We have had upheavals in canteens to classrooms to campuses. The recent events relating to the elections to the Students’ Unions of the higher educational institutions speak for themselves. Many among us tend to find fault with the political parties and their leaders for politicising the Students’ Unions and, thereby, pigeonholing them, for being utilised for their selfish purposes. But we have to blame ourselves for this. The representatives of the “We the people of India” amended the law regulating the field, granting voting power to all those who have attained or are above the age of eighteen. This class of persons is dominantly in their formative years. If we do not want them appropriately educated and skilled, they are bound to be social liabilities produced in the factories called colleges and universities. From the days of Rajiv Gandhi, those aged eighteen or above have the right to vote. This inevitably attracts the attention of politicians to poach on them to make them pocket boroughs. The corollary is that they become pawns in the chessboard of politics of the different parties. Overtures of political leaders have an impact on this young section of our polity. They become part of the hatchery to be groomed to join the bandwagon later.
This is not a desirable state of affairs. The political parties do not use the power of the fresh and virgin minds of the younger generation to formulate appropriate policies. They merely indoctrinate and create a “flock” for their own benefits. There is no emergence of new ideas and thoughts relating to the removal of the maladies that plague our society. As a result, the crude and exploitative political machinery engulfs the mass of youth power. We should not forget that the highest number of voters is in this category and, probably, the next higher number would be in geriatric category. Both belong to different types of exploited classes.
An analysis of the recent events in our State relating to Students’ Unions elections definitely rings an alarming bell indicating that social equilibrium is distorted. The utterances of the respective candidates before the media do not demonstrate any in-depth introspective thinking on the part of this mass of young generation. The statements are prosaic, hackneyed and appear to be parroted.
This symptom indicates a visible failure on the part of the mass of the youth power and the inherent inability of the political leadership. There is no interaction between the above two classes regarding the future policy that should govern the State for nourishing creative minds and vibrant intellectuals. Instead, the future hopes are tending to turn into non-questioning followers with surrendered minds. This unsettles the feeder source of future leadership and leads to exploitation of a mass of enthusiastic and restless youth power. The role of youth has manifested through overt political activities in rallies of motorbikes and cycles, shouting slogans as the mouthpiece of removed microphones. There is hardly any indicator of participation of the youth power in formulation of meaningful strategies, modalities and pragmatic actions of the political parties. Tokenism of the day overtakes and blurs the prospects of a better tomorrow with new ideas with a corresponding reorientation for the re-emergence of a more just society. The aberrations turn into the order of the day.
The recommendations of the lyngdoh Committee are more or less patterned on what is followed by the Students’ Union of the St Stephen’s College (the alma mater of liyngdoh and this writer). lyngdoh did not take into consideration the impact of the voting power of those who are at or above eighteen years of age. Colleges such as St Stephen’s may have succeeded in preventing intrusive intervention of political parties through their own inner strength and resoluteness. Such institutions have not shut out exchange and expression of ideas directly linked with political affairs. let us notice two old examples. Immediately after his resignation as the Defence Minister after the China War debacle, the students of St Stephen’s were the first ones to invite Mr Krishna Menon to deliver a lecturer and have an interactive session with the students on the “Sino-Indian dispute”. Similarly, the students of this college were the first ones to invite Anna Durai to speak on the “Problems of minorities in India” followed by an interactive session. Instances are galore and every important political leader or thinker stands invited to speak on one occasion or the other. Krishna Menon began his discourse with the preface that the topic was of interest to every Indian, but to him personally, it was one pregnant with embarrassment and sorrow. The distinction between “nationalism” and “jingoism” was elaborated for the first time. One is further reminded of Anna Durai’s opening remarks that he “was thankful to the students of this educational institution to have had the courage to invite the dragon from the South”. A liberal education appropriately guided to a suitable utilisation of the talents of students for its own benefit results in an institution contributing to the growth of the society in almost all its spheres. As on today, St Stephen’s can be proud of providing successful parliamentarians, eminent judges, lawyers/jurists, journalists, writers and sportsmen. This list is not exhaustive and is merely illustrative. But when one looks at the institutions nearer home, they are more like teaching shops without a direction, without adequate intellectual freedom, without an idealistic goal and fraught with denial of opportunities for the growth of the abilities and capabilities of each individual student.
If one analyses the reasons for such a malady, one has to begin with the atmosphere in the family homes of children in their nascent years. There has to be a critical evaluation of the system of schooling and the systems of college and university education. It is strange and sad to find that no analytical deliberation regarding vital issues or significant policy documents like budget or the economic survey of the previous year. Teachers and students, upon inquiry, state that it is not permissible for them to be critical of the policies of the ruling government. This is a preposterous and undesirable state of affairs. These unwanted violations of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution takes way all the meet that great judges (with the aid of great lawyers) put on the skeletons of those Fundamental Rights. An institution should produce thinkers and leaders of all hues so that particular individuals can sustain their views through the dialectics of societal development. They could be leaders generating better leaders, whether they profess to belong to the left, Right or Centre of the political stage.
leadership and guidance in this direction can only come from the elders through their consistent perseverance and a congenial projection through their own deeds and lives. We have driven our teachers to the streets; we have turned them to be agitationists; we have made students into a herd. Every factional political leader is finding a good hunting ground in this fertile field. The position is such as to drive one to be hopeless. But surely, the gears could be changed. There can be a turning point, so as to redirect our focus leading to modifications beneficial to the future generations ensuring their purposive growth. let them not be the rotting and infected limbs of the society. This requires a debate involving home to school to college to university to political party to legislature and, of course, to the overshadowing government. Good governance requires this as a condition precedent. This is a critical need and the neglect thereof would be very costly in the years ahead to our prejudice and peril. It is time we knocked at each other’s doors, gather together, cause a meeting our minds and turn the steering in the right direction. Such a movement towards quiet improvement calls for cohesive and united action. Isolationists must also be persuaded to be involved in this common cause. If each individual has to play his role, each of our social tributaries has to merge and surge together to eventually fortify the national mainstream. This sway cannot exclude or ignore any one of us. And this concerns us all!
(The writer, a Senior Advocate, is a former All India Service officer, a former diplomat, a former editor, a former President of Orissa High Court Bar Association and a former Advocate General of Odisha. jayantdas@hotmail.com)