Research is a wonderful thing. It provides surprising insight into critical issues where our perceptions could be totally wrong.
One of the cries we hear regularly is the need for a minimum qualification for becoming a Member of Parliament. This is assuming that only an educationally qualified person is able to handle the onerous task of making the law. While this surmise can be questioned, it is to be noted that the assumption here is that our MPs are mostly uneducated. I did a quick reasearch on this and was surprised at the result of my study.
In the 14th Lok Sabha, whose term will end soon, ONLY 3% of the MPs have not completed 10th Standard. Only 24% of the MPs ARE NOT GRADUATES. This means 76% of the MPs are AT LEAST GRADUATES. 32% of the MPs are POST GRADUATES and hear this out, 4% of the MPs hold DOCTORAL DEGREES.
Having one of my myth shattered, I looked up to verify the other myth. That our MPs are old and there is not enough representation for the youth.
MPs in the Age Group of 25-40 were 6.3%. 41-55% were 33.5%. So cumulatively 39.4% of the MPs were less than 55 years old. Not bad. 56-70% constituted the bulk at 41.7% and those above 71 years of age were 11.7%. And please note that this data is at the end of the Lok Sabha's tenure, which means that the MPs were all a good 5 years younger when they got elected.
The last myth has got to do with MPs not attending the Lok Sabha regularly. The average attendence was around 75%. The best attendance profile, by age, in both the Houses of Parliament is in the age group 61-70 years. Young MPs (below 40 years age) have the lowest attendance in Lok Sabha, at 70%. So much for the youth. There is also a positive correlation between the educational qualification of the MP and his attendence. There is a rider in this analysis. An MP is deemed to have attended the Parliament if he comes to the house and signs the Register. This do not mean that he has participated in the proceedings.
Next time when we throw stones at our MPs, we might think twice before doing so
