12-11-2005, 07:30 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>The crude game of Sonia bachao</b>
Pioneer OP_ED
<b>The Opposition has made an error by focusing too much on Natwar Singh. S Gurumurthy says all indicators point to Congress president Sonia Gandhi sanctioning the deal which brought the country much infamy </b>
Aniel Matherani is the latest entrant in the Iraq oil voucher fraud theatre. In his sensational interview to India Today magazine, which incidentally is voice recorded, he has confirmed three things.
One, Iraqis only needed a green signal for giving the oil vouchers to the Congress party and Natwar Singh provided it. Second, Natwar's son Jagat Singh and Jagat's cousin, Andaleep, did accompany the former External Affairs Minister to Baghdad, where they were looking for business. Third, Natwar Singh's action did imply to the Iraqi authorities that the two young men were part of Congress establishment, which was enough for the Iraqis to part with the oil vouchers to them.
Matherani does not stop at that. He asserts that Natwar Singh and the Congress party were "one and the same" in the oil allocation list. He says it is "hogwash" that Natwar Singh and the Congress did not know that their names figured in the allottees' list. Matherani's later statements confirmed what he had told the India Today. He charged that what he said "off the record" has been "unethically" used by the magazine. This damns the Congress and Natwar Singh more, not less.
Who is this Matherani? A Congressman, then in the foreign affairs cell of the party under Natwar Singh; now the Indian Ambassador to Croatia - a job he has surely lost by stammering the truth off the record! He was in Baghdad and Amman along with Natwar Singh in 2001. Qualitatively, his testimony is a confession by a Congressman, also by a Manmohan government functionary. Even otherwise, he was personally close to Natwar Singh and was working under him. Thus, he was an eye witness to the business transacted by Natwar Singh, Jagat Singh and Andaleep in Baghdad - from where they got oil vouchers, and Amman where they paid kickbacks out of their gains to Saddam.
Matherani is also cogent and meticulous in his recitals. He recalls every detail of the Baghdad and Amman episode. He also asserts that Congress president Sonia Gandhi, accompanied by Natwar Singh, met the then Iraqi Vice President Ramadan in Delhi on November 27, 2000. This is from where the entire sequence started. The second step was the invitation from the Iraqi government to the Congress party addressed to Natwar Singh. Then, Ms Sonia Gandhi sent a four-member Congress delegation in March 2001 as the third step, which clinched the oil vouchers for the party. Matherani confirms this.
Interestingly, Ms Sonia Gandhi's meeting with the then Iraqi Vice President seems to have given the first indication to Baghdad that Natwar Singh carried the weight of the Congress president. As if to confirm to the Iraqi regime that Natwar Singh represented Ms Gandhi, she also sent a letter to Saddam Hussein through Natwar Singh. Now, one can understand why Matherani says that Natwar Singh and Congress were "one and the same" in the oil vouchers list. It is clear that the Iraqis intended and gave the oil vouchers for the Congress. The only issue is whether Natwar Singh and company pocketed them and cheated the party, or they faithfully passed them on and the party is sacrificing Natwar Singh to save itself and its leader.
After Matherani sensational exposure, Jagat Singh came out with another claim that he was in the delegation as a member of the Youth Congress! Within minutes of Jagat's claim, Surjewalla, the then Youth Congress president, denied that Jagat went as the Youth Congress secretary. This brings in another interesting dimension. Jagat was the Youth Congress secretary as well, not just Natwar's son, when he got the oil vouchers.
Still, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh helplessly hangs to legalisms and asks the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to interrogate Mathrani! But, simultaneously, as External Affairs Minister he recalls Matherani, obviously to coerce him as a witness. He puts the ED and CBI on a witness to the fraud when Volcker mentions not Matherani, but Natwar and the Congress as the beneficiaries of the Iraqi bribe Ironically, even as Matherani is being taken to an unknown destination and is being interrogated as if he was the thief, Natwar Singh was in Manmohan Singh's Cabinet till recently and Ms Sonia Gandhi is Manmohan's leader and also of the ruling UPA itself.
Now look at the political realities. Constitutionally, Manmohan Singh could have even sacked Natwar Singh. He,however, would not because it was not the Prime Minister but Ms Sonia Gandhi who made him minister. How then could Manmohan Singh sack him? Only the Congress president could sack him. The Prime Minister is fully aware that he functions under Ms Gandhi, not under the Constitution. So he knew he had to suffer Natwar Singh, just as he has had to suffer others too. One could understand his predicament. But why did Ms Sonia Gandhi, who has no Constitutional constraints or other restraints on her powers, not sack Natwar? Was she also scared? Of whom was she scared? Here is the clue. By taking the Matherani issue to the gates of 10, Janpath, Jagat Singh has already hinted at what Natwar Singh might do if he was sacked.
