RETURN OF PRIVY PURSES
India’s integration history goes back to 1946-47, when the British decided to grant independence to India based on two nation theory. India was to be divided into India and Pakistan. At that time, the British Government was administering two thirds of the Indian Empire, directly and the remaining one third through 565 odd, princely states. The future of the princely states was uncertain, as they were given three options. They had the option to either merge with India or Pakistan or remain independent. Sardar Valabh Bhai Patel and VP Menon, the then Home Minister and Home Secretary of India, appreciated that, if any of these princely states from the main land mass of India, specially Hydrabad, Bhopal or Travancore decided to remain independent or opted to join Pakistan, it will become difficult to fulfill the dream of an integrated India. They persuaded, cajoled, used ‘Saam, Dam, Dand, Bhed’ and came out with a number of proposals to persuade these princely states to merge with India. One of the proposals was to guarantee annual grants to the kings for meeting their expenses on the royal ceremonies and royal families. These expenses would be granted to them on signing of the accession treaty with India. This proposal was opposed by most of the congressmen who were sitting members of the constituent assembly. Sardar Patel delivered a very powerful speech on 12 Oct 1949 saying that this is a very small cost for the realisation of the dream of ‘Akhand Bharat’. After his speech, the constituent assembly agreed to grant these expenses to the princely states. The formula for granting these expenses was accorded constitutional validity by including it as Articles 291 and 362 of the Constitution, titled Privy Purses. One fourth of the tax revenues earned by these States under the British rule were guaranteed to be paid to ruling families of these states as privy purses, annually by the Indian Govt along with certain special privileges to hold royal ceremonies including gun salutes entitled to rulers of some of the more powerful states. This was also called the financial incentivisation for the integration of India. Every state was granted a differing amount of privy purse, varying from a couple of thousands to twenty six lakh rupees, depending on the amount of revenue earned by these states. Hydrabad, Mysore, Travncore, Baroda, Jaipur and Patiala were major beneficiaries. Mysore was granted 26 lakhs while the minimum privy purse was 5000 rupees.
This system worked well till 1967, when C Rajagopalachrya formed Savtantra Party, a liberal and capitalist organisation, with democratic foundation. A number of rajas and maharajas started joining Raja ji. This irritated Indira Gandhi. Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi, Madhav Rao Scindia, Golkars and Royal Families of Rajasthan were in the lead to defect from Congress Party to join regional parties for winning elections. Accordingly, to set the score even with the Rajas and Maharajas, on 05 Sep 1970, Indra Government introduced a bill in the Lok Sabha to abolish Privy Purses. The Government explained in the Lok Sabha that it wanted to promote a socialistic and welfare state but a lot of money was being wasted in payments to the royal families for their lavish lifestyle while two thirds of the population suffered hunger and deprivation. The Bill was passed in the Lok Sabha but rejected in the Rajya Sabha being one vote short of the requisite two thirds of majority for any constitutional amendment bill. However, the then President Shri VV Giri, passed the law through a Presidential Ordinance on the same day. This created panic among all the raj-gharanas. They all got together and knocked at the doors of the Supreme Court of India. They filed a case titled ‘Maharaja Dhiraj Madhavraj Scindia vs Union of India, 15 Dec 1970’ challenging the constitutional validity of the Presidential Ordinance. It was decided by the court that there was no urgency, justifying issuance of Presidential Ordinance, by passing parliament, as Rajya Sabha had already rejected it. Thus the Ordinance was declared unconstitutional and rejected. Indira Gandhi felt humiliated and just nine days later, she requested the President to call for fresh elections. Riding on the ‘Garibi Hatao’ slogan and socialist agenda, the Congress won 350 seats in the Lok Sabha,a thumping victory. On 28 Dec 1971, 26th Amendment was passed. All privy purses granted under Articles 291 and 362 were abolished. A fresh article 363A was introduced abolishing all privy purses. This was a shocking move. Even today, rajas and maharajas feel betrayed. All the privileges and titles granted to them by Sardar Patel through the constitution, were snatched by Indira Gandhi using the same constitution. We can debate whether the ‘Loh Purush’ was right in awarding or the ‘Iron Lady’ was right in abolishing the Privy Purses. The motives may have been differing political or socio-economic or both, but by and large, everyone agrees that these actions were timely and the need of the hour.
