Volcker & Bofors - Congress Party involvement

11-21-2005, 08:00 AM

Cong opposed discussing Mitrokhin papers issueQUOTEThey said Congress' objections to a discussion on the Mitrokhin issue was that since Mitrokhin papers were published in the form of a "fiction" and the House cannot discuss a "fiction."

The NDA had already indicated that it would be aggressive on the Mitrokhin issue and was determined to rake up the issue of Volcker Committee report seeking to put the government on the mat.

Congress leaders, said the sources, also said Home Minister Shivraj Patil would make a statement in Parliament on Diwali-eve Delhi serial blasts, naxal attacks on Jehanabad jail and police barracks and terrorist activities in Jammu and Kashmir in a bid to address the concerns of the opposition over law and order in the country.

Please don't discuss our corrupt behavior/ legacy.

11-28-2005, 06:17 AM

Volcker deals the blow, friends in solidarity show

RAVINDRA KUMAR
It is easy to see why the Congress has decided to rally round in support of External Affairs Minister K Natwar Singh, after he was named as a non-contractual beneficiary by an independent inquiry report commissioned by the United Nations on Iraqâs oil-for-food programme under Saddam Hussein. The party has no option; it has itself been named as a non-contractual beneficiary.

It is just as easy to see why the Communists are so supportive of a minister they accused not so long ago of selling out national interests. Scrutiny of the report shows that among the non-contractual beneficiaries of the programme are such fraternal cousins of our comrades as the Communist parties of Belarus, Romania, Russia, Slovakia and Ukraine, and the Socialist parties of Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Ukraine.

Also named is that darling of Western communists, George Galloway, a man whose election to the House of Commons was secured on the basis of Asian (Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Indian) votes mobilised by Left sympathisers.

The documentation is detailed, and the list of beneficiaries reads like a Whoâs Who of international politics and business. It includes such luminaries as Megawati Soekarnoputri of Indonesia, Abdullah Badawi of Malaysia, Vladimir Zhirinovsky of Russia, French politician Charles Pasqua, the president of Lombardy in Italy, Roberto Formigoni,(Note from the poster:Friend of Sonia Manio) the son of the Lebanese president and the children of the Congolese president among others. The Government of Pakistan is listed as a non-contractual beneficiary, so are the Palestine National Front and our own Reliance Petroleum.
The governmentâs response to the disclosures has not been very convincing. To suggest, as a Left-friendly news channel attempted to do, that back-channel diplomacy would be resorted to in a bid to uncover the facts is disingenuous. The Volcker report is based on records collected from Saddam Husseinâs State Oil Marketing Organisation and the Ministry of Oil. The committee does not claim to have created the documents; it has collated them.
For the Congress to threaten to send legal notices to the United Nations and members of the committee is frankly infantile; somehow the chances of Kofi Annan and Paul Volcker losing sleep over the prospect of appearing in the Patiala House courts to answer charges of defamation seem remote. Other countries and political entities caught unawares by this whirlwind are at least attempting serious inquiry. The Congress-Left combine appears to be flat-footed, and except for blanket condemnation of the report as an American plot to discredit those who opposed Washingtonâs Iraq misadventure, has not offered a viable defence.
Even the threat of legal action against the United Nations is ill-conceived. The Independent Inquiry Committee headed by Mr Volcker is not a part of the United Nations, or a UN office. The committee was appointed by Secretary-General Kofi Annan as an independent body to investigate allegations of corruption in the Oil-for-Food programme. The UN Security Council (through resolution 1538/2004) unanimously welcomed the appointment of the Committee and called on the Coalition Authority in Iraq and all member states to cooperate fully with the inquiry.
There are specific aspects of the disclosures that need probe. As a major political party has been named as a beneficiary, the least we ought to expect is that its president, Mrs Sonia Gandhi, offer to open up financial records for scrutiny. After all, if wrongdoing is established, it is the partyâs president and treasurer at the time who must have been responsible.
Mr Natwar Singh is shown as a non-contractual beneficiary in an allotment of two million barrels of oil to a privately owned oil company, Masefield AG, with headquarters in Zug, Switzerland. It should be possible to establish if there is indeed a link between the company and either Mr Singh or members of his family.
The other aspect that needs to be considered by the Congress before it gets all hot and bothered is to consider the sources of information cited in the UN report, especially with regard to the tables listing the various beneficiaries.
According to the report, the information is based on (a) documents and records maintained by the United Nations, specifically the Office for Iraq Programme; (b) Records of the Government of Iraq, including ledgers of oil surcharge payments, lists of allocation, letters from SOMO to the Ministry of Oil, and records from Iraqi embassies in various countries; Â© Records from various financial institutions, and (d) Records provided by various entities involved in the purchase of oil from Iraq.
Non-contractual payments, where the Congress party and Mr Singh feature, are covered in Table 3 of the report. These beneficiaries are described as parties that did not execute contracts for oil, but sold the rights to others. The information contained in Table 3 is based on records of the Iraqi Ministry of Oil.
Available facts can be studied quite easily. They have been put on the inquiry committeeâs website âhttp://www.iic-offp.org â and are accessible. Responses to these revelations must be measured, not hysterical. After all, it wasnât so long ago that another source â the Mitrokhin archives â told us just how grubby our politicians are. This newspaper had cautioned then that man-eaters donât easily turn vegetarian. We owe it to ourselves to get to the bottom of this matter.

11-28-2005, 06:26 AM

A letter by a reader to Mumbai Central

By N.Krishna

To,
The Editor
Sir,

SADDAM OIL BRIBE PROBE IS ON AND CONGRESS PARTY SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED BY CBI

The United Nations oil-for-food programme in Iraq is being investigated to name more than 200 people, including British and European politicians, senior UN officials and our Indian Congress Party, who collected the bribe from Saddam Hussein. Last week the US General Accounting Office, estimated that Saddam acquired $10.1 billion in illegal revenues from oil which was used to fund many of the kickbacks most of which was earned under oil-for-food programme. UN received fee of well over $1 billion to administer the oil-for-food programme that was set up in 1995. This allowed the Iraqis to sell oil worth more than $US47 billion in return for food and other essential humanitarian supplies.

UN officials have revealed internal documents showing they knew of the problem of oil bribes as early as 2000. The full story came out only after the war, when Iraqi officials revealed that the 10 per cent kickback was applied to almost all supply contracts under the oil-for-food programme from the second half of 2000 The probe is being conducted by the accountants KPMG and the law firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer on behalf of the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC). The KPMG team previously traced assets seized by the Nazis during the Holocaust. . The investigation into the scandal is being overseen by Claude Hankes Drielsma, a former chairman of the management committee of Price Waterhouse who is now advising the IGC.

KPMG is also investigating allegations that bribes were paid to UN staff and that food unfit for human consumption was traded for oil. The team is trawling through documents held in several Iraqi government departments, including the oil ministry in Baghdad. The documentation is said to have been meticulously kept, countersigned and often copied to several departments. Investigators are interviewing the Iraqi civil servants who apparently signed and compiled the documents to verify their authenticity. KPMG, and the IGC, are confident that the documentation is authentic and reliable. They are determined to name the people who were allegedly allocated oil. The investigation will trace what happened to the allocated oil, where and if it was sold, how much money was made and by whom. Freshfields, a leading international law firm, has been employed by the IGC to find ways to recover the bribes and profits improperly made from the oil sales. Documents indicate that Benon Sevan, director of the UN's humanitarian programme in Iraq, was allocated 14.2m barrels of oil, of which 7.291m were disbursed. It is understood that the oil was sold through a Panama-based company run by distant relatives of Boutros Boutros-Ghali, a former UN secretary-general.

Tens of billions of dollars were distributed improperly under the auspices of the aid programme. The publication of the report, will be by May 2004 and will identify publicly everybody who collected the bribe. Iraqi documents scrutinized by the investigators suggest that millions of barrels of oil were given as bribes for supporting Saddam and his regime. Those who are expected to be named in this oil bribe, include the head of the UN's oil-for-food programme, Patrick Maugein, a French businessman who is said to be close to the president, Charles Pasqua, a former French minister, the Russian Communist party and the Russian Orthodox church, the PLO, an Asian president, many Middle East politicians, and even the Indian Congress party.

For the first time in the history of Independent India a national political party had sold itself to a foreign government so openly and so cheaply. What Sonia Gandhi's congress party did in return for the 40 lakh barrels of oil bribe from Saddam Hussein? The Indian public has a right to know. With this enquiry Sonia Gandhi will be a wanted criminal. Indias Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) should investigate this criminal act that lowered the dignity of our nation and book all those congress politicians involved

Portions of the List of Recipients of the Saddam Oil Vouchers is given below. All names on the list were transliterated from the Arabic. The oil vouchers holder would normally tender the voucher to any one of the specialized companies operating in the United Arab Emirates for a commission which ranged from $0.05 to $0.30 per barrel, based on the market price.

----------SNIP---------
Bangladesh
1. Maulana Abd Al-Manan
43.2 million barrels of oil

......SNIP............
India
1. Biham Singh
5.5 million barrels of oil
2. Indian Congress Party
4 million barrels of oil

......SNIP.........
Italy
1. Roberto Formigoni
24.5 million barrels of oil
2. Salvatore Nicotra
20 million barrels of oil
3. Mr. Feloni
6.5 million barrels of oil
4. Father Benjamin
4.5 million barrels of oil

......SNIP......
References:-

http://web2.infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/inf...14722526&bkm_4_

Sunday Times (London, England), March 28, 2004 p12
UN chiefs probed in giant Iraq oil scam Byline: Robert Winnett

http://web2.infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/inf...CJ114681420.....

The Australian (Sydney, Australia), March 29, 2004 p013 `Massive scam' in Iraqi oil program. (World) Byline: Robert Winnet

http://web2.infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/inf...4613923&bkm_10_

The Financial Times, March 26, 2004 p9 Byline: MARK TURNER

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=arc...a=ia&ID=IA16404

Inquiry and Analysis Series - No. 164 February 20, 2004 - The Saddam Oil Vouchers Affair-By Dr. Nimrod Raphaeli*.

11-29-2005, 12:37 AM

QUOTEAfter Natwar who? Seven more Congressmen
Vijay Simha
Tehelka
November 19, 2005
Introduction: Several leaders of the Congress and other parties may have explaining to do if the probe catches up with them
Congress leaders other than former external affairs minister Natwar Singh and his son could be involved in the Iraq oil-for-food scam. Big or small, the role of many partymen is being looked at again in light of the Volcker report that listed the Congress party as one of the beneficiaries.

