Ashok Malik As Prime Minister Narendra Modi celebrated his 75th birthday, speculation intensified about an alleged “age limit” rule within the BJP and the broader Sangh Parivar. Media and political murmurs pointed to the retirement of veterans such as L.K. Advani and Murli Manohar Joshi. Critics asked why Modi should be treated differently. These are all good questions. In the choreography of the birthday commemoration, responses were strong and black and white. They were coloured by political perceptions – one way or the other – rather than facts and a reading of political trends. Now that the milestone birthday is behind us, a considered analysis is called for. This would involve studying modern political cultures, internationally and in India, as well as Modi’s individual record. The 1990s saw a marked shift in political communication and symbolism. As the Cold War ended, there was a new hope, an economic boom and an appreciation of politics as a technocratic or even peripheral exercise, amid widespread business and civil society autonomy. This was, of course, most true of the West. Yet, as can be expected, its influence was felt far wider, in other democracies as well. Among its outcomes was a ageist cult that promoted youth in government as an end in itself. It placed a relatively lower emphasis on apolitician’s substantive credentials, not necessarily linked to his or her age. In the United Kingdom and the United States, for instance, it was difficult to be seen as electable if one crossed a fairly low and downrightridiculous age barrier. Take some examples. In the US, Bill Clinton finished his second term at 54, George W. Bush at 62, and Barack Obama at 55. Of course term limits prevented a third term, but the larger point is it was impossible for an older rival to win even a party primary. An entire generation of political talent was wasted or had careers timed out when there was still a lot to contribute. The UK was little different. Tony Blair retired at 54, Cameron left 10 Downing Street at 49, and Rishi Sunak at 44. Public life has limitedexecutive talent available anyway. Combine that with leavening and maturity that comes with years in the legislature and government, and one realises how the West haemorrhaged leadership in falling victim to a telegenic, media-driven youth frenzy. Gradually, even the UK and the US course corrected. Between 1997 and 2013, the average age of a US president at the start of a term was 52 years. Between 2017 and 2025, it went up to 75 years. At 79, President Donald Trump is as old as Clinton and a decade and a half older than Obama. In the UK, Keir Starmer took office at 61. He was already seven years old than Blair had been when the latter retired after a full decade as Prime Minister. Clearly, as the political economy has become more complex and challenging, government has come to be perceived differently by voters. The skills they look for in leaders are age agnostic. Put another way, youth is less of a pressing priority. Deft, surefooted leadership, with an ideational (even ideological) ballast, counts for more, irrespective of age. In India, multiple prime ministers have remained effective well past the supposed threshold. P.V. Narasimha Rao was in his seventies when he steered the country through the 1991 financial reforms. Manmohan Singh, Modi’s direct predecessor, governed till 81. Even today, a Mallikarjun Kharge, the Congress president, or a Sharad Pawar of the NCP continue to play a central role well into their eighties. The BJP’s history reflects this as well. In 2004 Atal Bihari Vajpayee campaigned for re-election at 79 and served in Parliament till 84. Advani carried the party through campaign after campaign well into his eighties, eventually finishing his parliamentary innings at 91. Murli Manohar Joshi headed influential parliamentary committees, shaping debates on education and energy, till the end of his term at age 85. Even the inflection point in 2014 was not because of a BJP age rule, but a generational transformation of a party reorganising to better reflect the sizeable mandate Modi had received. It was never a mechanical formula to be applied sans discretion. The nub then is not age but capacity and capability. Despite his supposedly advanced years, Modi addressed more than 200 public meetings during the three-month 2024 election campaign. On most days, after three or four speeches in peak summer, he would fly back to Delhi for government meetings, policy reviews and decision making. In short, he was – and is – up to the job. Having said that, political longevity is more than just physical stamina. As the most gifted and intellectually agile politician of his generation, the key to Modi’s popularityis his admirable and continual evolution. He re-trains himself to become fit-for-purpose, whatever the purpose. His policy prescriptions, his constant keeping up with citizen aspirations and urges, his external engagement strategy, his economic impulses: he is still the most contemporary political mind in India. On individual subjects others may know more, but as an entire package there is nobody else on the horizon – not even those born years after him. From fintech to semiconductors, emerging technology to ambition in trade agreements, he is not the youngest in the room but certainly about the most current in his thinking. That is why Indians retain their faith in him. Given this, to assess a political career – and to measure Modi’s enduring appeal – solely in terms of physical age is not just unfair but unrealistic. Voter choices are age neutral. (The author is partner, The Asia Group, and chair of its India practice)
