11-13-2005, 05:18 AM
http://www.dailypioneer.com/foray1.asp?mai...t&counter_img=1
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Curious tale of the Telis
Chandan Mitra
Once upon a time there was a man by the name of Ziaur Rahman Ansari, a Minister in the Rajiv Gandhi Government. An elderly, almost avuncular man, impeccably attired as a member of the Muslim aristocracy of Awadh - sherwani and the works, replete with a greying goatie beard - you would have thought him least capable of pouncing on a young woman inside his ministerial office.  Â
But, according to a woman NGO activist, that was exactly what he allegedly did. Many people didn't believe her for she was so well-built that one blow should have had him flat out on the floor.
Anyway, ZR Ansari's real or imagined molestation attempt is not the story. Under siege from the media even before the age of 24-hour news channels, the hapless Ansari unable to contain himself burst out, calling his critics "Telis and Tambolis." He asserted he was a dedicated Congressman and, therefore, could not possibly belong to the class of oil-pressers or paan-growers! He would not have got away with this casteist remark today, but the media focused only on his alleged pawing of a handsome woman in his ante-room and not his berating the two communities. Since he was asked to quit by an embarrassed Rajiv Gandhi, the controversy died down.
The Congress, Ansari had declared, could never be reduced to the category of Telis! I am sure the khaandaani MP from Unnao meant what he said. Ansari would be turning in his grave to discover that 20 years later his party is quite comfortable making money from oil! If the Volcker Report has any substance, India's ruling party has sunk to the level of an oil merchant. Apparently, it has gained a whopping US $ 16.7 million from a transaction through a Rotterdam-based company, courtesy Saddam Hussein. In comparison, Natwar Singh is alleged to have benefited to the tune of just $ 300,000. Peanuts! But such is the (in)justice that prevails in the world of politics that poor Natwar has been made the fall guy, Manmohan Singh's half-hearted defence of his colleague notwithstanding.
The former External Affairs Minister partially exited kicking and screaming, protesting his own and his wayward son's innocence. He had to go, for further indiscretion by him might have compelled fingers to be raised at the real beneficiaries of the shady oil business, namely, the custodians of the party he has loyally served for decades.
Everybody knows the real gainers from the food-for-oil deal: The buck stops at Delhi's most famous residential address. But that's a charge nobody dare openly make. Worse still, retainers of the impugned family were out with knives from Day One, hoping poor Natwar would promptly get the sack so that they could wriggle their way through South Block's Gate No 4 and plonk on the seat vacated by him. If Natwar Singh repeatedly put his foot in the mouth thereafter it must have been on account of his outrage at his colleagues' ruthless plotting for his ouster.
An invidious attempt is being made to turn the focus away from Sonia Gandhi and the Congress party by pointing fingers at one Andleeb (Andy) Sehgal, his dubious firm Hamadan Exports and obliquely at Natwar Singh's already controversial son Jagat. Accordingly, the RS Pathak probe has been designated an "authority," which means its status is less than that of a commission of inquiry.
A great deal of verbal jugglery has been done to pretend that "authority" and "commission" is the same thing. In common understanding, they are not. If they, indeed, are the same, what is the problem in calling it a commission of inquiry? It's disingenuous to suggest that a commission will take more time to probe than an "authority." This peculiar logic has never been advanced in the last 58 years. What is the compelling reason to do so now? Not surprisingly, it is being said in political circles, tel mein kuchh kaala hai.
On the face of it, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh would appear to have acted with firmness and alacrity. As soon as storm clouds began to gather he put old UN hand Virender Dayal on the job followed the next day by Justice Pathak. These parallel inquiries are intriguing. What will be Dayal's brief when Pathak is heading the judicial probe? Both seem unclear.
Apparently Dayal will be given unlimited round-the-world air tickets to ferret out information from abroad while Justice Pathak will do the querying at home. One should not pre-judge, but Dayal's long stint at the UN could cut both ways. He may be well placed and sufficiently networked to get all the details. But the same qualifications could yield a different result if the Government's intention is to be less than transparent. In other words, the promptitude displayed by Manmohan Singh may have a different purpose. After pacifying voluble protests with these announcements, the Congress' dirty tricks department appears engaged in diluting the dimensions of the inquiry.
