Karan Thapar: Hello and welcome to a special interview. On Monday, the Pathak enquiry report was tabled in Parliament. On Tuesday midnight, Natwar Singh was suspended from the Congress party. On Wednesday, Natwar Singh agreed to break his silence and for the first time speak about the charges leveled against him by the Pathak enquiry.
But first, Mr Natwar Singh, let’s talk about last (Tuesday) night’s development at midnight. You have been suspended by the Congress party. You reacted with emotion and anger. How do you react today?
Karan Thapar: Last night on TV, you said about Manmohan Singh. That he is the only one of India’s 11 Prime Ministers, who could not win even a municipal election. This morning, what is your view of Dr Manmohan Singh?
Natwar Singh: Well, it gives me no pleasure to say he is a weak Prime Minister. He’s unable to stand up for his colleagues. I have worked with him for 40 years and he knew nothing about foreign policy, when I helped him in whatever way I could right up to the 5th of April when things changed. And today when I am in difficulty, he does not have the courage or even the camaraderie to stand up and say something in my favour.
Karan Thapar: Now, what is your opinion this morning of Sonia Gandhi, the president of the Congress party? After all, you could not have been suspended without her approval of the action.
Natwar Singh: I had the privilege to know the Nehru-Gandhi family since I was 13-14 years old. Due to my reverence of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, due to my reverence of Smt Indira Gandhi, due to my reverence of the memories of Rajiv Gandhi, I will not say a single word against Smt Sonia Gandhi.
Karan Thapar: In other words, you are making it clear that the only reason you are holding your silence on Sonia Gandhi is due to the respect you have for her husband, her mother-in-law and her grand-father-in-law.
Natwar Singh: No, it’s not. I will not say a single word against Smt Sonia Gandhi.
Karan Thapar: What about Mr Pranab Mukherjee, who pronounced the verdict on you? What do you feel about him this morning?
Natwar Singh: I don’t think it really matters what he says. His own record speaks for himself.
Karan Thapar: All right. Let’s now come to the Pathak report. Let’s now try to talk about your defence against the charges that are leveled against you. The Pathak report claims that you are a beneficiary. The Pathak reports says that your letter on 30th January 2001 to the Iraqi oil minister demonstrates that Sri Natwar Singh utilised his presence in Iraq to lend his assistance in the procurement of oil allocation to Sri Andaleeb Sehgal. Is not this a proof that you were recommending Andaleeb Sehgal for a oil deal and when that deal materialised, you became a beneficiary?
Natwar Singh: Well, the Pathak report exonerated me and my son from deriving any financial benefit.
Karan Thapar: But it accuses you of doing everything in your power and capacity to secure an oil deal for Andaleeb and it says categorically when these oil deals came through, you became a beneficiary.
Natwar Singh: You see, Mr Volcker’s report, I don’t think it has been studied by anybody. Mr Volcker himself has said that he changed the report. If I have had those kind of influence, which is implied in the report, because this report is a farce, it does not even mention my affidavit, does not mention the affidavits of my son or Sehgal or does not even attach the statement he had made before Pathak, saying that I have done nothing wrong.
Karan Thapar: The report says that you used your influence to procure oil deals for Andaleeb Sehgal and when these oil deals came through, you were a beneficiary and this is proven by your letter of 30th January 2001 to the Iraqi oil minister. What is your response to that specific charge?
PAGE_BREAK
Natwar Singh: First of all, anybody can do a cut-and-paste job of the signature of mine. With regard to my letter, where in this letter have I said give me oil contract?
Karan Thapar: Let me quote to you. You made two claims in the letter of 30th of January. Firstly you said eight days earlier on 22nd of January, you took Andaleeb Sehgal to meet Iraqi oil minister Amir Rashid. Secondly, you go on to say of Andaleeb Sehgal that “he enjoys my full support and confidence and I would appreciate you giving your full assistance and cooperation to him”. I put it to you is this a carefully coded request for oil?
Natwar Singh: Where is oil mentioned? He had asked for wheat. I have not mentioned oil, I have not mentioned contract, I have not mentioned voucher.
Karan Thapar: You certainly have not mentioned oil, contract and voucher in so many words. But no one actually writes a letter wherein you say, please give my man oil. That would be ridiculous. What do you say instead is that “Andaleeb is well-known to me for many years and then ominously you add so is the company he owns.” That is a clear indication that if anything is given to Andaleeb, it would be construed as a favour to Natwar Singh. It is a request via Andaleeb for a benefit for yourself.
