Public favours or plunder?……Dorab R Sopariwala
Elected representatives appear to consider it a matter of right to purloin public property.
Elected representatives appear to consider it a matter of right to purloin public property.
In the bad old days, English Sovereigns claimed to own all the land in the country and parcelled it off to their allies, to churches, to great warriors (such as Marlborough and Wellington), to their relatives and mistresses and so on. In fact, William the Conqueror (of 1066 fame) did not have much of an army. He persuaded friendly nobles from as far away as Southern Italy to join his campaign. And why would they do that? Because William promised them land and titles. However, over the last couple of centuries, these powers have vanished and Parliament has ensured that such gifts of national resources cannot be made either by the Sovereign or the Executive. Today, the Sovereign or the Prime Minister has the right to give out a small number of houses, fewer than a couple of dozen, during the lifetime of the person or during the holding of a particular office.
We have derived most of our laws and constitutional practices from Britain but our leaders have not got the message that government property can no longer be arbitrarily given away by the Executive probably because the powers that be in India do not wish to hear the message. So, we have a huge number of scams, most of them related to what is probably the most scarce resource in India land/property. Politicians who have been elected for five years believe they have the right to give away forever the nations or the states property to their parties, to social, religious, educational, political causes they like, to other politicians and to their friends and relatives. When told that he was doing too many favours to his sons or relatives, the late Devi Lal asked whether he should help other peoples sons in preference to his own!
Let us look at the abuse in India, starting with the central government. It gives plots of land free or at throwaway prices to political parties to build offices in Delhi. Is it the job of the government to give land to political parties for offices? Do the Republican Party in the US or the Labour Party in the UK get land from the government for their headquarters? And what happens if a party shrinks to a very small size, does it still keep the real estate and, in true style of Indian politicians, sell the political party to someone so that he can get his hands on the real estate?
Or land being given by central and state governments at hugely concessional rates to NGOs or religious bodies or think tanks close to the ministers or a legislators heart. Do Oxfam or Greenpeace or the Heritage Foundation get land at concessional prices in their home countries? Was Akshardham Temple in London built on a give me free/cheap/preferential basis land basis? Then why should the Akshardham temple in Delhi be favoured? It is not for the state to give away land to private bodies, however worthy the cause for then there is no end to such favours. Money can always be raised privately for good causes.
Then there is the giving away of land and property on an arbitrary basis to defence personnel. The Adarsh Society scandal is a fallout of giving land to Kargil veterans. No Indian should have anything against rewarding Kargil veterans but why cannot the government provide a certain amount of financial subvention to every single Kargil veteran rather than favouring a few which always leads to abuse? As we know, a majority of members of the Adarsh Society are politicians, bureaucrats and their surrogates; the Kargil warriors were quickly forgotten. The majority of those who inveigled flats at Adarsh helped to bend or break every possible law in the book and they almost got away. And for every Adarsh caught, there are hundreds getting away, State chief ministers have a discretionary quota in all kinds of real estate transactions. Almost every state, whether it is Maharashtra, Karnataka or Rajasthan, has its share of land scams. In Maharashtra, for instance, the chief minister almost always holds the urban development portfolio. Recently, a lottery for middle-income group flats was held in Bombay but a certain proportion of flats were under the chief ministers discretionary quota. Why this quota for the chief minister? And some of these flats were allotted to MLAs from an MLA quota. Why an MLA quota?
The current scam involving Karnataka Chief Minister B S Yeddyurappa and his sons is only the tip of the iceberg. Almost every chief minister is guilty of favouring his kith and kin. And they see nothing wrong with it. Vilasrao Deshmukh truly overreached himself when he gave land to, you guessed it, the eponymous Vilasrao Deshmukh Foundation!
Or look at mineral resources. Why should mineral resources be handed out on a discretionary basis? Should they not be auctioned so that there is transparency in the leasing and the exchequer gets its rightful share? But will the Madhu Kodas like that?
The elected representatives almost feel it a matter of right that they should purloin public property. As BJP President Nitin Gadkari is reported to have said of Mr Yeddyurappas largesse to his kith and kin that it was not a question of legality but morality and which politician gives a damn about morality.
In most civilised countries, governments have nothing to do with acquiring land, except when it is for eminent domain to build a road, a dam and so on. What we need is the end of discretion, whether it is for land deals or for the allocation of spectrum or coal blocks or steel mines. Because of almost unfettered discretion, we are degenerating into an unrestrained kleptocracy. We have to ask ourselves if we should just stand by and watch.