:: OP-ED

For whose development?

The Age Debate

Until people have a say, it’s useless

Nov.05 : The idea behind the MP Local Area Development (MPLAD) Scheme is that since our MPs are people’s representatives and are supposedly interacting with the masses on a regular basis, they are best placed to know what the people want. Thus, if an MP has funds at his/her disposal, s/he would be able to utilise it without having to go through the exercise that usually delays disbursal of funds and implementing small, local projects.

But the question is, are our MPs actually asking people what they want? The fact is that a majority of them lose touch with people once they get elected. It needs to be found out how the money is being spent and where.

Also, from a constitutional point of view, there are two things that should be taken into account when one talks about the MPLAD scheme. Our Constitutional set-up provides for three lists — the Centre list, the state list and the concurrent list. Subjects like health, education, and law and order fall under the state list. The state is supposed to draft plans and spend on these items. But, through the MPLAD scheme, the Centre’s funds, which too is taxpayers’ money, are directed for purposes that should have been dealt with by the state.

Also, in our set-up the legislature is separated from the executive. In fact, the legislature — the MPs in Parliament — is supposed to keep a check on the functioning of the executive. But through the MPLAD scheme, the legislature is being asked to get into the realm of the executive. Then the question is: How can the legislature keep a check when its members are themselves becoming the executive?

The MPLAD scheme comes under the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. However, the information furnished through RTI can only help in discovering mistakes and assessing whether people’s priorities have been met. It cannot influence the process of decision-making from the beginning.

The only way to ensure that people’s problems are being properly addressed is by having a more "direct democracy". Decisions related to the development of an area cannot be taken in a general public meeting. The only way to understand people’s needs is to establish and strengthen gram sabhas in the villages and mohalla sabhas in the cities. These ought to be the forum for the people to directly articulate their needs, which could be conveyed by sabha members to the MP, and the rest may follow.

Let people have a much greater role in what kind of development they want in their surroundings. Until vibrant sabhas are put in place, the MPLAD scheme should be scrapped.

Arvind Kejriwal is a Magasaysay Award winner and pioneering RTI activist

***

Don’t scrap, just improve delivery

The MP Local Area Development (MPLAD) Scheme must not be scrapped. Though there are cases of its misuse by some MPs, I am of the strong view that the scheme should be continued with some checks and balances.

The MPLAD scheme has proved quite useful in improving the lives of those who do not have easy access to funds.

The demand for scrapping the MPLAD scheme is mainly made on the ground that some MPs are using the fund for private works, and get commission in return. This is true. But if some amendments are made that would allow the creation of only public property through these funds, the scheme could benefit a large number of people.

There have been instances in Uttar Pradesh where the state government neglected certain areas from where the state’s ruling party lost the election. However, the MPs utilised their MPLAD funds to install hand pumps, improve school buildings and construct roads, among other projects.

In Lucknow, former Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee utilised his MPLAD funds to establish a world-class scientific centre which is benefiting a large number of students, apart from raising the academic profile of the city. I have myself helped three city colleges in improving their infrastructure through the scheme.

I also built a government school where mostly Dalit children used to go as it was in a dilapidated state and the government was not doing anything about it. I have also helped refurbish the school where I was a student. It was in a poor condition. I have also utilised the MPLAD funds for upgrading the infrastructure of a Lucknow medical college which was not getting the support of the state government.

I am sure the MPLAD scheme can be made more effective with some checks. I suggest that the scheme not be used for awarding work to private companies, and beneficiaries should be clearly specified. I also suggest that the MPLAD funds be used for colleges, schools, health centres, roads and other public works.

The scheme should not be misused for building private colleges and schools. This has largely been inviting criticism. It is up to the MPs to use MPLAD funds judiciously, for the betterment of their constituencies. But, in the backdrop of criticism, some serious checks do need to be incorporated at the earliest.

Further, there should be a regular audit of the kind of works being undertaken through MPLAD scheme. Instead of scrapping it, steps are needed to improve delivery of public goods under the scheme.

Virendra Bhatia is a Rajya Sabha MP

(Samajwadi Party)

and former Advocate General, Uttar Pradesh