The All india topper in civil services exam, Dr Shah Faisal attibuted his success to the equality guaranteed by the Indian constitution. "One should never forget the fact that he is an Indian irrespective of his religion. No body can stop you from achieving the goal, if you are capable", he said, reports Expressindia.
All India topper at UPSC civil services exam Dr Shah Faisal has attributed his success to the provision of equality for all enshrined in the Indian constitution.
"Indian constitution provides for giving equal rights to everyone irrespective of caste, religion, region and my success in the UPSC exam is a result of that," Faisal, who hails from Kashmir, said at a felicitation function here last night.
Stating that there was no better country than India, Faisal said, "We create controversies over pity things like caste, religion, region and language."
"There is no reason to get upset if someone doubts your Indianness because you are a Muslim. There is no need for a certificate from anybody that you are an Indian. Practise any religion in your home or society but outside, do not ever forget that you are an Indian and learn to respect people from other religions," he said.
"In pursuit of your goal, you will find people who will trouble you because you belong to a particular religion, caste, region but if you have the capability, then nobody can stop you from overcoming these hurdles and reach your goal, Faisal added.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Opportunity Lost
Mayawati, the controversial queen of the Dalits, is in the news for all the wrong reasons ever since her crowning in 2007. Hers is the typical story of grit and determination to win against all odds. It is also the story of success of Indian democracy that opened the doors for an underclass woman to lead India's biggest state, Uttar Pradesh. Sadly, however, it is also the story of misusing public money for self-glorification and much ink has been spilt on that. Media and opposition parties have been crying hoarse over this politician, who champions causes of the poor, for her vulgar display of wealth - be it her lavish birthday parties, her diamond jewellery and real estate acquisitions or her statues and parks.
What her critics do not understand is that these outlandish acts are tactical moves on her part for the consumption of her Dalit supporters. For them, Mayawati's riches and power are symbols of collective Dalit power and wealth; her statues, Dalit entry into community space; and her birthday parties, their right to celebrations - all of which was forbidden for the underclass by the upper castes for centuries. So, while her critics find the sight of Mayawati getting a multi-million 1000 rupee note garland obscene, her underprivileged supporters get ecstatic by the same.
...
Three years into power and she has been too busy acquiring - so much so that she pays advance tax of rupees 140 million - to have found time for positive policy making. She says it's all gifted to her by her impoverished supporters! The queen moves with a convoy of 34 vehicles to the great inconvenience of people - and commoners are not even allowed to look at her grand march. She transfers and suspends high ranking officials who do not toe her line, or who are suspected of being close to Mulayam. She unabashedly and deliberately ambushes welfare schemes of the Central government for the fear of Congress regaining foothold in her Dalit fort. While 26,000 vacancies remain unfilled in the police force in UP, Mayawati bends rules to create a special force at a staggering cost of 90 million rupees to protect her statues. This at a time when the state has the highest number of atrocities against the Dalits, not to mention highest crime rates in India. The same day, she refuses to implement Right to Education under the pretext of lack of funds.
...
The problem with the Mayawati government is that indulgence in symbolism is all that is there on the cards. When a Dalit CM takes to the office for the fourth time in a state - this time with a clear mandate - it is strange to find her lacking a definite agenda for uplifting masses from the clutches of underdevelopment. But, like her previous stints as CM, this time too Mayawati has chosen to please her Dalit voters through symbolism and not through any structural changes for their socio-economic emancipation. Mayawati needs to understand that Dalits are no fools.
...
Mayawati has not only squandered away the goodwill reposed in her by the Dalits, but also a chance to rise above the identity politics and project herself as a visionary leader. Being a Dalit who came to power by forging an unlikely coalition with upper castes and Muslims, Mayawati was presented with a historic opportunity to move beyond the narrow caste considerations that had plagued the UP politics since the post-Mandal times and leverage this trust displayed in her by various segments of the society, to bridge social divides.
... ... ...
Dr. Ambedkar had an opportunity to write the Indian Constitution. He created history by introducing reservations as a way forward to make all Indians equal. Mayawati, on the other hand, misused all the opportunities that democracy offered her, by doing precious little for the underclass. She was the mother goddess to her people; their savior who was expected to liberate them from social and economic subjugation. In the end, she turned out to be just another mortal; just another rebel with all lost causes.
Read the full article by Semu Bhatt here in Southasia Online.
What her critics do not understand is that these outlandish acts are tactical moves on her part for the consumption of her Dalit supporters. For them, Mayawati's riches and power are symbols of collective Dalit power and wealth; her statues, Dalit entry into community space; and her birthday parties, their right to celebrations - all of which was forbidden for the underclass by the upper castes for centuries. So, while her critics find the sight of Mayawati getting a multi-million 1000 rupee note garland obscene, her underprivileged supporters get ecstatic by the same.
...
Three years into power and she has been too busy acquiring - so much so that she pays advance tax of rupees 140 million - to have found time for positive policy making. She says it's all gifted to her by her impoverished supporters! The queen moves with a convoy of 34 vehicles to the great inconvenience of people - and commoners are not even allowed to look at her grand march. She transfers and suspends high ranking officials who do not toe her line, or who are suspected of being close to Mulayam. She unabashedly and deliberately ambushes welfare schemes of the Central government for the fear of Congress regaining foothold in her Dalit fort. While 26,000 vacancies remain unfilled in the police force in UP, Mayawati bends rules to create a special force at a staggering cost of 90 million rupees to protect her statues. This at a time when the state has the highest number of atrocities against the Dalits, not to mention highest crime rates in India. The same day, she refuses to implement Right to Education under the pretext of lack of funds.
...
The problem with the Mayawati government is that indulgence in symbolism is all that is there on the cards. When a Dalit CM takes to the office for the fourth time in a state - this time with a clear mandate - it is strange to find her lacking a definite agenda for uplifting masses from the clutches of underdevelopment. But, like her previous stints as CM, this time too Mayawati has chosen to please her Dalit voters through symbolism and not through any structural changes for their socio-economic emancipation. Mayawati needs to understand that Dalits are no fools.
...
