From classrooms and college campuses to social media platforms, a growing sense of frustration among younger people is becoming harder to ignore. Gen Z and the emerging Gen Alpha generation are growing up in a world defined by rapid technological change, economic uncertainty and intense social pressure, raising questions about what is driving their discontent.

Unlike previous generations, today's young people are exposed to a constant stream of information from an early age. Smartphones, social media, online entertainment and artificial intelligence have become part of everyday life. While these technologies offer unprecedented access to information and communication, they can also create pressure to constantly compare, compete and stay connected.

Social media is one of the most visible factors. Young users are regularly exposed to carefully edited images of other people's lives, creating expectations around appearance, success, relationships and lifestyle. The pressure can be particularly intense during adolescence, when identity and self-confidence are still developing.

The COVID-19 pandemic added another layer to these challenges. School closures and prolonged restrictions interrupted education and reduced face-to-face interaction during important developmental years. For many young people, the effects extended beyond missed lessons, affecting friendships, routines and their relationship with school and society.

Economic concerns are also shaping how Gen Z views the future. Rising living costs, competition for employment and uncertainty about the impact of artificial intelligence on jobs have made traditional milestones such as financial independence and home ownership appear increasingly difficult for many young adults. For Gen Alpha, these concerns are arriving even earlier. Children are growing up alongside AI-powered tools and increasingly automated workplaces, making the future of education and employment difficult to predict. At the same time, parents and educators are struggling to establish healthy boundaries around screen use without cutting children off from technologies that are becoming essential to education and communication.

Describing Gen Z and Gen Alpha simply as unhappy or overly dependent on technology misses a larger part of the story. Younger people also have greater access to information and more opportunities to express their opinions publicly. A concern that once might have remained inside a classroom can now reach thousands of people online within hours. Recent student protests in India have illustrated this changing dynamic. In Lucknow, around 250 students at a government residential school protested over teacher shortages and inadequate facilities, bringing attention to problems that directly affect their education and daily lives.

Such incidents suggest that youth discontent cannot be explained only through social media or changing attitudes. In many cases, young people are responding to tangible problems around education, employment, infrastructure and opportunities. There is also evidence that younger users are becoming more conscious of the disadvantages of excessive digital exposure. Rather than completely rejecting technology, many are looking for a healthier balance between online and offline life.

The bigger question, therefore, may not be why Gen Z and Gen Alpha are dissatisfied, but whether institutions are keeping pace with the world in which these generations are growing up. Their expectations are changing rapidly. They want greater transparency, participation and flexibility, while also seeking stability and meaningful opportunities. Understanding that combination could be essential for schools, employers, governments and families trying to respond to the concerns of the next generation. Gen Z and Gen Alpha may not necessarily be rejecting society. In many cases, their frustration reflects a demand to be heard, included and given a realistic stake in the future they will inherit.

Disclaimer: This image is taken from Hindustan Times.

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on Saturday adopted a resolution highlighting the historical importance and national significance of 'Vande Mataram', while strongly criticising the Congress Working Committee (CWC) for deciding to restrict its rendition to the first two stanzas at party events. The BJP announced that it would launch a nationwide awareness campaign to educate people, particularly young Indians, about the history, meaning and role of Vande Mataram in the country’s freedom movement.

The BJP said Vande Mataram represents reverence for Bharat Mata, the spirit of India’s independence struggle and a lasting expression of national consciousness. The party said it would oppose the Congress decision to limit the National Song and pledged to safeguard the legacy of its complete six-stanza version.

The BJP also referred to the 1950 Constituent Assembly decision concerning Vande Mataram and a 2026 parliamentary law, arguing that the Congress’s 1937 resolution cannot take precedence over later constitutional and legislative decisions. The party said it would also highlight the historical circumstances surrounding the 1937 decision, including opposition from the Muslim League and the broader political debates of that period. It plans to bring greater public attention to Mahatma Gandhi’s description of Vande Mataram as an anti-imperialist slogan associated with strong national sentiment.

