'The Most Crucial Pieces Of Evidence'

What was "one of the most crucial pieces of evidence" that helpedindict Natwar Singh? A letter written he wrote on January 30, 2001 to Iraqi OilMinister Amer Mohammed Rasheed, says the Inquiry Report.

Natwar Singh wrote that he was sending the letter with Andaleeb Sehgal andwent on to say that Sehgal was "present when I called on you on January 22,2001 at your office in Baghdad".

Singh had said Andaleeb Sehgal was "well known" to him for"many years"  -- and "so is the company he owns".Sehgal, he had added, "enjoys my full support and confidence, and I wouldappreciate you giving him your full assistance and cooperation". He hadgone on to mention that the Congress party "greatly values its fraternallinks with the Arab Ba'ath Socialist Party" and "I believe that theselinks have been further intensified during our stay in Baghdad".

Before the Inquiry Authority, Singh was asked whether he had met the Iraqiminister, to which he had replied in the affirmative but had claimed that no oneelse was present. When confronted with the letter, Singh admitted that thesignature on it was his but he was not sure about the text. The panel held thatthe letter was "in fact" written by Singh because not only was thesignature his but also the words "with regards" written by hand, thehandwriting of which was admitted by Singh to be his.

The report tabled in Parliament today notes: "It demonstrates thatNatwar Singh utilised his presence in Iraq not merely for the purpose ofrepresenting the Congress party in a goodwill mission but also took theopportunity of lending his assistance in the procurement of the oil allocationto Andaleeb Sehgal who accompanied him on the visit to the Oil Minister," ,said.

The report points out that Singh's letter was written on an official letterhead of the All India Congress Committee, showing him as 'Member, CongressWorking Committee, and beneath that 'Chairman, Foreign Affairs Department' andthe address given is 24, Akbar Road, New Delhi. The official phone numbers ofthe AICC are mentioned on the letter head itself and at the bottom of the letter-headthe residence phone numbers along with the fax number are mentioned.

The report says it is possible that Singh's son Jagat was also present atthat meeting since in a subsequent letter dated April 26, 2001 again addressedto the Iraqi minister, Natwar Singh had also added: "I am sending thisletter with my son, K Jagat Singh who is general secretary of the youth wing ofthe Congress Party. He and his cousin Andaleeb Sehgal were with me when I calledon you about three months ago. Jagat and his cousin will tell you how much Ihave appreciated your help and cooperation which I hope will continue."

The report notes that the two letters were written on similar letter-heads ofthe AICC and marked "personal".

The report concludes: "It is thus evident that a meeting took place withthe Iraqi Oil Minister where Natwar Singh, Jagat Singh and Andaleeb Sehgal werepresent. What transpired during this meeting was not known since none of thethree persons spoke about it... However, it is reasonable to infer that therewas some talk about the allocation of oil since on the very next date, i.e. onJanuary 23, 2001, Jagat Singh and Sehgal, along with Aniel Mathrani (thensecretary of the AICC Foreign Affairs cell) went to the building of the StateOil Marketing Organisation (SOMO) where they were explained about how the Iraqiofficials in the Ministry of Oil went about allocating oil to companies underthe UN Oil for Food programme."

While deposing, R Dayakar, then India's Ambassador to Iraq, said there was acall from the Iraqi Foreign ministry asking him to be present at the SOMOoffice. When he went there, Jagat, Mathrani and Sehgal were also present. Thereport notes it was apparent that Natwar Singh's meeting with the Iraqi ministercarried "great significance". That can be judged from SOMO opening itsdoors to Jagat and Sehgal the very next day.

It was known at that time that the Iraqi Government did not deal with anystranger and did not permit any one apart from the persons who had been approvedby them to deal in the commodity of oil, the report said.

The Report

The tabled report, running into 87-pages, with 21 pages of annexures, pretty much conformed to what had been 'leaked' and has been widely reported,but provided many more details.

The Authority headed by former Chief Justice rof India R S Pathak citesevidence to show that Natwar Singh, who was chairman of the Foreign Affairs Cellof the Congress party, and his son Jagat Singh, a general secretary of the YouthCongress, had used their positions to introduce their relative and friendAndaleeb Sehgal and Aditya Khanna to Iraqi authorities personally and throughletters. The father and son are held responsible for "influencing andfacilitating" the procurement of oil contracts that earned a commission ofover US dollar 1.93 lakh.

The Authority concluded that the documents available with the VolckerCommittee were "authentic and reliable" and went on to say that"the Inquiry Authority has absolutely no evidence to link the Congressparty to the transactions discussed in the report and except for the fact thatShri K Natwar Singh and Shri K Jagat Singh belonged to the Indian Congress partythere is not a shred of evidence to link the Congress party to the saidtransactions. The Inquiry Authority believes upon examination of all documentsand materials which exist before it that no wrong can be attributed to theCongress party."

Referring to documents from various sources including the Volcker committee,governments of Iraq and Jordan, external affairs ministry and the affidavits ofvarious individuals in the inquiry, the Authority said the detailed analysis ofall such material "give rise to the finding that Natwar Singh, mentioned asa non-contractual beneficiary with respect to Contract No M/09/54, was abeneficiary in so far that the role played by him in influencing andfacilitating the procurement of the contract had fructified."

The Authority said Natwar Singh, mentioned as a non- contractual beneficiarywith respect to Contract No. M/09/54, was a beneficiary "in so far that therole by him in influencing and facilitatating the procurement of the contractshad fructified. There is no material to show that Natwar Singh had derived anyfinancial or other personal benefits from the contracts".

The Authority said the Congress party  has been shown as anon-contractual beneficiary with respect to Contract No M/10/57. "Theinquiry authority has found no evidence that the Congress party was involved inthe contract and that it derived any benefit at all from the contracts. Indeed,there is nothing to show that the Indian Congress Party had anything to do withthe contracts M/09/54 and M/10/57."

Consequently, the Authority said, the reference to Natwar Singh with respect toContract No M/09/54 "is justified in the sense explained earlier, while thereference to the Indian Congress party with respect to Contract No M/10/57 isnot justified at all." The Authority also named Aditya Khanna, AndaleebSehgal of Sehgal Consultants and Hamdaan Exports as the Indian entities orindividuals who received money in connection with the purported transactionunder the UN oil-for-food programme pertaining to the two oil contracts.

Interestingly, the Authority remains silent on the clear terms of referencewhich empowered it to make recommendations or suggestions it considerednecessary and proper, nor did it inquire into "any other aspects" ofthe two contracts as clearly mentioned in the item number four of its terms ofreference.

The ATR notes that the government has examined thereport and accepted the conclusions contained in the report. "No evidencelinks the Congress party to the oil transactions. Natwar Singh and Jagat Singhhad used their position but were not direct beneficiaries."

The report has now been forwarded to Central Boardof Direct Tax, Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Central Board of Excise andCustoms.

The options before the Government are to handoversome cases flowing out of the authority report to the ED for alleged FEMAviolations and some to other appropriate investigative agencies.