Here comes morally corrupt Prime Minister of India's comment. Those who say he is very moral or clean person should think again. He is supporting traitors even he knows all financial aspect of deal and he is very literate in finance and international law and ofcourse United nations.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>BJP playing drama, says Manmohan Singh </b>
Pioneer.com
Agencies/ New Delhi
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh Wednesday hit out at the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) for its stand on the Volcker report, saying the party's internal politics was coming in the way of national interest.
"That parliament should function is in everybody's interest," the prime minister told the journalists accompanying him on board Air India One on his way back from a four-day official visit to Moscow.
"The principal opposition party is doing all this drama to divert attention from internal troubles. What is happening is power struggle in Madhya Pradesh - their leadership question and Uma Bharati," he said.
"It is sad party politics makes them do these things," the prime minister added, referring to the BJP not allowing parliament to function over its demand for the resignation of Congress president Sonia Gandhi and minister K. Natwar Singh.
The UN appointed Paul Volcker Committee had named the Congress party and Natwar Singh non-contractual beneficiaries in the Iraqi oil-for-food programme. Natwar Singh had to first resign as external affairs minister and then as a minister without portfolio.
Manmohan Singh also spoke of the resignation letter submitted by Natwar Singh and said he had talked with his colleague while in Moscow. <b>"I have just received the resignation letter. Let me go back," </b>he added.
Asked whether he would meet Natwar Singh, the prime minister said: <b>"I'll meet him whenever it is convenient for him and me."</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>NDA: No double standards, Sonia should resign too </b>
Pioneer News Service/ New Delhi
After forcing Union Minister Natwar Singh's resignation on the Volcker issue, the <b>Opposition on Wednesday trained its gun on Congress president and UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi.</b>
Demanding Ms Gandhi's resignation as chairperson of the UPA Government's National Advisory Council, the BJP-led Opposition disrupted proceedings in both Houses of Parliament, saying <b>"double standards" would not be accepted</b>.
In the Lok Sabha, Leader of Opposition LK Advani led the walkout, contending that the yardstick applied to Mr Natwar Singh should equally be applied to Ms Gandhi as the Volcker Report also listed the Congress a non-contractual beneficiary along with Mr Singh.
This brought the members from the treasury benches to their feet.<b> "Our leader is not on a transfer order from outside,"</b> Parliamentary Affairs Minister Priyaranjan Dasmunsi said, flatly rejecting the Opposition's demand.
<b>Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha Jaswant Singh took up the cudgels against the Government in the Upper House, criticising the "collective hysteria" of the ruling Congress for repeatedly protesting in the House whenever Ms Gandhi's name cropped up.</b>
Mr Singh said despite Mr Natwar Singh's resignation, the Government's response was incomplete as action was yet to be taken against the other entity mentioned in the report.
This sparked uproarious scenes as Congress members protested the attack on their leader.Responding for the Government, Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee charged the Opposition with making an "illogical and irrational" demand as the Volcker Committee had not named Congress president Sonia Gandhi.
According to him, the report had named only Mr Natwar Singh and the Congress Party and the Congress was a corporate body, which could not be personified by anyone individual.
Attacking the BJP for pointing an accusing finger at the Congress, he asked when a president of the BJP was shown taking money on camera, did anyone say that Mr LK Advani or then Prime Minister AB Vajpayee should resign.
This drew vociferous protests from the Opposition and as the treasury benches joined the din, the BJP members staged a walkout.
Similar scenes were witnessed in Lok Sabha when Mr Dasmunsi sought to contradict Mr Advani's demand for Ms Gandhi's resignation as Congress members protested loudly, demanding that Mr Advani's remarks be expunged.
As both the Opposition bench and the treasury bench tried to shout each other down, an exasperated Somnath Chatterjee lost his patience, and said, "I am ashamed to be the Speaker of this House."
Earlier, supporting Mr Advani, Mr Prabhunath Singh, JD (U), said since Mr Natwar Singh had quit on moral grounds, Ms Gandhi should do the same.
Basudeb Acharia (CPI-M), and Gurudas Dasgupta (CPI), attacked the BJP for stalling Parliament on the issue, accusing it of "double standards."
Mr Acharia reminded that even while the Tehelka Commission was probing the expose on fictitious defence deals, Mr George Fernandes was reinducted into the Cabinet as the Defence Minister.
Mr Dasgupta said if BJP believed that Ms Gandhi was involved, it should bring a no-confidence motion without stalling Parliament. "There is no other remedy. You will have to wait for five years," he added.