Post independence, the legislature of our democratic system functions through the elected MPs at the national and MLAs at the state levels. Like every other professional, even politicians must get handsome compensation as salary for the work they perform. Once they are old and or unfit to work any longer, they should also be entitled to pensions, for a reasonably comfortable, post retirement life. There are, however, multiple paradoxes related to the pay, perks and pensions of the politicians. There is neither any minimum education qualification requirement for getting elected for parliament and legislatures, nor any specified retirement age. Even the police verification required for minor government jobs is not applicable for them. Secondly, politicians themselves legislate entitlements of their pay, pension and perks. Neither any minimum tenure,nor attendance is required to be eligible for pension. After winning an election and administration of oath, they become eligible for pension, without even a single day’s attendance thereafter. They are entitled to multiple pensions; one each, for getting elected every time. They are entitled pensions for tenures served as MLA, MP, minister and any other political appointment concurrently. They get these multiple pensions along with the pay for their present tenure in any of these roles. Their tax free perks include free accommodation, unlimited free travel; any number of times and anywhere in the country or state as applicable, personal staff, free medical treatment including abroad, free electricity, water, telephones and mobiles. Even though the concerned minister made a public announcement that everyone will have to pay toll for using the toll roads, most of the politicians are exempted. This is, a little lower than petty; the ‘Chindi .....' and adds to their dwindling credibility. Twenty five lakhs of rupees from public funds spent for root canal treatment of a MLA and half a cent crores of rupees for the medical treatment, done abroad, of the spouse of a CM of tribal state are cruel jokes.
There is, thus, a need to examine the reasonableness of the entitlements of pay, pension and perks to the politicians. Stepping up of a MLA as MP and later minister or governor is progression in political career. It is unreasonable to construe it as retirement from the previous assignment for entitlement of pensions. Since there is no specified retirement age for a politician, he should be considered retired only when he files an affidavit stating that he has decided to retire from politics and will not contest elections in future or hold any political appointment. Politicians should be entitled pension only after receipt of this affidavit. They should have been elected twice for a term of five years each and have minimum eighty percent attendance for entitlement of pension. Only one pension; the highest applicable, should be entitled. They should be entitled to free medical treatment within India at government medical facilities and covered under Ayuhasman Bharat Yojna. Instead of unlimited travel by rail and air by the highest class, the travel authorisation should be limited to specified number of times (say 25), within a year from their constituency to the national or state capital, as relevant. Every time they travel by the highest class of public transport, their entitlement for the next two trips should be limited to middle and lower class so that they have the right feel of public facilities. If any leader has security related issues, his entitlement to travel by public transport should be suspended till the security threat exists. All travel, over and above this, should be approved from the Speakers of the legislative assemblies or the two houses of parliament. The overall expenditure should be budgeted. Other expenses or allowances like telephone should be as per actual in accordance with some specified norms. Retired politicians should be entitled to a single decent pension and medical care facilities for self and family. If the top govt officials like Cabinet Secretary, COAS, DGs of Police, Scientists, Doctors and Engineers on demitting office, have to get back to their native places or personal homes with simple pension and medical cover, there is no plausible justification even for the top politicians like ex Presidents, Vice Presidents,PMs and CMs to be entitled Type Eight bungalows, car with fuel, staff expenses, free travel anywhere in India with a companion by highest class by air, rail or steamer, two telephones, mobile, free electricity and water (and later family pension with similar, though marginally scaled down perks).This is inconsistent with socialist principles and egalitarian social order. We need to emulate Dr APJ Abdul Kalam, a very fine example of decency and simplicity. He, by all standards, lived a honourable and dignified post retirement life, without availing many of these obnoxious perks.
These issues have been appearing intermittently on social media. The pay, perks and pensions of the politicians have also been challenged in the courts. The courts may find nothing illegal with the entitlements, as these have the legitimate legislative approvals. However, any law that is unreasonable or sans-logic is bad law and needs to be repealed. A parliament that has done away with the erstwhile pensions for the govt employees joining service post 2004, has no moral or legal sanctity to grant multiple pensions for themselves. This is either perjury or Return of Privy Purses as these are entitled only to Rajas and Maharajas of today, ‘the Politicians’ . Incidentally, Privy Purse is an embroidered bag borne by the Keepers at the coronation of British Sovereign for his private income, mostly from the Duchy of Lancaster for meeting the expenses of the royal family and the Crown Head for discharging his duties. We need a leader and statesman with steel nerves who can sit among his peers and say, “Bus, Ab Aur Nahin”.
By Sushil
ReplyForward |
Comments