Forget Lok Sabha ticket: Advani should take sanyas instead

For a culture that practically invented the concept of sanyas, in real life we seem to be shunning the idea altogether. We talk about sublimating the ego, but our leaders are all driven by pure ego and hubris. We talk of sacrifice, but we are always lusting after power. The not-so-curious case of Lal Krishna Advani, who tried to embarrass his own party by playing his games, tells us what is wrong with us – and why we can never live up to our true potential till we abandon his attitudes. [caption id=“attachment_1440527” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  PTI[/caption] At 86, LK Advani does not want sanyas or sunset. But he is not alone in this. Manmohan Singh is clinging to office at 82. Prakash Singh Badal is firmly ensconced in the gaddi at 86. Deve Gowda wants to contest a Lok Sabha election at 81. M Karunanidhi was CM till electoral defeat threw him out at 86 (He will hit 90 this year). VS Achuthanandan was Kerala CM late into his 80s, and at 90-plus today, the Aam Aadmi Party is wooing him to join. Jyoti Basu didn’t leave office till 86. Things are not significantly better in India Inc, and in babucracy. AM Naik is Chairman of Larsen & Toubro at 72, and NR Narayana Murthy was called back from retirement at 67. Ratan Tata did not retire till 75. Babus and judges refuse to quit till they are taken out feet first. They retire from one government job only to hop on to another post-retirement sinecure. _The Indian Express_ ran a series a couple of years ago showing retired babus and judges getting new jobs after retirement when they should be playing with their grandchildren or doing social work. The Express found nearly 90 babus being “parked as governors, information commissioners, and as heads or members of a slew of bodies such as the Union Public Service Commission, the National Commission for Minorities, Central Information Commission, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). Most of these posts enjoy the rank of secretary to the government of India or above. In the case of some officers, new positions have been created to accommodate them.” As for judges, if they are appointed heads of inquiry commissions, it’s like a job for life. Former Supreme Court Justice GT Nanavati not only headed the commission to look into the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, but now heads the Gujarat probe into the 2002 riots. He is still at it, 12 years later, at age 79. Justice MS Liberhan took 17 years to submit his Babri demolition report. Quite clearly, Indians are unwilling to take sanyas even when it is long overdue. In a country where more than 95 percent of the population was born after independence, our senior leadership seems is disproportionately drawn from the pre-independence generations. Little wonder, their mindsets are a serious problem. However, this article is not just about age, but all the attitudes that excessive respect for age engenders in us. Here is my personal list of attitudes that we ought to dump if we are to progress as a nation. We have to start with age, even though I plead not guilty to the charge of ageism. #1: We show undue respect for age, when what we should respect is attitude and competence. It is all right to be considerate to old people, but we should be less tolerant of their retrograde ideas. An E Sreedharan, despite his age, was worthy of respect as he was super competent and built the Delhi metro. But is an LK Advani who led his party to two successive defeats worthy of the same salute? #2: A fallout of respecting age too much is we also appreciate merit and excellence less. In today’s technology-driven world and an age of hyper-competition, the young often know more than the old and they have more energy. The old may be wiser, and they can play mentors, but it is the young who need to take on leadership roles. We don’t empower our young early enough. Even a Modi will become PM only at 63, if he wins. Not too late, but hardly the prime of youth. Another fallout of respecting age too much is that we prefer false consensus over real contest. If two people are seeking power and advocate two different ideas, why is it necessary to seek consensus instead of contest? Elections are not about consensus, so why do parties and corporations think leadership should be about consensus? #4: A corollary: we prefer powerless and incompetent people at the top rather than powerful and competent ones. Thus we have Manmohan Singh, AK Antony, Deve Gowda and IK Gujral in positions of power that they are unsuited for, but a Pranab Mukherjee or P Chidambaram are kept out. In the BJP, we had the largely ineffective Nitin Gadkari as party president at a time when the party should have been preparing itself for power. Gadkari wasted the BJP’s years in opposition, and so did Advani, who placed Sushma Swaraj and Arun Jaitley as leaders in the two houses of parliament even though they were hardly mass leaders. Even today, the Congress party chooses the ineffectual Rahul Gandhi when his sister could energise the party more. Rahul talks of empowering women, but his own sibling is supposed to play second fiddle to his incompetence. #5: The last fallout of putting the old and powerless on top is that we have developed what everyone acknowledges as “a crab mentality”.Since we are forced to play courtiers rather than kings, we spend all our time in palace intrigues, pulling people down and conspiring against one another. Our own success matters less to us than someone else’s misfortune. We prefer schadenfreude to success. Young India is less respectful of age than people in the previous generations. And it is a good thing. More power to them. Read more at: http://www.firstpost.com/india/indias-tragedy-the-old-never-retire-and-the-young-dont-deliver-373374.html?utm\_source=ref\_article