NEW DELHI: With the odds stacked high against foreign minister Natwar Singh, in the end his pronouncements made him his own worst enemy. Thinly veiled sighs of relief from foreign policy makers in South Block greeted the departure of a minister whose last days in office have left behind a trail of devastation. Stripped of his portfolio, Natwar became the first high profile casualty in the world over the Volcker report.

The MEA moved swiftly to cancel a programme by the minister on Tuesday to send biscuits to Iraqi children. While the prime minister will handle the external affairs portfolio, it is believed that foreign secretary Shyam Saran may take Natwar’s place at the Saarc summit in Dhaka later this week. The last nail in the coffin was driven in by Natwar himself when on Sunday he directly repudiated the government’s stand on an issue of extreme importance, the Iran vote in the IAEA. What turned out to be a thinly veiled effort to ingratiate himself with the Left parties, Natwar, said senior government sources, went against the grain on Iran.

Clearly soliciting support from parties he knew were against India’s stand on Iran he had said: “If a resolution is placed at the IAEA, 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.”

Now this was way beyond his brief, because the government was determined that if the same circumstances prevailed again at the IAEA in November, India would vote against Iran. The prime minister will look after this particular portfolio for some time to come, said sources, at least until after the Bush visit slated for early 2006. The foreign policy calendar is crowded in the new year with several big ticket events — the first visit by the King of Saudi Arabia, followed by French president Jacques Chirac and then George Bush. The PM is personally piloting the India-US nuclear agreement, which is expected to open a whole new world for India. For all the delicate negotiations necessary, the PM wants a controlling stake.

It’s not for nothing that Manmohan has set up a task force to monitor “global strategic developments” — particularly US policy. Thus, to have a foreign minister lashing out at the US is actually counterproductive particularly in a government punctuated by Left-leaning vocalists. Insiders in the MEA claimed that Natwar had, over the past months doffed his cold warrior mantle and was more realistic regarding the US and the new world order.

Over the past couple of days, the cold warrior was back. In interviews, Natwar trashed the new Iraqi government. In a blatant show of one-upmanship Natwar announced grandly, “I did not run after Strobe Talbott, Condoleezza Rice came to see me in Washington,’ which was greeted by shocked silences in South Block. On Sunday, he declared, ‘Let me assure you; nothing will prevent us as a great country from raising our voice as we did when we were in opposition to what was done in Iraq.”

It was provocative but more cynically, it was a policy utterance to further a personal cause.

On Monday, with the threat of his removal fast becoming a reality, Natwar took time off from his political preoccupations to talk to Chinese foreign minister Li Zhaoxing — on the forthcoming IAEA board of governors meeting on the Iran nuclear issue.

“They agreed to work for a consensus on the matter. They have also been in touch with Russian foreign minister and have a broad understanding that the matter should remain out of the Security Council and a consensus should be worked out in consultation with the EU-3 and Iran.”

Clearly Natwar had no intentions of resigning, but was also intent on queering the pitch for the carefully crafted policy by the prime minister on non-proliferation and Iran and US — this was unacceptable to the prime minister, who was reportedly livid with Natwar over his statements.

There will be little mourning for Natwar Singh in South Block, particularly after the former foreign minister lashed out with intemperate statements, which ran counter to the state of play on some of India’s most vital foreign policy interests.

—By arrangement with The Times of India