Transparency International, a Berlin based N.G.O. publishes every year Corruption Perceptions Index (C.P.I.) ranking countries from the least corrupt to the most corrupt : Denmark, Newzeland, Iceland and Singapore are the first five countries respectively, which are least corrupt countries. India ranks at serial No.73 out of 102 countries listed for the year-2002. The extorted table and paras are reproduced from the book "Corruption In India" By N. Vittal.

Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI)-2002* INDIA AT S.NO.73.

Ranking of countries from the `least corrupt' to the `most corrupt'
by Transparency International, berlin.

The Vice Chairman of Transparency International Tunku Abdul Aziz, On the launch of the Corruption Perceptions Index has rightly observed.

"Corruption Perception Index does the ranking of countries from the "least corrupt" to the "most corrupt". Finland with a score 9.7 out of 10 is the lease corrupt country and Bangladesh with a score of 1.2 is the most corrupt country out of 102 countries in corruption perception index of 2002. India with a score of 2.7 ranks 73rd in the list of 102 countries in the index.

Corruption is perceived to be rampant in Bangladesh, Indonesia, Kenya, Angola, Madagascar, Paraguay and Nigeria and these countries have a score of less than 2 out of 10. Countries with a score of more than 9 i.e., with very low levels of perceived corruption, are predominantly rich countries, namely Finland, Denmark, New Zealand, Iceland, Singapore and Sweden. It would be interesting to note the score of, say, 10 other countries : U.K. (8.7); USA (7.7); Germany (7.3); Japan (7.1); France (6.3); Italy (5.2); China (3.5); India (2.7); Russia (2.7); and Pakistan (2.6).

The Vice Chairman of Transparency International, Tunku Abdul Aziz, while speaking at the launch of the corruption perceptions index 2002, said : "The corruption perception index has once again confirmed that corruption is a malady afflicting not only the developing countries, but also the developed world. Developed countries have a special humanitarian responsibility, given the resources at their disposal, to investigate and prosecute the companies (within their jurisdictions) that are bribing. Their bribes and incentives to corrupt public officials and politicians are subverting the orderly development of poor nations, already trapped as they are, in a vicious circle of crippling poverty, hunger and disease.

"Corruption continues to deny the poor, the marginalised, and the least educated members of every society, the social, economic and political benefits that should properly accrue to them, benefits that are taken for granted in societies that have managed to shake off the yoke of corruption."

Shri N. Vittal has just retired from the Central Government Vigilence Commission, Government of India after completing his four years term and he has written one book "Corruption in India", by Shri N. Vittal, Published by Academic Foundation, New Delhi, and he has specifically dealt with the problem of corruption in chapter XII and suggested remedies for "Corruption free India", Is it a far fetched idea ? He has suggested number of suggestions in which one of the suggestions with regard to black money is on page 169, which is reproduced as under:-

"The main source of black money is evasion of Income-tax, Customs and Excise. So far as income tax is concerned, we should move over to a zero exemption, simplified flat tax rate system. Incomes up to Rs.2 lacs per annum should not be taxed. Any income above this limit should be uniformly taxed at a flat rate of 20 per cent whether assessees are individuals, HUF, Companies, Partnership or any other type. This removal of discretion in one stroke will eliminate the scope of corruption. Incidentally, this will also enhance the income to the government because at present government hardly realises 17 per cent as the effective rate for collection of income tax."

Shri N. Vittal and Shri Kelkar, in his report have rightly suggested to delete all exemptions and rebates, but suggested exemption limit of income tax at Rs. 2 lacs and 1 lac respectively.

The writer respectfully differs with above suggestions. Above high limits of exemptions of income tax are suggested as exemptions are to be abolished and high rate of tax suggested with initial high rate of tax at 20%.

We should learn the lessons form U.S.A. with regard to levy of income tax and increase in number of assessees in view of the following facts, in U.S.A. :-

1. Exemption limit is $ 7000/- per year so that a poor-man has to file the return even though poverty limit is about 17,000 $ per year. There are 13 crore assessees out of population of 23 crores of U.S.A. and out of total taxable income 92% of income tax is recovered and practically there is no Generation of Black money. There is practically no excise duty and service tax.

2. In India, we can achieve the same target of corruption free India, if 6 crore assessee are brought into tax net by taking following steps.

   • If every income is made taxable;

   • Exemption limit is Rs.60,000 per year;

   • Delete all standard deductions of employees & deduction & rebates and tax free income bonds and deduct 10% of tax on all perquisites and allowances.

   • Tax at low rate of 10%, 20% and 30%; and every interest income is entered in records of assessee of I. T. Department;

   • Target of Rs.1,50,000/- crore income tax can be recovered which is at present Rs.81,000 crore (actual) corporate + personal in year 2002-2003.