Party circles are afraid that this could be another Bofors in the making, and very little is being taken for granted. Speculation in circles considered close to 10 Janpath is that the image of Congress president Sonia Gandhi may be seriously hurt if things get out of hand.

"The damage could be more than just emotional if we are not careful," said a member of the Congress Working Committee, who is also among the core party group entrusted with looking at the Volcker report and its fallout for the party.

Among the people whose Iraq connecÂtions are being looked at anew are:
1) a chief minister of a northern state known to be close to Natwar Singh,
2) a union minisÂter of state with independent charge,
3) an AICC secretary,
4) a high-profile member of the Rajya Sabha who is considered close to lo Janpath,
5) a former union minister and current PCC president of a northern state,
6) a former general secretary of the Rajasthan Youth Congress unit, and
7) a young Haryana Cabinet minister.

Apart from these, the role of at least two businessmen, one of whom was arrested in a bribery case in the past, is being looked at.

The chief minister, for example, is susÂpect because of alleged proximity to people involved in money laundering in the oil-for Âfood scandal. The union minister is alleged to have spent four weeks in Iraq as Saddam Hussein's guest. This minister was one of the AICC secretaries at that time, and the questions being asked are if he had clearÂance from Sonia and Natwar as well in his capacity as head of the Congress External Affairs Cell. It is mandatory Congress procedure for AICC office-bearers to seek clearance from the party president for a foreign tour.

The crucial query aimed at this minister is whether he went to Iraq to confirm to Saddam Hussein that the Congress party had endorsed the allotment of oil coupons to Natwar and his family, as well as the Congress party. This minister was associatÂed with youth organisations and was also head of the Indo-Iraqi Youth Friendship Society, whose existence today is in doubt. Some Congress leaders suggest the Society may have been a front even when the minister was involved.

The AICC secretary was closely associated with Natwar's son Jagat Singh when he was in the Youth Congress. This secretary was also involved in naming a controversial youth leader as one of the Raiasthan Youth Congress office-bearers. Indian and American intelligence agencies were interÂested in the office-bearer, and the AICC secÂretary's role in all this is being scrutinised.

The Rajya Sabha member had apparently introduced the controversial Rajasthan Youth Congress leaders to several seniors both in and outside the party. This Rajya Sabha member is also said to have travelled to Iraq in the company of the PCC president and the Rajasthan Youth Congress leader. The Rajasthan leader is probably one of the leadÂing lights of Hamdan Export, one of the Firms in the centre of the oil-for-food scandal.

The Rajya Sabha member is believed to have brought Jagat and the Rajasthan youth leader together. He is also believed to have a hand in the awarding of a contract to fabricate 75,000 gas cylinders in 2004 to the Rajasthan Youth Congressman. The businessman arrested in the past is underÂstood to have opened an office in Jordan, and also made the Youth Congressman a director in the board of that company. The Rajya Sabha member is believed to have facilitated this.

The PCC president is said to have written to senior diplomats in India and Iraq highÂlighting the business credentials of the Youth Congressman. With such backing it became easy for the Youth Congressman to get around. His role is seen as big in the scam that has hit Natwar and Jagat. This person is believed to have travelled to Iraq with Natwar and Jagat, and was also conÂsidered close to Saddam.

The Haryana minister allowed Jagat to travel to Iraq when he was in the Youth Congress. The questions asked of this Haryana minister is whether he had the clearance from Sonia before he allowed Jagat to tour. This minister is also being asked if he allowed other Youth Congress office-bearers to tour Iraq.

With such names being drawn into the affair that is getting murkier by the day, the Congress leadership is worried that the party's stock might take a beating. All this may have prompted swift action on Natwar, at least in the circles opposed to him in the Congress. However, it isn't just the Congress that has problems with Iraq.

The oil-for-food scam took place when the NDA government headed by Atal Behari Vajpayee was in power. NDA convener George Fernandes' proximity with Iraq, and the trips made by Vijay Goel, then minister in the PMO, are being mentioned. Should the Congress unearth something here, the battle between the Congress and the BJP might be closer than what it appears now with the BJP looking for the moral edge in the Iraq issue.

In this backdrop, Natwar may just be the first to go and not the only one. According to sources close to him, Natwar made a few mistakes. First, he thought his royal backÂground might help. Second, he overestimatÂed his proximity to Sonia. Third, he underÂestimated the moral indignation on the issue. Fourth, he minimised the ill-will genÂerated by Jagat's doings. Fifth, he thought he could take on Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, with whom he has been having problems over foreign policy. Sixth, he rushed to the Left to save his job thus sugÂgesting he didn't totally trust senior Congress colleagues.

That was heavy baggage. Sonia, in particular, was fuming. Natwar was one of the few Congress leaders with whom she would dine. Natwar was on first-name basis with Sonia, some leaders suggest. She didn't expect Natwar to be even remotely involved with a scam in Iraq. "Sonia's sense of righteousness was aroused. So she did, something she didn't even in the case of absconding ministers - she told Manmohan to get rid of Natwar," a senior Union minister said.

Natwar got wind of this and went balÂlistic. He named four people as the ones plotting against him - Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee, AICC general secretary Ambika Soni, Petroleum Minister Mani Shankar Aiyar, and Raiya Sabha member Jairam Ramesh. Mukherjee and Soni are apparently fighting for the same space around Sonia that Natwar was. Aiyar has in the past ribbed Natwar, famously on one occasion in St Stephen's the college where both studied.

Apparently Natwar wrote in the St Stephen's visitor's book that he was what he was because of his alma mater. Aiyar saw this and scribbled 'why blame the co liege'. This may have upset Natwar, some Congressmen say. With Jairam Ramesh, the problem is of a different nature. Apparently Ramesh and Aneil Mathrani, Natwar's OSD, don't get along. Sources say Ramesh spread the word that the Indian government recalled Mathrani from his post in Zagreb as Ambassador to Croatia. Natwar and Mathrani didn't like it.

Even if the four people named had ganged up, it wouldn't have hurt him much. What made the difference was Natwar's rushing to the Left, and voicÂing opinions on the foreign policy, mainly Iran, contrary to the Pm's posiÂtion. It made things difficult for Manmohan when Natwar said India should reverse its stand on Iran if the issue went to the United Nations.

Between Manmohan and Natwar, Sonia chose Manmohan. However, Natwar knows secrets. He's been around a longtime, and can make things uncomfortable for the Congress should he choose to. He's been with the Congress M in the past, and can part again if he so feels. There's nothing much that either he or the Congress loses if they go different ways. Some Congress leaders suggest that Natwar may be accommodated as Governor.

For the moment, though, the Volcker Report is giving the party heebie-jeebies. The party is aware of the embarÂrassment it brought on itself by the ridiculous move to sue the United Nations. Though there are several legal eagles like R Chidambaram, HR Bharadwaj, Abhishek Singhvi, RK Anand, and Ranganath Misra in the Congress, none could prevent the silly statement.

Even now no one is quite sure which way things will go. Seven party funcÂtionaries are under a cloud. More may be on the way.

11-30-2005, 01:42 AM

QUOTEChidambaram may get Home 
Pioneer.com
Sanjay K Jha/ New Delhi
Finance Minister P Chidambaram, whose fate looked uncertain over the last few months, has all of a sudden gained in stature and importance. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's decision to draft him for handling the Volcker issue both in and outside Parliament has prompted the Congress circles to see the new colour of power equations within the top echelons of the party.

The Volcker row came as a huge jolt for the Congress and party president Sonia Gandhi took it very seriously. She was keen to clear the party's name as soon as possible and wanted the best man to undertake this job. In normal circumstances, such issues are dealt with the Home Minister and the Law Minister, but the party leadership chose the Finance Minister, a decision enough in itself to send mean-ingful signals.

In fact, this has come at a time when speculation is rife in the Congress circles that Mr Chidambaram may be shifted to the Home Ministry in the impending reshuffle. By his effective performance on the Volcker issue, the Finance Minister has removed whatever doubts some people had about his suitability in a "political and administrative" ministry like Home. There are suggestions that Mr Shivraj Patil be moved to Defence and Mr Pranab Mukherjee to the External Affairs Ministry to fill in the vacancy created by removal of Mr Natwar Singh.

Sources in the Government say the Prime Minister was anyway not very happy with Mr Natwar Singh in the Foreign Ministry. The party leadership feels Mr Mukherjee cannot be sent to the Home Ministry, his original choice, as he would soon emerge as a parallel power centre. On the other hand, like Mr Patil, Mr Chidambaram has neither any mass support nor political clout within the party.

The Finance Ministry may be gifted to Mr C Rangarajan, tipped to be nominated to the Rajya Sabha in a few days. Mr Rangarajan is an old favourite with the Congress, as former Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao was keen to make him the Finance Minister long ago. Although all these changes are still in the realm of speculation, party sources say the Prime Minister is giving a serious thought to this kind of a major reshuffle.

This suits Ms Sonia Gandhi too, as Mr Chidambaram will be totally dependent on her goodwill for his survival in the key ministry. His strong rapport with the Prime Minister will also make the Government's functioning easier. At the same time, Mr Chidambaram, a senior lawyer, has the intelligence and oratorical skills to turn the tables on the Opposition in any debate.

Mr Chidambaram was chosen for the Volcker job purely on merit as the recent performances of Home Minister Shivraj Patil and Law Minister HR Bharadwaj in many important cases, including Bihar, have been far from impressive. Mr Chidambaram went about the job with utmost care and when it came to Parliament, he demolished the Opposition's arguments with surgical precision and without any irrelevant political rhetoric.

Many Congress leaders on Tuesday hailed Mr Chidambaram's performance, pointing out the sharpness and maturity of his reply as compared to Mr Patil's often tentative and tepid responses. His blunt remark to Mr L Advani that he was not being briefed properly on the basics, was explained by some MPs as his "guts and tenacity", badly missing in the present Home Minister's approach. 

The added political advantage that will accrue to the Congress leadership with his exit from the Finance Ministry is the respite it will give to the Left. The Left has been unhappy with his fierce pro-reforms push and the demands for his ouster from the Finance Ministry had become more intense after the BHEL disinvestment controversy. The Left is also not very happy with Mr Patil for his role in Jharkhand and Bihar. The Congress leadership certainly won't mind hitting two birds with one stone.

