We thought the opposition wanted the BJP out—lock, lotus, Hindutva and Hinditva. Now it looks they want only Narendra Modi out.
Look at how they’ve clutched on to what Mohan Bhagwat said. When honoured with a shawl at a book launch earlier this month, the RSS boss quipped, “When a shawl is draped on you at 75, it means you have grown old; just move aside.”
To the opposition, that sounded like a saffronised Kamaraj Plan, and a signal from the RSS to Narendra Modi, who will turn 75 in September, to move aside. It is another matter that Kamaraj’s own Congress had dumped his plan the soonest; the lefties largely followed it, and the righties when it suited them. Two notable ones in the 1970s were Nanaji Deshmukh from the right and Acharya Kripalani from the centre-left. Since then there have been many, including gentleman-comrade Jyoti Basu at 76, and now Jagdeep Dhankhar at 74, though inadvertently.
Shiv Sena (UBT)’s Sanjay Raut wants Modi to follow suit. He has reminded Modi that he had got the top job by “forcing” out L.K. Advani and M.M. Joshi on the ground they were past 75. “Let’s see if he applies the rule to himself now.” Congress’s Pawan Khera echoed the view.
Imaging: Deni Lal
Khera’s boss Mallikarjun Kharge may disagree. At a similar book launch last September, the 82-year-old had said there “should be no retirement age in politics”; rather, those who have “ideological conviction and a will to serve… should do so till their last breath”. Even Modi’s critics would concede that Modi doesn’t lack either, though they may hate his ideology.
What the BJP does to Modi is their business, but the larger question is—should politicians have a retirement age? Most of the middle-classes, the ones who serve, earn salaries, pay taxes, superannuate (with or without pension), stand in queues, curse politics, yet elect politicians, would say yes. They think, politics is a job just as theirs, and they want politicians, too, to retire just as they do.
They think big India is still not doing well on several parameters of progress because we continue to be ruled by people who are past their thinking prime. Since brain volume diminishes over time, and your ability to put in physical work too does, the country would be better ruled by those who are closer to the cradle than to the grave. India, they think, needs younger brains and stronger hands to lead it—like Finland’s Sanna Mirella Marin, who became PM at 35 and left the job at 39 in 2023, or New Zealand’s Jacinda Ardern, who got the job at 37 and left at 44.
But neuroscientists say, cognitive performance varies widely; while some skills decline with age, others improve. Some oldies possess the mental acuity of people decades younger—V.S. Achuthanandan, for example, who passed away on July 21 at 101.
History shows age is no criterion for judging governing gifts. William Pitt, not even 25 when he became PM first, is still considered among Britain’s greatest; so is William Gladstone who was 82 when he made it the last time. Narasimha Rao and A.B. Vajpayee were past 70 when they were called to rule; both rose to higher levels of statesmanship than did a youthful Rajiv Gandhi.
Youth is a matter of perception. Shashi Tharoor at 69 and M.K. Stalin at 72 may look more youthful than Amit Shah at 60 or Nitin Gadkari at 68, but all four are storehouses of ideas and powerhouses of energy in their own ways, as was Manny Shinwell sitting with a pucky smile in the British Parliament at 101, or Rishang Keishing in India’s at 94.
Politics is not a job; call it a profession, if you please. There’s no retirement age for professionals.
prasannan@theweek.in