Mayawati has not only squandered away the goodwill reposed in her by the Dalits, but also a chance to rise above the identity politics and project herself as a visionary leader. Being a Dalit who came to power by forging an unlikely coalition with upper castes and Muslims, Mayawati was presented with a historic opportunity to move beyond the narrow caste considerations that had plagued the UP politics since the post-Mandal times and leverage this trust displayed in her by various segments of the society, to bridge social divides.
... ... ...
Dr. Ambedkar had an opportunity to write the Indian Constitution. He created history by introducing reservations as a way forward to make all Indians equal. Mayawati, on the other hand, misused all the opportunities that democracy offered her, by doing precious little for the underclass. She was the mother goddess to her people; their savior who was expected to liberate them from social and economic subjugation. In the end, she turned out to be just another mortal; just another rebel with all lost causes.
Read the full article by Semu Bhatt here in Southasia Online.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
The political fallout of the battle of the sexes
The women’s reservation bill will disempower the voter, and reduce the incentive for the elected representative to be seriously concerned with the issues affecting the constituencies.
Barun S Mitra
Pragati: The Indian National Interest Review
April 2010
http://pragati.nationalinterest.in/2010/04/the-political-fallout-of-the-battle-of-the-sexes/
Symbolism plays a very important role in politics. So it was symbolic that on Monday, March 8th, 2010, the centenary of the International Women’s Day, the governing UPA coalition wanted to present the country with a constitutional amendment to empower women, by reserving 33 percent of the seats for women in national and state legislatures. And it was also indicative of things to come when, at the end of the day, the law minister acknowledged that it was national day of shame, as a few unruly MPs, particularly in the Rajya Sabha, created such a ruckus that the house had to be adjourned six times without conducting much business.
The bill was adopted in the Rajya Sabha the next day, with a overwhelming majority of 186 to 1, out of a total strength of 225, with some of the opposition parties staging a walkout. The government promised to bring further amendments to the bill, and also decided to wait till after the passing of finance bill in the ongoing Budget Session of Parliament, rather than undertake the adventurous constitutional amendment immediately in the Lok Sabha.
While hardly anyone is opposed to the idea of greater political participation by women, yet the political and intellectual divide over the bill can hardly be papered over. Its implementation would have grave consequences for the quality of governance and political culture in the country.
With the major political parties from the governing and opposition sides having expressed their support for the bill, the passage of this constitutional amendment should have been a simple matter. Yet it has not been a smooth sailing for this bill, illustrating the political hypocrisy that underscores the apparent sense of unanimity that surrounds the bill.
The bill had been pending for about 14 years, and many political parties routinely vouched for it in their election manifesto over the past decade. Despite the obvious divide over this issue, there had hardly been any attempt to seriously discuss and explore the implications of this proposal, even within the political parties.
First, it shows that party leaders responsible for drafting their manifestos rarely take that document seriously enough, and therefore do not feel the need to consult even their own party candidates about the key provisions. The candidates take the cue, and focus only on winning elections, not on the policy agenda. There are major political parties that have given up preparing election manifestos altogether.
Secondly, the hollowness of the political consensus stood exposed from the fact that without the fear of disobeying the party whip and attracting the penalty of disqualification from the house under the anti-defection law, the women’s reservations bill could not be passed in parliament. There was no substantive debate on any of the real clauses of the bill in the Rajya Sabha, except perfunctory commitment to gender equality. Afghanistan and Rwanda were presented as models of women’s empowerment in the India’s temple of democracy.
So, the third point that emerges is that under the anti-defection law, parliamentary debate itself has become a casualty. After all, what is the purpose of a debate if under the discipline of the party whip, parliament is turned only in to a number counting chamber. Should it come as a surprise, then, that debates have been increasingly displaced by disruptions in the supreme debating chamber of the country?
Fourth, if there was genuine widespread political and social support for reservation of seats for women in legislatures, would such a constitutional amendment be necessary at all. Nothing prevents the political parties from choosing more women candidates, and nominating more women from constituencies where they have strong presence, thereby enabling more women to enter the legislatures. Parties do not give too many tickets to women because they do not see women as being able to win election on their own strength.
Fifth, it is argued that putting more women in legislatures will somehow change the status of women in the country. It is another matter that having one of the first women prime ministers in the world, in the mid-1960s, did not really change the fortunes of most women in India. Some of the worst forms of discrimination and deprivation of women continue to take place, with not many politically active women raising their voice against the daily atrocities.
Sixth, there are women leaders like Jayalalithaa in Tamil Nadu, and Mamata Banerjee in West Bengal, Mayawati in Uttar Pradesh, who have been able to rise on their own on the political map of the country through persistence and political acumen. Others like Sushma Swaraj, Vasundhara Raje and Brinda Karat have been vocal and visible. And there is Sonia Gandhi, who despite the family name, had to struggle to revive the political fortunes of her party. None of these women needed political reservations to find their own space. So, in the name of empowering women, this bill perpetuates the belief that women cannot make it in politics on their own.
Seventh, the bill raises a fundamental question about the nature of India’s representative democracy. If the reservation of constituencies for SC and STs were considered a temporary anomaly necessary to correct some historical wrongs, the reservation for a section of the population, the women, inevitably undermines the first past the post (FPTP) election system that India had adopted. The bill raises the prospect of fundamentally moving India towards a proportional representation system dividing the population on sectoral lines. The clamour for caste and minority quota within the women’s quota is a logical step in that direction. This would be a fundamental change from the basic design of the constitution, and the debates in the constituent assembly, when the notion of separate electorates was debated and rejected.
Eighth, from the past political experience, it is clear that reserving seats for SC and STs did not lead to the development of authentic political leadership within those communities. Indeed, it led to the creation of a generation of leaders who were pliable and dedicated more to their parties than to the people. The leadership among some of the other historically oppressed sections of society emerged only as the newer leaders mobilised politically, and not because of any reservation, and created their own political territories.
Ninth, it is said that there is a potential political dividend by giving greater space for women, and women as a class would vote en masse for parties that support that section. This is not only vote bank politics at its worst but is completely futile. Sectional mobilisation has rarely worked politically, and could never be sustained. There is no national constituency for women, just as there is none for men.
This of course raises the question, if the social and political context is not conducive why do we have such a demand for reservation for women in legislature.
