Ever since The Telegraph broke the story a couple of weeks back, the British media has been full of reports about Members of Parliament padding up their expenses recoverable from the exchequer. (Even the BBC is updating the story in every World News broadcast.)
The amounts seem paltry, even for a parliamentarian from a poor country like ours: A few thousand pounds on refurbishing the home, a couple of thousand quid for a flat panel TV, home clearing material, driveway repairs, utensils, bedroom furniture, carrier bags, etc. (One has even claimed rental for an X-rated DVD -- parliamentarians do need relaxation!)
One minister has been forced to resign -- apparently for renting a house for less than its market price, from a constituent! So was the Speaker of the House of Commons, the first time such a thing has happened in 300 years! The Prime Minister seems to be doing nothing but fending off such petty allegations, leaving him no time to save the world from a depression. Surely public servants deserve these little 'perquisites' -- a pittance, of course, compared to the hard work they put in to serve the nation. Overall, the Mother Parliament is setting a very bad example to the rest of the democratic world.
How far the quality of British public life has deteriorated! In an earlier era, the Brits were made of far sterner stuff. People like Robert Clive and Warren Hastings amassed huge personal fortunes even as they continued to serve the Company Sarkar loyally, to expand its writ to an ever larger part of India; Parliament refused to impeach them.
They did not hesitate to use treaties signed with Indian potentates to earn huge personal 'fees', to subtly incorporate provisions giving the Sarkar the power to determine succession -- or take over the state. They were very sure that their Indian counterparties would blindly sign the treaties without reading, let alone understanding them -- a tradition that continues even today (just look at the terms of the complex derivatives signed by Indian companies and the losses they are incurring!). After all, did not the company's representatives swear by their honesty, their 'values', the fairness of their practices, how they are doing what they are, only as a matter of duty?
Indeed, come to think of it, today we are probably the true successors of Clive, Hastings, et al, than British politicians. We have our privileges -- security, VIP entrances and lounges, free houses, travel, etc., just as the white rulers did in the colonial era. (No Delhi policeman dares stop us when we break traffic rules). We are as flexible in the use of words as they ever were: all of us swear by socialism, keep talking how our hearts bleed for the poor, how 'secular' we are even as we amass fortunes of hundreds of crores; consider social programmes as a means to 'help' our loyal supporters; wink at illegal immigration in the North East since it augments our vote banks and our secular credentials, etc etc.
Some time back, I saw Gordon Brown on TV, travelling on a train like any other common man, working on his papers, with no attendants, no 'Z' category security, no hangers on. It just goes to show how the mighty have fallen!
I think the biggest mistake of the British parliamentarians was to make a little extra money, officially and within the rules. A far better way is to make off-balance sheet money -- as we do -- and keep it in Swiss banks. (Of course we bring it back, or some of it anyway, at election time and the rupee strengthens in the havala market.) If occasionally one does get caught with his pants down, he can always disclaim all knowledge about the money -- remember how a minister got away even after a few crores of cash was found in his bedroom, how cash transactions in the pursuit of parliamentary majorities led to no punishment?
There is one thing we share with the British Parliamentarians -- the expense claims scandal crosses party boundaries. Our values on such issues too are common across all parties, barring the Communists, of course, (I am so happy that our wise electorate has taught them a lesson in the last election). But the British lack our flexibility. Until the other day, I was a loyal member of long standing in a 'communal' party; after joining my new party, I have instantly acquired unimpeachable secular credentials!
But to come back to the issue: Why should use of office to make some money attract criticism? After all, I have invested a few crores in getting elected (still managing to stay within the Election Commission rules on expenditure). It is a high-risk investment in any case. Surely I deserve commensurate rewards given the risk-reward relationship? I have half a mind to invite a delegation of British MPs here and give them a few lessons on how these things should be done. After all, we learned parliamentary democracy from them. We owe it to them to teach them how to use it!
Powered by 
