical experimentation and boundless energy. And it is also true that the youth have often participated in radical socio-political movements—and at times, with heightened idealism and spirit of rebelliousness. For example, the youth movement of the 1960s in the West (with its quest for a ‘counter culture’), the Naxalite movement in India (and we know how brilliant/idealist youngsters from our colleges and universities failed to resist the dream of a grand revolution), the protest against Indira Gandhi’s Emergency: these are striking illustrations that, as an optimist would say, make us feel that to be young is to rebel and dream; or to say ‘yes’ to solidarity and comradeship, and ‘no’ to hatred and exploitation.

Possibly, this is the time for yet another storm or another breakthrough. After all, what exists in the name of mainstream politics is brute, immoral and exploitative. Let us think of its three negative manifestations. First, the criminalisation of politics, or the use of money and muscle power has almost been normalised. This has nothing to do with what Gandhi—the father of the mass political movement in India—regarded as the unity of the political and the spiritual. Second, it is a politics of diversion. In a country characterised by malnutrition, child labour and school dropouts; poverty and unemployment; and caste exploitation and gender violence, the real issues of collective concern are seldom talked about. Instead, in the name of narrow/fragmented identity politics (excite or stimulate the voter only in the name of caste, and keep calculating the mathematics of Yadav/Jatav/Brahmin votes for promoting the narcissism of Machiavellian leaders) and exclusivist religious nationalism (make a poor Hindu believe that a poor Muslim is his primary enemy; and meanwhile, let the Adanis and the Ambanis expand their business empire as usual), the real struggle for an egalitarian and nonviolent social landscape is almost forgotten. In a politics of this kind, there is neither Marx nor Gandhi; and even Ambedkar or Lohia would have felt disappointed had they seen the politics of the likes of Mayawati or Akhilesh Yadav. And third, it is purely instrumental politics. It is just the craving for immediate power that, as we are witnessing rather frequently in the name of ‘defection’, transforms a politician into a commodity for sale. The Congress today, the BJP tomorrow: this circus reveals the death of commitment to an ideology or conviction for a cause. Is it the reason that average citizens expect nothing from their representatives, beyond some small ‘favours’: say, a gas connection, or the child’s admission in the Kendriya Vidyalaya!

The moot question is whether the youth can change this politics. In fact, when we reflect on the young faces on the political landscape over the years, we see the continuity of dynastic politics—not limited merely to the Nehru-Gandhi family. Will it be wrong to say that from Omar Abdullah to Jyotiraditya Scindia, or from Sachin Pilot to Tejashwi Yadav, they all inherited politics as some sort of private property? This privilege often deprived them of evolving an organic connectedness with ordinary people and their broken dreams and miseries. They might be ‘successful’ and closer to power, but this by no means assures that they exist to bring new values in politics. Hence, it is not very easy to be an optimist and believe that a young Yadav or a Paswan, for instance, has come to alter Bihar’s caste-centric/feudal/poverty-stricken social milieu.

However, we are also witnessing the arrival of new youth leaders who have evolved through social movements. For instance, Kanhaiya Kumar and Jignesh Mevani have brought some freshness in the political discourse with their critical orientation to the issues relating to the state of the subaltern, and violence implicit in the discourse of militant nationalism. Possibly, unlike the non-reflexive young crowd heavily manipulated by shrewd and dishonest political bosses and their empty slogans, they have managed to retain their intellectual clarity and critical consciousness. But then, it is too early to say whether the system would allow them to function; or whether all efforts will be made to isolate or co-opt them.

Well, in recent times, we have also witnessed young students who came on the streets, reimagined Gandhi, Ambedkar and Bhagat Singh, and reminded us of what we are fast losing in the age of rising authoritarianism: the spirit of cultural and religious pluralism, human dignity and fundamental rights. Will some of them join politics in a more engaged way? Or who knows, as the epidemic of sedition charges indicates, their voices might be silenced?