Akhilesh Yadav's  conduct in l’affaire Durga Shakti Nagpal has been disgraceful. The brazenness with which the Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister has continued to defend his Government’s arbitrary actions against a young IAS officer – despite the considerable evidence pouring out in her favour – is astounding.

Akhilesh deserves all the brickbats he is getting from public opinion. As the campaigner-in-chief of his father’s Samajwadi Party, he was given a stunning mandate by the people of his state less than two years ago. His youth (he was just 38 in 2012)—was his USP. Now, in his utter failure, several people are reading a larger trend: the inability of ‘youth’ politicians to change business-as-usual in India’s rotten political system.

Writing in the Hindustan Times on Saturday, 3 August, columnist Barkha Dutt is critical of young politicians. ”There has been no generational shift of ideas and no new language for how power is articulated in the system,” she says.

For many, the paradox is shattering. The youth, by their very freshness, exuberance, and optimism, ought to be the harbingers of change. Unfortunately, it is a great folly to equate India’s most prominent youth politicians with the youth of the country.

Consider a shortlist of India’s best known young politicians (across party lines) who occupy positions of power and authority in the public consciousness: Rahul Gandhi, Akhilesh Yadav, Jyotiaditya Scindia, Sachin Pilot, Jitin Prasada, RPN Singh, Milind Deora, Anurag Thakur and Aditya Thackeray. Every one of them belongs to a political dynasty (some admittedly more powerful than others).

They owe their prominent position in politics not to a freshness of ideas or to a grassroots connect, but to the silver spoon handed over to them by their parents or grandparents. It should come as no surprise that their mindsets and ideas are usually inherited, just like their positions. They owe their power to a particular order. It is entirely logical for them not to want to disturb that order. It is business-as-usual (rotten to the core) which ensures their survival.

Rahul Gandhi may hold forth on how he wants to reform the Congress, by making it more democratic and meritocratic. But that is empty rhetoric as long as he sits on top of the power pyramid only because of his inheritance. In his famous “Honey Bee” speech at CII, Rahul said that he wouldn’t get married and have children because then he would become a status quoist, wedded to handing down power to his progeny. The reality is that he already is a status quoist. If he wasn’t, he would have chosen a career as an entrepreneur or an NGO activist, rather than dabble half-heartedly in politics.

He would not also give such prominence to other fellow scions in his party. Every young minister in the UPA Government is the progeny of a Congressman or woman. How often do you see Messrs Scindia, Pilot, Prasada, Singh and Deora spending time building up mass bases in their states; at the very least listening to the voices of the youth on the ground? Like Rahul and Akhilesh, they are too busy preserving the powerful and wealthy political empires that have been bequeathed to them.

The failure of the young dynast is quite evident every time the real youth of India take to the streets to express their grievances with the system. Not one of the young status quoists was able to connect with the youth that came out on to the streets across India to protest the issue of women’s safety after the December 2012 Delhi gang-rape.

On the non-Congress side of the political spectrum, Anurag Thakur, the head of the BJP’s youth wing responded to the outrage by spouting the retrograde ideas of the RSS on the difference between “India” and “Bharat” on the issue of gender. Thakur is the son of former Himachal Chief Minister Prem Kumar Dhumal. Almost by the definition of lineage, he has to be a status quoist.

For the youth of India – 66 percent of the population is under 35 – the real political cleavage is not between grand falsities like young and old, or communal and secular, but between status quoists and reformers.

The controversial Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi, 63, owes his considerable nation-wide popularity not to his Hindutva credentials or to his administrative abilities, but due to the perception that as an “outsider” he will end business-as-usual in a system that desperately needs change. He has fought the odds in life – the son of a tea stall owner had no inheritance to rely on as he rode to the top in politics. He has even defeated the odds in his own parivar and party – no prominent leader in the RSS or BJP ever wanted him to rise so high. But he did, with a freshness of ideas and a promise to end stagnation in the polity. That is his appeal with India’s real youth who are frustrated with status quo.

Of course, it is possible for those born to privilege to become reformers. But it takes guts and a lot of hard work, not at all necessary for inheritors, to achieve this. Orissa Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik is a good example who inherited his father Biju Patnaik’s political legacy but has worked very hard at building his own stature. Patnaik, who once upon a time lived largely outside India, has barely left the borders of his state in the almost 15 years he has been in power. He has his ear to the ground constantly.

Former Rajasthan Chief Minister Vasundhara Raje also inherited a political legacy but chose not to rest on it. Not satisfied with being just a Union Minister, she ruffled many feathers as she stormed the male-dominated politics of Rajasthan to become Chief Minister in 2003.

The empire struck back by defeating her from within in 2008. But by refusing to compromise with the status quoists, her stock rose in the eye of public opinion, the ultimate arbiter of political fates in a democracy.

For young dynasts, Patnaik and Raje should be role models, but for that they need to work hard and risk losing power. Akhilesh Yadav and Rahul Gandhi have shown no appetite for this. India is still waiting for fresh, reformist youth politicians. The barriers to entry in politics mean that the wait may be a long one. In the meanwhile, expect the young to identify with those politicians who listen to them and promise change. Age is less important that mindsets.

source:http://www.firstpost.com/politics/