Samajwadi Party MP Mohan Singh demanded that Mr Natwar Singh give his version of the controversy and the circumstances leading to his resignation in Parliament.
<b>Natwar's resignation accepted</b>
New Delhi: President APJ Abdul Kalam on Wednesday accepted the resignation of Mr K Natwar Singh, the Minister-without-Portfolio, from the Union Council of Ministers, a Rashtrapati Bhawan spokesperson said.
The Prime Minister, upon his arrival from Moscow on Wednesday, had forwarded the resignation of Mr Natwar Singh who submitted it on Tuesday night.
"This is my letter of resignation from the Union Cabinet as Minister-without-Portfolio. It has been a privilege to be a member of your Cabinet," Mr Natwar Singh said in his letter. Maintaining that he was innocent, he said "I am a Congress worker and I will always remain a Congress worker".Â
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
New firms, clues in cash-oil
The Asian Age India | Seema Mustafa
New Delhi: Mase-field AG, the Switzerland-based group that the Volcker Committee report alleges handled the oil kickbacks for external affairs minister Natwar Singh and the Congress party separately, <b>has also emerged in the report as the "underlying financier" for a little known company, Quantum Holding (L) Limited.</b>
The Volcker Committee, in its investigations into Iraq's oil-for-food programme, found that many of the letters of credit executed under the programme were financed by companies that did not appear on the State Oil Marketing Organisation (SOMO) contracts or the documentation made available to the United Nations.
An explanatory note suggests that the committee focused on identifying underlying financiers of oil purchases during the surcharge period, and was able to identify underlying financiers for approximately 75 per cent of the letters of credit issued at the time.
<b>Quantum is a company based in Italy. </b>According to the Volcker Committee, much of this information was provided by banks in Switzerland and included letter of credit customer files and bank account statements.
Quantum Holding (L) Ltd, the report claims, lifted 1,909,909 barrels of oil for a contract value of $39,347,987. It allegedly paid a surcharge of $300,000 against the total surcharge of $572,973 levied on it. The payment was deposited by Quantum Holdings in Fransabank on March 30, 2001, the UN-ordered probe report claims.
Masefield was identified by the Volcker Committee as the alleged underlying financier for this company. The Switzerland-based group has not handled oil transactions for any other company, according to the information available through the Volcker report, <b>except Quantum Holding (L) Ltd, Mr Natwar Singh, and the Congress party.</b>
The Congress party and Mr Natwar Singh have strongly denied being involved. The Volcker Committee report is categorical that Masefield AG, as the contracting company, <b>allegedly helped the "India-Congress party" lift 1,001,000 barrels of the total 4,000,000 barrels allocated. The AICC treasurer from 2001 was Mr Moti Lal Vora, who is currently not in Delhi and remained unavailable to comment</b> on the transaction. Masefield has not responded to the Volcker Committee's notice, and has been listed in the report as a company that failed to respond. In fact, while the trail in Mr Natwar Singh's case leads to Hamdan Export and Mr Andleeb Sehgal, a close friend of his son Jagat Singh, there is not much in the records obtained by the committee to shed light on the Congress party route.
Masefield, described by the Volcker report as the financier for Quantum, says it is a group that "is engaged in the business of energy" and claims to have offices in Switzerland, UK, US, Canada, South Africa, UAE and Singapore. The website claims Masefield AG is a specialised energy company. "Our primary businesses are crude oil, condensates and oil products trading, oil futures, price risk management and associated services," the website states. The Congress party, the Volcker report alleges, was given four contracts in four different phases of the programme. <b>Of these, only the first contract, in Phase 10, of 1,000,000 oil barrels, was lifted for the Congress party by Masefield AG,</b> the Volcker report claims.
Mr Natwar Singh had visited Iraq on a goodwill mission as the chairperson of the AICC foreign cell in 2001-2002, when the oil deal was said to have been transacted.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Speedy ED edges out Pathak </b>
Pioneer.com
Pramod Kumar Singh / New Delhi
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>The enforcement Directorate has completely hijacked the Volcker probe with Justice RS Pathak appearing more and more like a silent player.</span> The ambit of the ED's investigations go beyond the terms of reference of the Justice Pathak Authority with a clear implication that it is carrying out a separate probe and not assisting Justice Pathak.
According to the terms of reference, the Justice RS Pathak Inquiry Authority was expected to go into the allegations of payoffs to former External Affairs Minister Natwar Singh and the Congress Party besides other aspects relating to the references in the Volcker Report on the United Nations Oil-for-Food scam.
