This is, in essence, the conclusion of the Justice R S Pathak Inquiry Authority which gives the Congress party a clean chit but firmly establishes that Natwar used his position to make this look like a Congress affair for the Saddam regime.

Pathak couldn’t have been clearer: ‘‘In the eyes of Iraqi authorities, the intended beneficiary of the contract was Natwar Singh of the Indian Congress Party. Had Natwar not met the Iraqi Oil Minister on January 22, 2001, when he visited Baghdad, there would have been practically no possibility of Hamdaan exports obtaining the contract.’’

Consider these, from the report tabled in Parliament today:

• “Name of Purchasing Company: Swiss (Masefield AG) for Natwar Singh, Member of Indian Congress Party’’ (page 48). This was a note in Arabic written by Saddam Z Hassan, Executive Director General of Iraqi State Oil Marketing Organisation (SOMO) for approval by Iraq Oil Minister Amer Mohammed Rasheed. The approval led to 2 million barrels oil being lifted by Masefield AG at 30 cents surcharge (25 cents to SOMO, 5 cents to Andaleeb and Aditya Khanna).

• On August 21, 2001, while approving the second contract, SOMO prepared a similar note that said ‘‘for the benefit of the Indian Congress Party’’ (page 67) leading to the execution of a contract to lift 1 million barrels.

For Iraq, this was a political favour and so as a pre-condition Andaleeb was required to send a letter of recommendation from Natwar. Three such letters were sent to the Iraqi Oil Minister by Natwar asking him to render ‘‘full assistance and cooperation’’:

• January 30, 2001: ‘‘I am sending this letter with Mr. Andaleeb Seghal. He was present when I called on you on January 22...He enjoys my full support and confidence.’’ (page 31)

• April 26, 2001: ‘‘I am sending this letter with my son K Jagat Singh...he and his cousin Andaleeb Sehgal were with me when I called on you about three months ago...Jagat and his cousin will tell you how much I have appreciated your help and cooperation which I hope will continue.’’ (page 56)

• August 11, 2001: ‘‘I am sending this letter with Mr Andaleeb Sehgal who has come to Baghdad to continue the cooperation extended by yourself.’’ (page 66)

‘‘The close support which Natwar Singh provided to Jagat Singh and Sehgal provided an impression in the minds of the Iraqi authorities that it was Natwar Singh who was the principal actor in the entire project,’’ the report says.

It all started with the surreptitious inclusion of Jagat and Andaleeb in the Congress delegation that visited Iraq on January 18-24, 2001. The letters indicate, a fact emphasised by the report, that both of them were present when Natwar met Oil Minister Rasheed on January 22.

A day later, a presentation is made by SOMO where even Congress External Affairs Wing secretary Aneil Mathrani is present. Indian Ambassador R Dayakar has confirmed this meeting to the Pathak Inquiry where the details of how the business is to be done is laid out.

Sehgal returns and writes back on January 25 asking for allocation. In what is not a coincidence, Masefield’s Nicholas Swan writes on January 26 citing Andaleeb’s visit to Iraq and asking for a visa to accompany him to finalise the contract of what he qualifies as ‘‘political allocation of 2 million barrels of Basrah Light Crude oil.’’

In fact, Ambassador Dayakar told during his deposition before the inquiry that SOMO was probably under the impression that the Congress delegation was an official delegation. ‘‘The Iraqi officials were probably of the belief that Natwar would be able to help their cause in the international community and his influence would be great especially as he was a senior member of considerable standing in the party, the Indian National Congress,’’ states the report.

Pathak has ‘‘found no evidence that the Congress Party was involved in the contract’’. This was the third contract (M/10/57) in which Natwar had written a letter on AICC letterhead but had put 1 Akbar Road as the address. He tried to use this as proof for calling the letter fake during the inquiry until he was told that he had handwritten the same address in the visitor’s book with Indian Ambassador in Jordan.

Natwar then recollected, according to the report, to say this was the address of the Indira Gandhi Trust of which he was a key member. Pathak, however, could not confirm if the Congress delegation had on its return submitted a report to the Congress president as is customary.