11-13-2005, 09:52 PM
<b>Did Natwar cook his own goose</b>?<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> <i>It's possible the party did not get the proceeds from Saddam's concessional oil coupons, says Ajoy Bose </i>
A week after Mr Natwar Singh was stripped of the External Affairs Ministry portfolio, there are a few takers for the official reasons cited by the UPA Government and the Congress for his downfall.
Nor do the explanations suggested by the media, or rumours doing the rounds in political circles, seem credible. Indeed, considerable mystery remains on why Congress president Sonia Gandhi decided to turn her back on this old retainer of the Gandhi family who she has mollycoddled for so long.
Clearly, neither a sense of moral outrage nor a sense of imminent political danger could have motivated Ms Gandhi and the Congress to have taken such a step. First, any talk of moral outrage should be swiftly discounted in a party where corruption in high places and favours given and taken from all and sundry are considered routine. As a matter of fact, the knee-jerk response of the Congress, as has been the practice for the past many decades when faced with similar corruption charges against party leaders, should have been denial and bluster.
As for a sense of imminent political danger arising out of revelations contained in the Volcker report about the Congress and Mr Natwar Singh, this makes even less sense. First, the extremely scattered and unverified references of underhand dealings by individuals and institutions with the Saddam Hussein regime during the Oil-for-Food programme in the fifth volume of the report has been contested bitterly across the world. Even UN officials admit that the evidence against many of those named in the report is pretty thin, since the purpose of Volcker was find wrongdoings and malpractices within the United Nations and not outside the organisation.
The Congress could have easily taken shelter behind all these allegations and more strenuously backed Mr Natwar Singh's own public fulminations about the credibility of the Volcker report. Now it also turns out that Mr Paul Volcker, despite claiming to do so, may not have notified either the Congress or Mr Natwar Singh about their names featuring in the report. This would have further strengthened the case of the UPA Government and the Congress, if they chose to rubbish the report.
<b>What makes the gravity with which the Government and ruling party chose to view the report even more puzzling is that they were not under pressure to do so from any of it allies. Instead, several allies including the Left Front, DMK and even the Nationalist Congress Party chose to make public statements supporting Mr Natwar Singh, and declaring that there was no need for him step down from the post of Foreign Minister just because of the Volcker report. </b>In fact, many Leftist leaders were openly critical of the report, seeing it as a bid by the United States to remove Mr Singh because he was not so inclined towards the Bush Administration and its policies.
There is also some talk about the probe being announced and Mr Natwar Singh removed from the Foreign Minister's post to save the Government from being embarrassed by the BJP and other opposition parties in the coming Winter Session of Parliament. Surely, this is bit of a joke, since the Congress along with other ruling parties have revelled in surviving Opposition charges of corruption both within Parliament and outside. Considering the internal woes of the BJP at the moment and the general subdued mood of the Opposition, it seems quite inconceivable that it could mount the kind of challenge to the Government on the Volcker report, say, like it did during the Bofors scandal. <b>Even die-hard critics of the Congress admit that there is a huge difference in scale and substance between the two scams, at least on evidence on view so far</b>.
So, if a sense of moral outrage or pressure from its allies or the Opposition was not the reason, was it a daring internal coup within the Congress that got rid of Mr Natwar Singh from the Foreign Minister's post? Some suggest that a powerful cabal of leaders including Ms Ambika Soni, Mr Kapil Sibal and Mr Jairam Ramesh forced Ms Sonia Gandhi to withdraw her protection from the old Gandhi family loyalist. Now, this is extremely difficult to believe considering the sweeping authority of <b>Ms Gandhi within the Congress, and the abject manner in which everyone in the party falls into line with her likes and dislikes. There had to be some kind of signal from the lady herself for the hounds in the Congress to have started baying for the blood of the ousted Foreign Minister</b>.
There is also speculation that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh took a firm stance against Mr Natwar Singh and served the Congress president with an ultimatum that he would quit unless the Foreign Minister stepped down. This too seems most unlikely and completely at variance with the Prime Minister's dealings with 10, Janpath. While differences between the two Singhs on a host of foreign policy issues date back to well before the UPA Government came to power, it is difficult to believe that he would blot his copybook and mount pressure on the Congress supremo - a move that even if temporarily successful could easily backfire in the future. It is also significant that Mr Manmohan Singh has gone out of his way to defend Mr Natwar Singh after the latter quit the Foreign Ministry.
To solve the Natwar Singh mystery, we need to look beyond the more obvious reasons and speculation for his departure. There is a distinct possibility, for instance, that Mr Natwar Singh got into trouble with Ms Sonia Gandhi herself, after she was provided some damaging evidence that suggested his son, Jagat <b>Singh, had garnered concessional oil coupons from Saddam Hussein in the name of the Congress, but did not pass on the proceeds to the party</b>. <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>It is an open secret that this kind of betrayal on money matters is far greater sin to the Congress president than political disloyalty.</span>
To make matters worse for himself, Mr Natwar Singh is reported to have lost his head when confronted with this evidence. <b>He is said to have publicly threatened at a New Delhi evening party that he was all for a probe into the Volcker report as long as it went right to the top of the Congress. Not surprisingly, Ms Sonia Gandhi was furious when reports of this public gaffe got back to her</b>. The beleaguered Foreign Minister then proceeded to crucify himself further by giving an explosive interview to NDTV where he uttered several foreign policy indiscretions.
