Oil stains on a minister

I write ‘denials’ because there are actually three sets. Word, spread discreetly, from the Prime Minister’s Office is that Dr Manmohan Singh has concluded that there is not enough evidence to prove his colleague’s guilt. The Congress, through its spokesmen, denies that it had its snout in the trough; in fact it rubbishes even the clamour for an independent inquiry. Finally, the man in the hot seat does not just deny the allegations, he even questions the integrity of the Volcker Committee. Natwar Singh says he would like to know why it was an American at the helm rather than someone from the developing world.

Actually, that question has a simple answer. The members of the panel were appointed by Secretary-General Kofi Annan. This was endorsed by the Security Council Resolution 1538 of April 21, 2004, calling on all member states to cooperate. Paul Volcker, former chairman of the US Federal Reserve, became the chairman. His colleagues were Professor Mark Pieth of Switzerland, an expert on money laundering, and Justice Richard Goldstone of South Africa, a former prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals. The last time I checked, South Africa was still counted as part of the “developing world”, but that is a minor issue.

The Volcker Committee and its aides sifted through over 12 million pages of documents before making its report. Whatever Natwar Singh might say, this was not a political conspiracy aimed against him, but a searing indictment of several organisations, including such icons of the western world as Daimler-Chrysler, a French bank, and several American oil companies.

Speaking as an Indian, I am happy to note that the Report states that Indian Oil Corporation rejected the Saddam Hussein regime’s demand for a surcharge, and that the Indian mission joined European, Japanese, and Canadian colleagues in complaining about illegal payments to the Iraqi dictator’s government. India was also the lead auditor from 1996 to 1998, when the Oil-for-Food Programme began; the Volcker Committee Report points out that in its early years, through 1999, the scope of the audit was broad, and that it was only subsequently — well after India left — that the audits began to get lose focus. It is silly to imply that the Volcker Committee was biased against the “developing world”.

Natwar Singh might have had a point had he argued that the entire system of sanctions was bogus and should never have been erected in the first place. (This would put the external affairs minister in a position of arguing against Security Council Resolution 986, but never mind!) He has, however, chosen the tack that the prime minister has given him a clean chit. It was this that led various people to spread the clarification that it was a case of ‘cannot be proven’ rather than ‘innocent’.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh cannot get away with this even so. He has put himself in the peculiar position of acting as the judge who decides a case without hearing the prosecution. Consider the time involved. The Volcker Committee Report was released on October 27, which means, given the difference in time zones, that the prime minister would not have gone through it before October 28. He was in Kolkata on that day. The Deepavali Blasts shook Delhi on October 29, and have presumably occupied him ever since. So where did he get the leisure to peruse the documents, ask for clarifications if necessary, and consult his own agencies before deciding there was “insufficient evidence”?

In any case, even Secretary-General Annan has not gone so far as to question the authority of the Volcker Committee Report though it condemns his own son, Kojo. This last gives Natwar Singh something in common with Annan, since it is his son who was the alleged go-between. It seems to be a complicated web, linking Natwar Singh’s son, Jagat, the Singapore-based Hamdan Export, Masefield AG in Switzerland, and the Jordanian National Bank. There is also talk of someone called A. Sehgal, who was apparently linked to Hamdan Export. None of this may be true, but surely it calls for a full and free inquiry?

The external affairs minister may not admit it but his utility in office is compromised until his name is cleared by an independent agency. From now on, every decision he makes will attract charges of acting under duress. If, let us say, India votes against Iran in Vienna, the Leftists will murmur that his advice was tainted by fear of more disclosures from the United States.

Happily, Natwar Singh now says he is willing to face any independent investigation. He also says that nothing is dearer to him than his reputation. If so, he should quit his post and demand an inquiry as his right. His Cabinet chair cannot be of more value than his name, can it? Oil stains, Mr Minister, cannot be wiped off in a day.