What an ungraceful exit for a man of letters and lineage. Natwar Singh didhimself no honour by going out in tantrum mode. The image of his departure willbe a man flailing his arms about, indiscriminately lashing out and throwing wildpunches in the air. A man frustrated, flustered and flummoxed by events beyondhis control or the control of the lady he loyally served.
After a lifetime ofdiplomacy, foreign affairs and courtesies of royalty by association, heresponded in the most unsophisticated and ultimately self-destructive manner.Trashing the Volcker report instead of calmly demanding proof, documentation andfollowing procedures, he drove the last nail into his own political coffin whenhe advised -- unasked -- that India should revise its vote on Iran and itsnuclear programme. In other words, vote against the Americans.
Advertisement
It would be safe to say that Natwar Singh has distrusted the Americans mostof his working life, save the last one year as foreign minister when he came tobelieve India indeed had something to gain from them. He even established arapport with Condi Rice, charming her with his old-style manner and flirtatiousjokes. The two often talked on the phone, ironing out difficult issues. "He ison board," Indian diplomats would breathlessly report, an assertion born moreof the need to believe than perhaps the reality. He had "adjusted" his viewsor so it seemed.
But had he? As soon as the Volcker Report hit the news, Natwar began to seehimself as the victim of an American conspiracy. He saw the report as vendettaagainst all those people and countries who opposed the US war against Iraq. Hecried discrimination with some justification given that Paul Volcker willinglyprovided both time and opportunity to Kofi Annan to clear his name and evenremoved a conclusion that Annan was a bad manager of oil-for-food programme butapparently did not extend the same privilege or flexibility to other seniorofficials named in the report.
Advertisement
Even if Volcker was a running puppet of American imperialism and the intentof the US Congress, which demanded UN blood for daring to oppose the Iraq Warand used the oil-for-food programme to "expose" the UN, was to get back atall those who refused to send troops or bless this war and made it America’salone, Natwar still should have waited for events to take their course. Hisintemperate comments embarrassed the prime minister, his own cadre of diplomatsand, it seems, even the lady in 10 Janpath.
I am sure many in the Indian foreign office are heaving a sigh of relief atNatwar Singh’s departure. Better late than never, they must be muttering. USofficials too must be breathing easier given Natwar’s innate inability to stayunder cover about sensitive subjects. Was he a ticking time bomb waiting to gooff as some have suggested? Current history would suggest so. He came in afteryears in the opposition and writing particularly critical columns on US policy,specially vis-à-vis Iraq for Frontline, the choicest excerpts from whichwent around the official US e-mail circuit. Eyebrows were raised but Washingtonofficially accepted the explanation that as an opposition leader, Natwar waswont to sing a different tune specially when the BJP government was flirtingwith the idea of sending Indian troops to Iraq.
But once in the minister’s chair, Natwar continued to create diplomaticeddies from which escape was a time-consuming affair. His first visit, as theEAM, toWashington was for the funeral of Ronald Reagan in June 2004. He met the then USsecretary of state, Colin Powell, and within minutes created massive confusionwith his remarks which implied that India might reconsider the question ofsending troops to Iraq. He was nearly shown the door then because he was gettingahead of the game. He survived because there was enough confusion for cover.
His propensity to speak out of turn, to speak too much and sometimes to speakat all was a regular cause of headaches in South Block. As he flubbed, theyflushed, explaining, rationalising, seeking indulgence from journalists. Duringlast year’s UN General Assembly, Natwar Singh decided to "add" a fewcomments on India’s bid for the UN Security Council seat after the primeminister had already answered the question during the end-of-the-trip pressconference. The "add" turned into a full-fledged lecture on the Africanposition, the European position and the rest. The row of stone-faced diplomatssitting near by grew more and more alarmed with each passing minute and finallyeven the prime minister looked mildly irritated to have his foreign ministertake over the stage. The press conference had to end with that one"add" from Natwar Singh sincethere was no more time left.
Advertisement
And what of Natwar Singh’s enthusiastic embrace of and emphatic assertionson Iran? They have been a constant source of trouble for Manmohan Singh who istrying to steer the Indian ship through very complicated international waters.To welcome a new government in Tehran is one thing but to give a bear hug to thenew hard-line leader is another. Natwar’s September visit to Teheran caused aminor crisis in Indo-US relations, ending in some overzealous Congressmen onCapitol Hill to go beyond the pail and call him names. The foreign office onceagain swung into damage control mode, explaining Natwar’s comments in Iran andbelatedly claiming he was a "bridge" trying to work out a via media betweenwestern powers and the Iranians. Somehow, it didn’t wash because once againNatwar’s own words were there like so many red flags. It could be argued thatAmerican pressure on India to "prove" its loyalty by voting against Iranincreased as a result of Natwar Singh’s conduct. A congressional hearing onthe Indo-US nuclear agreement turned into an examination of Natwar’s trip toTeheran and ultimately an exercise in character assassination.
Advertisement
Too bad Natwar Singh leaves in the dust of confusion and allegations. But the bigger question is: Does he feel betrayed enough to reveal something that might hurt the party and the government?