As part of its campaign, BJP workers will take the history and significance of the National Song to communities across the country. The party said a particular focus would be placed on young people to ensure that future generations remain familiar with Vande Mataram’s connection to India’s freedom struggle and the sacrifices made during the independence movement.

The resolution stated that the BJP would not accept what it described as any compromise with the honour of Vande Mataram for political considerations. It portrayed the issue as one concerning India’s national heritage rather than merely a disagreement between political parties. The BJP also recalled the role of Vande Mataram during the freedom movement, saying the slogan had become a powerful symbol of resistance against British rule. It argued that attempts to suppress it reflected the colonial administration’s concern over its ability to inspire people.

The party further linked the song’s historical significance with its vision of India in 2047, saying that just as ‘Vande Mataram’ represented the call for independence in 1947, the vision of a ‘Viksit Bharat’ in 2047 would also carry the spirit of the same national sentiment. The controversy intensified after the Congress Working Committee decided on Wednesday to follow its 1937 resolution, under which only the first two stanzas of Vande Mataram would be sung at Congress programmes.

The decision came amid a political dispute that began after the BJP accused Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge and parliamentary party chairperson Sonia Gandhi of speaking to each other while Vande Mataram was being performed during Independence Day celebrations on August 15. The BJP subsequently sought an apology from the Congress leaders. Following the CWC meeting, Congress MP K.C. Venugopal defended the party’s position, saying Congress would continue to follow the approach adopted in 1937 by leaders including Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel.

Disclaimer: This image is taken from 

Congress leaders and party workers gathered outside the Parliament Street Police Station on Friday as Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi continued his sit-in protest, demanding the registration of an FIR over the alleged use of pellet guns against student protester Sahil Lochav during the July 20 demonstration. Gandhi was accompanied by Lochav, who Congress leaders say suffered serious injuries after allegedly being hit by pellets while protesting peacefully at Jantar Mantar. According to Congress sources, Gandhi plans to continue the protest until an FIR is registered.

In a post on X, Gandhi accused Union Home Minister Amit Shah of avoiding accountability and questioned why authorities were allegedly preventing Lochav from pursuing legal action. He claimed the incident was an assault on constitutional rights and called for a judicial inquiry into the alleged police action. Several senior Congress leaders, including Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, Jairam Ramesh, Salman Khurshid, Kumari Selja and Devendra Yadav, joined Gandhi at the protest site. Congress workers also raised slogans outside the police station.

Khurshid said Gandhi would remain at the protest until the FIR was registered and expressed confidence that the demand would eventually be accepted. Congress sources claimed Lochav and his lawyers first approached Delhi Police on August 14 and submitted a written complaint but allegedly did not receive an acknowledgement or an investigating officer's number. They said the matter was followed up again by email and phone on August 17, but the requested details were still not provided.

On Friday, Gandhi accompanied Lochav to the Delhi Police DCP office at Parliament Street to press for action on the complaint. According to the sources, Gandhi had earlier visited Mandir Marg Police Station seeking registration of a case. After allegedly failing to get the complaint registered there, he met senior police officials, including the DCP Central, before proceeding to Parliament Street Police Station.

The Congress has argued that the alleged incident amounts to a cognisable offence and therefore warrants registration of an FIR. Gandhi has demanded an investigation and accountability for those responsible. The issue was also raised by Gandhi during a press conference on July 29. At the time, he alleged that students protesting in Delhi had been subjected to excessive force, including the use of pellet guns and batons. He cited what he described as an AIIMS medical document concerning a student who allegedly suffered an eye injury.

Gandhi had questioned the use of such force against students, arguing that peaceful protesters should not be subjected to violence for raising questions or expressing their views. He also accused the authorities of failing to adequately address allegations of police brutality. The Congress protest has now intensified the political confrontation over the July 20 demonstrations, with the party demanding a formal police investigation and accountability for the alleged injuries suffered by protesters.

