Natwar blasts Cong on Volcker

New Delhi: Former external affairs minister Natwar Singh has broken his silence on the Volcker controversy, saying that he finds it extraordinary that while the whole issue is being projected as Natwar and Iraq oil, there has been no reference to the other contact - Congress party.

This has happened despite the fact that the Congress party faces equally serious allegations in the controversy, he said. Singh, however, claimed that he will emerge unscathed from it.

In an exclusive interview to Karan Thapar for CNN-IBN, he said there is no evidence against him and stressed that he wants the Pathak Commission enquiry to complete fast. "A longer enquiry means justice denied," he said.

Karan Thapar:For four months, India's former Foreign Minister Natwar Singh has kept a complete silence about the inquiry into the Volcker allegations and developments in the Indian foreign policy. In an exclusive interview on Thursday, he has decided to speak out.

Mr Natwar Singh, let's start with the inquiry into the Volcker allegations. The Justice Pathak Authority has issued you and your son a second notice alleging that you have been evasive and perfunctory in your responses. Are you being less than cooperative with the Justice Pathak Authority?

Natwar Singh: No, have the highest respect for justice RS Pathak and we are cooperating with him in every way. He is a very distinguished Indian, a very distinguished judge and a Supreme Court Chief Justice. His authority was established on the November 11 and the first notice that we got from his office was on the March 14, for four months nothing happened. I have given the reply, which is courteous and which is factual.

Karan Thapar:Is the reply also fulsome?

Natwar Singh: Yes, it is.

Karan Thapar:So, there is no question of you being evasive or perfunctory?

Natwar Singh: Why should I be evasive or perfunctory? I want this to finish as soon as possible. But the time is not on my side. I am 75-years-old and I want my name cleared. And the second notice came on April 19 and we are applying in a couple of days. Ten days were given to us and we have answered all the questions that they asked. Mr Pathak can call us anytime he likes and we will tell him what precisely he wants to know.

Karan Thapar:So, whenever Justice Pathak wants you or your son to appear, you will go?

Natwar Singh: Yes, certainly.

Karan Thapar:Readily go?

Natwar Singh: Yes, absolutely.

Karan Thapar:You will not seek any delays or postponements?

Natwar Singh: No, I want it to be done quickly. I want it to be on a fast track because justice delayed is justice denied.

Karan Thapar:The Justice Pathak Authority according to the newspapers has requested a six months extension at a time when the newspapers are also claiming that the proceedings have barely begun. Infact, one newspaper has said that the proceedings haven't begun. What do make of that?

Natwar Singh: All I can say, with great respect, is that I don't understand, I am perplexed by the extension being asked and the extension proudly being given for three months and six months. I have told you, I want this to finish as soon as possible. I want to clear my name.

Karan Thapar:In recent weeks, there have been a spate of stories, both in the newspapers and in the television, that the noose is tightening around your neck and the noose is also tightening around the neck of your son Jagat Singh. Are you a worried man?

Natwar Singh: No, not at all. And I don't know what noose you are talking about; there is no noose. I have also been to the Enforcement Directorate. They called me twice. I went there and they were very polite to me.

Karan Thapar:So, you don't feel that you are in increasing trouble?

Natwar Singh: No there is no trouble at all. Because if there is anything wrong that I have done, then they would have proved it by now. They have not been able to prove it and my conscience is clear.

Karan Thapar:Let's take the main stories that have appeared in television or the newspapers. NDTV claims it has seen a contract between Andaleeb Sehgal and Masefeild for the lifting of Iraqi oil under which a $150,000 was paid to Andaleeb Sehgal's company Indrus. Now Andaleeb is a close friend of your son Jagat and he is also related to you. Is that going to link up with you?

Natwar Singh: Well, first of all, I don't know about the deal. You please ask Andaleeb Sehgal. All I can say is that neither my son nor I have any business dealings with Andaleeb Sehgal or anybody else.

