The minister146;s private war

The bureaucratic Manmohan Singh appears to push back the political Manmohan Singh too often. The former has this time changed the proposal t...

The bureaucratic Manmohan Singh appears to push back the political Manmohan Singh too often. The former has this time changed the proposal to appoint a committee of eminent citizens to examine the Volcker Committee report on the Iraq oil-for-food programme. Instead we have a fact finder 8212; and that too a bureaucrat from the Indian Foreign Service, to which the accused foreign minister, Natwar Singh, also belongs. Maybe they have served together somewhere in the outside world, if not in Delhi. The ex-ambassador, Virender Dayal, may have served the country well, but fact finding work requires a different type of person, one who does not arouse scepticism. Dayal8217;s Foreign Service background will raise suspicions of pliability. The fact finding probe may come to be considered a whitewash. His work is the foundation upon which the edifice of further inquiries will be built. It will be a major point of reference which an 8216;interested party8217; can influence in one way or the other. Even an iota of doubt over the way facts have been assembled may make the entire exercise futile.

As for Natwar Singh, his utterances in the last few days were inconsistent with his responsibilities as a foreign minister. He tried to corner the UPA government in a bid to save his own skin and cultivate the Left for any future eventuality. In a recent statement Natwar Singh observed: 8220;If a resolution is placed at the IAEA International Atomic Energy Commission, which is more severe than the last one, which says that this matter must go to the UN Security Council, I can, as foreign minister of India, tell you that my recommendation to the government will be to revise our vote.8221; It is Natwar Singh, let8217;s remember, who openly gloated earlier that India8217;s vote had saved Iran 8212; and the world 8212; from catastrophe. He also met US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to reportedly assure her that India was with the US all the way. In a child-like boast, he also narrated how Rice had called on him 8212; rather than the other way around 8212; and how his foreign policy was popular.

Some Congress leaders feared that if he was ousted from the government, he would have taken the fight right into the heart of the party. The Congress-led government now is clearly hoping that the fact finding probe will divert attention away from Natwar Singh and the party. The Volcker committee took 16 months to prepare the report. The fact finding task may take half that length of time8212;although the government has given only three months to Dayal, with the proviso that the time frame may be extended.

The government was then confronted with the question as to how it should deal with Natwar Singh in the meantime. Should a tarnished foreign minister represent the nation? He will inevitably be an embarrassment. Wherever he went he would be hounded by the media of that country. Will our diplomatic missions abroad then have to usher him in through the back door and escort him out through the same door? His name would be referred to in foreign newspapers and TV networks as that of someone indicted by the Volcker Committee. However strong his denial8212;and he will have make one in every country he visits8212;his involvement in the oil deal will get repeated. It was realised that he had become a lame duck foreign minister who would not have commanded the required respect because he would be seen as damaged goods. And the first test was to come at next week8217;s SAARC summit. Given all this, he was divested of his responsibilities as external affairs minister and made minister without portfolio.

Natwar Singh should have himself realised that his enemies8212;and every politician has plenty of them8212;have unsheathed their knives and are preparing to use this opportunity to target him. It would have been far better for him to have avoided all the tension of the last few days and stepped down gracefully. If he had done that, he would have been following the high traditions set by some Congress leaders. Once Sardul Singh Keveshwar, a leader from Punjab, was appointed a CWC member. Before the list was made public, it was sent to Mahatma Gandhi for approval. Gandhiji put a question mark against Keveshwar8217;s name. When Keveshwar heard about this he went running to Gandhiji, for an explanation. The Mahatma then brought out from his almirah a postcard which alleged that Keveshwar had not returned a sum of Rs 500 he had borrowed. Keveshwar pleaded with the Mahatma that the loan was time barred. The Mahatma said the question was moral, not legal. Keveshwar withdrew his name.

If Natwar Singh had followed these standards and quit the government for the duration of the fact-finding probe of his own volition, he would have returned with his stature enhanced, as a man who came clean. India still remembers with reverence Lal Bahadur Shastri for having resigned after a major railway accident. He was not to blame but, as railways minister, accepted the moral responsibility for the tragedy. He did not even meet the then prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, before putting in his papers.

In contrast, Natwar Singh has met the PM more than once since his indictment by the Volcker committee. After every meeting, Natwar Singh underlined that they 8220;discussed foreign policy8221;. Such absurd behaviour did little credit to him. His guilt, or lack of it, is yet to be proved. So why did he choose to behave in the manner he did? By repeating that he was not guilty, and that he will not resign, he laid himself open to ridicule. I, for one, was disappointed with the manner he handled this crisis at the climax of his political career.