If the Centre Does Not Respond to the Gen-Z Roar, Its Downfall Will Be Inevitable

In a democracy, elections are important, but public discontent is an equally significant signal. When young people take to the streets and express their anguish, it should not be viewed as just another protest. It is a serious warning that society sends to the governing system. A single incident, an examination, a recruitment process, or an administrative decision alone does not create a mass movement. It is only when years of accumulated frustration, lack of opportunities, unemployment, doubts over transparency, and declining trust in government institutions come together that the voice of the youth transforms into a movement.

India has the largest youth population in the world. This is both the country's greatest strength and its greatest responsibility. Every year, millions of young people complete higher education and enter the job market. However, employment opportunities are not growing at the same pace. Delays in government recruitment, vacancies remaining unfilled for years, and recurring controversies over the conduct of examinations have created deep frustration among young people. When a family makes enormous financial sacrifices for a child's education, only to see years of hard work end in uncertainty, it is not merely an individual's failure. It becomes a social problem that weakens public trust in the system.

Youth protests should not be viewed only through the lens of law and order. The Constitution guarantees citizens the right to peaceful protest. People's right to question the government, hold it accountable, and demand policy changes is not a weakness of democracy. It is, in fact, the true strength of democracy. If a government chooses only to suppress public questions instead of listening to them, temporary peace may appear to prevail, but the underlying discontent will only grow stronger.

History repeatedly teaches us the same lesson. Suppression does not solve problems; it only allows them to return in a more complex and serious form.

The response of different sections of society is also significant. When academics, intellectuals, writers, social activists, and former officials extend their support to a public movement, it indicates that the issue is not merely an emotional reaction to a single incident. It reflects growing concern within society about the functioning of democratic institutions, government policies, and public trust.

In this context, the role of the opposition is equally important. Just as it is wrong to exploit public issues for political gain, it is equally wrong to remain detached from people's movements. In a democracy, while the ruling party is responsible for governance, the opposition has the responsibility of amplifying the voice of the people. But if public anger is being expressed on the streets while political parties remain confined to electoral calculations, public trust in the entire political system will eventually suffer.

Democracy does not end with the act of casting a vote. People must have confidence in constitutional and public institutions such as the Election Commission, the judiciary, the education system, recruitment agencies, and the media. When that trust declines, democracy may continue in form, but its spirit becomes weak. Therefore, these institutions must strictly uphold the three fundamental principles of transparency, impartiality, and accountability. Once people lose confidence in institutions, rebuilding that trust becomes an extremely difficult task.

Portraying youth movements merely as acts of anti-nationalism, riots, or political conspiracies only worsens the situation. Every movement may contain different opinions, and some political forces may attempt to influence it. Nevertheless, ignoring the real issues that gave rise to the movement is not responsible governance. It is the government's duty to identify and resolve the root causes of the problem. Responding only through propaganda instead of providing answers to people's questions weakens the democratic culture.

The experience of many countries around the world offers a clear lesson. If youth dissatisfaction continues to grow, it eventually leads to political and social change. Whether that change remains peaceful or turns confrontational largely depends on the attitude of those in power. Dialogue, transparency, timely decisions, and responsible governance strengthen democracy through public movements. But if arrogance, neglect, and suppression become the primary tools of governance, public faith in democracy gradually erodes.

Under these circumstances, what the country urgently needs is not to view young people as adversaries, but as partners. Clear policies from education to employment, complete transparency in recruitment, technological safeguards in the conduct of examinations, timely filling of vacancies, and strengthening the independence of public institutions are the only lasting solutions.

A government that respects the aspirations of its youth is the one that can truly secure the future.

Ultimately, the real strength of democracy does not lie in the number of those in power, but in the trust of the people. When the voice of the youth is raised, it should not be treated with hostility. Instead, it should be seen as an opportunity for democracy to correct itself. Governments that seize such opportunities earn a place of honor in history. Those that ignore them only deepen public dissatisfaction and weaken the very political foundations they have built. Therefore, the answer is not to suppress the voice of the youth, but to understand it. That alone is the true measure of democratic maturity.