Another important aspect of the terms of reference was the power vested in Justice Pathak to utilise the services of any officer or investigative agency of the Central or State Government with their concurrence for conducting an investigation.
However, there are clear indications that the ED is carrying out its separate probe and not confining itself to the central point of the terms of reference in an attempt to broadbase the investigation.
<b>While the terms of reference specifically talks about allegations of pay-off to Mr Natwar Singh and the Congress Party, the ED has not deemed it fit to interrogate Mr Natwar Singh or anyone else who may have got the oil vouchers on behalf of the Congress. </b>
Its whole focus has been to zero in on Andaleeb Sehgal and the 139 other companies who may have had dealings with the Iraqi Government and carried out transactions under the oil-for-food programme.
<b>As specified in the terms of reference, the ED should have been working under the supervision of Justice Pathak. But that does not seem to be happening. Justice Pathak has so far not summoned any witness or formally started his proceedings. He has not even been handed over the paper brought by Prime Minister's special envoy Virendra Dayal from UN. </b>
When the UPA Government first appointed Mr Dayal as its special envoy to obtain the papers which formed the basis of the Volcker Report and Justice Pathak as the head of the main probe, there was no mention of the ED. By letting the ED carry out its own probe, the UPA Government has not only diluted the authority of the Pathak probe, it is also kept the nation in the dark about the way the matter is being investigated.
Sources said that ED Director Sudheer Nath and P Kumar, an official of the Cabinet Secretariat are focussing on who were the actual beneficiaries of the Rs 530 crore transferred from a particular account of Bank of Jordan to an account supposedly held by Jagat Singh, son of former External Affairs Minister K Natwar Singh. The said amount was deposited by Hamdaan Exports owned by Andaleeb Sehgal to Bank of Jordan.
<b>Sources in the ED said that there is a hundred percent certainty that Jagat Singh was the recipient of this huge amount. Jagat, Sehgal, Jamil Saidi, a former general secretary of Rajasthan Youth Congress and Arvind Khanna, the son of a well heeled arms dealer were the real players who made money up to the tune of over US $400 million.</b> Khanna lives in London and according to the sources holds the key to the transactions. The investigations so far indicate that Mr Singh was aware of these deals and he will have a lot of answering to do as the probe progresses.
The ED has till now identified US $101 million that was transferred to the quartet. Another $300 million is yet to be accounted for. With SK Panda, the Special Director with ED, leaving for Iraq on Thursday, the probe into this aspect is expected to gain momentum.
The ED is also trying to investigate the transactions of 139 Indian companies listed by Paul Volcker in his report. But, sources said that the UPA Government wants to identity more than 2,500-odd companies that traded with Iraq.
ED officials have already questioned Jamil Saidi who had admitted before ED officials that both Sehgal and he were in Jordan along with Jagat Singh when the Congress delegation landed up in Iraq in January 2001.Officials have also discovered that Sehgal has a bank account in Jordan Bank.
Interestingly, Sehgal and Saidi have told the ED that the copies of the papers that Virender Dayal brought from the UN were not genuine. The original papers have been kept in the lockers of State Bank of India's branch at Parliament Street while the ED was given a photocopy of the documents. The ED team will be cross checking with the Bank of Jordan and Iraqi authorities.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is downright disgusting and throws every semblance of so called UPA government. It is all Sonia Gandhi all the way. Now I feel she should have been the PM atleast we would not see this spectacle where we have morally bankrupt Prime Minister who neither has any power or any authority and his influence is really limited to himself. So Sonia has the complete picture already.
The disgusting part is that there eager beavers who will roll on the floor or lick Sonia's slippers for some crumbs. Just the other day some hyper sycophants in DD blocked all news coverage of Bachhan since he and his wife are close to SP to apparently please the powers that be (read Sonia).
I would like to know under what offial position does Sonia receive this kind of briefing? Bhai log our nationa's security is under very very shady people right now. God save India.
New Delhi, Dec. 7: <b>Before the Congress announced on Monday evening that Natwar Singh would resign, a top Enforcement Directorate official visited Sonia Gandhi at her residence.</b>
Observers believe it was this meeting that sealed the fate of the defiant former minister-without-portfolio.
The senior officer reached 10 Janpath in his official vehicle between 4.30 and 5 pm on December 5. <b>There was no logbook entry or recorded account of his car entering Soniaâs house, but sources confirmed the meeting.</b>
It took place before the four-member team from the directorate that probes foreign exchange violations left for Iraq and other countries to pursue its investigation of charges made in the UN-commissioned Volcker report on Iraqâs oil-for-food programme in which Natwar has been named.
