By Soroor Ahmed, TwoCircles.net,
When Mahatma Gandhi can successfully lead India to freedom at the age of 78 and would have continued to serve the country for several more years had he not fallen to Nathuram Godse’s bullets, when fit as fiddle Morarji Desai can become the prime minister at the age of 81, when Jaya Prakash Narayan can launch his Total Revolution in his mid-70s and when septuagenarian Anna Hazare can undertake a 12-day long fast for Jan Lokpal the BJP is busy shunting out senior party leaders in the name of old age. A few recent examples of the leaders of the US, UK and a couple of western countries––Obama, Cameron, Merkel etc––are being cited to buttress the argument in favour of young team not knowing that in beleaguered Israel there is no dearth of generals entering politics after retiring from the defence forces only to become minister or prime minister at the fairly ripe age.
Internationally, Nelson Mandela got rid of the apartheid regime in South Africa and became its first President in mid-70s and continued to lead the country for years; Deng Xiaoping heralded in a new era in China when almost 80 and Ayotullah Khomieni brought about revolution in Iran at the age of 79 and remained alive for about a decade––not to speak of gerontocracy in Communist Russia and China.
Mahatma Gandhi
If Khushwant Singh can die in harness at the age of 99 and Nirad C Chaudhary continued to produce his better writings even after completing century and aging M S Swaminathan and C N R Rao are still enriching the country with their scientific talent and experience than why not Lal Krishna Advani and Murli Manohar Joshi, fit enough to fight and win the election held in scorching summer, remain member of BJP’s parliamentary board? One may argue that they may be too old for the post of the PM or senior minister, but they could still be fit for being members of board. Relatively younger Yashwant Sinha and Jaswant Sinha were eased out before the Lok Sabha poll. But what about Arun Shourie and a number of others equally experienced yet not so old party bigwigs.
Just age can not be criteria for performance. History stands as witness to the fact that many old rulers have done much better than their much younger counterparts.
The retirement age of politicians can not be equated with that of the government or private sector employees. Among other things, the concept of retirement has been introduced with the view to providing employment to the fresh blood and check joblessness. In several professions the post-retirement engagement is much more pressing and longer than during service period. Khushwant Singh and Nirad Chaudhary stand as examples
Similarly, many bureaucrats and technocrats continue to serve till they breath their last as their demand rises after retirement. They are posted as ambassadors, write book, appointed as experts and perform some really serious business. There are judges, who after their retirement go to become lawyer or are appointed by the government to head commission at fairly late age. There are many octogenarian lawyers handling very serious cases, yet we never question their capability to deal with them.
In sectors like medical science the government is toying with the idea of introducing the concept of service till death as it is facing huge shortage of doctors. Even raising the retirement age to 65 or 70 is not enough to overcome their acute shortage. This is not to speak of private doctors who continue to treat patients till their own end come.
So if age is hardly any criteria to call it the day in many professions why should it be made so for public figures, especially when life-span has got doubled since independence because of the better health facilities. It is upto them to opt for voluntary retirement scheme (VRS) when they feel so.