   • Give pension to an assessee on completion of 65 years as suggested in the Scheme of the book.

   • Introduce Part-IV and V of Income-tax Rules, 1976 where an assessee has to declare main expenses and assets.

We can achieve corruption free India, through the Provision of Income tax. The aim of corruption free India can be achieved provided the Prime Minister is determined to achieve the said objective. The conduct of Prime Minister is described in an article of Mr. T.C.A. Srinivasa Raghvan.

Mr. T.C.A. Srinivasa Raghvan has written an article on "Corruption and the Prime Ministers" which has been published in the `Business Standard' on 19/8/2002, which is reproduced here in order to emphasis that our leaders will have to overcome their weaknesses and lead the country so that every citizen can follow honestly and abide by the provisions of law. The above article "Corruption and Prime Ministers" is reproduced herewith :-

"In this season of political scams, here are some question to mull over.

Why do Indian Prime Ministers (and even deputy prime-ministers) always prefer to defend the rotten eggs in their midst ? Why do'not they, like their counterparts elsewhere in the world, sack first and.

The British do it, the Germans do it, the Americans do it, the French do it, the Australians do it. If distancing themselves from the sources of bad odour is rational for prime in these countries, why is it not rational here as well ?

Or is it that only inverted rationality makes most sense in the Indian context ? If so, is this a new development or has it always been the case ?

The said truth is that it has always been so. Although we like to bemoan the progressive decline in the standards of public life, the fact is that prime ministerial standards have never been very high when it comes to standing by the tainted.

The first time it happened was in the early 1960s. No less a Prime Minister than Jawaharlal Nehru chose to defend the Chief Minister of Punjab, Pratap Singh Kairon, who was accused of corruption.

There was not much doubt what had happened. But Nehru, in spite of his western values, refused to do what any Western Prime Minister would have done.

Instead, he defended Kairon. His image was for ever sullied, as was that of the Congress party.

The next big instance of this sort of prime ministerial "rationality" can be found in the mid-1970s. Indira Gandhi's minister for commerce, L. N. Mishra, was accused of corruption. But she defended him with all her might in Parliament, on the streets and in her own office. The consequences for her were the same as they had been for her father. A reputation permanently lost.

The same thing happended when Morarji Desai was the prime minister at the end of 1979. The only difference was that it was his son he stood by. But the incident cost him his reputation.

Then back came Indira Gandhi in 1980 and, in 1982, the Antulay scame came to light. Antulay was the Chief Minister of Maharashtra.

Mrs. Gandhi defended him at first. Indeed, left to herself, she would not have sacked him. But the evidence was too strong. Besides, she had learnt her lesson from the L.N.Mishra affairs.

By the mid 1980s it was only a matter of time when the prime minister himself would be accused of corruption. And sure enough, it happended.

In 1987 Rajiv Gandhi got embroiled in the Bofors affair. Obviously, there was no question of his sacking himself, but from then on prime ministers have never been regarded as well as they were before.

The Narasimha Rao regime will go down in the history of political corruption in India as the period when corruption was, as it were, decentralised. As a result, Mr. Rao was forced to defend - even if only through his silence - not one but several of his ministers.

Mr. Rao, in fact, set the style of his successors. He did so not just in the matter of decentralising corruption - that has become a necessary condition for prime ministerial survival - but also in the matter of maintaining a studied silence.

His good friend Atal Bihari Vajpayee has learnt the lesson well. As Tennyson may have written, there is corruption to the right of him and corruption to the left of him, but he rides on unfazed.

But if he thinks that the consequences for his reputation are going to be any different from what they were for his predecessors, he is hugely mistaken. Not for nothing is it said that a prime minister is known for the ministers he sacks.

Which brings me to the original question: why do Indian prime ministers behave like this? Don't they care about what posterity will say about them ?

Does not the fear of defeat in the Next general election worry them? Both Rajiv Gandhi and Narsimha Rao lost because of the corrupt image their governments had acquired.

Even following for the very real possibility that Mr. Vajpayee has no desire for a second innings, why is L. K. Advani not worried? Why does he think that he and the BJP can escape the inevitable ?

I can think of four possible reasons why prime ministers and would-be prime ministers defend the bad eggs. These reasons are not mutually exclusive.

First, Indian prime ministers are very loyal to their colleagues (Nehru and Kairon).

Second, these colleagues are very valuable to the party in the matter of raising money (Indira Gandhi and L.N.Mishra, Antulay).

Third, a dog with a bone in its mouth cannot bark. (Mr. Rao's attitude towards so many of his ministers).

Fourth, the prime minister is helpless. (Mr. Vajpayee and his ministers).

But whichever one explains it, the basic fact remains. India's prime ministers adopt a very different kind of rationality when it comes to dealing with ministerial corruption.

This is a huge problem because ultimately, it is the foundation on which ministerial corruption stands."