Everyone agrees that the proposal will significantly change the political contour of India. At one stroke, by rotating the constituencies reserved for women, an enormous political churning will be triggered. Powerful political leaders, legislators who may have nurtured their constituencies seriously for years, will be undermined at a stroke. In effect this will disempower the voter, and reduce the incentive for the elected representative to be seriously concerned with the issues affecting the constituencies. This alone could be a ground for testing the constitutionality of this amendment, because it dilutes the idea of political accountability and representative democratic character, it could fall foul of the basic feature doctrine laid down by the Supreme Court.
In a system where the voters are not in a position to assess the performance of their representative, the parties have to constantly search for new candidates and where there is no inner party democracy there will be one set of of beneficiaries. The proposal to reserve and rotate a third of the legislative seats for women is mainly an attempt by entrenched party leaders to hide behind the fairer sex, to further empower their own authority over the lesser members of the party in the legislature. In an era of coalition politics and fragmentation of the polity this is a misguided attempt by party leaders to keep control over their flock.
Ironically, the bill has also exposed the weakness of the political leadership in all the major parties. No one doubts that Mrs Gandhi’s writ runs in the Congress party. But even she is counting on the anti-defection law to get her will enforced among her party MPs. And despite all her authority within her party, she will not find it easy to replace so many of her MPs and aspiring candidates with women of her choice, without the force of law behind her. The situation is the same within all parties, which is the main reason why entrenched party leaders are supporting this bill.
If the anti-defection law has undermined democracy within the legislative chambers, the rotational reservation for women, with its attendant political turnover, will undermine the democratic process outside.
Barun S Mitra
Pragati: The Indian National Interest Review
April 2010
http://pragati.nationalinterest.in/2010/04/the-political-fallout-of-the-battle-of-the-sexes/
Symbolism plays a very important role in politics. So it was symbolic that on Monday, March 8th, 2010, the centenary of the International Women’s Day, the governing UPA coalition wanted to present the country with a constitutional amendment to empower women, by reserving 33 percent of the seats for women in national and state legislatures. And it was also indicative of things to come when, at the end of the day, the law minister acknowledged that it was national day of shame, as a few unruly MPs, particularly in the Rajya Sabha, created such a ruckus that the house had to be adjourned six times without conducting much business.
The bill was adopted in the Rajya Sabha the next day, with a overwhelming majority of 186 to 1, out of a total strength of 225, with some of the opposition parties staging a walkout. The government promised to bring further amendments to the bill, and also decided to wait till after the passing of finance bill in the ongoing Budget Session of Parliament, rather than undertake the adventurous constitutional amendment immediately in the Lok Sabha.
While hardly anyone is opposed to the idea of greater political participation by women, yet the political and intellectual divide over the bill can hardly be papered over. Its implementation would have grave consequences for the quality of governance and political culture in the country.
With the major political parties from the governing and opposition sides having expressed their support for the bill, the passage of this constitutional amendment should have been a simple matter. Yet it has not been a smooth sailing for this bill, illustrating the political hypocrisy that underscores the apparent sense of unanimity that surrounds the bill.
The bill had been pending for about 14 years, and many political parties routinely vouched for it in their election manifesto over the past decade. Despite the obvious divide over this issue, there had hardly been any attempt to seriously discuss and explore the implications of this proposal, even within the political parties.
First, it shows that party leaders responsible for drafting their manifestos rarely take that document seriously enough, and therefore do not feel the need to consult even their own party candidates about the key provisions. The candidates take the cue, and focus only on winning elections, not on the policy agenda. There are major political parties that have given up preparing election manifestos altogether.
Secondly, the hollowness of the political consensus stood exposed from the fact that without the fear of disobeying the party whip and attracting the penalty of disqualification from the house under the anti-defection law, the women’s reservations bill could not be passed in parliament. There was no substantive debate on any of the real clauses of the bill in the Rajya Sabha, except perfunctory commitment to gender equality. Afghanistan and Rwanda were presented as models of women’s empowerment in the India’s temple of democracy.
So, the third point that emerges is that under the anti-defection law, parliamentary debate itself has become a casualty. After all, what is the purpose of a debate if under the discipline of the party whip, parliament is turned only in to a number counting chamber. Should it come as a surprise, then, that debates have been increasingly displaced by disruptions in the supreme debating chamber of the country?
Fourth, if there was genuine widespread political and social support for reservation of seats for women in legislatures, would such a constitutional amendment be necessary at all. Nothing prevents the political parties from choosing more women candidates, and nominating more women from constituencies where they have strong presence, thereby enabling more women to enter the legislatures. Parties do not give too many tickets to women because they do not see women as being able to win election on their own strength.
Fifth, it is argued that putting more women in legislatures will somehow change the status of women in the country. It is another matter that having one of the first women prime ministers in the world, in the mid-1960s, did not really change the fortunes of most women in India. Some of the worst forms of discrimination and deprivation of women continue to take place, with not many politically active women raising their voice against the daily atrocities.
Sixth, there are women leaders like Jayalalithaa in Tamil Nadu, and Mamata Banerjee in West Bengal, Mayawati in Uttar Pradesh, who have been able to rise on their own on the political map of the country through persistence and political acumen. Others like Sushma Swaraj, Vasundhara Raje and Brinda Karat have been vocal and visible. And there is Sonia Gandhi, who despite the family name, had to struggle to revive the political fortunes of her party. None of these women needed political reservations to find their own space. So, in the name of empowering women, this bill perpetuates the belief that women cannot make it in politics on their own.
Seventh, the bill raises a fundamental question about the nature of India’s representative democracy. If the reservation of constituencies for SC and STs were considered a temporary anomaly necessary to correct some historical wrongs, the reservation for a section of the population, the women, inevitably undermines the first past the post (FPTP) election system that India had adopted. The bill raises the prospect of fundamentally moving India towards a proportional representation system dividing the population on sectoral lines. The clamour for caste and minority quota within the women’s quota is a logical step in that direction. This would be a fundamental change from the basic design of the constitution, and the debates in the constituent assembly, when the notion of separate electorates was debated and rejected.
Eighth, from the past political experience, it is clear that reserving seats for SC and STs did not lead to the development of authentic political leadership within those communities. Indeed, it led to the creation of a generation of leaders who were pliable and dedicated more to their parties than to the people. The leadership among some of the other historically oppressed sections of society emerged only as the newer leaders mobilised politically, and not because of any reservation, and created their own political territories.
