Is public outcry over MLA housing justified?
It is said that about 68% of the population in our country is poor, and 30 percent of people spend less than 100 Rs a day on their daily lives. In the case of Maharashtra with a population close to 13 crores- 62.3 percent of people are eligible to avail the benefits of the National Food Security Scheme. They get rice, wheat, and coarse grains for Rs. 3, 2, and 1 per kg respectively. Families that do not meet the criteria but are below the poverty (BPL) line are also provided subsidized food grains to them. It makes more than 1.53 crore ration card holders or roughly 7 Cr people avail these benefits.
Such figures paint a gloomy picture that reveals over half of the population in our so-called progressive Maharashtra is poor and needs food grains from the public distribution system (PDS). A total of 366 MLAs- 288 members from the Legislative Assembly and 78 members of the Legislative Council representing approximately 13 Cr in the state receive approximately Rs. 2.75 Lakh per month as salaries and allowances. Besides, they are eligible for interest-free loans to purchase vehicles, free travel coupons for train and air travel. Drivers and personal assistants (PA) of legislators draw their salaries from the state kitty.
Apart from this, retired legislators are entitled to a basic pension of Rs. 50,000- and Rs 20,000 each for the subsequent terms- plus free rail and air travel. The recent decision by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government in Punjab to do away with term-wise increment and stick to the basic pension is widely appreciated. Maharashtra, which has a debt burden of around Rs 6.5 lakh crore, may be forced to think over.
MVA at the receiving end
The recent announcement by the Mahavikas Aghadi (MVA) government to make available housing units in Goregaon (W) for 300 legislators has invited wrath by the commoners. How the state can provide housing units- free or for the subsidized rates to legislators at a concessional or a subsidized rate when many of them have assets in crores as declared in their election affidavits, has been the argument. What surprises most is the criticism by the BJP, forgetting an unwritten code that no party should raise the red flag- for decisions in the interest of all party legislators.
Whether such decisions befit taking into consideration the issues faced by the commoners is a different point to argue. The Constitution of India puts the onus on Parliament or the State Legislature to decide on salaries, allowances, and other benefits to its members.
What did Dr. Ambedkar say?
Though a few comments by Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, the architect of the Constitution, can be found. While speaking on the bill to provide salaries and perks to Ministers in 1937, Dr. Ambedkar said- “I do not agree with any fixed salary for ministers. Four conditions should be taken into consideration while determining the same- 1. Since the minister represents the society at large, his status should be considered. 2. His overall stature 3. Principles of Democracy and 4. The administration, which is clean and does not succumb to any temptation- should be considered. What he said further was important- the ministers should lead a cultural, artistic, and academic life as the leading citizens of the country and it should be exemplary.
Before announcing a housing scheme for legislators, the government decided to increase the salaries of their drivers and personal assistants (PAs). Before that, the legislators’ local area development fund received a big boost with an increase of Rs 1 Cr- making it to Rs 5 Cr per year. It also came under sharp criticism. The MLA local fund is taxpayers’ money but the quality of works completed is rarely discussed neither the audit reports come under the public domain.
First housing scheme during Antulay’s tenure
The idea to provide permanent housing to sitting and former legislators was first moved by A. R. Antulay, during his tenure as the chief minister in the early 80s. A large tract of land was earmarked for it, ignoring that the land was donated by a Parsi gentleman for the police housing. Subsequently, the Worlisagar Housing Society was registered to accommodate all party legislators in the skyscrapers such as Bhima, Vaitarna, Purna, Godavari, Krishna, and Wainganga. Later during the Congress-NCP government, two new housing societies- Shubhada and Sukhda came up with an additional Floor Space Index (FSI) of the public space on the slopes of Worli Hill.
The same government later approved a proposal to reserve Mhada buildings near Lokhandwala Complex in Andheri (W) for legislators, for which the Rajyog Co-operative Housing Society was registered. Besides, the state government directed the Maharashtra State Co-operative Apex (MSC) Bank to provide loans to legislators.
At the same time, Ashirwad co-operative society was formed for some prominent legislators who were close to the then chief minister, and a prime plot was allotted in Andheri (W). Whenever such proposals moved, the government rules were circumvented, a liberal approach was taken for fast decision making. Such enthusiasm was rarely seen while considering similar proposals of commoners. It is observed that the bureaucracy handles such cases expeditiously. Even their housing societies have come up at some of the prime and most sought-after locations in Mumbai- such as near Cooperage Ground, Opp. Y. B. Chavan Centre, Churchgate, Worli, Bandra, Juhu, Versova, Oshiwara, and Palm Beach Road in Navi Mumbai in the last few decades.
Principle of equality and state resources
Our Constitution speaks about the principle of equality. Everybody has equal rights over the state resources, and people’s representatives are no exception to this. There have been many government schemes that stipulate benefits to just one or two members of a family. But such a rule does not exist at least for approving housing units to the people’s representatives or top bureaucrats. In Maharashtra, some of the prominent political families have more than one member of them who became either a legislator or a parliamentarian. Most of them have taken advantage of the special housing schemes for the legislators. Even some of the seasoned politicians and their family members, despite owning a home in Mumbai or adjoining areas, did not bother to claim housing units through such schemes.
Scrutiny would reveal that a large number of such housing units have been sold off. In such a situation the purpose of permanent housing for legislators is lost. When commoners, who are beneficiaries of the government housing schemes cannot sell it for a certain period and even if they are allowed, have been asked to pay a fixed premium to the state. Why do such restrictions not exist for the legislators? Who is going to debate over this?