By Bhogtoram Mawroh
The cash transfer schemes of the All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) have garnered criticism from many quarters. Since the State does not have adequate resources, the schemes, it is argued, will put a great deal of strain on the State’s exchequer. This in turn will adversely affect the economy by leaving too little resources for investment on development activities. Also there’s the argument that since the TMC is an opponent of the BJP which is presently ruling at the centre, funds will also become difficult to access increasing the difficulties of the State. These are critical concerns but are they accurate?
At the outset, let me admit that I support the cash transfer scheme announced by the TMC. The Indian National Congress and the NPP (National People’s Party) have also announced or already have similar initiatives. So in principle they should not be against the idea of cash transfer. There is, though, an argument about the amount being meager and therefore will not prove really beneficial for the people. I don’t agree with that. The cost of a single plate of jadoh, doh jem and tungtap is Rs. 50. This means that the cash transfer of Rs. 1,000 per month can cover the cost of one meal for an unemployed youth for 20 days in a month. Similarly, the Rs. 12,000 per annum for a woman will help many poor families pay at least pay two months’ house rent. So although the amount may seem meager it is quite significant for the poor in Meghalaya. One lacuna of the scheme, though, is that it does not take inflation into consideration. The inflation rate in India during 2022 was more than 6% which even if it declines will still mean that in 2028 (when the term of the incoming government ends) the amount of Rs. 1,000 will fall in value by at least 15%. On the other hand, the price of commodities, e.g., lunch and house rent, would have risen by at least 15%. So the amount of cash transfer should have been tagged to the inflation rate to ensure that the value of the benefits do not decline over time. This is one criticism I have of the schemes.
Now coming to the concerns raised by those against the schemes, the last argument, i.e., the importance of same party ruling in the State and the Centre for receiving funds is a popular belief but not a correct one. In the open platform discussion that took place in Synod College, KAM Meghalaya candidate from North Shillong, Kyrsoibor Pyrtuh gave reference to Article 275(1) of the Constitution of India mandates that every year grants-in-aid will be provided from the Consolidated Fund of India to tribal states like Meghalaya. Unless the Parliament brings an amendment to remove this Constitutional provision, whoever rules in the Centre will have to release the funds meant for Meghalaya for undertaking development activities in the State. So Meghalaya will continue to receive money from the Centre even if a regional party like the UDP (United Democratic Party) forms the Government.
The other argument about Meghalaya being a poor state is not really borne out by facts. Recently The Meghalayan brought out the list of top 10 richest candidates contesting the 2023 elections. Metbah Lyngdoh from UDP is the richest candidate with more than 100 crore of moveable and immoveable assets. AL Hek from the BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) was number ten in the rankings with assets of more than 16 crore. According to the Indian law a candidate contesting for elections is required to disclose details of assets and liabilities for themselves, spouse and three dependents in Form 26 while filing nomination paper. I suspect politicians have always tried to circumvent this rule by distributing assets to extended family members or have it registered under a name other than their own (benami). Also there are candidates who themselves may have few assets but their family members who are not dependents have more assets than they can account for. .
Assuming that all the three routes (and maybe many more) are utilized for hiding the true value of the assets it is safe to double the value of the declared assets to get a more correct picture of the wealth politicians (or wannabe politicians) hold. The total value of the declared assets of only the top 10 candidates is more than 691 crore which if doubled comes to 1,382 crore. Not doubling the assets of only the 10 richest candidates can still pay for more than 30% of the funds requirement for the cash transfer schemes which according to NPP will amount to Rs. 2,000 crore. Doubling it takes the figure to almost 70%. It is important to remember that the list brought out by The Meghalayan is only of the top 10 while more than 350 candidates are going to contest the 2023 elections. So while the GDP numbers for Meghalaya are not great, the State is not poor. The question then becomes about how do we choose the right people to ensure that the wealth of the State is spent on the poor? Here, ironically enough, the State’s GDP can be of some help.
At the moment, every political party is talking about corruption being a big problem plaguing the State. Many of these are seasoned politicians while some are fresh faces. Projecting themselves as saviors these parties and individuals have promised to end corruption if voted to power. But how do we as voters decide who is telling the truth and who is playing to the gallery? After all, what many people may not realize is that just becoming an MLA has many economic benefits for the winner whether they indulge in corruption or not. The salary of an MLA in Meghalaya is Rs. 3.5 lakh per month which comes to Rs. 2.1 crore in 5 years, i.e., one term. Even if a candidate is not a crorepati they will definitely become one by the time they relinquish their seat. And of course there are different allowances and a pension as well.
How do we ensure that in a state with more than 30% of the population suffering from poverty, a corrupt and incompetent person is not selected just because they claim to be against corruption? A solution to this, as suggested in the open platform in Synod College by Kyrsoibor Pyrtuh is the right to recall the MLA whose performance has been found to be unsatisfactory. This would ensure that our representatives will be on their toes all the time. However, since this facility is not available right now, again taking from Kyrsoibor Pyrtuh, I propose a solution which to my mind can help separate the fake from the genuine.
I propose that those contesting the election agree to take a salary of only Rs. 12,000 per month (double of the per capita income of Meghalaya of Rs. 6,848 per month) and the increment will be dependent on State’s GDP growth rate. This will ensure that only those desirous of serving the people will make the cut. After all, people should be entering politics to work for the common people not to draw a salary paid from the public taxes. Also this makes them accountable since the improvement in their remuneration will be based on their performance for the State. Otherwise, corrupt and incompetent people will be sitting in the Assembly drawing money while the rest of us struggle to make the bare minimum. What’s more, the 120 crore rupees saved from this can be used to create jobs (at least 660 jobs with a monthly salary of Rs. 30,000). Will any individual candidate or party make such an announcement? I am doubtful but the silence itself will give an idea to the public how genuine are those claiming to be against corruption in the State.
To conclude, there are many people in Meghalaya who have enough wealth to end poverty in the State but are reluctant to do so because there is no money to spend on the poor. There are also those who shout that they are against corruption but have joined politics only to become rich. What should we do in this situation? This is for all of us to decide come February 27, 2023. Whoever we elect, we will have to live with them at least for the next five years.
(The views expressed in the article are those of the author and do not reflect in any way his affiliation to any organization or institution)