Ninth, it is said that there is a potential political dividend by giving greater space for women, and women as a class would vote en masse for parties that support that section. This is not only vote bank politics at its worst but is completely futile. Sectional mobilisation has rarely worked politically, and could never be sustained. There is no national constituency for women, just as there is none for men.
This of course raises the question, if the social and political context is not conducive why do we have such a demand for reservation for women in legislature.
Everyone agrees that the proposal will significantly change the political contour of India. At one stroke, by rotating the constituencies reserved for women, an enormous political churning will be triggered. Powerful political leaders, legislators who may have nurtured their constituencies seriously for years, will be undermined at a stroke. In effect this will disempower the voter, and reduce the incentive for the elected representative to be seriously concerned with the issues affecting the constituencies. This alone could be a ground for testing the constitutionality of this amendment, because it dilutes the idea of political accountability and representative democratic character, it could fall foul of the basic feature doctrine laid down by the Supreme Court.
In a system where the voters are not in a position to assess the performance of their representative, the parties have to constantly search for new candidates and where there is no inner party democracy there will be one set of of beneficiaries. The proposal to reserve and rotate a third of the legislative seats for women is mainly an attempt by entrenched party leaders to hide behind the fairer sex, to further empower their own authority over the lesser members of the party in the legislature. In an era of coalition politics and fragmentation of the polity this is a misguided attempt by party leaders to keep control over their flock.
Ironically, the bill has also exposed the weakness of the political leadership in all the major parties. No one doubts that Mrs Gandhi’s writ runs in the Congress party. But even she is counting on the anti-defection law to get her will enforced among her party MPs. And despite all her authority within her party, she will not find it easy to replace so many of her MPs and aspiring candidates with women of her choice, without the force of law behind her. The situation is the same within all parties, which is the main reason why entrenched party leaders are supporting this bill.
If the anti-defection law has undermined democracy within the legislative chambers, the rotational reservation for women, with its attendant political turnover, will undermine the democratic process outside.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Members of Parliament: Politics of Legislative Perks
Members of Parliament:
A very interesting view of how our MPs grew with time. This table begins with the Members of the Central Legislative Assembly under the British Rule in 1921.
Whether our elected representatives deserve this growth? Whether they deserve more in order to attract the brightest and the best to the legislature? Or whether we should expect them to go back to the Gandhian sentiments? These are some of the issues that need to be seriously discussed.
1921: Central Legislative Assembly (under British rule): Rs 21 (daily allowance)
1945: Central Legislative Assembly (under British rule): Rs 30 (daily allowance) , and Rs 15 conveyance allowance
1946: Central Legislative Assembly (under British rule): Rs 45 (daily allowance)
1949 to 1954: Constituent Assembly, and First Lok Sabha: Rs 40 daily allowance
1954: Member of Parliament: Salary Rs 400 per month, Rs 21 daily allowance
1964: Member of Parliament: Salary Rs 500 per month, Rs 31 daily allowance
1969: Member of Parliament: Salary Rs 500 per month, Rs 51 daily allowance
1983: Member of Parliament: Salary Rs 750 per month, Rs 75 daily allowance
1985: Member of Parliament: Salary Rs 1,000 per month, Rs 75 daily allowance
1988: Member of Parliament: Salary Rs 1,500 per month, Rs 150 daily allowance
1993: Member of Parliament: Salary Rs 1500 per month, Rs 200 daily allowance
1998: Member of Parliament: Salary Rs 4,000 per month, Rs 400 daily allowance
2001: Member of Parliament: Salary Rs 12,000 per month, Rs 500 daily allowance
2006: Member of Parliament: Salary Rs 16,000 per month, Rs 1,000 daily allowance
1976: Pension for MPs
This is extracted from a very insightful analysis of the pay and perks enjoyed by our elected representatives.
"By the members, for the members" by Era Zezhiyan (former Member of Parliament from Tamil Nadu), published in Frontline magazine, 9-22 Sept 2006
... ... ...
The Salaries and Allowances Act has been amended 27 times since 1954. The Joint Committee on Salaries and Allowances for MPs was constituted in September 1954 to frame the rules under the Act. The Committee consists of 10 members nominated by the Lok Sabha Speaker and five nominated by the Rajya Sabha Chairman.
The Committee determines its own rules of procedure and is empowered to make, after consulting the government, rules on matters specified in Sub section (3) of Section 9 of the Act.
Its reports are not presented to Parliament. The rules do not take effect until they are approved and confirmed by the Rajya Sabha Chairman and the Lok Sabha Speaker, and are published in the Gazette. Such publication, under the Act, is the conclusive proof that rules have been duly made.
... ... ...
In India, the members of the Central Assembly received Rs.20 per diem in 1921. In May 1945, they were paid a daily allowance of Rs.30 and a conveyance allowance of Rs.15, which were consolidated to Rs.45 and continued to be paid to the members of the Constituent Assembly from December 1946 onwards.
Mahatma Gandhi insisted that persons in public life should take a minimum salary, just enough to maintain a simple life. Some members of the Constituent Assembly chose to draw only Rs.30 and several others surrendered their allowances to the local Congress committees and took lesser amounts fixed by the party.
When the Draft Constitution provision on the salaries and allowances of the MPs came up for discussion on May 20, 1949, a suggestion was made to pay between Rs.750 and Rs.1,000 as monthly salary. There was strong objection to this high amount and the Assembly retained the daily allowance of Rs. 45. Even this was considered too much in the context of the extent of poverty prevailing in India. On October 17, 1949, V.I. Muniswami Pillai (Madras) moved a resolution to reduce the daily allowance to Rs.40. He said: "I know as a matter of fact that this is a small sacrifice. This august body has to give a lead to the country to improve the economic conditions that prevail today... I contacted many members of this august Assembly and found that they are all unanimously of the opinion that a five-rupee cut in the daily allowance will not be a hardship." The amendment was accepted unanimously and the daily allowance of Rs. 40 was in force from that date in the Constituent Assembly, the Provisional Parliament and the First Lok Sabha until 1954.
