Aniel Matherani

I have two problems with Matherani's statements:

1. If you read the entire transcript carefully, you realise than he doesn't even have any direct accusations; everything is innuendo. Examples:

   Q: How did the allocation of oil vouchers take place?
   
   A: When Natwar Singh introduced his son and Sehgal to all the Iraqi officials he didn't have to say anything. All that he needed to do was to show that they were in the delegation, that they were his son and his cousin, and therefore it was confidential. They could go later and do whatever business they wanted to. You don't have to say anything to the face. The fact that they were introduced was a clear signal to the Iraqis.

   and

   Q: What were Jagat and Sehgal doing all this while?
   
   A: After the meetings, they would disappear. Nobody knew what they were doing. They kept to themselves. Natwar, Jagat and Sehgal. What they discussed was confined to Natwar's room. It was a very closed group. By that time it was becoming quite clear that they were looking for trade.

   There is therefore some truth to Matherani's claim that the conversation was quoted out of context and was supposed to be off-the-record (watch him get his ass sued for libel in double-quick time if he argues anything to the contrary).


2. Deccan Chronicle claims that

   Mr Matherani's controversial remarks come two weeks after he dismissed the allegations by the Volcker Committee as a "campaign of lies, deliberate falsehood, distortion of facts and baseless conjectures."

   My first impression was to think that this totally shredded his credibility, but I realise that this statement was on-the-record, so he was basically doing his bit for the cause, defending his masters. The story would have probably ended there, but for the deviousness of the India Today reporter.