<p>The ideal endpoint of human development is the acquisition of wisdom. This metaphysical state comes with long experiences that allow for successful conflation of knowledge, morality, and intelligence. For if any one of the three is missing, wisdom gets diluted. Therefore, in a 5,000-year-old civilisation like India, leadership of any organisation, be it a state, community, religious, social, familial, or even political order, was invariably reserved for the wisest or the elderly. Historically, age was revered and an important criterion for leadership. The ‘heir-apparent’ always had to wait patiently and could not claim leadership on account of youthfulness. For leadership, the otherwise mandated stages of life, i.e., Brahmcharya (studentship), Grihstha (householder), Vanprasth (forest dweller), and Sanyas (ascetic), were overlooked.</p>.<p>However, with the constant evolution of technology, social concepts, and reforms, a certain premium started getting attached to ‘youth’ as it was equated to up-to-date preparedness. Breakdown of social order and the assertion of youth added a dash of muscularity and reform-friendly appeal of ‘youth’ that was flexed each time a new leader wanted to oust an entrenched leader. Barbs like the Gungi-Gudia (the dumb doll) onto the likes of Indira Gandhi no longer cut ice with the people or by Indira herself, as she morphed into ‘Iron Lady’ with sexist comments like, ‘the only man in the cabinet’. Besides her gender, her relatively young age at that time was presumed a handicap. Soon the advent of powerful ‘youth brigades’ (e.g., ‘Young Turks’) became an accepted phenomenon across all national and regional parties, with them harbouring ambitions and guile to threaten their respective leadership within. Soon, many young chief ministers emerged in the form of Prafulla Mahanta, Gegong Apang, Omar Abdullah, Akhilesh Yadav, Mayawati, Pema Khandu, Ashok Chavan, etc. However, history is instructive that hardly any of these youth leaders lived up to the hype of ‘youthfulness’ or progressive politics, and their tenures were not starkly different from their predecessors or successors, who may not have been young.</p>.<p>But ageism got truly asserted at national politics after 2014, when the so-called old guard (who represented the sensibilities of co-partisan Vajpayee) were diminished and sent to ‘Margdarshak Mandal’, ostensibly, an apex-advisory body with participants who had nowhere to go and who tellingly never met as a body, ever. Many who were bundled out included intellectuals and achievers like Jaswant Singh, Arun Shourie, Yashwant Sinha and others, who still had enough steam to contribute further but were disallowed. A convenient age-criteria was bandied, which effectively debarred the relevance of those who could be threats within the organisation. Much later, the same age-criteria came back to haunt those who had introduced the tenet, but it was immediately followed with a brazen retraction and denial of any such criteria. It was amply clear that the issue of ageism was raised only to cleanse leaders of certain sensibilities, and it was not about the infirmities of age but plain political expediency. It was a political coup, and age was only the weapon, not a matter of conviction.</p>.Nehru had vision; his leadership was necessary for India's progress: Pawar.<p>Now, as the same leadership persists at the national level, the evolutionary change that has historically been led by new ideas and new people is manifesting with seven newly elected Members of Parliament to the 18th Lok Sabha who are in the 25-30 age bracket. Unsurprisingly, six of the seven belong to the opposition coalition.</p>.<p>Ageism is at the heart of the US presidential battle. It is the single biggest weapon that convicted (on 34 counts of falsification) Donald Trump has over Joe Biden. It has diverted the debate from policy positions or track records. This is the same country where Senator Bernie Sanders (one year older than Joe Biden) is still considered a ‘youth icon’. Bernie’s status has a lot to do with his progressive positions on issues like health care, tuition fees, climate change, paid parental leave, gun law reform, etc. It was the perception of Bernie Sander’s basis, his ideas, and his policies that mattered, not his relatively ripe age. But it is also true that Bernie Sanders does not visibly reflect the age-related slowdown with his perky presence, loud Brooklyn accent, animated gestures, and passionate causes — unlike the robotic stutters, name-confusions, quieter suburban accent, and physical falls of a Joe Biden. Therefore, in comparison and on the rebound, even a 77-year-old Donald Trump looks decisively more energetic and vigorous than his direct rival. So, it is not so much about ageism per se but about perceived ableism.</p>.<p>While Joe Biden keeps reiterating his undeniably impressive track record of the presidency, the media is agog with him miscalling Volodymyr Zelensky as ‘President Putin’ or Kamala Harris as ‘Vice President Trump’! Biden’s presidency has accomplished the extraordinary by resisting going into the widely expected recession, strengthening household finances, creating record employment, and infused strong confidence among consumers and businesses. This is no small feat in the context of a country with the size and complexity of the United States. So far, there has been no known executive decision that Biden has taken that can be attributed to old-age infirmities, and the dialled-up concern has only been in the realm of social gaffes. However, the same cannot be said about the ‘younger’ Donald Trump’s presidency with many questionable and regressive decisions (including his conduct during the January 6 ‘Insurrection’, when he refused to move out). But it is a fair question to ask if Joe Biden has enough health to continue taking prudent decisions for the next four years, and the American citizenry has to decide on the same.</p>.<p>Across countries, age has sadly been over-flexed without age demonstrating any substantial difference. A not-so-young Narasimha Rao with Manmohan Singh did yeoman service with ‘Liberalisation’, whereas disastrous and painful decisions can be attributed to the subsequent leadership, which was supposedly younger and more decisive. Therefore, it must always be a contest of ideas and morality, along with ableism, and not age, that determines leadership. Wisdom ought to <br>be paramount.</p>.<p><em>(The writer is former lieutenant governor of Puducherry and Andaman & Nicobar Islands)</em></p>
