Innovation and the Young Neta

I happened to watch a CNN IBN TV show in which Sagarika ghosh asked Milind Deora what Innovative steps the congress has taken to curb terrorism.(I must confess that I knew the name Milind only today as otherwise I knew him only as Murli deora sab ka beta.) I don't know if sagarika's query was calibrated or casual in her use of the term "Innovative". Whatever might have been her intention Milind's response betrayed either an outright dishonesty of the typical politician (use lungpower or circumvent the question) or an ignorance of an important concept in contemporary discourse. His reply was something to the effect that all parties have agreed to fight the terrorism unitedly.

Let us take a look at what the term innovation can mean in the context of terrorist attacks.
First a few words on the general notion. Innovation is either an improvisation or a brand new way of doing a task, or solving a problem ,or making a device and so on. The effectiveness of an innovation is always in terms of the societal benefits. No benefit equals no innovation. The First charachteristic of innovation is that it is different from the existing solution or way of doing things. Second charachteristic is that it benefits the society. Having said that I must add that a babu sleeping on the desk cannot be said to have innovated if he stops sleeping. Doing one's job the way it is supposed to be done is not "innovation". If parties closed their ranks it is good that they have realized their folly, but to claim that they have innovated is a load of crap. Before one can innovate one must know the existing state of affairs.Newton and the apple falling on his head is a myth.

Most innovations come from people who know what's going on.That is why I said earlier that you need a forum for these inputs so that one so that people can innovate.
In the context of innovations for fighting terrorism an innovation could be technological like low cost transponders for fishermen,better tear gas to smoke out terrorists or financial or managerial or social like enabling private commandos,empowering the beat constable.. building a new democratic(or anti terror) values and so on. I think Sagarika would have been better of looking for innovations (assuming she wasn't casual) by looking for these from policemen,commandos,the navy or other persons than a professional politician whose only qualification is that he is the son of a Minister and that he was educated in the great US of A.( I couldn't find anything better on the wiki).
To be a leader of a one has to know better than the followers on issues that impact the followers. In a democracy there may be no bar on age and qualifications. But this is more an anomaly When you insist on minimum qualifications for a peon's post How can you leave the all important leadership to vagaries of polls alone. It is not that sons of politicians are not eligible. They are as much as anyone else. But the media drooling over young politicians or gen-x is pathetic. Bernard Shaw once said something to the effect that if age was any criteria the stones of London would be wisest. A mod would be if youth was any criteria the newly hatched chicken would be wisest. Moral is age is not the criterion, effectiveness on the task at hand is. I tried hard to figure out what it was that Rahul Gandhi the 'Prince' is being credited with only to come out a cropper. All that the paper said was that congress was building him up. Sometime later about the sycophancy culture and who is a real leader.