The following is a comparison of the rules regarding the transparency of MPs' private interests in India and South Africa. In India, conflict of interest amongst MPs has been debated extensively in the recent past. The primary check on preventing potential conflicts is that all MPs must declare their assets and liabilities to the concerned Speaker (Lok Sabha) or Chairman (Rajya Sabha). The Rajya Sabha Ethics Committee maintains a register of these interests (no such register exists for Lok Sabha MPs). Details in the Register of Members' Interests include: remunerative directorship, regular remunerated activity, shareholding of controlling nature, paid consultancy, and professional engagement. This material, however, is not put in the public domain. An interesting comparison is the Parliament of South Africa, where the Register of Members Interests' (consisting of MPs from both upper and lower house) is made public. Financial interests of MPs, remuneration from employment outside of Parliament, directorships, consultancies, property details, pensions, etc., are all made public (see latest register here).
Parliament voted on the Demands for Grants for the Ministry of Home Affairs on May 02, 2012. During the debate, MPs expressed concern over the status of police forces in different States of the country. They emphasised the need to augment the capability of police forces. Though ‘Police’ and ‘Public Order’ are State subjects, the union government provides assistance to States for strengthening their forces. For instance, the Ministry of Home Affairs has been implementing a non-plan scheme for ‘Modernization of Police Forces’ since 1969-70. Under the scheme assistance is provided in the form of grants-in-aid towards construction of secure police stations, outposts, for purchase of vehicles, equipment etc. (To know more about the scheme, see an earlier blog post on the issue.) At the all India level, the sanctioned strength of State Police equals 20.6 lakh personnel. Though there exist wide variations across States, at an average this amounts to 174 police personnel per lakh population. However, the actual ratio is much lower because of high vacancies in the police forces. At the aggregate level, 24% positions are vacant. The table below provides data on the strength of state police forces as in Jan, 2011
| State | Sanctioned strength | Sanctioned policemen/ lakh of population | Vacancy |
| Andhra Pradesh | 1,31,099 | 155 | 31% |
| Arunachal Pradesh | 11,955 | 966 | 42% |
| Assam | 62,149 | 200 | 12% |
| Bihar | 85,939 | 88 | 27% |
| Chhattisgarh | 50,869 | 207 | 18% |
| Goa | 6,108 | 348 | 16% |
| Gujarat | 87,877 | 151 | 27% |
| Haryana | 61,307 | 248 | 28% |
| Himachal Pradesh | 17,187 | 256 | 22% |
| Jammu & Kashmir | 77,464 | 575 | 6% |
| Jharkhand | 73,005 | 235 | 30% |
| Karnataka | 91,256 | 155 | 10% |
| Kerala | 49,394 | 141 | 7% |
| Madhya Pradesh | 83,524 | 115 | 9% |
| Maharashtra | 1,53,148 | 139 | 10% |
| Manipur | 31,081 | 1,147 | 26% |
| Meghalaya | 12,268 | 469 | 17% |
| Mizoram | 11,246 | 1,112 | 6% |
| Nagaland | 24,226 | 1,073 | 0% |
| Orissa | 53,291 | 130 | 18% |
| Punjab | 79,565 | 291 | 14% |
| Rajasthan | 79,554 | 118 | 11% |
| Sikkim | 5,421 | 886 | 27% |
| Tamil Nadu | 1,20,441 | 178 | 15% |
| Tripura | 44,310 | 1,224 | 17% |
| Uttar Pradesh | 3,68,260 | 184 | 59% |
| Uttarakhand | 20,775 | 211 | 24% |
| West Bengal | 72,998 | 81 | 18% |
| A&N Islands | 4,417 | 1,018 | 22% |
| Chandigarh | 7,873 | 695 | 22% |
| D&N Haveli | 325 | 114 | 13% |
| Daman & Diu | 281 | 140 | 6% |
| Delhi | 81,467 | 441 | 1% |
| Lakshadweep | 349 | 478 | 36% |
| Puducherry | 3,941 | 352 | 25% |
| All India | 20,64,370 | 174 | 24% |
Source: Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 90, 13th March, 2012 and Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 1042, March 20, 2012