12-02-2005, 07:25 PM

Hindustan Times news

New allegations on Volcker issue rock Parliament

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1562643,0008.htm

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Times Of Islamabad head line news (look att the title not new allegations but PM promises)

PM promises punishment for guilty in Volcker report probeAdd to Clippings
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/artic...315833.cms

------------------------------------------------------

Now look at ITALIAN EXPERSS (It does not say Mathrani named CONgress also)

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=59336
Mathrani names Natwar, son in Oil-for-Food scam

12-02-2005, 09:18 PM

Volcker report: ED to scan records of NGO

Thursday, November 17, 2005 (New Delhi):

The names of more entities are emerging as a fallout of the Volcker report.

The Enforcement Directorate is scanning the records of an NGO called the Non-Aligned Youth Students Organizations to see if it was involved in the oil-for-food scam.

The NGO has offices in both Delhi and Iraq.

http://www.ndtv.com/template/template.asp?...=81441&callid=1

It has been closely associated with minister and Congress leader Subodh Kant Sahay, who has denied any raids on his premises.

12-02-2005, 10:08 PM

QUOTEWhat Mathrani revealed

In a sensational disclosure, Mathrani claimed that Natwar Singh, who was stripped off the External Affairs Ministry portfolio after being named in the Volcker committee report on Iraq's Oil-for-Food scam, had received oil allotment from Saddam Hussein's regime for his "personal services".

Mathrani, who worked closely with Singh in the AICC Foreign Affairs Cell before Congress came to power, told Aaj Tak news channel that both the allotees of oil coupons -- Singh and the Congress -- are "exactly the same."

"The fact of the matter is that both allotees...In my view are exactly the same...One has been to Natwar and the other one to the Congress Party. One for Natwar's personal services. Don't forget that he has been the one who has been expousing Iraq's cause," he said.

The report was based on a long tape-recorded interview of Mathrani who has complete knowledge about the visi
its of Natwar Singh to Baghdad and had a series of meetings with top Ba'ath party officials of Iraq including Tariq Aziz and the then President of Iraq Saddam Hussien who had been allowed to sell oil for food by the United Nations to keep its economy afloat.

Mathrani said Jagat Singh and Andaleeb Sehgal travelled together and stayed in the same hotel. Andy was made part of the Congress delegation and the manner in which Natwar and Jagat Singh operated it was clear that they were looking for business in oil.

They are first rated traitors.

12-03-2005, 12:54 AM

Parliament discussion
In Full-
because we should know, how these traitors get support from other Indian politicians.

QUOTE164.100.24.167/rsdebate/s...112005.htm
MOTION

Alleged Involvement of Some Indian Entities and Individuals as Non-Contractual Beneficiaries in The United Nationsâ Independent Inquiry Committee (Volcker Committee) Reportâcontd.

SHRI RAM JETHMALANI: We are discussing a very important subject. We have to deal with this case on its merits. The second thing I wish to say is, unfortunately, loyalty to the party and the immediate benefit to the party make you somewhat impervious to the cause of truth. We should not go for hasty and premature conclusions and judgments often based upon no legal evidence or even any moral evidence. I regret that the same thing had happened, to a large extent, in this case. The documentary evidence presented does not amount to any kind of evidence, both in law and in commonsense. The Supreme Court had also held that entries in the books of accounts were not legally admissible evidence. It shows that it was known to the Minister of the NDA Government that a large number of Indian businessmen were making profits out of these coupons. And, yet, he did not wink for a minute, he took no action. I am convinced on this evidence this is an overheated imagination to accuse the Congress Party of being involved in this corruption.

The Prime Minister has given him a clean chit. I do not know whether it is understood what a clean chit means. He has also not tried to hold that on this flimsy evidence the man is guilty. People should be shown the documents because they are entitled to know. The honour of the Congress Party and its dignity will be a thousand per cent enhanced when they show this transparency in their dealings in the Parliament. Produce those documents. Tell the Leader of the Opposition to come and look at these documents. Take them into confidence.

SHRI C. RAMACHANDRAIAH: I am fully convinced that there is a prima facie evidence that is available. The Prime Minister was also right in ordering for the constitution of a committee, because he would have been convinced that there was a prima facie evidence. It was a global catastrophe that he has been averted by introducing the oil-for-food scheme. But very unfortunately, this has become a global controversy, this has become a source of global corruption and naturally, India is no exception to it. It is conspiring to remove Shri Natwar Singh from the Ministry of External Affairs. I read it in the magazine. I read the article. I donât want to take the name because I may not be permitted to mention the name. The names of the countries which are strong supporters of the United States are also mentioned in it.

So, what I feel is that this apprehension also seems to be an untenable error, may not be based on the facts. The persons, the parties, which have been entertaining such apprehensions, are of the opinion that this present dispensation is coming closer to the United States. Because they have mentioned about two incidents. One is signing of the Indo-American Defence Agreement and voting on Iraq. When such is the case, a person can be easily removed from the Cabinet.

I would like to make one more point. If their apprehensions are correct, is our Government or the country so weak that the other nations can influence us? What is the security of this country? If any country or any leader outside India can influence this country to formulate its own foreign policy, where are we today? These are all facts which have to be discussed at the national level before coming to conclusion. One more thing. They have chosen to serve a notice to the United Nations? Can the United Nations be prosecuted in these courts? What is the wisdom of the Congress Party in serving a notice on the United Nations? How can we make the United Nations accountable for it?

It is only their observation. It is not a prosecution; they have not served any notice that we are going to be prosecuted. Everybody is aware that political parties need funds to run themselves. Now, how to procure those funds? This is an important question. This needs to be discussed and appropriate measures need to be initiated so that the countryâs integrity and sovereignty are not compromised at any point of time. I conclude by saying that there is a prime facie evidence in this case and the Government should be very sincere. I do not know, to what extent this present committee of inquiry is effective. Whatever may be the body that you are going to create to inquire about this scam, do make the allegations, but be effective and do justice. Take care of the national interest, national security and sovereignty so that we can raise our heads among the Comity of Nations with pride.

SHRI ANAND SHARMA: CHAMCHA OF SONIA The motion militates against the facts and realities and also the response of this Government. It is in fact a partisan political agenda. The Volcker Enquiry Report had generated interest not only in India but world-wide. We would seek a full-length comprehensive disclosure from the United Nations and from the Volcker Committee on the basis this naming was done. Congress President had made it clear that the truth would be ascertained and if there was an iota of truth in any insinuations or any allegation against any individual, action would be taken. The Hon'ble Prime Minister had also said that no effort would be spared to get at the bottom of it and the truth shall be found out. Still a distorted presentation of the report is being made. The report has named a large number of people, entities, political leaders and organisations not only in India but also all over the world. It is a long list of people who are serving even today in various Governments in important positions in other countries. An inquiry has been instituted by the Government of India on issue but we must not overlook the fact that some objections have been raised world over about the method of investigation of the Committee. Also, the source of information has not been provided in this matter. Another issue is the elementary rule of fairplay was abandoned by not giving a notice to the Indian National Congress and the non-contractual beneficiaries. The Indian National Congress is a prominent political party of this country and it was not difficult to sent it a notice to be informed. Levelling baseless charges before inquiry is against the principles of natural justice. The material presented on the issue is unverified and after being verified by the inquiry authority one should draw any conclusion on matter. Nowhere in the world the reactions of the opposition about the report has been so strong as in India. India is the only country which has set up an independent inquiry Committee headed by a former Chief Justice of India. The Congress Party does not need any sermon on nationalism and patriotism. Our leaders have made sacrifices before the freedom struggle and after the freedom struggle. Those who were apposed to the national movement they talk of the legacy.

So far as my Party is concerned, we have, from the day one asked for the truth to come out. This Government is making all efforts. But when it comes to foreign funding, we stand against that.

SHRI MANGANI LAL MANDAL: Mr. Arun Jaitly has covered most of the points so far as Volcker Report is concerned. Some points have been touched upon by Shri Kapil Sibal and Shri Ram Jethmalani. Virtually no point has been left on which we can throw some light. Oil for food programme was initiated by United Nation but USA took the benefit of the programme and earned about 18 billion dollars. The surcharge imposed by Iraq was for common people of that country.

As far as the corruption is concerned, there cannot be different parameters. When allegations regarding Volcker Report were levelled, Prime Minister took prompt action. He called for authentic record of Volcker Committee, he order an enquiry into the matter and asked Mr. Natwar Singh to relinquish the charge of ministry of External Affairs.

It has been mentioned in a news report that Ambassador in Iraq had written a letter on 28th January, 2004 regarding Volcker Committee report. But no action was taken by the then External Affairs Minister. A mention was also made about surcharge imposed by Iraq but no action was taken at that time.

SHRI GANDHI AZAD: We are discussing a very important matter today. But this discussion is meaningless in the absence of evidence and facts. A mention has been made regarding beneficiaries under Oil for food programme. But specific names of the companies and the individuals have not been given. There is no evidence regarding the involvement of such companies. The matter has been blown out of proportion. I would like to congratulate the Prime Minister for taking prompt action into the matter. He not only asked Mr. Natwar Singh to relinquish the charge of foreign minister but also constituted an inquiry committee. I feel the mover of the motion should have waited till the report of the inquiry committee.

SHRI PYARIMOHAN MOHAPATRA: I am with friends in the House who were, at the relevant time with the people of Iraq in their sufferings. Iraq which was tortured by sanctions, and was under pressure from so many countries to give small concessions in this Oil for Food Programme. I am with all friends who saw Iraq as an opportunity to assist it on humanitarian grounds. I am with Iraq when the poor Iraqi Government was trying to take a surcharge, not as a bribe, it but to run its Government machine. I would also comment that our public sector and other companies have rendered a yeoman's service to Iraq over long years. Whether these are same companies will be found out only after an enquiry.

Mr.Arun Jaitely, has given entire details, from a to z of this Report, particularly relating to two non-contractual beneficiaries, namely, the Indian National Congress and Mr. Natwar Singh. On the other hand Mr. Kapil Sibal, has tried to demolish that analysis. We are not a courtroom to see what evidence is primary, or not. We have to go with a broad understanding of the issues and not get into hair-splitting legal arguments

I am with Iraq when the poor Iraqi Government was trying to take a surcharge, not as a bribe, as many are putting it, but to run its Government machinery, its army, and its essential services. May be somebody in the Congress Party not to your knowledge, has hijacked the allocation, and it should be in your interest to find out the culprit, by your own in house inquiry, whether any other inquiry brings out anything else or not. It should be an all-pervasive inquiry into the conduct of everyone. The Government should have no reservations on this score. It should also include the foreign-funding of the political processes. Equity demands that action should be taken against both, if at all, or, none. Political morality would also demand that political parties must have the courage to acknowledge that they are getting funds from different sources, including foreign ones. They should take such funds in a transparent manner into their accounts.

