Whenever an
election happens, there are number of organizations digital or otherwise that
post the details of assets of the candidates. Post the elections, they display
the asset details of the winners. As per the election commission guidelines,
the candidates offering themselves to contest the polls have to file an affidavit
listing out the details of their assets and of that of their dependents. They,
in addition, have to file details of the criminal cases or convictions that are
against them. The latter no doubt is something important and gives insights to
the voters about the criminal antecedents of their candidates or prospective elected
representatives. The former is perhaps to ensure that they reveal their assets
in public given they are aspiring to be their representatives. Question marks
can be raised against this but the standard practice is followed in many parts.
However, the analysis of the asset details are something to be discussed or
pondered over.
These organizations
which post these details also usually do some analysis. These capture eyeballs
in the newspapers, magazines or digital platforms. Some of these would be to
reveal how many are crorepatis or 100 crorepatis etc. The headline is often projected
as if it is the candidates have assets running into crores thus depriving
average citizen to run for the polls. There is no doubt, given the election
expenditure that occurs, it is not possible for ordinary citizen to aspire
running for the elections. But to denigrate someone for being very rich is also
not proper. The MPs/MLAs or the local body members have a right to own assets,
to build their assets and to increase their assets. In some ways, the change in
assets from the time they assumed office to the time they completed their term
might give critical indications. It might be tempting to link any increase in
assets to the duration of the office held. It is irresistible to conclude the
increase in assets as an outcome of their holding office and thus potentially
misusing the same. However, no matter how tempting the conclusions seem to be,
it would be rather imprudent without deeper analysis on the modes of
accumulating property or assets. Yet as one goes deeper, it is not merely about
linking the acquisition of assets to the public positions held, but the
contempt of wealth as sought to be practiced by many including these
organizations that supposedly stand for transparency among other things.
In India, there
is a perceptible feeling that wealth acquisition is wrong. Further wrong is the
naked display of wealth. This feeling is perhaps not new. It has been ingrained
for years or decades. The foundation of the belief lie in the premise that
wealth acquisition is never through a legal mechanism. Wealth acquisition seems
to be thought of a zero sum game. Somebody acquiring wealth would imply that
there was somebody else who lost wealth. In an average person, it is believed that
if Ambanis or Birlas of the day acquired wealth they did it through dispossessing
others. There is not even a remote thought of wealth acquisition being a
positive multiplier. The same holds good for political leaders acquiring wealth.
It is presumed unless proved otherwise that the politicians cannot accumulate wealth
without resorting to dubious means. Moral and legal acquisition of wealth, is
deemed to be impossible. There is always a belief that what political leaders
or businessmen declare is only part of their wealth. There is perhaps some
merit in this assertion. After all in the high taxation regime, underreporting
of income and assets were routine. The taxation system made it so. If someone
has to pay tax of Rs.90 lakhs for every Rs.1 crore earned, then the above would
be a logical conclusion. Yet in the current set up where taxes are relatively
lower, it is fairly assumed that underreporting of wealth would be relatively
less. Secondly, it doesn’t have to follow the wealth creation is an outcome of
non-fair process. The reasons for these beliefs stem from a historical
precedent.
For long, the
villagers and small townsmen are used to witnessing sharp inequalities in
wealth. Wealth can be either acquired or inherited. The inherited wealth and
the flaunting it has of course created perceptions about the morality or
otherwise of the wealth generation and acquisition. The zamindars and other
village chieftains used their wealth to enhance their power over the villagers
and townsmen. The urbanization of course creates a barrier and distance but in
villages the familiarity creates a contempt for wealth acquisition. Each one,
without doubt wants to acquire wealth and flaunt it. In fact, as discussed in
earlier posts, women wearing jewellery is one of the earliest forms of indirect
signalling of wealth possession.
Post-independence
while zamindari was abolished, the government failed to curb the inequalities. The
failure lay in the inability of the government to create opportunities for
wealth generation. Living in poverty was sort of a virtue to be adopted and not
creating and generating wealth. They needed some enemies to divert the
attention from government failure in increasing wealth. Therefore the business
became a smart target and thus the bania became the much reviled person. While there
was some merit in the assertion, what was overlooked was the job creation and
thus increase in money in the economy thanks to the businesses. In fact, the
government could not provide jobs nor could create conditions in which the jobs
could be created by the private sector. All the government could do was to
blame big business for the rising inequalities. In addition the royal families erstwhile
rulers of the princely states were blamed for eating up the resources through
privy purses. The abolition of privy purses was a measure to demonstrate how a
few had usurped all resources however unfounded the allegations might be.
The perceptions
thus created in the years following independence has resulted in spilling over
to the current times as well. It is believed or at least few would like us to believe
the wealth cannot be created through legal means. Wealth creation is something
wrong when large segments of population remain poor. There is no evidence to
this. Secondly, the only way poor can be uplifted is through job creation or
entrepreneurial creation both necessitating the presence of wealth. Unless this
recognized, the problem of seeing wealth as waste and through negative
connotations will continue.
Comments
Post a Comment