One of the much-debated subjects of late has been the ‘VIP culture’. From red beacons to in-your-face security, from renovation of bungalows in salubrious Lutyens’ Delhi to special treatment for the members of Parliament at airports, the angst and opposition voiced on these issues suggest that we, as a society, are against VIP culture.

The relevance of the debate, therefore, cannot be questioned. But what can be — and should be — questioned is: Are we addressing the disease or merely the symptoms?

Supreme Court verdict Take the case of red beacons: The Supreme Court recently ruled that only “high dignitaries” who hold a constitutional office or position could use red beacons. The SC judgment, however, did not elaborate on the clear or present necessity (that exists in case of the men in uniform, ambulance, fire brigade, etc.) which would justify use of beacons by the so-called high dignitaries.

The game-changing question raised in the case, which was left unanswered by the court, was “whether the entitlement of red beacons and similar symbols of authority is contrary to the basic feature of republicanism enshrined in our Constitution?” The question was not about who should be allowed to use red beacons but about why anybody should use it at all.

A facility, devoid of necessity, is a ‘privilege’ and the debate about VIP culture is essentially about privileges. Post SC decision, the privilege of red beacon has not ended; only the list of who will have that privilege has been slightly curtailed.

But isn’t it a flawed approach? A dignitary who is not on the list will ask: if others can have it, why can’t I? If only the Supreme Court had answered the larger question, the paradigm would have changed. Thankfully, a new SC bench has recently agreed to examine constitutional validity of the term “high dignitaries” (a creation of the Motor Vehicles Act which allows use of red beacons).

Another aspect, which is crucial to the debate, is about whom we are targeting. We always, rightly but not surprisingly, associate VIP culture with the political class. The VIP privileges that they enjoy and seek invoke within us a sense of outrage. But one can argue that our real grouse is against inefficiency and egregious corruption in the system. If the credibility of our politicians was not so low, perhaps there would not be such strong resentment against VIP culture. Therefore, the larger question is whether we are against VIP culture per se .

At the heart of VIP culture debate is ‘equality’. And by equality we mean not merely formal equality (of equality before the law and the equal protection of the laws). There is a moral facet to it as well. The argument, which has a moral force, is that in a democratic republic like ours, all citizens — rich or poor — ought to be treated alike, at least in certain respects.

Consider the most recent controversy about DGCA directing airline companies to extend certain ‘courtesies’ to MPs. Those against the move argued as to why our netas should be allowed any special treatment. The counterview was: there are people (frequent/premier class flyers) who do enjoy certain special treatment at airports. The rejoinder was — and this is important — that those who enjoy special treatment pay for it.

Culture of privileges Should ability to pay be the decisive factor? This ought to be the nub of our debate.

Legendary philosopher and Harvard professor Michael J Sandel has addressed this issue in his seminal work What Money Can’t Buy (the book is really about what money shouldn’t buy). Some of the issues discussed in the book squarely impinge on our VIP culture debate.

A brilliantly analysed topic in the book is about ‘jumping the queue’. By taking real life examples, Sandel makes a moving argument about how “the ethic of the queue — first come, first served — has an egalitarian appeal.” He bids us “to ignore privilege, power, and deep pockets — at least for certain purposes.”

So while an airport can have amenities and recreational facilities made available to those who can pay, for certain purposes an airport ought to be equal to all. For example, no one should be allowed to fast track through airport security. Security check at airports is a matter of national defence, not an amenity, and hence, all air travellers should be treated equally.

The ‘queue’ is just a symbol. Jumping the queue is symptomatic of a larger attitude problem — of ‘VIP mindset’. It is like this: no matter how important or rich you are, you cannot be allowed to buy a red beacon for your car, period.

We can extend the same logic to sale of “special number plates” for private vehicles and the “pay-and-join the VIP line” practice followed at some of our temples and other public places. These may appear trivial but they manifest the VIP mindset, which has pervaded our society.

Nobody likes to wait in the line. When you allow somebody, who can pay, to jump the queue, our MPs and MLAs, who are also ‘somebody’ in their own right, also want the same privilege. Since they cannot pay, they demand it. You can say that the politicians will demand VIP treatment regardless. But then that would be a more brazen ask which, hopefully, our politicians might eschew.

(The writer is an in-house lawyer with the Tata Group. The Views are personal

Related Topics