SHRI R.S. GAVAI: The Volcker's probe appears to rest on the evidences of the data and earlier investigations and not a fresh one. A probe by the Volcker is based not on an independent inquiry but it is rather a biased one. The report is full of anomalies, full of contradictions. As a matter of fact, in spite of having relevant evidence and documents, naturally and generally, an inquiry can be initiated. We will appreciate the spirit of the Government that it has appointed a Committee to unearth the truth in this regard.

SHRI TARIQ ANWAR: Whole debate on this issue has brought forward a fact that the truth of the Volcker report must be ascertained. That is what the Government want while appointing a Commission of Enquiry.

Volcker Report is used mostly by America. The biggest example of the conspiracy is that the Foreign Minister of Russia, Shri Sergei Lavrov has said that all the documents which were presented before him, were âforgedâ. The signatures of another important officer of Russia have been âforged.â This raises doubt on the credibility of Volcker Committee. Therefore, before taking any steps, it is necessary to conduct full inquiry in this regard. Government is trying to bring out the truth before everybody. Government has not caused any delay in this matter. If an effort is made to make such an allegation against any political party or politician, then it is the question of image of the whole country. Therefore, I oppose the motion presented in the House by Shri Arun Jaitleyji. I support the steps taken by the Government in this regard.

SHRI N. JOTHI: Much of the source of evidence has come from the contemporaneous documentation and data provided by the various Iraqi contracting Ministries. Govt. do not want to go to the real place, nor are interested in laying their hands on the real documents. That is the reason why they are not having a full-fledged Commission nor any Terms of Reference have been given to it. The setting up of a Commission is an eyewash. The powers of the Commission are that of a civil court powers. It is applicable only within the boundaries of India. It will not go beyond India. If you could register an FIR, you can invoke powers under Section 166A of the Cr. P.C. so that a criminal court can issue letter rogatory. This is the reason why they do not want to register an FIR. They do not want to respect this Report. They want only that powerless commission because they only want to get a clean chit that everything is okay and show to the world that they are very good and clean people.

SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR: Mr. Jaitely was not on firm ground on the element of political morality. I am proud to be a member of the party whose leadership before independence and after independence has set the highest standards of public morality and probity in public life. I do not want to talk of the innumerable scams that have vitiated forever the track record of the NDA. The Prime Ministerâs first statement was that the conclusions or observations in the Volcker Committee are unverified. His second response was to nominate a special envoy to collect the material. His third action was to have the R.S Pathak Committee headed by a man of great eminence. His action and conduct speaks for itself. The falsity of the charge in the Motion is writ large on its face. What else could have been done in such a short period? There has been detailed discussions in this House on the element of constitutional morality. It is now an admitted fact that no notice was given to any of the alleged beneficiaries of the deal. Any finding in breach of the first principles of natural justice, that is, notice to a party to defend itself, is not only illegal, it is a nullity in the eyes of law.

My respectful submission is that on the other aspect of the unconstitutionality of the findings also the Oppositionâs Motion has no legs to stand on.

SHRI MANOJ BHATTACHARYA: We have high respect for the UN. But, today, the UN has been subordinated to a foreign office of the United States of America. The UN has appointed a committee, in the name of Paul Volcker, to took into the cases of bribery in International Transactions made in the Oil for Food Programme. Why it necessitated the formation of such a Committee?

The U.S.A. wanted to change the regime in Iraq. The American soldiers have suffered a large number of causalities in Iraq and that has infuriated a strong debate in the America itself. Today the support for Iraq war among the American people has continued to fall. In the name of establishing unipolarity, the United States of America are flexing the muscles against every nation. Every day, the people have been killed in Iraq and the public opinion about the aggression of America, is also against President Bush. So, the Bush Administration felt the necessity of constituting some commission by which they can divert the attention of the people and can justify the actions in America itself. This sort of a Committee has named some persons. They have not only named K. Natwar Singh or the Congress Party alone, but they have also named some corporate houses, some pharma companies like Cipla, Ajanta Pharma, even Reliance industries and some public sector enterprises. It is usual design of the American imperialism, and it is the way in which the American Administration functions. So, this has to be taken in this light. I suggest that the Inquiry Committee should handle the case of the letter written by Mr. V.V. Tyagi and the information that has been passed over to the House by Mr. Yashwant Sinha.

SHRI SHARAD ANANTRAO JOSHI: I would say that my party stands for real truth finding in this case. Honâble Members from the ruling side, like Shri Sita ram Yechury and Shri Kapil Sibal mentioned that the Report does not prove anything. I would say that even if the Report came to the conclusion that Mr. Natwar Singh and the Congress Party will be held guilty, would you really, immediately, put them in jail? I would be opposed to that. I would stand to defend them because these people have to be found guilty by a legal procedure in India. The sort of issues that need to be examined, include a letter, signed on behalf of the Congress Party and addressed to Saddam Hussein, which forms a part of the record of the Volcker Committee.

There is also a mention in the Volcker Committee Report about a letter of Credit which was issued by a particular company, Vittol Limited, which has an office in Mumbai. The letter of Credit could not have been issued unless the other party was consulted and we know which party was consulted on that.

The money that was given to the Congress Party was deposited in an account in the Bank of America, Cayman Island, and from there it came to India by a participatory note. If we permit the SEBI to open that secrecy and let us know who is responsible for that kind of a note, then most of the facts would be clear.

SHRI M.P. ABDUSSAMAD SAMADANI: I have a doubt whether we should discuss this kind of a matter that is based on certain documents which have no authenticity. The Parliament, the highest body of the country, has a great value. When we take something into discussion depending on certain books, reports of archives, it degrades the standard and status of this august body. Even in a country like America many people feel that the entire oil-for-food scandal was politically manipulated. This is intended to tar nations, parties and individuals. Why should we listen to this kind of allegation coming from outside. People have no doubt that unnecessarily these people are being linked with this kind of a discussion. Kofi Annan Continues in his job though there is serious allegations against his son in this Report. Many other political personalities in other countries too continue with their jobs. The only political personality who has lost his job in the background of this report is Natwar Singh and that itself shows the attitude of the Congress Party. Why is this hue and cry in India alone when France, Russia, China, New Zealand and South Africa have rejected this report The Russian Foreign Minister, Mr. Sergey Lavrov said that many names of senior Russian officers referred in this Report are fabricated.

About the authenticity of these papers, there is very serious view presented by some of the experts that there is all chance for these papers to be forged documents. After the US blockade, the entire Baghdad was in fire. How can these papers be saved without any kind of destruction, and where from these papers were collected? Our hon. friends sitting in the Opposition are actually arguing for conviction before trial. That has no justification in the legal affairs. There is not a single word about Shri Natwar Singh properly in the Report. Shri Natwar Singhâs name along with that of the Congress figures, only in an annexure to the Volckerâs Report. Mr. Volcker himself had claimed that all those named in the Report had been issued for an opportunity to respond to the allegations against them. But, Shri Natwar Singh and Shri Bhim Singh have stated that they knew of the allegations only through media. Not a single piece of evidence has come out to support the view that his son used the opportunity to handle funds for the Congress party. Senior UN officials have stated that the Volcker Report should not be viewed as a charge sheet. Why should we be a party to this kind of a conspiracy and to sacrifice a person, a leader, like Shri Natwar Singh for baseless allegations? That will be against the spirit of the country, against the spirit of our democracy, against our national pride.

SHRI R.SHUNMUGASUNDARAM: This discussion relates to purity in public life. Many speakers have given the details of the particular case. I would only like this House to discuss it and set a standard for public life. I am not talking about corruption. I am only talking about setting standards in public life. We want to set standards in public life.

THE MINISTER OF FINANCE (SHRI P. CHIDAMBRAM), intervening in the debate, said : Most of the legal issues have been answered by Shri Kapil Sibal. The report is not to be acted upon or further investigated. Here is a document which is clearly not a judgment. If the judge had written this report, would he not have said in the annexures, the lists of witnesses, etc. Nothing is there in the report.

These are what we call âconclusionsâ and no one is questioning the liberty for the Volcker Committee to reach âconclusionsâ. These conclusions may be right or may be wrong. Shri Jaitley says that the Justice Pathak Inquiry Authority is an eyewash because under the Section 8B no power has been given to Justice Pathak. Section 8B of the Commission of Inquiry Act says, if at any stage of inquiry the Commission considers it necessary to inquire into the conduct of any person and is of the opinion that the reputation of any person is likely to be prejudicially affected by the Inquiry, the Commission shall give to that person a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the inquiry and to produce evidence in its defence. What is contained in Section 8B is a universal principle of law.

We all agree that no man should be condemned before he is heard. Did the Volcker Committee give notice to Mr. Natwar Singh? Did the Committee give notice to the Congress Party? The answer is no. Mr. Volckerâs Committee itself said that we gave notice only to the contracting parties, and the contracting parties in the oil cases were 139. This Report is not a document which can be acted upon immediately Let us try to understand what this Oil for Food Programme is. Iraq was allowed to sell oil under the UN-supervised programme. The price of oil was fixed by a UN Committee. In September 2000, the Iraq Government decided that it needed money for milk, pharmaceuticals, wheat, books, children and its people. So, they found a market where the price of oil is higher than the UN-fixed price. When they found that the market was willing to take Iraqi oil for a higher price, they chose the contracting party. Masefield was the contracting party who made profit by selling it to Vittol. The UN got its price because the UN got its fixed price. The difference between the both prices, whole or part, went into a Jordinian account. there is nothing more in this case.

The Volcker Committee was only interested in finding out whether the Saddam Government got a surcharge and the Volcker Committee found that the Saddam Government got that surcharge. Their children were starving. Their people were dying. So, they levied a surcharge. But I can't say anything more than what I have said earlier that why we are having an investigation. We are now engaged in finding out what the primary evidence is, on which a process of reasoning, will lead to the conclusion. I cannot say anything beyond that. On behalf of the Government, let me make this statement that if an inquiry Authority finds that a law has been violated, which is punishable, indeed an FIR will be filed and every other action will be taken against those people. An FIR will be filed under an Indian law. Therefore, giving the case to CBI, and not giving it to the Enforcement Director, does not mean that automatically Letter Rogatory will follow. CBI will have to investigate the matter. And that is precisely what we are doing.

