If only the civil servants would see that their job is to be the servants of civil society and not the so very civil servants of these politicians; if only they would do no more than to refrain from assisting ministers in doing the wrong thing; if they would do no more than to refuse to step in to the office from which their service-mate has been thrown out for the wrong reason -- what a revolution they would work!

Indeed, I would put the requirement even lower. If only the civil servants were to once again recognise the power of their old instrument -- the file -- they would work a revolution as substantial as any court can. The self-image of the politician is by now so low, his self-confidence so shattered -- what with seeing his colleagues being trooped in and out of jails, it is if anything even lower that, were the civil servants to do no more than to record the truth on the file, if they would refuse just to append their signatures to false and evasive affidavits, the politician would be in dread of doing wrong. The file would be out one day, he would fear, the courts would summon it one day, he would fear, they would nail the lie in the affidavit one day, he would fear.

Is even this much too much to ask of our civil servants? There is no substitute for character, and as I mentioned the so- called penalties that one has to suffer in our country for standing by what is right are hardly penalties. The excuses which the civil servants therefore put out evoke little sympathy. But given the extent to which their standards and morale have fallen, they might as well as helped to stand up. That is why we should isolate the weapons which politicians use to browbeat the honest civil servants and snatch them out of their hands. These weapons are the Confidential Report and the transfer.

Today the career of a civil servant can be derailed by something some minister may write or get written on the former's CR. Even that would not happen if the person who heads the civil service in a state or at the centre -- the chief secretary and the Cabinet secretary respectively were doing his duty by his honest colleagues. That apart, why not adopt what is common practice in sound organisations? The assessment which a person writes about his subordinate is shown first to the subordinate. The subordinate writes his comments or explanations on the assessment. The original assessment and these reactions of the subordinate together go to the superior who then decides in the light of the two documents together. Even this little change would make for greater confidence among the honest civil servant. He would not live in dread of being hit down by some unseen, unknown hand.

Similarly, as has been urged time and again, posting to an assignment should be for a fixed tenure. Unless the officer proves himself to be manifestly incompetent for the job, he must not be shifted out of it till that term expires. Why should this principle not be recognised in law -- by the legislatures themselves, or, failing them, why should it not be enforced by the courts?

The other thing we should press for is to have all ambiguities removed from the laws relating to politicians who may be implicated in transactions of the kind that are now before the courts. At the height of the Bofors crisis the government of Rajiv Gandhi concluded that one way to show that it was honest was to come forward with proposals to tighten the Prevention of corruption Act! The Act was accordingly amended in 1988. P Chidambaram piloted the amendments through Parliament. I will recall just two points from the proceedings to illustrate the sorts of things that the present opportunities should be used to ensure.

Enumerating the virtues of the new proposals Chidambaram told the House, 'We have now made a specific provision that the trial of these cases shall be held on a day-to-day basis. To me the single factor which has come in the way of our fight against corruption is the delay. There is simply no purpose in trying to prosecute a person over a period of 20 years. Witnesses will die. Witnesses will forget what had happened. You cannot marshal the evidence. You cannot present a cogent case... But we want these cases to be tried on a day-to-day basis. It does not matter if a few people are acquitted. But what matters is that the guilty must be punished swiftly. I believe in swift and deterrent punishment. It is only swift and deterrent punishment which will clamp down corruption in this country. One of the measures that we are now proposing is that the trial shall be held on a day-to-day basis...'

Recall, first, that these pieties were being put out at the very time every device was being deployed by the very government which was putting these pieties out to stall and delay and kill the investigation into Bofors, into the HDW submarine, into the Airbus purchase etc.

Second, recall that the same party's government has continued all these years to ensure that those enquiries get nowhere near the point where the guilty would have to face that 'swift and deterrent punishment' which the minister said alone would clamp corruption.

Third, recall that even now that government is proceeding in the most selective way: have you heard it doing anything about the Rs 105 million that Rajiv Gandhi is said to have been paid by the same Jains, to say nothing of the Rs 35 million that the same Jains say they have paid to Narasimha Rao?

Fourth, do watch what happens in the trial that is commencing in the hawala case now: Watch who presses for a day-to-day trial, and who seeks adjournments; in particular watch what the department under the direct charge of the prime minister, the CBI does in this regard... It has begun in the predictable manner: it has been asking for time on the ground that the documents it has to file are lying with the Supreme Court! As if it did not know that it would need to submit these documents for the charges to be framed! As if it does not have photocopies of documents it has furnished to the Supreme Court!

The same debate on the amendment of the Prevention of Corruption Act illustrates the other features -- the elasticity of law and the handle this gives to governments of the day. A member of the Opposition -- E Ayyapu Reddy -- opposed the proposed amendments on the ground, among others, that the definition in them of a public servant was too wide. In particular he said that under the wording that was being proposed MLAs and MPs would also be reckoned as 'public servants' and would thereby fall within the purview of the Act.

Either because the government, beleaguered as it was, did not want to offend MPs or because it really did not want to being legislators under the Act, the minister gave an answer to the effect that as an MP, the MP is not a public servant. Unless he holds an office -- the chairmanship of a co-operative, say -- which itself is covered by the Act, or unless as an individual he 'abuses his position' an MP would not be reckoned as a public servant, and would therefore not fall within the purview of the Act.

Again several things stand out. First, there is a no reason why any doubt should be left at all about legislators being 'public servants'. A law passed by them which leaves them out is surely nothing but a self-serving law. But, second, that is how the law is at present -- excluding MPs on one reading, and on the other ambiguous at the least.

This is what leaves fatal discretion in the hands of organisations like the CBI, organisations that are only too ready to deploy that discretion for the convenience of the rulers. When they do not want to proceed against a person, they take shelter under statements such as the one Chidambaram, the minister concerned, made while piloting the Bill. When they are pressed to show activity, as they are in the present instance, they file the charges against all the sundry saying, 'Let the fellow seek relief from the courts.'

The moral is two fold. What happens in regard to individuals is one thing, and that is important -- for it is only if some are actually punished that the episode would become a deterrent. But just as important is what the parties pledge themselves to do in the future: which is the party that comes up with comprehensive proposals to do away with ambiguities of the sort that we have seen riddle the law today -- on election expenses, on the ambit of the laws dealing with corruption? Which is the party which will affect changes to enable the honest civil servant to do his duty? That is one thing we should look for between now and the elections.

But what is the use of obtaining promises if the persons the parties put up are the kind who care two hoots for promises? Therefore we should look for the party which changes the character of the candidates it fields, for the party which fields candidates who will actually bring about those changes in the laws, and even more important, who are such that, law or no law, they would conduct themselves honourably.

It is only when and if a party fields a different type of candidate in the elections that we should believe that it has actually learnt a lesson from the hawala revelations, only then should we believe that it is at last prepared to do right by the country.

And as we wait for that consumption, let us remember that this is just one diary of one accountant of one businessman operating in just one part of the country. The loot is everywhere -- the figures coming out in regard to the livestock operations of the government of Bihar, a government quite appropriately headed by a person who flaunts himself as the very special lover of and expert on livestock, those figures are more than ten times the moneys in the Jains's diary.

And it is this great product of the JP movement -- Laloo Yadav, the messiah of the poor -- who is adamant that he shall not allow the CBI to investigate the case, that the investigation shall be conducted by his government alone. Therefore instead of caviling about 'judicial activism', we should wish the judges God Speed.

Tell us what you think of this opinion