By – Amar Yumnam
Before the turn of the century, the thinking about youths was a one-tracked way of equipping them with capabilities of one form or the other and leave the rest to them. There were little discussion and debate on youth policy. But the shared and the contextual uncertainties of social, gender dynamics, economic, technological, appreciation of political realities and manner of interpersonal relationships have risen. A 2021 ILO study emphasised: “Although there are great differences across regions….the magnitude of difficulties that young persons are experiencing in accessing labour markets [is rising]. But it is an evolving problem. In times of crisis, youth are often the first and worst hit. This is borne out by the experience of young workers during the 2008–09 financial crisis and even more so now in the COVID-19 pandemic-induced economic crisis. While many young workers are losing their jobs because they are over-represented in the hard-hit sectors and in the informal economy, the commonly used indicator of the so-called “youth labour market problem” – the open unemployment rate – seems increasingly to be less accurate in reflecting the situation. Many more young people are employed in work that is vulnerable, informal and insecure, and during crises, the situation gets worse. The share of youth in working poverty is growing larger.” The Generation Z (born between 1996 and 2010) have naturally emerged as a very conscious and emphatic youth group in this regard.
Coming to the characteristics of Generation Z, a McKinsey Explainers put: this generation “are generally more pragmatic, with both complicated idealism and worries for the future. Gen Zers dream of personal career fulfilment but expect economic struggles. They have less positive life outlooks, with lower levels of emotional and social well-being than older generations. They are more interested in belonging to an inclusive, supportive community. They are more individualistic, with a stronger sense of personal expression. They are more politically and socially active, advocating for what they believe on social media.” “As the first real digital natives, Gen Zers—speaking generally—are extremely online. Gen Zers are known for working, shopping, dating, and making friends online; in Asia, Gen Zers spend six or more hours per day on their phones.” They are very conscious of the sustainability and gender issues too. They feel and face rising uncertainty with a sense of distrust and decline in the institutional values associating the key agencies of the country.
Before passing, I would like to emphasise that the recent examination fiascos and terming them as cockroaches and parasites have only deepened their reduced sense of institutional credibility. While the Kothari Commission (1962-64) have wonderfully guided the nation on how to go about Education, we have come seven decades with that and the country more than needs a new commission. The casualness during the last decade or so right from the Primary Stage to the appointment of Vice Chancellors can no longer be the norm for Education Policy. Education is a very serious matter and it cannot be left to the whims of a Minister or the party in power nor can it be left to an individual know-all academic. Two Commissions should now sooner be constituted – one for the school level and another for the higher education. These should invariably possess certain qualities: I. The Commissions should at least have ten or more Members; II. The Members should not be anyone who became ‘Expert’ during the last decade; III. Experts from well-known international institutes from abroad should be included; IV. The genuineness of experts should be unlike in the case of Demographic Committee; V. The recent policy actions of considering long experiences as Registrars in a university as Education experts should in no condition be continued; and VI. The Reports should be subjected to widespread debate and discussions instead of implementing the Recommendations in a pick and choose manner.
Mircea Eliade thought time as “the supreme ambiguity of the human condition” in his Youth Without Youth, but the revelations by the strong and immediate reaction against the terming of youths as ‘Cockroaches’ meant unrevealable implications. The Judiciary has incurred a cost of an innate feeling of decline in respectability particularly among the Zers.
The institutions of governance in the country should by now fully realise that a multi-dimensional policy on youths coupled by sincere implementation can no longer be postponed realising that “young people are much more than students – for many of them the other aspects of their lives are even more important – and so our ability to bridge the gap between policy and practice in education depends on our readiness to take those other priorities and interests seriously.”