The Finance Minister, busy ingratiating himself to the high command (he needs to do it in view of the Left's trenchant criticism of his policies) is on yet another diversionary track. He has threatened tax raids on selected companies that are believed to have paid surcharges to Saddam Hussein for lifting his oil at discounted rates. Since the Who's Who of India's corporates have been named in this connection, it is certain that a great deal of hype will be generated over the so-called inquiry.
The fact, however, is that these companies committed no crime; their transactions with the erstwhile regime in Baghdad were of a purely commercial nature and cannot be compared with the political transactions made by Natwar Singh and, more importantly, the Congress party. In case these companies have evaded paying tax they must be probed and if guilty, punished.
However, the corporate aspect was well known for years. As Indian Oil Corporation has explained, it too was offered a deal but declined because it was not ready to pay the surcharge (read kickback). So, there was nothing particularly secret about the UN-supervised oil-for-food programme, especially since as many as 125 Indian companies participated in it. The issue, therefore, is not of commerce but ethics.
The point is whether it was appropriate for a major political party to exploit its pro-Saddam policy to make a fast buck on the side. Even if the Congress cries hoarse, who will believe there was no quid pro quo in the deal? Saddam did not extend his munificence to various Indian political parties: He confined it to the Congress. Why? Also, why was the deal evidently negotiated through the chief of the party's Foreign Affairs Cell, as it seems from the Volcker Report? Are clandestine commercial operations a legitimate way of raising funds for the party? Does this not constitute a violation of the Foreign Contributions Regulation Act (FCRA)? I am afraid the Government's damage-limitation exercise is aimed at shielding the Congress and its functionaries. It is not enough to temporarily hang Natwar Singh. The Congress Party, and its president cannot escape responsibility.
Is it credible that $16.7 million (Rs 71.8 crore) flowed into the Congress's coffers without the knowledge and concurrence of its chief? Arguably, this charge is yet to be conclusively established. But is the Government interested in establishing it? Or will the Volcker probe go the Bofors way? Indians have the right to know, although we probably never will.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Curious tale of the Telis
Chandan Mitra
Once upon a time there was a man by the name of Ziaur Rahman Ansari, a Minister in the Rajiv Gandhi Government. An elderly, almost avuncular man, impeccably attired as a member of the Muslim aristocracy of Awadh - sherwani and the works, replete with a greying goatie beard - you would have thought him least capable of pouncing on a young woman inside his ministerial office.  Â
But, according to a woman NGO activist, that was exactly what he allegedly did. Many people didn't believe her for she was so well-built that one blow should have had him flat out on the floor.
Anyway, ZR Ansari's real or imagined molestation attempt is not the story. Under siege from the media even before the age of 24-hour news channels, the hapless Ansari unable to contain himself burst out, calling his critics "Telis and Tambolis." He asserted he was a dedicated Congressman and, therefore, could not possibly belong to the class of oil-pressers or paan-growers! He would not have got away with this casteist remark today, but the media focused only on his alleged pawing of a handsome woman in his ante-room and not his berating the two communities. Since he was asked to quit by an embarrassed Rajiv Gandhi, the controversy died down.
The Congress, Ansari had declared, could never be reduced to the category of Telis! I am sure the khaandaani MP from Unnao meant what he said. Ansari would be turning in his grave to discover that 20 years later his party is quite comfortable making money from oil! If the Volcker Report has any substance, India's ruling party has sunk to the level of an oil merchant. Apparently, it has gained a whopping US $ 16.7 million from a transaction through a Rotterdam-based company, courtesy Saddam Hussein. In comparison, Natwar Singh is alleged to have benefited to the tune of just $ 300,000. Peanuts! But such is the (in)justice that prevails in the world of politics that poor Natwar has been made the fall guy, Manmohan Singh's half-hearted defence of his colleague notwithstanding.
The former External Affairs Minister partially exited kicking and screaming, protesting his own and his wayward son's innocence. He had to go, for further indiscretion by him might have compelled fingers to be raised at the real beneficiaries of the shady oil business, namely, the custodians of the party he has loyally served for decades.