We are investigating the matter. We have taken a right course. We have a three pronged approach. One, through Special Envoy Dayal, gathering the material. Secondly, Justice Pathak is examining those very documents, and the third the Enforcement Directorate is trying to find out whether there is a violation of the Foreign Exchange Management Act. We have given all the powers to Justice Pathak to inquire into the matter. I, Therefore, submit that there is no occasion for this Motion; this Motion should be rejected

SHRI ARUN JAITLEY, replying to the debate, said: This Government is neither honest nor bona fide in its endeavour to unearth the truth. I think, it would have been more reasonable to say, that these findings could be on the basis of the material which Mr. Virendra Dayal and Director of Enforcement had received from Mr. Volcker. The other evidence is in the form of bank records and deposits. You are very concerned with the fact that no notice was given to the Congress Party or Mr. Natwar Singh on the basis of this material the Government has to decide whether there is a reason to believe that an offence has taken place. In other documents you have the name of a company, which has traded in oil. You have evidence and there is material about it in the report. You have further material in terms of even bank account details. This calls for an immediate investigation into this matter.

The question is that Justice Pathak, in his capacity as a Section 11 Committee or even as a Section 3 Commission is not entitled to issue letter rogatory. Chief Justice Pathak will ask some other investigating officer, not investigating the case, no FIR registered, no dual criminality principle, to ask Switzerland to give us information which he will not get. This is exactly what the Government between 1987 and December 1989 had tried; and, this is exactly what this Government is trying to do now. Mr. Sibal's response is that he as a Government, will not make an honest effort to bring the evidence but me, as an Opposition, should bring the evidence. This is exactly what the Government has been saying. The truth really would be that there is one set of material on the basis of which Mr. Volcker has made his recommendations and that set of material may be possible through diplomatic channel. Perhaps, some of those documents we have brought. In order to investigate what happened to the balance money, you must unveil the secrecy of the Swiss banking laws. To unveil the Swiss banking secrecy laws, you must go through the legally correct methodology. The answer for which is that you must register an FIR, you must send a letter rogatory and, your argument is that you will register an FIR and send a letter rogatory, till you first get an evidence. You will not get any evidence unless you go by the correct methodology. With the approach of the Government, we had a suspicion and a sense of disappointment; and after their response, we have a deeper sense of disappointment. But, I am somewhat puzzled at the stand my friends in the Left Parties have taken. When on the same procedural problems, the Government tried a cover-up on 1989, the Left Parties along with us resigned en masse from the Lok Sabha. We are indeed disappointed with their stand today.

It the Government goes on a course on which it has taken today, I have not the least doubt that the standards of credibility and probity in public life in India are going to seriously suffer. I, therefore, urge this House to vote upon this Motion and accept this Motion.

The motion was negatived.

YOGENDRA NARAIN,

Secretary-General.
rssynop@sansad.nic.in

12-03-2005, 12:55 AM

QUOTEMOTION 

Alleged Involvement of Some Indian Entities and Individuals as Non- Contractual Beneficiaries in The United Nationsâ Independent Inquiry Committee (Volcker Committee) Report

SHRI ARUN JAITLEY: I move:

âThat this House expresses its concern at the Central Governmentâs failure to take proper action against the alleged involvement of Indian entities and individuals as non-contractual beneficiaries of the United Nations Oil-for-Food Programme in Iraq, as reported in the Report of the United Nationsâ Independent Inquiry Committee (Volcker Committee) and its efforts to cover up these serious crimes.â

This Report has not only domestic significance, but this is a document of high international credibility also. And amongst others, this Report has mentioned, at least, two prominent Indian entities. What has disturbed the country the most is a reference to a political party, which has been in power in India for the longest duration of time. The common threat which is really the core of this debate, is that in consideration of political stances we take in domestic polity or stances that we take as far as international issues are concerned, what is the influence of foreign entities on Indiaâs political entities. Unfortunately, this is not the first occasion that a charge has been levelled. This charge has been made almost contemporaneously in publications, which have recently come out.

Therefore, this is not the first time in Indiaâs Parliamentary history that publications which made a disclosure with regard to payments made to influence Indiaâs politics have been discussed in both Houses of Parliament. The current disclosure cannot be taken lightly in this country. When we have to investigate the truth of this disclosure and take the follow up action, the entire country is concerned about the fact that whether we ask the right questions by proceeding in the right manner. It is our regret that this Government has deliberately chosen to proceed in the wrong manner so that it eventually draws blank as an answer and eventually comes out with a response that we found nothing to substantiate what Mr. Volcker has said. The crux of the allegation is that you were the beneficiaries named in the oil coupons and the beneficiaries who received coupons, depending on the political and the diplomatic stand that you took on the issues which were confronting Iraq then. I would like to know as to what kind of inquiry and investigation the Government has embarked upon. The Mesfield is a company which lifts the oil against the Congress partyâs contract, where allegedly the Congress party is named, rightly or wrongly. This requires investigation. Against two contracts, ie. nos. 54 and 57, which were Mr. Natwar Singh and Congress Partyâs contracts respectively, the Mesfield decided to levy an illegal surcharge.

How much is the amount paid? An amount of $ 2,50,022 has been paid. The first limb of this transaction is that Iraq is violating the sanctions and distributing the coupons to alleged friends depending on the degree of support they give to an Iraqi cause. The second limb is that coupons had been issued in favour of the Congress Party and Mr. Natwar Singh and against these coupons Masefield had lifted the oil. Payment has been made through Mr. Sehgal. Clean chit given by the the Hon'ble Prime Minister to Mr. Natwar Singh is a very weak defence.

The third fact is that Masefield has paid an illegal surcharge back for Iraq. The fourth fact is the exact amount of the surcharge paid by Masefield is what Mr. Sehgal and Hamdan Exports is depositing in the Bank of Jordan for the Iraqi benefits. It is apparent from the Volcker Report. Mr. Natwar Singh led a delegation of the Congress Party in 2001 to Iraq. Mr. Sehgal also accompanied him. He is the man who is paying kikbacks back to Iraq on the coupons of the Congress Party. Obviously, he was trying to hide behind the veil of the banking secrecy.

The facts are apparent from the Volcker documents, and nothing needs to be investigated now. We want a reply from the Government on the coincidences in the story. The first coincidence is, that an exact sum of Rs.7,48,540/- which is collected and paid by the Masefield, is deposited by Hamadan. The second coincidence is that the beneficiary is the Congress Party and Mr. Natwar Singh, but the payment is made by Shri Sehegal and Shri Hamadan. The third coincidence is, there has to be a link, between Hamadan and Mr. Sehegal and Masefield. The fourth coincidence is that the families of Mr. Sehegal and Mr. Jagat Singh and Mr. Natwar Singh are on the most intimate terms. The fifth coincidence is that Mr. Jagat Singh and Mr. Sehegal travelled with Mr. Natwar Singh, who happened to be in Baghdad at the same time. Is these are all only coincidences?

What the Government or its investigating agencies will have to investigate. Who actually received the coupons? On whose behalf were these coupons received and where are these coupons at present today? Who passed on these coupons to a trading company is the second issue. This Government's investigation route is completely faulty. Masefield picked up the oil; it sold the oil; it made a profit. The profit could have been shared in many ways. That money trail of Masefield's accounts in Switzerland really needs to be investigated.

If moneys have been transacted outside India, kept outside India, traded outside India, it is elementary that the Foreign Exchange Management Act comes into force and if the recipient of foreign funding allegedly is a political party, then the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act comes into this. Thirdly, if the recipients, were public servants, as defined in the Prevention of Corruption Act, then, the Prevention of Corruption Act, is applicable.

You have handed over the document to the Enforcement Directorate under the Foreign Exchange Management Act knowing fully well that the Foreign Exchange management Act does not empower the enforcement Directorate effective powers to investigate the money trade. Your investigation must take the correct course. Without the registration of a case, the registration of a FIR the Swiss won't entertain a request for investigation. You will have to work within the parameters of the treaty.

Investigating by the Government is almost like a suicide. Mr. Volcker can give you the document which are the basis of this Report. Mr. Volcker has not unveiled the secrecy of the Swiss banking laws in his Report. Mr. Volcker can tell you who got the oil coupons, how are the kikbacks paid, how much was the amount, but not the name of the person who received it from Masfield? I ask the Prime Minister of India, who sent Mr. Virendra Dayal there, that whether he is entitled to see those documents or not?

The second limb of investigation is that Justice Pathak Committee has been appointed. The Government say that only an FIR is sufficient. Upon an FIR, the CBI must start an investigation. We will only have a Committee to investigate.

Why did you make it a Committee of Inquiry and not a Commission of Inquiry? So, there is one power which you did not give to Justice Pathak and that power is the heart and soul of the Commission of Inquiry Act, the power under Section 8(b) of the Commission of Inquiry Act. The power under Section 8(b) is that if any person or entity is to be investigated, you state the charges against him and give him notice. Any Commission of Inquiry, in the face of these documents, on the first the day itself, would have framed questions under Section 8(b) and issued to the Congress Party and Mr. Natwar Singh. But that is not something that you want. You don't register an FIR. You don't give Justice Pathak the power under Section 8(b) to issue notice to your own party. Obviously, it is not merely an attempt but a crude attempt at a cover-up.

Our charge very clearly is that this entire exercise is in the direction of a cover up. Without a proper criminal law investigation, all these matters are going to become meaningless. You still have the concerned individual, Shri Natwar Singh, in the face of all this, as a member of the Union Cabinet. In doing so, it is not only the image of this country, this Government or the Prime Minister, but all of us, which is in question. So, the least that the Prime Minister must do is to put this investigation on a correct course and get rid of tainted colleagues who are an embarrassment to the country all over the world.

THE MINISTER OF STATE OF THE MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AND THE MINISTER OF STATE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF OCEAN DEVELOPMENT (SHRI KAPIL SIBAL): I rise to oppose the Motion moved by my learned friend under Rule 167. As far as the Prevention of Corruption Act is concerned, you have to be a public servant on that day when the offence is alleged to be committed. As a political party, the Congress Party cannot be a public servant. As far as Mr. Natwar Singh is concerned, he became a public servant and a Member of this House in April,2002. All the alleged transactions that my learned friend, Shri Jaitley has invited our attention to, are all transactions held in 2001. The primary evidence is not disclosed in the Volcker Report. The primary evidence is the document on the basis of which you say that Shri Natwar Singh took money, or, on the basis of which you say the Congress Party took money. That is not there. So, the documents on the basis of which Volcker could have come to a conclusion are neither disclosed by Volcker in his Report nor given to anybody and Mr. Jaitley says that an offence has been committed. When political parties apply double standards and when there is an over-enthusiastic argument, you always fall into an error. We are trying to determine the authenticity of the conclusions of the Volcker Report, because we do not have the evidence. We are trying to arrive at the truth. We do not have the primary evidence. Till we get it, we cannot lodge an FIR.

