Answer:

Introduction:

The age criteria for entering India’s legislative bodies has long been a matter of contention. Originating from the spirited debates of the Constituent Assembly, the question now circles back to us in modern times. As the socio-political dynamics of our nation evolve, we’re urged to reassess our age-old beliefs on maturity and representation, seeking a balance between tradition and the changing pulse of our youth.

Body:

Arguments in favour of lowering the minimum age:

• Historical Precedent and Global Trends: 
  • The Constituent Assembly debates saw towering figures like Durgabai Deshmukh arguing for younger representation. 
  • This sentiment was not isolated to India. Countries like the UK have had leaders like William Pitt, who entered parliament at 21. 
  • Presently, many European nations have aligned their age of candidacy with the voting age, placing faith in the maturity and awareness of their youth.
• Youth Activism: 
  • Young individuals globally, such as Greta Thunberg, are at the forefront of vital movements. 
  • This shows that they are not only aware of global issues but are also willing to take leadership roles to drive change.
• Underrepresentation in Parliament: 
  • Despite India’s youth bulge, representation of MPs aged 25-40 has been dwindling over the years. 
  • Lowering the age might provide an impetus for younger leaders to participate more actively in legislative processes.
• Relevance of Contemporary Issues: 
  • Young MPs might bring fresh perspectives on issues such as technology, migration, and the changing nature of employment, resonating with a significant part of the population.

Arguments against lowering the minimum age:

• Maturity and Experience: 
  • Critics argue that while youth may be passionate, they might lack the experience and nuanced understanding required to frame legislation and participate in informed debates.
• Representation does not guarantee quality: 
  • Simply having younger MPs doesn’t ensure that they would effectively represent or address the concerns of the youth.
• Existence of other avenues: 
  • Youth are already participating in grassroots movements, student politics, and local governance. 
  • Parliament might require a different skill set and understanding.
• Potential for Polarisation: 
  • Younger representatives might prioritize issues with potential for virality over long-term policy and planning.

For example,

• Student Politics: 
  • The Lyngdoh Committee recommendations and the age criterion in Panchayats demonstrate the capability of the youth. 
  • Both these avenues have seen increased participation and leadership from younger individuals.
• Demographic Mismatch: 
  • A young nation like India, with a median age of 28.2 years, has a higher age requirement for Rajya Sabha than the median age itself.
  • This presents an irony that needs to be addressed.

Conclusion: 

The discourse around the appropriate age for entering Parliament is multi-faceted. While the involvement of youth in the legislative process is imperative to reflect a nation’s evolving aspirations, it’s equally crucial to ensure that representatives have the maturity and sagacity to make informed decisions. The middle ground of 21, as proposed in the Private Member’s Bill, seems to strike a balance. However, the success of such an amendment would be determined not just by age, but by the quality of debate, leadership, and representation it facilitates.

DOWNLOAD PDF