Author: News
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: August 10, 2006
In a hurry to indict former external affairs
minister Natwar Singh and exonerate the Congress, Justice RS Pathak Authority
report conveniently overlooked its own findings on the involvement of another
Congress functionary Aneil Mathrani. The report noted that Mathrani was present
when the Iraqi Oil Ministry discussed the contracts, but failed to explain
his role in the scam.
From the deposition of Indian Ambassador to
Iraq, R Dayakar, the commission noted that Mathrani, Jagat Singh and Andaleeb
Sehgal were explained the payment of surcharge when they visited the Iraqi
State Oil Marketing Organisation (SOMO).
"It is reasonable to infer that there
was some talk about the allocation of oil since on January 23, 2001, Jagat
Singh and Sehgal along with Mathrani went to the office of SOMO where they
were explained about how the Iraqi officials in the Ministry of Oil went about
allocating oil to companies under the oil-for-food programme," the report
noted.
The previous day, Natwar Singh met the Iraqi
Oil Minister along with Jagat Singh and Andaleeb Sehgal, which the Authority
presumes, discussed oil allocation.
The report noted that the Iraq Government
at the time dealt only with persons perceived as "Iraqi friendly."
If that be the case, the Pathak report fails to explain how Mathrani was entertained
by the oil ministry.
Justice Pathak had separate yardsticks for
indicting Natwar Singh and exonerating Mathrani. The Authority dealt with
kid gloves when it was probing the role of Mathrani in the oil-for-food scam.
"It appears from the documents before the Inquiry Authority that it was
Mathrani himself who coordinated the entire visit of the delegation to Iraq,"
the report said.
But when it came to eliciting information
from him, the Authority was unsuccessful. "None of the delegates were
forthcoming in their deposition about what transpired and whom they met while
in Iraq. Mathrani stated that he did not know Natwar Singh closely. He said
even though he was secretary in the very same Foreign Affairs Department,"
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 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.
