simon long of the economist calls him a 'nehruvian', tom lantos of the us congress calls him a 'stalinist'. i should tell them both they are infringing on my copyrighted term 'nehruvian stalinist' which describes natwar singh quite well. yes, more catholic than the pope, is old natwar singh. this is what is expected of old nehru dynasty retainers.
but the dynasty is only interested in that great idea: self-preservation. natwar singh is expendable, clearly.
again, truncated to protect the economist's copyright (although they don't respect mine :-))
well, simon long has caught on to the truth that it the communists support something or someone in india, it is by definition bad for india.
India, Iraq and Iran
Over a barrel
Nov 10th 2005 | DELHI
From The Economist print edition
The Iraqi oil-for-food scandal brings down India's foreign minister
THE name of Natwar Singh, India's foreign minister until forced to stand down on November 7th, does not even appear in the 630 pages of the report by the committee, chaired by Paul Volcker, a former chairman of America's Federal Reserve, into the manipulation of the United Nations' oil-for-food programme by Saddam Hussein. .... (deleted) What made his position untenable was his response to the accusations: a tirade against America.
Mr Singh denies all involvement in the oil scandal... (deleted). The evidence against him is circumstantial: his listing in the records of Iraq's state oil-marketing organisation; his vehement criticism of the sanctions regime that the oil-for-food programme was designed to mitigate; his visits and those of his son to Iraq; and his son's friendship with the owner of a company accused of having paid oil "surcharges"—ie, kickbacks—to Iraq.
The political opposition scented blood. Mr Singh's self-defence went beyond mere denial. He questioned Mr Volcker's independence, and portrayed the report as an attempt to discredit critics of American policy in Iraq. He derided the credibility of the present Iraqi government. He also suggested that when the International Atomic Energy Agency considers a resolution on November 24th on Iran's nuclear programme, he would advise the government to reverse its support for the American-led drive to refer it to the UN Security Council. From the foreign minister of a government whose chief geopolitical achievement is improved relations with America, all of this was very poor diplomacy
It succeeded, however, in rallying political support for Mr Singh from the many politicians both in Congress and its coalition partners who are uneasy about the government's pro-American tilt. The Communist parties the coalition needs for its parliamentary majority also approved. Their leaders, who have thwarted radical economic reform, now say their "highest priority" is to hold the government to an "independent" foreign policy. The Iran vote is to be their litmus test.
The prime minister is standing by his "strategic partnership" with America. Natwar Singh, calling himself a "Nehruvian", a reference to the "non-aligned" foreign policy of Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first prime minister, seems to have relied on his closeness to the Congress leader, Sonia Gandhi, widow of Nehru' s grandson. He is paying the price for being more Nehruvian than the Nehrus.