<b>The directorate has in its possession documents brought by Indiaâs special envoy Virendra Dayal from the Volcker committee, which relate to the oil allotments allegedly made against Natwarâs and the Congress partyâs names. Kickbacks were allegedly paid to the then Saddam Hussein regime for the allotments.</b>
<b>The senior officer met Sonia for close to an hour. The sources said he apprised Sonia of the investigation and information about âcrucial playersâ who could be implicated in the oil-for-food scam.</b>
Trouble for Natwar had, however, been brewing for some time. Only the night before the directorate officerâs talks with Sonia, the Congress steering committee met and dropped Natwar. He was a member, but was not called to the meeting, which discussed his exit.
The move to get him to resign as minister-without-portfolio â Natwar had earlier given up his post as external affairs minister â acquired a sharper edge after Sonia was briefed about the actors named in the Volcker report.
After hectic activities in the Congress, including a public statement by Kapil Sibal, a Union minister, that Natwar was not taking the hint to quit, the former foreign minister received a late-night order to show up at 10 Janpath.
He turned up, accompanied by his wife, who is Punjab chief minister Amarinder Singhâs sister, around 10.30 pm and spent about an hour with Sonia. He left Soniaâs residence without offering a word to the media.
The next day there was another meeting with Sonia and in the evening, Natwar read out a statement, saying he was resigning because the Opposition was using his presence in the cabinet as an excuse to stall Parliament.
The Enforcement Directorate officialâs visit to 10 Janpath, however, raises an important question about propriety. Sonia is not a member of the government, though she is the chairperson of the coalition â the United Progressive Alliance â that is in power.
<b>I can't believe DDM asked this question...so all is not lost...yet</b>
Already, the Opposition is demanding her resignation as the head of the National Advisory Council, an official post, because the Congress is named in the Volcker report. The ED officialâs visit to her residence may hand it more ammunition.
<b>Beyond that, however, there is the obvious question of what the official told her that settled the case against Natwar, who maintained even while announcing his resignation that he was innocent.</b>
Ha ha ha ha Natwar is such an idiot...clearly didn't quite understand what is he saying...Natwar should know the Opposition is talking about scapegoat and not some goat like Pakis do...hahaha
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Rejecting the Opposition charge that he had been made a scapegoat, Natwar said: âI am no goat. I am a man.â The former minister added that he would write a book from Thursday. (PTI)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You gotta give credit to Natwar, Sonia and Congress' <i>naseeb</i> (destiny) that this whole scam has come to light when the Congressi scumbags are in power. Not much can be expected in terms of speedy investigation. Neither in terms of influence-free investigation. While those two poor sods Andreeb and Aniel Matherani get hammered by the ED and other central investigative agencies the main characters Natwar and Sonia are walking free. So kanoon ke haath are not really that lambe (long).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Congress was aware of Jagat's trip to Iraq in Nov: Matherani </b>
Pioneer News Service / New Delhi
Former Indian Ambassador to Croatia and key witness in the Volcker oil-for-food scam Aniel Matherani disclosed on Thursday that even before his explosive interview to a news magazine, <b>the Congress leadership was aware of the inclusion of Natwar Singh's son Jagat Singh and his friend Andaleeb Sehgal in the four </b>-member official Congress delegation which visited Iraq in 2001.
<b>Mr Matherani on Thursday said the Congress leadership called him after the Volcker findings were made public in October-November and asked for a clarification, as he was the only member of the delegation to be present in Delhi</b>.
"There was a sense of disbelief in the party," he said, adding that<b> he informed the Congress leadership about the itinerary and the meetings that took place during the delegation's visit to Iraq.</b>Mr Matherani said he had informed the Congress leadership about the inclusion of Jagat Singh and his friend Andaleeb Sehgal by Mr Natwar Singh in the Congress delegation to Iraq in 2001.