Karan Thapar:And you can't comment on the veracity of this NDTV story?

Natwar Singh: I don't know where they got it from. I mean at one stage the figures were Rs 400 crore, Rs 200 crore and now I am told, it is just hearsay that the amount that the ED can't account for is $45,000.

Karan Thapar:In other words the amount has been shrinking every time you heard about it?

Natwar Singh: Yeah, that's right.

Karan Thapar: CNN-IBN claims that a contract dated August 21, 2001, number M/10/57 exists, where Andaleeb has signed as the director of Masefield alongside a certain Mr Sadam Hassan of the Iraqi state oil marketing organisation for one million barrels of oil. Does that link up with you or your son Jagat Singh?

Natwar Singh: No, not at all. I am sure. By now, they would have showed us that there is a contract with my signature or my son's signature or a voucher with signatures or a receipt.

Karan Thapar: Two days ago, Jamil Saidi in an interview to CNN-IBN said that there definitely was a deal to lift Iraqi oil and then he added that he had introduced your son Jagat Singh to the Iraqi envoy.

Natwar Singh: This is really extraordinary. It is quite pathetic that my son should go to this young man and ask him to introduce him to the Iraqi ambassador, I could have done it with one telephone call and I did. This idea that Natwar Singh is not capable of getting his son a meeting with the Iraqi ambassador in Delhi is extraordinary.

Karan Thapar: So, your position is that number one, your son didn't need an introduction from a Jamil Saidi to the Iraqi ambassador and number two you did introduce your son to the Iraqi ambassador when there was a need for it.

Natwar Singh: Exactly.

Karan Thapar: So, on both counts, this interview given by Jamil Saidi, you refute?

Natwar Singh: Ofcourse

Karan Thapar: Now, the big question is that there is no link connecting you or your son to either Andaleeb Sehgal or to the contracts, but NDTV claims that three letters exist written by you to the former Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, where you not only introduce Andaleeb Sehgal, but you also allegedly make references to all transactions. Did you write such letters to Tariq Aziz?

Natwar Singh: Well, if the letters that I wrote to Mr Tariq Aziz are here. His reply to the invitations that they sent us, my reply of thanks that I wrote to him on coming back.

Karan Thapar: You just flashed that letter at me, I see that the letter was written on Congress party letterhead.

Natwar Singh: Yeah.

Karan Thapar: So, they were official letters written in your capacity as the convener of the then foreign policy cell of the Congress.

Natwar Singh: Thanking him for the way they looked after us when we were there. Earlier on, thanking him for the invitation he had issued. And then I took a letter from the Congress President to Saddam Hussein, which was delivered to the Vice President, because I couldn't meet the President. He was busy and it was conveyed to him.

Karan Thapar: And those are the only letters you have ever written to Tariq Aziz?

Natwar Singh: That is right.

Karan Thapar: You have never written a letter introducing Andaleeb Sehgal?

Natwar Singh: No, not at all. If I have, please produce a letter written to Tariq Aziz.

Karan Thapar: And you have never written a letter to Tariq Aziz referring to the oil transactions?

Natwar Singh: The question does not arise. We had gone there on a goodwill delegation and we hadn't gone there to purchase oil. It is a preposterous thing to think.

Karan Thapar: PTI put out a story two weeks ago to claim that the Enforcement Directorate had a copy of one such letter, do you refute that?

Natwar Singh: Let them show it to us, why don't they show it?

Karan Thapar: In other words, you are saying that if they can't show the letter, you refuse to accept their claim that it exists?

Natwar Singh: Naturally, won't you?

Karan Thapar: The Asian Age, on Tuesday on the front page had this to say: The Volcker trail has led the Enforcement Directorate, which has almost completed it's investigation, directly to former external affairs minister K Natwar Singh's son Jagat Singh. Does that worry you?

Natwar Singh: No, it doesn't worry me at all. My sons name doesn't even appear in the Volcker report. All the six months that they have been trying, they have not been able too get anything.

