BAPU SATYANARAYANA writes: Seventy per cent of Indians are below 35 years of age. It is a common perception that if India has achieved progress the ‘young turks’ in technical fields are behind it.
It is often derisively imputed that the elderly have lost touch with reality and have passed their prime to do anything good and the best thing they should do is retire gracefully and give way to the young.
Unfortunately, a cursory examination of those in politics reveals that those who have a say in progress are all above 65 years. Why, the scientists who met the Prime Minister recently on the nuclear deal were all over 65, as indeed is the PM himself.
Even those who fashioned the growth of giant corporate entities are elders who, no doubt, rose from their young days but probably gained wisdom well past their prime.
The following statistics may hold the key to this progress:
While in developing countries only 2% of those who are above 65 years are actively working while in India it is a whopping 60%. Also in India 20% of those who are above 80 years are active.
Of course it is the old who are suffering due to ill health. Of these only 20% are without any problem of a serious nature while 65% suffer from bad eyesight, 36% suffer difficulty in walking, 10% suffer from breathing problem, 8.5% sufer from skin disease, 7.4% suffer from nervous debility, 6.3% suffer from heart problem and 5.8% suffer from hearing impairment.
Other factors worthy of note are: While 6% live in India live without support of near and dear ones, the corresponding figure is 40% in USA. Also in rural areas, the old are looked after by youngsters, but those living in urban areas are neglected by their children and subject to severe hardship, mental and physical torure.
If India is making waves in all spheres, the question arises who are behind this progress? Is it possible that 20:80 rule is applicable? That is 20% of the old are responsible for the progress of the remaining 80% of the people?
What can we infer from the following?
A. At the age of 67 George Bernard Shaw wrote Saint John
B. Francis Chickster sails solo across the Atlantic Ocean-4000 miles in 22 days at 69 years.
C. Benjamin Franklin invents bifocal eye-glasses at 79 years
D. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe completes his masterpiece Faust at 82
E. Betrand Russel says ‘I, personally have succeeded in living nearly 85 years without taking any trouble about my diet.
F. Mahatma Gandhi fasts at age 77 to quells religious violence
G. AT 87 Sophocles writes his play Phioctetes
H. At 98 Dimitrion Yordannidis runs marathosn in Athens in 7 hours and 33 minutes.
I. Ichijirou Araya climbs Mount Fuji at 100
“Also in rural areas, the old are looked after by youngsters, but those living in urban areas are neglected by their children and subject to severe hardship, mental and physical torure.”
“Also in rural areas, the old are looked after by youngsters, but those living in urban areas are neglected by their children and subject to severe hardship, mental and physical torure.”
This isn’t true at all!
Eighty-eight years young!
Virmaram Jat 88 years lod from BUDHIA KA TALA (BARMER- Rajasthan) has become a proud father of male twins ( one was still born ).
Based on the facts mentioned in the post the answer to the question of whether the elderly in our country are being given their due should be ‘Yes’. If anything, the influence of youngsters is not felt in many of the spheres. As the article points out, whether it is politics, industry or the proportion of the elderly in the workforce, the oldies are truly alive and kicking. Also the fact that only 6% of the old away from their near ones compared to a lot more in other countries shows that most do care about older people. I would go so far as to say that the advice or suggestions of elders are still given a lot more weight in our country compared to many other countries. Also except in sports, youth by itself is still largely treated a handicap in most fields & often advice backed by a few grey hairs is considered sage.
Dear Delleep and Prasad,
Thanks. I agree with both of them and I have been rather sweeping and my experience in staying in Delhi has influenced me largely and down south there are still people who look after the eldely but their numbers are going down for many social reasons
On a lighter note…
According to your article, if the elderly are not given their due, it is the elderly that is responsible. In your article you state
“Unfortunately, a cursory examination of those in politics reveals that those who have a say in progress are all above 65 years. Why, the scientists who met the Prime Minister recently on the nuclear deal were all over 65, as indeed is the PM himself.”
So why dont they give their due unto themselves?
Dear Bapu Sir, I agree with u that the elderly are not getting their due to some extent . But sir every coin has two faces, unfortunately u have not noticed the other face that the elderely themselves refuse to live with youngsters. Do u know that many elderly think that if they stay with their children even when the children are eagre to keep their parents with them. Many say that they don’t want to come with the children living behind their homes. In this type of case what one should leave their jobs which is the source of earning or leave their parents to themselves supporting financially? which is important to many elderly also.
Please think on this note also.
Dear Suma
Unlike olden days when the parents thought that children shoud look after them, the whole attitude is going through social upheaval and it is paticualrly seen in the case of middle class families where nuclear families rather than the joint families are a reality. This change is not withourt reason. First of all the concept of indepndance has gained social acceptance and this is aided by the employment opportunities which take the children going far away and to other countries is a fact of life. Also amongst the elderly gradually a definite realism has set in . This is because nowadays the parents are carefull to keep something for the rainy day since they no longer are dependent on the son/daughter who are all well settled. Thus they also realise that however close the children are they do not want to come in their independance and are more happy in their familar environment. To live with them in some far off place is like being transplanted to an alien placeand emotioally disturbing. Yes a loving son or a daughter is anxious to have them with them. But the parents realise in the longrun it is best to live independantly and are philosphically reconciled to the situation whatever be the consequeces. True it puts the children in a dilemma even a sort of guilty feeling. But it is reality of life which can not be wished away. There are no easy answers because a son may feel a tug at the heartstrings that he may not be doing enough for his parents. Often daughter-in-law factor sometimes may inhibit the son and the parents sense the sense of his helplesness and are prepared to face the consequeces of living alone. Of course they miss the grandchildren. In recent times I have seen the phenomenon of well settled children in America resigning and coming over to live with their parents. This has happened because the employment prospects for well qualified persons are opening up in India. Of course there are cases of outright neglect of their parents. This is more pronounced in urban areas and hence by default in rural areas children looking after the parents in old age are greater. This is asocial churnign going on
Hi Everyone,
I acknowledge the importance of taking care of the elderly and also the need for their independent, yet at times dependent life. Manyatimes I have come across the opinion from different articles and even in debates (about the much-repeated reason for the elderly becoming destitutes)
as the breaking up of the joint family structure and the mother-in-law daughter-in-law factors…..fine agreed that these are reality in some houses…but how many of us have thought about elderly parents who do not have sons and only daughters…for so many years since the age-old days, who has taken care of them….?
Nowadays many of the daughters are also earning a good sum as income…if finance is THE important factor coming in the way of the daughters’ taking care of the parents, then in atleast such families mentioned above, the parents should be taken care of. One more thing is, if two people from an entirely different set up is in the same family, then there will definetely be difference of opinion….it exists even between a daughter and mother….then why make so much fuss about the daughter-in-law and mother-in-law problems…..?! Imagine a situation where the wife is earning and able to support the husband and children through her income, and the husband is asked to stay with the wife’s family….I can vouchsafe that in such cases, there is bound to be father-in-law and son-in-law problems…..whoever is reading this, please observe that, the son’s father who is able to make his wife dance to his every tune, comfortably aids and abets the wife, when the wife deliberately ruffles feathers between the son and daughter-in-law.
If you say adjustment is the key solution to these problems, then adjustment from EVERY PERSON IN THE FAMILY should be the password for peace at home…..only the son adjusting or only the daughter-in-law playing a sacrificing role is not going to solve the issues.
Thank you…