<b>Mr Matherani's revelations to the media on Thursday will leave the Congress and the UPA Government red-faced</b>.<b> The party and the Government will find it difficult to explain why Mr Matherani was allowed to go back to Croatia and why the ED did not straightaway question him.</b>
[Sonia and Manmohan coverup]
This was the first time Mr Matherani spoke to the media after his four-day interrogation by the ED and other intelligence agencies.<b>The sense of urgency shown by the UPA Government in hounding Mr Matherani who was virtually abducted from the airport on his arrival from Croatia, has now begun to look suspicious considering that the Government sat over his information for nearly a month.</b>
It is obvious that people in the Government did not realise that Mr Matherani would spill the beans and place it in the dock.<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'> Ms Sonia Gandhi arm-twisted Mr Natwar Singh to resign from the Union Cabinet by throwing him out of the Congress Steering Committee only after Mr Matherani's interview to the magazine led to a major political uproar. If she was so concerned about the seriousness of Mr Matherani's revelations the action could have come long ago. </span>
Mr Matherani refused to name the Congress leaders he met after the controversy triggered by the UN-appointed Volcker Committee into the alleged Iraqi oil payoffs broke out. Asked about different statements given by Mr P Shiv Shanker and Mr AR Antulay, the other members of the Congress delegation to Iraq, Mr Matherani said, "that is not my problem. I have said what I had to say."
<b>Asked whether he was aware of any financial transactions of the alleged oil payoffs, he replied in the negative.</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pioneer
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"Allegation against NDA leaders is baseless. There is no mention of such kind in the Volcker Report which only mentions the name of Mr Natwar Singh and Congress Party," BJP general secretary and spokesman Arun Jaitley told reporters here.
He said such allegations by former Foreign Secretary and Congress functionary Romesh Bhandari were being leveled to enable the party to"hide its corruption" and divert the attention from Volcker and Mitrokhin revelations. Mr Jaitley said they will have no objection if the Government wants to expand the scope of the Pathak probe.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> <b>Cong resorting to misinformation campaign on Volcker issue: BJP </b>
Pioneer News Service / New DelhiÂ
Firmly rejecting allegations of some NDA leaders' involvement in the Iraq Food-for-Oil kickback scam, the BJP on Thursday said the Congress was resorting to a misinformation campaign "to hide its corruption".
The party also took umbrage at Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's statement describing Opposition's protest over the Government's inaction on the Volcker report revelations as "drama" and challenged him to prosecute those involved in the kickbacks.
"The allegation against NDA leaders is baseless. There is no mention of such kind in the Volcker report, which only mentions the name of Natwar Singh and Congress party," BJP general secretary and spokesman Arun Jaitley said.
He said such allegations by former foreign secretary and Congress functionary Romesh Bhandari were being levelled to enable the party "hide its corruption" and divert the attention from Volcker and Mitrokhin revelations.
"The Government may undertake any inquiry into the allegations," Mr Jaitley said, adding that if the Government wanted to expand the scope of inquiry by the Pathak Committee, the party would have no objection.
"But the probe into the issue should not be just for the sake of it," he said, demanding that a criminal case be filed against Natwar Singh and the Congress party without delay. The party also had a dig at the Prime Minister for his attack on Opposition.
<b>"It does not behove of a Prime Minister to criticise Opposition in this manner," BJP Parliamentary party spokesman Vijay Kumar Malhotra said. He wondered if the Prime Minister was working at the diktats of somebody.</b>
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>"The Prime Minister first gave a clean chit to Natwar Singh, then announced that he need not resign. Later, he stripped Natwar Singh off the portfolio. Thereafter he was removed from the party's Steering Committee, forcing him to step down from the Government. All this showed the Prime Minister's indecisiveness and incompetence,"</span> Mr Malhotra added.
 <!--emo&:roll--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<b>Citing a media report, the BJP leader said the Enforcement Directorate had traced three accounts - one each in Swiss, Jordan and Luxembourg banks - which amounted to Rs 528 crore, earned through the sale of crude oil vouchers received by the Congress and Natwar Singh in the Iraq oil scam.</b>
The ED submitted its report, he said and demanded that the Government must confirm or reject the report.
"The Opposition will not remain a mute spectator. The Congress is fully involved in the scam and its president Sonia Gandhi must resign," Mr Malhotra said, adding that "the Volcker issue is not closed".Â
<!--QuoteBegin-chandramoulee+Dec 8 2005, 09:42 PM-->QUOTE(chandramoulee @ Dec 8 2005, 09:42 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Is there anything about NDA in the Volcker report?
Why does the CONgress bring in 'people close to' Vajpayee?--on the say so of Bhandari of UP and Srilanka fame?
I think they are hoping some of the mud they fling may stick !
[right][snapback]42694[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly. They know that Vajpayee is respected all over India as the best PM. If theyc an muddy up waters, it is great.
