08-08-2006, 12:56 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>The great Pathak whitewash </b>
Pioneer News Service | New Delhi
The Justice RS Pathak Authority inquiring into the alleged kickbacks to the Congress Party and former external affairs minister Natwar Singh ended up whitewashing the scam stains that had stuck on the ruling party in the Iraqi oil-for-food scandal.Â
<b>The authority absolved the Congress by presuming that Natwar Singh had doled out favours without the approval of the party president. While the inquiry had detailed evidence of the financial trail emanating from Baghdad and ending with Hamdaan Exports in Delhi, it surprisingly had no evidence of the involvement of any Congress functionary</b>.
The Pathak Authority implied that Natwar Singh acted independent of the Congress party. <b>"How the name of the Indian Congress Party came to be mentioned in this letter is not known," the report said. But this is what Justice Pathak should have answered and not left it open to interpretations</b>.
<b>Justice Pathak had evidence before him not to give a clean chit to the Congress. For example, on August 21, 2001 the Executive Director, State Oil Marketing Organisation wrote to the Iraqi Oil Minister seeking the approval of the allocation of one million barrels of Kirkuk crude oil under Contract M/10/57 "for the benefit of the Indian Congress Party."</b>
The only explanation it sought from the Congress Party was how did its name figure in the oil-for-food scam in which then AICC treasurer Motilal Vora deposed. <b>"The letter (Natwar Singh wrote to Oil Ministry in Iraq on the letterhead of AICC on January 30, 2001 giving approval to Andaleeb Sehgal) does not speak of whether it was for a personal or official use. But Motilal Vora, when examined by the inquiry authority in his capacity as a treasurer of the Indian National Congress characterised the letter as that for personal purpose," </b>the report said. The Pathak Authority then acquitted the Congress Party in the absence of evidence.
This acquittal comes even though the Pathak Authority noted that Congress functionary and key witness Aneil Matherani failed to cooperate with the authority. "None of the delegates were forthcoming in their deposition about what transpired and whom they met while in Iraq."
Matherani stated that he did not know Natwar Singh well. He said this even though he was a secretary in the very same Foreign Affairs Department. It appears from the documents before the Inquiry Authority that it was Matherani himself who coordinated the entire visit of the delegation to Iraq," the report said.
The Inquiry Authority asked several members of the official delegation whether any report of the visit had been submitted upon their return from Baghdad to the president of the Congress Party. The replies were either that they did not know or that it could have been prepared, but they themselves did not prepare any report.
It is in the absence of any such documentary proof before the inquiry authority and also the fact that no report was submitted to the president of the Congress Party that has made the task of the authority somewhat difficult in ascertaining the exact nature of the business transacted in Baghdad.
<b>Stain Natwar, make Cong Snow White</b>
On August 21, 2001 the executive director, state oil marketing organisation wrote to Iraqi Oil Minister seeking the approval of allocation of one million barrel of Kirkuk crude Oil under Contract M/10/57 "for the benefit of the Indian Congress Party".
How the name of the Indian Congress Party came to be mentioned in this letter is not known. What appears to be the reason is that Natwar Singh and Jagat Singh so projected themselves that the Iraqi authorities formed the impression that they were representatives of the Congress Party. The inquiry authority has absolutely no evidence whatsoever to link the Congress Party to the transaction discussed in this report. Except for the fact that Natwar Singh and Jagat Singh belonged to the Indian Congress Party there is not a shred of evidence to link the Congress Party to the transaction.
The original composition of the delegation and even the departure date was subsequently changed, P Shiv Shankar was added as a member of the delegation. What was responsible for the change in composition and date of departure is not clear and none of the persons who appeared before the inquiry authority could throw light on this. When Natwar Singh was asked about this, his answer was that the question should be directed to Aneil Mathrani, who was secretary in Foreign Affairs Department of the Congress Party. When inquiry authority asked Mathrani about this, his reply was that he did not know and that one should ask Natwar Singh.
