Parliamentary affairs minister Ananth Kumar has announced that NDA MPs will give up their salary and allowances for the 23 days Parliament did not function due to disruptions. “This money is given to serve the people and if we are not able to do so we have no right to take people’s money,” Kumar said.
Some parliamentarians have opposed the move, saying they were not consulted before the announcement was made.
ThePrint asks: Is the act of foregoing 23 days’ salary by NDA MPs politics or sacrifice?
This is a gimmick to shift the blame to the opposition
MP, Congress
The decision is a complete gimmick. The move is especially ironic if you consider the fact that the disruption was actually government-sponsored. Very conveniently, they’re trying to shift the blame to the Opposition.
The Speaker could have easily suspended the 20-30 members who were causing the ruckus. There is a precedent for it, and it isn’t like she has shied away from asking Congress members to leave Parliament.
The Speaker, instead of taking action in favour of the majority of the members, who wanted to discuss the no-confidence motion, suspended the debate. That is a clear sign the government is not even open to healthy debate in Parliament.
It is highly unfortunate because the Lok Sabha actually raises the concerns of the people, which this government doesn’t seem to care about. Giving up their salary won’t absolve them of the greater blame of not representing the people well.
Trying to blame the Opposition is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Giving up our salary is a sign of our commitment to the people
Spokesperson, BJP
The opposition leaders have behaved very irresponsibly and have let down the people they represent. Instead of discussing the issues on the floor of the parliament, they caused nothing but disruption. They prefer to raise these issues outside.
The NDA has been more than forthcoming about its desire to debate relevant problems and find solutions. Even as the opposition, the BJP maintained very high productivity in the Parliament but congress party has exposed itself as party with no commitment to the people of this country. The present opposition hasn’t even allowed this budget session to transact any business.
Especially, in the Rajya Sabha, where we don’t have a majority, the opposition has caused nothing but trouble. They are not keen to debate.
This was not a unilateral decision. It is the collective feeling of the members of parliament from the NDA that since we haven’t been able to fulfil our legislative duties, we must not take compensation for the same.
The decision is not political; it is a sign of our commitment to the people of this great nation. Since we haven’t been to transact business in parliament, we must return and not retain our salaries. After all irs tax payers money and it needs to be spent productively.The opposition parties should have supported such a move. It is a way of taking responsibility and demonstrate sincerity towards the tax payers. But they won’t readily accept such a decision, so they have stooped merely to playing petty politics again.
Foregoing three weeks of salary is mere tokenism, sidetracking more important performance issues
Pro vice-chancellor, Jain University, and national coordinator, Lokniti
On the face of it, the decision looks like the “politics of sacrifice.” Beyond doubt, the move is an attempt to reclaim the ‘high moral ground’ and indicate their accountability for not being able to ensure meaningful discussions during the Budget session of Parliament.
Near washouts of Parliament sessions have happened before too and were also a tactic used by the NDA when it was in the Opposition.
Two issues merit attention in this context. First, are the NDA MPs sacrificing their salary or taking responsibility for their collective failure (as both the treasury benches and the Opposition) to reach a consensus to ensure the normal functioning of Parliament? While there can be a blame-game on both sides as to who was responsible for the deadlock, it is important for the government of the day to take on greater responsibility in this regard.
Second, foregoing three weeks of salary would be seen by many as mere tokenism, sidetracking the more important aspect of the ruling party’s responsibility to hold MPs accountable to the citizens who voted for them. For too long, after a crisis, we have focused on ‘post-event rationalisation’ rather than initiating pre-emptive steps.
Instead of playing sympathy politics, the government has to take responsibility for Parliament disruption
MP, Shiv Sena
It is the responsibility of the government to ensure the smooth functioning of Parliament. Clearly, they haven’t been able to manage that. The first question that arises is, why didn’t the government let the Parliament session continue?
Furthermore, the allies weren’t even consulted before the announcement. The BJP makes arbitrary decisions and expects others to follow. This is not a question of sacrifice at all, it is plain politics.
Most of the members, whether holding a position or not, have attended Parliament. It is not about money or the salary; it is about decisions taken without consultation.
If the government was finding it difficult to run Parliament, they should have held a meeting with allies. Instead, they have mired themselves in a political blame-game.
Parliament is supposed to be a place of debate, but, for the last few years, all it has seen is a ruckus. And it’s not just the Opposition to blame; everyone is equally responsible.
The government has to gather the political will to face Parliament and take the responsibility to ensure its functioning, instead of playing sympathy politics.
Why should MPs who attended parliament and didn’t disrupt forgo their salary?
Editor, Politics, ThePrint
When Parliamentary affairs minister Ananth Kumar announced Wednesday that about 400 MPs of the ruling National Democratic Alliance (NDA) would forgo their salary for 23 days because the parliament didn’t function, it appeared to be a master-stroke of the ruling combine. It was expected to take the sting out of the opposition parties’ allegation that the Treasury Benches were running away from the no-confidence motion and avoiding debates on bank scams, Cauvery water dispute, and other contentious issues.
NDA MPs giving up Rs 46,000 each— an MP gets Rs 2,000 per day for attending parliament when it is in session— could also provide a high moral ground to the BJP. It was to be an act of sacrifice— an indisputable evidence of innocence and virtue in Indian politics.
But the so-called master-stroke now threatens to embarrass the ruling combine. The BJP has been done in by its own partners such as the Shiv Sena that has dissociated itself from the move and blamed the government for the virtual washout of the second leg of the budget session of parliament.
The irrepressible Subramanian Swamy only voiced the sentiments of a majority of his party MPs when he differed from the party line. Many of his party colleagues have a similar question: Why should MPs who attended parliament and were not involved in disruptions of proceedings forgo their salary?
As the Budget session got over on Friday and BJP MPs departed for their constituencies, there was no missive from the party. The salary for March was already credited to their bank account and there were no instructions from the party about how to follow up on Ananth Kumar’s grandiose announcement.
Incidentally, a committee comprising senior BJP leader Murli Manohar Joshi, Congress leader Veerappa Moily, Samajwadi Party leader Ram Gopal Yadav, among others, met Thursday to discuss the modality of how to increase parliamentarians’ salaries and allowances.
For a party that was instrumental in several sessions of parliament getting washed out during the UPA II regime, the no-work-no-pay gambit is certainly a leap of faith.
What was intended and projected to be an act of sacrifice is turning into an exercise in political tokenism. And, for once, the BJP can’t blame the opposition parties for this.
The latest controversy also underlines the shrinking choices of a parliamentarian. Lawmakers already have a limited say in the framing and adoption of a legislation, with the party whip restricting their options. The Congress MP and party spokesman Manish Tewari in 2010 had moved a private member’s bill in the Lok Sabha, seeking an amendment to the anti-defection law and liberate legislators from whip-enforced compliance with the party line. The exceptions were in cases of confidence and no-confidence motions, Money Bills and some financial bills. His bold move found few takers though.
The unilateral announcement by Ananth Kumar is indicative of the party leadership’s desire to dictate the MPs’ choice even in matters of their salary and allowances as parliamentarians.
Compiled by Deeksha Bhardwaj, journalist at ThePrint.