Voices for retirement Vs Voices for continuity

Vijay Hashia
vijayhashia@hotmail.com
On September 17, 2025, Prime Minister Narendra Modi turned 75. The occasion was not just a personal milestone but a national event marked by celebrations, reflections, and renewed debates about age, leadership, and political continuity. Across India, print, electronic, and social media highlighted his journey, recounting the achievements of his three terms in office. Social platforms brimmed with recorded video messages from citizens across the social spectrum, including political leaders, diplomats, business magnates, film personalities, and ordinary citizens. International leaders from the United States to Russia, Israel to Australia, EU President to Italy, and beyond also extended greetings, signaling the stature India’s Prime Minister commands on the global stage.
To commemorate the milestone, the BJP launched a 15-day nationwide campaign, Seva Pakhwada – the blood donation drives, cleanliness campaigns, and exhibitions designed to showcase the government’s policies and welfare initiatives. PM Modi himself marked the occasion by visiting Dhar in Madhya Pradesh, where he inaugurated projects focused on women’s and children’s health and nutrition, tribal welfare, and other developmental schemes. In essence, having turned 75, the Prime Minister appeared determined to blend celebration with service, projecting both vitality and purpose.
An inevitable political question raised by critics is whether Prime Minister Modi, on turning 75, should retire from active politics in keeping with the very principle his own party once seemed to endorse?
Soon after coming to power in 2014, the BJP leadership announced the creation of a Margdarshak Mandal, a guidance council ostensibly meant to honor senior leaders. However, the critics refer, in practice; this step was widely interpreted as a mechanism to retire stalwarts like L K Advani, M M Joshi, and Yashwant Sinha, who were all over the age of 75. They were dropped from the BJP’s parliamentary board, effectively ending their direct influence over party decisions.
Critics have long argued that this “age ceiling” was selectively enforced to clear the path for Modi’s ascendancy. The RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat reportedly advised Advani to step back, which enabled Modi, the then Gujarat Chief Minister to emerge as the principal challenger in 2014.
This backdrop fuels the current controversy. Opposition leaders, including Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge, have mocked PM Modi by questioning whether he will now apply the same standard to himself. “Will he go?” Kharge asked in July this year, accusing Modi of hypocrisy for sidelining others but refusing to follow the rule in his own case. Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut went further, challenging PM Modi to hold himself to the same standard he imposed on his seniors. Senior Congress lawyer-politician Abhishek Singhvi warned that “it is dangerous to not practice what you preach.” Similarly, Manickam Tagore of the Congress reminded that Advani was “packed off” at 75, yet Modi and Bhagwat, both turning 75 this year, continue undisturbed.
On the other hand, BJP leaders have consistently attempted to neutralize the controversy. Mohan Bhagwat himself clarified in July 2025 that he has “never set any retirement age for himself or for anyone else.” The Union HM Amit Shah, earlier stated in 2019 that the party would avoid fielding candidates over 75. But by 2024, he revised his position, asserting that there is no retirement age in the BJP constitution, and Modi would continue to lead. Thus, the party’s position remains flexible, guided more by political expediency than by rigid rules.
The debate around age and leadership in India is not new. Historically, several Prime Ministers have served well into their late seventies and early eighties, often leaving significant marks during their tenure:
Jawaharlal Nehru (1947-1964), became India’s first Prime Minister at 58 and continued until his death at 75. His commanding position suggests he would have likely continued had fate not intervened. Morarji Desai (1977-1979) assumed office at 81, serving until 83. Though his tenure was relatively short, his leadership remains the oldest at entry. Charan Singh (1979-1980) took office at 76, serving for 170 days. His exit was due to the withdrawal of Congress support, not age or health. Atal Bihari Vajpayee (1996-2004), first became PM at 71, returning for a full term at 73. He served until 79, is remembered as one of India’s most respected leaders. Inder Kumar Gujral (1997-1998), became PM at 77, serving for nearly a year. Manmohan Singh (2004-2014), assumed office at 71, serving two terms until 81. Despite health concerns in his later years, his leadership oversaw significant economic reforms in the first tenure but widespread corruption scandals and policy paralysis in the second term.
Globally, too, age is no barrier. U.S. President Joe Biden assumed office at 78 till 82. Donald Trump re-assumed at 79 and would continue till 82. Malaysia’s Mahathir Mohamad who is now 100 years, returned Prime Minister at 92. In many democracies, continuity of leadership has been seen as a stabilizing factor rather than a liability.
Indian politics has not been bound by rigid age limits. Leadership effectiveness depends less on chronological age and more on vision, stamina, decision-making, and adaptability to new challenges. Prime Minister Modi, at 75, continues to project energy and command a vast political following. His frequent domestic and international tours and diplomacy, and public engagements suggest he retains much vigour and passion to see India becomes “Viksit Bharat -Saakshar, Sashakt, Samruddh” (Developed India: Literate, Empowered, Prosperous)- my Bharat, my dream of 2047. Moreover, the strong mandate he secured in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections reflects the public’s continued trust in his leadership.
In thriving democracies like India, the decisive factor is not age but the people’s mandate. In 2024, the electorate renewed PM Modi’s leadership despite his approaching 75. Unless health or incapacity becomes a concern, it is difficult to argue for retirement when public trust remains strong.

The post Voices for retirement Vs Voices for continuity appeared first on Daily Excelsior.

News