There was no public outcry, no media debate and no CBI probe. In fact, the matter should have come up before the Ethics Committee of the Rajya Sabha. But the committee preferred to look the other way even as the chief election commissioner drew attention to reports that some MLAs were "selling" their votes.

Now, MPs are not even accountable to the Lokpal, the highest body to check corruption at high places. They have refused to accept any agency outside the House and prefer to go to the Ethics Committee instead, which comprises MPs alone. I recall that during the meetings of the Joint Committee of Parliament on the Central Vigilance Commission Bill, no discussion was held on the conduct of MPs. The argument given was that they would be covered by the Lokpal Bill. It was agreed that this would be mentioned in the committee report. But when the draft report was prepared, even the word `politics' was kept out. As a Rajya Sabha member, I referred to this in my dissenting note.

For reasons still not known, the committee did not implement its earlier promise. By bringing the debate to a limp end, it lost the opportunity to play a historic role in curbing corruption. I stated in my dissenting note that "every politician in India pays lip-service to eradicating corruption. Every leader exhorts the citizens that he or she should carry out a campaign against corruption. By and large, politicians of the country are so enmeshed in corruption that the citizens cannot expect any response from people in power, whether in government or in opposition."

The matter does not end here. It will come up before the House where I expect some MPs to support me. The Joint Committee has done a disservice to MPs by not doing anything. In fact, it has encouraged dishonest bureaucrats by diluting the powers of the Central Vigilance Commission.

In the Jain Hawala Case, it was found that senior civil servants could not be arraigned because the government's prior sanction was needed. The sanction for their prosecution did not come from the secretariat for years. The Supreme Court cancelled what was called the single directive, the government's permission to investigate or prosecute any civil servant above the rank of a joint secretary. Strange, the Joint Committee has restored the government's authority. This means that a dishonest officer will once again be protected by the ministers who use him. The old equation will thus return.

The worst part of the Bill is that the CBI has again been entrusted with the investigation and prosecution of public servants. The agency has a dismal track record. It is too politicised and is run like any other government department. Although the Supreme Court said in the Jain Hawala Case that it found the CBI wanting in investigation and prosecution and commented adversely on its deleterious ways, the joint committee, where the BJP and the Congress constitute a majority, has opted for same old agency.

This is not a criticism of the CBI as a whole. Some of its officers have defied political bosses and burnt their fingers in the process. One CBI director got marching orders at the airport itself. In one case, a CBI officer was instructed by a Prime Minister on the phone not to interrogate a particular accused, who had personal relations with him. The CBI will be able to function with credibility only if it is released from the clutches of its political bosses. Then it can even prosecute MPs, who have been declared as public servants by the Supreme Court.

Ideally, there should be an independent agency, like the judiciary, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India and the Chief Election Commission, looking into the issue. This agency should be autonomous so that it is above the pressure of the executive and the bureaucracy. It should have constitutional status in the long run, and to begin with, can be given statutory status. The agency should be headed by a person of integrity and should have a fixed tenure.

The experiment of such an agency has been tried in Hong Kong and has yielded commendable results. The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) was established by Hong Kong in February 1974. The ICAC is independent of the police and the rest of the civil service. It has three departments, the Operations Department, which handles investigations and arrests; the Corruption Prevention Department, which studies and recommends improvements in the department, and the Community Relations Department, which educates the public. If constituted in India, the independent agency can serve both the Lokpal and the Central Vigilance Commission.

Bribery and corruption are not fringe issues but concern the vitals of our society. They must be dealt with openly and decisively by any nation which is democratic and determined to go ahead. In fact, I believe it is central to the issue of development and governance.