Gen Z’s Revolt and the Crisis of the Post-Liberalisation Social Contract
SR Darapuri I.P.S.(Retd)
A Critical Reading of Pratap Bhanu Mehta’s “Gen Z’s Parents Have to Answer for Their Politics Which Created This Crisis”
Introduction
The recent mobilisation of Generation Z has acquired a significance that goes well beyond the immediate grievances of students concerning examinations, employment, education and institutional failures. In his article, “Gen Z’s parents have to answer for their politics which created this crisis,” published in The Indian Express on 6 August 2026, Pratap Bhanu Mehta offers a provocative interpretation of this phenomenon. He argues that the anger of young people cannot be understood merely as opposition to a particular government or political leader. Rather, it represents a deeper revolt against a political, economic and institutional order that the previous generation helped create and legitimise.
The argument is particularly important because it shifts the focus from the behaviour of the protesting generation to the historical responsibility of the preceding generation. Gen Z is confronting a world in which the promises made by post-liberalisation India—education, merit, professional advancement, employment and individual mobility—have increasingly lost their credibility. The institutions that were expected to guarantee these opportunities have themselves become objects of distrust.
The significance of this argument becomes even greater when examined through the lens of democracy, constitutional morality and Ambedkarite political thought. The present crisis is not merely one of youth unemployment or examination irregularities. It is a crisis of the relationship between citizens and institutions, between individual aspiration and collective responsibility, and between constitutional democracy and the politics of accommodation.
I. From Political Disillusionment to Institutional Revolt
The first important insight of Mehta's argument is that contemporary student protests should not be dismissed as ordinary political agitation.
The immediate demands may appear modest: fair examinations, employment opportunities, better education, institutional accountability and justice. Yet beneath these demands lies a much more fundamental question:
Can citizens continue to trust institutions that repeatedly fail to deliver what they promise?
This is what gives the protests their wider political significance.
Gen Z has grown up in an India that repeatedly promised that education and merit would provide the route to social advancement. Students were encouraged to study hard, acquire qualifications, compete in examinations and enter professional occupations. The implicit social contract was straightforward:
education would lead to merit; merit would lead to employment; employment would lead to dignity and security.
But that contract has increasingly broken down.
Competitive examinations have become intensely uncertain. Employment opportunities have not kept pace with aspirations. Professional careers have become increasingly precarious. Higher education is often expensive and unequal. Institutions that were expected to operate according to transparent rules are frequently perceived as vulnerable to political influence, bureaucratic arbitrariness or administrative incompetence.
Consequently, the anger of young people is not simply about one examination or one administrative decision. It is an expression of accumulated institutional distrust.
II. The Failure of the Post-Liberalisation Promise
One of the most powerful aspects of Mehta's argument is his criticism of the political assumptions of the post-liberalisation generation.
Economic liberalisation transformed Indian society. It expanded consumer opportunities, created new professional sectors and generated a new aspirational middle class. The dominant message was that individual advancement was possible through education, skill, competition and professional achievement.
The political imagination gradually shifted from collective transformation to individual mobility.
Instead of asking how society could be transformed, individuals were increasingly encouraged to ask:
How can I succeed within the existing system?
This was the age of professionalisation, coaching institutions, technical education, management training and competitive examinations. The individual was expected to become competitive enough to survive the market and bureaucracy.
But this model contained a fundamental weakness. It assumed that institutions themselves would remain sufficiently fair, competent and autonomous.
When institutions began to deteriorate, individual merit could no longer guarantee individual success.
A brilliant student can still fail because an examination system is dysfunctional. A qualified graduate can remain unemployed because sufficient jobs do not exist. A professional can find that institutional advancement depends upon networks and patronage rather than competence.
Thus, the crisis confronting Gen Z is partly the consequence of the collapse of the meritocratic promise.
III. The Politics of Accommodation
Mehta's most provocative charge is directed towards the parents' generation.
According to this argument, the previous generation increasingly embraced a politics of accommodation. Rather than collectively challenging the deterioration of institutions, people learned to navigate them individually.
If an institution was corrupt, one learned how to survive within it.
If employment was scarce, one tried to secure an individual position.
If public institutions deteriorated, one moved towards private alternatives.
If politics became increasingly authoritarian, one avoided confrontation.
If professional institutions lost autonomy, individuals concentrated on protecting their careers.
This produced a culture in which individual adjustment replaced collective resistance.
The consequences have been profound. A society may continue to function when individuals adapt to institutional weaknesses. But the institutions themselves gradually become weaker because there is insufficient collective pressure to reform them.