Natwar Singh:You see, this is where doubt arises about the authenticity of the letter. Because I have never heard of Hamadan before. Number two, if I was really interested in the money, I would have written a letter saying I am sending my son, will you please help him and give him any assistance that this guy likes to? But I did not do so.
Karan Thapar: So, you are making two points. You are saying first of all if you had the influence that Pathak claims you had, you would use it for your son and not for your son’s cousin. And the fact that you haven’t used it for your son suggests that you don’t have such influence. Is that the first point are you making?
Natwar Singh: Yes, I am making this point.
Karan Thapar: And the second point you are making is that, in fact this letter, the letter of the 30th January which Pathak says, and I quote, “is one the most crucial pieces of evidence in this proceeding,” you said the letter is fraudulent, you are saying that it is forged.
Natwar Singh: I am saying that the signature is mine, (but) the language is not mine. It is a cut-and-paste job.
Karan Thapar: Let me point out that Siddharth Dave, the counsel of the Pathak Authority, certifies this letter as authentic. So, how can you say that this is not authentic?
Natwar Singh: Who is he to certify that the letter is authentic?
Karan Thapar: So, you doubt his credential?
Natwar Singh: I certainly do. When the advocates were selected, they are selected purposely to serve two individuals.
Karan Thapar: Who are the two individuals?
Natwar Singh: There are two ministers, I don’t want to name.
Karan Thapar: Two ministers in the Rao Government or in the present government?
Natwar Singh: Yes, in the present government.
Karan Thapar: In other words, two ministers in the present government have deliberately selected counsels, who are prejudice to you, and those counsels have authenticated the letter that is a forgery.
Natwar Singh: That is right.
Karan Thapar: You are suggesting, aren’t you, that the two ministers are Kapil Sibal and P Chidambaram.
Natwar Singh: I will not say yes or no. You come to your own conclusion.
Karan Thapar: All right. But you are suggesting that that there is a conspiracy purportedly by two ministers to select counsels who deliberately certified forgeries as authentic.
Natwar Singh: Yes.
Karan Thapar: Let me interrupt again. These letters were on letterhead, AICC letterhead that gives your designation as chairman of the foreign affairs department, as a member of the working committee. The AICC addresses are there, the AICC phone number is there, and the AICC fax number is there. How can you deny that the letters are authentic?
Natwar Singh: Listen, you can get a letterhead from anywhere. You can see the spelling errors, they were not letters. I was not a minister, I was not an MLA, I was not an MP. I had no influence.
PAGE_BREAK
Karan Thapar: You have confirmed that the signature on the letters was yours. You have also confirmed that the handwriting with which ‘with regards’ was written is yours.
Natwar Singh: Yes, I have said it’s mine, but the language is not mine.
Karan Thapar: So, how did the signature get there?
Natwar Singh: Cut-and-paste job.
Karan Thapar: Were you shown originals of this letter?
Natwar Singh: No, no originals.
Karan Thapar: So what were you shown?
Natwar Singh: I was shown some letters on which the signature was mine, but the language was not mine.
Karan Thapar: Were those letters photocopies when you were shown them?
Natwar Singh: That was my impression. But suppose I had the original letters. I write many letters. All politicians write many letters. Mr Bush comes here and wants to sell Boeing. Mr Chirac comes here and wants to sell Airbus. Who does not write letters?
Karan Thapar: So you are making two points in your defence. Firstly, you are saying that the letters that allegedly incriminate you are forgeries. They are cut-and-paste jobs. The ones that were shown to you were photocopies. You don’t believe they are proper, authenticated letters. Secondly, you are saying even if these letters are taken to be original for argument’s sake, the language is not yours. Thirdly, you are saying that the letters in no way ask for oil and that it is just an interpretation of the language. You agree with all that?
Natwar Singh: Yes.
Karan Thapar: In that case, who wrote the letters?
Natwar Singh: I have no idea.
Karan Thapar: I put it to you that the only person who could have written those letters, if you claim you didn’t, is Andaleeb Sehgal. He benefited from them, he needed an introduction and it led to an oil contract. So clearly, if you didn’t write them, Andaleeb Sehgal must have.
Natwar Singh: I have told you clearly — the signature is mine, ‘with regards’ is mine but the language is not mine. Voucher, contract, oil are not mentioned by me.