This was followed by yet another controversial statement to the media on the Iran vote, and his goose was cooked.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Shows Sonia is not only greedy but dumb.
A week after Mr Natwar Singh was stripped of the External Affairs Ministry portfolio, there are a few takers for the official reasons cited by the UPA Government and the Congress for his downfall.
Nor do the explanations suggested by the media, or rumours doing the rounds in political circles, seem credible. Indeed, considerable mystery remains on why Congress president Sonia Gandhi decided to turn her back on this old retainer of the Gandhi family who she has mollycoddled for so long.
Clearly, neither a sense of moral outrage nor a sense of imminent political danger could have motivated Ms Gandhi and the Congress to have taken such a step. First, any talk of moral outrage should be swiftly discounted in a party where corruption in high places and favours given and taken from all and sundry are considered routine. As a matter of fact, the knee-jerk response of the Congress, as has been the practice for the past many decades when faced with similar corruption charges against party leaders, should have been denial and bluster.
As for a sense of imminent political danger arising out of revelations contained in the Volcker report about the Congress and Mr Natwar Singh, this makes even less sense. First, the extremely scattered and unverified references of underhand dealings by individuals and institutions with the Saddam Hussein regime during the Oil-for-Food programme in the fifth volume of the report has been contested bitterly across the world. Even UN officials admit that the evidence against many of those named in the report is pretty thin, since the purpose of Volcker was find wrongdoings and malpractices within the United Nations and not outside the organisation.
The Congress could have easily taken shelter behind all these allegations and more strenuously backed Mr Natwar Singh's own public fulminations about the credibility of the Volcker report. Now it also turns out that Mr Paul Volcker, despite claiming to do so, may not have notified either the Congress or Mr Natwar Singh about their names featuring in the report. This would have further strengthened the case of the UPA Government and the Congress, if they chose to rubbish the report.
<b>What makes the gravity with which the Government and ruling party chose to view the report even more puzzling is that they were not under pressure to do so from any of it allies. Instead, several allies including the Left Front, DMK and even the Nationalist Congress Party chose to make public statements supporting Mr Natwar Singh, and declaring that there was no need for him step down from the post of Foreign Minister just because of the Volcker report. </b>In fact, many Leftist leaders were openly critical of the report, seeing it as a bid by the United States to remove Mr Singh because he was not so inclined towards the Bush Administration and its policies.
There is also some talk about the probe being announced and Mr Natwar Singh removed from the Foreign Minister's post to save the Government from being embarrassed by the BJP and other opposition parties in the coming Winter Session of Parliament. Surely, this is bit of a joke, since the Congress along with other ruling parties have revelled in surviving Opposition charges of corruption both within Parliament and outside. Considering the internal woes of the BJP at the moment and the general subdued mood of the Opposition, it seems quite inconceivable that it could mount the kind of challenge to the Government on the Volcker report, say, like it did during the Bofors scandal. <b>Even die-hard critics of the Congress admit that there is a huge difference in scale and substance between the two scams, at least on evidence on view so far</b>.
So, if a sense of moral outrage or pressure from its allies or the Opposition was not the reason, was it a daring internal coup within the Congress that got rid of Mr Natwar Singh from the Foreign Minister's post? Some suggest that a powerful cabal of leaders including Ms Ambika Soni, Mr Kapil Sibal and Mr Jairam Ramesh forced Ms Sonia Gandhi to withdraw her protection from the old Gandhi family loyalist. Now, this is extremely difficult to believe considering the sweeping authority of <b>Ms Gandhi within the Congress, and the abject manner in which everyone in the party falls into line with her likes and dislikes. There had to be some kind of signal from the lady herself for the hounds in the Congress to have started baying for the blood of the ousted Foreign Minister</b>.
There is also speculation that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh took a firm stance against Mr Natwar Singh and served the Congress president with an ultimatum that he would quit unless the Foreign Minister stepped down. This too seems most unlikely and completely at variance with the Prime Minister's dealings with 10, Janpath. While differences between the two Singhs on a host of foreign policy issues date back to well before the UPA Government came to power, it is difficult to believe that he would blot his copybook and mount pressure on the Congress supremo - a move that even if temporarily successful could easily backfire in the future. It is also significant that Mr Manmohan Singh has gone out of his way to defend Mr Natwar Singh after the latter quit the Foreign Ministry.
To solve the Natwar Singh mystery, we need to look beyond the more obvious reasons and speculation for his departure. There is a distinct possibility, for instance, that Mr Natwar Singh got into trouble with Ms Sonia Gandhi herself, after she was provided some damaging evidence that suggested his son, Jagat <b>Singh, had garnered concessional oil coupons from Saddam Hussein in the name of the Congress, but did not pass on the proceeds to the party</b>. <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>It is an open secret that this kind of betrayal on money matters is far greater sin to the Congress president than political disloyalty.</span>
To make matters worse for himself, Mr Natwar Singh is reported to have lost his head when confronted with this evidence. <b>He is said to have publicly threatened at a New Delhi evening party that he was all for a probe into the Volcker report as long as it went right to the top of the Congress. Not surprisingly, Ms Sonia Gandhi was furious when reports of this public gaffe got back to her</b>. The beleaguered Foreign Minister then proceeded to crucify himself further by giving an explosive interview to NDTV where he uttered several foreign policy indiscretions.
This was followed by yet another controversial statement to the media on the Iran vote, and his goose was cooked.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Shows Sonia is not only greedy but dumb.