When 81-year-old L K Advani was seen lifting barbells in a gymnasium in Ahmedabad to kick off his election campaign, it seemed to confirm the prevailing wisdom that a critical aspect of the 2009 election battle is the contest for the hearts and minds of India's young. Which is why the octogenarian leader seems to have gone out of his way to engage in an image makeover: webchats, blogs and more, L K Advani is being asked to use technology to almost wipe away his age and rediscover the elixir of youth. After all, the Congress's political mascot, Rahul Gandhi, is a 38-year-old tech-savvy leader with chocolate box good looks, the kind that should instantly appeal to a younger nation. Well, here's a suggestion to the BJP's lauh purush and prime ministerial aspirant: Sir, you don't need to try so desperately hard to reach out to the country's generation next by lifting weights. Being politically young is not only about the number of candles on the cake nor is it just a fitness test, it's also about having an attitude that resonates with imbibing the spirit of "The 18 till I die" anthem as a life choice (or as Malika Pukhraj would sing, abhi to main jawan hoon!). It is about addressing the issues that concern India's young - jobs, law and order, housing, good governance -- issues that frankly should concern all Indians in this election season. It's about looking to the future instead of reviving the past. The challenge is not about building temples, but about rebuilding lives.
It is a trap to believe that the young necessarily vote for those in their age group. Take the example of Sheila Dikshit in Delhi. Here was a grey-haired 71-year-old woman, wearing crumpled saris, who simply swept the polls even after ten years in power. A post-poll survey suggests that more than 75 per cent of those under the age of thirty voted for Mrs Dikshit. Sure, she benefitted from the fact that her opponent, Mr Vijay Kumar Malhotra was even older than her and sounded even more ancient when he spoke. But it is also true that Mrs Dikshit appeared to connect to the national capital's youth by appearing as someone who was genuinely concerned with their well-being. She was Delhi's loveable dadima, affectionate, accessible and adaptable. Her presence was almost a source of comfort for Delhiites, young and old, buffeted as they are by the hustle and bustle of urban chaos.
In a sense, Mrs Dikshit with her success has redefined traditional notions of political 'charisma'. Being a charismatic leader is no longer about strident rhetoric, witty dialogue, or a powerful television personality. It's also about being seen and proving that you are a leader who performs in public life with a quiet dignity and compassion, a commitment to good governance and enhancing the life of the average citizen.
Mrs Dikshit is not the only successful role model for our contemporary politicians. Further afield, Barack Obama energised the American voters like few others have. Yes, his success formula did involve enthusing America's young and restless from participating in the electoral process. Yes, he did incredibly well in getting new voters registered. Yes, he became an icon on college campuses, a symbol of a new America. Yes, the manner in which he used social networking sites to galvanise support was unique as were his fund-raising efforts that tapped into individual donations rather than traditional big business.
But to see the Obama phenomenon, as some have tended to, as the arrival of 'youth' in politics would be to misread the historic verdict in the United States. Obama may be just 47 years old, but it wasn't his age alone that struck a chord with the American people. Obama won because, to borrow the title from his book, he offered the "audacity of hope'. Obama won because he made his rallying cry "yes, we can" more than just an empty slogan: he was offering a blueprint for a more equal, more caring, less cynical American society. He was offering an alternative vision of politics as a harbinger of genuine change, a point which he underscores emphatically in his book.
Forget about writing books, how many of our younger politicians have offered a new vision for their politics that places a premium on breaking with the status quo? How many of our younger politicians have stepped up and addressed the issues of a new generation from job losses to global warming? How many of them have truly attempted to raise the quality of parliamentary debate with strong interventions on important subjects?
Unfortunately, many of our young MPs have been reduced to page three posterboys in a socio-political milieu that seems to have become increasingly vacuous and devoid of innovative ideas that can make a difference on the ground. Not all the blame should be apportioned to our young netas either. There is a large section of the media that revels in trivia and is more interested in finding out about the marital prospects of Rahul Gandhi rather than attempting to seriously question him for his opinion on issues of national importance.
And yet, some of our younger MPs are also slowly demonstrating the 'yes, we can' philosophy in their politics. A few of them have, admirably, taken up issues of hunger and starvation deaths, by traveling to those parts of the country that have been affected by a deepening agrarian crisis (don't forget a majority of India's youth still live outside the big cities) and preparing detailed reports. Many of them are working very hard in nursing their constituencies. A Jyotiraditya Scindia in Gwalior-Guna, a Manvendra Singh in Barmer, a Milind Deora in South Mumbai, a Sachin Pilot in Dausa, a Sandeep Dikshit in East Delhi, Jai Panda in Orissa, a Supriya Sule in Maharashtra, a Rahul himself in Amethi are all good examples of young MPs who are beginning to make an impact, even if it is at a local constituency level. An Omar Abdullah has gone a step further by becoming the Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, and showing much promise in the manner in which he has approached the task.
A majority of them, though, are still the sons and daughters of powerful politicians. While some of them are undoubtedly talented, their ascent does suggest that politics in this country is a closed shop, that a young person must have family connections to move up the political ladder. At a time when other sectors of the economy are opening up to merit not lineage, politics cannot be reserved for those who are beneficiaries of political dynasties alone. The system needs to be shaken up from below, it needs to truly reflect the energies and the spirit of a country where sixty per cent of the population is under the age of 35, but where only two cabinet ministers are born after Independence.
Rahul Gandhi claims to have made a start by taking up the challenge of re-organising the Youth Congress and bringing in newer faces into a party system that has been notoriously resistant to change. The BJP too, claims that it will give tickets to many fresh, younger candidates in this election. Both the Congress and the BJP claims will be tested in this election year. Yes, this nation yearns for younger leaders in public life. But it also wants spirited younger leaders who will inspire a nation with their novel ideas, not simply piggyback on family surnames. Elections are ultimately a contest of political ideas, not an age group competition. Then, whether you are 81 or 38, it's the person with the better, bigger idea who will win out in the end!
No comments:
Post a Comment