Article 102 of the Constitution provides that members shall be entitled "to receive such salaries and allowances as may from time to time be determined by Parliament law". Accordingly, Speaker G.V. Mavlankar appointed a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC), which recommended a daily allowance of Rs.35 without any salary or other remuneration. This meant a reduction of Rs.5 in daily allowance, which was not acceptable to the post-Independence MPs. After some animated discussion, the Members returned the proposal to the JPC for reconsideration. In its second report, the Committee recommended either a monthly salary of Rs.300 plus a daily allowance of Rs.20 or Rs.40 per diem.
... ... ...
In his introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution by A.V. Dicey, E.C.S. Wade cautioned: "It must not be forgotten that the inevitable consequence of the supremacy of Parliament in the legislative field is that there can be no check upon the unscrupulous use of power by a government which finds itself in command of a majority in the House of Commons."
This should serve as a warning to the Members who succeeded in establishing a temporary majority in Parliament in order to effect a steep hike in their pay and perks.
A political decision should be backed by political morality. Without morality, no decision lasts long in a functioning democracy.
A very interesting view of how our MPs grew with time. This table begins with the Members of the Central Legislative Assembly under the British Rule in 1921.
Whether our elected representatives deserve this growth? Whether they deserve more in order to attract the brightest and the best to the legislature? Or whether we should expect them to go back to the Gandhian sentiments? These are some of the issues that need to be seriously discussed.
1921: Central Legislative Assembly (under British rule): Rs 21 (daily allowance)
1945: Central Legislative Assembly (under British rule): Rs 30 (daily allowance) , and Rs 15 conveyance allowance
1946: Central Legislative Assembly (under British rule): Rs 45 (daily allowance)
1949 to 1954: Constituent Assembly, and First Lok Sabha: Rs 40 daily allowance
1954: Member of Parliament: Salary Rs 400 per month, Rs 21 daily allowance
1964: Member of Parliament: Salary Rs 500 per month, Rs 31 daily allowance
1969: Member of Parliament: Salary Rs 500 per month, Rs 51 daily allowance
1983: Member of Parliament: Salary Rs 750 per month, Rs 75 daily allowance
1985: Member of Parliament: Salary Rs 1,000 per month, Rs 75 daily allowance
1988: Member of Parliament: Salary Rs 1,500 per month, Rs 150 daily allowance
1993: Member of Parliament: Salary Rs 1500 per month, Rs 200 daily allowance
1998: Member of Parliament: Salary Rs 4,000 per month, Rs 400 daily allowance
2001: Member of Parliament: Salary Rs 12,000 per month, Rs 500 daily allowance
2006: Member of Parliament: Salary Rs 16,000 per month, Rs 1,000 daily allowance
1976: Pension for MPs
This is extracted from a very insightful analysis of the pay and perks enjoyed by our elected representatives.
"By the members, for the members" by Era Zezhiyan (former Member of Parliament from Tamil Nadu), published in Frontline magazine, 9-22 Sept 2006
... ... ...
The Salaries and Allowances Act has been amended 27 times since 1954. The Joint Committee on Salaries and Allowances for MPs was constituted in September 1954 to frame the rules under the Act. The Committee consists of 10 members nominated by the Lok Sabha Speaker and five nominated by the Rajya Sabha Chairman.
The Committee determines its own rules of procedure and is empowered to make, after consulting the government, rules on matters specified in Sub section (3) of Section 9 of the Act.
Its reports are not presented to Parliament. The rules do not take effect until they are approved and confirmed by the Rajya Sabha Chairman and the Lok Sabha Speaker, and are published in the Gazette. Such publication, under the Act, is the conclusive proof that rules have been duly made.
... ... ...
In India, the members of the Central Assembly received Rs.20 per diem in 1921. In May 1945, they were paid a daily allowance of Rs.30 and a conveyance allowance of Rs.15, which were consolidated to Rs.45 and continued to be paid to the members of the Constituent Assembly from December 1946 onwards.
Mahatma Gandhi insisted that persons in public life should take a minimum salary, just enough to maintain a simple life. Some members of the Constituent Assembly chose to draw only Rs.30 and several others surrendered their allowances to the local Congress committees and took lesser amounts fixed by the party.
When the Draft Constitution provision on the salaries and allowances of the MPs came up for discussion on May 20, 1949, a suggestion was made to pay between Rs.750 and Rs.1,000 as monthly salary. There was strong objection to this high amount and the Assembly retained the daily allowance of Rs. 45. Even this was considered too much in the context of the extent of poverty prevailing in India. On October 17, 1949, V.I. Muniswami Pillai (Madras) moved a resolution to reduce the daily allowance to Rs.40. He said: "I know as a matter of fact that this is a small sacrifice. This august body has to give a lead to the country to improve the economic conditions that prevail today... I contacted many members of this august Assembly and found that they are all unanimously of the opinion that a five-rupee cut in the daily allowance will not be a hardship." The amendment was accepted unanimously and the daily allowance of Rs. 40 was in force from that date in the Constituent Assembly, the Provisional Parliament and the First Lok Sabha until 1954.
Article 102 of the Constitution provides that members shall be entitled "to receive such salaries and allowances as may from time to time be determined by Parliament law". Accordingly, Speaker G.V. Mavlankar appointed a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC), which recommended a daily allowance of Rs.35 without any salary or other remuneration. This meant a reduction of Rs.5 in daily allowance, which was not acceptable to the post-Independence MPs. After some animated discussion, the Members returned the proposal to the JPC for reconsideration. In its second report, the Committee recommended either a monthly salary of Rs.300 plus a daily allowance of Rs.20 or Rs.40 per diem.
... ... ...
In his introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution by A.V. Dicey, E.C.S. Wade cautioned: "It must not be forgotten that the inevitable consequence of the supremacy of Parliament in the legislative field is that there can be no check upon the unscrupulous use of power by a government which finds itself in command of a majority in the House of Commons."
This should serve as a warning to the Members who succeeded in establishing a temporary majority in Parliament in order to effect a steep hike in their pay and perks.
A political decision should be backed by political morality. Without morality, no decision lasts long in a functioning democracy.
Political Perks: Benefits of being a Member of Parliament
Given the austerity drive launched by the government, Mail Today newspaper, on 17 Sept 2009, provided a brief sketch of the salaries and benefits our Members of Parliament enjoy. The paper also compared those with legislators from the United States and the United Kingdom.
