Column

First things first: So far, Natwar Singh or for that matter, the 129 Indian firms that have been named in the Volcker report looking into alleged corruption in the United Nation's Oil-for-food programme have not been found to be guilty of any crime. Not yet anyway. This is important to state because such is our belief in the mendacity of Indian politicians that we have already hung, drawn and quartered the man.

Singh's many enemies will list scores of other "crimes" committed by him: his arrogance, his often off-handish behaviour against all and sundry whom he finds inferior to him (insiders speak of him being rude even to his prime minister), even his pretentiousness; Singh had known E.M. Forster in Cambridge and has dined out on that for decades. Besides, there are his royal connections. Though Singh is a leftist, he retains a regal mien and has close connections with several other such clans in India and even Nepal. Many of these former highnesses have still not come to terms with Indian republicanism continue their feudal ways. Yet, while all these may make him into a snob and a bore, do they make him corrupt?

There are other questions too which must be asked before a proper enquiry can even begin. How was an allegation made only on the basis of a name being found in Iraqi documents? Were they verified? How come Volcker's team did not find out about Singh's official status? So on and so forth.

Ever since Bofors, we have become highly attuned to the notion of Indian politicians taking cuts and commissions on foreign contracts and that ghost is hanging over this episode. A general impression has gone around is that Singh or his son got a bit on the side for helping out Saddam Husain who was trying to flog his oil in the international markets while there were sanctions against him.

The truth is far more complex and involves a complicated procedure which became necessary because of the imposition of the Oil-for-food programme which in turn came about because of American pressure in the United Nations after the first gulf war.

Indeed, the programme itself was the creation of an international outcry by NGOs and others who had pointed out that ordinary Iraqis were dying because food and medicines were not reaching the country due to sanctions. Some readers may remember Madeline Albright's remark about the deaths of children:" This is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it." Once the programme was under way, it was only a matter of time that the crafty Husain found a way to get arms and equipment instead of milk powder. For this he needed to raise cash which came via the surcharge imposed on the oil and there were many companies from all across the world who were prepared to sell him what he wanted.

Singh, like many other politicians in India, never made any secret of where his sympathies lay and met Husain a few times as a Congressman. Who knows what transpired?

In the public mind the ingredients-big bucks, international contracts and politicians (and, most important, politicians' sons and their school friends) - add up to only one brew: corruption in high places. The Congress realises that and cannot afford to keep him - the party's initial reaction was a dead giveaway. Singh may protest at the unfairness of it all and his friends may rail against imperial conspiracies, but he may soon find himself out of a job.

Email: sidharth01@dnaindia.net

Ayaz Memon will return next week.