Karan Thapar: So, this claim of the front page of The Asian Age as far as you are concerned is baloney?

Natwar Singh:I think it is incorrect.

Karan Thapar: Just incorrect or complete rubbish?

Natwar Singh: Not true. And what surprises me is that the agency which is carrying out the investigation on something of a confidential nature, should share this with the media.

Karan Thapar: It has been said that Andaleeb Sehgal, Aditya Khanna and perhaps even your own son Jagat Singh, were fronting for you.

Natwar Singh: Let them say what they have to say.

Karan Thapar: You deny it?

Natwar Singh: Of course. Can you imagine a man of my age and some name should ask three young men to fight for him?

Karan Thapar: In no way have you used these young men as a shield to protect you, to distance you?

Natwar Singh: Do I need their shield? I don't need the shield. I am myself the shield.

Karan Thapar: All the stories that have appeared in newspapers and television are based on leaks. How do you react to the fact that all the information that is being leaked seems to point towards you or your son Jagat Singh. But there are no leaks regarding the Congress party, even though the Congress party faces equal and equally serious allegations as you do?

Natwar Singh: Now I can say that I find it extraordinary that on one side there is me and the other contract is with the Congress party and no reference is ever made and I am sure that the Congress party can make it clear that it is in no way involved. That is for them. But the idea that every channel reports it as ‘Natwar Singh and oil’ is extraordinary.

Karan Thapar: Do you find it just extraordinary or do think that suggests a deliberate motivation behind the leaks?

Natwar Singh: No, I won't. I think it is out of character for me to attribute motives to anybody.

Karan Thapar: Do you think that these leaks are simply about you and your son Jagat Singh because in some way you and your son Jagat Singh have been misusing the name of the Congress party?

Natwar Singh: No. Why should we misuse the name? What for? I was at that time a member of the Working Committee; I was not a minister or an MP.

Karan Thapar: The charge is that you misused the name to benefit personally.

Natwar Singh: They must prove that charge. It is preposterous.

Karan Thapar: Do you refute it completely?

Natwar Singh: Naturally. I shouldn't be using, misusing or abusing the name of the Congress party, which I am honoured to belong. It is a great political party of the world and it is an honour to be its member. So, all of the 53 years that I have been in government service or in politics, I have never ever done anything that should bring down the name of the Congress party to which I have the honour to belong.

Karan Thapar: So, you are saying that it is preposterous to suggest that Natwar Singh could have misused the name of the Congress party?

Natwar Singh: Absolutely.

Karan Thapar: In which case, when the Justice Pathak authority finishes its enquiry, when the Enforcement Directorate finishes its investigation, will Natwar Singh emerge unscathed or will your reputation be in tatters?

Natwar Singh: My reputation will not be in tatters. But a lot of damage has been done because I have been quiet for over four months, thinking that this thing will be on a fast track and it will be over in a few months.

Karan Thapar: You mean that you have been victimised?

Natwar Singh: Originally, the government said the investigation will be over in three months, then it said Justice Pathak Committee report will come after six months. And now another extension. I want to finish this.

Karan Thapar: But when it finishes, when the Pathak Committee finishes and when the Enforcement Directorate finishes with the task, will you emerge unscathed?

Natwar Singh: Yes, indeed.

Karan Thapar: You are absolutely confident?

Natwar Singh: Yes, that is why I am saying: "Please hurry it up." Send an interim report to the Parliament.

Karan Thapar: Will your son Jagat Singh emerge unscathed?

Natwar Singh: Absolutely yes.

Karan Thapar: And you are equally confident of that?

Natwar Singh: Yes, I am.

Karan Thapar: You have no doubt about whatsoever?

Natwar Singh: Listen, if I had doubts, they would have got me by now. I still have a lot of pressure on my family and me. The publicity - adverse all the time - is totally a new experience for me because I can't understand why this venomous campaign.

Karan Thapar: You are saying the fact that they haven't got you or your son Jagat Singh uptil now is proof that you are innocent.