Careerism can therefore become politically conservative even when the individuals involved consider themselves liberal or progressive.
The tragedy is that a generation may achieve personal success while simultaneously presiding over the deterioration of the institutions on which the next generation depends.
IV. Gen Z and the Rejection of Fear
A striking feature of the present generation is its apparent refusal to accept fear as a normal condition of political life.
Young people are increasingly unwilling to accept the proposition that political authority should simply be obeyed, that institutional injustice should be tolerated, or that citizens should remain silent because confrontation may damage their careers.
This is particularly significant in a democracy.
Democracy is not simply the periodic act of voting. It requires citizens who are capable of questioning authority.
A society in which citizens are permanently afraid of institutions cannot sustain meaningful democracy, even if elections continue to be held.
The student protest therefore represents a psychological transformation as much as a political one.
The young are effectively saying:
We were told to work hard and compete fairly. If the rules themselves are unfair, why should we remain silent?
This question has implications far beyond student politics.
V. The Crisis of Institutions
At the heart of the present crisis lies the deterioration of institutional credibility.
Universities, examination bodies, public-service commissions, courts, regulatory institutions, news organisations, civil services and professional bodies perform different functions, but they share one fundamental responsibility: they must maintain standards independently of arbitrary political or private interests.
When these institutions become compromised, citizens lose faith not only in individual institutions but in the system as a whole.
The problem is particularly serious for young people because they encounter institutions at precisely the moment when their future depends upon them.
A student preparing for years for a competitive examination is not merely preparing for a test. That examination represents a promise that the state will evaluate citizens according to publicly known and reasonably fair rules.
When that promise is broken, the damage is psychological as well as material.
It communicates that effort may not necessarily produce justice.
That is a dangerous message for any democracy.
VI. The Parents' Generation and Historical Responsibility
The title of Mehta's article deliberately places responsibility on the parents.
This does not mean that every parent individually created the present crisis. Rather, it is a critique of a broader political generation.
The previous generation benefited from institutions that were stronger in important respects, while simultaneously allowing many of those institutions to weaken.
It accepted compromises in the name of pragmatism.
It accepted political accommodation in the name of stability.
It accepted professional compromise in the name of career advancement.
It accepted institutional decline because individuals could still find ways to survive.
But what was manageable for one generation became existential for the next.
This is why the Gen Z revolt can be interpreted as a generational indictment.
Young people are asking their parents:
What kind of society have you left us?
Why have institutions become so unreliable?
Why is education no longer a secure route to employment?
Why have public institutions lost credibility?
Why should we accept as normal what you tolerated as accommodation?
These are not merely economic questions. They are questions of political morality.
VII. An Ambedkarite Interpretation
The argument becomes especially compelling when viewed through the intellectual framework of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.
For Ambedkar, democracy was not merely a constitutional mechanism. It was fundamentally a way of life based upon liberty, equality and fraternity.
Institutions could not remain democratic merely because they possessed democratic names. Their functioning had to reflect constitutional values.
This is the significance of constitutional morality.
Constitutional morality requires citizens and institutions to respect the principles underlying the Constitution even when doing so is inconvenient for those in power.
From an Ambedkarite perspective, therefore, the Gen Z crisis is not simply a crisis of employment or examinations. It is a crisis of institutional justice.
If opportunities are formally open but practically inaccessible, equality becomes hollow.
If institutions operate according to arbitrary power rather than established rules, the rule of law becomes fragile.
If citizens cannot question authority without fear, liberty becomes diminished.
If social groups retreat into individual survival rather than collective responsibility, fraternity becomes weakened.
The Gen Z revolt can consequently be interpreted as a demand to restore the substantive meaning of democracy.
VIII. From Individual Mobility to Collective Action
Perhaps the most important political lesson emerging from the crisis is that individual mobility cannot substitute for institutional reform.
A society cannot solve structural problems simply by encouraging individuals to become more competitive.
If millions compete for a tiny number of jobs, the solution cannot merely be to make individuals more skilled competitors.
If examination systems are unreliable, the solution cannot simply be to make students study harder.
If public institutions are politically compromised, the solution cannot be individual avoidance.
Structural problems require structural responses.
This is precisely where collective political action becomes important.
The post-liberalisation model encouraged people to think of themselves primarily as individuals seeking advancement. The Gen Z protests may mark a return to the idea that individual futures depend upon collective institutions.
