Yet, once in a while, a nation is rudely shaken by the disclosure of a scandal which it knew was there, but could not get hold of any details at that time.

A topmost retired official of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has provided flesh to the bones of the Jain hawala case in a book.

Ten billion rupees passed hands, and the people involved were the then prime minister P.V. Narasimha Rao, the then chairman of Steel Authority of India V. Krishnamurthi and the ineluctable Quattarocchi, an Italian national who was known for his contacts.

The Jain hawala scandal rocked the country in the nineties and engaged the attention of even the Supreme Court for more than two years.

The then chief justice of India, J.C. Verma, said that he was under pressure and threatened to speak out. But his threat turned out to be a whimper. The case ended tamely because the CBI became "inert" when it came to taking action against the powerful sections of the society.

It was proved once again, if any proof was required, that the CBI functioned like any other government department, to carry out executive commands rather than work impartially and fearlessly to uphold the law of the land. The truth about the Jain hawala scandal is stranger than fiction.

The case began with the arrest of Ashfaq Hussain, engaged in funding terrorists in Kashmir. He received money from abroad through the hawala, a private channel which foreign banks used.

While conducting raids on a hawala dealer at Delhi, the CBI came to seize some diaries. They contained the abbreviated names of serving and former ministers and bureaucrats.

The amount passed on to them was indicated against their abbreviated names. These were kickbacks the officials and the politicians holding high offices had received for favours shown to Jain in various projects and economic deals.

The case was registered against 115 people. J.K. Jain was the main culprit. He told the CBI about the mechanism: how he was managing sanctions of various projects at inflated rates and distributing money thus earned among the high-ups.

Quattarocchi worked at the highest political level -- that of the Prime Minister's Office as well as the prime minister.

During the interrogation, according to the top retired CBI official, Jain said that he had passed on Rs 3.35 crore to P.V. Narasimha Rao who took over as the Congress president after Rajiv Gandhi's assassination, and subsequently became the prime minister.

On the direction of Narasimha Rao, the money was moved to his account through Captain Satish Sharma, Chandraswami, etc.

A total of 10 percent was passed on as kickbacks. Jain got three percent and Quattarocchi seven. The latter was helped by the government, first to escape from India and then to get the kickbacks which the banks abroad had frozen at New Delhi's request.

The Supreme Court has caught up with the CBI and asked how Quattarocchi got the money. Krishnamurthi was the chairman of the Steel Authority at the time when Durgapur Steel Plant was being modernised at high cost.

A Russian firm gave a cheque of Rs 15 crore as kickbacks under the cover of payment for a consignment of some cast-iron equipment that was taken from India but shipped back in the form of components.

The firm inflated the cost of the consignment to be able to pay Rs 15 crore. But the whole transaction was all on paper. The top retired CBI official says that he wanted to "investigate Narasimha Rao, search if need be, and charge-sheet if the evidence so warranted."

The then CBI director not only stopped him from going ahead, but shunted him out of the agency. I corroborated the facts when I met the retired official. He is a forthright person who was transferred 23 times in twelve and a half years.

A few days ago, when the present CBI director told newsmen at Delhi how the agency had functioned successfully last year, he could not naturally talk about pressures.

But he was quite embarrassed when asked why the CBI was tardy in taking action against BSP leader Mayawati for the Taj Mahal corridor scam.

However, since his press conference, the CBI has filed a case, even though after the Supreme Court's admonition.

Again, the director had no cogent defence for not filing an appeal against the acquittal of former Bihar chief minister Lalu Prasad Yadav and his wife in the case of accumulating disproportionate wealth.

When needled, the director admitted that the central government would have to give permission for filing the appeal.

True, some CBI directors have been more loyal than the king. They did not want to take any action against people who were either in authority or had connections with those in authority.

For example, the retired CBI director K. Vijaya Rama Rao did not want to move against Naraismha Rao. The present director Vijay Shankar seems to be dragging his feet in the case of Lalu Yadav.

It is apparent that the Manmohan Singh government, which has the CBI under it, does not want to displease Mayawati and Lalu Yadav, the allies at the centre.

The Congress-led coalition needs to keep its brood together. It cannot afford to alienate any of its supporters.

Lalu Yadav's acquittal may still be challenged because the Bihar government, headed by Nitish Kumar his political rival, proposes to file an appeal. Still the National Human Rights Commission's suggestion to have the CBI on the Concurrent List has merit.

Federal crimes are increasing, and New Delhi is feeling helpless because the CBI needs the permission of the state concerned before instituting even an inquiry.

There is only one inference: the CBI should be made autonomous if it has to be effective. Even the proposal of supervision by the Vigilance Commission has been shot down.

By changing masters, the CBI could not become independent in its functioning. An important investigating machinery like the CBI has to be directly under parliament. Only then would it perform.

Whatever else is done will only be a palliative. The malady is too deep. As long as the chief ministers are the ones to decide who will be prosecuted by the CBI and when, corruption at high places will not go.

When the Administrative Reforms Commission appointed by the Manmohan Singh government says that the prime minister should not be brought under the ambit of Lokayukta (ombudsman), how does one deal with the corruption cases of prime ministers like Narasimha Rao?

Kuldip Nayar is an eminent Indian columnist