Young India’s cultural assertion isn’t conservatism—it’s course correction

Indian Gen Z is assertive because boomers and millennials were docile and apologetic. We are Indian, and we are proud.

Representational image | A bhajan rave by the Backstage Siblings | YouTube screengrab

In a recent article in ThePrint, author Karanjeet Kaur argued that young India is “scrolling back to conservatism”. Given that Gen Z is dealing with the effects of radical individualism, hedonism, and nihilism, I argue that it is instead on a path of course correction and reclamation of Indian culture across ideological lines—a reaction to the moral repression of boomers and millennials.

Numbers don’t lie. According to a March 2025 survey by Youth Ki Awaaz, 81 per cent of young Indians today primarily identify with their nation while only 31 per cent prioritise individual identity. When a person’s identity is anchored mainly in a macro-social grouping such as the nation, it is obvious that they view themselves as a small part of this larger collective. This is not new to the Indian psyche.

Collective identity has been a constant throughout Indian history. Be it caste, community, region, language, or bloodline, the Indian psyche primarily derives meaning from a collective identity. Due to our colonial struggle, these fragmented identities merged into a larger macro-identity of Indianness. Ninety-six per cent of Indian adults said in a 2021 survey they are proud to be Indian, and close to 72 per cent wholeheartedly believe that Indian culture is superior to others. Indians have always been a proud people.

Yet, these statistics co-exist with a profound contradiction of the boomers and millennials—a lingering inferiority complex, a belief that anything ‘Indian’ is backward and regressive. One can observe this by analysing Indian consumer choices. Indians prefer and are willing to pay more for products with foreign-sounding names.

Post-liberalisation generations came to regard modernity and Indianness as opposing concepts. One could be proud of India’s past, but had to be uncomfortable expressing that pride in the present. Cultural rootedness was tolerated as nostalgia but actively discouraged as a lived identity. The idea of the English-speaking international citizen was promoted as an archetype for Gen Z. The ultimate Indian dream, after all, was to get into IITs and escape the country. Many Gen Zs were taught that language, faith, and tradition are merely private relics to be confined within the four walls of the home. These aspects of identity weren’t allowed to evolve with the modern world. In this worldview, people were Indians only by happenstance and documentation. Culturally and functionally, they were a cosmopolitan people whose destiny was to earn well and secure individual interests.

Kaur’s article is clearly an extension of this worldview, where she argues that the rising popularity of ‘bhajan raves’, especially in metropolitan cities, is proof of growing conservatism among young Indians. There is an obvious category error in the statement. Bhajan raves are not rooted in Hindu orthodoxy. Traditional bhajan singing is governed by the shastric rules of bhava, raga, and taala, demanding a specific, rigid structure. In contrast, modern-day expressions of Hindu culture, such as bhajan raves operate in a more fluid manner.

Much like garba nights, Holi parties, and heritage walks, bhajan raves are an instance of Indian Gen-Z attempting to fuse Indianness with modernity, which was seen as impossible by previous generations. It is our attempt at asserting local identity in a world moving toward global homogenisation. To dismiss such events as regressive and conservative misses the deeper social meaning.

Caste jokes, spirituality

In her article, Kaur cites viral caste jokes, including the infamous video featuring aluminium foil utensils, as proof that Gen Z skews toward conservatism. “Jab lower caste ki dost ghar aa jaayein (When lower-caste friends visit you),” read the caption for the video.

The author does acknowledge that the video was manipulated, and that the original creator had added no such caption. This crucial context is anything but peripheral to the discussion because the author seems to conflate online rage-bait dynamics with the cultural intent of an entire generation. The manipulated video was circulated by an account with malicious intent and not an authentic Gen Z content creator. The hostile reactions underneath the post can be understood using the same logic.

Some accounts use the algorithm cunningly and systematically to promote extreme content for higher engagement. When the algorithm rewards outrage over honesty, this is the result. But any attempt to extract sociological conclusions from such digital flashpoints is methodologically flawed.

What can be said definitively is that Gen Z discusses caste more openly and fearlessly than previous generations. What may look like a rising trend of ‘casteism’ must be understood as a complex social evolution of the discussion of caste in contemporary India. Within this debate, too, the algorithm rewards extreme ideological stances. But there are lots of content creators who tread the fine line between nuance, economics, social justice, history, and scriptural relevance when it comes to caste. A generation openly and fearlessly discussing caste has a better chance to arrive at an amicable solution to it, regardless of how discomforting and contentious. Meanwhile, boomers and millennials are complicit in casteism because they avoided the discussion altogether.