Karan Thapar: So, did the letters get concocted by Andaleeb Sehgal because he is the only other beneficiary.
Natwar Singh: They could be by anyone else.
Karan Thapar: But they could be by Andaleeb Sehgal.
Natwar Singh: They could be by him, they could be by anybody else.
Karan Thapar: The Pathak Commission also has two other letters written by you dated April 26, 2001 and August 11, 2001. In the April, 2001 letter, you even introduced you son Jagat to the Iraqi oil minister. Are you saying that these two letters are forged too?
Natwar Singh: They could be. The signatures are mine though.
Karan Thapar: They could be? You don’t seem as certain about these two as you were about the January letters.
Natwar Singh: I may have written that letter. What is wrong with writing that letter?
Karan Thapar: Make up your mind. Did you write these two letters or were they forged? Do you see what are you doing? Under questioning, you are switching positions. You began by saying that the letters were forgeries, you began by doubting Siddharth Dave’s capability to authenticate them. Now, of the other two letters, you are saying you may have written them?
Natwar Singh: Okay, suppose I say I wrote those letters, introducing my son. Is there anything wrong with that?
Karan Thapar: I’ll tell you what’s wrong with that. Because in two out of the three letters, the one of January 2001 and August 2001, between the sending of the letters and the allegation of the oil deal, there is a very short limited time span. Surely, that indicates that firstly, the letters were genuine and secondly, that they were requests for oil. This proves that your claim that the letters are false is actually a mistaken claim.
Natwar Singh: No, it’s not mistaken. First of all, where is the word ‘oil’ mentioned?
PAGE_BREAK
Karan Thapar: You don’t need to mention it, I told you.
Natwar Singh: No, why not? If I had wanted to recommend my son, I would have sent a letter to Tariq Aziz whom I know, saying that my son is a young man, will you help him? Not just that, for myself why would I write to the oil minister whom I have met only once? I would have gone to someone else.
Karan Thapar: But the point is that the Iraqi authorities are convinced, as the Pathak Commission points out, that each time they gave oil to Andaleeb Sehgal, they were actually obliging you. Quote the report, “The allocations of 2 million barrels of oil was made to Andaleeb Sehgal solely because the Iraqi government wanted to oblige Sri Natwar Singh.
Natwar Singh: Why should they want to oblige me?
Karan Thapar: Because you are an important functionary in the Congress party, because you head the foreign policy cell, you are close to Sonia Gandhi and it is widely believed that if Congress ever returned to power, you would be foreign minister. Those are four good reasons to oblige you. They have no reason to oblige Andaleeb Sehgal except for the fact that he is your son’s cousin introduced by you.
Natwar Singh: If somebody with my experience would write letters, would that incriminate me? Would I not say it verbally to them?
Karan Thapar: You expect you didn’t think you were incriminating yourself. You thought you had worded yourself so judiciously that no one would realise. The problem is that when the letters appeared, the co-relation between the contracts came to light, it was clear that your clever language was code for asking for oil.
Natwar Singh: I don’t agree with it at all.
Karan Thapar: You don’t? It’s a false interpretation?
Natwar Singh: Yes, the interpretation is totally false.
Karan Thapar: How do you then account for the fact that when the first oil contract materialised in February 2001, I am referring to oil contract number M/9/54, the State Oil Marketing Organisation (SOMO) in Iraq told the Iraqi oil minister that it was for, I quote, “Natwar Singh, member of the Indian Congress party. There it is, in writing, from the SOMO, to the Iraqi oil minister.”
Natwar Singh: There is one more in which it says it’s for the Congress party.
Karan Thapar: There is an explanation for that that Justice Pathak has. But first how do you account for that the first contract M/9/54 is for Natwar Singh?
Natwar Singh: I don’t know how it got there.
Karan Thapar: So then it’s possible that it was for you? Or at least the Iraqis thought it was for you.
Natwar Singh: They could have, but there is no proof of it whatsoever because I have nowhere said voucher, oil, contract. If you were going to Iraq, I would give you a similar letter.
Karan Thapar: Let me bring back something that you told me yesterday, something that you and your son believe is germane to the entire case against you. You believe that Andaleeb Sehgal did not go to Iraq looking for oil, but to look for food and other products. How do you know that?
Natwar Singh: Because, if you see the report, you will know that there are 129 companies mentioned in that report.
Karan Thapar: No, first tell how you knew that Andaleeb Sehgal did not go to Iraq looking for oil but to look for food and other products.
