Youth discontent and the changing face of protest

Why in news?

Across the world, new forms of rebellion and revolt by the masses are emerging especially led by youth. The author has analysed their nature and cautioned against any complacency while dealing with them.

UPSC Relevance

GS2, Pressure Groups and Formal/Informal Associations and their Role in the Polity.

Characteristics of Modern Youth Uprisings

M.K. Narayanan, has noted that the nature of recent youth uprisings is characterized by a fundamental belief among Gen Z that disruption is essential to dismantle an old order incapable of handling modern challenges.

• Erosion of Institutional Trust: Today’s youth feel that traditional democratic institutions, checks and balances, and political parties are failing to represent their interests or address systemic issues. As a result, youth are taking matters into their own hands rather than relying on established political processes.
• Driven by Discontent with Governance: Rather than abstract ideology alone, protests are sparked by concrete issues like the mismanagement of public examinations, employment security, recruitment irregularities, and perception of corruption.
• Role of Digital Platforms: Modern agitation is amplified by digital platforms and social media, which rapidly expand the reach, speed, and connectivity of youth movements.
• Spontaneous and Less Structured: Recent movements tend to be less hierarchically structured and more spontaneous compared to traditional political protests.

Examples 

• Nepal and Bangladesh: In India’s neighborhood, student and youth upheavals recently escalated to the point of ousting long-established regimes. 
• Exam & Recruitment Issues : Student unrest in states like Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, and Bihar has centered around examination irregularities (such as the NEET controversy). 
• The Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) Sit-in:  While smaller in scale than the revolutions in Nepal or Bangladesh, serves as an indicator of pent-up fury among students over institutional failures and suspected corruption/collusion in national entrance exams.

Parallelism Between Naxalism and Youth Uprisings

• Small Beginnings Escalating into “Prairie Fires”: The author highlights how Naxalism began as a small “spring thunder” in Naxalbari in the late 1960s before spreading across vast parts of India. Similarly, modern student protests may start small but carry the potential for widespread rebellion.
  • If authorities ignore youth anger or use indiscriminate force, separate localized protests can shift the focus from specific educational or recruitment grievances to a broader rebellion against authority and democratic governance per se.
• Attracting the Youth and Intellectuals: Just as Naxalism persuaded India’s “best and brightest” students, intelligentsia, and working class into its fold, current agitations are capturing the minds of Gen Z and young people across different regions.
• Vulnerable to extremist takeover: The author notes that spokesperson groups associated with extreme ideologies (like “dimagi Naxals”) are already referring to new youth protest movements (like the CJP) as their  “siblings,” showing how radical elements seek to co-opt and misuse youth anger.

Strategy Adopted by the Government So Far

• Indiscriminate and Mindless Force: Authorities and state governments tend to deploy force meant for unruly and violent mobs against peaceful student agitators.
• Delegitimization and Labelling: A common tactic—seen both in India and neighboring regions—is branding protestors as “foreign agents,” “anti-nationals,” “traitors,” or linking them to radical groups like “Naxals” to discredit their grievances.
• Knee-Jerk Reactive Measures: Rather than resolving root issues, state responses often involve extreme reactive decisions (e.g., Jharkhand’s Chief Minister scrapping recruitment examinations entirely), which the author characterizes as “throwing the baby out with the bathwater”.
• Dismissal of Threat: Authorities often maintain that major subversions (like Naxalism) are “dead,” missing how small localized sparks can re-ignite wider unrest.

Are these protests unconstitutional ?

• Article 19(1)(a): Guarantees freedom of speech and expression, enabling citizens to express opinions, dissent, and criticize government policies.
• Article 19(1)(b): Guarantees the right to assemble peaceably and without arms.
• Article 19(1)(c): Guarantees the right to form associations or unions, enabling collective organizing for demonstrations.
• Reasonable Restrictions (Articles 19(2) & 19(3)): These fundamental rights are not absolute. The State can impose reasonable restrictions in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, public order, decency, morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offense.
• Fundamental Duty (Article 51A(i)): Mandates every citizen to safeguard public property and abjure violence during agitations.

Supreme Court Judgments

• Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police (1973): Held that citizens have a basic right to hold public meetings on public streets, and the state’s power to regulate public assemblies cannot extend to a complete prohibition.
• Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary (2012): Ruled that peaceful protest is a fundamental right that cannot be curtailed by arbitrary executive or legislative action. The Court emphasized that peaceful assembly is a cornerstone of democratic governance.
• Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) v. Union of India (2018): Stripped down a blanket ban on protests at Jantar Mantar, holding that police must balance the rights of protesters with the rights of local residents by establishing designated protest zones.
• Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police / Shaheen Bagh Judgment (2020): Affirmed the right to protest, but ruled that public spaces and roads cannot be occupied indefinitely, as the right to protest must be balanced against the right of commuters to free movement.

Strategy Recommended by the Author (M.K. Narayanan)

The author argues for a proactive, perceptive, and constructive approach to curb the erosion of public trust:

• Comprehend the True Nature of Discontent: Leading political figures must recognize the warning signs early and acknowledge that youth anger stems from genuine institutional failures, and systemic corruption rather than mere law-and-order issues.
• Restraint in Force: Authorities must refrain from using indiscriminate force, which only triggers a backlash against all forms of authority.
• Prevent Protests from Coalescing: The primary objective should be to address individual, localized grievances before different forms of protest coalesce into a broader anti-government wave.
• Rebuild Democratic Faith (“Reset the Compass”): All political parties—both government and opposition—must adopt measures to restore youth faith in democratic processes, institutional safeguards, and governance systems.

Practice Question 

Q. Examine how institutional trust deficits and governance failures drive modern youth unrest. How can the State balance law enforcement with constructive engagement to prevent such agitations from threatening democratic stability? (15 Marks | 250 Words)