Natwar Singh: That is right.

Karan Thapar: Let's turn to the Indo-US nuclear deal. You were one of the principal architects of the July 18 agreement, which actually set the ball rolling. But believe that since then you have serious concerns with the way the deal itself is working out. Am I correct in that belief?

Natwar Singh: The July 18 deal, yes, I was connected with it. I am concerned because the United States has shifted considerably from the position of the Clinton administration in 1998. It is therefore important both for our milder relations with America and also on the nuclear side. The deal broke new ground, I have no doubt about that and I went all along with that. Subsequently, I also agreed with the statement that the Prime Minister made on July 29, 2005, on February 27, 2006 ans on March 7, 2006. I wrote to him after President Bush's visit that it was a good thing that you are carrying it forward. Where I have a difficulty is the hearings in the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Karan Thapar: But here, before we come to the details, am I right in saying that you have serious concerns.

Natwar Singh: No, I won't use that term. There is a very disquieting aspect to the hearings that took place and the nature of the discussions...

Karan Thapar: Are we talking about the niggling points of details?

Natwar Singh: No, we are not.

Karan Thapar: So, are we talking about issues to do with national security and issues to do with sovereignty of foreign policy?

Natwar Singh: Yes.

Karan Thapar: So, therefore these are issues that are important, not just technical details?

Natwar Singh: They are important and I have no doubt that the Government during the present session of the Parliament will make a statement and will clarify what is being said.

Karan Thapar: That is for the government to do. Let me now talk about the real details of your concerns. One of your concerns is that the deal is conditional as far as the US Presidential waiver is concerned upon India giving out its right to test nuclear weapons. Given that India has already accepted a voluntary moratorium way back in 1998, why should the additional condition in the US Presidential waiver be a matter of concern?

Natwar Singh: I think all these will be taken up and should be taken up and I hope the government has. I hope in your programme, the Foreign Secretary did address himself to these problems. My difficulty is the questions raised by some like Senator Kerry, Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Sarbanes. We insisted on reciprocity and not once was the word 'reciprocity' used in the senate hearings.

Karan Thapar: So, you are saying that the reciprocity is being guaranteed from the India side, but the Americans - particularly as you judge the Americans from the Senate hearings - are not guaranteeing reciprocity.

Natwar Singh: No, they are not. The term 'unilateral' is used consistently in what the Secretary of State has said.

Karan Thapar: Let me pick up on one of the things that you have said: You are concerned about the Senate hearings and you mentioned Senator Kerry. Senator Kerry has specifically gone on record to say that he needs India to 'define' its credible minimum deterrent. Secondly, at the Senate hearings, he has also said that he wants India to put a ban on fissile material production. Both of those would place a quantitative cap on India's deterrent, does that worry you?

Natwar Singh: Yes, because the FMCT would imply a nuclear fuel cap and MTCR, which means curbing our missile development. These didn't figure in the July 18 deal.

Karan Thapar: So, these are serious concerns?

Natwar Singh: these are serious matters and I think that the government should answer to the satisfaction of the Parliament and to the country.

Karan Thapar: India's former Deputy National Security Advisor, Satish Chandra, in a series of articles has also written that the ban on nuclear testing, which the US Presidential waiver imposes on India, would also place a qualitative ban on India's nuclear deterrent. Does that also worry you?

Natwar Singh: Yes, it does because every time we have to ask something, the waiver has to be given by the President. This bill does not ensure that the waiver is for all time. We may have to go again and again and I think Mr Arjun Singh mentioned this matter, I read somewhere.

Karan Thapar: In an interview to us.

Natwar Singh: Yes, to you.

Karan Thapar: So, first of all you are concerned that the voices coming out of the Senate and the House of Representatives are seeking to place both a qualitative and a qualitative ban on India's nuclear deterrent. That is the first concern, am I right?

Natwar Singh: Yes.

