That apart, the press conference—ostensibly called to ‘‘clear the air’’ of rumours—did no such thing. Natwar Singh, egged on by his very confident and combative son Jagat Singh, offered no olive branch, nor adopt a conciliatory tone.

Instead, in a rambling soliloquy, he pleaded innocence of all wrongdoing, took swipes against the Prime Minister and Congress Disciplinary Action Committee chairman A.K. Antony, and gave the assembled press corps a short history on India’s foreign policy. Extolling Nehru’s policy of nonalignment, he hinted that he may have been targeted—like Jack Straw and Abdullah Abdullah—because he stood for an independent (i.e. anti-US) foreign policy.

Commending the otherwise ‘‘flawed’’ Pathak report for having ‘‘completely absolved myself and my son of any financial impropriety or any financial gain’’, Singh insisted that during his entire stay in Baghdad there had been been no discussion with anyone on ‘‘oil for food, vouchers, contracts, receipts or bank accounts.’’

He did make a ‘‘brief call’’ on the oil minister of Iraq but it was merely a ‘‘courtesy call’’. On his return, he fully briefed Sonia Gandhi on his Baghdad visit. ‘‘She is fully aware of what was discussed and transpired,’’ Singh said, adding again that nothing took place in the party without her green signal.

Was he trying to say that Sonia knew more than she was letting on? Natwar quickly backtracked and said, ‘‘I am not casting any aspersions, I will never cast any aspersions on Sonia Gandhi.’’

Similarly, in reply to a pointed question, Natwar admitted that he had not shown the three letters—cited in the Pathak report—to Sonia Gandhi either. But, nowhere in the letters had he asked that a contract be given to anyone. As a political leader, he wrote thousands of letters. ‘‘If the letter I wrote is misused by the person, I cannot be held responsible,’’ he said, in a clear attempt to distance himself from his son’s close associate Andaleep Sehgal.

... contd.