'You Are 82, Will You Ever Stop?': The Bogey of 'Ageism' in Indian Politics

Sharad Pawar.

(Photo: PTI)-

As one grand patriarch of Indian politics was seemingly outsmarted by his ‘own’ (nephew in this case), the wise words of Christopher Hitchens came haunting back, “It will happen to all of us that at some point you’ll be tapped on the shoulder and told – not just that the party is over – but slightly worse; the party’s going on, but you have to leave”.

But the tireless patriarch of many political battles was not one to go down without a fight, as the ironical drama of ‘show of strength’ ensued – only that this time the patriarch was almost beseeching his one-time loyalists with an ‘82-year-old warrior waging a fight alone’. The larger-than-life Maratha was not his usual swashbuckling self but resorting to emotional and melodramatic ageism.

A Much-Bandied Weapon, Though Only Half-sincere

That politics is a cruel and selfish calling (certainly not a ‘service to the community’ as readily postulated) became even more apparent, as his one-time trusted lieutenant and flesh-and-blood retorted with Christopher Hitchens’s metaphorical ‘party’ by slamming, “Your age is 83, will you ever stop or not?”. They say ambition (and increasingly compulsion) can make politicians walk rather strange courses, and here the dynast turned on the dynasty supremo.

‘Age’ is a much-bandied weapon in political arguments, though only half-sincere. Two leading national parties have had their own tryst with the topic. The ruling party ostensibly mandates a retirement age of 75 years and then seeks ‘guidance and blessing’ through Margdarshak Mandal (which hasn’t convened even once since its formation) and applies this rule strictly with those who tend to have a mind of their own, but not so strictly when irreconcilable and irreplaceable regional satraps get grumpy.

The principal opposition party has its own conflicting lobbies of the supposed ‘young brigade’ and the ‘old guard’, though with an 80-year-old as the Party President and a 53-year-old ‘Leader’ – the juxtaposed combination of different generations is decidedly more compelling if Himachal and Karnataka are anything to go by.

Often counterintuitively, the ‘youth’ leadership across the political parties in the country has given some of the most regressive, revisionist, and rote ideas, whereas the ‘opening up’ (be it in terms of economy or societal moors) has come from so-called veterans of politics, across the political landscape.

The ‘Feel the Burn’ phenomenon

In the run-up to the Presidential Primaries and Caucuses in the United States in 2016, it was the then 74 year ‘young’ Senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders, who ruled the head and hearts of the American youth voters (under 30 years). In a lost cause (where ultimately Donald Trump went up against Hillary Clinton), Bernie had still managed more ‘youth’ votes than both Trump and Clinton, combine.

The supposed underdog of the 2016 race had by the 2020 Presidential run-up become a heavyweight candidate at the still young age of ‘80’ (senior even to the ultimate winner, Joe Biden) – the ‘youth’ and ‘progressive’ lobby still firmly backed the ageless icon who spoke about issues like single-payer healthcare, tuition-free education, greenhouse emissions, abortion rights, inclusivity, etc., He was and is at 83 now, still is the poster boy for Millennials and Generation-Z.

Bernie shows that even a geriatric could make the most compelling generational ideas, that cut across the proverbial future generations. Even today, the never-say-die spirit of Bernie Sanders remains as passionate as he rails against the Conservative-led Supreme Court judgment striking down student-loan forgiveness, “This right-wing ideology is consistent with their recent decisions: denying women the right to control their own bodies, ending affirmative action, attacking LGBT rights and limiting the government's ability to address climate change”

He exemplifies that age can be just a number, however, the case of his co-Democrat, Joe Biden, reflects that the number is also a physical reality with undeniable consequences. ‘Age’ is clearly a headwind in Biden’s reelection campaign as each fumble, stumble, gaffe to misstatement is attributed to his age-related issues. But beyond the world of memes and social-media forwards, Biden has been travelling extensively, pushing late hours in the Oval Office, has managed to push through several bipartisan bills, creating the highest number of jobs, steering the post-covid economy et al.

Mutiny on the Bounty or for the Bounty?

Coming back to Indian politics and its fixation with ‘age’ and ‘youth’ – the average age of members of the various Lok Sabha’s has ironically, only increased. If the average age of the 1st Lok Sabha was 46.5 years, it is 54 years for the current 17th Lok Sabha. Hard facts on issues like age, and corruption, suggest a very different reality from the one that is projected by the politicians – the share of MPs with criminal cases has only increased from 29 percent to 43 percent! So, the much-posited spiel on ‘age’ or ‘corruption’ is often a matter of convenience, and not the conviction, by those invoking the same against rivals.

Just a few weeks back whilst engaging with journalists one of them asked pointedly, “…you are working so hard even at this age to bring together an alliance of opposition parties…”. Sharad Pawar had sharply, and in jest disrupted the journalist from completing the question with, “Firstly, I strictly tell you to take back your words ‘even at this age’,”, and the journalist recognising the light-hearted banter agreed to withdraw his ‘objectionable comment’.

More importantly, at that time just about a few weeks back, all those who did a coup within the NCP ranks were still singing hosanas and swearing undying loyalty to their leader – soon the issue of ‘age’ dawned on the mutinying legislators (something that they never raised before) and the volte-face happened with impunity and confidence.

Finally, Sharad Pawar counter-jabbed, “I'm Still Effective, whether 82 or 92” – but apparently, ‘effectiveness’ was never the real reason. Many allude to a ‘washing-machine’ phenomenon at play in Maharashtra, but of course the same will be denied with the same sincerity, as ‘age’ was posited.

This is not to deny anyone personal ambition or to suggest preference for one side of the ensuing conflict, but just to insist that the bogey of ‘age’ is more likely than not, just a bogey. There is enough to question and argue with Sharad Pawar about his past record, politics, or even future outlook, but ‘age’ is just an insincere deflection, as gets invoked conveniently by ambitious politicians to clean the Augean stables in their favour.

Suggesting Vanaprastha (forest dwelling) or Sannyasa (renunciation) with ‘give us your blessings’ to legitimise the midnight coup, is, therefore, sheer politics (Rajniiti) and not Guru-Shishya Parampara (teacher-disciple), as is postured.

(The author is a Former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for the same.)