The exodus of youth is certainly an issue that cannot be shrugged off as something trivial. It has been said and well-proven that the youth is the driving force of any community, country or a system. Youth is the force of change. This makes even more sense at trying times such as the one we are faced today in Nepal. This transformation of the country calls for a larger involvement of the youth in the formulation of its new policies and in the grooming of a new system. It calls for a unified sense of nationalism from people of all age groups, social classes, religion and backgrounds. However, with the facts thrown at us about the exodus of its youth, it can be argued that Nepal is losing what could be a very necessary element indispensable to its development.
The field of academia in the US and the avenues of opportunities that it opens up for the young are very lucrative. And that is where exactly the danger is. As much as the young generation who comes here wants to go back to Nepal eventually and do something for it, there is an equal chance that they would get trapped in a black hole of job security, freedom and a decent lifestyle. It is equally likely that the generation feels overqualified to go back. These obvious points aside, another danger as a result of migration is long-distance nationalism. A young population segregated from the banalities of its native country, the problems it is going through and its changes, also remains distant from the important feeling of true nationalism.
It can be said with confidence that most of the youth who have come to the US for higher education feel very highly of their country. Hence, the consequential problem with brain drain is not so much the youth’s suspected lack of concern for their country as it is the danger of long-distance nationalism. I myself have stayed here in the US for four years now in the pursuit of an advanced degree in engineering. My commitment towards Nepal over these four years has not waned one bit. However, at times, I do feel that the prospect of me going back with this expertise and actually being able to use it for the betterment of the country is bleak. That has led me to be satisfied with what I can do to my country from a distance and, accordingly, I have made myself resort to long-distance nationalism. I care a lot about my country. I take part in political discussions here in the US, I read about the politics and the economy, the lifestyle and the sports. However, I know what I am doing, at best, is borrowing information from an indirect source. I hear and examine things remotely. I do not SEE things. I do not get opportunities to DO things that directly impact my country. It just never feels as fresh as doing all the things firsthand by being physically THERE.
One of my biggest grievances of being abroad is that I could not vote in the historical elections last year. Along with me, a horde of young minds abroad, who are supposed to be the representatives of the country’s future, missed it too. I sometimes try to convince myself that with the increasing trend of globalization, nationality has redefined itself too – that one can still be a part of the nation from a distance. However, with things like the election, I have time and again failed to feel the way I would have if I were back in my country. It is just not the same. Part of the reason why I am writing this article is my own subconscious guilt about not being able to be there when my country most needs me or not being able to escape this repressing constraint imposed by long-distance nationalism. It is also one of my inner fears that with increasing dependency on a made-up nationalism, I might someday mix up my identity between who I am now and who I was earlier and develop overly ambitious dreams or sometimes undeniably unrealistic judgments about the country – dreams and judgments devoid of the actual truth that underlines the country.
The bigger picture that needs to be understood here is that abstracted nationalism rarely juxtaposes with basic reality and the needs of a country. Long-distance nationalists tend to be, more often than not, nostalgic of the times that prevailed when they were back in their country and hence can become very resistant to change. They could be opposed to favoring what could now be essential political compromises or cultural overhauls demanded and needed by the times in the country. From the safety of their exile, these people can often come to unrealistic and unfavorable conclusions and decisions about their countries.
This becomes a bigger problem when this group happens to be the youth – the building blocks of the nation. During an important time of a historical political and cultural metamorphosis, we need all the youth power to stabilize the country and steer it to a new direction. We need the youth to have a firsthand sense of nationalism devoid of any long-distance romanticism for the country. We need the youth to work on the problems at site and not just decry them from a distance. A draining young population certainly does not help the case. This increasing trend of migration may not yet seem malignant to the future of the country but clearly poses certain questions. Should we motivate the young generation to stay in the country? Do we have enough resources to make the youth turn their backs towards foreign prospects? Have we done enough to think about this as an ensuing problem? Until all these questions are fully addressed, the young population will keep seeking shelter outside of the country; brains will keep draining into lands of opportunities and the inevitable frontier of distant nationalism will keep strengthening itself.
Writer is pursuing a PhD in Electrical Engineering at Brown University, US
Related story
Mainstream Nationalism vs. Regional Nationalism