A student protesting an examination irregularity is therefore not merely defending personal interests. They may also be defending the principle that public institutions must operate fairly.
IX. The Connection with Contemporary Democratic Protest
This perspective also helps illuminate contemporary protests in places such as Jantar Mantar.
The significance of such protests cannot be reduced to the personalities of political leaders or to the immediate demands of demonstrators. They raise broader questions concerning the right to dissent, freedom of assembly, police accountability and the constitutional relationship between citizens and the state.
When citizens gather peacefully to challenge governmental or institutional conduct, the democratic response should not be to regard dissent as an inconvenience.
The state must recognise dissent as an essential component of democratic life.
An institution that cannot tolerate criticism becomes increasingly insulated from accountability. And an insulated institution eventually risks becoming unresponsive to the people whom it is supposed to serve.
The challenge, therefore, is not merely to change governments but to restore institutional accountability.
X. The Limits of Political Change
Mehta's argument also contains an important warning against reducing the entire crisis to one political party or government.
Changing political leadership may be necessary in particular circumstances, but it cannot by itself repair institutions.
The deeper problem is the gradual erosion of institutional autonomy and professional ethics.
Universities need academic autonomy.
Civil servants need professional independence.
Examination bodies need credibility.
Courts need institutional integrity.
Regulatory bodies need independence.
The media needs editorial autonomy.
Professional organisations need ethical standards.
Without these institutional safeguards, democracy becomes increasingly dependent upon the goodwill of those temporarily occupying positions of power.
That is dangerous because democracy requires institutions that can constrain power, not merely institutions that exercise power.
XI. The Meaning of the Gen Z Revolt
The Gen Z revolt therefore represents something larger than generational conflict.
It is a confrontation between two political philosophies.
The first says:
Adapt to the system, secure your career and protect your individual interests.
The second says:
If the system is unjust or dysfunctional, change the system.
The first philosophy produced stability for some but also facilitated institutional decline.
The second is more disruptive, but it contains the possibility of democratic renewal.
This is why the protests should not automatically be dismissed as youthful impatience or political manipulation.
They may instead represent the emergence of a new political consciousness—one that is unwilling to accept the inherited boundaries of accommodation.
XII. Towards a Democratic Renewal
The challenge now is to convert anger into constructive democratic politics.
Protest by itself cannot rebuild institutions. It must eventually generate a programme for institutional reform.
Such a programme could include:
1. Transparent and accountable examination systems.
2. Greater institutional autonomy for universities and public bodies.
3. Protection of professional standards from political interference.
4. Expansion of dignified employment opportunities.
5. Strengthening of public education.
6. Greater transparency in recruitment and public appointments.
7. Protection of peaceful assembly and dissent.
8. Independent mechanisms for accountability of public authorities.
9. Reassertion of constitutional morality in public administration.
10. A renewed emphasis on equality, liberty and fraternity..
Most importantly, young people must not be forced to choose between career and citizenship.
A healthy democracy should allow citizens to pursue professional success while also participating in collective efforts to improve society.
Conclusion: A Generation Asking for Its Future Back
The fundamental significance of the Gen Z protests lies in the question they place before the previous generation:
What kind of democracy, economy and institutional order are we leaving behind for those who come after us?
The young are not necessarily demanding the destruction of the existing order. In many cases, they are demanding that its promises be taken seriously.
They were promised education, but demand fair educational institutions.
They were promised meritocracy, but demand fair examinations.
They were promised employment, but demand meaningful opportunities.
They were promised democracy, but demand the right to dissent.
They were promised constitutional equality, but demand institutions that actually embody it.
The irony is that the generation now protesting inherited a system in which individual accommodation was often presented as the safest path to success. But Gen Z increasingly appears unwilling to accept that bargain.
Its message is potentially profound:
We do not want merely to learn how to survive dysfunctional institutions; we want institutions worthy of our trust.
Seen through an Ambedkarite lens, this is not simply a generational revolt. It is a struggle over the meaning of democracy itself. Ambedkar warned that political democracy could not survive indefinitely without social and economic democracy. The contemporary crisis suggests another dimension of that warning: constitutional democracy cannot survive if citizens lose faith in the institutions through which constitutional values are supposed to be realised.
The responsibility, therefore, belongs not only to the young protesters or to the government of the day. It belongs to an entire political generation.
The real challenge is to transform anger into democratic reconstruction, protest into institutional reform, and generational conflict into a renewed social contract.
The Gen Z revolt may consequently prove to be less a rebellion against the past than a demand for the right to shape India's democratic future.
