Clash not class calling Indian youth

June 23, 2010

A British Research Scholar on an Indian visit recently asked me as to how the Indian students, known to be politically volatile and radical in their approach, are more reactive than pro-active to society at large. He was referring to some news clips about intolerance and violence in the Indian universities. The general inference was that in the campus many violent incidents have been witnessed in the past and many more appear to be in the pipeline. University and violence have become synonymous in this part of the world, he suggested.

I must admit here that even though I defended the Indian youth with instances right from a successful JP Movement to the exemplary service by a few young parliamentarians, like Rahul Gandhi, deep down I knew that he was stating the obvious. The Indian youth today seems to be rebel without a cause and pause. The legacy of youth upsurge that toppled the might of the ruling Congress party to dust in the seventies has not been channelised into constructive politics.

The Indian universities are today exposed to the unfortunate reality of mindless violence. Student politics has seen its rock bottom in terms of quality leadership for the future. The phenomenon of violence in Indian universities has actually invited scholars to widen the concept of violence by including in it the concept of institutional violence or structural violence. In the context of Indian society universities have, no doubt, acted as the most vulnerable institutional structure to contribute to the growth of violence.

However, this analysis is not confined at all with the occurrence of violence on the university campus. The sole purpose here is to see how violence in India is related to the role performed by universities. I remember a decade back the brutal killing of CPI (ML) student leader Chandrashekhar Prasad was overtly projected as an attack on the youth politics at large. It was due to an eye over the vote bank on the university campus that the young leader was publicised as more of a student leader than a CPI (ML) activist. The local CPI (ML) leader in Bihar Shyam Narain Yadav was also killed in the same firing in Siwan, but his killing was never a selling point to provoke resentment. But a name linked with the university became so.

The reason for this may be traced in the very nature of our centralised politics, which leads to the formation of a strong central leadership demanding loyalty. This structure in which “Yes Boss” flows from the top to bottom is prevalent in the whole society. Within the universities also loyalty towards power-holders becomes a value. Vice Chancellors are appointed in the universities on the basis of their loyalty to the party in power in general and chief minister in particular. Vice-chancellors, in turn, demand loyalty from the teachers and the teachers from the students. This produces an atmosphere of flattery, sycophancy and intellectual servility.

Moreover, all attempts for educational reforms, meant for using education to improve the lives of individuals, have so far resulted in the rejection of prevailing values and beliefs, including more particularly notions like honesty, duty and discipline. Our universities are, at best, academic cafeterias offering junk food to young minds. At worst, they are breeding grounds of corruption, indiscipline, dishonesty and irresponsibility.

Young men and women, who come out of the universities without a developed critical faculty, are seen by business and government organisations as an asset, for they believe in ends, not means. A corporate boss has constantly to engage in activities which require shrewd execution. Politicians also need shrewd administrators. What people in power desire is loyalty for themselves and the ability to get things done by hook or by crook. Hence, a questioning mind, a spirit for novelty, creativity and scrupulousness has all been relegated to subordination.

The effect of economic inequality on educational institutions has also been conducive to violence. Two particular instances of it may be noted. First, it perpetuates the mass elite gap in India. Children of the upper social strata of greater access to higher education than those of lower strata. Secondly, it has intensified group conflicts. Legislation that gives special privilege to castes and tribes has encouraged many communities to claim more seats in colleges and administrative services, leading to clashes between the backward and forward castes.

Universities are contributing to violence in a subtle way also. The establishment of various regional universities has led to the growth of regional, local and parochial forces rather than a sense of nationalism. The same goes true with the universities and institutions meant for the minority communities as well.

Gone are the days when discipline and non-violence were written with a sunbeam on every student’s mind. Gone are also the days when universities produced students equipped with knowledge, culture, sympathy and fired with devotion to duty. Universities today are producing another kind of fiery lot who are sullenly moving with alcohol in their bodies, guns in their hands and hatred in their heart.