Youth and the Eternal Romance of Revolution

Every generation of young people seems to discover revolution as if it were a fresh idea. They fill notebooks with slogans, share grainy posters of historical rebels, and speak of “smashing the system” with the certainty of those who have never had to rebuild anything after the smashing is done. In India the pattern is especially striking. The country won its freedom from external colonial rule through a long, costly struggle that mixed mass mobilization, negotiation, and sacrifice. That chapter closed in 1947. Yet successive cohorts of students and activists continue to romanticize revolt against the elected Indian state itself, treating democratic institutions as the new oppressor and their own fellow citizens as the problem that must be overcome. The question is not whether past revolutions were sometimes necessary. The question is why the fantasy of internal upheaval remains so seductive long after the external enemy has left.

Part of the answer lies in the nature of youth itself. Young people possess idealism, energy, and a limited stock of lived experience. They have not yet watched grand plans collide with human stubbornness, logistical limits, or unintended consequences. Revolution offers a clean narrative: a corrupt present, a heroic rupture, and a purified future. It supplies meaning, belonging, and a sense of moral superiority in one package. Ordinary politics, by contrast, looks slow, compromised, and boring. Voting, debating budgets, or negotiating incremental reforms cannot compete with the drama of barricades and manifestos. This psychological preference is not unique to India. It appears in every society that has produced a surplus of educated young people with time to think and platforms on which to perform their discontent.

Historical memory reinforces the pattern. School textbooks and popular culture still celebrate the language of struggle against empire. The same vocabulary is easily transferred to the domestic stage. Once the British were gone, the new target became the post-independence state, the ruling classes, or whichever social group could be labeled reactionary. Marxist frameworks, imported and adapted, supplied a ready-made story in which history advances only through class conflict. The failures of actual revolutionary experiments elsewhere—famine, purges, economic collapse, new forms of authoritarianism—are often treated as unfortunate deviations rather than predictable outcomes of concentrated power and utopian ambition. Che Guevara remains a T-shirt icon; the body counts that followed his ideas receive less airtime.

In a democracy the mismatch is especially sharp. India elects its governments through competitive elections. Power changes hands. Courts function, however imperfectly. Civil society organizations operate. Citizens can criticize, organize, and vote the incumbents out. Revolution against such a system is not a continuation of the freedom struggle; it is a rejection of the very mechanism that replaced colonial rule. Yet large sections of the activist class treat elections as theater and the electorate itself as insufficiently enlightened. The people, in this view, keep making the wrong choices. Therefore the people must be guided, or overruled, by those who claim superior insight. What begins as concern for justice slides into contempt for the actual population that refuses to conform to the preferred script.

Where does the deeper hostility come from? Several currents feed it. One is the persistent influence of ideologies that frame society as a permanent hierarchy of oppressors and oppressed. In this lens, the majority culture, the successful entrepreneur, the traditional family, or the democratically chosen government can all be cast as illegitimate. Another is the gap between rising expectations and uneven outcomes. Education expands faster than high-quality jobs. Urban young people encounter global lifestyles through screens while remaining constrained by local realities. Frustration seeks an external villain, and the state is a convenient one. Social media amplifies the most dramatic voices and rewards moral absolutism. Nuanced reform looks weak; calls for systemic overthrow look courageous.

There is also a cultural inheritance of anti-establishment posture that never fully updated itself after independence. Movements that once fought foreign rule found new life by fighting the national state. Some turned to violence in the name of the poor or the marginalized. Their romantic image endures in certain campuses and intellectual circles even when the practical results have been stagnation, fear, and lost decades for the regions they claimed to liberate. Hatred of “one’s own people” is rarely stated so baldly. It appears instead as disdain for the electorate’s preferences, for popular culture, for religious sentiment, or for the messy compromises that keep a diverse society functioning. The activist imagines himself standing above the crowd, purifying it.

None of this denies real problems. Corruption exists. Inequality persists. Institutions can be captured or slow. Legitimate anger at injustice is healthy. The error lies in treating revolution as the default solution rather than the last resort reserved for genuine tyranny. Democracies improve through participation, persuasion, institution-building, and the hard work of making better policy. They do not improve by declaring the entire constitutional order illegitimate and dreaming of its violent replacement. History shows that once the machinery of orderly transfer of power is broken, putting it back together is far harder than the romantics admit.

The recurring fantasy reveals more about the romantic than about the state. It flatters the young person’s desire to be on the right side of history without having to master the unglamorous details of governance. It offers the thrill of moral clarity in a complicated world. And it repeatedly underestimates the intelligence and agency of ordinary citizens who, for all their flaws, keep choosing ballots over bullets. Until that underestimation is confronted, each new generation will rediscover the same old script, mistaking theatrical revolt for genuine progress and confusing disdain for the people with love of justice. The harder, less cinematic task is to improve the republic that already exists rather than to burn it down in the hope that something perfect will rise from the ashes.

---

Disclaimer / Call for Submissions

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone. They do not necessarily reflect the position of this platform. Readers who wish to share their own opinions, critiques, or alternative perspectives are invited to submit them to admin@real-shepower.com. All submissions will be considered for possible publication, subject to editorial review.