Cho Ramaswamy's Tuglaq (the protagonist in the eponymous movie) says, ‘It is not possible to make the poor rich.
Therefore make the rich poor and all will be equal!’ It is an unstated dictum
of the communist proletariat. The
communist elite (vlasti in Russian) had a different take on Marxist philosophy as
George Orwell so vividly depicted in his Animal
Farm. Irrespective of how they live,
quite often the vlasti echo the proletarian edict, more to show that
their heart is in the right place rather than because of an ardent belief that
‘all men should be equal’. Therefore it is no surprise to hear Mani Sankar
Aiyar often cavil about Antilia, Mukesh
Ambani’s 27-floor residence in Mumbai’s southern suburbs. Flaunting his
knowledge of the Gini coefficient (a
measure of inequality of wealth
distribution) he often cites Antilia
as an example of the deep chasm that exists between the rich and the poor in
India. He did so again in the television debate, ‘Is India ripe for a revolution?’ hosted by Tim Sebastian on
Bloomberg / Headlines Today recently. (Indian television anchors have much to
learn from Sebastian, but that is a different matter altogether.)
 |
| Antilia |
One
way to look at Mukesh’s opulence is to attribute it to his business acumen, hard
work and intelligence. For, although he has inherited a large part of his
wealth he must have worked hard to grow the rest. In a democratic society which
at least theoretically provides equal
opportunities to all, one should not grudge Mukesh his success. Much has been
said about Mukesh’s father Dhirubhai’s business acumen. His life is the stuff that
made it to case studies in business schools. The less uncharitable (but
probably more accurate) view is to attribute Dhirubhai Ambani’s success less to
business acumen and more to his ability to network with the ruling
establishment. Even this may be characterised as business acumen, but to put it bluntly Dhirubai was able bribe his
way through the Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi administrations to tweak government policy to
suit his business interests. Dhirubhai’s Reliance Industries was perhaps the first
example of crony capitalism on a gigantic scale. It had all the ingredients:
funnelling funds through invisible sources, stock exchange skirmishes and
manipulation of government policy. V. P. Singh who took on Dhirubhai to alter
government policy on import of purified terephthalic acid (PTA) lost his job as
Finance Minister! (See For this fighter, life was a big battle). On hindsight one
might even suspect that the Bofors
scam could have been a decoy. This being so, why does Aiyar constantly invoke
Mukesh as a negative example of economic distortions knowing fully well that
the seeds of the Ambani empire were
sown during Congress regimes? More importantly, the Ambani empire reached its exponential growth stage during the regimes of Aiyar’s
deities, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi.
Be
that as it may, if opulent living reflects a ‘vulgarity of greed’ to use an expression coined in the Films
Division (of the I & B ministry) documentaries of the emergency era, how
much does it cost to put up MPs like Aiyar in Lutyen’s Delhi? How much does
empress Sonia’s upkeep cost the people of India?
[N.B.: What follows are only ‘back
of the envelope’ calculations based on certain realistic assumptions.]
According
to a recent Economic Times report, bungalows
in Delhi’s Lutyen’s Bungalow Zone (LBZ) cost between Rs 111 and Rs 170 Crore. (See Delhi's most expensive realty deal: Torrent Group buys bungalow in Lutyen’s Zone for Rs111 crore). As No.10 Janpath is in an even more exclusive zone, it may
be safely rated at the top end of the scale, i.e. Rs 170 Crore, assuming of
course that it is of the same area and not bigger! At 1% of the price as rental
value the bungalow costs Rs 1.7 Crore a year (as rent) to the people of India.
[A] One might safely assume an expenditure of Rs 30, 00,000 per annum on staff
and maintenance. [B]
Her
electricity bills come to Rs 2. 49 Lakh a year. [C] (See Sonia Gandhi's power bill: over Rs. 7 lakh for 3 years). We are relieved to
know, that of the Rs 7.47 Lakhs incurred in three years, she herself has paid
all of Rs 0.09 Lakh whereas the Lok Sabha Secretariat paid Rs 7.38 Lakh!
As
an MP she is eligible to salary and perquisites of Rs 36. 45 Lakh, excluding
house rent which is already computed above. [D] (See SALARYOF MP'S - Indian Parliament members salary)
She
is entitled to Z+ security which consists of 36 personnel of the NSG. An NSG Z+
team consists of various ranks from IG to constable. Assuming an average salary
of Rs 3 Lakh per commando, the team cost Rs 1.08 Crore per annum. [E]
The
total of [A]+ [B]+ [C]+ [D]+ [E] = Rs 3.47 Crore per annum. Based on a similar
computation, Rahul’s expenditure to the exchequer (only salary and security
included) comes to Rs 1. 45 Crore.
It
is interesting to note that (if our rental computation is right) Sonia exceeds
her rental allowance by 700% and her electricity allowance by 400%.
Is
it not pertinent to ask, how many households in India can incur an expenditure
of Rs 4.92 Crore per annum, especially in a country in which the BPL is set at just
Rs 11, 520?
