Did Gen-Z Like Rahul Gandhi’s ‘Class’?

Saurabh Varshney

The very leader whom political opponents tried to dismiss for years by labeling him ‘Pappu’ is now holding sessions where young people sit and ask questions. There can hardly be a greater irony in politics than this. However, it would be premature to attribute this solely to a sudden surge in Rahul Gandhi’s personal popularity. The real question is: what has changed to make Rahul Gandhi’s conversations, Q&A sessions, and education-centric politics appealing to students, the youth, and a segment of Gen-Z?

In reality, a generational shift in politics does not come merely from a change in the leaders’ ages. Change occurs when the new generation transforms the language, issues, and style of dialogue in politics. India’s Gen-Z represents precisely this kind of change. This is a generation that has grown up in an environment of the internet, social media, digital technology, and instant information. They seek direct answers rather than long speeches; they want facts over slogans and results over assurances. That is why today’s youth are asking: Why is education expensive? Why are employment opportunities limited? Why do controversies repeatedly arise in competitive examinations? Why do recruitment processes drag on for years? Why must one wait months for results after taking an exam? And most importantly—why does the voice of the youth fail to reach the policy-making table?
Over the past few years, Rahul Gandhi has attempted to bring about a significant shift in his political style. He no longer wishes to remain merely a leader who delivers speeches from a stage. Engaging in dialogue with colleges, universities, students, the youth, teachers, and various social groups has become an integral part of his politics. On numerous occasions, he is seen sitting among young people, listening to their questions, and providing answers. It is perhaps this ‘politics of substance’ that is attracting Gen Z to some extent. However, it is important to understand one thing here: assuming that the entire Gen Z has rallied behind Rahul Gandhi would be political hyperbole rather than political analysis. India’s youth is not the exclusive property of any single political party; they might support the BJP, the Congress, or regional parties—or none of them at all. The youth of today can question a leader just as quickly as they might come to admire them.
To understand Rahul Gandhi’s politics, one must also look at the evolution of his public image. For a long time, his opponents tried to portray him as a leader who need not be taken seriously; political epithets like ‘Pappu’ were part of this very campaign. However, political images are not static. If a leader consistently changes their style, engages with the public, and raises new issues, their old image can gradually fade. Through *yatras* (marches), dialogues with students, and direct interactions with the youth, Rahul Gandhi has attempted to project himself as a leader who asks questions. While elections will ultimately determine the success of this strategy, a shift in his political presentation is certainly visible. Today, it does not take hours for a leader’s speech to reach millions. A video goes viral, sparking both support and opposition; memes are created, debates ensue, and a political message quickly permeates different parts of the country.
There can be a vast difference between popularity on social media and electoral success. Therefore, it would be premature to assume that Rahul Gandhi’s growing visibility among the youth will automatically translate into electoral support. While there is talk about Rahul Gandhi’s ‘class’ or style, the biggest challenge facing Gen-Z is employment. A student spends years preparing for competitive exams, and their family invests money in their education. Young people dedicate the most crucial years of their lives to the hope of securing a job. Yet, they are often confronted with allegations of irregularities in the examination system, news of paper leaks, stalled results, or recruitment processes that drag on indefinitely.

At such moments, the youth do not merely want to hear political speeches; they want answers. This is precisely where any political party faces its true test. Young people will ask: How long will the recruitment process take? How transparent will the examination system be? When will vacant posts be filled? What will education fees be? How many government jobs will be created? How will employment be generated in the private sector? How will skill development training translate into actual jobs? It is not just the ruling party that must answer these questions; the opposition, too, must provide an answer. This is because, while it is easy for the opposition to raise an issue, presenting a practical solution to it is far more difficult.
The issue of the Constitution has become significant in Rahul Gandhi’s politics. He has consistently raised topics such as the Constitution, democracy, social justice, and the independence of institutions. For the younger generation, the Constitution is no longer merely a subject for competitive examinations; they view it in the context of their rights, freedom, equal opportunities, and their future. However, the Constitution is not the exclusive preserve of any single political party. Whether in power or in opposition, the responsibility to safeguard the Constitution rests with everyone. The Constitution’s greatest strength lies not in speeches, but in the practice of its values. Therefore, the most effective ‘class’ on the Constitution for the youth is one where institutions are respected, there is space for dissent, and citizens who ask questions are not treated as enemies. By making the Constitution a central theme of political discourse, Rahul Gandhi is sending a message. His supporters view this as a defense of democratic values, while his detractors see it as a political strategy. The public will judge the truth of the matter.
A defining characteristic of today’s youth is their refusal to become permanent followers of anyone.
They ask questions. They make comparisons. They watch videos. They seek out data. They listen to the opinions of different leaders on the same issue. And most importantly—they are not afraid to change their minds. This is why it is not easy for any leader to influence Gen-Z. If Rahul Gandhi’s ‘class’ is attracting the youth today, those same young people might well ask him tomorrow: “How do you intend to implement what you have promised?” This represents a healthy form of democracy.
In politics, a young person should not remain a permanent student of any single leader; rather, they should be a citizen who questions every leader. Engaging in dialogue with the youth is a positive step. Sitting among students is commendable. Discussing education, employment, the Constitution, and social justice is also essential. However, the ultimate test of politics lies not in dialogue, but in results.
If the Congress party and Rahul Gandhi wish to make the issues facing the youth central to their politics, they must move beyond mere speeches. They need to articulate clearly: how will employment be increased? What changes will be brought to the education system? How will transparency be ensured in competitive examinations? What will be the timeline for the recruitment process? How will entrepreneurial opportunities for the youth be expanded? How will new jobs be created in the era of technology and artificial intelligence? How will skill development be linked to actual employment? Only concrete answers to these questions can transform a ‘class’ into a political movement, because the public looks at a report card rather than applause. If the Congress truly wishes to advance Rahul Gandhi’s youth-centric politics, it must move beyond the strategy of relying solely on him. Continuous dialogue with youth in colleges and universities, understanding the evolving needs of the job market, reaching out to young people in the startup and technology sectors, grasping the issues faced by rural and agrarian youth, and developing a new political language for the digital generation—all these will be essential. Therefore, the fundamental question is not whether Gen-Z liked Rahul Gandhi’s ‘class’; the core issue is far more significant: has Indian politics finally begun to understand that the youth are not merely a vote bank? The youth represent the future of the nation’s economy. They will become scientists, teachers, farmers, entrepreneurs, soldiers, journalists, and the elected representatives of tomorrow. If their education is weak, employment insecure, faith in the examination system eroded, and the distribution of opportunities unequal, the impact will extend beyond the youth to affect the entire democracy. In this context, the significance of Rahul Gandhi’s ‘class’ could transcend the leader himself—provided it transforms young people into questioning citizens rather than mere supporters of a leader. In a democracy, the ideal scenario is not for the youth to blindly accept what any single leader says; rather, it is for them to question every leader. Thus, Gen-Z need not become permanent students in any single leader’s ‘class’. Instead, they should attend the broader ‘class’ of democracy—where the teacher is the Constitution rather than a politician; the textbook consists of the nation’s actual challenges rather than a party manifesto; and the examination takes place daily through the public’s questions, rather than just once every five years. If Rahul Gandhi’s politics is inspiring the youth to think in this direction, it is not merely a signal for Rahul Gandhi or the Congress; it could also mark a significant shift for Indian democracy. For the true strength of democracy emerges when the youth, before applauding, ask a question: “You have said a great deal; now tell us—what will you actually do?” It is precisely this question that marks the true test for any leader—and the real trial for democracy itself.