Natwar Singh: This is what he told the Pathak Committee.
Karan Thapar: How did he tell the Pathak Committee this? Is there an affidavit?
Natwar Singh: Yes.
Karan Thapar: Are you saying that the affidavit clearly states that he went to Iraq looking for food deals and not oil?
Natwar Singh: Yes, you can ask him. You can see the affidavit.
Karan Thapar: So you are saying this is part of Andaleeb’s sworn affidavit?
Natwar Singh: This is what I know. I don’t remember every word of it. You can ask him.
PAGE_BREAK
Karan Thapar: Yesterday, you showed me the affidavit. In paragraph 2.8 of Andaleeb’s affidavit, it says that when he met a gentleman from SOMO in Iraq, the gentleman whom he met, and I’m quoting, “suggested if I could arrange sale of oil, I would qualify for supplying food and other products as a quid pro quo.” The affidavit continues in the same paragraph to say: “The only possibility for me to supply food stuff is if I could arrange a United Nations-registered oil company to lift crude oil.” Do you believe what Andaleeb Sehgal is saying in that affidavit?
Natwar Singh:Well, if he has said that in his affidavit, it must be true because if you lie in an affidavit, you are in serious trouble.
Karan Thapar: I’ll tell you why I asked that question. It’s because that affidavit is not even referred to in the Pathak report. So clearly, Justice Pathak has not taken that affidavit seriously.
Natwar Singh: That is what is surprising me. My affidavit, what I told Pathak or my statement is not mentioned anywhere. My son’s affidavit and statement are not mentioned anywhere either.
Karan Thapar: You are saying that these affidavits were not mentioned because then Justice Pathak would not be able to claim that firstly, Andaleeb was looking for an oil deal, and secondly that you with your interventions had helped him secure it. Is that what you are saying?
Natwar Singh: I fully agree with you. It’s a deliberate attempt by the commission to keep our statements and affidavits away from the report.
Karan Thapar: You are saying that Justice Pathak deliberately overlooked Andaleeb Sehgal’s report because it contradicted the claim he wanted to make -- that Andaleeb went looking for oil and you helped him? So, you are saying that the absence of the affidavit is critical, that it keeps the truth from being told?
Natwar Singh: Yes, this is a completely politically-biased report by a gentleman who was hanging around me to get into the world court.
Karan Thapar: The gentleman being Justice Pathak?
Natwar Singh: Yes.
Karan Thapar: He hung around you when to get into the world court?
Natwar Singh: In the late ’80s.
Karan Thapar: When you were Rajiv Gandhi’s minister? So you are saying that he came and ‘hung around’ you to get into the International Court of Justice. You could be libelous when you are saying this.
Natwar Singh: No, I’m not libelous. He himself has thanked me ‘N’ number of times. I have done no crime, no mistake.
Karan Thapar: So, you are saying instead of showing gratitude, he’s kicked you in the teeth?
Natwar Singh: I am very distressed and disturbed about it. Last time I met him about six months ago, he said: “I am very grateful to you, I will call on you.”
Karan Thapar: You have also claimed that the Pathak Report has used differential standards of treatment for yourself and for the Congress. You have alleged that the sort of evidence that has incriminated you allegedly has been used to infact exonerate Congress. What are your grounds for saying this?
Natwar Singh: I am saying what happened to the contract that was in the name of the Congress party? What conclusions have they arrived at and if they are giving me a clean chit, the Congress a clean chit, the matter closes.
Karan Thapar: Are you saying that why is Justice Pathak treated that differently and why has he treated the contracts regarding you differently?
Natwar Singh: That’s right.
Karan Thapar: What Justice Pathak says, and I want to now clarify this on his behalf, is that the Iraqis mistakenly attributed that contract to the Congress party. Let me quote – Apparently, it (Congress) has been shown as the non-contractual beneficiary because of the impression created in the minds of the Iraqi authorities by the conduct of Shri Natwar Singh and Shri Jagat Singh. He is saying that you were presenting yourselves as Congress representatives, the Iraqis got confused and they wrongly attributed M/10/57 to the Congress. In fact, just like all the others, these were contracts for Natwar Singh and being given to Andaleeb Sehgal on behalf of Natwar Singh and to oblige Natwar Singh. That’s his explanation.
