Author: Vineet Khare
Publication: Tehelka
Date: August 19, 2006
URL: http://www.tehelka.com/story_main18.asp?filename=Ne081906incoldblood.asp
Introduction: Jagat Singh, son of former External
Affairs Minister Natwar Singh, says Pathak overlooked case against party
Q.: Mr Natwar Singh, in his earlier interviews
has been denying having written the letters of introduction.
A.: He couldn't remember to whom he gave letters six years ago. Who remembers?
When you are in the job of giving 20-40 letters a day, who remembers. You
weren't a minister, you weren't an MP, you didn't have staff. You wrote a
letter and you forgot about it. Woh to har roz dete the chittiyaan (He used
to give letters everyday). He didn't remember that he had given any letters
to Andy (Andaleeb Sehgal). Even when the letters came, he never gave him for
oil. So when he said on TV that I don't know anything about oil and I have
never received any money for oil, I never traded in oil, he was right. When
he said I never sent any letter to Tariq Aziz for oil, he was right. Where
was he wrong? When did he lie? The entire Pathak committee exercise was futile.
If you the read the letters published in the report, where is oil mentioned?
Where is business mentioned? Where is money mentioned?
Q.: The Pathak committee says Natwar Singh
was the facilitator.
A.: The fact of the matter is that Ram Naik went to Iraq in 2001 and recommended
150 companies there. When he was asked why, he said it was my job to get business
for Indian companies in Iraq. The companies doing business in Iraq in oil
or any other commodity were not breaking any law. They were doing legitimate
business under the Oil-for-Food programme. The contracts given to anyone were
given by UN. Where was the illegality? And if Natwar Singh did introduce somebody,
what's the crime? That's what a politician's job is. And if the person gets
some good out of it, good for him. Isn't our job as politicians to help people?
Q.: But the issue here is that he used his
political position to get contracts for his relatives Andaleeb and Aditya.
A.: But there is no evidence of that. If that letter had said that I am sending
Andaleeb to you, can you please allocate oil to him on my or my party's behalf,
then he is misusing his position. He hasn't said that. He has introduced him
as a young businessman in India, can you help him. It's a normal introduction
procedure.
In his earlier interviews, Natwar Singh said
that he had no idea about Andaleeb's businesses.
Q.: That's correct. He didn't know them yesterday.
He doesn't know them today. I get 20 people coming in everyday. Someone wants
a job, agency, gas or electricity connection. Does that mean I know what that
person does?
A.: You are putting your signature on a document. Your signature holds value.
Don't you need to know what's there in the document.
Q.: What's wrong with those letters? The letter
says I am sending this person to you. Can you help him?
A.: But the message going to the Iraqis was that Andaleeb is Natwar Singh's
man and Singh was a important member of the Congress.
How the Iraqis looked at it and how they construed
it is merely an assumption. Ask the Iraqis how they viewed it. He (Natwar)
never told anything specifically to anyone to favour Andaleeb Sehgal. What
Andaleeb Sehgal did with that letter, whether he got oil or wheat from it,
he did it legitimately inside Iraq. There was no illegality committed in Iraq.
Q.: Do you think Natwar Singh has been a victim
of a political witch-hunt?
A.: Most definitely it is a political witch-hunt. The report was to find out
whether anybody got money or not. The report hasn't been able to establish
that the contracts were given on the basis of those letters. If those letters
end up getting contracts for Andaleeb Sehgal, that doesn't mean Natwar Singh
knows about it. It was a letter of introduction. How Andaleeb used that letters
and how the Iraqis viewed them, it was for them to answer. The report has
said that Natwar Singh never got any money, that Congress never got any money.
Then how did Paul Volcker reach the conclusion that they were beneficiaries.
Q.: But Natwar Singh was the facilitator.
A.: That's stretching it too far. The introductory letter doesn't mention
oil. Oil contracts, contract numbers are not mentioned in the letter. It's
merely an assumption.
Q.: You have been taking Union Finance Minister
P. Chidambaram's name.
A.: In a TV interview a month-and-a-half ago, I said that I have been told
by very senior Enforcement Directorate officials that they had been given
instructions to implicate me in the Volcker issue whether I had anything to
do with it or not. ED denied there is any pressure on it. They broke convention
and gave it in writing to everybody that they are independent. Then I read
in August 29, in The Times of India that Chidambaram had given exemption to
two top persons from industry who had been issued summons by the ED. How can
they say there is no interference?
Q.: But why would he do that?
A.: You would have to ask him. I think it's a good thing that he gave them
exemption. People shouldn't be subjected to stupid harassment for nothing.