<p>The ideal endpoint of human development is the acquisition of wisdom. This metaphysical state comes with long experiences that allow for successful conflation of knowledge, morality, and intelligence. For if any one of the three is missing, wisdom gets diluted. Therefore, in a 5,000-year-old civilisation like India, leadership of any organisation, be it a state, community, religious, social, familial, or even political order, was invariably reserved for the wisest or the elderly. Historically, age was revered and an important criterion for leadership. The ‘heir-apparent’ always had to wait patiently and could not claim leadership on account of youthfulness. For leadership, the otherwise mandated stages of life, i.e., Brahmcharya (studentship), Grihstha (householder), Vanprasth (forest dweller), and Sanyas (ascetic), were overlooked.</p>.<p>However, with the constant evolution of technology, social concepts, and reforms, a certain premium started getting attached to ‘youth’ as it was equated to up-to-date preparedness. Breakdown of social order and the assertion of youth added a dash of muscularity and reform-friendly appeal of ‘youth’ that was flexed each time a new leader wanted to oust an entrenched leader. Barbs like the Gungi-Gudia (the dumb doll) onto the likes of Indira Gandhi no longer cut ice with the people or by Indira herself, as she morphed into ‘Iron Lady’ with sexist comments like, ‘the only man in the cabinet’. Besides her gender, her relatively young age at that time was presumed a handicap. Soon the advent of powerful ‘youth brigades’ (e.g., ‘Young Turks’) became an accepted phenomenon across all national and regional parties, with them harbouring ambitions and guile to threaten their respective leadership within. Soon, many young chief ministers emerged in the form of Prafulla Mahanta, Gegong Apang, Omar Abdullah, Akhilesh Yadav, Mayawati, Pema Khandu, Ashok Chavan, etc. However, history is instructive that hardly any of these youth leaders lived up to the hype of ‘youthfulness’ or progressive politics, and their tenures were not starkly different from their predecessors or successors, who may not have been young.</p>.<p>But ageism got truly asserted at national politics after 2014, when the so-called old guard (who represented the sensibilities of co-partisan Vajpayee) were diminished and sent to ‘Margdarshak Mandal’, ostensibly, an apex-advisory body with participants who had nowhere to go and who tellingly never met as a body, ever. Many who were bundled out included intellectuals and achievers like Jaswant Singh, Arun Shourie, Yashwant Sinha and others, who still had enough steam to contribute further but were disallowed. A convenient age-criteria was bandied, which effectively debarred the relevance of those who could be threats within the organisation. Much later, the same age-criteria came back to haunt those who had introduced the tenet, but it was immediately followed with a brazen retraction and denial of any such criteria. It was amply clear that the issue of ageism was raised only to cleanse leaders of certain sensibilities, and it was not about the infirmities of age but plain political expediency. It was a political coup, and age was only the weapon, not a matter of conviction.</p>.Nehru had vision; his leadership was necessary for India's progress: Pawar.<p>Now, as the same leadership persists at the national level, the evolutionary change that has historically been led by new ideas and new people is manifesting with seven newly elected Members of Parliament to the 18th Lok Sabha who are in the 25-30 age bracket. Unsurprisingly, six of the seven belong to the opposition coalition.</p>.<p>Ageism is at the heart of the US presidential battle. It is the single biggest weapon that convicted (on 34 counts of falsification) Donald Trump has over Joe Biden. It has diverted the debate from policy positions or track records. This is the same country where Senator Bernie Sanders (one year older than Joe Biden) is still considered a ‘youth icon’. Bernie’s status has a lot to do with his progressive positions on issues like health care, tuition fees, climate change, paid parental leave, gun law reform, etc. It was the perception of Bernie Sander’s basis, his ideas, and his policies that mattered, not his relatively ripe age. But it is also true that Bernie Sanders does not visibly reflect the age-related slowdown with his perky presence, loud Brooklyn accent, animated gestures, and passionate causes — unlike the robotic stutters, name-confusions, quieter suburban accent, and physical falls of a Joe Biden. Therefore, in comparison and on the rebound, even a 77-year-old Donald Trump looks decisively more energetic and vigorous than his direct rival. So, it is not so much about ageism per se but about perceived ableism.</p>.<p>While Joe Biden keeps reiterating his undeniably impressive track record of the presidency, the media is agog with him miscalling Volodymyr Zelensky as ‘President Putin’ or Kamala Harris as ‘Vice President Trump’! Biden’s presidency has accomplished the extraordinary by resisting going into the widely expected recession, strengthening household finances, creating record employment, and infused strong confidence among consumers and businesses. This is no small feat in the context of a country with the size and complexity of the United States. So far, there has been no known executive decision that Biden has taken that can be attributed to old-age infirmities, and the dialled-up concern has only been in the realm of social gaffes. However, the same cannot be said about the ‘younger’ Donald Trump’s presidency with many questionable and regressive decisions (including his conduct during the January 6 ‘Insurrection’, when he refused to move out). But it is a fair question to ask if Joe Biden has enough health to continue taking prudent decisions for the next four years, and the American citizenry has to decide on the same.</p>.<p>Across countries, age has sadly been over-flexed without age demonstrating any substantial difference. A not-so-young Narasimha Rao with Manmohan Singh did yeoman service with ‘Liberalisation’, whereas disastrous and painful decisions can be attributed to the subsequent leadership, which was supposedly younger and more decisive. Therefore, it must always be a contest of ideas and morality, along with ableism, and not age, that determines leadership. Wisdom ought to <br>be paramount.</p>.<p><em>(The writer is former lieutenant governor of Puducherry and Andaman & Nicobar Islands)</em></p>
