“I could have been prime minister at the age of twenty-five if I wanted to ."

by Rishi Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:00 pm

One can only speculate on the reasons for his lack of interest, given his reclusive nature. From his father and grandmother being assassinated to the fact that the future generations are no longer interested in what their forefathers built, be it business or politics. I am more tempted to go with the latter reason.

Rasheed Kidwai, makes this point in the new edition of his book 24 Akbar Road. As he writes “It is said that the conqueror Taimur the ‘Lame’ once spoke to the famous historian and sociologist Ibn Khuldun about the fate of dynasties. Khuldun said that the glory of a dynasty seldom lasted beyond four generations. The first generation inclined towards conquest; the second towards administration; the third, freed of the necessity to conquer or administer, was left with the pleasurable task of spending the wealth of its ancestors on cultural pursuits. Consequently, by the fourth generation, a dynasty had usually spent its wealth as well as human energy. Hence, the downfall of each dynasty is embedded in the very process of its rise. According to Khuldun, it was a natural phenomenon and could not be avoided.” Hence, evolution is at work. As historian and author Ramachandra Guha told me in an interview I did for Firstpost in December 2012 “I think this dynasty is now on its last legs. Its charisma is fading with every generation. And Rahul Gandhi is completely mediocre.” That to a large extent explains Rahul’s hit and run mentality and his reluctance to take a more active role in government. After his yesterday’s statement, the least that Rahul Gandhi can do is take on more responsibility either by advancing the Lok Sabha elections or becoming a part of the government in some form. But neither of these things is going to happen because Rahul Gandhi has said what he wanted to and disappeared again.

His attitude is best reflected in an interview he gave to the Tehalka magazine in September 2005, in which he is supposed to have remarked “I could have been prime minister at the age of twenty-five if I wanted to.” The statement created an uproar. The Congress party immediately jumped to the defence of its princeling. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, specifically mentioned that Rahul had not said ‘I could have been prime minister at the age of twenty-five if I wanted to’. (Tehakla initially stood by its story but backed down later. “This seems to be a clear case of misunderstanding. Mr Gandhi thought he was having a casual chat whereas our reporter took it to be a proper interview,” the weekly said in a statement (The ‘edited’ casual chat can still be read on Tehelka’s website)).

Read more at: http://www.firstpost.com/politics/is-rahul-gandhi-a-hit-and-run-politician-1139397.html?utm_source=ref_article

by Rishi Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:10 pm

>>> Don't you have to be at least 35 to be the PM of India?

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat Sep 28, 2013 9:08 pm

Rishi wrote:>>> Don't you have to be at least 35 to be the PM of India?

so ? CONmen will easily even amend the constitution if it is for the Nehru family.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Sat Sep 28, 2013 10:01 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Rishi wrote:>>> Don't you have to be at least 35 to be the PM of India?
so ? CONmen will easily even amend the constitution if it is for the Nehru family.

And PiSS people will extend extremely brilliant support for CONmen.

by Sponsored content

“I could have been prime minister at the age of twenty-five if I wanted to ."

“I could have been prime minister at the age of twenty-five if I wanted to ."

Re: “I could have been prime minister at the age of twenty-five if I wanted to ."

Re: “I could have been prime minister at the age of twenty-five if I wanted to ."

Re: “I could have been prime minister at the age of twenty-five if I wanted to ."

Re: “I could have been prime minister at the age of twenty-five if I wanted to ."