Of rising perks and diminishing responsibilities

Kuldip Nayar

Kuldip Nayar

TWO things have left me cold. One is the proposal by members of Parliament (MPs) to raise their own emoluments, and the other is the bungling in handling of relations between New Delhi and the Tamil Nadu chief minister J Jayalalithaa. The two are not connected, but show how impervious people are vis-a-vis public opinion. Yet, however adverse, the assumption is that criticism is a temporary phase that recedes with time. In a way it does. But those who do not take this into account go wrong. An unpopular reaction has a strange way of staying deep in the minds of people and coming up during elections or agitations.

The common perception is against the hike in salaries and allowances of MPs. Most people think that representatives of a poor country like India should live frugally. And since there have been too many interruptions in Parliament, MPs give the impression of putting in very little work. Even when there was a hike in MPs’ emoluments in 1998, there was a lot of hissing and howling.

The Atal Bihari Vajpayee Cabinet stalled a proposal for hike last year because of the uproar throughout the country. The outcry has not lessened but the government appears to have been bludgeoned with the hike acceptance due to the pressure from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the other constituents of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA). The government has another problem—support for the raise by 196 MPs in writing. Horrified over the proposal, I requested one minister to oppose this in the Cabinet. He said how could the government do anything when the proposal had been signed by so many MPs belonging to different political parties? “Even the comrades have signed it,” he added with a chuckle.

It is not only the salary but every perk, down to water and electricity, that has been upgraded. The raise works out to Rs 70,000 per month. The burden on the exchequer will be Rs 5.6 crore a month, nearly Rs 68 crore annually. This amount can facilitate every year the opening of 300 schools, 250 health centres and 500 drinking water wells.

The CPI(M) is probably the only political party which has criticised the raise. It rightly says that this will vitiate the atmosphere of austerity that is sought to be created in the country. What surprises me is the silence of MPs who belong to the RSS. They talk about the values and simplicity, but when it comes to implementing them, they keep quiet. Only one among them has circulated a letter to voice his opposition.

At a time when money is scarce for sustaining even the core sector, and when many hands are being axed in the public and private sectors due to a fall in earnings, the huge increase in the emoluments of MPs sends a wrong signal. One argument being advanced is that hikes in the past have not been adequate. This is a subjective way of looking at things. What is adequate can never be defined. What this boils down to is that the amount of pressure on the organised sector can build up. MPs have the clout and can use it. And then there may be a chain reaction.

Members in the state legislatures, corporations, municipal committees and such other bodies will also ask for a hike as it happened when the emoluments of MPs were raised last time. Civil servants, who have been roundly criticised for abnormal salaries after the Fifth Pay Commission, may point out that MPs have beaten them hollow. They may justify another round of raise on the ground that the salaries and allowances of MPs have been substantially hiked in less than three years.

I was amused to read in the Report of the Joint Committee on Salaries the rationale for the hike. One reason given is: “Members of Parliament are a group of people committed to serving the cause of a wider cross section of the community with a missionary zeal as opposed to taking it as a profession.”

In a letter to the Rajya Sabha chairman this May, I expressed my dismay over repeated disruptions of the session and requested for deduction of my daily allowance. The Rajya Sabha accepted my plea and deducted my allowance for five days. I wrote to the Prime Minister to help me establish the principle: No work, no pay. The reaction of some MPs was that such a step would not restore order in the House.

I agree. But if MPs were to know that their daily allowance would be deducted in case the House was disturbed, there is every possibility that they would ensure quiet transaction of business. At least, they should stop disturbing the House henceforth. If they don’t, they shall not be paid the daily allowance. The Rajya Sabha has accepted this in principle. Members only have to inform the Secretariat.

There is also a case for downgrading perks, allowances and salaries of ministers. Mahatma Gandhi had proposed a salary of Rs 500 a month for them. The rupee has depreciated since. Still what they are getting at present is enormous. He had outlined for them the role of trustees who should be a model of simple living and ensure that the nation’s wealth was utilised only for the people’s good.

Another depressing development is the manner in which the Jayalalithaa episode has been handled. She should have been dismissed the night she sent the police to arrest Union ministers Murasoli Maran and TR Baalu.

It was illegal and challenged the Centre’s authority in the federal polity. Ms Jayalalithaa might have a bone to pick with her predecessor, M Karunanidhi, but there was no case against Mr Maran except that he is Mr Karunanidhi’s close relative. I believe that the President of India was in favour of dismissing Ms Jayalalithaa. Earlier, the Vajpayee Cabinet has the same viewpoint. Only foreign minster Jaswant Singh was opposed to taking any harsh action.

But he won the day. It was not a soft approach but surrender which has made her more defiant. New Delhi could have dismissed her on the charges of illegally arresting the central ministers. It dithered. The position is far from satisfactory. New Delhi’s authority is yet to be established.

Once Ms Jayalalithaa was off the hook, she turned down the Centre’s request to relieve the three IPS officers, reportedly responsible for beating up Mr Karunanidhi. Constitutionally, she is on a strong wicket.

No IAS or IPS officer can be transferred from their cadre without that state’s permission. She was right in saying: “In a federal set-up, the state is not subservient to the Centre.” Now the question is: where does the authority of New Delhi end and the states’ begin?
There can be no doubting the Centre’s authority. No polity, federal or unitary, can exist without the Centre being the focal point. This is what New Delhi has failed to put across. The home ministry should have done some hard thinking on this. By leaving the situation where it is, it has only confounded the issue. This is not good for the country in the long run.