More? We disagree

There is disquiet among parliamentarians over a report that argues for doing away with the Local Area Development Scheme for MPs, which goes by the awkward acronym of MPLADS. Their outrage has prompted them to up the ante: they now want the allotment of Rs 2 crore to be raised. We beg to disagree. We would invite them to have another look at the evidence to see why this scheme 8212; first introduced by Prime Minister Narasimha Rao over a decade ago for the purpose, some maintain, of placating the House 8212; just does not work.

Two basic questions present themselves. One, is it really the job of our law makers to dispense funds, albeit for the betterment of their constituencies? Are those who are constitutionally charged with the responsibility of legislating and ensuring that the administration does its job, required to immerse themselves directly in the implementation process itself? As the report written by a former MP, and brought out by the Institute of Social Sciences argues, it is one thing for an MP to suggest or lobby for a project, quite another to assume complete responsibility for it. There is an uncomfortable crossing of lines here; a blurring of demarcations between distinct spheres of influence; an introduction of the politics of patronage, which does not bode well for good governance. The second question has to do with outcomes. Every MP has her/his distinct agendas and priorities. Such disjointed efforts 8212; even if implemented with honesty and commitment as some are 8212; do not translate into the durable infrastructure required to meet the challenges of social development.

The facts speak for themselves. According to the MPLADS report, as indeed other inquiries, large sums of money sanctioned under this scheme have remained unspent and the mandatory utilisation certificates were missing with regard to thousands of works. Violations of guidelines were routine, numerous projects were undertaken without the required sanction from the concerned MP, several others had no technical sanction or administrative approval. Some of these projects have proved to be gargantuan headaches for the MPs themselves. A Rajya Sabha committee looking into the issue had observed that sometimes MPs were reduced to being silent spectators of the corruption that had crept into the system. Many, in fact, have publicly wished to rid themselves of this business of dispensing monies. We would therefore urge those honourable members of the House who wish to persist with the MPLADS to do a serious rethink. Leave infrastructure building to the authorities that already exist for the purpose and give this benighted scheme a quiet burial.