Kaur also references astro-consultations, tarot readings, and spiritual luxury travel to further her point that Gen Z is embracing the dominion of “Sainik Farms aunties”. It’s a callous and superficial understanding of our generation. Globally, there has been a spike in interest in religion, faith, supernaturalism, esotericism, and other non-materialist avenues of thinking. It is the reaction of a generation brought into a dogmatic world of radical individualism.

Liberal worldview convinced young people that freedom must always be viewed within its negative definition—freedom from nation, culture, region, faith, family, and finally, identity itself. It left them completely uprooted and convinced that the ultimate destiny was to become an atomised individual.

The trajectory can be observed in India, too, where multi-generational households were once the norm. Now, even nuclear families are breaking down, with children encouraged by the same liberal ethos to leave home in search of individual autonomy. 

This has coincided with a rise in suicide, depression, and divorce rates among young Indians. Can you blame young people for being interested in religion and faith when these are their only avenues of hope? Gen Z turning to faith isn’t conservative; it’s simply human.

Anti-Indian hate

Kaur seems uncomfortable with the fact that the Mathura-Vrindavan circuit now has more visitors than Goa. Young Indians want to experience the wonders of their homeland. People embracing their culture should be celebrated, but Kaur sees it as a sign of ‘rising conservatism’.

It is a good thing that young Indians are rejecting the hedonistic pleasures of Goa and pushing forth a healthier, happier, and culturally expansive outlook on travelling.

One crucial point Kaur missed in her analysis of internet trends is the rapid proliferation of White supremacy and anti-Indian hatred. Slurs such as “jeets”, “poopjeets”, “curry”, and “stinky” are regularly used against Indians. Our skin colour, faith, culture, and deities are constantly picked on.

This has real-world consequences. An ISKCON Rath Yatra in Canada was egged. Republican leader Alexander Duncan referred to a Hanuman statue as “a false Hindu god”. Chandra Mouli Nagamallaiah was beheaded in the US in front of his family. A Gujarati woman in the US was brutally murdered by a robber.

These problems are more concerning than the supposed ‘rising conservatism among young Indians’.

We are an anxious generation because we were brought into a meaningless, nihilistic world. We were taught to hide and apologise for our skin colour and culture, while the world hates us more every day.

Gen Z is aggressive and culturally assertive because boomers and millennials were docile and apologetic. We are simply tired of apologising for who we are. We are Indian, and we are proud.

This is not conservatism; it’s course correction.

Sameer Prashanth Rao is a content creator and founder of The Nationalist Front. He tweets @CivitasSameer. Views are personal.

Karanjeet Kaur’s response:

Every generation believes it has corrected the mistakes of those who came before. Gen Z is no different.

Thank you for proving my point for me. This rebuttal has arrived at the same conclusions as I have.

It argues that Gen Z is reclaiming Indian culture with confidence, by citing data showing 91 per cent feel proud to support homegrown brands. That same Economic Times survey states:

“Over two-thirds plan to go abroad for education, the key motivations being a) better employment prospects, and b) a higher standard of learning. Studying overseas isn’t viewed as a fantasy, but a practical move. It’s more about results, and not just the experience of it.”

So which is it? Cultural pride or pragmatic exit? The data suggests both, which is the contradiction I identified. To paraphrase economist Joan Robinson: Whatever you can rightly say about Gen Z, the opposite is also true.

The author claims I’ve committed a “category error” by calling bhajan raves conservative, arguing instead that they represent a fusion of Indianness with modernity. But this misses the point entirely. My argument isn’t that these events follow orthodox Shastric rules—it’s that they’ve been productised. One of the lines explicitly states that you can get this at a mandir for free.

On caste, the author suggests I’ve conflated “online rage-bait dynamics with the cultural intent of an entire generation” because the video I cited was manipulated. But the manipulated video is just one example of thousands of such accounts proliferating across Indian social media. The algorithm doesn’t exist in a vacuum. What does it mean that this content finds an audience, generates engagement, and gets amplified by young people? The author celebrates that Gen Z “discusses caste more openly and fearlessly” than previous generations, but there’s a difference between discussing an issue and treating it as entertainment. My generation can tell the difference between engaging with an idea and endorsing it.

The author also accuses me of missing the rise of anti-Indian hatred online. To which I can only say, I have some pretty strong views on the subject. You can read that article here.

If the gentleman had read until the end, he’d realise we’ve arrived at the same diagnoses. My piece ends by arguing that Gen Z is reaching for whatever stability they can find because the systems meant to catch them have failed. We’re looking at the same phenomenon, just with varying levels of romanticism.

With this, ThePrint closes the discussion.