On April 4, the supreme court sounded a red alert on the widespread misuse of red beacons by the VIPs. It came down heavily on traffic rule violation and directed the centre and state governments to introduce harsher punishment by introducing provisions for impounding vehicles and increasing the amount of fine to Rs 10,000.

The bench also asked the governments to drastically restrict the use of red beacon by VIPs and to provide it only to the heads of political executive, legislature, judiciary and persons holding constitutional posts.

The very next day, a report in newspapers said deputy commissioners and sub-divisional magistrates in Delhi too were allowed to use beacons on their official cars.

Originally intended for security purposes, red beacons gradually became a symbol of political power. While 27 categories of public functionaries are officially permitted to use them (only when they on official duty), the prescribed norms are routinely flouted.

In UP and Bihar, a gram pradhan, head of a political party’s district unit, or even a smaller political functionary cannot expect respect from others until he flashes one red beacon. Or, shall we call it almost a political compulsion? 

It is pertinent here to bring back to your memory a parliamentary debate, held in May last year, where parliamentarians from across the political spectrum made a strong demand for being given the right to sport red beacons atop their vehicles.

Since they are the ones who make laws, this one crossed the technical barriers pretty quickly. The road transport and highways ministry gave up its resistance to the MPs' demand soon enough. The home ministry too said it was ready for the proposal with the exception of VVIP areas in the national capital.

Prime minister Manmohan Singh, as expected, listened to them listlessly with his typical quarter smile and half-closed eyes. No apparent change in his expressions must have been taken for his approval.

The deal was almost sealed when Congress president Sonia Gandhi chose to nix it. According to insiders, sections in the Congress felt it could boomerang in the current atmosphere of anger against the political class. While Gandhi’s response was appreciable, I still have a question: why do our MPs want red beacons?

Let’s hear it from them first.

“Even an additional district magistrate gets a red beacon while an MP representing lakhs of people is deprived of it,” said Arjun Ram Meghwal of BJP while initiating a debate on the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill moved by transport minister CP Joshi in the Lok Sabha in May 2012.

He said a red beacon would help an MP reach parliament quickly as it would reduce time spent at toll booths on highways. However, after hearing the home ministry’s exception of the VVIP areas in Delhi, Meghwal changed tack. “If the government has some issues in making the facility available in Delhi which is a VVIP area, leave Delhi and extend the facility in other parts of the country.”

Vijay Bahadur Singh of BSP said a red beacon would help MPs move quicker across their constituencies.

Okay, enough of beating about the bush.

First, Meghwal doesn’t need a red beacon to ensure that he reaches parliament in time. The national capital has lakhs of employees travelling for hours by sundry means of conveyance to reach their offices in time every day. They do not and they cannot afford to be late. And for his other concern that even an additional district magistrate gets a red beacon atop his car, there are many things he doesn’t get but Meghwal does, parliamentary privileges being just one of them.

For Vijay Bahadur Singh’s faster movement across his constituency, a red beacon is hardly necessary. He should ask a courier boy or a doctor if they ever felt the need to have one. And more than half of his constituency (i.e. Hamirpur) is rural, where traffic congestion is a distant possibility.

Minus silly excuses, the red beacon, lal batti, is likely to give them just one kick: a sense of power. But they don’t need any. They sit in parliament and enjoy privileges in our name that are not available to any of us.

But, obviously, these aren’t enough. Meghwal said he represents lakhs of people, so he deserves a red beacon. Fair enough. But there is not stopping the lust of power. Next thing you know, MLAs and MLCs across the country will rise to demand the lal batti because they also represent lakhs of people, even if a few lakhs less. They will have to be given the privilege.

Then all the corporators across municipal corporations will want the same facility because even they represent thousands of people and, additionally, have to negotiate the city traffic every day, unlike their senior brother legislators who might choose to come to the capital to mostly not attend the legislature. So the corporators will have to get the lal batti as well. Then the municipal councils, the zilla parishads, and panchayats, all of whom represent people, will raise a similar demand. Since the power of the legislator flows from "representing people", and not in the numbers they represent, all of them will need to be given a lal batti too.

And we have not counted the spouses, servants and even dogs of these powerful people presenting lakhs. They will have to be given lal battis too.
After we give out so many lal battis, there will be so few of us left without lal battis that we might as well give everybody a lal batti. After all, if these legislators are so privileged for representing the people, the people must count for something, too, right?

Now, where is my share? Gimme, my red!