Manmohan Singh could not sack Natwar Singh because he was scared of Ms Sonia Gandhi. And, the Congress chief would not sack him because she too was frightened of Natwar Singh. The result: The entire media had to be mobilised to trivialise Natwar Singh and the whole Congress party was pressed to stand with folded hands asking him to resign - when a word, why even a hint, from her should have been adequate. Except that the one person who really counted everyone else was pleading with him, counselling him. It is as if she did not want him to resign, and only others were pressuring him to. It needs no seer to discover the reason. Yes, she cannot risk his anger.
Despite being in distress, Natwar Singh must have been laughing within even as he drove into 10, Janpath to relieve the lady of her tension. He knows she cannot ignore him even if he is not the minister any more. But by relentlessly targeting only Natwar, not Sonia or the Congress, from the word 'go', the Opposition has actually done her a favour. That is precisely what Sonia would have wanted the Opposition to do. It is clear that someone who could only use the Congress party's authority has pocketed the Iraqi oil voucher gains. It could not have been done by an LK Advani, but only by someone who wields the authority of the Congress in the eyes of Iraqis.
In short, the fiduciary has been sacrificed; the real beneficiary.The Congress and those hiding behind, seems to be escaping the radar to safety with the entire government machinery apparently engaged in a cover-up. See how the Pathak Commission is pathetically swatting flies and the ED under the Finance Minister, who brokered between Natwar Singh and Manmohan Singh last time, and CBI under the Prime Minister, are in possession of the critical Volcker papers filtering what Justice Pathak should or should not see. The party is also charge of the Matherani investigation. Why does Justice Pathak not examine the Volcker papers and interrogate Matherani in public, instead of the ED in secrecy? Why the simultaneous secret investigation when a public inquiry has been announced? Will the secret investigation guide the public inquiry by Justice Pathak?
In this situation, a more independent-minded judge could perhaps have excused himself from the assignment. This is precisely what happened then when the Parliamentary Committee was appointed to probe the Bofors fraud. The CBI and the ED were leading the Parliamentary Committee by the nose. Is not history repeating itself with the only difference that it was the Bofors scam then in which Rajiv Gandhi was the suspect and Iraqi oil vouchers fraud now in which the Congress party headed by Ms Sonia Gandhi itself is the suspect.
(The writer is a political analyst and commentator)
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pioneer OP_ED
<b>The Opposition has made an error by focusing too much on Natwar Singh. S Gurumurthy says all indicators point to Congress president Sonia Gandhi sanctioning the deal which brought the country much infamy </b>
Aniel Matherani is the latest entrant in the Iraq oil voucher fraud theatre. In his sensational interview to India Today magazine, which incidentally is voice recorded, he has confirmed three things.
One, Iraqis only needed a green signal for giving the oil vouchers to the Congress party and Natwar Singh provided it. Second, Natwar's son Jagat Singh and Jagat's cousin, Andaleep, did accompany the former External Affairs Minister to Baghdad, where they were looking for business. Third, Natwar Singh's action did imply to the Iraqi authorities that the two young men were part of Congress establishment, which was enough for the Iraqis to part with the oil vouchers to them.
Matherani does not stop at that. He asserts that Natwar Singh and the Congress party were "one and the same" in the oil allocation list. He says it is "hogwash" that Natwar Singh and the Congress did not know that their names figured in the allottees' list. Matherani's later statements confirmed what he had told the India Today. He charged that what he said "off the record" has been "unethically" used by the magazine. This damns the Congress and Natwar Singh more, not less.
Who is this Matherani? A Congressman, then in the foreign affairs cell of the party under Natwar Singh; now the Indian Ambassador to Croatia - a job he has surely lost by stammering the truth off the record! He was in Baghdad and Amman along with Natwar Singh in 2001. Qualitatively, his testimony is a confession by a Congressman, also by a Manmohan government functionary. Even otherwise, he was personally close to Natwar Singh and was working under him. Thus, he was an eye witness to the business transacted by Natwar Singh, Jagat Singh and Andaleep in Baghdad - from where they got oil vouchers, and Amman where they paid kickbacks out of their gains to Saddam.
Matherani is also cogent and meticulous in his recitals. He recalls every detail of the Baghdad and Amman episode. He also asserts that Congress president Sonia Gandhi, accompanied by Natwar Singh, met the then Iraqi Vice President Ramadan in Delhi on November 27, 2000. This is from where the entire sequence started. The second step was the invitation from the Iraqi government to the Congress party addressed to Natwar Singh. Then, Ms Sonia Gandhi sent a four-member Congress delegation in March 2001 as the third step, which clinched the oil vouchers for the party. Matherani confirms this.
