POLITICAL ­DONATIONS NOT MEANT FOR PERSONAL ­BENEFITS

The Aam Aadmi Party boss and the self-styled harbinger of new politics, Arvind Kejriwal, is still occupying the New Delhi flat he was allotted upon becoming the Delhi Chief Minister sometime late last year. As per the rules, he ought to have vacated that flat within 15 days of his ceasing to hold that office. Yes, he is paying Rs 80,000 per month as special rent for occupying that house beyond the permissible time limit.

So far so good. But notice the AAP boss' audacity. Asked why he had failed to vacate that house, he nonchalantly explained that he needed to retain that flat due to the school exams of his daughter. And that his "friends from the IIT" were paying the rent for the flat which was occupied by him.

Because he is Kejriwal, the seemingly incorruptible politician, we have two valid though relatively minor objections. One, almost all politicians advance one reason or the other to somehow retain highly subsidised government houses beyond the permissible time limit. This is also true of most civil servants. We expected that Kejriwal would set a better example. He did not.

Two, the official rent for government houses is way below the actual rent similarly located private property would fetch in the open market. Paying Rs 80,000 for a spacious, three-bedroom, ground floor flat with a large lawn, located a stone's throw away from India Gate, is a real steal. Tens of thousands of Delhiites would want to avail of that opportunity to rent that flat at that modest rent.

But the real reason why we have raked up the issue about Kejriwal's flat is his public admission that his well-wishers from the IIT, and not he himself, pay his rent. Even if his friends are impressed by his political mission, is he justified in accepting donations for personal well-being, as against for the benefit of the public organisation he heads? Merely because he is a politician does it become alright for him to accept handouts from his so-called friends and well-wishers? That is precisely how most politicians get corrupted?

Indeed, how, then, is Kejriwal different from, say, Mayawati who too had justified the hundreds of crores found in her possession to the Income Tax authorities by citing her unnamed fans and devotees? If Kejriwal can take money from his IIT friends to pay for the rent for the flat occupied by him, the BSP boss had claimed that the crores in her possession were "donations", all in small denominations of Rupees 10, 20, 50, etc., given by her followers who were impressed by her campaign to lift up the socially downtrodden.

Indeed, when the tax authorities questioned the transfer of a house in central Delhi to Mayawati, insisting that it was grossly undervalued, she again resorted to the same ploy. Apparently, the sellers, a lower-middle class Jain couple, were so taken up with her pro-Dalit crusade that they had virtually donated the only house they owned in all of Delhi to the BSP boss.

What are we driving at? That the use of political donations for personal benefit is a no-no, whatever good the recipient might be doing for the larger cause of society. That way lies personal corruption. Whether Kejriwal likes it or not, his first walking away without reimbursing nearly Rs 8 lakh to the government he was oath-bound to reimburse in case he quit service within three years of his return from a foreign study tour and, when compelled to do so, to make his "well-wishers" cough up that sum was a dishonest act.

Politicians do not have the licence to use other people's money for purely private ends. They must face the same hardships as ordinary people in all other walks of life do when their daughters need to sit for a board exam or when they are asked to respect a lawful contract and pay up. There is a lot of artifice about Kejriwal. He pretends to be saintly while all the time keeping his own self interest foremost in mind whether it is in money matters or in gathering the AAP pieces post-election. In sum, Kejriwal is wrong insofar as he encourages politicians to dip into public funds for private use.

TIME TO WITHDRAW GRACEFULLY

Quite clearly, in Indian politics nobody retires gracefully. Why doesn't the octogenarian L.K. Advani call it a day and contemplate life in the company of his near and dear ones? It is embarrassing to read about him not having a room of his own in Parliament House, not having a prominent seat in the Lok Sabha, not finding a suitable role in the Narendra Modi dispensation.

At the very least, Advani can put an end to the series of embarrassing reports by categorically stating that he is not hankering after any post, any position in the government. The fact is that at no stage was he considered for the Lok Sabha Speaker's post. No, not even for a moment. The speculation in the media was all the handiwork of his aides who were keen to find relevance yet again.

You have European kings and queens abdicating in favour of younger members, you have the extraordinary example of a Pope resigning for the very first time in living history, but no Indian politician seems ready to quit. That is sad. Advani cuts a sorry figure, desperately trying to remain relevant while his legion of admirers and well-wishers, including this columnist, would want him to retain dignity and grace and withdraw quietly from active politics.

THE TIMES ARE CHANGING

The saffronisation of Parliament is so thorough that in the Central Hall the only people most noticeable this past week were the first-time BJP MPs. Like curious children they were keen to acquaint themselves with their new surroundings, some so overwhelmed with emotion that they confessed that they had in fact never dreamed of making it to the sanctum sanctorum of Indian democracy.

But, then, when you have a Prime Minister who is a first-time MP, is it any surprise that more than 300-odd Lok Sabha members are first-timers? However, you have to give it to Narendra Modi for his self-confidence, his self-assuredness. He walked gingerly into the Central Hall, greeted a few members, calling some by their first names, spent some time with them before going back to his office.

This was in sharp contrast to the always hurried manner in which Sonia Gandhi or Rahul Gandhi would walk through the hall to rush to their offices without bothering to linger for a few moments to accept greetings of party members, who dutifully stood up like schoolchildren with hands folded and shoulders bent as if in prayer without either Gandhi batting an eyelid in acknowledgement. As Bob Dylan sang, "The times, they are a-changin'."