Our own 'Tryst with destiny'

Jawaharlal Nehru, addressing the Constituent Assembly of India on Aug. 14, 1947, gave his speech 'Tryst with destiny' expressing his dreams towards the country with surgical precision. He said, among others, "...The service of India means the service of the millions who suffer. It means the ending of poverty and ignorance and disease and inequality of opportunity...The future beckons to us. Whither do we go and what shall be our endeavour? To bring freedom and opportunity to the common man, to the peasants and workers of India; to fight and end poverty and ignorance and disease; to build up a prosperous, democratic and progressive nation, and to create social, economic and political institutions which will ensure justice and fullness of life to every man and woman." Is his vision a mere potpourri of Utopian thoughts? It has been proven so all along the 62 years of liberty. We have proven to the world that we are an apology to its ideals of power and liberty which are resting in too many hands in the absence of a restraining power.

India is changing. Our economy is one of the fastest growing in the world. Our incomes are growing and the lifestyle changed accordingly. Yet, there is a need to secernate ourselves in other areas than just competency. We need to make a mark by leading not only in business, but also in politics. We need youth to lead the country. As part of a research programme at the London School of Economics on Greece, Europe and the US and how they occupied global dominance and leadership, it was found that they denoted a major part of their efforts towards building institutions that support and encourage leadership in various realms. We too have built institutions, high both in quality and quantity. They have spun out both men of intellect who empty their intelligence brandishing each other and experts who have ameliorated their respective fields. But we have not produced leaders 'who do not guide others into following them but who inculcate in the mass an awareness to take independent decisions on the basis of truth and knowledge.'

I regret to say, we have not come across many persons in the country who, like the unknown rebel who stood unflinchingly before a column of more than 50 advancing military tanks at Tiananmen Square in China during the mass protests by students, dares to stand up to lead in adversity.

As to the crucial question which ought to bother every citizen now, on the eve of 15th Lok Sabha elections, into spending sleepless nights — Is youth necessary for leading the country or experience? I am young and more prone to see issues in hot blood. As a citizen of India who is going to vote shortly, I am worried that I see no solution to my dilemma. 

"Intellectual exercises, not balanced by experience, lead to intellectual inflation... Just like monetary inflation caused by currency circulation not supported by hard gold bullion," an intellectual once said to me. But of course, experience is a pre-requisite for politicians. You are not allowed to ask ‘experience in what? Leading the country, or grabbing a seat?’ Most veteran political leaders rely on 'experience quota' to win the hearts of voters, young and old alike. Young voters form nearly two-thirds of the electorate in India. The 'Age-voter pulse model,' so called by a think-tank Imagindia Institute, assumes the ability of a candidate to connect with the pulse of the voters depending upon the age difference with the electorate.

Statistics apart, young (less than 40 years of age) MPs, on whom we keep our aspirations, were the most infrequent participants in the 14th Lok Sabha proceedings. They accounted for 11 percent of seats but participated in only 7 percent of debates in LS. Contrarily, MPs over 70 years of age accounted for 9 percent of total debates, even if most end up in tussles, with fewer outcomes. We cannot blame them however. Most youth brigade in politics- Rahul Gandhi, Jiten Prasada, Sachin Pilot, Jyotiraditya Scindia, Manvendra Singh, Kuldeep Bishnoi, Naveen Jindal and Varun Gandhi are plucking the fruits from the trees grown by their parents. May be we could keep our hopes pinned on them if they tried to be responsible both in act and thought. It is time they learnt to be leaders, not just political. They may have the charisma to draw a large crowd, but it ends there. People flock to political rallies either because they are paid for it, or to boast that they have seen the celebrity 'up close.' 

These young leaders cannot follow the footsteps of their immediate predecessors because not many have left behind a path free of stones and thorns of corruption to follow. The youth cannot look forward because most of them lack the vision much needed for the country. Leadership too, as was aristocracy, has been inherited by them, not through their cherished dreams for the society. Still, people who have initiated and propagated great changes are seldom there due to birthright. 

There are hundreds of visionary youth in the country, but they rightly hesitate to join politics. And in trying to eke out a living, they move away from their dreams of making a difference and become haggard citizens whose sole responsibility remains in voting in the elections. Concisely, there are very few youth in the country's political scenario, who at least dare to say, as Bruce Willis said in Die Hard 4.0 movie, "I do it because no one else is there to do it." 

Now, I rest the case in front of voters.