Sachin Pilot Young Congressman: Yes. The trend everywhere is catch them young.

Why
exclude politicians?

We are a young nation: almost 75 per cent of our billion plus population is below 40 years.
Fifty-four per cent has not even crossed the age of 25. Ironical, isn't it then, that most of our
top politicians are in their 70s; some are even 80 plus.

It's the norm in every society to give younger people — who have the zest, desire and
determination — a chance to prove themselves, be it in sports, entertainment, business or
media. Why exclude politics?

There comes a time when the baton has to be passed, when a certain political space has to be
vacated, so that India's present can shape its future.

I don't believe in a specific retirement age for our politicians. The decision should be a
voluntary one. The guidelines regarding retirement can be set down by each political party.

Politicians would need to retire not only because they are physically unable to cope with the
rigours of this demanding career, but because they feel that they have done their bit for the
country.

What are the reasons for people being disenchanted with our politicians? Corruption,
criminalisation and the perception that the average Indian politician is a grey, unresponsive,
timeless entity — an entity that will not let go off its position of power.

Let's be honest — an energetic, active, inspirational 75-year-old politician is more the

exception than the rule.

With no disrespect to those who have contributed immensely to the polity of this country, I
feel it's time political parties allowed a younger lot to face electoral battles. That will enable
them to understand the needs and aspirations of their electorate.

People need to be able to associate themselves with their representatives, and vice versa:
politicians must also be able to relate to the increasingly younger Indian.

That doesn't mean our older politicians have no role to play. In fact, they can play a
constructive role by drawing upon their vast experience and knowledge-base to guide and
advise on a variety of issues.

It is the political leadership of a country which decides which direction it should take. In
order to harness the tremendous potential of young Indians in the political arena, we have to
make way for them.

In order to instil a sense of confidence and belonging, we have to make the younger
generation stakeholders while chartering the course for India's future.

And the only way we can achieve this is when aging politicians retire and retire with grace.

Read more: Should politicians have a retirement age? - The Times of India
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/sunday-toi/all-that-matters/Should-politicians-have-
a-retirement-age/articleshow/526390.cms#ixzz16q4RGIVZ

The election fever is on here in TamilNadu with the assembly elections scheduled for May
8th. Well… I don’t want to get into the politics. But I want to ask a question in the interest of
the nation. This question has been bothering me for a long time now and I guess that someone
can answer me here in this forum.

Why isn’t there an age restriction for contesting the elections? Come on… we have a
retirement age even for a clerk working in the state/central government. I am guessing that
people are forced to retire at a certain age mainly for two reasons.

 They “may” not be able work as effectively as they did during their 30’s/40’s.
 Second and most importantly, I think retiring old people will enable the younger
generation to get into the work pool.

If there are any other reasons, please let me know.

So when all government employees (right from a clerk to the topmost admin) have a
retirement age, why isn’t there one for people contesting the elections. I got the list of current
Lok Sabha MPs and there are more than 150 people who are 60+. That’s more than 25% of
the House.

Some argue that experience comes of age. If that is true, why is there a retirement age in the
first place for other jobs? A clerk would get more and more experienced as he/she crosses 60,
70, 80 and so on.

I think technically, the MPs are not employees of the Government and hence retirement age
may not be applicable. If that is the case, the rule should be imposed at least to the Council of
Ministers as they definitely are employees of the Government. But this may lead to some
being puppets of other members. So better not to allow people who have crossed the age limit
to contest the elections.

Also, most politicians will argue that they are here to "serve the people" and that the age
should not be a deterrent. They are most welcome to "serve the people" by being an active
member of their party, but cannot contest elections/hold any ministerial posts.

Maybe I am completely wrong and there is a logical/sensible explanation to this. If there is

something, I would definitely like to know about that.

Politicians should have a retirement age

If there’s one thing that I wish could change in India, I would vote for having a retirement
age for politicians.

When there is a concept of retirement for many other careers like engineers, bankers, CEOs,
etc. why shouldn’t the same apply for politicians?
If the reason for a retirement age in the private sectors is that the capacity to contribute
becomes lesser, the same applies for politics. If the reason is that they should have a relaxed
retirement life, the same applies for politics.

If the old people retire, it will give a chance for younger people with fresher perspectives to
come in (with the hope that ‘remote control’ possibilities will be minimal), and at the same
time the bureaucracy gets refreshed more often with lesser influence by the older people.

Of course, I know it’ll never happen, because the law would have to be passed by the very
same people whose careers will be shortened.