That MOTHERF*CKER BHANDARI is No 1. A**hole who is like COMMIES cleans SONIA's behind with his tongue. This GARBAGE called another GARBAGE version of OUTLOOK and said "I have sources that tell me some close aide of Vajpayee met SADDAM. So NDA should be INVESTIGATED. The anti-national OUTLOOK published this as if it is A BIG NEWS. THE CONmen GANG led by SH!T called AMBIKA SH!T SONI were waving that magazine in the Parliament."
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Volcker pay-offs: Govt rules out JPC probe </b>
Pioneer.com
Agencies / New Delhi
Government on Friday ruled out a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) probe into the Volcker findings on pay-offs in Iraqi oil deals saying the Justice R S Pathak Inquiry Authority had already started its work and its scope was "very wide".
<b>"I do not see that any purpose will be served by a JPC" at this stage, Leader of the House and Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee responded after BJP Deputy Leader V K Malhotra raised the issue in Lok Sabha.</b>
Mukherjee said the Opposition first asked for a CBI probe, then demanded that an FIR be filed and "now, suddenly they want a JPC".
Emphasising that all "new factors" relating to the Volcker issue would be sent to the Inquiry Authority, he said "to suggest a completely new mechanism is not acceptable".
<b>Dissatisfied over Mukherjee's response, the Opposition staged a walkout.</b>
In Rajya Sabha, the issue was raised by Leader of the Opposition Jaswant Singh who said government should not fight shy of appointing a JPC to go into the issue and it should not have any apprehension.
<b>Responding to Jaswant Singh's demand, Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs Suresh Pachouri said there was a three-pronged strategy to inquire into the Volcker findings and added there was no justification for JPC at this stage.</b>
He said besides Justice R S Pathak Inquiry Authority, Virendra Dayal had been entrusted with the task of collecting material from the UN and Volcker.
The Enforcement Directorate was also looking into the violation under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, he said.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--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-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> Vajpayee kin issues legal notice to Bhandari
Press Trust of India
New Delhi, December 11, 2005
Former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee's foster son-in-law Ranjan Bhattacharya on Sunday issued a legal notice to former Governor Romesh Bhandari for accusing a "very close" associate of the senior BJP leader of involvement in Iraqi oil scam and asserted he had neither met nor had any dealings with ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's son Uday as alleged.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-ashyam+Dec 11 2005, 09:50 AM-->QUOTE(ashyam @ Dec 11 2005, 09:50 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Outlook being a pro-left magazine is trying to cover Nutwar's ass by denigrading the evidence. We won't know if this article is true.
[right][snapback]42863[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Copying a reader's comment from one of outlook's article on Nutwar. It basically sums up outlook's jal bin machali nritya on this issue.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Seven articles -
One trashing the Volcker report.
Two trashing Matherani (and how they trashed him)
One interview trying to imply the BJP and its leaders.
One interview with Matherani where the constant refrain seems to be 'I have been misquoted'.
One interview with Natwar, where he sees a conspiracy theory (more the handiwork of the Congress than BJP)
One mushy, mushy article about Natwar the martyr.
And as though this was not enough, we had Vinod Mehta appearing on NDTV in a program, where he did a better job than the Congress representative in defending Natwar and Congress and trashing Volcker and the BJP.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> Yours, Partisanly
Among the tons of abusive mail I get, one theme remains constant. My bloodline, of course, is questioned but in volume it does not compare with "bias". According to my critics, I wear my biases on my sleeve. Pro-Sonia, pro-Congress, pro-stray dogs, anti-BJP, anti-Brajesh Mishra, anti-Hindutva etc, etc, is my infirmity. Since I am the editor of Outlook, my purported partisanship runs from the contents page to the one you are reading now. Like Oscar Wilde I do not propose to justify my prejudices, but to explain them. I will not waste your time by denying that many of my prejudices and preferences have been fairly accurately identified. The question is, I also take great pride in being a professional and am toying with the idea of inscribing my tombstone with the lines: "Here lies a professional journalist." So, how do I square my biases with my alleged professionalism?
To begin with, an objective journalist is a myth. The species does not exist. Simply because one has chosen to be a scribe does not mean the individual has become an emotional and intellectual eunuch. A journalist who is prejudice-free is going to be a very boring journalist, besides being a contradiction in terms. What I try to do is balance my prejudices with my professionalism. In other words, the basics of my trade impose a discipline which ensures that instinctive or acquired biases are tempered with the simple and clear rules of the profession.
Still, I wouldnât claim I am a 100 per cent unbiased editor! <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He used to be editor of Debonair. An entertainer, an "intellectual pimp" as Fanne-ji pointed out once..
