At the end of a nine-day, high voltage drama played out as much in the corridors of power as in the political backrooms of the Congress, on competing TV channels and in rival newspapers, Kunwar Natwar Singh was compelled to relinquish his external affairs portfolio. In Congress circles, there was great relief at his exit: the Volcker report, despite doubts about the provenance of its 'facts', was just not seen as politically lethal for the party; Natwar is so unpopular in the party that there was an air of quiet celebration.

An interview to a TV channel did Natwar in. It made Sonia so angry that she refused to meet him.

One general secretary, normally very hospitable, told journalists a few days after Natwar's exit, "I had meant to bring some post-Diwali sweets to the office today, but I decided against it, lest people thought I was celebrating." Indeed, many in the party are merely saying that if he had resigned at the outset, the party's image would have been less tarnished.

Competing with this view is one that emanates from Left circles, UPA allies and a minuscule section in the Congress. It is that the Volcker report should have been dismissed as it was primarily commissioned by the United States to "fix" UN secretary general Kofi Annan's son and anyone who had supported Saddam Hussein. But sources said that once Left leaders were told about possible financial impropriety, they backed off.

If 10, Janpath and 7, Race Course Road served as alternating backdrops for strategy sessions to deal with the Volcker scam, the story has now moved to a less salubrious location. All eyes are now on the paan-stained corridors of Lok Nayak Bhawan which houses the office of the Enforcement Directorate. There, business partners Andaleeb Sehgal and Vikas Dhar are being interrogated about their friend, Jagat Singh, Natwar's errant son and Lachhmangarh mla, and their possible links with Iraq oil deals. And in the weeks to come, facts are expected to emerge.

So how did one of the most powerful ministers in the UPA government—if power is to be measured by proximity to 10, Janpath—suddenly find himself without a portfolio? Why did a man who has always prided himself on his sophistication, scholarship and savoir faire shoot his mouth off on television? And why is a man who has family links with the royal houses of Bharatpur, Nalagarh and Patiala now trying to reinvent himself as an earthy Jat leader to stay afloat?

For Natwar, the crunch came when Sonia Gandhi decided to withdraw the "protection" she had provided to him.

Natwar had made many enemies in the party.

Her decision came in stages: once it became clear that Natwar could be linked to Hamdan through his son, she was advised to distance herself, lest she was seen as "shielding" him and allowing the Opposition to accuse her of being involved in the matter. Especially after an NRI businessman claimed on a TV channel that she had sent Natwar to Saddam Hussein with a letter of support to be exchanged for oil coupons.

But for Sonia, the last straw was an interview Natwar gave to a TV channel. He repeatedly pronounced that he saw no reason why he should resign, claimed rather immodestly that he was doing "a good job" as foreign minister, stressed he had the full backing of both the Congress president and the PM and attempted to embroil the Congress in the Volcker scam by saying that since he was a CWC member, he could not be separated from the party. He even described Virender Dayal (a retired diplomat who is heading a fact-finding committee on the Volcker report on Indian beneficiaries) as being seven years his junior in the IFS—thereby implying that the latter would do what he was told. After that, sources close to Sonia say she was so incensed that she refused even to grant him an audience.

If that was the clincher, it all started on October 29, when the media splashed the Volcker report on the UN oil-for-food programme for Iraq, listing Natwar Singh—and the Congress—as "non-contractual beneficiaries". As the BJP scented blood, the Congress and the UPA government went into damage-control overdrive. As the links between Jagat and Sehgal, whose Hamdan Exports has been listed in the Volcker report as having paid the "surcharge" on behalf of Natwar Singh and the Congress, became public, the growing consensus in the party was it was becoming politically untenable for him to remain in his job.

Efforts to discount the connection by friends of Natwar—since the man feeding the media with Hamdan Exports' dealings was political maverick and Congress-baiter Subramanian Swamy—cut little ice, with Jagat and then his father admitting to a close and long-standing friendship with Sehgal. As a Congress functionary said, "The law may say a man is innocent till he is proved guilty but in the public perception, if a man is perceived as guilty, he is guilty unless he is convincingly proved to be innocent. In politics, it is perception that matters."

Government sources gave three reasons for Natwar's departure from the ministry. One, with the winter session of Parliament due to commence on November 23, the UPA could not afford to return to the house with an issue on which the BJP and the Opposition would have a field day. Two, if he was allowed to continue after the revelations in the report were buttressed by the establishment of a connection between his son and Sehgal, the next logical target would have been Sonia and the Congress—something the party could not afford. Moreover, with his authority eroded, he would have no credibility left as foreign minister abroad till his name was cleared.

And three, there was anger both in the party and government at the blackmail that Natwar appeared to be resorting to. At a Confederation of Indian Industry seminar on November 6, he told journalists that if the next resolution on the Iran nuclear issue at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) meeting next month was more severe than the previous one, "my advice to the government would be to reverse its vote". Earlier, inaugurating the seminar, he had said: "...nothing will prevent us as a great country from raising our voice as we did when we were in the Opposition to what was done in Iraq." These remarks were read as playing to the Left gallery and sealed his fate.

Natwar's railing against many of his colleagues also did not help. In private conversations with the PM, Sonia and Left leaders, he accused party seniors of ganging up against him. Heading his hit-list were defence minister Pranab Mukherjee (he made a disparaging remark about the latter's short physical stature), petroleum minister Mani Shankar Aiyar, party general secretary Ambika Soni and party MP Jairam Ramesh.

As long as Natwar had Sonia's total backing, his detractors could do little. But he realised too late that some of them were in key positions: Mukherjee is a key strategist in both party and government, and Soni is the chairperson of the media department. The party line from day one was that it could only speak for the party and Natwar could defend himself.

Two others who emerged in the Natwar saga were FM P. Chidambaram and MoS for science and technology Kapil Sibal, who were consulted—along with law minister H.R. Bharadwaj—on the legal angle. Both Chidambaram and Sibal thought there was enough prima facie evidence to merit an inquiry. Government sources add that Chidambaram has asked the ED—which comes under him—to work diligently on the case.

In the labyrinths of the Congress, notorious for palace politics and intrigue, all this was grist to the mill. Despite his 20 years in the Congress—barring a short stint in the Congress (T), which established his credentials further as a Sonia loyalist—he made few friends. When the Volcker story broke, only four party leaders came publicly to his defence—former Chhattisgarh CM Ajit Jogi who has also had "son trouble", Union minister Sis Ram Ola and Chaudhury Birender Singh, both fellow Jats, and Andhra Pradesh CM Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy.

Typical of the Congress, there are as many stories as sources. Government sources stress that Sonia was keener than the PM to see the last of Natwar once an effort was made to drag her into the mire. The PM, according to this view, was not keen to take on the additional responsibility of the foreign minister's job. However, sections in the Congress say that Natwar had long been a thorn in the PM's side when it came to the articulation of foreign policy and the Volcker report's findings came in handy. A third view, probably closer to the truth and emanating from more neutral Congress sources, was that there was "a great deal of discussion on the issue" and eventually Sonia and Manmohan Singh arrived at a consensus.

However, the cold political fact is that the PM has emerged stronger in the government. With the departure of Natwar, who not only was prone to shoot his mouth off on foreign policy—retracting on every occasion—but used to reportedly complain about the PMO when he visited 10, Janpath, Manmohan Singh will be that much more comfortable in the PM's chair.