Poor manøs Bofors

IN Opinion | 07/11/2005

You don`t say!

Darius Nakhoonwala

Leader writers in their fifties and late forties must have gone misty eyed and nostalgic last week. Having witnessed the Bofors saga in the 1980s and written about it non-stop, they would have thought that such happy times would never come again. But joy of joys, the Natwar Singh Iraq oil deal has brought them right back.

True, old Natwar is not in the same league as Rajiv Gandhi and the pickings seem to have been derisively lean. But all the other elements are there: a scam, a senior minister close to Sonia Gandhi, foreign payoffs, and, above all, the denials. Ah, the denials.

It is these last that make life worthwhile for editorialists. Imagine where the poor fellows would be if Natwar Singh had thrown in the towel straightaway and ridden off into the Bharatpur sunset.

Most sensible newspapers were clear that Natwar had to go. The Telegraph summed it up in the first sentence. "If Caesar`s wife was asked to be above suspicion, it follows that a cabinet minister in a democracy should be completely free of taint."  It went on wagging its dainty finger at Natwar Singh and added salt to his wound by comparing him to L K Advani. "Unfortunately, in India, such high standards of public morality are hardly ever adhered to. There are exceptions. In the recent past, Mr L.K. Advani offered to resign as member of the Lok Sabha till his name was cleared in the notorious hawala case."  It then covered itself. "This is not to suggest that the foreign minister is guilty as charged in the Volcker report. The question of guilt or innocence can only be settled after more details are available and more investigations about the charges have been made. Pending all this, it cannot be denied that a slur has been put on Mr Natwar Singh`s reputation. Mr Singh`s protestations are, in fact, self-defeating. They convince no one and only strengthen suspicions."

The Hindu which is ploughing a lonely furrow these days took the opposite view, both to the general consensus and the one it had taken in the Bofors affair. Having published the Natwar story first, it felt embarrassed and made editorial amends. Calling it inquisitional in the Spanish style, biased and insufficiently transparent, it suggested that the Volcker committee had functioned "in the shadow of the U.S.-led military occupation of Iraq, the exercise fails to come clean on all its data sources" and added in the same breath almost that "all this is not to take away from the plenitude of information provided by the Volcker Committee — or the seriousness of the issues its information and allegations raise for political and business India."

Then it sprang a like a goalkeeper to Natwar`s defence. "The allegations have not been substantiated in any way other than through a claim that the information on non-contractual beneficiaries and surcharge payments is "broadly based on four sources," while the Volcker Committee got in touch with the alleged non-contractual beneficiaries in a few cases and got responses, it failed to send notice to others who figure in the list, including Mr. Singh and the Congress Party, thus violating an elementary rule of fairness... Political implications aside, was any law broken by these Indian companies? The answer seems to be `no`, or at least `not likely`. But the cases of Mr. Singh and the Congress Party are quite different. The Volcker Committee showed gross irresponsibility, if not political bias, in listing them as beneficiaries without any explanation and without being transparent about the source of the allegations. While the Manmohan Singh Government would do well to inquire into these allegations to determine their truth or falsity speedily, it need not feel politically defensive at all — given the character and fatal weaknesses of the Volcker Committee exercise."

Missed the point altogether, didn`t it?

The Indian Express was not its old self either. "The minister is therefore advised to face up to the revelations… and clear his name…Every passing day seems to make his position as a senior minister in the Manmohan Singh Cabinet more untenable." Then, as its wont these days, it preened a bit. "This newspaper has just investigated into the scandal and has established a remarkable coincidence: Natwar Singh`s son Jagat Singh and his personal friend.. were in the Jordanian capital of Amman, or in the region, around the same time. More intriguingly, they were there when the transactions involving the "illegal surcharge payments" the Volcker report talks about, were being deposited in the Jordan National Bank…the fact remains that Natwar Singh has been listed as a beneficiary of Iraqi oil sales by the Volcker report after a credible process of inquiry and he needs to disprove this beyond reasonable doubt."

The Pioneer, also did not go for the jugular as one might have expected. It left that to its star columnist, satisfying itself instead with a long essay on the UN. "Mr Kofi Annan has used his well-oiled publicity machinery to counter demands for structural reforms and true transparency by foisting the fiction that the UN (which means its bureaucracy) is dedicated to selfless service and, hence, is beyond scrutiny. The Volcker Report shows the time has come to call his bluff."

 
The Tribune was more forthright and also used the Caesar`s wife analogy. After waffling a bit, it came to the point "Mr Natwar Singh has announced that he would make a statement in Parliament. It would, perhaps, be better for him to clear the air earlier as the accusations can only cripple his ability as Minister of External Affairs to deal with foreign governments. It is for Mr Natwar Singh to decide whether he should stay in the government or request the Prime Minister to relieve him from his charge to facilitate the probe he himself has offered to face. His opting out of the government will be politically and morally correct and will also help the government face the pressures that are building on it. The report cannot be brushed aside lightly."

Contact: Darius.Nakhoonwala@gmail.com