Perhaps many do not know some of these facts that Mr. Volcker had no powers of a Grand Jury. He could not summon witnesses. So, whatever Mr. Volcker got was on the basis of voluntary disclosures made from time to time. He set out to do the enquiry sometime in April, 2004. The first Interim Report that Mr. Volcker submitted was on February 3, 2005 and the final Report was submitted on October 7, 2005. The first Interim Report did not contain either the name of the Congress Party or the name of Mr. Natwar Singh. But, on 9th February, 2005 certain proceedings took place before the hearing of the Sub-Committee on International Relations of US. Before that, in that Committee, some testimony was given by a gentleman called Mr. Nimrod Rufi Ali. In the course of that hearing he submitted a prepared statement before that Sub-Committee.

What the gentleman Nimrod Rafi Ali gave, was a translation of a newspaper report, appearing in Iraq, in which a list of 270 entities was given, as having received money. Ultimately, Mr. Rafi Ali said, that there is absolutely no question about the authenticity and accuracy of the list. You are making allegations against the Government of the day and against a national party, which have stood the test time. In the Annexure list of the report of Charles Dolfer of CIA Iraq Study Group, there are several references to Indian oil having been allocated and lifted. He says the report is based on information obtained from the Iraqi sources and it is not independently verified.

Mr. Volcker does not disclose us the material and Mr. Jaitley says an FIR should be lodged. I could have understood if Mr. Jaitley had shown to me documents from the Volcker report which suggested any linkage between the Congress Party as being a non-contractual beneficiary or Mr. Natwar Singh being a non-contractual beneficiary. The findings of the Volcker Committee report are apparently based on information about which the sources themselves say are not independently verified. We do not know the reasons why those names have come into that report . Even then, being a responsible Government we decided to have a Commission of Inquiry. We want to get at the root of this and that is what the Prime Minister said. We are not going to lodge an FIR till we are prima facie convinced that our Party and Mr. Natwar Singh is involved. No offence under IPC,or under the Prevention of Corruption Act, or under FEMA or under FCRA has been committed. So, what is the justification of the demand of our having to lodge an FIR. You canât make out a case on the basis of assumption. Therefore, when Mr. Volcker talks about the Congress Party being a non contractual beneficiary, it is an opinion based on an inference.

On August, 2, 1990 Iraq invaded Kuwait and on August 6, 1990, the UN Security council passed a Resolution 661 and set up a Committee called the '661 Committee' and imposed sanctions. Those Resolutions in 1990-1991 were not accepted by the State of Iraq. We are members of the United Nations and we accepted them. We, of course, were bound to accept them and we accepted them. This continued for a period of time. Under the original Resolution, Iraq could only sell oil every ninety days worth one billion dollars in return for medicines and other essential services. So, Saddam Hussain who was a contracting party decided to set up this voucher system, so that some money could come back to Iraq. That is how the voucher system started, and this voucher system started in September, 2000 and ended in September, 2002.

I do believe that those political parties who have done that in the past, on the basis of some Defence deals, should have been investigated. So, as soon as we get any evidence against any political party, we will investigate and we will lodge an FIR and give all the powers under 166(a).

Therefore, I would request that these are very serious matters, to make allegations against the Prime Minister and against high dignitaries of the States, saying that they are weak or they had not followed the principles of integrity, is not something that should be said without the kind of seriousness that such a remark deserves.

SHRI SITARAM YECHURY: I would like to compliment the Government for having announced an enquiry. We are very happy that the commission of inquiry has been established and if there are any lapses which our learned collegues from the Opposition have raised, I am sure they will take them into account and, I am sure, this enquiry will proceed and come up with its conclusions and investigations as soon as possible. We are happy to note that the Minister has given an assurance to the House that it will be proceeded upon to the full, and action would be taken, and that is the assurance, which we believe is welcome. But, I think, it should also be seen in the larger context because, what we are discussing now, is the final report in this case. In the first list, Mr. Natwar Singh's name does not appear at all. There are two entities that have been mentioned, Mr. Bhim Singh, and the Indian National Congress.

In the other section, there are 129 Indian companies that are listed, in which there is the State Trading Corporation, there is Barmer and Laurie, which is also a State-run Corporation, and we would like the Government also to give this assurance that all these companies will also be looked into.

The Security Council on Iraq were clearly illegal in terms of International Law. In this context, we welcome the Commission of Inquiry and we also welcome the fact which the Finance Minister had informed the other House yesterday that the Special Envoy and the Director of enforcement had, in fact, returned with a lot of material, with a lot of data. In fact, why I say this is that Mr. Volcker has himself said that he has not carried out any forensic examination of the documents, neither has he vouched that these documents are authentic. I don't want to a certificate of authenticity to be given to this document.

The next point which I want to talk about is that the Oil-for-Food Programme has been a programme which is under a lot of cloud and the Report itself has created a lot of controversy in many countries. In this background, all those who had criticised the US sanctions are also being targeted is a fact which we can't ignore.

The role of the United States of America is in bypassing that Special Committee 661,as Mr. Kapil Sibal referred to it, and in creating the avenues for such opportunities for graft and corruption. Finally, I want to raise a point which is of great concern to us here in India which is that we need to probe it objectively and thoroughly. But at the same time, we have to be vigilant that we do not let this be used to facilitate the dominance of US imperialism in India. I do not want to use this Volcker probe to strengthen the US interests in our country. We are in the midst of another big and important issue that is concerning our country and that is on the question of atomic cooperation with the USA.

I would only submit before this House and before all of you that please proceed with this inquiry as soon as possible and come out with the facts so that the Nation is put at rest. I have with me a document and a publication which is called the Foreign Exchange of Hate. I would like to give it to you for your perusal which will indicate as to how foreign money has come in for the spread of hate and communal campaign in India.

SHRI SHAHID SIDDIQUI: First of all, I want to congratulate the House and the speakers who have already spoken in the House on the subject. After a long time, we have seen a honest and a good debate in the House. Unfortunately, there has been a wrong practice that if the name of any politician is figured in any case then no proof is needed to held him culprit. We have been opposing this practice. We agree with the issues that have been raised but not with the manner in which these have been raised. When you had questioned credibility of the report, it was not needed to remove Shri Natwar Singh from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. If you thought that the removal of Shri Natwar Singh was necessary then he must be removed from Cabinet itself.

In this case, it would be appropriate to hand over all the documents which have been obtained from United Nations, to the Pathak Commission without any delay and if you do not want to hand over the same to Pathak Commission. you should place all the documents before the House.

It does not matter whether we are in support of Government or otherwise. Congress has been the history and the tradition of this country therefore it should have its face clean in all respects. So far as our Party is concerned, we are with you and we have supported the UPA because we are opposed to the communal forces. At the same time, we also oppose the corruption. Our support does not mean that, we have surrendered before you.

SHRI P.G.NARAYANAN: Mr. Natwar Singh, the former External Affairs Minister and the Congress Party are facing serious charg that they had imported Iraqi oil, paid kickbacks to the Saddam Hussein Government. Mr. Natwar Singh resigned soon after the controversy broke out. I am happy that the Government has constituted a judicial inquiry into the episode. But, it took nearly one week for the Government to act in the matter. I suspect that senior Congress leaders are involved in this scam. The Government owes an explanation to this House as to what action has been taken in regard to Volcker Committeeâs charge that the Congress is a non-contractual beneficiary.

It is not without reason that the BJP and the Opposition parties are demanding resignation of the Congress President. Another fundamental issue is, how the Prime Minister has allowed the former Foreign Minister to continue in the Government as a Minister without portfolio even after it was indicated that he was facing an inquiry now The way the Government reacted to the Volcker Committee charges and the manner in which Mr. Natwar Singh gave his reaction to the media gives sufficient indication that oil was imported by both Mr. Natwar Singh and the Congress party. Evidence is indicated in the Volcker Committee Report.. I demand that senior office bearers of the Congress Party should also step down.

I was also surprised when the Prime Minister gave a clean chit to Mr. Natwar Singh in the name of solidarity with Saddam Hussain. Expressing solidarity with a cause like Iraq is a good thing, but getting money in return, if proved, is an obnoxious deed. AIADMK was not a non-contractual beneficiary. We are proud that we expressed solidarity with without expecting any benefit in return. Since the charges are serious, I demand that Mr. Natwar Singh should be removed from the Cabinet. The Congress President should also step down while owning moral responsibility. Legally they may escape but morally they may not escape. With these words, I support this motion. (Speech finished).
* * * *

* * * *
YOGENDRA NARAIN,
Secretary-General.
rssynop@sansad.nic.in

12-03-2005, 02:42 AM

Con-gressi policticians will put hippo to shame when it comes to having thick skin...

12-04-2005, 04:01 AM

Jaswant seeks Sonia Gandhi's resignation

But she is so shameless and greedy, she will never resign.

12-04-2005, 04:08 AM

QUOTEIraqi ex-envoy adds grist to Opp drive
Pioneer.com
Yogesh Vajpeyi / New Delhi
'Natwar requested me to get visa for his son as head of youth delegation of Cong'--- The Opposition on Saturday received fresh ammunition in its offensive against the UPA Government on Volcker issue from former Iraqi ambassador to India Salah al Mukhtar.Â Â

In an interview to NDTV, Mr Mukhtar said, "Natwar Singh requested me to get a visa for his son as head of a youth delegation of the Congress and that he would like to show his solidarity." <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/drool.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='drool.gif' />

He added that subsequently, Mr Singh's son Jagat had came to the embassy with two others saying that they were part of the Youth Congress delegation.

This is the first official confirmation that Jagat Singh and two others - one could have been Andy Sehgal - travelled to Iraq with Natwar Mr as part of the party's official team. So far, the party had maintained that it had nothing to do with the Iraq and Jordon visits of former External Affairs Minister's son and Sehgal.

Armed with new facts, BJP President L K Advani said at Jaipur that the UPA Government drop Mr Singh from the Cabinet and that Ms Sonia Gandhi should resign as UPA chairperson.

