Generation X, Generation Y (Millennials), and Generation Z are sequential demographic cohorts following the Baby Boomers. Gen X spans birth years 1965–1980, Gen Y covers 1981–1996, and Gen Z includes 1997–2012. Each group is defined by distinct social, economic, and technological milestones during their formative years. In addition, we have Generation Alpha spanning the years 2010 to 2024. Generation Beta follows, covering the birth years from 2025 through 2039. These ranges follow standard demographic definitions, though exact boundaries can vary slightly depending on the source.
Does such contrived stratification of the youth serve any purpose beyond fuelling animated but inane, frenzied media discussions both in the social and news-channel spheres? The emptiness of the discussion would be apparent from the criteria for making the grade for various shades of youthful generation. Some of the criteria are overlapping and inane. Divorce of parents might shape a child’s growth, but it is a problem by itself and has nothing to do with the generation a youth belongs to. In fact, smartphones have blurred both class and age distinctions. Elders revel in the dual roles of being couch potatoes, watching television endlessly, while at the same time mastering the art of how to make and post a reel on their Instagram accounts.
Youth, of course, have their own unique problems. It is for parents and school teachers to ensure a healthy learning experience. Australia became the world’s first country to ban children under 16 from holding social media accounts on December 10, 2025, but it is moot whether it can be successfully replicated in India. In such matters, parental control works much better.
Graduate unemployment in India is a structural crisis driven by a mismatch between outdated college curricula and modern industry skill requirements, slower creation of formal, white-collar jobs relative to the surge of degrees, and high career aspirations causing young people to wait for stable employment. Classrooms focus heavily on theory rather than practical training, digital literacy, problem-solving, and communication. This is where a university-industry interface is felt to be crucial, as the German experience shows. By imparting relevant education suited to the industries they are in, corporate houses can mould education from the present rambling to focused. It is a win-win for both the industrial house and the youth who would not mind signing a bond to serve, say, 10 years with a company that honed his skills to perfection. With funds at its disposal, the corporate house, too, would not mind paying well for the right teaching talent. Perhaps such a collaboration would not only heighten the quality of higher education but could also arrest brain drain. In fact, unemployability rather than unemployment is the problem the nation must address head on.
Brain drain is a major problem for India. Hundreds of thousands of skilled professionals, scientists, doctors, and top students leave India every year to live and work in countries like the United States, Canada, Australia, and Germany. This causes a heavy loss of intellectual and human capital that India spends public money to educate. India experiences a massive outflow of high-skilled human capital. Over 1.8 million Indian students study abroad, tens of thousands of elite STEM, medical, and management graduates permanently relocate annually, and hundreds of thousands renounce their citizenship each year to join an overseas diaspora exceeding 17.9 million people. The government data indicates that over 1.6 million Indians have renounced their citizenship since 2011, with averages hovering around 130,000 to over 200,000 individuals formally surrendering passports annually. Estimates show roughly 60,000 to 75,000 high-skilled engineering and medical professionals leave annually, alongside a booming student migration pipeline where over 25 Indian students leave for foreign universities for every single foreign student who enters India. Up to 30% of engineering graduates from the prestigious Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs), 50% of medical postgraduates, and over 60% of premier research PhD scholars eventually settle outside India. Subsidised training at institutions like IITs, IIMs, and AIIMS costs taxpayers heavily (ranging from Rs 10 to Rs 25 lakh per student). The permanent exit of these professionals costs India an estimated $35 billion to $50 billion annually in lost productivity, R&D momentum, and potential tax revenues. Severe talent crunches persist locally in critical advanced domains, including specialised medical care, public health infrastructure, and high-tech research, despite India producing massive volumes of baseline graduates overall. The only silver lining to be seen in the dark clouds of brain drain is NRI remittances.
India's overall headline unemployment rate appears moderate at 5.1% as of July 2026. However, severe structural distress persists among the youth, educated graduates, and urban jobseekers, where jobless rates climb significantly higher, posing an ongoing economic and social challenge. Urban unemployment at 6.7% is a cause for concern. That some of them have found solace willy-nilly in the gig economy mainly as delivery boys for quick commerce firms isn’t a cause for much cheer. It is true building of roads and other infrastructure facilities provides temporary employment till the project is completed, but that is not the same as working permanently in a factory. The manufacturing share of the GDP remains pitifully low at 16%, whereas the government has been aiming for 25%, which can provide massive employment opportunities. That AI and robotisation of factories are sucking out employment opportunities is a global problem and not unique to India, one that leaves Indian policy wonks with a Hobson’s choice—if you shut them out, India would be outcompeted, and if they are embraced, unemployment would worsen. A heartening development is that India's defence exports reached a record high of Rs 38,424 crore ($4.1 billion) in fiscal year 2025–26, marking a dramatic 60% surge in a single year. Driven by a strong push for self-reliance (Atmanirbhar Bharat), Indian-made military hardware and components now reach over 80 countries worldwide. India has shifted from a pure buyer to an active global supplier, supported by expanding private sector participation and streamlined government policies. A large portion of the export volume comprises artillery shells, small arms, parachutes, electronic subsystems, and aerospace components. Such hitherto unchartered territories must be explored to take manufacturing forward. Defence imports were perceived earlier as opportunities for getting kickbacks.
In short, the nation should gird its loins to address the twin but related problems of lack of quality education and unemployment instead of obsessively agonising over who is a Gen Z and who is a millennial.
S Murlidharan is a freelance columnist and writes on economics, business, legal and taxation issues.
