First, he sent on government expense his retired colleagues to different countries to woo support. Then he approached practically every nation in Africa to line them up behind a formula through which he thought he would see India on the Security Council.

Now there is hardly any statement he makes without talking about the membership. Naturally, the policy is big power-centric at the expense of neighbouring countries.

This may well explain why Natwar Singh had very little to say on some 370-bomb blasts in Bangladesh or the foreign minister's murder at Colombo. Even otherwise, he has a simplistic view of the world and does not want to face the sea change it has undergone since the end of the cold war when he was a career diplomat. He has his mind set on the Nehruvian non-alignment, not realising that India's own credentials have come to be challenged after its defence "agreement" with the US.

The habit of living in the past has dulled Natwar Singh's reaction to the present. Otherwise, it is difficult to understand why he could not read the Bangladesh situation when he was at Dhaka a few days before the bomb blasts. If he wanted to befriend the ruling Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), he should have moved earlier, not when the country's general election is due next year and when the BNP is keen to spread the impression of having good relations with India to win liberal voters.

What happened to Bangladesh was the writing on the wall. The rise of fundamentalism was inevitable when the Jamaat-e-Islami got credibility -- and opportunity -- after its two members were appointed ministers. The alliance between the two parties is so firm that religion and politics are the two sides of the same coin.

The way to retrieve it is through economics. This has been always so. Wooden bureaucrats in India have seldom appreciated this point. The proposed visit of Industry Minister Kamal Nath is a step in the right direction. Why has India wasted so many years?

And what is the guarantee that it has got it right this time?

Probably, India's make-up is such that it does not react to a situation until it explodes on its face. Sri Lanka has been wanting a complete economic integration with India for a long time. It is one country which does not see an "ugly Indian." But New Delhi is still drawing up a list of commodities which it cannot allow without duty and excise and which it can. It is a strange response to a country which is demanding complete economic integration.

Had the process of integration begun, it would have spilled over to the political field by this time. Sri Lanka's Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar might have escaped murder. The LTTE might have changed its tactics of defiance and killing if New Delhi had been seen moving towards integration. Whenever I met Kadirgamar at Delhi or Colombo, he would talk about his dream of seeing the India-Sri Lanka economic union coming true. Even now New Delhi has not learnt any lesson from his murder, more so from the civil war between the Sinhalese majority and a separatist Tamil majority. Since 1983, more than 65,000 people have died. True, New Delhi burnt its fingers when it sent the Indian Peace Keeping Force to Sri Lanka in 1988. But conditions have changed since. The LTTE wants to have a settlement with Colombo. Both sides trust India. It must step in now to span the distance between the LTTE and President Chandirika Kumaratunge to consolidate Sri Lanka's unity.

Confidence building measures between India and Pakistan also need consolidation. Natwar Singh has been rightly ticked off. He has not been doing anything except crossing the t's and dotting the i's. The seasoned S. Lamba's appointment in the Prime Minister's Office indicates that Manmohan Singh will himself supervise the peace process.ÊIt may be because of Natwar Singh's mindset or because Manmohan Singh and President General Pervez Musharraf have hit it off well.

In fact, Siachin, Baglihar, Kishen Ganga and Sir Creek can be sorted out at one go. There has to be give-and-take by both sides. Pakistan should accept the Line of Control's extension through Siachin, a straight line as would have been drawn in 1972 between the commanders of the two countries. On the other hand, India should demolish at Baglihar, the structure which can be used to impound water. The Indus Water Treaty allows the use of run-off-water to produce power. But New Delhi cannot impound the river water allotted to Pakistan. In the same spirit the Kishen Ganga and Sir Creek can be solved. Natwar Singh should have done that. The Prime Minister may do it now because he is reportedly of the view that the entire Indus basin should be developed jointly, not on the basis of three rivers with one country and the other three with another.

I do not know how India is going to sort out the mess in Nepal. Here Natwar Singh had the correct instincts. He wanted the democratic forces, political parties, to be strengthened against the dictatorial King. But some retired army officers at Delhi seem to have influenced the government on the basis of their connections with the Gorkha soldiers. America's pressure to be on the side of the King may have been another compulsion with New Delhi.

It is obvious that both China and Pakistan are taking advantage of the situation. Their systems of governance are such that the democratic leeway does not fit in. India has to help Nepal's political parties which, however limited in vision, represent the voice of people. Natwar Singh should continue to support the democratic structure which will prevail in the long run.

My purpose of drawing attention to Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan is to make the Foreign Minister realise that membership of the Security Council is important but more important is the normalisation of relations with the countries around us. He cannot pursue his obsession at the expense of our neighbours.

Kuldip Nayar is an eminent Indian columnist.