Home arrow Archives arrow Events and Issues arrow Events and Issues 2008 arrow India’s ‘Old’ Leaders:IS AGE IN POLITICS AN ISSUE?By Prakash Nanda,16 December 2008
 
Home
News and Features
INFA Digest
Parliament Spotlight
Dossiers
Publications
Journalism Awards
Archives
RSS
 
 
 
 
 
 
India’s ‘Old’ Leaders:IS AGE IN POLITICS AN ISSUE?By Prakash Nanda,16 December 2008 Print E-mail

Events & Issues

New Delhi, 16 December 2008

India’s ‘Old’ Leaders

IS AGE IN POLITICS AN ISSUE?

By Prakash Nanda

Debating and discussing personal matters, including health, of political leaders before voting for them is a normal phenomenon in Western democracies. However, in India, this has rarely entered the political parlance. Whatever may be the animosity, political leaders have avoided personal attacks on their opponents. This is very unlike situation in countries such as the US and Great Britain, where scandals in private lives have cost many a promising leader a bright future. Though India, so far, has not witnessed such scandals, influencing electoral outcomes, the age factor is now increasingly attracting attention. 

For instance, take the just-concluded Assembly elections in Delhi. In the debating circles, it is becoming more fashionable to say that the BJP lost primarily because of its projection of “old” Vijay Kumar Malhotra as its chief ministerial candidate. Taking a cue from the results in the country’s Capital, one is now hearing that the National Democratic Alliance’s future in the forthcoming and more important, parliamentary polls is virtually doomed unless “old” L K Advani is replaced by a younger leader.       

In this context, one may just recall how on the eve of the 2004 General Elections, former Union Minister Ajit Singh, better known in political circles as Late Prime Minister Charan Singh’s son, had described the then Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee in one of his election rallies. Though not long before that, Singh, leading a one-man party in the 13th Lok Sabha, was a Cabinet Minister under Vajpayee. Singh, no longer in the NDA, ridiculed the “old and sick” Vajpayee’s political ambition, mimicked his gait, and laughed at Vajpayee’s weight and the way he was being “craned”. Sadly, the way Singh described Vajpayee’s health was truly sickening, to say the least. As a student of Indian politics, I do not recall any such instance when an Indian leader spoke so disgracefully about the health and personal life of another leader, and that too of a Prime Minister. 

It is a different matter altogether that the same Ajit Singh is now being courted by the BJP to be its electoral partner in Uttar Pradesh. Perhaps, Singh can today say that in 2004 he stood vindicated as the Vajpayee-led NDA was voted out of power. In fact, Vajpayee’s age had been commented on by his too critics during the electioneering. A Congress spokesman had asked the BJP to give him rest and spare him from strenuous campaigning. Likewise, Congress leader Jaipal Reddy (now a senior minister under Manmohan Singh) went to the extent of suggesting that India should have a rule or convention that should ensure politicians above 70 take sanyas.

But then, as subsequent events prove, the Congress-led UPA selected not exactly a young person as Prime Minister. And as has been pointed out recently by Congress leaders, the same Manmohan Singh, who is approaching 80, will continue as Prime Minister should his alliance obtain a fresh mandate in 2009. No doubt, “old” Malhotra has lost in Delhi, but the 70-plus Chief Minister, Sheila Dikshit is not exactly young!

This is not to suggest that we should not discuss the factor of age in Indian politics. In fact, the country’s does require a debate on this issue, but it should be “healthy”. It is a pertinent point if one questions the logic behind 80-year-olds running a country, which has 500 million youth under the age of 25. However, it is equally legitimate when some others point out that age has nothing to do with politics. Many political stalwarts such as Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965), Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869-1948), Charles de Gaulle (1890-1970), Ho Chi Minh (1890-1969), Nelson Mandela (b. 1918), Mao Ze Dong (1893-1976), Joseph Stalin (1879-1953) and Tito (1892-1980) have contributed much for the cause of politics, with different strategies and outlook.

It is true that four leading nations of the world are now being governed by leaders below 60 years of age – George Bush in the US (he is giving way next month to a much younger Obama), Dmitry Medvedev in Russia, G. Brown  in Britain and Hu Jintao in China. Recall that former British Prime Minister Tony Blair became a father while in office. He had entered office in his early forties! So was Bill Clinton when he became the President in 1993. In contrast, India has had only one “young” Prime Minister – Rajiv Gandhi, who was just forty-plus when he occupied the most powerful elective office of the country. His grandfather, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru had entered office in his late 50s and India, by and large has had septuagenarian and octogenarian Prime Ministers - Morarji Desai, Charan Singh, Chandra Shekhar, Narasimha Rao, Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh.

Interestingly, in this context the community of Madiswil in canton Bern, Switzerland had in August 2002 fixed an upper age limit of 70 for local council candidates. The decision had evoked countrywide apprehension and the Swiss federal government was forced to scrap the provision, terming it “discriminatory, unnecessary and inappropriate”. Prior to this the government had carried out an investigation by its “justice ministry”, which found that four cantons - Bern, Glarus, Appenzell Inner Rhodes and Appenzell Outer Rhodes - had an age limit of 65 years for members of the cantonal government!  The Swiss government took the stand that older people were “capable of great things in the fields of politics, culture or science.”

Should “old” leaders run a country like India, which is increasingly becoming younger, with an age-group of 20 and 50 years now constituting over 60 per cent of the population? Certainly it is a legitimate question, but given the global experience one cannot arrive at a definite conclusion or an answer. Take, for instance, the example in the Western world. It might have a Blair or Clinton or Bush or Putin (and now Obama), but the fact remains that it has also had the likes of highly effective septuagenarian Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroder, the French President and the German chancellor respectively.  It will not be out of context to recall that Ronald Reagan took the oath of office in his seventies and went on to become, arguably, one of the most powerful Presidents of the US.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower once said, "I'm saving that rocker for a day when I feel as old as I really am." And he was elected President in 1952 at the age of 62 and left office in 1961 at the ripe age of 70.  Importantly, if one looks at the makeup of those who shape policy nationally, including the U.S. Congress or Supreme Court, there is it ample evidence that age is not a deterrent. Not long ago, the Americans had a Senator in 98-year-old Strom Thurmond. Similarly, the Chinese and Russians, until recently, were, invariably, led by the octogenarians.

Clearly, age does not matter in politics so long as one is active and performing.  Political leadership is not necessarily about physical prowess, youth or age but about what one has in one’s head and one’s heart, and about competence, good judgment and integrity. --INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

                                    

 

 

< Previous   Next >
 
   
     
 
 
  Mambo powered by Best-IT