Title not given

The days of heady ideology are gone. The seventies, as is often acknowledged, were the heydays of student politics; the extreme manifestation being when thousands gave up their careers and lives in the Naxal revolution. Since then, an encounter with the practical limitations of changing the world, a growing disillusionment with political machinery and the new urban affluence since the nineties have been cited, very broadly, as reasons for decreasing involvement, particularly in the urban middle class. Yet, it is not that socio-political issues affecting the youth have disappeared, or the need to take stands and voice opinions is not felt. This article aims to examine the orientation of students towards politics today within the limited arena of this college. I chose to interview some Stephanians of diverse backgrounds to substantiate the conclusions drawn. Political consciousness and involvement are taken in broader senses than party politics, awareness of issues both broadly social and pertaining specifically to politics, and involvement ranging from participation in talks or discussion to more militant protest modes. Is such awareness on the wane amongst students today? Most of those interviewed felt that the problem was more with involvement than consciousness. Nayantara Nag (III History), commented on an ‘increasing apathy’ when it came to taking definite steps. To a certain extent, she felt, this could be explained by the corruption in the bureaucracy. Vidhya Raveendranathan (II History) felt that the extent of involvement was less in places like St. Stephen’s than in say the Arts Faculty or JNU. This is not only a matter of involvement in political parties and unions which would obviously  be greater in the latter places, but also because of a complacency in the attitude of many students here towards socio-political involvement. Prerna Humphal (II English), felt that people were willing to criticise but step back in terms of solutions, while Swarnim Bhardwaj (II Economics), felt that nobody was willing to take responsibility and accountability. Another question was that of the ideal mode and extent of student involvement in politics. Perhaps surprisingly, most of those interviewed did not feel that mere participation in talks and discussions such as those provided by various platforms in this college was enough. More strident activism is needed. For example, marches or demonstrations, these imply urgency, according to Rithu Thomas (II English). Vidhya shared this view, emphasising the ‘need to put pressure in right places’. She mentioned the case of the molestation of a girl in the U-special last year, which students had taken up and politicised, agitating before the Sports Council office to bring the perpetrators to justice. Prerna felt that petitions addressed to authorities or signature campaigns addressing immediate issues were necessary to make the authorities realise that the youth is aware and involved. Vandana Scolt (II English), however, commented that while it was necessary to show political consciousness through such means, they were bound to be ineffective beyond a certain point. Nayantara advocated involvement in terms of constructive work around specific issues, such as working through NGOs rather than addressing an unresponsive system, which would ensure nothing for the future. There was universal distaste for parties or unions as platforms. It would be highly difficult to achieve anything, felt Vandana, given “the kind of people you have to work with.” Lastly, how do Stephanians feel about negotiating career and studies with socio-political involvement? Vidhya comments on a trend among students to see these as dichotomous and to exclusively prioritise the former. But she does not herself see them as necessarily opposed, and feels that the very point of being a responsible citizen is lost if one keeps out of involvement, offering career building as an excuse. Bhavya Dore (I English) also sees them as negotiable, although she admits herself being a more passive person. Rithu does not see them as clashing except in cases of party politics, which is not the kind of involvement supported in the first place. Vandana, who is herself preparing for CAT, sees socio-political consciousness as an integral component of studying the Humanities, but does feel that serious socio-political involvement cannot go with career-building (unless one is in the social sector itself) given today’s competitive world and the demands made on one’s time by both options. Within the limited purview of this article, what then becomes clear is that any blanket statement on youth and politics, such as even the one I started with, does not work given the diversity of opinions expressed within. However, there do seem to be certain points of consensus-the need for greater action, the awareness of there being something lacking in involvement as it stands today. What I found surprising was the almost universal support for activism over mere dissemination of awareness through college platforms. This is itself a comment on Stephanian student culture, and reflects a trend that seeks something different. Maybe this will become even more robust in the future, because for the present, this article itself is very much contained within an accepted space and in that sense, is an ironical comment on the ideas contained within.

Aniruddha Dutta
II English