Author:
Publication: India Today
Date: December 12, 2005
Aniel Matherani, former secretary of the Congress'
foreign affairs cell and a key member of the party delegation that went to
Iraq in 2001, provides exclusive details on how K. Natwar Singh went out of
his way to promote his son Jagat and his cousin Andaleeb Sehgal. In a telephonic
conversation, Matherani, currently India's ambassador to Croatia, told Associate
Editor Saurabh Shukla about Natwar's role in the oil-for-food scandal.
Q. Can you narrate the sequence of events?
A. Former Iraqi vice-president Taha Ramadan visited India on November 27,
2000, and Natwar Singh accompanied Congress President Sonia Gandhi to the
meeting with him. After this there was talk that during the delegation's visit,
the oil minister met Natwar separately. Natwar too had said that they had
had a meeting.
Q. Then what happened?
A. After the visit, Natwar activated an invitation which was given to him
by Iraqi ambassador Salah Al Mukhtar. The invitation letter was addressed
to Natwar in person by Iraqi deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz. He activated
the invitation because when Sonia Gandhi met Ramadan during his India trip,
an invitation to visit Iraq was extended to the Congress president and the
Congress delegation.
Q. Why did the invite come to Natwar instead
of going to the Congress president?
A. Exactly. The invitation letter was addressed to Natwar as the Iraqi ambassador
was close to him and Natwar dealt directly with him. He activated the invitation
and then went to the Congress president. After this, she approved a four-member
delegation. You know all the names.
Q. What happened after that?
A. This was told to the Iraqi ambassador and the dates were fixed. The Congress
party purchased tickets for the four-member delegation on the Royal Jordanian
Airlines and gifts were also purchased. A letter was drafted on behalf of
the Congress president by Natwar for Saddam Hussein. Then the Iraqi ambassador
was told to go ahead and fix the visit. In the meantime, Natwar also told
the Iraqi ambassador that perhaps his son would accompany him. After all,
the visas had to be given by the Iraqi Embassy.
Q. Did he also talk about Andy Sehgal with
the ambassador?
A. Till then I had not heard about this cousin at all. I am telling you about
Jagat Singh. Natwar had mentioned that his son might accompany him. He had
said that it would be a difficult journey to Iraq and that he would like his
son to join him. When we reached the airport, Jagat Singh appeared at the
airport and took the flight with us.
Q. What happened when you reached Amman?
A. At the airport, we were received by an Indian Embassy official and brought
to the Intercontinental Hotel. After we assembled in the lobby, Sehgal appeared.
Q. What did Natwar say?
A. He was introduced to the delegation by Natwar as his son's cousin, somebody
who was familiar with Iraq and whose visit-by coincidence-was at the same
time as ours.
Q. Didn't this make all of you suspicious
about Sehgal?
A. Who knew who this character was. We never suspected Natwar and who would
suspect him? People were afraid of him and respected him because of his proximity
to Sonia Gandhi. He was above board. You could never have an iota of doubt
about his credibility. So where was the question of suspicion? In the evening,
then Indian ambassador to Jordan hosted a reception for us, where Jagat and
Sehgal were present. Subodh Kant Sahay, who was also going to Iraq, was there.
He hung around us and wanted to be a part of the delegation. (However, Sahay
told India Today that he had nothing to do with the oil vouchers and never
wanted to get on board the Congress delegation.)
Q. Who else was there in Amman?
A. In the hotel, I spotted Jamil Saidi. I don't know wether he was staying
in the same hotel or not.
Q. Did they mention why Sehgal was in Amman
and why he was going with them to Baghdad?
A. No, till then everything was happening according to plan. Natwar had said
he was taking his son for a difficult journey and had got Jagat's cousin,
who knew Iraq, for company. At that time, Natwar's credibility was at its
highest. Till then, they (Jagat and Sehgal) were not part of the official
four-member delegation.
Q. What happened when you reached Baghdad?
A. We were received by R. Dayakar, the then Indian ambassador to Baghdad,
and the Iraqi officials. We were taken to the Al Rashid Hotel. It was essentially
the Baath party hotel and all the people who stayed there were the guests
of the Baath party. This was when the transition took place. Jagat became
a part of the delegation and checked in with us. Sehgal did the same. You
can't check into this hotel unless you are part of the delegation.
Q. Did Natwar tell them to do so?
A. Exactly. As we reached Iraq, all directions and instructions were issued
by the leader of the delegation (Natwar). The Iraqi leadership was in touch
only with him and our embassy took instructions only from the leader of the
delegation. His word was final. None of us had any contact with the Baath
party or knew any official of the party, but apparently Natwar had an old
friendship with Aziz which he had mentioned even before leaving.
Q. What happened at the meetings with Aziz
and Ramadan?
A. The members of the Congress delegation increased from four to six and then
the discussions took place. First there was a meeting with Aziz, where these
two (Jagat and Sehgal) were present and were introduced by the leader of the
delegation. The discussion with Aziz was general, about the relationship with
the Congress and the no-fly zone. At the meeting, Aziz suggested that other
meetings would also be organised for the delegation. He also mentioned that
it took seven days before an audience could be arranged with Saddam.
Q. Did he say anything about oil?
A. There was no discussion on oil or vouchers, but these two (Jagat and Sehgal)
were introduced.
Q. Are you sure you are not suffering from
selective amnesia?
A. Believe me, I am not. Everything I am telling you is a fact. After the
meeting we looked around Baghdad. Dayakar had organised a reception for us.
