Greasy deal and Natwar's stigma

But how does the US come into the picture except that Paul Volcker who chaired the committee is an American? There were also other members on the committee. I hope

the charge is not that President Bush told Volcker to indict Natwar Singh whose existence the latter did not know.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Natwar Singh too before leaving his portfolio said to placate the Left that if a resolution was placed at the International Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC), his recommendation to the government would be to revise the vote. (India voted with America against Iran.) Because of such an irrelevant discussion, we are missing the main point.

The question to which we have to seek an answer is whether Natwar Singh and the Congress profited from Iraq's Oil-for-Food programme allowed on humanitarian grounds. Saddam Hussein selected individuals and firms which purchased oil at less than the market price even though he added his commission to what the UN had fixed. Saddam reportedly earned $1.6 billion. The Volcker Committee that looked into the deals has mentioned both Natwar Singh and the Congress as the beneficiaries in the report. Whether or not it sent notices to the two is irrelevant. All that is required to be known is if Natwar Singh and the Congress received the money.

The Manmohan Singh government has done well in appointing a fact finder in Varinder Dayal, a former bureaucrat, and a former Chief Justice of India R.S. Pathak, one-man judicial commission, to look into the entire matter. Dayal will collect documents and the related information, while Pathak will give his verdict on the involvement of Natwar Singh and the Congress.

Where the government has gone wrong is in its selection of the fact finder. He is a retired bureaucrat, known to Natwar Singh intimately. Dayal may have been a good officer but he does not make the grade of eminent citizen who was supposed to be collecting the relevant facts. This task is subjective in nature. It will depend on the fact finder which document or information he considers relevant. The ex-chief justice gives his verdict only on the basis of the material sifted by Dayal. There are no witnesses and none to be cross-examined. Even an iota of suspicion about the material collected can reduce the entire exercise to futility. The opposition is already voicing its doubts. An eminent person in place of Dayal would have shut the waging tongues.

The Volcker Committee took 16 months to write a 620-page report. Even if the fact finder and the judicial inquiry take half that time -- both Dayal and Pathak have to go through the Saddam government's files on which the Vocker Committee based its report -- it means eight months. Let us say, at least six months. How can the tarnished Natwar Singh continue in the government till then? He will be attending the meetings of the cabinet and its sub-committees. He will be participating in the discussion on highly secret subjects and may at times tilt the decision one way or the other.

Is this fair to the country which is above Natwar Singh and the Congress Party? If Natwar Singh's position as foreign minister was untenable, how can it be tenable as a minister without portfolio? The Congress has given it out as a compromise formula. Letting a minister who has been named in the report to be a cabinet member is, indeed, a compromise with high standards and values that a nation seeks to uphold. A statement here or an observation there does not absolve Natwar Singh of his involvement. The Congress is unnecessarily exaggerating bits of information which some UN aide is dishing out. The Prime Minister should at least not say anything till Pathak's findings are available. By announcing that the allegation against Natwar Singh and the Congress is "unsubstantiated" amounts to pronouncing a verdict before the judicial commission has come to any conclusion. The Volcker report was not meant to substantiate the money which the beneficiaries received in the oil deal. The substantiating part begins now. Already there is smoke. The Enforcement Directorate has questioned Andaleeb Sehgal, a close friend of Natwar Singh's son, Jagat Singh, and proposes to question the latter. Sehgal is the owner of Hamdan Exports, the firm that is said to have paid $748,540 on behalf of another firm Masefield AG which lifted Iraqi oil allotted to Natwar Singh and the Congress.

Saddam's oil deals have always been suspect in the eyes of the West. I recall when I was India's High Commissioner to the UK in 1990 the then foreign secretary Douglas Hurd called me to his office. Britain suspected our motives, as if by sending ships for dispatch of food and medicine, we were trying to help Saddam indirectly. I found him unhappy over the then foreign minister I.K. Gujral's statement asking for "a negotiated settlement" on Iraq and warning that the "continuing tension in the Gulf region is likely

to lead to further alienation of South Asians."

Although the subsequent pronouncement by India cleared the air, Hurd wanted me to explain our stand. I told him that our policy was to support the UN resolutions but at the same time we favoured a peaceful solution to the Kuwait problem.

Referring to our shipments, Hurd said there was enough food available in Kuwait and India's initiative might encourage Saddam Hussein. "I do not think that the supplies of food and medicines are anything but a humanitarian act," I said. "Medicine yes, but not food," was his reply. "Everything depends on the UN sanctions committee and I believe you are in touch with them," he said as a closing remark.

I took the opportunity to discuss the post-war scenario in the Gulf. "Intertwined with the situation is the lack of democracy in the region," I said. "Arab leaders have to be acceptable to their people and there is no running away from free, fair elections."

In principle, Hurd did not disagree with me but wanted the matter to be left to the region itself. "Nothing should be imposed from outside," he said. "They have their own traditions." A few days later, I asked a senior British official whether something would be done to ensure the people's say in the area. He said: "You can't be serious. We have gone to safeguard oil, not democracy."

Kuldip Nayar is an eminent Indian columnist.