But it goes to prove that there is interference in the investigation.
Q.: Have you spoken to him?
A.: I wrote him a letter in which I said how can you say that you not interfering
and how can the ED say that you are not interfering when you are personally
giving exemption to people whom ED has summoned. Is that not interference?
Q.: Did he get back?
A.: No. Now you have given the investigation to Chidambaram and his ministry
that has been interfering in the investigation. What justice can anybody expect?
How is the witch-hunt over?
Q.: That means you have no trust in the investigation
because the agencies work under Chidambaram.
A.: Absolutely. Look at the leaks that have been coming out in the last nine
months: Jagat Singh has made Rs 8 crore. Jagat Singh owns a Mercedes, Jagat
Singh has a bank account in London with Rs 1.5 crore. The source is ED. Conclusion:
Jagat Singh got no money. Either you believe Justice Pathak or not. How far
are you willing to take it? And what about the Congress's contract. How can
he give them a clean chit? Natwar Singh might have given a letter to Andaleeb
Sehgal on the basis of which he got a contract, but Andaleeb Sehgal cannot
get a contract for Congress on a letter by Natwar Singh. Either both of the
contracts would have been for Natwar Singh or both of these contracts would
have been for Congress. How was one for Congress and one for Natwar Singh?
Why has that not been investigated? What was the role of Aneil Matherani?
Pathak says that Matherani went to the State Oil Management Organisation which
was with the ministry of Oil. Why did the Indian ambassador there take him?
Why has the Pathak inquiry been so quick to give the Congress a clean chit?
The Congress has a contract in its name, how can you just dismiss it?
Q.: Who do you think in the Congress was behind
the contract? Who do you think in the Congress should be investigated? Do
you think the Congress head should be investigated?
A.: I cannot comment on that.
Q.: Do you think there was pressure on the
committee?
A.: I think he was uncomfortable with the way the inquiry was going. He was
not getting the level of cooperation he wanted. Certain juniors appended to
him were acting on instructions from elsewhere. I seriously doubt that Pathak
wrote this report. A person of his stature wouldn't have come out with a report
like this. You cannot do a report like this on the basis of assumption, guesswork,
theories. Go through the report and you would find words like 'might have
been', 'may be', 'we are not sure'…. These are not words you should be
using in an inquiry of this stature. Either you know or you don't know. You
cannot cast aspersion on a person saying this person did this, but we don't
have any evidence.
Q.: Congress leaders have been saying that
Natwar Singh had been doing this independently, misusing the Congress name.
A.: Not at all. If you give a letter of introduction to somebody, that doesn't
mean you are misusing the party's name. If somebody takes a letter of introduction
and uses it, you ask that person.
Q.: Why is there a witch-hunt?
A.: Because they don't want him in the post of foreign minister. There is
a tilt towards a particular superpower.
Q.: Why do you think the Congress was exonerated?
A.: I don't know. I am glad that the Congress has been exonerated, but the
way it has been done raises doubts.
Q.: What doubts?
A.: Not in my mind, but in the mind of the people, the media and the world.
You have left loopholes for people to question.
Q.: Is there a clique in the Congress?
A.: I cannot take any names.
Q.: Your father has dared the party by moving
a privilege motion.
A.: He has not dared the party. It's a serious issue something like this taking
place. The nation and Parliament have a right to know how come something of
this magnitude has taken place in the highest office of the land. It's scary.
It's not a discipline issue. It's in the general public interest. My father
did it on his own. He didn't take support from any party or quarters. He is
casting aspersion on the functioning of the prime minister's office and people
within the office.
Q.: Why would the PMO leak the report?
A.: To demolish him in the media in advance before he could defend himself
in Parliament.
Q.: Any plans of a third front?
A.: No. My father will remain with the Congress. Which family doesn't have
problems? He is a Congress MP. What future plans will he have?
Q.: But leaders like Kapil Sibal and others
…
A.: Kapil Sibal doesn't decide the fate of the Congress. He doesn't decide
the fate of Natwar Singh.
Q.: Will you support Andy?
A.: I have supported him all through this. He has said that he has done business.
He has told that to Pathak in an affidavit. He has signed blank letters to
give them the authority to go around the world to collect whatever evidence
they want. He is saying that if he is liable to pay any liability, he will
pay. But it has been turned as if he is the centre of some kind of a scam
of huge proportions. Now Pathak turns around and says $1,47,000….
Q.: How would you sum up Pathak inquiry?
A.: Very unsatisfactory, unprofessional. Justice Pathak must have been fed
up of the interferences.