"Unless the Prime Minister comes out with a clear action on Anil Matherani's interview dragging Mr Natwar Singh and the Congress party into the Volcker issue he is bound face a turbulent House," BJP General Secretary Arun Jaitley said.

He accused the Congress of trying to purchase the silence of Mr Singh by not removing him from the Union Cabinet, Congress Working Committee and various trusts of the Nehru-Gandhi family.

"It is amazing how Mr Singh continues as Cabinet Minister and CWC member even after being named as one of the non contractual beneficiaries of Iraqi oil-for-food scam by UN constituted Volcker committee report," he said.

BJP leaders pointed out that former Iraqi diplomat had corroborated what Matherani said in his interview to India Today, though he subsequently dubbed it as "off-the-record" comments "quoted out of context".

Meanwhile, Jagat Singh gave a new twist to the controversy and alleged that Mr Matherani's statement was at the behest of "my father's enemies in the party."

"There are people in the Congress who feel the probe is slipping out of their hands and that Natwar Singh might soon be back," he said in a media interview from his Assembly constitutency in Rajasthan.

"That is why they have used the Matherani card. They must have told him that recalled from Croatia, he will be rewarded with something else, that he should make political capital of," he said.

Quote unquote
After Matherani's allegations against Natwar, the UPA Government and Congress Party has lost the right to disown the Volcker committee report as unverified. Natwar should be removed forthwith from the Ministry and Sonia Gandhi should quit as party chief
L K Advani

I think Natwar Singh is Natwar Singh and I appeal to the Opposition not to paint him as 'Natwar Lal'
NCP's D P Tripathi

There is a struggle, we will face it like Mangal Pandey
Natwar Singh

There are people in the Congress who feel the probe is slipping out of their hands and that Natwar Singh might soon be back. That is why they have used the Matherani card
Jagat SinghÂ

12-04-2005, 04:16 AM

Pioneer.com
QUOTEMatherani merely made obvious more clear 
Swapan Dasgupta
On Friday night, well after his telephonic interview was repeatedly broadcast over Aaj Tak, Aniel Matherani claimed that he was, in effect, the victim of a sting operation. Â Â

Even if his contention that journalistic norms were violated by the broadcast and publication of an "off the record" conversation is accepted, does it mean that K Natwar Singh and the Congress Party are out of the woods? Not in the least.

On the contrary, Matherani's tell-all remarks have elevated a personal misdemeanour of a senior Cabinet Minister into a full-blown political crisis for the Congress Party. First, by mapping out the details of Natwar's overtures to the Saddam Hussein regime, Matherani has quite clearly proved that that deal-making in Baghdad was not a one-man covert operation.

If Matherani, a flunkey in the Congress power establishment, knew about the way in which Jagat Singh and Andaleeb Sehgal were incorporated as business representatives of the party delegation, what is the likelihood that this was not known to the owners of the Congress? If Matherani, who was in Delhi when the Volcker Committee report was released, knew about it all along, would it not be appropriate to conclude that the Congress' instant disclaimers were completely disingenuous? In which case, would it also not be right to believe that the Congress president's allegedly "hurt and angry" reaction was purely cosmetic?

Second, those with journalistic experience know that the difference between on-the-record and off-the-record is one of nuances and emphasis. If the Matherani tapes are any guide, the gap is too yawning for comfort. They suggest that too many people, including those in Government, were not merely being economical with the dissemination of information; they were guilty of telling white lies to the people of India.

When the Prime Minister announced on October 30 that the allegations against Natwar were "baseless and untrue", he was either speaking from ignorance or wilfully misleading the country. Either way, it is a grave offence and in the coming months Manmohan Singh will come to rue the alacrity with which he jumped to his former External Affairs Minister's defence.

Politics is a cruel game and the Prime Minister must already be disturbed at the way in which it is being said that Natwar was retained in the Cabinet despite the objections of Sonia Gandhi. It does not matter that the opposite may actually be the case. What it signals is that the search for scapegoats may lead to an honourable man facing collateral damage.

Third, the duplicitous Congress response to both the Volcker report and the Matherani tapes suggests that getting to the truth is not the real agenda of the Government. On Friday afternoon, while announcing that his conscience is clear, Natwar made it clear that he was reposing his faith in a "time bound" inquiry to clear his name.

As things stand today, neither he nor his son Jagat has been questioned by the Enforcement Directorate. Nor has any FIR been filed. Indeed, Congress Ministers are openly asking, "What law has Natwar broken?" It is a clever question, but how will you know the answer unless the key players are interrogated? Sehgal has been questioned because his name figures in the Volcker Report. But Natwar's name also figures. So we have one rule for Singh and one for Sehgal.

Finally, the nonchalant way in which Matherani spoke about events in Baghdad should come as an eye-opener to those who have tried to paint the issue as one of imperialism versus anti-imperialism. There was nothing remotely political about the Congress delegation's visit to Iraq. It was a cover for some people to make a quick buck by screaming support for Saddam Hussein. 

The Congress clambered on to this lucrative bandwagon with its eyes open. No wonder, Natwar is said to be miffed that the party is now disclaiming of all knowledge of the returns from anti-imperialism. No wonder the Congress is paying the price for Natwar's silence by still persisting with him.

12-04-2005, 09:54 PM

QUOTESurjewala contradicts Jagat Singh's claim
NDTV Correspondent
Sunday, December 4, 2005 (New Delhi):
In a new twist to the Volcker controversy, former Youth Congress President Randeep Singh Surjewala has said that no Youth Congress delegation was ever cleared by him to go to Iraq.

Speaking to NDTV, Surjewala said that no one had approached him for permission to lead a Youth Congress delegation to Iraq.

Former external affairs minister Natwar Singh's son Jagat Singh had claimed that he had gone twice to Iraq as member of the Youth Congress.

"I went twice. The first time with my father who was leading a Congress delegation to renew ties with the Baath party. On my first trip, I had gone as a member of the Youth Congress and got in touch with youth leaders over there," Jagat Singh said.

Jagat Singh under scanner

On Saturday, the former Iraqi ambassador to India Salah al Mukhtar told NDTV that Jagat Singh and two others had been given a visa as part of a Youth Congress delegation.

"Natwar Singh requested me to get a visa for his son as head of a youth delegation of the Congress party and that he would like to show his solidarity," Mukhtar said.

"Well, it was a separate visit by his son. He headed a youth delegation to meet the Iraqi Youth Federation," he added.

He said Jagat Singh came to the embassy with two other people, saying they were also part of the Youth Congress delegation.

The former ambassador however says he does not remember who these two other people were.

Contradictions within

The big question now is whether Jagat Singh and his friend Andaleeb Sehgal had visited Iraq with the Congress delegation in 2001.

However, every member of the controversial Congress delegation seems to have a different answer to that question.

A R Antulay, former Maharashtra chief minister who was part of the delegation, told NDTV that he doesn't remember seeing Natwar Singh's son.

"I saw him neither in the delegation nor anywhere that we went," said Antulay.

But fellow traveller and former Congress leader P Shiv Shankar had an entirely different set of memories of the trip.

He remembers both Jagat Singh and Andy Sehgal travelling with them till Jordan, but not after that.

"Thereafter we went to Baghdad by car. I'm not sure whether they followed us till Baghdad, but they were there in Jordan," said Shiv Shankar.

"I never saw Andaleeb and Jagat in Iraq," he added.

The former Congress leader also said he will depose before the Pathak commission, if and when he is summoned.

Differing statements

Jagat Singh himself maintains he went as a Youth Congress member though the Congress party has not commented on whether any such delegation was officially sanctioned.

But this is contradicted by Antulay, who says there is no question of any separate Youth Congress delegation being in Iraq at the same time as them.

"There was no other delegation. There was only one delegation headed by Natwar Singh and Aniel Matherani," maintains Antulay.

Ironically, Natwar Singh also contradicts his son's version. He says Jagat Singh simply came along as his son.

"My son came with me. He'd come with me in 1985 when I'd gone to open a railway line. There's no bar against my son accompanying me," said Natwar Singh.

Questions remain

And in another piece in the missing puzzle, Union Minister Subodh Kant Sahay, who is said to have visited Iraq five times, admitted he went to Iraq in 2001, but said it was not as a member of the Congress party.

He represented his NGO called Non Aligned Youth and Students' Organisation (NAYSO) that works in countries like Palestine, Malaysia and a few others, and has been associated with this NGO since the early 90s.

"Who remembers everyone? There were so many Indians in Baghdad. I don't remember any such person," said Sahay.

But questions still remain unanswered whether Andy Sehgal accompanied Jagat Singh to Iraq, whether he was present at meetings with Tariq Aziz and whether he and Jagat clinched the oil contract.

With more and more contradictions emerging every day, the evidence is adding up against the former foreign minister and his family.

And every member of the delegation, including Aniel Matherani, may have a lot to answer for.
www.ndtv.com/template/tem...y=National

12-04-2005, 10:03 PM

QUOTEIndo-Asian News Service
New Delhi, December 2
Transcript of the interview given by Anil Matherani, Indian ambassador to Croatia and a former functionary of the Congress party's foreign affairs cell:

Q. Can you narrate the sequence of events?

A. Former Iraqi vice-president Taha Ramadan visited India on Nov 27, 2000, and Natwar Singh accompanied Congress president Sonia Gandhi to the meeting with him. After this, there was talk that during the delegation's visit, the oil minister met Natwar separately. Natwar too had said that they had had a meeting.

Q. Then what happened?

A. After the visit, Natwar activated an invitation that was given to him by Iraqi ambassador Salah Al Mukhtar. The invitation letter was addressed to Natwar in person by Iraqi deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz.

He activated the invitation because when Sonia Gandhi met Ramadan during his India trip, an invitation to visit Iraq was extended to the Congress president and the Congress delegation.

Q. Why did the invite come to Natwar instead of going to the Congress president?

A. Exactly. The invitation letter was addressed to Natwar as the Iraqi ambassador was close to him and Natwar dealt directly with him. He activated the invitation and then went to the Congress president. After this, she approved a four-member delegation. You know all the names.

Q. What happened after that?

A. This was told to the Iraqi ambassador and the dates were fixed. The Congress party purchased tickets for the four-member delegation on the Royal Jordanian Airlines and gifts were also purchased. A letter was drafted on behalf of the Congress president by Natwar for Saddam Hussein. Then the Iraqi ambassador was told to go ahead and fix the visit.

