After mugging through the constitution for about a month i did not find a single word mentioning about some specific, certain and defining ageing policy in politics.
On the other hand, every other organisation (no matter if it is public, private, constitutional, central or state job) has a definite working structure mentioning viable age to retire from the work.
I wonder why these retirement policies are fixed? Does it refer to the inability of a humanitarian precision of working, mentally and physically. In simple language, we can understand that after a certain age the person lacks the accurate decision making instinct, the age being usually 60, 62 or in some cases 65.
But, if it is so, then why doesn't a similar presumption was made regarding the political designations?
Why didn't the constitutional framers gave a thought that if a collector is unable to administer a district after the age of 60 then how can a Prime Minister can administer the complete nation at the age of, say, 75-80 (or if we say Mr Lal Krishna Advani is a PM in waiting) then 84-85?
In India, it is widely recognized that elders are the one who are responsible and reliable while the youth, though enthusiastic and energetic, lacks the responsible status. And this is what reflects in our political system as they have the responsibility to run the whole nation.
That is why, we have a mindset that political career of a person starts when he/she starts shedding his/her hair. This is why (on a funny note) we still regard Mr. Rahul Gandhi as a politician of the youth brigade at the age of 42. On the other hand, most of the developed economies have their average PM's or President's age in between 40-50.
According to the TIMES OF INDIA,
India may have the youngest population of the world's biggest countries, but it has the oldest leader and oldest ministerial cabinet. In most of the world's top economies, the average age of a cabinet minister or his equivalent is just a decade or so higher than the median age of the population. But in India, the average age of a cabinet minister is almost two-and-a-half times the country's median age.
At 78, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is the oldest head of government in a major economy.
In fact, Singh is the only head of government older than 70 in 15 of the world's biggest economies, which account for more than 70% of the world's GDP and 60% of the population.
Four leaders are in their 60s ; all of them from Asia. The rest are either in their 50s or their 40s, with Britain's David Cameron the youngest at 43.
In the country like India where the median age- the level at which half the population is younger and half older- is 25.9 years,the gap between the average age of India's cabinet and the median age of its population is almost 39 years which is vast mismatch. This is not just an age gap, but the scenario of different generations and hence different ideologies. Often it is seen that former fails to understand the sentiments of the latter or vice-versa.
So it is high time that a larger contribution of youth in politics arises and so its high time that after a certain age politicians should retire and give youngsters a chance.
Definitely, we can utilize the potential of such a vast experienced people by consuming their valuable advises every time we are in a dilemma.
On the other hand, every other organisation (no matter if it is public, private, constitutional, central or state job) has a definite working structure mentioning viable age to retire from the work.
I wonder why these retirement policies are fixed? Does it refer to the inability of a humanitarian precision of working, mentally and physically. In simple language, we can understand that after a certain age the person lacks the accurate decision making instinct, the age being usually 60, 62 or in some cases 65.
But, if it is so, then why doesn't a similar presumption was made regarding the political designations?
Why didn't the constitutional framers gave a thought that if a collector is unable to administer a district after the age of 60 then how can a Prime Minister can administer the complete nation at the age of, say, 75-80 (or if we say Mr Lal Krishna Advani is a PM in waiting) then 84-85?
In India, it is widely recognized that elders are the one who are responsible and reliable while the youth, though enthusiastic and energetic, lacks the responsible status. And this is what reflects in our political system as they have the responsibility to run the whole nation.
That is why, we have a mindset that political career of a person starts when he/she starts shedding his/her hair. This is why (on a funny note) we still regard Mr. Rahul Gandhi as a politician of the youth brigade at the age of 42. On the other hand, most of the developed economies have their average PM's or President's age in between 40-50.
According to the TIMES OF INDIA,
India may have the youngest population of the world's biggest countries, but it has the oldest leader and oldest ministerial cabinet. In most of the world's top economies, the average age of a cabinet minister or his equivalent is just a decade or so higher than the median age of the population. But in India, the average age of a cabinet minister is almost two-and-a-half times the country's median age.
At 78, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is the oldest head of government in a major economy.
In fact, Singh is the only head of government older than 70 in 15 of the world's biggest economies, which account for more than 70% of the world's GDP and 60% of the population.
Four leaders are in their 60s ; all of them from Asia. The rest are either in their 50s or their 40s, with Britain's David Cameron the youngest at 43.
In the country like India where the median age- the level at which half the population is younger and half older- is 25.9 years,the gap between the average age of India's cabinet and the median age of its population is almost 39 years which is vast mismatch. This is not just an age gap, but the scenario of different generations and hence different ideologies. Often it is seen that former fails to understand the sentiments of the latter or vice-versa.
So it is high time that a larger contribution of youth in politics arises and so its high time that after a certain age politicians should retire and give youngsters a chance.
Definitely, we can utilize the potential of such a vast experienced people by consuming their valuable advises every time we are in a dilemma.
