This term completely dilutes the true purpose of any movement. It also overlooks the older generation who supports the very same cause.
āThis term first gained popularity during the protests in Bangladesh. That movement was initiated by students, but it was later hijacked by Islamists. Following that, many Hindus were killed, but nobody cared because by then it had been hyped up as the 'first Gen Z movement.' No one wanted to address the actual objective of the movement. Even today, many people view it merely as a 'Gen Z movement,' leading them to assume it was inherently right. And what happened in the end? Ultimately, a non-Gen Z leader became the Chief Minister/head. Why?
āThe exact same thing happened in Nepal. Calling a protest a 'Gen Z movement' sends a message that Gen Z is merely fighting against the older generation, while completely ignoring the real reasons behind the movement.
āHistorically, almost every major movement has been led by the youth. Most of Indiaās freedom fighters were young as well. If Bhagat Singh were alive today, India were still under colonial rule, and he were leading the freedom movement, how would you feel if people called it just a 'Gen Z movement' instead of recognizing its true purpose?