R.P.Singh , former DG (P&T),CAG has rubbished the calculation of 'infamous' presumptive loss stated in the CAG report on the 2G (non-) scam. He is not the first person to nail the CAG report.
Kapil Sibal had proved beyond doubt that there was "zero loss". P.Chidambaram, as objective and uninfluenced as ever, disagreed with Sibal's zero-loss theory, but confirmed that there was no loss. (Please see 'Chidambaram Doctrine' in the post dt. 2nd Sept.,2012.)
It is unfortunate that despite such forceful arguments against the misleading report of the CAG, many unpatriotic Indians remain fastidious and continue to have trust in institutions like the CAG and the Supreme Court. We are indeed lucky that the signatory of the report himself has now condescended to clarify.
Though many of the interviews of R.P. (Responsible and Prudent) Singh have been reported in various newspapers, the following interview has perhaps deliberately been ignored by mischievous media and therefore I am forced to make it public.
"Interviewer: Sir, did you sign the so-called CAG Report on 2G Scam?
R.P.Singh: You may say so.
I: Sir, only you know whether you signed the report or not. Your answer creates a doubt in my mind. Did you or did you not sign the report?
R: You may infer I signed.
I: Is it not possible that someone forged your signature? (The interviewer had earlier covered the Salman Khurshid Trust where several signatures were apparently forged for the 'benefit of the differently-abled'.)
R: How do I know?
I (impressed by Singh's clarity): Sir, assuming for the sake of argument that the report was indeed signed by you since you had never denied it earlier, don't you agree with the contents of the report?
R: This is where you are making the mistake. I only signed the report. I am not responsible for the report's contents. In fact, I have not read the report.
I (amazed at Singh's honesty): Thank you, Sir. Are you saying you signed the report without ever reading it?
R: You may infer so.
I (remembering what Minister P.Chidambaram had earlier said -reported in the post dt.22nd Nov., 2010- clarifying that a minister may sign so many papers every day and you cannot expect him to read all that he signs): I understand, Sir. But some mischievous elements expect you to responsibly own what you have signed. Are they expecting too much?
R: You may say so.
I: Sir, I appreciate your candour. Can you tell us the circumstances under which you signed the report (of course, without applying your mind)?
R: How do you expect me to remember when I have signed so many papers. Since you are asking me I will tell you. I distinctly remember that one day (though I do not recollect the date, month or year) around 6.30 p.m., I was told that the report must be delivered to the Ministry of Finance the next day. I had no choice but to sign.
I: Were you not interested in knowing what you were signing?
R: Not at all. But I knew I was not signing my death-warrant.
I: Sir, one last question. In your long eventful career, did you ever read whatever you signed?
R: To the best of my knowledge, I never committed that cardinal mistake."
Kapil Sibal had proved beyond doubt that there was "zero loss". P.Chidambaram, as objective and uninfluenced as ever, disagreed with Sibal's zero-loss theory, but confirmed that there was no loss. (Please see 'Chidambaram Doctrine' in the post dt. 2nd Sept.,2012.)
It is unfortunate that despite such forceful arguments against the misleading report of the CAG, many unpatriotic Indians remain fastidious and continue to have trust in institutions like the CAG and the Supreme Court. We are indeed lucky that the signatory of the report himself has now condescended to clarify.
Though many of the interviews of R.P. (Responsible and Prudent) Singh have been reported in various newspapers, the following interview has perhaps deliberately been ignored by mischievous media and therefore I am forced to make it public.
"Interviewer: Sir, did you sign the so-called CAG Report on 2G Scam?
R.P.Singh: You may say so.
I: Sir, only you know whether you signed the report or not. Your answer creates a doubt in my mind. Did you or did you not sign the report?
R: You may infer I signed.
I: Is it not possible that someone forged your signature? (The interviewer had earlier covered the Salman Khurshid Trust where several signatures were apparently forged for the 'benefit of the differently-abled'.)
R: How do I know?
I (impressed by Singh's clarity): Sir, assuming for the sake of argument that the report was indeed signed by you since you had never denied it earlier, don't you agree with the contents of the report?
R: This is where you are making the mistake. I only signed the report. I am not responsible for the report's contents. In fact, I have not read the report.
I (amazed at Singh's honesty): Thank you, Sir. Are you saying you signed the report without ever reading it?
R: You may infer so.
I (remembering what Minister P.Chidambaram had earlier said -reported in the post dt.22nd Nov., 2010- clarifying that a minister may sign so many papers every day and you cannot expect him to read all that he signs): I understand, Sir. But some mischievous elements expect you to responsibly own what you have signed. Are they expecting too much?
R: You may say so.
I: Sir, I appreciate your candour. Can you tell us the circumstances under which you signed the report (of course, without applying your mind)?
R: How do you expect me to remember when I have signed so many papers. Since you are asking me I will tell you. I distinctly remember that one day (though I do not recollect the date, month or year) around 6.30 p.m., I was told that the report must be delivered to the Ministry of Finance the next day. I had no choice but to sign.
I: Were you not interested in knowing what you were signing?
R: Not at all. But I knew I was not signing my death-warrant.
I: Sir, one last question. In your long eventful career, did you ever read whatever you signed?
R: To the best of my knowledge, I never committed that cardinal mistake."
2 comments:
I am very thankful to this topic because it really gives up to date information.
I remember this! It was so funny! But Skeeter was so weird!
Post a Comment