India: Members of Parliament
Basic salary: Rs 1,92,000 per annum
Constituency allowance: Rs 2,40,000 per annum (for Lok Sabha)
Daily Allowance: Rs 1,000 (when Parliament is in session)
Gadgets: Laptop*
Benefits: House, Air travel, Train travel, Telephone, Medical facilities
Benefits Enjoyed by Ministers:
Extra Salary: Rs 24,000
In addition,
* A Type VIII bungalow, estimated 900 sq metres (including surrounding grounds)
* Salary and allowances worth more than Rs 11 lakhs per month
* Staff (for Cabinet ministers): 16 staff members, including private secretaries, officer on special duty (OSD), messengers, peons, drivers,
* Staff (for deputy ministers): 13 staff members
* Security: At least 3 Delhi Police constables on daily basis
* Vehicles: A car to be used in Delhi, and one in the state to which the minister belongs (including free petrol); vehicle and driver for private secretary also
* Telephone connection: With unlimited ISD and STD and local call facilities
* Flights: 48 free ticket in flights
* Health benefits: Free of charge accommodation and treatment in hospitals maintained by the government for the minister and family
* Furniture and electrical equipments worth Rs 2.5 lakhs
Except for the Laptop, this list has been compiled as published in the Mail Today newspaper. Following is a brief outline of benefits enjoyed by legislators in the United Kingdom and the United States.
United States
Salary and benefits enjoyed by Congressman
Member of the House: $ 1,74, 000 per annum (Rs 83.5 lakhs)
Speaker of the House: $ 2,23,500 (Rs 1.07 crore)
House Majority Leader: $ 1,93,000 (Rs 92 lakhs)
House Minority Leader: $ 1,93,000 (Rs 92 lakhs)
Senate Majority Leader: $ 1,93,000 (Rs 92 lakhs)
Senate Minority Leader: $ 1,93,000 (Rs 92 lakhs)
Other Benefits: Same as those availed by other Federal employees.
United Kingdom
Salary and benefits enjoyed by Members of Parliament
Basic Salary: £ 64,766 per annum (Rs 51 lakhs)
Extra Salary (for select Committee Chairs): £ 14,039 (Rs 11 Lakhs)
General Benefits:
* Buying and furnishing a second home,
* Cost of travel by car, rail or bike:
* Monthly allowance for food: £ 400 (Rs 32,000)
* Summer holidays: 80 days
Office Benefits: Office running costs, Staffing costs, Travel for staff, Centrally purchased stationary, Postage costs, Central IT costs, Communication allowance
Golden Goodbye: Amount received by MPs on leaving House, the first £ 30,000 of which is tax free
It would be good to hear from you. What do you think of the benefits enjoyed by our MPs? Would appreciate if others could verify these figures, and correct mistakes if any, or add items that we might have missed. Also, it would be interesting if similar information about legislators from other countries could be added to this list.
India: Members of Parliament
Basic salary: Rs 1,92,000 per annum
Constituency allowance: Rs 2,40,000 per annum (for Lok Sabha)
Daily Allowance: Rs 1,000 (when Parliament is in session)
Gadgets: Laptop*
Benefits: House, Air travel, Train travel, Telephone, Medical facilities
Benefits Enjoyed by Ministers:
Extra Salary: Rs 24,000
In addition,
* A Type VIII bungalow, estimated 900 sq metres (including surrounding grounds)
* Salary and allowances worth more than Rs 11 lakhs per month
* Staff (for Cabinet ministers): 16 staff members, including private secretaries, officer on special duty (OSD), messengers, peons, drivers,
* Staff (for deputy ministers): 13 staff members
* Security: At least 3 Delhi Police constables on daily basis
* Vehicles: A car to be used in Delhi, and one in the state to which the minister belongs (including free petrol); vehicle and driver for private secretary also
* Telephone connection: With unlimited ISD and STD and local call facilities
* Flights: 48 free ticket in flights
* Health benefits: Free of charge accommodation and treatment in hospitals maintained by the government for the minister and family
* Furniture and electrical equipments worth Rs 2.5 lakhs
Except for the Laptop, this list has been compiled as published in the Mail Today newspaper. Following is a brief outline of benefits enjoyed by legislators in the United Kingdom and the United States.
United States
Salary and benefits enjoyed by Congressman
Member of the House: $ 1,74, 000 per annum (Rs 83.5 lakhs)
Speaker of the House: $ 2,23,500 (Rs 1.07 crore)
House Majority Leader: $ 1,93,000 (Rs 92 lakhs)
House Minority Leader: $ 1,93,000 (Rs 92 lakhs)
Senate Majority Leader: $ 1,93,000 (Rs 92 lakhs)
Senate Minority Leader: $ 1,93,000 (Rs 92 lakhs)
Other Benefits: Same as those availed by other Federal employees.
United Kingdom
Salary and benefits enjoyed by Members of Parliament
Basic Salary: £ 64,766 per annum (Rs 51 lakhs)
Extra Salary (for select Committee Chairs): £ 14,039 (Rs 11 Lakhs)
General Benefits:
* Buying and furnishing a second home,
* Cost of travel by car, rail or bike:
* Monthly allowance for food: £ 400 (Rs 32,000)
* Summer holidays: 80 days
Office Benefits: Office running costs, Staffing costs, Travel for staff, Centrally purchased stationary, Postage costs, Central IT costs, Communication allowance
Golden Goodbye: Amount received by MPs on leaving House, the first £ 30,000 of which is tax free
It would be good to hear from you. What do you think of the benefits enjoyed by our MPs? Would appreciate if others could verify these figures, and correct mistakes if any, or add items that we might have missed. Also, it would be interesting if similar information about legislators from other countries could be added to this list.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Empowering India launch in Kolkata and Guwahati, Sept 9 and 11
Empowering India, an initiative of Liberty Institute, is aimed at encouraging active citizenship and empowering voters with information about their candidates and elected representatives. After Bangalore, Chennai, Cochin, Delhi, Hyderabad, Lucknow, Patna, Ranchi, the initiative is now being taken to Guwahati and Kolkota.
The website will be launched by Mr Debashsis Sen, Chief Election Officer of West Bengal, in the presence of Mr Somnath Chatterjee, former Speaker of Lok Sabha. This will be followed by a panel discussion on "Making democracy meaningful".
