Privileged political class
by
AJ Philip |
MPs’ salary comparison with bureaucrats is flawed
MEMBERS of Parliament in India are a privileged lot. They alone have the power to decide what kind of salary and allowances they should get. On August 27, the Lower House of Parliament – Lok Sabha – passed a Bill to make a three-fold increase in the salary of MPs from Rs16,000 to Rs50,000. Two key monthly allowances were also increased to Rs40,000.
Nobody can say the salary increase is unjustified when middle-level government officials get that kind of salary. The increased salary is only one-thirteenth of what a member of the US Congress gets. Compared to what parliamentarians get in Canada, Singapore and Australia, the Indian MPs are, no doubt, poorly paid. But this is only one aspect of the story.
What is not widely known is that an Indian MP is also entitled to several perks like furnished accommodation in the heart of New Delhi with virtually free electricity and water, almost unlimited use of telephone, both in the capital and in his constituency, unlimited travel facilities in first-class air-conditioned rail coaches for self and spouse.
An MP and his spouse also get a large number of free air travel coupons, besides a daily cash allowance of Rs2,000 for attending Parliament sessions and House committees. In fact, there are so many committees that every MP is a member of at least two. And they are also entitled to award contracts and execute projects worth Rs20 million per year in their constituencies.
All this shows that the MPs are not poorly paid. Yet, Parliament saw the ugly spectacle of some MPs clamouring for more salary and perks. Among those who protested vociferously against what they called a “meagre increase” were Lalu Prasad Yadav and Mulayam Singh Yadav, who have been members of Parliament for a considerably long time.
Their argument was that they should be paid a monthly salary of Rs 80,001. Why this odd figure? This is because they want one rupee more than the highest salary of a bureaucrat in the country. Of course, a committee of MPs, which went into the question, had recommended this amount as the salary for the MPs.
The comparison is flawed on many counts. First of all, when an Indian Administrative Service officer gets Rs 80,000, it means he has already put in at least 30-35 years of service. And to earn that salary every month, he has to attend office every day of the year except national holidays. He gets only two air tickets for his family once in every two years to go to his home town from his place of posting. He is not entitled to free railway passes for him and his spouse.
An officer will have to work for a certain number of years before he can aspire to get life-long pension. In the case of an MP, if he completes one term, i.e., five years, he can get pension. As Minister Pawan Kumar Bansal pointed out, if Sharad Yadav, a senior member, quits the House today, he will get more money by way of pension than the salary he gets now.
In India anybody who has attained the age of 25 can get elected to the Lower House of Parliament. More important, it is not compulsory for an MP to attend Parliament sessions. The late Maharaja Martand Singh of Rewa, who used to win successive elections, never attended a Parliament session except on ceremonial occasions. However, to keep his membership of the House alive, he would go to Parliament House once in a while to sign the attendance register.
The maharaja might have been an exception but the level of attendance of members in parliamentary debates is indeed very low. Often, the House faces the problem of quorum, i.e., when the attendance drops to such an unacceptable level that no business can be carried out.
Most of the bureaucrats belong to middle classes. Many of them, in fact, are children of bureaucrats. Unlike bureaucracy, politics attracts all segments of people, both rich and poor. Most MPs are also professionals like lawyers, writers, farmers, and businessmen. In other words, they are not dependent on the salary they get from Parliament to make a living.
For instance, Vijay Mallya is a member of the Upper House. He owns Kingfisher Airlines and a multinational liquor company. Businessmen have always wanted to be members of Parliament. It is not for salary but for the status it brings. The late MS Oberoi, who founded the Oberoi Group of hotels, once got elected to the Lok Sabha from Bihar (now Jharkhand) on the Jharkhand Party ticket, though he never visited the constituency.
Thus when the editor of a leading regional newspaper in the country was nominated to the Upper House, he had the option of holding on to the newspaper job, which gave him a fabulous salary, or accept the low salary that he would get as an MP. He preferred to forgo his six-digit salary to become an MP. The moral of the story is that membership of Parliament is unique and is not comparable to any job in the country.
While nobody grudges the salary hike for the MPs, it would be pertinent to recall what leading lawyer Fali S. Nariman said in the House when a Bill to raise MPs’ salaries was moved in 2003: “Why do we not provide, for instance, if necessary by a resolution, as unanimously as we are going to pass this Bill, that if, for any reason, the proceedings of the House, on any day are not held, the members are not entitled to their daily wages? No work, no pay”.
Oman Tribune |
Other comment for AJ Philip
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| NEWS UPDATES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
