India Minus Politics: Corruption on the Holy Land

Understanding the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI)

The Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) is an annual ranking of countries by perceived public sector corruption. It is published by Transparency International (TI), a non-governmental organization, and has been released since 1995. Each country receives a score from 0 (highly corrupt) to 100 (very clean) based on expert and business surveys of corruption in the public sector. The CPI is the most widely used global measure of corruption, highlighting governance quality and transparency. Higher scores indicate cleaner public sectors. The 2024 CPI (published Feb 2025) covers the period May 2023–April 2024.

How the CPI is Calculated

TI’s CPI combines multiple sources (usually around a dozen surveys) that assess corruption, bribery, and misuse of public office. Data from institutions like the World Bank, African Development Bank, and Economist Intelligence Unit are aggregated. Scores are then standardized on the 0–100 scale. The CPI does not measure actual corruption but perceptions; TI notes it is best used to observe long-term trends. In 2024, 180 countries were ranked globally. (For context, nearly two-thirds of countries score below 50, showing corruption is a persistent problem worldwide.)

India’s CPI Ranking and Score Over Time

India’s CPI score has hovered in the 30s and 40s in recent years, indicating a moderately high level of perceived corruption. Notable yearly data include:

• 2019: Score 41 (out of 100), Rank 80 out of 180.
• 2020: Score 40, Rank 86.
• 2022: Score 40 (rank ~85, unchanged).
• 2023: Score 39, Rank 93.
• 2024: Score 38, Rank 96.

Over the last five years, India’s score slipped from 41 to 38. This reflects a slight decline in perceived integrity. For example, India’s rank fell from 80th (2019) to 96th (2024). Transparency International noted that “India’s overall score dropped a point to 38” in 2024. The trend shows stagnation or deterioration: after hovering at 40 (2020–2022), the score edged down to 38 by 2024. These data underscore that corruption remains a significant concern. (For comparison, the global average CPI score is around 43, and more than two-thirds of countries score below 50.)

Comparative Analysis: India vs Other Countries

• Top-ranked (least corrupt) countries: Nations with the highest CPI scores are typically Nordic and Anglosphere democracies. For example, Denmark (90 in 2024), Finland (88), and New Zealand (83) top the list. These countries consistently score above 80, reflecting very low perceived corruption.
• Lowest-ranked (most corrupt) countries: At the other extreme, South Sudan (score ~8), Somalia (~9), and Venezuela (~10) occupy the bottom ranks. These very low scores show pervasive corruption in public life.
• Large democracies: Among major democracies, India’s score of 38 (2024) is much lower. For instance, USA scored 65 in 2024, indicating relatively low corruption. Brazil scores around 34, similar to India, while Indonesia scores about 37. In other words, India’s CPI is comparable to Brazil and Indonesia but far behind countries like the US or Western Europe.
• Regional peers: India’s neighbors also vary. (By contrast, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh generally rank below India, around 30s in score.) For example, Pakistan and Bangladesh often score in the high 20s to mid-30s. China scored about 45 recently, better than India but still showing corruption issues.

This comparative overview shows that India is neither among the “cleanest” nor the “dirtiest” nations. It falls in the lower half of the global rankings, lagging behind advanced economies and matching many emerging democracies.

Impact of Corruption on Key Sectors

Corruption affects many areas of society. Its consequences include:

• Public trust and governance: Corruption “undermines trust, fairness, and the rule of law,” creating serious economic and social consequences. When public officials misuse power, citizens lose faith in institutions. Transparency International notes that corruption leads to erosion of trust and accountability.
• Economy and business: Bribes and graft introduce inefficiency and unfairness. Corruption imposes extra costs on businesses and distorts competition. For example, companies may need to pay kickbacks for permits or contracts, raising prices and deterring investment. Economists note that widespread corruption “lead[s] to significant harm, including ... economic inefficiency, [and] distorted competition”. In India, corruption in sectors like mining and real estate can discourage honest entrepreneurs and reduce growth.
• Infrastructure projects: Corruption in infrastructure (roads, utilities, airports) often causes cost overruns and poor workmanship. When contractors bribe officials, projects may be awarded to the lowest-qualified bidder, leading to delays and subpar quality. Funds meant for public works can be siphoned off, meaning fewer and worse roads, bridges, and power plants for the public.
• Education: Graft can compromise the education system. Bribes for college admissions, embezzlement of school funds, and teacher absenteeism weaken educational quality. Students from poor backgrounds suffer when corruption in scholarship programs or exam systems persists. Overall, corruption in education perpetuates inequality and erodes the system’s integrity.
• Public services: Corruption in day-to-day services (police, healthcare, utilities) forces ordinary citizens to pay bribes. For instance, people may pay under-the-table fees to access hospitals or government offices. This means that access to basic needs depends not on official rules but on who can pay, which undermines social trust.
• Environment and climate action: (Not specific to India but globally noted) funds meant for climate or public health can be stolen, as TI reported. Misuse of environmental funds is also a concern, showing how corruption cuts across sectors.

Overall, corruption makes government and economy less effective. As Arctic Intelligence observes, both bribery and corruption "lead to erosion of public trust, economic inefficiency, distorted competition, and social injustice". In each sector, the presence of graft means that resources don’t serve their intended public purpose, whether it’s a power plant, a school, or a business license.

A 'Minus Politics' Perspective on India’s Governance

Taking a politically-neutral view (“India Minus Politics”) means focusing on systemic solutions rather than partisan blame. In this perspective, one imagines governance by clear rules and impartial institutions. Key ideas include:

• Strengthened Institutions: Emphasize independent anti-corruption agencies and judiciary. If agencies like the Lokpal (anti-graft ombudsman) and Election Commission operate without political interference, enforcement of laws could improve. Career civil servants would be appointed and evaluated on merit, not politics.
• Transparency and E-governance: Expand digital delivery of services (online tax filing, public procurement, land records) to reduce human discretion where bribes can occur. For example, India’s push for digital payments and Aadhar-based schemes aims to cut out cash transactions, which helps limit petty corruption.
• Whistleblower and Civil Society Engagement: Protect and encourage whistleblowers and investigative media. Civil society organizations can monitor projects and expose wrongdoing. Non-partisan civic platforms (like RTI disclosures) can put more information in the public domain.
• Rule-based Enforcement: Focus on consistent enforcement of anti-corruption laws (like the Prevention of Corruption Act) regardless of which party is in power. A neutral approach would publish regular audits of government spending and prosecute violations openly.
• Public Education: Promote ethics and integrity through education. If ordinary citizens and public servants see corruption as socially unacceptable, cultural change can reduce demand for bribes.

In a “minus politics” scenario, India’s CPI could improve over time if reforms are sustained beyond electoral cycles. Rather than claiming credit or blaming rivals, leaders would measure progress by transparency metrics (like the Open Budget Index, e-governance rankings, etc.). Ultimately, higher CPI scores come from lasting institutional strength.

While such a vision is aspirational, focusing on these governance best-practices aligns with global anti-corruption recommendations. In sum, an impartial governance model would treat corruption as a technical and ethical problem to solve through systemic checks (not as a political weapon). Achieving that would require bipartisan commitment to reform – for example, consistent digitization of services, independent oversight of government contracts, and empowerment of courts and auditors. Over time, this could help raise India’s CPI by reducing the discretionary power that enables graft.

Sources: Authoritative data and analysis from Transparency International and credible news reports were used. The figures above are from TI’s CPI reports and major news outlets. The sectoral impacts reflect well-documented consequences of corruption.