“When you are seventeen you aren’t really serious,” wrote the poet at 16, four years before he would give up on literature to pursue the less frivolous business of exploration and gun-running. It would appear that the times have changed considerably since Arthur Rimbaud, with his signature mixture of precociousness and pretentiousness, described how at 17 “your mad heart goes Crusoeing through all the romances” and “You’re in love. Taken until the month of August./You’re in love—Your sonnets make Her laugh/All your friends disappear, you are not quite the thing.”
Yes. At 17, no one is quite the thing.
With the cult of youth hitched to the grand kitsch-romance of 21st century nation-building, 17-year-olds have been made to assume the role of a vanguard unit that will create a nation that everyone today, openly or otherwise, aspires to live in. Goaded by the updated soviet-speak of Comrades A.P.J. Abdul Kalam and Chetan Bhagat, along with a media clambering over each other to tell the nation’s youth what they love and want (their supplies, of course), 17-year-old Indians form the core of this giant commando unit whose ‘demographic dividends’ we are always reminded to revere because one day....
...one day, the Puranas tell us, they will drag us all gently to the Golden Future.
The more determined among these 17-year-olds seem serious, far-too-serious, about their future as well as about The Future—the two stapled, gummed and pinned together till failure do them part. They prepare for lifestyle-affirming examinations that they will confront like dragon-slayers soon enough; they look out for the signs of jobs that they will wear like school uniforms after their education is done; they scheme and plan with a fierce efficiency to earn enough and a bit more when earning-time comes so that the good life isn’t elsewhere; and they are youthful activists, which 17-year-olds with a fondness for radical chic have always been, whether during the swadeshi, Naxal or Mandal movements or on today’s Facebooks and blogs.
But in all this 17-year-old brand of seriousness, there is much that is playful roleplay, a search for a role the way a tongue searches blindly to find and fill that gap between two teeth at the back of one’s mouth. For being 17 is not just an accumulation of one more year of being 16, or the simple state of waiting in the lounge till one attains the magical age of 18 when one can vote, marry, drink and drive (not necessarily in that order).
It is the age in which the happy naivete that comes with inexperience with the ways of the world collides and mixes with the notions of being an adult, being part of the world that lies beyond the school canteens, the antakshari sessions, the family outings to ‘malls’. The 17-year-old is, in the imagery of the Narasimha avatar, a mutant half-boy, half-man/half-girl, half-woman, standing at the threshold brimming with a once-in-a-lifetime advantage over all other ages and human life forms.
At 17, having fun shows the first signs of taking on a serious component, the way it does for 21-year-olds, but without the latter’s growing sense that fun is a luxury with its own social rules and etiquettes. These signs are of a rite of passage: that of behaving in a manner that youth expects—demands—of adulthood. (What adulthood expects of adulthood is tragic and will come later.)
Carry out a snap poll among 16-year-olds and you’ll have most of them saying that they are not sexually experienced even if they are. Conduct a snap poll among 17-year-olds and you’ll have most of them saying that they are sexually experienced even if they aren’t. Such notions of peer expectations apply beyond the sexual to life itself.
The 17-year-old enters adulthood through the only way he or she is allowed to enter it: from the shallow end. Which is why at that age, the boy-man or the girl-woman is bent on proving more than any other person from any other age-group that he or she is at home with adulthood. The first heartache, the first heartbreak, the first drink, the first smoke, the first kiss, the first act of rebellion, the first show of social concern, the first demand for justice for others, not just oneself—all form part of this entry into the period drama, Adulthood.
This entry is accompanied by melodramatic method acting that can exasperate or tickle the full-blown adult. How many times have you experienced a 17-year-old ‘not acting his age’? By which one means the youngster using ‘difficult’ words, wanting to change the world, quoting the Existentialists (or French Symbolist poets such as Arthur Rimbaud, for that matter), or talking about love and death with the seriousness that those in the know would be too embarrassed to. The 17-year-old wants to be taken seriously. And in the process of trying too hard ends up far too many times as the laughing stock.
Which is why any comparison of a nation at 17 with a 17-year-old person, despite its innate ludicrousness (after all, a nation’s people didn’t just pop out of a geographically marked vagina 17 years before) does highlight one shared aspect of a mid-youth crisis: that of looking around at ‘others’ and trying to figure out how to match up to them. So at 1964, a 17-year-old India did look around to see how other democracies are faring. (It’s another matter that it was not before 1991 that a 21-year-old India decided to ‘man up’.) At 17, the girl-woman will look around to see whether participating in a candle-light vigil will enhance her standing as a ‘concerned citizen’—a whole year before she is provided full citizens’ rights.
Having gathered a critical mass of years in existence, 17 is also the age when one suddenly discovers the narcotic joys of being nostalgic (‘Oh, for the days when we would go to Kanpur during the winter holidays!’), instead of engaging in the ‘childish activity’ of simply remembering.
But the momentous event that takes place when someone turns 17 is far more fundamental and awe-inspiring. Because the changes that a 17-year-old undergoes are nothing compared to the changes in the world the person starts to see when he hits 17. Not 16, not 18. But 17.
(Indrajit Hazra is a writer and journalist. He is consultant editor with Hindustan Times where he writes the Sunday column, Red Herring.)
Who is the real Indrajit Hazra (You’ll Take a While, Manchild)? The grumpy, scruffy guy with indeterminate features who bashfully looks away from us every Sunday from his column in The Hindustan Times, or the dashing, debonair young fellow we have here in Outlook?
Manish Anand, Delhi
Egad, what a convoluted attempt to make a milestone out of a non-event! Seventeen, life-altering? Really? Are you guys serious? Or just 17?
Vijay Menon, Bangalore
Sixteen is sweet, 18 the time for adulthood, universally. Any hoopla around 17 can only be ‘much ado about nothing’.
R.V. Subramanian, Gurgaon
Reverse 17 to 71, and no one would care any more, because after 17, everyone reaches the straight stretch of the track-of-life running shoulder-to-shoulder with each other.
Rajneesh Batra, New Delhi
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
Yawwwn. Richard III turned 17 in 1469 :-)
Yawwwn. Richard III turned 17 in 1469...just in case:-)
I am really impressed by the way in which you have celebrated 17th anniversary of Outlook and have come out with a special collectors’ issue. It is fascinating to read about so many individuals and what occupied their minds when each one of them was just seventeen.
Incidentally, I am reminded of a noted Marathi short story titled ”Satarave Varsha” published in the late forties but people of my age are still having memories of their teenage love which was not there but were lost in the story as it was a beautiful description of a teenager’s first love.
Some fan of Indrajit Hazra seems to have been diapleased by my comment at # 4. So I want to clarify that my comment was -- heaven forbid ! -- not about him personally but his two photographs, the one that accompanies his Sunday HT column and the other we have here on Outlook. And it was all in jest. No offence was ever meant.
Having gathered the critical mass of years in experience
at 17, Outlook brought a 'funtastic' issue. Congrats, sure
'many more miles to go before we sleep'.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT