New Delhi, Nov. 28: The Opposition today concentrated its Volcker firepower on Sonia Gandhi, but the government returned the volley by fielding one of its most articulate ministers.

Finance minister P. Chidambaram put his debating skills to good use, picking holes in the Opposition’s logic for moving an adjournment motion and prompting BJP leader L.K. Advani to comment that he would not have pressed ahead with the motion had he known the facts. The motion was rejected by a voice vote after a day-long debate.

Kicking off the debate on the motion on the Volcker report that linked Congress veteran Natwar Singh and the party to the Iraq oil-for-food scandal, Advani said: “Sonia Gandhi, after three weeks, said the revelations had upset her. I welcomed her statement. But why did it take her three weeks to express this indignation?”

A roar went up from the Congress benches each time the Opposition mentioned Sonia’s name. It peaked when George Fernandes rose to speak. The former defence minister’s veiled references to Sonia threw the House into turmoil, after which the Speaker expunged most of his remarks.

The government then deployed Chidambaram.

With Sonia looking on, the finance minister chided Advani for not having done his homework well.

The finance minister said the BJP’s campaign against the R.S. Pathak committee, set up to probe the veracity of the Volcker report, and its terms of reference was “completely misguided”. The BJP has been accusing the government of trying to whittle down the powers of the committee by calling it an “authority”, not a commission.

“I asked Justice Pathak and he said he wanted an authority under Section 11 of the Commission of Enquiries Act because he wants to do away with the restrictions that get imposed on him if it is a commission under Section 3. I am surprised that such a noise has been made without even bothering to look at the relevant sections of the act. These are terms set by Justice Pathak himself. If he wants an inquiry commission under Section 3, of course, we will issue a notification to that effect,” Chidambaram said.

Advani’s reply reflected the confusion in the Opposition ranks. “You should have told me earlier that it was Justice Pathak himself who insisted on such terms of reference. We would not even have brought this adjournment motion if the government had not done such flip-flops.”

Chidambaram then asked: “Where is the flip and the flop in this? We have been clear from day one. You could do with being thorough with your facts.”

Advani then gave up. “I can’t argue with Chidambaramji. He is a very good lawyer.”