For more information:
http://www.miracleofdemocracy.org/story.aspx?id=2811&pubid=2718
Guwahati, 11 Sept 2009
This is the tenth city in the country where the initiative is being introduced. Mr Himanta Biswa Sarma, Minister for Information Technology, Government of Assam, will launch the website, in the presences of the Mr P. C. Sharma, Chief Secretary, Government of Assam. This will be followed by a panel discussion on "Making democracy meaningful".
For more information:
http://www.indefenceofliberty.org/story.aspx?id=2812&pubid=2721
Liberty Institute & Press Institute of India
in partnership with
Fredrich Naumann Stiftung – fur die Freiheit
Cordially invite you to the next two events in Kolkata and Guwahati
Empowering India: Making Democracy Meangingful
www.EmpoweringIndia.org
Kolkata, 9 Sept 2009:in partnership with
Fredrich Naumann Stiftung – fur die Freiheit
Cordially invite you to the next two events in Kolkata and Guwahati
Empowering India: Making Democracy Meangingful
www.EmpoweringIndia.org
The website will be launched by Mr Debashsis Sen, Chief Election Officer of West Bengal, in the presence of Mr Somnath Chatterjee, former Speaker of Lok Sabha. This will be followed by a panel discussion on "Making democracy meaningful".
For more information:
http://www.miracleofdemocracy.org/story.aspx?id=2811&pubid=2718
Guwahati, 11 Sept 2009
This is the tenth city in the country where the initiative is being introduced. Mr Himanta Biswa Sarma, Minister for Information Technology, Government of Assam, will launch the website, in the presences of the Mr P. C. Sharma, Chief Secretary, Government of Assam. This will be followed by a panel discussion on "Making democracy meaningful".
For more information:
http://www.indefenceofliberty.org/story.aspx?id=2812&pubid=2721
Liberty Institute, New Delhi
www.InDefenceofLiberty.org
Empowering India
www.EmpoweringIndia.org
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
The Bridges less trodden
It was not long ago that I drove down the much awaited sea-link in Mumbai. It was Saturday and one of the first 5 toll free days. I drove with my friends with Michael Jackson rocking the stereo and a munching a hot makka under the rained Mumbai. The link was packed and the traffic was jammed for kilometres before the link began. The rich and the poor had come to get the first glimpse of the much talked about link. Some for the first-time feel, some for the free ride. We drove silently, watching the sea, our beloved city, people in the adjacent cars, with Michael Jackson creating a mood. I saw the beautiful design the cables made as we drove below them, I saw the waves crashing on the pillars – standing tall defying the current of the sea, and the sense of celebration on the whole. I was filled with awe and admiration. Above the cables I saw the heavens pouring.
Mumbai had a new skyline and for the first time I saw how it looked with the buildings tall and short rising at the shore. I had heard a lot of criticism about the link – it has taken so long, they have used cheap material, it is not cleverly planned, there will be lots of accidents, cars will fly into the sea, etc. But I was strong in my conviction that this is indeed the conquest of man over nature and it is first of its kind in India. In a city where thousands throng in search of opportunities, the city was making space for all. With the sea-link, the time to travel between two distant ends of Mumbai was 10 mins against the 45-minutes it took earlier. And many traffic-ridden souls will reach their destinations with a little less time spent amidst exhaust fumes. I was filled with pride for our government and the strides it was planning to take. Never mind they never kept the promised date, but at least now I was driving on the sea-link which I was dreaming to do long ago. Never mind that only half of it is ready, while the other half stands abandoned on the side, like an overwhelming task ahead. Never mind the politics that followed, and the crores that will surely have gone into various pockets due to which it is still incomplete. Never mind all this, at least I have my sea-link now and I can travel faster.
Days later, my pride-for-government-bubble burst. I read in the papers that the metro bridge in Delhi collapsed, and the bridge of a Mumbai metro line caved in. There are various reasons being told – it was the rains, it was the construction, it was this or it was that. As usual the blame game began.
As a citizen I feel completely deceived. Perhaps someone will think twice before going on these nature-defying conquests of mankind. Simply because our nation is not ready to conquest nature. When our transport minister is still planning to connect various cities and towns, perhaps such awe-inspiring triumphs are perhaps too ambitious.
There is some noise over this. We will read the newspapers, perhaps march outside the ministry, the ministry will promise an inquiry perhaps, and the next day we will continue to take the path (bridge) less trodden. Until one day when some of us will dive into the space between heaven and earth and disappear into oblivion.
But we will live on. As we always have.
_________________________________________________________________________
19th Oct 2008
DMRC opens after bridge collapses
31 March 2009
DMRC: a woman narrowly escapes as crane hits her car
14th July 2009
Second Delhi Metro mishap: crane topples
22nd July 2009
Lack of trained staff leaves one more dead
27th July 2009
Delhi Metro: Cracks develop on three metro corridors
Thursday, July 9, 2009
IDL/ Liberty News
Law to Legitimacy: Shifting perception of property
For democracy to endure, majorities cannot be allowed to degenerate into mob rule and suppress dissent. The basic feature of democratic functioning is to protect the right of the minority to engage in the debate. The gay community, just like any other minority, need to move away from their sense of collective right as gays, and not flaunt their sense of victimhood. Framing the issue as one of collective rights invariably leads to pitting one collective against the other, and in such conflict it is not easy to overturn the collective that claims to represent the majority, writes Barun Mitra of the Liberty Institute.
You may read the complete article here.
Law to Legitimacy: Shifting perception of property
For democracy to endure, majorities cannot be allowed to degenerate into mob rule and suppress dissent. The basic feature of democratic functioning is to protect the right of the minority to engage in the debate. The gay community, just like any other minority, need to move away from their sense of collective right as gays, and not flaunt their sense of victimhood. Framing the issue as one of collective rights invariably leads to pitting one collective against the other, and in such conflict it is not easy to overturn the collective that claims to represent the majority, writes Barun Mitra of the Liberty Institute.
You may read the complete article here.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Decriminalising homosexuality: Recognition of dissent and diversity
Political front has surprised everyone with their reactions to the HC’s ruling of section 377. While laws need to stem from moral values, moral values do not necessarily become laws, writes Barun Mitra of the Liberty Institute.