Everybody knows the real gainers from the food-for-oil deal: The buck stops at Delhi's most famous residential address. But that's a charge nobody dare openly make. Worse still, retainers of the impugned family were out with knives from Day One, hoping poor Natwar would promptly get the sack so that they could wriggle their way through South Block's Gate No 4 and plonk on the seat vacated by him. If Natwar Singh repeatedly put his foot in the mouth thereafter it must have been on account of his outrage at his colleagues' ruthless plotting for his ouster.
An invidious attempt is being made to turn the focus away from Sonia Gandhi and the Congress party by pointing fingers at one Andleeb (Andy) Sehgal, his dubious firm Hamadan Exports and obliquely at Natwar Singh's already controversial son Jagat. Accordingly, the RS Pathak probe has been designated an "authority," which means its status is less than that of a commission of inquiry.
A great deal of verbal jugglery has been done to pretend that "authority" and "commission" is the same thing. In common understanding, they are not. If they, indeed, are the same, what is the problem in calling it a commission of inquiry? It's disingenuous to suggest that a commission will take more time to probe than an "authority." This peculiar logic has never been advanced in the last 58 years. What is the compelling reason to do so now? Not surprisingly, it is being said in political circles, tel mein kuchh kaala hai.
On the face of it, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh would appear to have acted with firmness and alacrity. As soon as storm clouds began to gather he put old UN hand Virender Dayal on the job followed the next day by Justice Pathak. These parallel inquiries are intriguing. What will be Dayal's brief when Pathak is heading the judicial probe? Both seem unclear.
Apparently Dayal will be given unlimited round-the-world air tickets to ferret out information from abroad while Justice Pathak will do the querying at home. One should not pre-judge, but Dayal's long stint at the UN could cut both ways. He may be well placed and sufficiently networked to get all the details. But the same qualifications could yield a different result if the Government's intention is to be less than transparent. In other words, the promptitude displayed by Manmohan Singh may have a different purpose. After pacifying voluble protests with these announcements, the Congress' dirty tricks department appears engaged in diluting the dimensions of the inquiry.
The Finance Minister, busy ingratiating himself to the high command (he needs to do it in view of the Left's trenchant criticism of his policies) is on yet another diversionary track. He has threatened tax raids on selected companies that are believed to have paid surcharges to Saddam Hussein for lifting his oil at discounted rates. Since the Who's Who of India's corporates have been named in this connection, it is certain that a great deal of hype will be generated over the so-called inquiry.
The fact, however, is that these companies committed no crime; their transactions with the erstwhile regime in Baghdad were of a purely commercial nature and cannot be compared with the political transactions made by Natwar Singh and, more importantly, the Congress party. In case these companies have evaded paying tax they must be probed and if guilty, punished.
However, the corporate aspect was well known for years. As Indian Oil Corporation has explained, it too was offered a deal but declined because it was not ready to pay the surcharge (read kickback). So, there was nothing particularly secret about the UN-supervised oil-for-food programme, especially since as many as 125 Indian companies participated in it. The issue, therefore, is not of commerce but ethics.
The point is whether it was appropriate for a major political party to exploit its pro-Saddam policy to make a fast buck on the side. Even if the Congress cries hoarse, who will believe there was no quid pro quo in the deal? Saddam did not extend his munificence to various Indian political parties: He confined it to the Congress. Why? Also, why was the deal evidently negotiated through the chief of the party's Foreign Affairs Cell, as it seems from the Volcker Report? Are clandestine commercial operations a legitimate way of raising funds for the party? Does this not constitute a violation of the Foreign Contributions Regulation Act (FCRA)? I am afraid the Government's damage-limitation exercise is aimed at shielding the Congress and its functionaries. It is not enough to temporarily hang Natwar Singh. The Congress Party, and its president cannot escape responsibility.
Is it credible that $16.7 million (Rs 71.8 crore) flowed into the Congress's coffers without the knowledge and concurrence of its chief? Arguably, this charge is yet to be conclusively established. But is the Government interested in establishing it? Or will the Volcker probe go the Bofors way? Indians have the right to know, although we probably never will.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->