Natwar Singh: That is what I am asking, why doesn’t he put my affidavit and that of my son. In the statements that we made, we clarified all this and I kept telling Mr Pathak if there is any evidence that I have asked for a contract for myself? Have I got a voucher in my name? Have I signed any receipt?
PAGE_BREAK
Karan Thapar: You are saying that where there was proof that would incriminate Congress, Justice Pathak has bent backwards to exonerate it, where there was doubt, he has failed to give you, Natwar Singh, the benefit of doubt?
Natwar Singh: I am talking about myself.
Karan Thapar: Yesterday you said to me that there was a meeting in the first week of February, held at the residence of Shobhana Bharatiya, the Executive Vice-Chairman of the Hindustan Times, where you met Mr Chidambaram, the Finance Minister and also present was Mr Ahmed Patel. You say that at that meeting, Mr Chidambaram gave you false assurances and misled you. What happened?
Natwar Singh: He said that they were closing the investigations within two weeks. Could I please go to the Enforcement Directorate and the matter will be over and nobody will know. When I arrived, the press was there and it has now been six months and the investigation continues.
Karan Thapar: So, you are saying that he lied to you that the matter was ending in two weeks?
Natwar Singh: I have written about this meeting to the Prime Minister and to the Congress President.
Karan Thapar: You have written to both the Prime Minister and to the Congress President saying that at this meeting in February, Mr Chidambaram misled you and gave you false assurances?
Natwar Singh:This is what it said. Yes.
Karan Thapar: What did they say in reply?
Natwar Singh: Prime Minister said that he would speak to the Finance Minister.
Karan Thapar: And did he?
Natwar Singh:I am sure he did.
Karan Thapar: Did he tell you what the Finance Minister had said in reply?
Natwar Singh:He said that he was very distressed to learn this. Everything that we had said there has been leaked by the Enforcement Directorate, it was against us all the time.
Karan Thapar: Let me ask you for your final verdict on the Pathak report, which finds you, Natwar Singh, guilty of misusing your office. What is your verdict on that report?
Natwar Singh: Mr Pathak has exonerated me and my son…
Karan Thapar: But he has found you guilty…
Natwar Singh: This is totally wrong and I have done nothing for which I should be ashamed. On the contrary, I have faced this with courage and forthrightness and my conscience is clear.
Karan Thapar: If your conscience is clear. Will you go to court?
Natwar Singh: If legally I can do so, I will.
Karan Thapar: If legally you can do so, you will take Justice Pathak to court?
Natwar Singh: And the whole authority if it is legally permissible, I don’t think it is.
Karan Thapar: Will you also consider taking any legal action against individual members of the Government?
Natwar Singh:I will ask my lawyer and then proceed.
Karan Thapar: Will you also consider taking legal action, if you can, against the Prime Minister?
Natwar Singh: I will consult my lawyers.
Karan Thapar: So, you are saying to me today that depending upon what your lawyers say, you could end up taking Justice Pathak to court, ministers of the Government to court and the Prime Minister to court?
Natwar Singh: Yes, if legally I am permitted to do so, I will certainly take their advice and go by the advice. Finally, I want to conclude – this, Mr Matherani says that Natwar and the Congress never knew about the deals is hogwash. Mr Matherani has been exonerated.
Karan Thapar: And this is another example of unfair treatment and double standards?
Natwar Singh: Yes. Our affidavit and statement has not been made public. The report has no value.
Karan Thapar: In which case Mr Natwar Singh, we have come right to the end. Your final word is that if you can, you will take Pathak to court, the ministers to court and if possible, you will take the Prime Minister to court?
Natwar Singh: I will consult my lawyers and I will go by their advice. Otherwise, I have other means, I can speak in Parliament and have a Press Conference.
Karan Thapar: When you speak in Parliament on Thursday, will you stand by everything that you have said to me? Will you speak in the same tough terms in which you have spoken today?
Natwar Singh: Naturally, I will say that the report has no consequence and no value and finally, Pathak himself has said that neither I and nor my son derived any financial benefit.
Karan Thapar: But I must add that Pathak has also said that you are guilty of misusing your office.
Natwar Singh:This is completely wrong because I held no office at that time and if I had to ask for a favour, I would have asked for my son and for myself.
Karan Thapar: The main point that you want to make is that you are innocent.
Natwar Singh:I am innocent.
Karan Thapar: Mr Natwar Singh, thank you very much for speaking in this special interview.
Natwar Singh:Thank you.
Comments
0 comment