Some Indians in Baghdad and Iraqi officials were also present, but nobody
too senior. Off and on, Sahay would come to see us at all these places, but
I don't recollect him being present at any of our meetings.
Q. What were Jagat and Sehgal doing all this
while?
A. After the meetings, they would disappear. Nobody knew what they were doing.
They kept to themselves, Natwar, Jagat and Sehgal. What they discussed was
confined to Natwar's room. It was a very closed group. By that time it was
becoming quite clear that they were looking for trade.
Q. Why do you say that?
A. Because of Sehgal's activities it was clear that he was a businessman looking
to do some business in Iraq, that Jagat was helping him and that they were
partners. One can understand Jagat accompanying his father even if he was
not allowed in the delegation, but what was the point of bringing a cousin?
By then the delegation had become aware of their activities.
Q. Did the other delegation members talk about
it?
A. No, you don't question what the head of your delegation is doing. You take
it as it comes. All instructions were given by him.
Q. What happened at the meeting with the Iraqi
vice-president?
A. At the meeting with Ramadan, Sonia Gandhi's letter was given and on January
21, 2001, the Iraqi radio reported what Natwar said during the discussion.
At that meeting the two (Jagat and Sehgal) were present and no business was
transacted. It had been planned to give an impression to the Iraqi leadership
that the delegation had a political component (Natwar and three others) and
a business component (Jagat and Sehgal). Perhaps they had intimated to the
Iraqis what they intended to do.
Q. Did they meet the oil minister?
A. I don't remember, but there was a meeting with the trade minister and commerce
minister. All subsequent meetings were arranged by Aziz.
Q. Didn't any member find out that oil vouchers
would be allocated?
A. I don't recall anything being said about oil vouchers at the meeting. But
I must tell you that Saidi reappeared in Baghdad. I remember seeing him in
the lobby of the Al Rashid Hotel.
Q. But he is denying it. Did he have something
to do with it?
A. Yes, he had something to do with it. Hundred per cent. All of them were
together-Jagat, Sehgal and this Jamil character. (However, Jamil Saidi denied
that he was in Baghdad. "I met them in Jordan and that's about it. Some
people are trying to fix me. I've been threatened with dire consequences,"
he told India Today.)
Q. We were told you had separate meetings
with Jagat and Sehgal.
A. I was constantly with the delegation and had no separate calls with any
Iraqi official.
Q. You were close to Natwar. Didn't he mention
oil at any time?
A. We are talking about 2001. I was never close to him. Later, when there
were deaths in his family, I met him and gave him solace. In fact, when Sonia
Gandhi was going to Iceland and the US, Natwar ensured that I didn't become
a part of the delegation.
Q. How did the allocation of the oil vouchers
take place?
A. When Natwar introduced his son and Sehgal to all the Iraqi officials he
didn't have to say anything. All that he had to do was to show that they were
in the delegation, that they were his son and his cousin, and therefore it
was confidential. They could go later and do whatever business they wanted
to. You don't have to say anything to the face. The fact that they were introduced
was a clear signal to the Iraqis.
Q. Did they talk at any time about the oil
vouchers?
A. This was kept completely under wraps. You don't need to have the Congress
delegation present to get the vouchers.
Q. This means the groundwork was laid during
the visit of the Congress delegation.
A. Exactly. The groundwork was laid at that time, and then one could come
back and accept whatever vouchers were given. The important thing was to take
that delegation and have these two (Jagat and Sehgal) in it and to have them
introduced formally.
Q. What happened after you came back?
A. When we got back, these two also came back to Jordan in the same caravan.
Then they (Jagat and Sehgal) stayed back in Amman.
Q. Why did they stay back? Did they say anything?
A. No, but the entire operation was managed through the Iraqi Embassy in Delhi
and in Jordan. The embassy in Jordan was a key player, just as it was in case
of oil vouchers. You can make these connections. Moti baat yeh hai ki the
green signal for the vouchers was given during this visit (January 2001).
The Iraqis needed a green signal (for oil allocation) and it was provided
by Natwar. He organised the delegation and introduced the ones who would execute
whatever was given.
Q. So the vouchers didn't go to the Congress,
but to Natwar.
A. Naturally. The fact is that in this case both (oil voucher allottees) are
possibly the same. In my view, both are exactly the same. One has been given
to him (Natwar) by name and the other is in the name of the Congress party.
One for Natwar's personal services-don't forget that he is the one who has
been espousing the Iraqi cause all along. He has been a vociferous supporter
of the Iraqi regime and of Saddam. The other voucher the Iraqis kept for the
friendly Congress party.
Q. Aditya Khanna's name has also been mentioned.
A. I don't know Aditya Khanna, but his father Vipin is very close to Natwar.
Q. How can you say that?
A. When the prime minister of Luxembourg called on Sonia Gandhi in 1999-2000,
Natwar brought Vipin Khanna to 10 Janpath. This guy need not have been present
at that meeting as he was an honorary consul-general, not an ambassador.
Q. But Natwar maintains he did not know about
his name being linked to the oil-for-food scandal.
A. When Congress spokesperson Anand Sharma was asked at a press conference
on October 16, 2004, about the Iraq Survey Group, he had replied, "It
is not to be taken seriously. It is factually incorrect." The fact that
Congress' name has figured was known to them. I refuse to believe when Natwar
says he knew nothing about it. Of course, he knew all these things from the
beginning but preferred to keep quiet. He told a select group that he had
known for some time about his and Congress' name being there but preferred
not to react. That Natwar and the Congress never knew is hogwash.
