Today's Youth in No Man's Land
Crossroads of Culture
The middle class of modern India was a product of the British rule of the country created in the latter’s "own image". The creation, after growing in size and status, also turned into the very negation of the creator. It, however, really came into its own with the winning of the Indian Independence. With Jawaharlal Nehru’s call for rapid industrialisation after the achievement of the political independence, came the need for technicians and managers to manage the factories and institutions. Like the middle classes in the classic capitalist growth had taken over the reins of the industrial sector, the Indian middle classes too were drawn into the process of industrialisation.
A number of engineering and management institutes were created that reared the first generation of technocrats and managers who would take the country fast track into the industrial age.
The book under review is a study of students of the prestigious Indian Institute of Management, Ahemdabad spanning about 20 years. The study is based primarily on the answers to the authors’ questionaires but also on the authors’ own observations. It seeks out to study the cultural context and social attitudes that generations of would-be-managers have experienced in the rapid transition from an agrarian- feudal to an industrial- capitalist transformation of the Indian soceity.
Various historical and religious conditions had led to the development of an idelogy of non- interference, non- aggression and statis which permitted an individual to reinforce his individual orientation but within a closed stucture. The new ethos brought about by Western education and rapid industrial development clased with it. While the generation between 1880 and 1920 could resolve the conflict because of the more or less stable social organisation. It could , therefore, weave meaningful strands of European thought into the fabric of the Indian social system.
Ideas regarding equality, democracy, social justice, education and scientific inquiry became the stimuli for reconstruction of the social fabric of Indian soceity. Rationality, objectivity, concern for the fate of the common man and universalisation of education became commitments for action.
In the early 1950’s, however, the focus of models of growth shifted from Europe to the USA. In this shift, the current generation lost touch with the deeper philosophy and thought of Europe and was fed on techno- informative knowledge, behavioural dynamics and conspicuous consumption of Amrican behaviour patterns. Knowledge increasingly became purely techno- informative.
The generation that has grown up in the last 25 years, the authors assert, has absorbed the development ideology of Nehru and like him put faith in science and technology. The current generation had been denied the exposure to the religio- philosophic ethos, an awareness of the social design, and the understanding of the heritage of the past.
The ideas imbibed from from a highly Westernised education led to a corresponding expectation from the Indian system, which, however, was very different from that of the soil on which this ethos had grown, namely the industrial capitalist Europe.This led to a disenchantment with the system as it failed to match the rising expectations of the middle classes. While at an earlier stage this had led to the educated elite to join with and organise with the common masses against the common enemy, the British Raj, after the establishment of Swaraj, it led to various forms of delinquencies, from drug addiction to violent Naxalism to the final final disownment of the system and migration to the West (‘brain drain’).
The decision makers and planners continued in their attempts to emulate the borrowed models of the West and blamed the culture and the people for the limited success of models in Indian soceity. Technological developments fragmented the space of work and social living and disturbed the structure of authority of Indian agrarian society. Individuals were faced with a conflict, they could not concretise the actions demanded from their S&T development in a highly agrarian social context.
The traditional power stuctures displayed a willingness to accept new forms, while discouraging new processes. This allowed for very little scope for action from the ethos of S&T development. These individuals chose the softer option of imitating Western modes of social behaviour- consumer display of an acquisitive and extravagant lifestyle without undergoing the pain and ecstasy of a Renaissance.
Overemphasis on academic and professional achievements relegated other means of happiness of the young people. It led to the postponement of the self. Scepticism became the hallmark of the generation that grew up in the 1970’s and 80’s.
Other responses ranged from formulation of purely manipulative tactics to move up the social ladder by joining the rat- race to those inspired by different different idelologies and in a sense drawing their inspiration from the freedom stuggle.
A majority, however, vacillated between the two, they formed the ‘Trishanku’ types.
The government too impeded the formation of a newer vision after Independence. Whenever a natural disaster occurred, its appeals were resticted only to money and discouraged direct and voluntary involvement of the people. The current generation came to be perceived by the larger soceity as goalless and rootless. This only exacerberated its alienation.
Of course, there were a handful who were in touch with the ‘isms’ of the West. From among them some took to Marxism, some to existentialism and others to scientific realism. There were very few who attempted an eclectic perspective. It seems that being anchorless made them so anxious that they let themselves be proleytised rather than accultured.
While it is true that Ayn Rand’s ahistoric works have paved the way for the massive brain drain - either in the form of actual migration or in the form of accepting all that goes in the name of integrating with the West, the authors have failed to observe that alternative ideologies have had a continuing influence on the younger people which has made them turn towards a attempting a rewarding synthesis between the East and the West.
The authors also betray a very pessimistic attitude towards the younger people forgetting that each generation is faced with its own dilemma. All periods after the Industrial and the French Revolutions have been times of crisis and every generation has been faced with experiences and developments that had no precedent and for which past experiences and theories based on it provided no guidance. Contemporary soceity is undergoing constant and unpredictable change and the current generation stands at the cross roads. It is treading paths untraversed hitherto. Like every other generation, it has to fight its own battles and finds its own bearings.
Bhupinder