Should politicians in INDIA have retirement age limit as every other

government employee?
The Normal Central or State government employee has the age limit of 60 years.
The Supreme court judge has the retirement age limit set to 65 years.
Then why should politicians be allowed to work beyond certain age. why is there no provision that
asks them to retire at a certain age from politics. lets list some politicians Atal bhari vajapayee, L K
Advani, Manmohan singh, Devegowda, Jyoti basu, Tamilnadu CM, and the list goes on. you can also
add as many as you guys remember let see how many of them are above 75 and still in politics.

 2 years ago

Additional Details
first of all i am not afraid to mention any body's name here its just that i did not remember there
name at that point one person said that why i should spare sonia gandhi well i am not its for all the
politicians who are above say 65 years. i feel its logically not appropriate to say that politicians work
better with no corruption at the old age i think this is insane My simple question is if every one else
in INDIA has a retirement age then why is it that a politician does not have this compulsion make a
rule which is common for all individual. Why can there be a law which says that the politicians have
to take retirement.

2 years ago

i also wanna ask all of them out there who are in support of no age limit for politicians when is the
younger generation gonna get the chance in politics if you wanna argue it this way that we have
gotta make our own way i would say how long is it gonna take you to be a true politicians and will
the old aged people consider your views will they allow you to blossom with flying colors now here
some of you might argue that Rahul gandhi is the newbie in politics and show me some more name
but these are the relatives of some old politicians who are either dead or are so disabled that they
feel the need of younger blood in there party and ya some one said with old age comes wisdom then
why did that fight happened in the parliament some two years back. Some here spoke about APJ
Abul Kalam i admire this man but he is not a politician to become a president in INDIA you need not
be a politician you do not have any controls in the internal affairs of the country.
2 years ago

There is some thing more to add over here and that is even politicians get monthly salaries till the
time they die even if they serve the country just for a year. i.e. who ever is elected once get the
salary for the rest of his/her life. which make them the government employees right. i know some of
you might have an objection to that as well.

2 years ago

In US the president cannot contest the election again once he/she becomes the president and the
president can be on chair only for 8 years max.

DAYS ARE gone of petty politics. Common men of today are so conscious.
You can not make them fool again and again. At last, you will have to talk
on the issues of development.

Second important aspect in this regard is retirement age of politicians.

Old age politicians are not able to tackle the critical issues of the nation.
In present circumstances, most of Indian politicians are above sixty.
Young people are joining politics but number of such people is so minimal.

Many intellectuals of the nation are so conscious on this issue. Among

them is Infosys mentor NR Narayana Murthy. According to Murthy;
politicians should retire at the age of 60 and act as advisors without
playing an active role in governance. He believes, the country needs
young brains with great vision that will be given only by the younger
generation. Murthy’s statement came before media while he released his
book, ‘A Better India, A Better World’— a compilation of his speeches
delivered all over the world—by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. He also
strongly advocated that politicians after 60 should adopt ‘Vanaprastha’.

Indian mythology is replete with many instances of the older generation

taking the role of grandparents while allowing young leaders to take the
lead. The IT tycoon spoke on elections 2009, including economic growth
and hate speeches by some politicians. As per his opinion, there should
be a council of elders who will be available for the younger generation,
like grandparents at home, to advise them.
Interestingly, The software icon, had intended to join politics in his early
thirties but due to some inevitable reasons he could not fulfill his dream.
He further said that if I had joined politics, I would have quit at the age of
60. Appreciating the trend of youngsters joining politics, he said it was a
good sign that many corporate leaders like Captain Gopinath of the low-
cost carrier Deccan Airlines and banker Meera Sanyal entered the fray this
time.

Expressing disgust over the bad words mouthed by the netas by making
personal attacks during campaigns, Murthy said, leaders should fight polls
based on issues of development and inclusive growth. Our electoral battle
 should be restricted to issues pertaining to development, poverty
alleviation, infrastructure and better education.
In an oblique reference to the war of words between BJP leader LK Advani
and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, he opined that Politicians are taking
swipes at each other on trivial issues rather than discussing serious
matters pertaining to the layman.

At present, elections are fought on caste and religious lines rather than on
developmental issues. I hope participation of younger people in elections
would lead to issue-based politics rather than trivial caste-based politics.
Commenting on the manifestos of various parties, Murthy said that
whatever subsidies announced by them should go to the poor. In this
connection, he also said that such poll planks as banning English medium
schools or computers were ridiculous and anti-people.

Undoubtedly, in changed scenario Murthy’s vision regarding India and

Indian politics is absolutely true. There should be adopted corrective
measures by concerned authorities and persons as early as possible, so
that real benefit of governance goes to the poor.

