It needed a Lalu Prasad Yadav to fight their battle in Parliament to make the government agree for a pay hike this week. While it does not matter to the rich members (according to a recent study presently 300 Lok Sabha members are multi millionaires) it is a nightmare for the ordinary MP who has no other source of income to run at least two establishments - one in Delhi and the other in their constituency. They too pay their children's school fee, run the household and also look after their constituents who land in Delhi with their demands.

The question of pay hike has always been a sensitive issue as the Members of Parliament themselves vote for their hike in salaries. The politicians are sensitive about the public and media criticism. But despite this, they got their pay hike without any discussions like earlier occasions.

Their salary has been revised seven times so far. The law makers of the first Lok Sabha began with only Rs. 400 as their salary, which was raised to Rs 500 on June 6, 1964 and Rs. 750 on 30 August 1983 to reach Rs. 16000 on 14th September 2006. Similarly, the daily allowance, which was fixed at Rs 21 in 1954 rose to Rs 1000 on 14 September 2006. Pension for the MPs, which began at Rs. 300 per month in September 1978, now stands at Rs 8000 per month.

So why should not a Member of Parliament get a decent salary and perks? First of all, the salary of the President, Vice President, Governors, Supreme Court Judges and High Court Judges had been revised recently while that of the MPs was not revised.

Secondly, the issue has been pending since May 2006 when the second joint parliamentary committee looked into MPs' salary. The generous 6th Pay Commission hike added to the disquiet among MPs.

Thirdly, the JPC setup to study the issue has come out with recommendations that they should get one rupee more than the Secretary's salary (Rs. 80,000 per month) as MPs are placed above the secretary in the warrant of precedence.

Fourthly, MPs, who got their last pay rise in 2006, are the lowest paid in the world. Their current salary pales in comparison to US senators who take home US$174,000 annually. So is the case with the lawmakers in other countries like France, Germany, Sweden and Italy.

Fifthly, such low salary may become one of the factors for corruption among them. Some ministers like Anand Sharma and Kapil Sibal, who argued the case for the hike in the cabinet pointed out that the country ought to pay its MPs well in order to attract educated and qualified people to politics, and to ensure that MPs don't have to take recourse to dubious means like taking bribes for putting questions in Parliament to sustain themselves.

Sixthly, their pay and perks are much less than even legislators in many states.

Naturally, the division in the cabinet has caused anger and disappointment among the other MPs. Some affluent ministers like P. Chidambaram, Ambika soni, Vayalar Ravi and Jairam Ramesh blocked the decision this week by arguing about the quantum of the proposed hike and also the timing. They fear that the move may show the political class as insensitive to the present inflation, floods and price hike. The three-fold increase may bring the public anger against the MPs, they contended.

While no one will deny the MPs a decent pay to befit their status, there are also some expectations, which the MPs should try and fulfil.

The first is that they should promise the country that they would no more neglect their basic duties of law making and raise the voice of the people in both the houses of Parliament. There are many ways of putting forward their argument but getting the house adjourned is not one of them. What kind of impression will the school children take home when they come to witness the Parliament proceedings?

It is tragic that the number of sittings of the Lok Sabha has come down from 124 in fifties to a mere 81 in the nineties, a 34 per cent decline. A direct impact is that many bills are passed without meaningful discussions and thorough study and sometimes seven bills are passed in just five minutes. The time meant for discussion is spent on their slogan shouting and running to the well of the house. The attitude between the government and the opposition is more of confrontation.

The second is the quality of discussion. Compared to the days of Feroze Gandhi and Piloo Mody and their substantive debates the discussions today are really poor. Even if some serious minded members come prepared with a good speech, they do not get an opportunity because the house is adjourned. Some of the new members are yet to make their maiden speech, which speaks volumes about the functioning of the House.

The third is the attendance. Here again the members need to do more. Often the Television channels show an empty house and the parties have to issue whips to ensure their presence in times of need. The frequent ringing of quorum bells is another indication of the members playing truant.

Fourthly, they should also take some interest in drafting bills and private members bill is an important means to do so. It is also a means to show their enterprise and express their view irrespective of the party stand. Unfortunately, Friday being the private members bill day, most members push off to their constituencies for the weekend. The disinterest may be due to the fact very few of their initiatives get the government acceptance.

As for the pubic, how true was Plato when he said “Like man like state”? The people's representatives reflect the people's moral and ethical values. If they choose good MPs, the Parliament too will function well. (IPA Service)