To feel that the 'old guard' are a bunch of nitwits and the 'young blood' are the hope would be a trifle naive. Amongst the old guard, there are highly educated people and well versed in the arena of statecraft, having slogged at it through their years.
HEY NOW!
Your putting words in my mouth.
I never said the old guard was anything negative.
They have been in politics long before i have been even born gone through multiple governments , foreign and domestic policies.
They are still an internal part of the political process,
MMS etc and maybe even Advani all still have role to play.
And frankly we would be worse of without them.
That being said however i should clarify that i know they are not model politicians and pragmatically i don't expect them to be.
And i don't think younger politicians will change that view either.
However as time(as they get more experienced) goes by these will be the people who will come to replace them.
There is no status quoism in India today. The canvas is changing almost on a yearly basis. And it is the old guard which is at work. Do compare the astuteness of Narashimha Rao with the impetuousness of say, Rajiv Gandhi, who also had dreams of a resurgent India. The comparison would be as incongruous as chalk and cheese.
The Canvas is still being drawn by people with their own pre-dispostitions.
Some of them still remember Cold war politics.
MY only implication of change is that this is not the case with newer politicians.
They have yet to decide what their canvas will look like.
My point being it will obviously be an opportunity for anyone to try and influence those decisions , its only natural.
You think its only the Americans who can lobby.
One does not have to be under 45 to be liberal or be open to having better relation with the US or for that matter, any other country. Narshimha Rao opened up the country to the much vaunted liberalization for which all and sundry wants to take credit. He opened up ties with Israel and at the same time, ensured that the Middle Eastern countries did not baulk. It is during his time that Iran became India's close friend. And he started Looking East! And, he was no spring chicken!
You mis-understood my original point.
Which was to question
your suggestion that
Politicians Under 45 , liberal and open to having better relations with the US as being
is a US puppet
Your original statement
Does it mean that the US already has and is planning to entice the young leaders in their bag?
No one is jumping to any conclusions.
Your connecting dots to draw up a US-UPA conspiracy with Rahul at the center
All one wants is a bit of maturity to understand that no matter how close your friend might be, you don't take him into your bedroom!
There was no requirement to open one's heart out to a foreigner.
Which has not happened , but people only keep saying that it will happen.
But i do agree with you one thing , Rahul generally speaking has zero foreign policy sense , in the same way the rest of us would have.
Do you also support the view of Rahul Gandhi that the so called 'saffron' terrorism is a greater threat than LeT?
Now your putting words in his Mouth.
He was referring to communal violence , caused as a result of Hindu radicals.
And how that could strengthen Muslim extremism especially recruitment.
one of my earlier posts
Constiang the actual cable in question
5. (C) Responding to the Ambassador's query about Lashkar-e-Taiba's activities in the region and immediate threat to India, Gandhi said there was evidence of some support for the group among certain elements in India's indigenous Muslim community.
However, Gandhi warned, the bigger threat may be the growth of radicalized Hindu groups, which create religious tensions and political confrontations with the Muslim community. (Comment: Gandhi was referring to the tensions created by some of the more polarizing figures in the BJP such as Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi.) The risk of a "home-grown" extremist front, reacting to terror attacks coming from Pakistan or from Islamist groups in India, was a growing concern and one that demanded constant attention.
That line is very similar assessment to something else i read on this thread
http://www.defenceforum.in/forum/showthread.php?t=17136
.
.
.
India is home to a wide variety of extremist groups, including religious extremists (Hindu, Muslim and Sikh), ethnic separatists, and extremists from the political left (Naxalites) and right (primarily Hindu fascists), all of whom recruit children.
.
.
.
Attacks by Hindu extremists on innocent Muslims and periodic bouts of bloody communal rioting, have led a small number of Muslims to cross the line from sympathizing with violence to engaging in terrorism. Some Kashmiri terrorist groups argue that only attacks outside of Kashmir will shake the Indian state and convince the GOI to withdraw. Members of these two small slivers of the Muslim community provide recruits for groups prone to acts of violence and terrorism, many of which are supported from outside India. The numbers are small, especially outside of Kashmir, but they remain capable of periodic bombings and other acts of violence.
.
.
.
In Gujarat and Western India, particularly in Mumbai, many Muslims were traumatized by anti-Muslim rioting following the destruction of Babri Mosque in 1992, and the Godhra train violence of 2002. We speculate that their principal motivation is revenge for senseless and painful attacks inflicted on them, their families, and their communities by Hindu extremists.
None of you seem too unhappy with that assessment made my the Americans ?
As far as the American feeling that an influx of new faces will change Indian polity for the better, Omar is a new face. So is Rahul Gandhi. Must I say more?
You probably should.
Because for starters the Americans are not saying
that an influx of new faces will change Indian polity for the better
But in fact as saying
the influx of new faces and the rising profile of young leaders like Rahul Gandhi provides us an opening to expand the constituency in support of the strategic partnership with a long term horizon.
They are are not speaking with absolutes as you are.
So far as Omar and Rahul go , well they are at least better then your average run of the mill Babu.
Much that I would like to believe, I just cannot reconcile to your point of view that experience does not count. If it did not, then all CEOs should have been new graduates of B Schools and Premji and others should have been put to pasture long ago.
As i have stated above i share your view on experience , either you have misunderstood me prior, or i failed to express my view clearly in the previous post.