If any Governmet employee can do his work up to age Top Argument

60 years mean they were do all work without any
obstacle and get any decission so in same way the 1
politicians were also can not do his work after 60 years
because this is the major decission for any contry so that
1
they can not take any decission for country so retirment
age of politicians should be 60 years.
By Vijay Kumar Mitra, State Officer, Akhil Bhartiya Computer
Shksha Abhiyan Registered under NCT (Govt. of India)
undefined
I am going against this because, I have seen a person like
Abdul kalam who is still rendering his services even now at
such age, we need people like him and all the experience
Support | Oppose   which he has in the world so that he can mentor many
more like him, when someone is really good at something
and still has the energy to put in some more years why are
we forcing them to retire...We need all their experience as
youngsters in India are a bit impatient till what we have
seen, and we do not have many youngsters who can handle
the job of politician, it can be dealt by a person who has 
experience in getting things done. And  youngsters we do
not find that capability in them. The social networking
politicians are finding the wrath from all the corners lately.
As still they don't the basic essence of Indian politics...So if
a politician is good at his job let him continue there should
be no problem at all.

1. Why in politics there is no retirement age in politicians?

 What is the logic behind 80 year olds running a country that has 500 million youth under the age of
25?
Who knows the majority population well?
These 80 year olds should be retiring, and spending time with their grandkids. Not making a mess out
of our country.
Why is there a hypocrisy in the government? They have a retirement age, but politicians can continue
till they become 90? If there is one rule, it should apply to everyone.
Why are politicians exempt from this? This is total hypocrisy, and at important jobs like politics, you
need smart youth who can understand their age group, and have dynamic, forward thinking ruling.
We dont want these old guys who have one leg in the grave, and one leg in parliament.

listen to her : http://youtube.com/watch?v=WlXPtYq5yS8

Why are we putting up with these old guys, who dont understand our generation? We are the
majority right?
Reply With Quote

2. 11-04-2008 07:45 PM #2

Ricky

Just in

Join Date
Dec 2006
Posts
2,321

Re: Why in politics there is no retirement age in politicians?

Well.. have not seen video yet but its true, we need youth in the politics but may be one reason is
that no one cares about politics as profession so we see only aged people who happened to be in
politics because of circumstances.
Reply With Quote

3. 06-26-2009 06:02 AM #3

rick cindy sweet

Junior Member

Join Date
Jun 2009
Posts
12

Re: Why in politics there is no retirement age in politicians?

from the US. i aggree completltey.
we have been trying for years to at least get 2 - 3 terms then go home and be with your family.
they say airline pilots must retire at 69 but they who decide the rules for pilots don't retire ever.

THERE ARE not going to be many takers for the demand that there should be a cut off age for
politicians. A nation with a 100 plus crores people, is being run by octogenarians and nonagenarians and
the visions these people have for the nation, is as old as themselves, and all their services to the nation,
notwithstanding, they need to have a moral responsibility to leave the reins in the hands of younger
bloods.
 
All political ideologies are fine, as so long as they do the business of “nation making”, but the moment
they deviate into the realm for personal gains and powers, it is not the political parties that need to be
blamed, it is the demagogic politicians. It is their incorrigible pettishness and ignominious attitude
towards their voters that makes the whole nation suffer. When people cross certain age, they show
some signs of retirement. Therefore, they need to be given a platform, so that they can  live the rest of
their life with dignity and impart advise and give counsel to the younger generation. This way the best of
those, so-called political brains would not go waste, while the younger generation would carry the nation
forward.
 
I feel that the upper house of our Parliament is the right place for all those politicians who have crossed,
say, a retirement age of sixty.  Our upper house is now a safe haven for all businessmen and one-time
beauty queens. It is not the popular mandate that makes them sit on those chairs. It is nomination,
internal voting process and outright purchase. So why can’t we convert our upper house into a haven for
all those senior ‘politicians’, irrespective of their political party lines? We could be a little more
democratic too, by offering them a same platform to act and interact. This would avoid a lot of
inconveniences to the nation.
 
Primarily, they can maintain their honour; secondly, they all will work as ‘think tanks’ for guiding the
upcoming political generation; thirdly, they all will be serving the nation in a different way. And finally
these seniors would stay off our arterial roads. The last thing would be the biggest benefit for the
common man. When a young leader moves out, the population takes up a liking for him and they
accommodate him wholeheartedly, but when an old politician of70 or 80, who has been taxing on the
exchequer for ages, goes out, he would not be treated by all, alike.
 
People are fed up with them, and no voter is ready to accommodate them any further in any of the
houses, of the state or of the centre. Either, as a concession or as a collateral expenditure, many people
may agree to find them in the upper house. And sitting up there, they can do minimal harm, only to the
already harmed nation.
 
So what if we amend our Constitution, as to make provisions for converting our upper house as an old
age home for our senior ‘politicians’, of all ‘hues and cries?’ The best thing these men can do to our
nation is,  by retiring when they are in their best and let young bloods hold the chairs. Are their any
takers for this ‘natural initiative?’