03-30-2009, 08:38 PM
<b>Poorer the state, the richer the neta</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Maharashtra has amongst the highest per capita incomes in India (if you leave out small states like Delhi [Images]) and, on average, its MPs declared assets of around Rs 110 lakh in the 2004 Lok Sabha elections, ranging from Rs 64 lakh for the Shiv Sena [Images] to Rs 191 lakh for the Congress Party (Rs 65 lakh for Shiv Sena MLAs to Rs 133 lakh for Congress MLAs).
Surprisingly, however, Andhra Pradesh, which has a 30 per cent lower per capita income, has MPs whose average assets are around 4.5 times as high at Rs 490 lakh (TDP MLAs in Andhra had an average asset-base of Rs 190 lakh and the figure was Rs 116 lakh for Congress MLAs); Punjab MPs are the richest (its per capita income is around a tenth lower but its MPs are around six times as wealthy with average assets of Rs 672 lakh).
Gujarat MPs/MLAs are the paragon of virtue when it comes to their wealth (the state's per capita is around 8 per cent lower than Maharashtra and its MPs have assets which are around 40 per cent lower).
Poorer states like Bihar, Uttar Pradesh [Images] (UP) and Madhya Pradesh [Images] are the real shocker. Bihar's per capita income is a fifth that of Maharashtra, yet its MPs are just a tenth less wealthy (Rs 101 lakh for Bihar versus Rs 110 lakh for Maharashtra) -- Bihar MLAs, however, have assets that average around Rs 20 lakh as compared to three-four times that for Maharashtra MLAs.
UP, similarly, has a per capita income that's a little over a third that of Maharashtra, but its MPs are a third wealthier. Madhya Pradesh has a per capita income that's 40 per cent that of Maharashtra, but its MPs are just 14 per cent less wealthy.
The other interesting thing, in the context of not just Madhya Pradesh, is the sharp rise in the assets of MLAs (there's no comparator for MPs since that data began to be collected only in the last elections).
In 2003, MLAs in Madhya Pradesh had lesser assets than their Maharashtrian counterparts. Between the two assembly elections, average assets of BJP MLAs rose from Rs 21 lakh to Rs 104 lakh and from Rs 28 lakh to Rs 207 lakh in the case of Congress MLAs -- as a result, Madhya Pradesh MLAs are now (2008) richer than their Maharashtrian ones (in 2004) by 30-50 per cent.
In this case, the richer Congress did better (its seats rose from 38 to 72 while the BJP's fell from 173 to 142, though it continues to hold office).
In Karnataka, the opposite happened. <b>Assets of all BJP MLAs rose from Rs 133 lakh in 2004 to Rs 457 lakh in 2008, from Rs 145 lakh to Rs 425 lakh for the JDS (that's Deve Gowda's party), and from Rs 196 lakh to Rs 1,065 lakh for the Congress. Voters, however, voted out the richer Congress-JDS. </b>
There are other instances of richer candidates getting defeated -- in Andhra Pradesh, TDP MLAs were nearly two-thirds richer than their Congress counterparts in 2004, but the party still got voted out (in the Parliament polls too, the TDP lost out though its MPs were 2.4 times as rich as those belonging to the Congress).
In Rajasthan, the sitting BJP government's MLAs saw their assets rise 5.6 times versus 2.0 for the Congress between the 2003 and 2008 assembly elections, but the BJP got voted out last year. In other words, parties matter, individuals don't.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Surprisingly, however, Andhra Pradesh, which has a 30 per cent lower per capita income, has MPs whose average assets are around 4.5 times as high at Rs 490 lakh (TDP MLAs in Andhra had an average asset-base of Rs 190 lakh and the figure was Rs 116 lakh for Congress MLAs); Punjab MPs are the richest (its per capita income is around a tenth lower but its MPs are around six times as wealthy with average assets of Rs 672 lakh).
Gujarat MPs/MLAs are the paragon of virtue when it comes to their wealth (the state's per capita is around 8 per cent lower than Maharashtra and its MPs have assets which are around 40 per cent lower).
Poorer states like Bihar, Uttar Pradesh [Images] (UP) and Madhya Pradesh [Images] are the real shocker. Bihar's per capita income is a fifth that of Maharashtra, yet its MPs are just a tenth less wealthy (Rs 101 lakh for Bihar versus Rs 110 lakh for Maharashtra) -- Bihar MLAs, however, have assets that average around Rs 20 lakh as compared to three-four times that for Maharashtra MLAs.
UP, similarly, has a per capita income that's a little over a third that of Maharashtra, but its MPs are a third wealthier. Madhya Pradesh has a per capita income that's 40 per cent that of Maharashtra, but its MPs are just 14 per cent less wealthy.
The other interesting thing, in the context of not just Madhya Pradesh, is the sharp rise in the assets of MLAs (there's no comparator for MPs since that data began to be collected only in the last elections).
In 2003, MLAs in Madhya Pradesh had lesser assets than their Maharashtrian counterparts. Between the two assembly elections, average assets of BJP MLAs rose from Rs 21 lakh to Rs 104 lakh and from Rs 28 lakh to Rs 207 lakh in the case of Congress MLAs -- as a result, Madhya Pradesh MLAs are now (2008) richer than their Maharashtrian ones (in 2004) by 30-50 per cent.
In this case, the richer Congress did better (its seats rose from 38 to 72 while the BJP's fell from 173 to 142, though it continues to hold office).
In Karnataka, the opposite happened. <b>Assets of all BJP MLAs rose from Rs 133 lakh in 2004 to Rs 457 lakh in 2008, from Rs 145 lakh to Rs 425 lakh for the JDS (that's Deve Gowda's party), and from Rs 196 lakh to Rs 1,065 lakh for the Congress. Voters, however, voted out the richer Congress-JDS. </b>
There are other instances of richer candidates getting defeated -- in Andhra Pradesh, TDP MLAs were nearly two-thirds richer than their Congress counterparts in 2004, but the party still got voted out (in the Parliament polls too, the TDP lost out though its MPs were 2.4 times as rich as those belonging to the Congress).
In Rajasthan, the sitting BJP government's MLAs saw their assets rise 5.6 times versus 2.0 for the Congress between the 2003 and 2008 assembly elections, but the BJP got voted out last year. In other words, parties matter, individuals don't.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->