What Democracy Looks Like To Youth In Slums

In civics textbooks, democracy is presented as a settled idea. It is defined through rights, institutions, and procedures, often laid out with clarity and confidence. For many young people growing up in India’s informal settlements, however, democracy is not encountered as a definition. It is encountered as an experience, uneven, occasional, and shaped more by moments than by continuity.

In these neighbourhoods, democratic engagement becomes most visible during election periods. Political attention intensifies, messaging grows louder, and communities that are otherwise peripheral briefly come into focus. Once elections conclude, that attention often fades. For many first-time voters in slums, democracy is therefore not absent, but intermittent, present at specific intervals and distant at others.

Observations from youth political literacy efforts in Delhi’s resettlement colonies and bastis reveal a consistent pattern. Young people display a sharp awareness of the public issues shaping their lives. They speak fluently about broken drainage, unstable electricity, missing documents, and everyday interactions with public authorities. They understand how political power operates in practice. What often remains unclear is where they themselves fit within formal structures of participation.

This uncertainty is not rooted in apathy. Young people in informal settlements engage with the state regularly. They assist family members in securing water access, navigate local offices for documentation, and follow up on civic complaints. Their political understanding is practical and lived rather than theoretical. The challenge lies in the limited availability of platforms that consistently recognise them as participants in decision-making rather than as temporary audiences.

Political outreach in these areas often prioritises mobilisation over sustained engagement. Material assistance and symbolic gestures play an important role in addressing immediate needs. Yet when these efforts are not accompanied by dialogue or follow-through, participation risks becoming episodic. Over time, this can shape the perception that democracy is something delivered periodically, rather than a process shaped continuously by citizens.

If democracy is to feel more tangible to young people in informal settlements, it must be rooted more firmly at the neighbourhood level. One constructive step is recognising these settlements as stable communities with their own social leadership and civic rhythms. Permanent youth-facing mechanisms, such as ward-level youth councils, can create structured opportunities for young residents to contribute to local planning, review municipal priorities, and monitor public works. Such forums encourage continuity and shared responsibility.

Civic education must also extend beyond formal classrooms. Government estimates suggest that a significant proportion of urban youth discontinue formal schooling before completion, even as they remain active in public life. Democracy education therefore, needs to reach the spaces young people already inhabit. Community libraries, sports grounds, neighbourhood meetings, and informal public spaces can become sites of civic learning. When discussions are anchored in everyday concerns such as water access or sanitation, participation becomes practical and sustained.

Political parties and public institutions also have an opportunity to deepen engagement with slum youth. Regular open forums, transparent communication at the ward level, and accessible platforms for questions and feedback can help build trust over time. Simple practices, such as sharing updates on local commitments or explaining constraints, can strengthen democratic confidence without requiring major structural change.

Public participation gains credibility when consultation is followed by a visible response. When suggestions are acknowledged, recorded, and revisited, whether implemented or not, citizens begin to see engagement as meaningful. Material support remains essential, but when paired with agency and dialogue, it becomes a foundation for partnership rather than dependence.

What democracy looks like to a nineteen-year-old in a slum today will shape the character of India’s democracy in the decades ahead. When young people see themselves as contributors and problem-solvers, democratic participation moves beyond turnout figures. It gains depth, resilience, and legitimacy.
Democracy is sustained not only through elections, but through continuity, through who is invited into conversations, who is heard, and who remains engaged long after campaigns conclude. 

For millions of young Indians living in informal settlements, democracy does not require reinvention. It requires recognition. And that recognition begins when engagement evolves from moments to relationships, and from outreach to inclusion.