Vasudha Sharma
India is often described as one of the youngest countries in the world. According to the Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports, about 65% of India’s population is below the age of 35. This is frequently presented as a demographic advantage, a large young population that can contribute to India’s economic and social development. But while researching youth participation for my public policy fellowship, I found myself thinking about a different question: If India is so young, how young is its democracy?
By “young,” I do not mean the age of our Constitution or our democratic institutions. I mean the people who participate in shaping decisions within them.
Young people are an important part of India’s electorate. At 18, a citizen becomes eligible to vote, making electoral participation one of the first formal ways in which young Indians enter democratic life. The Election Commission of India has also made youth and first time voters an important part of its voter education efforts through its Systematic Voters’ Education and Electoral Participation (SVEEP) programme. But voting is only one part of democracy.
Democratic participation does not end when a person leaves the polling booth. It also means participating in political parties, local governance, consultations, civic organisations, public campaigns, policymaking, legislative processes and other institutions through which citizens can influence decisions.
This distinction became central to my research.
From being represented to being involved
India’s young population experiences some of the country’s biggest challenges, unemployment, education, climate change, technology, mental health, urbanisation and social inequality. Yet the people most affected by these issues do not always have adequate opportunities to participate directly in decisions concerning them. This does not mean that older political leaders cannot understand young people’s concerns. Nor does youth participation mean replacing one generation with another. Democratic institutions benefit from experience as much as they benefit from new perspectives.
The question is therefore not whether older people should make way for younger people. The more important question is whether different generations have meaningful opportunities to participate in decision-making. This becomes particularly important when we consider young women and young people from marginalised communities, who may face additional social, economic and institutional barriers to political participation.
What does participation really look like?
One of the most interesting parts of this research has been understanding that “youth participation” is a much broader concept than voter turnout. The Election Commission’s SVEEP programme demonstrates how institutions can actively engage young and first-time voters through voter education, registration and awareness initiatives. Such efforts are important because an informed electorate is fundamental to democracy.
However, there is another stage of participation that deserves greater attention: what happens after young people become voters? Can they contribute to policy consultations? Can they engage with local governments? Are there institutional spaces where policymakers regularly hear young people’s concerns? Are young people encouraged and supported to enter political leadership? Do young women have the same opportunities to participate as young men? These questions shift the conversation from simply asking whether young people participate to asking how meaningfully they participate.
A global democratic concern
This is not only an Indian question. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 16.7 calls for “responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision making at all levels.” Importantly, its indicators consider representation across characteristics including age and gender. This makes youth participation more than a question of political representation. It is also a question of governance.
A democratic institution becomes more representative when the people sitting within it, advising it, and contributing to its decisions reflect the diversity of the population they serve. For India, this has particular significance because of its demographic profile. A country with such a large youth population has an opportunity to ensure that young citizens are not viewed only as beneficiaries of policies, but also as participants in creating them.
Where could policy begin?
My research is still developing, so I do not want to present a single solution to what is a complex issue. However, several possible policy pathways are emerging.
First, civic education can move beyond teaching constitutional provisions and electoral procedures towards developing practical democratic participation among young people.
Second, governments could explore more institutionalised mechanisms for consulting young people, such as youth advisory councils or structured youth consultations at different levels of governance.
Third, political parties and institutions could create stronger pathways for young people to develop political and public leadership skills.
Fourth, these opportunities need to be accessible to young women and marginalised groups rather than being limited to young people who already have social or political networks.
Fifth, more internships or contractual opportunities at the Parliament, should be given to the college students at the time when they are studying the subjects, which will help them learn better functioning, when they will work and learn from experienced people.
Finally, digital platforms could be used more meaningfully to seek young citizens’ views on public policies. Digital participation cannot replace institutional representation, but it can create additional channels through which citizens engage with the government.
The larger question
My research on youth participation began with a simple observation: India is young.But it has gradually developed into a much more important question: Are our democratic institutions creating enough space for this young population to participate in shaping India’s future?
Perhaps the goal should not be to make politics “younger” simply for the sake of age. Instead, it should be to make democratic decision-making more representative, accessible and responsive. Young people should not have to wait until they are older to feel that governance belongs to them. If India’s demographic dividend is to become a democratic dividend as well, young citizens need more than a place in the electorate. They need meaningful avenues to participate, deliberate, lead and contribute to the decisions that shape their lives.
That, ultimately, is the question I hope to explore through my policy research: how can India move from youth participation at the ballot box to meaningful youth participation in decision-making?
About the Contributor: Vasudha Sharma is a Political Science postgraduate student and has done her Double majors in Political Science and English Literature from Kirorimal College, DU and public policy enthusiast interested in democratic governance, youth participation and contemporary policy issues. Through her work in public policy and community initiatives, she is interested in exploring how institutions can become more inclusive, participatory and responsive to citizens.
Disclaimer: All views expressed in the article belong solely to the author and not necessarily to the organisation.
Read more at IMPRI:
A Grain for Thought: Reflecting on the monitoring system under PM POSHAN
Kabir and the Foundations of Indian Knowledge Systems
Acknowledgement: This article was posted by Vishal Kumar, a Research and Editorial Intern at IMPRI.