In fact, Mathrani stated that he did not know Natwar Singh closely. He said even though he was secretary in the very same Foreign Affairs Department that Natwar Singh headed. It appears from the documents before the Inquiry Authority that it was Mathrani himself who coordinated the entire visit of the delegation to Iraq.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pioneer News Service | New Delhi
The Justice RS Pathak Authority inquiring into the alleged kickbacks to the Congress Party and former external affairs minister Natwar Singh ended up whitewashing the scam stains that had stuck on the ruling party in the Iraqi oil-for-food scandal.Â
<b>The authority absolved the Congress by presuming that Natwar Singh had doled out favours without the approval of the party president. While the inquiry had detailed evidence of the financial trail emanating from Baghdad and ending with Hamdaan Exports in Delhi, it surprisingly had no evidence of the involvement of any Congress functionary</b>.
The Pathak Authority implied that Natwar Singh acted independent of the Congress party. <b>"How the name of the Indian Congress Party came to be mentioned in this letter is not known," the report said. But this is what Justice Pathak should have answered and not left it open to interpretations</b>.
<b>Justice Pathak had evidence before him not to give a clean chit to the Congress. For example, on August 21, 2001 the Executive Director, State Oil Marketing Organisation wrote to the Iraqi Oil Minister seeking the approval of the allocation of one million barrels of Kirkuk crude oil under Contract M/10/57 "for the benefit of the Indian Congress Party."</b>
The only explanation it sought from the Congress Party was how did its name figure in the oil-for-food scam in which then AICC treasurer Motilal Vora deposed. <b>"The letter (Natwar Singh wrote to Oil Ministry in Iraq on the letterhead of AICC on January 30, 2001 giving approval to Andaleeb Sehgal) does not speak of whether it was for a personal or official use. But Motilal Vora, when examined by the inquiry authority in his capacity as a treasurer of the Indian National Congress characterised the letter as that for personal purpose," </b>the report said. The Pathak Authority then acquitted the Congress Party in the absence of evidence.
This acquittal comes even though the Pathak Authority noted that Congress functionary and key witness Aneil Matherani failed to cooperate with the authority. "None of the delegates were forthcoming in their deposition about what transpired and whom they met while in Iraq."
Matherani stated that he did not know Natwar Singh well. He said this even though he was a secretary in the very same Foreign Affairs Department. It appears from the documents before the Inquiry Authority that it was Matherani himself who coordinated the entire visit of the delegation to Iraq," the report said.
The Inquiry Authority asked several members of the official delegation whether any report of the visit had been submitted upon their return from Baghdad to the president of the Congress Party. The replies were either that they did not know or that it could have been prepared, but they themselves did not prepare any report.
It is in the absence of any such documentary proof before the inquiry authority and also the fact that no report was submitted to the president of the Congress Party that has made the task of the authority somewhat difficult in ascertaining the exact nature of the business transacted in Baghdad.
<b>Stain Natwar, make Cong Snow White</b>
On August 21, 2001 the executive director, state oil marketing organisation wrote to Iraqi Oil Minister seeking the approval of allocation of one million barrel of Kirkuk crude Oil under Contract M/10/57 "for the benefit of the Indian Congress Party".
How the name of the Indian Congress Party came to be mentioned in this letter is not known. What appears to be the reason is that Natwar Singh and Jagat Singh so projected themselves that the Iraqi authorities formed the impression that they were representatives of the Congress Party. The inquiry authority has absolutely no evidence whatsoever to link the Congress Party to the transaction discussed in this report. Except for the fact that Natwar Singh and Jagat Singh belonged to the Indian Congress Party there is not a shred of evidence to link the Congress Party to the transaction.
The original composition of the delegation and even the departure date was subsequently changed, P Shiv Shankar was added as a member of the delegation. What was responsible for the change in composition and date of departure is not clear and none of the persons who appeared before the inquiry authority could throw light on this. When Natwar Singh was asked about this, his answer was that the question should be directed to Aneil Mathrani, who was secretary in Foreign Affairs Department of the Congress Party. When inquiry authority asked Mathrani about this, his reply was that he did not know and that one should ask Natwar Singh.
In fact, Mathrani stated that he did not know Natwar Singh closely. He said even though he was secretary in the very same Foreign Affairs Department that Natwar Singh headed. It appears from the documents before the Inquiry Authority that it was Mathrani himself who coordinated the entire visit of the delegation to Iraq.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->