The US Senate Intelligence Committee report makes startling reading. Committee Chairman Pat Roberts stated that a number of pre-war assessments of Iraq’s military threat were unsupported by intelligence, and the intelligence information on whose basis Iraq was invaded ‘‘was flawed’’. The panel’s ranking Democrat, Senator Jay Rockefeller, was scathing in his criticism. ‘‘We in Congress would not have authorised that war (in Iraq) if we knew what we know now. We went to war in Iraq based on false claims.’’ Apparently an assessment of the White House role is not expected until after the November Presidential election. So much for the Bush administration. The report of the panel headed by Lord Butler is also critical of the Blair government in some respects. It points out that key claims based on reports from agents in Iraq, including those that Iraq had produced biological agents, had to be withdrawn because they were unreliable. According to the Butler Report, Iraq ‘‘did not have significant, if any, stocks of chemical or biological weapons in a state fit for deployment or developed plans for using them’’. Yet, it curiously observes that it would be rash to conclude that there were no weapons of mass destruction. The report further softens its findings by concluding that there was no evidence of deliberate distortion of intelligence or culpable negligence. Small comfort indeed. Nonetheless it emerges from these reports that a sovereign nation was invaded, not for removing its despicable dictator Saddam Hussain, but on the pretext of the threat of imminent use of weapons of mass destruction, which is found to be false. Thus a horrendous hoax was perpetrated on the international community, apart from plunging Iraq into chaos and anarchy, causing incalculable destruction and harm to the Iraqi people. Is there no effective mechanism for enforcing accountability of Heads of State for such actions? If there is none, or it is inadequate, one should be promptly devised to deter potential perpetrators of similar transgressions. Budget musingsI am not an expert on income tax. To me the Indian Income Tax Act is a most tortuous and complicated piece of legislation running into numerous sections, some of which exhaust the alphabets like Sections 80VVA; 115BBB; 269UP. I am not competent to analyse and pronounce judgement on the Budget which, barring some provisions, appears to be well thought out and balanced. The disappointment was because the small mercies I was expecting are missing. The first was the abolition of the obnoxious TDS, which is a time-consuming taxing exercise without any real or substantial benefits to the revenue. Another expectation was the removal of the provisions whereunder an assessee has to pay interest at 9 per cent on the shortfall of the amount paid as advance tax and the amount actually assessed, whereas in a case where the assessee has paid excess amount by way of advance tax, the Revenue has to repay the excess with interest at the rate of only 6 per cent. This is unfair and discriminatory. Claiming deductions as items of expenditure is a headache to honest professional taxpayers who are particular about not claiming expenses which are personal and do not relate to the practice of profession. A lot of hair-splitting is involved in this exercise. One hoped that this botheration would be removed by enacting a flat rate of deductible expenses depending on the quantum of income. For example, by providing that professionals whose yearly income is Rs 10 lakh and over are entitled to deduction of say 10 per cent from their professional income. The rate of deduction may vary with the quantum of income. In actual working, this may turn out to be beneficial to the assessee or to the revenue as the case may be. But a lot of hassles can be avoided. It has become a fashion for persons rolling in wealth to spend enormous amounts on weddings and other social functions. Do they realise the resentment and bitterness this obscene expenditure causes in the minds of the majority of our people who are struggling to make both ends meet? No wonder there are Naxalites in our country. It is not suggested that invitees at such functions should be treated only to tea, coffee and icecream. But lavish and ostentatious expenditure deserves to be curbed by imposing an expenditure tax. If persons can afford to spend lakhs on such occasions, they should not mind paying a reasonable amount by way of expenditure tax, the proceeds of which may be earmarked for some specific project like slum clearance and development, combating AIDS or the like. We often swear by social justice and solemnly promise removal of the vast disparities in wealth and income. It is time we practise what we preach. An expenditure tax would be a step in the right direction.
