12-03-2005, 12:54 AM
Parliament discussion
In Full-
because we should know, how these traitors get support from other Indian politicians.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->164.100.24.167/rsdebate/s...112005.htm
<b>MOTION</b>
Alleged Involvement of Some Indian Entities and Individuals as Non-Contractual Beneficiaries in The United Nationsâ Independent Inquiry Committee (Volcker Committee) Reportâcontd.
<b>SHRI RAM JETHMALANI:</b> 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.
<b>SHRI C. RAMACHANDRAIAH:</b> 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.
<b>SHRI ANAND SHARMA:</b> 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.
<b>SHRI MANGANI LAL MANDAL:</b> 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.
<b>SHRI GANDHI AZAD:</b> 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.
<b>SHRI PYARIMOHAN MOHAPATRA:</b> 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.
<b>SHRI R.S. GAVAI: </b>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.
<b>SHRI TARIQ ANWAR:</b> 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.
<b>SHRI N. JOTHI:</b> 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.
<b>SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR:</b> 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.
<b>SHRI MANOJ BHATTACHARYA:</b> 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.
<b>SHRI SHARAD ANANTRAO JOSHI:</b> 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.
<b>SHRI M.P. ABDUSSAMAD SAMADANI:</b> 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.
<b>SHRI R.SHUNMUGASUNDARAM:</b> 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
<b>SHRI ARUN JAITLEY,</b> 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<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In Full-
because we should know, how these traitors get support from other Indian politicians.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->164.100.24.167/rsdebate/s...112005.htm
<b>MOTION</b>
Alleged Involvement of Some Indian Entities and Individuals as Non-Contractual Beneficiaries in The United Nationsâ Independent Inquiry Committee (Volcker Committee) Reportâcontd.
<b>SHRI RAM JETHMALANI:</b> 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.
<b>SHRI C. RAMACHANDRAIAH:</b> 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.
<b>SHRI ANAND SHARMA:</b> 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.
<b>SHRI MANGANI LAL MANDAL:</b> 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.
<b>SHRI GANDHI AZAD:</b> 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.
<b>SHRI PYARIMOHAN MOHAPATRA:</b> 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.
<b>SHRI R.S. GAVAI: </b>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.
<b>SHRI TARIQ ANWAR:</b> 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.
<b>SHRI N. JOTHI:</b> 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.
<b>SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR:</b> 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.
<b>SHRI MANOJ BHATTACHARYA:</b> 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.
<b>SHRI SHARAD ANANTRAO JOSHI:</b> 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.
<b>SHRI M.P. ABDUSSAMAD SAMADANI:</b> 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.
<b>SHRI R.SHUNMUGASUNDARAM:</b> 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
<b>SHRI ARUN JAITLEY,</b> 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<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->