Karan Thapar: And the second concern is the nature of the waiver. You are concerned that it is not a one-off waiver, it will be a waiver that will be repeatedly required every single time. In other words, India will become subject to a US presidential waiver and in a sense that will curb our area of action and it will curb our sovereignty.

Natwar Singh: That is a worry. And again, that has to be clarified.

Karan Thapar: Are these serious worries?

Natwar Singh: They are.

Karan Thapar: They are not niggling concerns?

Natwar Singh: They can't be niggling because these elements did not appear in the July 18 agreement. What I am saying is that repeatedly the words used are: India has agreed to unilaterally proceed with the agreement. This is what Secretary of State Condolezza Rice has said. I am not in the government, I have not seen all the telegrams, I have not seen all the dispatches, I am only going by what happened in the Congress.

Karan Thapar: And this worries you?

Natwar Singh: It does.

Karan Thapar: Another area of concern I believe is that the nuclear deal creates what are called multiple levels of supervision, with could have the effect of entrapping India within the terms of the Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT) without India being a formal signatory. Are you worried that elements of the deal like the 123 agreement, the US presidential waiver or the additional protocol that India has to sign with the IAEA could entrap India because of the levels of supervision that they impose and that this would be to our disadvantage?

Natwar Singh: First of all, July 18 agreement was about energy, not about proliferation, not about arms control. But here, the Secretary of State says the United States of America's potential participation in the Proliferation security initiative. Have we agreed to it? I don't know if we have agreed to it, but an answer is required. Similarly, the Secretary of State says we have to go beyond the NPT.

Karan Thapar: So you are worried that step by step India is being lured and enticed into a framework of supervision that concerns and worries you deeply?

Natwar Singh: No, I don't use that kind of language. But this is what it does very well.

Karan Thapar: But these are serious worries?

Natwar Singh: Yeah.

Karan Thapar: I am repeating that are these serious worries?

Natwar Singh: They are and the government must clarify the position.

Karan Thapar: Now, another aspect of your concern are comments made by Congressmen and Senators that suggest that they are deeply concerned about India's relationship with Iran. Do you get the feeling from the Congressional hearings that Congressmen want a quid pro quo which would mean that India would have to toe an American line on issues like Iran, Myanmar, Venezuela, Nepal and Iraq?

Natwar Singh: Well, I was very surprised that President Bush here at Purana Quila made references of these countries, on Indian soil. It shouldn't have been done.

And secondly, Tom Lintoff said I spoke to the Foreign Secretary of India and told him that to be a strategic partner is not the only thing. You have nothing to do with the terrorist regime in Iran. The Secretary of State, she said that Iran is the central banker of terrorism. Has the government accepted this? Because we have diplomatic relations with Iran. We have trade with them. And I would like the government to say that they don't share this views of Congressman Lintoff or the Secretary of State, who have used these terminologies.

Karan Thapar: Can I be explicit? What you are saying is that pressure is being put on India as a quid pro quo for the deal by Congressmen to change its Iran policy?

Natwar Singh: See, India is a country which will never be under pressure and should never be under pressure.

Karan Thapar: But what you are suspecting is that Congressmen are trying to put such pressure?

Natwar Singh: These are the views expressed by them and the government should make it clear that we are not going to come under pressure. The question doesn't arise. India has never functioned under pressure.

Karan Thapar: Senator Boxer actually explicitly said that she would herself only accept the deal if India changes its Iran policy. She said that was the condition in her eyes. Does that worry you?

Natwar Singh: No, her observation doesn't worry me at all. In totality, if this the view reflected by the government of United States, then yes. But then they don't agree with this lady from California.

Karan Thapar: But she wants the government to clarify what their position is.

Natwar Singh: I think they should. Because there is a national debate in India and there is a national debate in America on this deal. These countries are divided on this.

Karan Thapar: So what you are saying is until the government clarifies its response to all these voices speaking from the American Congress, there will be doubt in people's mind whether India is coming under American pressure.