The Delhi High Court’s ruling decriminalising section 377 has not only sanctioned strange bedfellows to come out in to the open, but also has brought together people who are hardly expected to share a political bed at all.
The communists, hardly the epitome of tolerance, seem to be the only one among the political class, along with many commentators in the media, to have welcomed this verdict.
On the other hand, following the judgement many leaders of different religions – Christians, Hindus, Muslims - find themselves united in expressing their disapproval. Among many others who normally prefer to wear their secular credentials on their sleeves, some seem to have suddenly discovered their affinity to tradition and culture and come out strongly against this judgment; others have discovered that ambiguity and silence is the better part of valour. They share the bed, but are not sure how to proceed, without assessing the social and political calculus of tilting one way or the other.
Amid such an anti-climax, it is clearly not easy to keep one’s head in place; yet, one must try to distinguish between the ethical values and legal implications of this judgment. While laws need to stem from moral values, moral values do not necessarily become laws. One way to look at this is that while the law provides the floor, the basic framework for individual behaviour in a society, moral values represent the high ceiling, which one should aspire to, but which is well beyond the legal norm.
In that context, the Delhi High Court's ruling to decriminalise homosexual behaviour among consenting adults is a very welcome and long awaited step forward.
However, that does not necessarily make me endorse that behaviour. Just as I will endorse the right of smokers, drinkers, drug users or prostitutes to exercise the freedom of their choices, at the same time I would not endorse many of those behaviours. While we as human beings have the right to be free to make those choices, these are what make us humans; yet, some of those choices that are not seen to be conducive to supporting life itself, should not be endorsed. One should have the right to end one’s life if one so decides, and others need to recognise that decision, but that is not the same thing as to say that one has to then endorse suicides.
As Voltaire is famously (but there is doubt about its historical authenticity!) supposed to have said, "I may not agree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it."
...
Read the full article here.
The Delhi High Court’s ruling decriminalising section 377 has not only sanctioned strange bedfellows to come out in to the open, but also has brought together people who are hardly expected to share a political bed at all.
The communists, hardly the epitome of tolerance, seem to be the only one among the political class, along with many commentators in the media, to have welcomed this verdict.
On the other hand, following the judgement many leaders of different religions – Christians, Hindus, Muslims - find themselves united in expressing their disapproval. Among many others who normally prefer to wear their secular credentials on their sleeves, some seem to have suddenly discovered their affinity to tradition and culture and come out strongly against this judgment; others have discovered that ambiguity and silence is the better part of valour. They share the bed, but are not sure how to proceed, without assessing the social and political calculus of tilting one way or the other.
Amid such an anti-climax, it is clearly not easy to keep one’s head in place; yet, one must try to distinguish between the ethical values and legal implications of this judgment. While laws need to stem from moral values, moral values do not necessarily become laws. One way to look at this is that while the law provides the floor, the basic framework for individual behaviour in a society, moral values represent the high ceiling, which one should aspire to, but which is well beyond the legal norm.
In that context, the Delhi High Court's ruling to decriminalise homosexual behaviour among consenting adults is a very welcome and long awaited step forward.
However, that does not necessarily make me endorse that behaviour. Just as I will endorse the right of smokers, drinkers, drug users or prostitutes to exercise the freedom of their choices, at the same time I would not endorse many of those behaviours. While we as human beings have the right to be free to make those choices, these are what make us humans; yet, some of those choices that are not seen to be conducive to supporting life itself, should not be endorsed. One should have the right to end one’s life if one so decides, and others need to recognise that decision, but that is not the same thing as to say that one has to then endorse suicides.
As Voltaire is famously (but there is doubt about its historical authenticity!) supposed to have said, "I may not agree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it."
...
Read the full article here.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
What our MPs intends to do this Budget session
This Budget session of the parliament has an ambitious list of legislative business. Several important Bills which had lapsed due to the dissolution of Lok Sabha are being re-introduced. PRS Legislative Research has analysed many of the Bills that are expected to come up for consideration this session. Read below.
The Budget session of Parliament started earlier today. This session has an ambitious list of legislative business.
Here are some important Bills listed for consideration and passing in this session:
The Foreign Contribution Regulation Bill, 2006
The Right to Education Bill, 2008
The Communal Violence Bill, 2005
The Women’s Reservation Bill
The Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Bill, 2005
Several important Bills which had lapsed due to the dissolution of Lok Sabha are being re-introduced: The Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority Bill, 2009, The Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 2009, The Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Bill, 2009, The Micro Financial Sector (Development and Regulation) Bill, 2009, etc.
You can get full list of the proposed legislative business posted on the PRS site from here. You can also download the full pdf list.
PRS has analysed many of the Bills that are expected to come up for consideration this session. Our website www.prsindia.org contains of these documents, in addition to the copy of the Bill, committee reports, and other relevant documents.
Also, PRS has started a twitter page to help people track important legislative and other developments in Parliament. The page is www.twitter.com/prslegislative. If you would like to track the goings on in Parliament, do follow us on twitter.
CV Madhukar
Director
PRS Legislative Research
Chanakyapuri
New Delhi
Tel: 011-2410 6720 (direct)
Email: madhukar@prsindia.org
The Budget session of Parliament started earlier today. This session has an ambitious list of legislative business.
Here are some important Bills listed for consideration and passing in this session:
The Foreign Contribution Regulation Bill, 2006
The Right to Education Bill, 2008
The Communal Violence Bill, 2005
The Women’s Reservation Bill
The Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Bill, 2005
Several important Bills which had lapsed due to the dissolution of Lok Sabha are being re-introduced: The Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority Bill, 2009, The Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 2009, The Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Bill, 2009, The Micro Financial Sector (Development and Regulation) Bill, 2009, etc.
You can get full list of the proposed legislative business posted on the PRS site from here. You can also download the full pdf list.
PRS has analysed many of the Bills that are expected to come up for consideration this session. Our website www.prsindia.org contains of these documents, in addition to the copy of the Bill, committee reports, and other relevant documents.
Also, PRS has started a twitter page to help people track important legislative and other developments in Parliament. The page is www.twitter.com/prslegislative. If you would like to track the goings on in Parliament, do follow us on twitter.
CV Madhukar
Director
PRS Legislative Research
Chanakyapuri
New Delhi
Tel: 011-2410 6720 (direct)
Email: madhukar@prsindia.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
