A Peafowl yodels but sounds like an Owl

Unlike the columns of Arun Nehru, I was always bemused by the articles of Jayanthi Natarajan.  I didn’t think her latest would be any different, and to my surprise it made me much more than bemused. 

When a madrasi is involved, I always give a broad leeway, not because they are fellow-madrasis, but because they generally tend to have a somewhat ‘different’ take on the events.

But terming the MPs’ demand for Pay equal or above that of Chief Secretaries, as honest and justified is carrying it too far.   Here is a point by point rebuttal of the article :

• It is not that people are envious that MPs live in plush bungalows or furnished flats – it is the mere fact that they get free accommodation on top of all the salaries and perks; In contrast, if a common man lands at the YMCA in a strange city, he cannot get into a leaking dorm, forget about a room with a toilet.
• If an MP cannot handle the travel, keep in touch with his constituents, or cannot serve tea and snacks, then let him not do so; Better still, let him not become an MP at all.  It is not as though that without Jayanthi Natarajan the Parliamentary system would collapse.
• An MP *is* ‘supposed’ to speak out for her constituency – that is her job specification.  She cannot hold that out as something special.  It is like a civil servant boasting that she had never taken a bribe at her retirement party – it is not a virtue, it is her duty and responsibility.
• Let an MP, even one MP, pass that ‘one’ exam which seems so casual to Jayanthi Natarajan.
• Bureaucrats do have supervision, in the form of the Executive, made up of MLAs and MPs, who form the Government of the day. 
• Bureaucrats have to slog for next 30 years, before they reach that 80,000 bracket. 
• No officer becomes a Chief Secretary the day he joins civil service and not all officers achieve that rank. 
• And India doesn’t have 545 + 250 Chief Secretaries.
• An MP is certainly above any civil service office in protocol, but I am not sure about the ‘rank’ thing.  A rank can only apply to persons ‘within’ a hierarchy.  India has a constitution which clearly demarcates the separation of powers between the
  
  • Executive Arm (consisting of the civil service under the government of the day) and the
  • Legislature (comprising the MPs or the MLAs as appropriate)
• I do wonder how one branch can claim a superior rank to another branch and go even further by demanding an equivalent salary.
• If she is really that sure about the MPs, why is she not in favour of releasing publically what the MPs are doing with their annual Rs. 2 crores MPLADS funds?  Even though the MPLADS website says there is a Works Monitoring System – MPLADS Report available for the public, the button opens nothing.  So much for openness.  BTW, Be warned, viewing that website may seriously harm your eyesight

• Last but not the least, as I remarked yesterday, when about 200 districts are Naxal infested, primarily due to poverty, who should a people’s representative equate himself with – his poor constituents or civil servants?

My wicked half says – hey maddy, let it go; don’t give them ideas; else Milind  Deora, son of the Bombay Baron may compare himself with his constituents (of South Mumbai) which includes the Tatas or the Ambanis and ask for a similar pay packet to theirs.

---