In the meantime, Natwar also told the Iraqi ambassador that perhaps his son would accompany him. After all, the visas had to be given by the Iraqi embassy.

Q. Did he also talk about Andleeb Sehgal with the ambassador?

A. Till then I had not heard about this cousin at all. I am telling you about Jagat Singh. Natwar had mentioned that his son might accompany him. He had said that it would be a difficult journey to Iraq and that he would like his son to join him.

When we reached the airport, Jagat Singh appeared at the airport and took the flight with us.

Q. What happened when you reached Amman?

A. At the airport, we were received by an Indian embassy official and brought to the Intercontinental Hotel. After we assembled in the lobby, Sehgal appeared.

Q. What did Natwar say?

A. He was introduced to the delegation by Natwar as his son's cousin, somebody who was familiar with Iraq and whose visit-by coincidence-was at the same time as ours.

Q. Didn't this make all of you suspicious about Sehgal?

A. Who knew who this character was? We never suspected Natwar and who would suspect him? People were afraid of him and respected him because of his proximity to Sonia Gandhi. He was above board. You could never have an iota of doubt about his credibility. So where was the question of suspicion?

In the evening, the then Indian ambassador to Jordan hosted a reception for us, where Jagat and Sehgal were present. Subodh Kant Sahay, who was also going to Iraq, was there. He hung around us and wanted to be a part of the delegation. (However, Sahay told India Today that he had nothing to do with the oil vouchers and never wanted to get on board the Congress delegation.)

Q. Who else was there in Amman?

A. In the hotel, I spotted Jamil Saidi. I don't know whether he was staying in the same hotel or not.

Q. Did they mention why Sehgal was in Amman and why he was going with them to Baghdad?

A. No, till then everything was happening according to plan. Natwar had said he was taking his son for a difficult journey and had got Jagat's cousin, who knew Iraq, for company. At that time, Natwar's credibility was at its highest. Till then, they (Jagat and Sehgal) were not part of the official four-member delegation.

Q. What happened when you reached Baghdad?

A. We were received by R.Dayakar, the then Indian ambassador to Baghdad, and Iraqi officials. We were taken to the Al Rashid Hotel. It was essentially the Baath party hotel and all the people who stayed there were the guests of the Baath party.

This was when the transition took place. Jagat became a part of the delegation and checked in with us. Sehgal did the same. You can't check into this hotel unless you are part of the delegation.

Q. Did Natwar tell them to do so?

A. Exactly. As we reached Iraq, all directions and instructions were issued by the leader of the delegation (Natwar). The Iraqi leadership was in touch only with him and our embassy took instructions only from the leader of the delegation.

His word was final. None of us had any contact with the Baath party or knew any official of the party, but apparently Natwar had an old friendship with Aziz, which he had mentioned even before leaving.

Q. What happened at the meetings with Aziz and Ramadan?

A. The members of the Congress delegation increased from four to six and then the discussions took place. First there was a meeting with Aziz, where these two (Jagat and Sehgal) were present and were introduced by the leader of the delegation. The discussion with Aziz was general, about the relationship with the Congress and the no-fly zone.

At the meeting, Aziz suggested that other meetings would also be organised for the delegation. He also mentioned that it took seven days before an audience could be arranged with Saddam.

Q. Did he say anything about oil?

A. There was no discussion on oil or vouchers, but these two (Jagat and Sehgal) were introduced.

Q. Are you sure you are not suffering from selective amnesia?

A. Believe me, I am not. Everything I am telling you is a fact. After the meeting we looked around Baghdad. Dayakar had organised a reception for us. Some Indians in Baghdad and Iraqi officials were also present, but nobody too senior. Off and on, Sahay would come to see us at all these places, but I don't recollect him being present at any of our meetings.

Q. What were Jagat and Sehgal doing all this while?

A. After the meetings, they would disappear. Nobody knew what they were doing. They kept to themselves - Natwar, Jagat and Sehgal. What they discussed was confined to Natwar's room. It was a very closed group. By that time it was becoming quite clear that they were looking for trade.

Q. Why do you say that?

A. Because of Sehgal's activities it was clear that he was a businessman looking to do some business in Iraq, that Jagat was helping him and that they were partners. One can understand Jagat accompanying his father even if he was not allowed in the delegation, but what was the point of bringing a cousin? By then the delegation had become aware of their activities.

Q. Did the other delegation members talk about it?

A. No, you don't question what the head of your delegation is doing. You take it as it comes. All instructions were given by him.

Q. What happened at the meeting with the Iraqi vice-president?

A. At the meeting with Ramadan, Sonia Gandhi's letter was given and on Jan 21, 2001, the Iraqi radio reported what Natwar said during the discussion. At that meeting the two (Jagat and Sehgal) were present and no business was transacted.

It had been planned to give an impression to the Iraqi leadership that the delegation had a political component (Natwar and three others) and a business component (Jagat and Sehgal). Perhaps they had intimated to the Iraqis what they intended to do.

Q. Did they meet the oil minister?

A. I don't remember, but there was a meeting with the trade minister and commerce minister. All subsequent meetings were arranged by Aziz.

Q. Didn't any member find out that oil vouchers would be allocated?

A. I don't recall anything being said about oil vouchers at the meeting. But I must tell you that Saidi reappeared in Baghdad. I remember seeing him in the lobby of the Al Rashid Hotel.

Q. But he is denying it. Did he have something to do with it?

A. Yes, he had something to do with it. Hundred percent. All of them were together - Jagat, Sehgal and this Jamil character. (However, Jamil Saidi denied that he was in Baghdad. "I met them in Jordan and that's about it. Some people are trying to fix me. I've been threatened with dire consequences," he told India Today.)

Q. We were told you had separate meetings with Jagat and Sehgal.

A. I was constantly with the delegation and had no separate calls with any Iraqi official.

Q. You were close to Natwar. Didn't he mention oil at any time?

A. We are talking about 2001. I was never close to him. Later, when there were deaths in his family, I met him and gave him solace. In fact, when Sonia Gandhi was going to Iceland and the US, Natwar ensured that I didn't become a part of the delegation.

Q. How did the allocation of the oil vouchers take place?

A. When Natwar introduced his son and Sehgal to all the Iraqi officials, he didn't have to say anything. All that he had to do was to show that they were in the delegation that they were his son and his cousin, and therefore it was confidential.

They could go later and do whatever business they wanted to. You don't have to say anything to the face. The fact that they were introduced was a clear signal to the Iraqis.

Q. Did they talk at any time about the oil vouchers?

A. This was kept completely under wraps. You don't need to have the Congress delegation present to get the vouchers.

Q. This means the groundwork was laid during the visit of the Congress delegation.

A. Exactly. The groundwork was laid at that time, and then one could come back and accept whatever vouchers were given. The important thing was to take that delegation and have these two (Jagat and Sehgal) in it and to have them introduced formally.

Q. What happened after you came back?

A. When we got back, these two also came back to Jordan in the same caravan. Then they (Jagat and Sehgal) stayed back in Amman.

Q. Why did they stay back? Did they say anything?

A. No, but the entire operation was managed through the Iraqi embassy in Delhi and in Jordan. The embassy in Jordan was a key player, just as it was in case of oil vouchers. You can make these connections. 'Moti baat yeh hai ki' the green signal for the vouchers was given during this visit (January 2001).

The Iraqis needed a green signal (for oil allocation) and it was provided by Natwar. He organised the delegation and introduced the ones who would execute whatever was given.

Q. So the vouchers didn't go to the Congress, but to Natwar.

A. Naturally. The fact is that in this case both (oil voucher allottees) are possibly the same. In my view, both are exactly the same. One has been given to him (Natwar) by name and the other is in the name of the Congress party. One for Natwar's personal services - don't forget that he is the one who has been espousing the Iraqi cause all along. He has been a vociferous supporter of the Iraqi regime and of Saddam. The other voucher the Iraqis kept for the friendly Congress party.

Q. Aditya Khanna's name has also been mentioned.

A. I don't know Aditya Khanna, but his father Vipin is very close to Natwar.

Q. How can you say that?

A. When the prime minister of Luxembourg called on Sonia Gandhi in 1999-2000, Natwar brought Vipin Khanna to 10 Janpath. This guy need not have been present at that meeting as he was an honorary consul-general, not an ambassador.

Q. But Natwar maintains he did not know about his name being linked to the oil-for-food scandal.

A. When Congress spokesperson Anand Sharma was asked at a press conference on Oct 16, 2004, about the Iraq Survey Group, he had replied, "It is not to be taken seriously. It is factually incorrect." The fact that Congress' name has figured was known to them.

I refuse to believe when Natwar says he knew nothing about it. Of course, he knew all these things from the beginning but preferred to keep quiet. He told a select group that he had known for some time about his and Congress' name being there but preferred not to react. That Natwar and the Congress never knew is hogwash.

12-04-2005, 10:37 PM

Every day there is a new development. The fact is that even if money has changed hand, it has gone to the than opposition political party.Since, the persons allaged to have received the funds, were not in power the most they could do in favour of the than Govt of Iraq was to make some favourable noise in public forums.

12-04-2005, 10:52 PM

Why would Matherani come out with this ? Is the anti-natwar lobby that strong in INC ?

12-04-2005, 11:38 PM

QUOTESince, the persons allaged to have received the funds, were not in power the most they could do in favour of the than Govt of Iraq was to make some favourable noise in public forums. 
Person (Nutwar and congress party) who had received money created lot of noise in Parliament and all party meeting to voice against US govt. He cursed than PM Vajpayee in meeting. (There was a news article when Nutwar was shouting on Vajpayee during Iraq-US war discussion and cursed him, Mulyam yadav tried to diffuse situation) He and his commie buddies came with resolution against US in Indian parliament. This all happen when Indian govt, want to stay neutral or "wait and see" situation.
See Natwar behavior and bribe episode only tells its foreign money which influenced Congress and Commies to come in favor of Saddam.
Even when they were in opposition they influenced govt policy.

I call them traitors. Itâs not a small corruption episode or money changing hands but they are traitors of highest order who are ready to sell India even when sitting in opposition, think about now these scum bags are running country.

12-04-2005, 11:48 PM

I agree with Mudy.

Whether in power or in opposition, foreign state funding of political parties is dangerous and should be treated as traitorous. Here we worry about 5th columns in our country and we actually have a major opposition party which has been in power for most of the period of Indian independence involved in underhanded deals. Sorry, being in opposition is just not a good excuse.

Login




Remember me Lost Password?