When unlimited calls and data are possible for Rs 300-400, why such a huge allowance for public representatives?
In a democratic system, the facilities provided to public representatives have always been a topic of discussion and debate. The fundamental purpose of salaries and allowances is to enable elected representatives to serve the public without financial worries. However, when the size of these benefits increases, and transparency in their use is diminished, questions naturally arise. Recently, the Bihar Legislative Assembly decided to increase the monthly telephone allowance for MLAs and MLCs to ₹8,300. The most significant feature of this decision is that this amount will be provided without any bills or vouchers, meaning proof of expenditure will not be mandatory. This is why this issue has suddenly become the focus of public discussion.
Today, India is undergoing a digital revolution. Mobile phones and the internet have completely transformed the face of communication. Until a few years ago, call rates and data packs were expensive, but now, thanks to private telecom companies, communication services have become significantly cheaper. A monthly recharge of 300 to 400 rupees provides the average citizen with unlimited calls, data, and messaging. At this time, it’s natural to question why, when ordinary citizens can manage their communications with such a small amount, a separate allowance of thousands of rupees is necessary for public representatives.
Bihar’s decision has sparked widespread debate. The state has 243 MLAs. If each MLA is given a telephone allowance of ₹8,300 per month, the annual amount would reach crores of rupees. Critics say this money is public money and could be used for education, health, rural development, or other important areas. This is why many on social media are viewing it as an unnecessary expense or a political privilege.
However, there’s another side to this issue that can’t be ignored. The work of public representatives isn’t limited to the Assembly. They have to maintain constant contact with the people of their constituency. Listening to citizens’ problems, communicating with officials, providing information about government schemes, and participating in party events—all of these require constant communication. Often, an MLA has to make or receive hundreds of phone calls a day. Network problems in rural areas require carrying SIM cards from different companies. Furthermore, video conferencing, online meetings, and social media communication have become part of public representatives’ work.
Yet the real issue of debate isn’t just the amount, but transparency. Disputes are reduced if the use of an allowance is clearly documented and its accounting is made public. However, when an allowance is provided without a bill, it raises suspicions that the facility is becoming a source of additional income. This is why many experts believe that while providing a communication allowance isn’t wrong, its use needs to be transparent and accountable.
Telephone or communication allowances for MLAs vary across different states in India. For example, in Uttar Pradesh, MLAs receive a communication allowance of approximately ₹10,000. In a large and expensive state like Maharashtra, this amount can be even higher. Haryana, on the other hand, provides a relatively lower allowance. Kerala set an example by reducing its allowances after the COVID-19 pandemic. Meanwhile, in Delhi, communication and travel allowances are combined. These examples clearly demonstrate that there is no uniform policy across states, and each state makes decisions based on its own circumstances.
It’s also true that technology has made communication easier and cheaper over time. While long-distance calls used to be expensive, internet-based services have significantly reduced the cost of communication. WhatsApp calls, video meetings, and social media interactions are now commonplace. Therefore, many question whether the current allowance structure is still based on outdated needs.
Transparency and accountability are considered the most important principles in a democracy. The public elects its representatives so that they understand their problems and work towards solutions. Clear information about the benefits provided to public representatives strengthens public trust. However, when expenditure details are unclear, criticism is natural.
Experts suggest that certain improvements could be made to make this system more balanced. For example, bills or digital records could be made mandatory for telephone allowances. The government could provide official mobile connections, allowing direct control and monitoring of expenses. Furthermore, a maximum limit could be set for allowances to avoid unnecessary expenditure. Periodic audits and public reports could also make the process more transparent.
This issue isn’t just about a single allowance, but also about the very philosophy of governance. If governments and public representatives themselves promote transparency, public trust will be strengthened. On the other hand, if perks continue to increase while accountability diminishes, it could lead to a sense of distrust in democracy.
Ultimately, it’s important to understand that providing communication tools to public representatives isn’t wrong. In fact, it helps them fulfill their responsibilities. However, this facility must be designed to be both practical and accountable. As the country moves toward digital transparency, it’s time to move every aspect of government spending in the same direction.
This debate over telephone allowances leads us to a broader question—is our political system as accountable to the public as it should be? If this debate leads to steps toward transparency and reform, it will be a positive sign for democrac