Interestingly, Ms Sonia Gandhi's meeting with the then Iraqi Vice President seems to have given the first indication to Baghdad that Natwar Singh carried the weight of the Congress president. As if to confirm to the Iraqi regime that Natwar Singh represented Ms Gandhi, she also sent a letter to Saddam Hussein through Natwar Singh. Now, one can understand why Matherani says that Natwar Singh and Congress were "one and the same" in the oil vouchers list. It is clear that the Iraqis intended and gave the oil vouchers for the Congress. The only issue is whether Natwar Singh and company pocketed them and cheated the party, or they faithfully passed them on and the party is sacrificing Natwar Singh to save itself and its leader.
After Matherani sensational exposure, Jagat Singh came out with another claim that he was in the delegation as a member of the Youth Congress! Within minutes of Jagat's claim, Surjewalla, the then Youth Congress president, denied that Jagat went as the Youth Congress secretary. This brings in another interesting dimension. Jagat was the Youth Congress secretary as well, not just Natwar's son, when he got the oil vouchers.
Still, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh helplessly hangs to legalisms and asks the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to interrogate Mathrani! But, simultaneously, as External Affairs Minister he recalls Matherani, obviously to coerce him as a witness. He puts the ED and CBI on a witness to the fraud when Volcker mentions not Matherani, but Natwar and the Congress as the beneficiaries of the Iraqi bribe Ironically, even as Matherani is being taken to an unknown destination and is being interrogated as if he was the thief, Natwar Singh was in Manmohan Singh's Cabinet till recently and Ms Sonia Gandhi is Manmohan's leader and also of the ruling UPA itself.
Now look at the political realities. Constitutionally, Manmohan Singh could have even sacked Natwar Singh. He,however, would not because it was not the Prime Minister but Ms Sonia Gandhi who made him minister. How then could Manmohan Singh sack him? Only the Congress president could sack him. The Prime Minister is fully aware that he functions under Ms Gandhi, not under the Constitution. So he knew he had to suffer Natwar Singh, just as he has had to suffer others too. One could understand his predicament. But why did Ms Sonia Gandhi, who has no Constitutional constraints or other restraints on her powers, not sack Natwar? Was she also scared? Of whom was she scared? Here is the clue. By taking the Matherani issue to the gates of 10, Janpath, Jagat Singh has already hinted at what Natwar Singh might do if he was sacked.
Manmohan Singh could not sack Natwar Singh because he was scared of Ms Sonia Gandhi. And, the Congress chief would not sack him because she too was frightened of Natwar Singh. The result: The entire media had to be mobilised to trivialise Natwar Singh and the whole Congress party was pressed to stand with folded hands asking him to resign - when a word, why even a hint, from her should have been adequate. Except that the one person who really counted everyone else was pleading with him, counselling him. It is as if she did not want him to resign, and only others were pressuring him to. It needs no seer to discover the reason. Yes, she cannot risk his anger.
Despite being in distress, Natwar Singh must have been laughing within even as he drove into 10, Janpath to relieve the lady of her tension. He knows she cannot ignore him even if he is not the minister any more. But by relentlessly targeting only Natwar, not Sonia or the Congress, from the word 'go', the Opposition has actually done her a favour. That is precisely what Sonia would have wanted the Opposition to do. It is clear that someone who could only use the Congress party's authority has pocketed the Iraqi oil voucher gains. It could not have been done by an LK Advani, but only by someone who wields the authority of the Congress in the eyes of Iraqis.
In short, the fiduciary has been sacrificed; the real beneficiary.The Congress and those hiding behind, seems to be escaping the radar to safety with the entire government machinery apparently engaged in a cover-up. See how the Pathak Commission is pathetically swatting flies and the ED under the Finance Minister, who brokered between Natwar Singh and Manmohan Singh last time, and CBI under the Prime Minister, are in possession of the critical Volcker papers filtering what Justice Pathak should or should not see. The party is also charge of the Matherani investigation. Why does Justice Pathak not examine the Volcker papers and interrogate Matherani in public, instead of the ED in secrecy? Why the simultaneous secret investigation when a public inquiry has been announced? Will the secret investigation guide the public inquiry by Justice Pathak?
In this situation, a more independent-minded judge could perhaps have excused himself from the assignment. This is precisely what happened then when the Parliamentary Committee was appointed to probe the Bofors fraud. The CBI and the ED were leading the Parliamentary Committee by the nose. Is not history repeating itself with the only difference that it was the Bofors scam then in which Rajiv Gandhi was the suspect and Iraqi oil vouchers fraud now in which the Congress party headed by Ms Sonia Gandhi itself is the suspect.
(The writer is a political analyst and commentator)
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->