Opinion Generation exit

The Congress drops heavy hints that its octogenarian front man,Manmohan Singh,could yet return for a third term should it get to rule again. If the BJP were to dominate the next ruling coalition,but allies were to refuse Narendra Modi,then perhaps L.K. Advani,now 85,could at last get a spell in charge. And if a third front were formed,then Mulayam Singh (73) harbours dreams of the top job.

This looks bizarre. India has one of the youngest populations anywhere — its mean age is still around 26 years — and it is set to remain young for decades yet. In most other countries,especially in democracies,much younger leaders routinely take office. On average,the presidents and prime ministers of Britain,China,France,Russia and the United States are in their mid-50s.

India has such veneration for older politicians,nobody bats an eyelid that the average age in cabinet is now a stately 65 years,the same as it was before last year’s reshuffle supposedly infused younger blood. Sonia Gandhi,the Congress’s kingmaker,is 66. Even chief ministers,who are supposedly the country’s more dynamic leaders,share a not-so-sprightly average age of 62.

Youthfulness is not a virtue in itself. And assuming good health,sufficient energy and an open mind,there is nothing intrinsically problematic about the elderly being in charge. But gerontocracy is not popular elsewhere,and probably for good reason. Unless you turn to long-serving African despots (Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe,for example) or Gulf princes,most countries prefer their leaders younger.

It has not always been so in India: Indira Gandhi was 48,and her son Rajiv Gandhi just 40,when they each got into high office. And of course either Modi or Rahul Gandhi,relative youngsters,could be prime minister next. But a general case exists that elders dominate in India. Could that yet explain a series of problems?

Take the level of economic growth tolerated in India. This has now fallen below 5 per cent,from a high point of nearly 10 per cent. That is a dismally low level for a country that has a booming population,powerful internal drivers of growth and many obvious policy changes that could be taken to restore confidence and investment. Given what should be expected,the current rate of growth feels,in effect,like a recession.

Why is there not more anger about this? Just possibly elderly leaders,those who recall the long,slow decades when India’s economy crept along barely faster than its population grew,feel that the current situation is no great a disaster. Younger leaders,by contrast,should be far more impatient,aware that a failure to grow now brings immense lost opportunities later,especially for the young. The chance to eradicate poverty in a generation is being thrown away,as growth is allowed to slide. A younger leader — of any party — who felt more closely connected to the tens of millions of Indians without jobs,might feel more pressure to do something quickly about this.

Or note how India’s MPs are ageing progressively,with more elderly in the house and fewer youngsters than during parliaments in previous decades. It could be coincidence that Parliament looks more toothless than of old,and sits for fewer days than ever before. Indeed,it may be that the most dedicated parliamentarians (and hardest working ministers) are among the oldest. But wouldn’t a lively,younger,more demanding generation of MPs hold their rulers to greater account?

Now and then India’s youth raise their voices. The protests in Delhi,in December and January,over the dreadful lack of safety for women in India were particularly striking. Throngs also turned out to support of Anna Hazare’s anti-corruption campaign. India’s youth are also increasingly vocal online. I see lively,articulate and at times aggressive comments on my Economist articles each week,many of them written (I believe) by young Indian readers.

But where is the Indian political leader who will try to tap their strength,as Barack Obama inspired a generation in America? Rahul Gandhi’s efforts to rejig the structure of the youth wing of Congress,and his vague talk of broader institutional reform,must leave a generation of youngsters cold. He or other young leaders should be putting arguments forward about how firms and entrepreneurs can create productive jobs for young Indians.

For now the masses of disaffected youths are mostly left in villages,little connected with urban India. But the next decade or two will bring tens of millions more of them into the cities,demanding productive jobs,cleaner air,proper housing and consumer goods. Many of them,with luck,will become demanding voters too. At the same time those in villages will grow far more aware — thanks to phones,television and the internet — of what they are missing.

A moment will come,as Indian grows more urban,when some political leader finds a way to organise or motivate young Indians into a more coherent political force. Imran Khan has tried to tap Pakistani youngsters precisely this way for the looming election there. In Bangladesh,mass protests by youths are creating turmoil. Some day,it will be India’s turn. Is any young politician ready?

The writer is the South Asia bureau chief of ‘The Economist’ magazine. He will be chairing an ‘Economist’ conference on the future of India,in Delhi,on April 24