Politics
14h ago
Crux: When Gen Z crosses the line, should parents share the blame?
New Delhi: The participation of young Indians in recent protests was initially welcomed as evidence that Gen Z was no longer politically indifferent. Parents shared videos of their children joining demonstrations. Political groups celebrated the arrival of a new generation on the streets. Commentators described the protests as spontaneous, energetic and organic. The admiration began to diminish when sections of the same generation started using abusive and provocative language against Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the Armed Forces, Sanatan Dharma, the media and those who disagreed with them. Not every young protester used such language. Nor can an entire generation be judged by the conduct of its most aggressive members. But the controversy raises a difficult question: when young adults cross the boundaries of legitimate dissent, is the responsibility theirs alone, or must parents also examine the cultural upbringing they provided? Are young adults not solely responsible for their conduct? Members of Gen Z participating in political protests are not children without agency. Most are adults who understand that words have social, professional and, in some cases, legal consequences. They choose what to post, repeat and endorse. Political anger cannot become an excuse for threats, dehumanisation or indiscriminate abuse. Holding parents responsible cannot mean absolving adult children of accountability. A 20-year-old cannot claim that every objectionable statement is merely a product of upbringing. However, individual responsibility does not eliminate the influence of the family. Why bring parents into a political controversy? Because political opinions may be acquired independently, but the manner in which disagreement is expressed is often shaped much earlier. Language, restraint, respect for others and the ability to differ without becoming abusive form part of a person’s cultural upbringing, or sanskar. Children absorb these values not only through explicit instruction but also by observing how their parents speak about domestic workers, religious communities, political opponents, women, institutions and people with whom they disagree. Parents cannot decide what their adult children should believe. But it is reasonable to ask whether they helped them learn how to express those beliefs without abandoning basic civility. Does sanskar mean obedience to authority? Cultural upbringing cannot be reduced to unquestioning respect for political leaders, religious authorities or state institutions. Young people must retain the freedom to criticise the Prime Minister, question the conduct of the government, scrutinise the Armed Forces, debate religious practices and challenge established social conventions. Dissent itself is not evidence of poor upbringing. Neither is irreverence. The distinction lies between criticism and abuse, disagreement and dehumanisation, political opposition and threats of violence. Good upbringing should equip a person to challenge authority intelligently rather than prevent them from challenging it at all. Is it fair to say that parents failed to give their children sanskar? Such a conclusion would be too sweeping, as the parents influence their children, but they do not control every source from which young adults acquire language and behaviour. Peers, campuses, political organisations, influencers, online communities and recommendation algorithms all shape political expression. A person raised in a restrained household can still become abusive online. Equally, someone raised amid intolerance can consciously reject it. Parents may therefore share responsibility for the cultural foundations of behaviour, but they cannot be treated as the sole authors of every action taken by an adult child. What role does social media play? Social platforms reward certainty, confrontation and emotional escalation. Nuanced statements rarely travel as widely as insults, dramatic accusations or provocative slogans. Young users also operate in online spaces where approval comes instantly through likes, reposts and supportive comments. The boundary between political participation and performance can consequently disappear. Language that might appear unacceptable in a face-to-face conversation begins to feel normal when repeated by thousands of people inside the same digital community. Anonymity and distance further reduce restraint. People say things online that they may never say directly to another person. The problem is therefore not merely that Gen Z lacks sanskar. It is also that the digital environment continually tests and sometimes overwhelms whatever restraint families and institutions may have taught. Are political leaders and older generations setting the right example? It would be hypocritical for older generations to condemn young people’s language without examining the political culture they helped create. Abusive labels, personal attacks and insinuations have long been used by politicians, television commentators, party supporters and influential public figures across ideological camps. Young people did not invent the idea that humiliation is an effective political weapon. They entered a public sphere in which aggression was already rewarded. Parents may ask where their children learnt such language, but society must also ask what young people have been watching from those occupying positions of power and influence. What should parents do now? Parents should be able to discuss what their adult children are saying publicly, why certain expressions are unacceptable and what consequences may follow. Such conversations will carry greater credibility if parents apply the same standards to their own political side. A parent who objects only when Modi, the Armed Forces or Sanatan Dharma is abused, but ignores similar attacks against minorities, Opposition leaders or ideological rivals, is teaching partisanship rather than civility. Sanskar cannot operate selectively. Respect for human dignity must survive political disagreement. So, who is ultimately responsible? The young person who speaks or posts objectionable words bears the most immediate responsibility. Parents bear responsibility for the values, language and cultural instincts they helped nurture. Schools and colleges bear responsibility for teaching debate without hostility. Political organisations bear responsibility for the rhetoric they encourage. Social-media companies bear responsibility for systems that reward outrage. Older generations bear responsibility for normalising the aggression they now condemn. The issue is therefore neither entirely about Gen Z nor entirely about parenting. It is about a society that welcomed youthful political participation but did not sufficiently distinguish between dissent and degradation. Parents cannot fully disown the language of their children. But neither can politics, educational institutions, technology platforms or the wider culture from which that language emerged. The course correction, therefore, cannot be demanded from Gen Z alone.
