That her confidence in him was explicit was a fact. I recall I wrote to her twice when I was a member of the Rajya Sabha. Both the times Natwar Singh talked to me on her behalf because she had passed on letters to him. The subject was not important, but the manner in which Natwar Singh disposed of my pleas to Sonia Gandhi indicated the equation he enjoyed with the Congress president.

Against this firm relationship, her feeling of betrayal was natural when she found that Natwar Singh was involved in the UN oil-for-food scam in Iraq. While indicating this during the interview, I could see her face showing anguish, not anger. She could not probably imagine that a person who was so close to her and her husband, Rajiv Gandhi, would enter into an oil deal without explaining to her what he was doing.

After all, Natwar Singh's credentials were that of a Congress leader. There was no other reason for Iraq to treat him with deference.

Instead of reaching her to assuage her doubts, Natwar Singh goes off the tangent. He objects to her use of the word, betrayal, especially when he is 15 years older to Sonia Gandhi. He says: "Those who are born on Indian soil will understand the country's ethos and culture. Others will not." Natwar Singh sounds like a member of the BJP which went to the polls on the plank that she was a foreigner. (The party lost in elections.) For him to suggest that Sonia Gandhi will not understand India's ethos because she is not born in the country is to betray his ignorance about India's characteristics and spirit and her life after marrying Rajiv Gandhi. Natwar Singh's remark must have been the unkindest cut for her because he was part of the family.

Coming to the word, betrayal, it means violation of trust or confidence. What else Natwar Singh did? Using the name of the Congress, he entered into the oil deals. She, in fact, was soft towards him. Anyone else in her place would have been harsher because Natwar Singh exploited the name of the Congress which she headed.

Why does Natwar Singh lose his temper with the Congress leaders? They could not have condoned the indictment by the Pathak Commission on Volcker's oil scam report. If Sonia Gandhi had not been generous, she would have named Natwar Singh's son, Jagat Singh, the centre of the scam. She only talked about Natwar Singh's betrayal. He should thank his stars that he got off lightly. And he has not yet been expelled from the Congress party like his son.

I can think of another equation which did not break on the point of scam, but it too was a betrayal of sorts. I am referring to the exit of yet another former foreign minister, Dinesh Singh, from the Congress during Mrs Indira Gandhi's time. He too was close to her, in fact, part of her kitchen cabinet. She defied the Congress high command, the old guard, with the help of people like Dinesh Singh. When the Congress was split in 1969, he was part of the demolition brigade. Then he bolted the party to join the Janata. What loyalty?

Dinesh Singh was another wheeler-dealer. He used Mrs Indira Gandhi and left her and the Congress when both were in the dumps after the emergency. I recall thatwhenever he invited editors or senior journalists for a meal, he would have instructed his stenographers to come to the room and interrupt discussions on the plea that Mrs Gandhi was on the phone. He would do so to underline his importance. He was dropped from the cabinet because of his antics.

But one thing goes in favour of Dinesh Singh is that he did not run down Mrs Gandhi in public. He would say many things against her in private but nothing for publication. Natwar Singh has behaved as if he has dropped Sonia Gandhi and not the other way round. This happens-- it is still happening--when political parties pick up bureaucrats and appoint them as ministers. (Natwar Singh is from the Indian Foreign Service). They do not have the grounding in politics and lack the necessary temperament. Manmohan Singh is an exception.

The problem with political parties in India is that they have not learnt to differentiate between a durbari and a supporter. Natwar Singh, like Dinesh Sigh, was a durbari, although he gave the impression as if he was another Nehru in the field of foreign affairs. Sonia Gandhi has rightly felt betrayed. But the crowd she has collected around her is primarily that of Natwar Singh's She will discover sooner than later that someone else in her camp has played her false. She should have learnt how to assess a person.

But then this love for sycophants goes back to the days of Nehru. Although he kept himself aloof, he could not escape people like M.O. Mathai who betrayed him. One cannot say anything against R.K. Dhawan, Mrs. Indira Gandhi's special secretary. He did not open his mouth against the dynasty. He was promised many things during the Janata rule. But his reply was that he was willing to tell about anybody except Mrs Indira Gandhi and her son Sanjay Gandhi. Dhawan probably thinks that this is the "country's ethos and culture." Natwar Singh should have learnt from him. Dhawan is several years younger to him. I have brought in age because Natwar Singh has said that Sonia Gandhi should not have used the word, betrayal, since she was 15 years younger to him.

The question is not that of age. The culture in South Asian countries is that of ji hajoori (obedience). The rulers like this because the answer is 'yes' even before the sycophant crowd around them is asked. It is for the rulers to see through them. But then the former feel so insecure that they look for props which draw rosy pictures of their popularity. Dinesh Singh and Natwar Singh were no different as long as they were in the durbar. They tumbled down in the party, not only because they were found out but also because their betrayal came to be known.

Kuldip Nayar is an eminent Indian columnist.