Disclaimer: This image is taken from @RahulGandhi.

Former Congress MP Sajjan Kumar, convicted in a case linked to the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, died at a Delhi hospital on Thursday at the age of 80. Kumar, who had been serving a life sentence at Tihar Jail, was taken to Safdarjung Hospital after his condition deteriorated. Doctors declared him dead on arrival. The hospital has yet to officially state the cause of death. A three-time Lok Sabha MP from Outer Delhi, Kumar was once a prominent Congress leader. He left the party following his conviction in 2018.

The 1984 anti-Sikh riots erupted after then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was assassinated by her Sikh bodyguards, Satwant Singh and Beant Singh, on October 31 that year. Widespread violence followed in Delhi and other parts of India, with armed mobs attacking Sikh families, homes and businesses. More than 3,000 people, mostly Sikhs in Delhi, were killed during the violence.

Kumar remained involved in several legal cases arising from the riots for more than three decades. His legal history included both acquittals and convictions at different stages. On December 17, 2018, the Delhi High Court overturned a 2013 trial court acquittal in one of the key cases against Kumar. The High Court convicted him for criminal conspiracy and abetment and sentenced him to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life.

The case concerned the killing of five Sikh men in Raj Nagar Part-I of Palam Colony and the burning of a gurdwara during the riots. In its judgment, the High Court described the 1984 violence as “crimes against humanity.” Kumar later challenged his conviction and sentence in the Supreme Court, where the matter remained pending at the time of his death.

In January this year, a Delhi court acquitted Kumar in two separate cases involving allegations that he had incited violence in Janakpuri and Vikaspuri during the 1984 riots. The acquittals, however, did not lead to his release because he was still serving life sentences in other cases related to the violence. Kumar received another life sentence in February 2025 in the Saraswati Vihar case. The Rouse Avenue Court convicted him over his alleged role in a mob attack in which a father and son, Jaswant Singh and Tarundeep Singh, were reportedly burned alive. The prosecution had requested the death penalty, but the court imposed life imprisonment, taking into account Kumar’s advanced age and health condition.

Disclaimer: This image is taken from NDTV.

Prime Minister Lawrence Wong has announced a broad set of initiatives covering family support, housing, technology and Singapore’s national resilience. Hairianto Diman and Justine Moss speak to SMU School of Law Associate Professor Eugene Tan about the major measures, their significance for Singaporeans and what they reveal about the Government’s priorities for the country’s next stage of growth.
Disclaimer: This podcast is taken from CNA.

Myanmar's military government has released rare images of detained leader Aung San Suu Kyi meeting a Red Cross official, marking her first known contact with the outside world since the 2021 coup. The photos were released just ahead of junta chief Min Aung Hlaing's first official visit to Thailand, prompting speculation about their political significance.

Disclaimer: This podcast is taken from CNA.

In a conversation with political editor Tom McIlroy and chief political correspondent Dan Jervis-Bardy during the 50th Labor conference in Adelaide, South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas discussed his state’s political battle with One Nation. He said progressive groups should avoid dismissing or talking down to Pauline Hanson’s supporters, arguing that their concerns need to be understood rather than ignored. Addressing the ongoing debate over the AUKUS submarine deal, Malinauskas acknowledged concerns after the US revealed that Virginia-class submarine production rates had not improved. However, he maintained that walking away from the agreement would create greater strategic risks than the challenges surrounding the controversial defence partnership.

Disclaimer: This podcast is taken from The Guardian.

On Made in SG, Melanie Oliveiro chats with Singaporean singer-songwriter Frances Tan, who recently competed in the Commonwealth Song Contest — an international music competition featuring participants from all 56 Commonwealth countries. Tan shares her experience of being chosen as a Grand Finalist, representing Singapore alongside six other finalist nations. She also discusses her original track, Just Me, which she submitted as her contest entry.

Disclaimer: This podcast is taken from CNA.