NEWSLINKS
US EDITION
COLUMNISTS
DIARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ELECTION 99
ELECTIONS
ARCHIVES

Search Rediff

Jurassic Bagh

Beyond the vision statement and the address to Parliament, beyond the photo-ops and the pleas to keep the peace, there is a simple message in the first visit of a serving American president in 22 years.

Question is: do we want to hear it?

As images of William Jefferson Clinton crisscrossing the subcontinent, with Chelsea in tow, lights up our televisions screens and colours up our newspapers, the stark reality socks you between the balls of the eyes.

The most powerful leader in the world, and god, so bloody young.

So bloody young that he has a daughter younger than the granddaughters of most our leaders. So bloody young that when he remits office later this year after eight years at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, he will be all of 54 years old, an age when our leaders make it to the Youth Congress or Yuva Morcha.

G-a-w-d-!

In spite of all his advertised weaknesses, Clinton -- fit, telegenic, articulate and, dare we say, virile -- cuts such an imposing and impressive picture that it is difficult not to wonder why we are struck with paleolithic fossils, mumbling and stumbling every step of their way.

And, Antony Lynton Blair? Ten years younger than William Jefferson!

And here we are. The most populous democracy in the the world -- which technically means the largest pool to choose from -- and, god, what a geriatric ward. Vajpayee or Soniaji. VP or PV. Deve Gowda or Advani. Basu or Karunanidhi. As Ian Botham could have but didn't say, their average age is that of Clinton's mother-in-law's.

Why?

Why are we incapable of throwing up leaders who do not rely on dentures and pacemakers? Leaders who are young in age or at least young at heart?

Why are we incapable of throwing up leaders who do not falter and fall at Rajghat (or whereever it was Shankar Dayal Sharma fell)? Why are we incapable of throwing up leaders whose every cough is not referred to cardiac specialists (as it was in the case of a current worthy)?

Why are we incapable of throwing up leaders who are agile, athletic and in shape? Not so that they can compete in the next Olympics but so that they convey to the world -- and to us -- a truer, more presentable, face of India? An India not living in the past but looking to the future.

If you cut out the mush about "buzurg" and respect to the elderly and all that, this is an important question -- at least to those of us living in Jurassic Bagh and feeling the brunt of their regressive, outdated thinking.

In last year's general election, nearly 65 per cent of the electorate was between 18 and 35 years old. Yet, just how many ministers in Mr Vajpayee's jumbo team are from that age group? One? Two? Three? Answer: None. How can such an old leadership mirror the aspirations of a young democracy?

Little wonder, the idiots in Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra who opposed Valentine's Day found some sympathy in Nagpur and Delhi.

Meanwhile: • Should Vajpayee demand the resignations of L K Advani and Murli Manohar Joshi (chargesheeted in the Babri Masjid demolition case) if Rabri Devi resigns in the wake of the disproportionate assets case? • Will George W Bush or Al Gore -- depending on who wins this year's presidential election -- come to India in their first term in office, or will their visit, too, be more out of tourist reasons in the second? • Will Sharjah spell an end to Saurav Ganguly's honeymoon with fans and followers of Indian cricket as quickly as it began?

According to a recent study by Merrill Lynch, in 1998, when our population was around 950 million, those 65 and above comprised a mere 4 per cent of the population. By 2010, the percentage of 65-ers in India is projected to be just a little over five per cent. (The Economist, March 4, 2000)

And yet, what do we have? The minority ruling the majority.

To be sure, America -- and Britain -- have had old men (and women) leading them before. In the 1984 election campaign, when the Democrat candidate Walter Mondale sought to make an issue of his opponent's age, Ronald Reagan pounced on him, saying he didn't wish to capitalise on the "inexperience" of his more youthful rival.

But both America (with 12 per cent of the population above 65, 13 per cent by 2010) and Britain (16 per cent now, 18 per cent soon) have realised the importance of youth. But look around you, and you will realise the quagmire we are in. BJP, Congress or the Left, there is a serious and severe shortage of credible and acceptable young leaders, male or female. The few there are won't be elected even by their housing colonies.

Don't give me Chandrababu Naidu. Or Pramod Mahajan.

I mean, where are clean, nationally acceptable, visionary leaders with the finger on the pulse and who talk the talk of India's young? The fault, we are told, is ours; that People Like Us are not taking active part in politics. But guess who are telling us this?

If the BJP or the Congress are serious about wanting the young and the educated to enter politics, they should demonstrate their faith in youth; that politics can be a profitable career with good growth prospects and not a cesspool as one angry young man told us ten years ago.

But since they can't -- won't -- just sit back and admire the true import of the Clinton visit. Which is the sight of the old men (and women) of India being told how to run their country and manage their affairs by a man who is mentally half their age, and physically a quarter of that.

Ask Mme Lewinsky.

Krishna Prasad