12-03-2005, 12:55 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>MOTION </b>
Alleged Involvement of Some Indian Entities and Individuals as Non- Contractual Beneficiaries in The United Nationsâ Independent Inquiry Committee (Volcker Committee) Report
<b>SHRI ARUN JAITLEY: </b>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.
<b>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):</b> 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.
<b>SHRI SITARAM YECHURY:</b> 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.
<b>SHRI SHAHID SIDDIQUI:</b> 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.
<b>SHRI P.G.NARAYANAN:</b> 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.
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>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).</span>
* * * *
* * * *
YOGENDRA NARAIN,
Secretary-General.
rssynop@sansad.nic.in <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Alleged Involvement of Some Indian Entities and Individuals as Non- Contractual Beneficiaries in The United Nationsâ Independent Inquiry Committee (Volcker Committee) Report
<b>SHRI ARUN JAITLEY: </b>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.
<b>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):</b> 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.
<b>SHRI SITARAM YECHURY:</b> 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.
<b>SHRI SHAHID SIDDIQUI:</b> 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.
<b>SHRI P.G.NARAYANAN:</b> 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.
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>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).</span>
* * * *
* * * *
YOGENDRA NARAIN,
Secretary-General.
rssynop@sansad.nic.in <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->