12-04-2005, 04:16 AM
Pioneer.com
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Matherani merely made obvious more clear </b>
Swapan Dasgupta
On Friday night, well after his telephonic interview was repeatedly broadcast over Aaj Tak, Aniel Matherani claimed that he was, in effect, the victim of a sting operation. Â Â
Even if his contention that journalistic norms were violated by the broadcast and publication of an "off the record" conversation is accepted, does it mean that K Natwar Singh and the Congress Party are out of the woods? Not in the least.
On the contrary, Matherani's tell-all remarks have elevated a personal misdemeanour of a senior Cabinet Minister into a full-blown political crisis for the Congress Party. First, by mapping out the details of Natwar's overtures to the Saddam Hussein regime, Matherani has quite clearly proved that that deal-making in Baghdad was not a one-man covert operation.
If Matherani, a flunkey in the Congress power establishment, knew about the way in which Jagat Singh and Andaleeb Sehgal were incorporated as business representatives of the party delegation, what is the likelihood that this was not known to the owners of the Congress? If Matherani, who was in Delhi when the Volcker Committee report was released, knew about it all along, would it not be appropriate to conclude that the Congress' instant disclaimers were completely disingenuous? In which case, would it also not be right to believe that the Congress president's allegedly "hurt and angry" reaction was purely cosmetic?
Second, those with journalistic experience know that the difference between on-the-record and off-the-record is one of nuances and emphasis.<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'> If the Matherani tapes are any guide, the gap is too yawning for comfort. They suggest that too many people, including those in Government, were not merely being economical with the dissemination of information; they were guilty of telling white lies to the people of India.</span>
When the Prime Minister announced on October 30 that the allegations against Natwar were "baseless and untrue", he was either speaking from ignorance or wilfully misleading the country. Either way, it is a grave offence and in the coming months Manmohan Singh will come to rue the alacrity with which he jumped to his former External Affairs Minister's defence.
Politics is a cruel game and the Prime Minister must already be disturbed at the way in which it is being said that Natwar was retained in the Cabinet despite the objections of Sonia Gandhi. It does not matter that the opposite may actually be the case. What it signals is that the search for scapegoats may lead to an honourable man facing collateral damage.
Third, the <b>duplicitous Congress response to both the Volcker report and the Matherani tapes suggests that getting to the truth is not the real agenda of the Government</b>. On Friday afternoon, while announcing that his conscience is clear, Natwar made it clear that he was reposing his faith in a "time bound" inquiry to clear his name.
As things stand today, neither he nor his son Jagat has been questioned by the Enforcement Directorate. Nor has any FIR been filed. Indeed,<b> Congress Ministers are openly asking, "What law has Natwar broken?" It is a clever question, but how will you know the answer unless the key players are interrogated? Sehgal has been questioned because his name figures in the Volcker Report. But Natwar's name also figures. So we have one rule for Singh and one for Sehgal.</b>
Finally, the nonchalant way in which Matherani spoke about events in Baghdad should come as an eye-opener to those who have tried to paint the issue as one of imperialism versus anti-imperialism. There was nothing remotely political about the Congress delegation's visit to Iraq. <b>It was a cover for some people to make a quick buck by screaming support for Saddam Hussein. </b>
The Congress clambered on to this lucrative bandwagon with its eyes open. No wonder, Natwar is said to be miffed that the party is now disclaiming of all knowledge of the returns from anti-imperialism. No wonder the Congress is paying the price for Natwar's silence by still persisting with him.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Matherani merely made obvious more clear </b>
Swapan Dasgupta
On Friday night, well after his telephonic interview was repeatedly broadcast over Aaj Tak, Aniel Matherani claimed that he was, in effect, the victim of a sting operation. Â Â
Even if his contention that journalistic norms were violated by the broadcast and publication of an "off the record" conversation is accepted, does it mean that K Natwar Singh and the Congress Party are out of the woods? Not in the least.
On the contrary, Matherani's tell-all remarks have elevated a personal misdemeanour of a senior Cabinet Minister into a full-blown political crisis for the Congress Party. First, by mapping out the details of Natwar's overtures to the Saddam Hussein regime, Matherani has quite clearly proved that that deal-making in Baghdad was not a one-man covert operation.
If Matherani, a flunkey in the Congress power establishment, knew about the way in which Jagat Singh and Andaleeb Sehgal were incorporated as business representatives of the party delegation, what is the likelihood that this was not known to the owners of the Congress? If Matherani, who was in Delhi when the Volcker Committee report was released, knew about it all along, would it not be appropriate to conclude that the Congress' instant disclaimers were completely disingenuous? In which case, would it also not be right to believe that the Congress president's allegedly "hurt and angry" reaction was purely cosmetic?
Second, those with journalistic experience know that the difference between on-the-record and off-the-record is one of nuances and emphasis.<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'> If the Matherani tapes are any guide, the gap is too yawning for comfort. They suggest that too many people, including those in Government, were not merely being economical with the dissemination of information; they were guilty of telling white lies to the people of India.</span>
When the Prime Minister announced on October 30 that the allegations against Natwar were "baseless and untrue", he was either speaking from ignorance or wilfully misleading the country. Either way, it is a grave offence and in the coming months Manmohan Singh will come to rue the alacrity with which he jumped to his former External Affairs Minister's defence.
Politics is a cruel game and the Prime Minister must already be disturbed at the way in which it is being said that Natwar was retained in the Cabinet despite the objections of Sonia Gandhi. It does not matter that the opposite may actually be the case. What it signals is that the search for scapegoats may lead to an honourable man facing collateral damage.
Third, the <b>duplicitous Congress response to both the Volcker report and the Matherani tapes suggests that getting to the truth is not the real agenda of the Government</b>. On Friday afternoon, while announcing that his conscience is clear, Natwar made it clear that he was reposing his faith in a "time bound" inquiry to clear his name.
As things stand today, neither he nor his son Jagat has been questioned by the Enforcement Directorate. Nor has any FIR been filed. Indeed,<b> Congress Ministers are openly asking, "What law has Natwar broken?" It is a clever question, but how will you know the answer unless the key players are interrogated? Sehgal has been questioned because his name figures in the Volcker Report. But Natwar's name also figures. So we have one rule for Singh and one for Sehgal.</b>
Finally, the nonchalant way in which Matherani spoke about events in Baghdad should come as an eye-opener to those who have tried to paint the issue as one of imperialism versus anti-imperialism. There was nothing remotely political about the Congress delegation's visit to Iraq. <b>It was a cover for some people to make a quick buck by screaming support for Saddam Hussein. </b>
The Congress clambered on to this lucrative bandwagon with its eyes open. No wonder, Natwar is said to be miffed that the party is now disclaiming of all knowledge of the returns from anti-imperialism. No wonder the Congress is paying the price for Natwar's silence by still persisting with him.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->