Our parliamentarians are overworked and underpaid, so grossly underpaid that (in the words of Congress MP Rajiv Shukla) they get less than a clerk of the government. Mere Rs 16,000 a month is their salary – a constituency allowance of Rs 20,000 of course goes to the constituency and an office expense allowance of an equal amount obviously goes to maintain office. They badly need a pay hike and since the decision is in a manner of speaking in their own hands, the only question is how much hike. One figure proposed is Rs 80,001 – a rupee more than what a secretary to the government gets. Fifty thousand is another figure, proposed by the parliamentary affairs ministry. The cabinet on Monday could not arrive at a consensus on the figure.

So, we raise the question again: do our MPs deserve a pay hike – given the double digit inflation and all that? But then the way corporate honchos fall over each other in bidding for a seat in the upper house, is the salary a factor at all? Did anybody say “I don't want to become an MP when I grow up, because salaries are too low”? And what about performance – our MPs are mostly making news for obstructing the house proceedings rather than for participating in them? At the very least, shouldn't their salary (if it matters at all) be linked to their performance – say, on the basis of their participation in the house business or efficient representation of the constituency?