Natwar Singh: There will be, inevitably.

Karan Thapar: Do you think given the sort of problem you are talking about -- problems to do with testing, problems to do with qualitative and quantitative cap on India's nuclear deterrant, problems to do with political pressure in terms of relationship with Iran. Given all these problems, do you think the Indian foreign office is handling the response to them adequately?

Natwar Singh: You see, I belong to the foreign service, I have spent 31 years there. I have very great regards for my younger colleagues. They are doing the best that they can. These decisions are taken at the political level. And I am fully confident that Prime Minister will make a statement in Parliament -- both Houses -- to clarify some of the doubts which have been raised because of these hearings.

Karan Thapar: When you are saying he will do this, you are also saying he needs to do it because he hasn't done it yet.

Natwar Singh: Yeah, I agree with you. He will and he needs to do it.

Karan Thapar: He needs to do it urgently?

Natwar Singh: That's right.

Karan Thapar: And if he doesn't do it, then in fact the mishandling will be happening at the political level.

Natwar Singh: Well, you said it. I didn't.

Karan Thapar: But you are not disagreeing?

Natwar Singh: I won't make any comment on this.

Karan Thapar: Two days ago, you issued a statement expressing concern that India's masterly inactivity in Nepal had not only let down the Nepalese people, but was a mistake in the foreign policy response to the crisis in that country. Now, that the Nepalese crisis has resolved itself, do you think your criticisms were mistaken?

Natwar Singh: No, I have been proved right. What did I say in the statement? The Prime Minister should call a meeting of all political leaders to have a consensus on Nepal with Sitaram Yechury's seven points as the basis. And this is precisely what happened. Sitaram pulled it off.

Karan Thapar: So, do you think the Prime Minister still needs to call an all-party meeting?

Natwar Singh: I think he should, to have a consensus. Because the trouble in Nepal is not yet over. Today is a happy day, I welcomed it. I have great regard to Koirala which would be the Prime Minister for a fourth time. But all I have said was the King of Nepal should emulate what the King of Bhutan is doing and not misjudge the temper of the time.

Karan Thapar: Let me ask you a blunt question. Do you think, in fact, the Indian response to the crisis in Nepal was bad foreign policy?

Natwar Singh: Let me tell you. Prime Minister made one statement one day in Germany. And next day he made another statement and put the earlier one in the side. Then he said twin pillars -- monarchy and democracy. This didn't reflect public opinion. I made my statement that Nepal will ward off a civil war.

Karan Thapar: So you are saying, the government bungled? Isn't it?

Natwar Singh: I am not using any word for the government.

Karan Thapar: But it wasn't successful?

Natwar Singh: Obviously, you have seen the results. What I said has come out to be true. And I will declare that Sitaram Yechury with Pranab Mukherjee pulled it off.

Karan Thapar: Do you think the government owes a vote of thanks to Sitaram Yechury for stepping in and sorting the issue?

Natwar Singh: I think the Prime Minister has already thanked him. And I want to say one thing more. Somebody said that as a former foreign minister I shouldn't have said this. Then who should have said this? The former minister of mines and fertiliser?

Karan Thapar: In other words, as a former foreign minister, you have a right to speak your mind. That's what you are saying.

Natwar Singh: Yes indeed, I have. And I should, and I did. That's why. If I didn't, it would have been a dereliction of duty.

Karan Thapar: India's neighbourhood -- Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Pakistan -- all suffer major problems. The neighbourhood is trouble. But is India's foreign policy up to the challenge of handling the situation?

Natwar Singh: These are formidable challenges and they have to be met and answers found. And I am confident that the foreign service will be able to tackle them. But, this has to be done constantly and in a sustained manner because things move very fast. Events don't wait for anybody. These are formidable challenges for out foreign policy establishment.

Karan Thapar: Mr Natwar Singh, a pleasure talking to you.

(For updates you can share with your friends, follow IBNLive on Facebook, Twitter, Google+ and Pinterest)