Thank you dear subscribers, we are overwhelmed with your response.
Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here: https://theprint.in/subscribe/
Politicians have a way of formalizing and legalizing corruption. The latest case in point is the shifting of former Chief Minister (CM) of Delhi and his deputy CM into two bungalows allotted to their colleagues who are Members of Parliament from their party. It may be argued by some that how can this be wrong or seen as corruption. The two MPs are authorized a bungalow each and what they do with it is their business. There is no doubt on the authorization part. However, if they do not use it in their personal capacity and instead let it out or allow someone else to stay is certainly unlawful. Allowing such usage, even if it is free of charge, is wrong in more ways than one.
As per Lok Sabha rules, a MP is authorized the use of hostel accommodation or a flat free of charge during his tenure. However, if he desires a bungalow and the same is available and allotted, he has to pay normal license fee for the same. In this case both Mr Ashok Mittal and Harbhajan Singh will have to pay the license fee for their respective bungalows. If the occupants, Mr Kejriwal and Mr Sisodia, pay back that amount to the two MPs, then it is a pure case of subletting government accommodation.
Additionally, the two MPs are authorized 4,000 Kl of water and 50,000 thousand units of power without any charge. This perk is available to them even if they stay in their own accommodation. It stands to logic that once government accommodation is taken; it can only apply to the allotted bungalow. So, the reality is that the free power and water due to the two MPs will actually be consumed by the two senior AAP leaders staying in these bungalows. There are other perks like grants for furniture, furnishings, 50,000 free calls for a telephone and remission of rent for any facilities added to the accommodation.
In both the above eventualities, if payment is made by those staying to those who are allotted the accommodation, then it is a clear case of subletting accommodation and selling the free power and water units authorized. If no payment is being made, then does it not amount to currying favour with the party supremo and other senior leader of the party? Please recall the electoral bonds issue that erupted a year ago. These very leaders had accused the current government of quid pro quid since they opined that corporates will only give such bonds only if some favours accrue to them. The same logic is applicable here too. If Caeser’s wife had to be above suspicion on the electoral bond issue, then she has to be above suspicion on this too.
Last but not the least, there is an important issue of propriety here. Today, Mr Kejriwal and Mr Sisodia are only MLAs in the Delhi assembly. The question that arises is how can an MLA live in an accommodation meant for a MP of the nation’s parliament. Therefore, this whole arrangement is wrong in principle and all four involved, the two MPs and the two MLAs, are guilty of misusing government accommodation and flouting rules that govern the same. In this regard, Confucious had this to say ‘Look at not what is contrary to propriety; listen not to what is contrary to propriety; speak not what is contrary to propriety; make no movement which is contrary to propriety’. Ideally, this should be a ‘mantra’ for any elected representative. But unfortunately, most Indian politicians believe that propriety is only something to be preached and for others to practice.
These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint