On April 9, American tanks rolled into Baghdad. Indian politicians chose the very moment to establish their credentials as diplomatic fidayeen. Just hours before Saddam Hussein's regime was displaced, the Rajya Sabha unanimously passed a resolution deploring the Allied action. The Lok Sabha had done likewise a day earlier. The resolution asked for the immediate withdrawal of coalition forces, unmindful that Baghdad had virtually fallen. Clearly, the Government had conceded to the Opposition demand for resolution three weeks too late. But it found reasons to turn anti-US only after the March 24 Nadimarg massacre.

SKEWED VIEW: Congress protesters look at Iraq through the Pakistani prism

As an upset Robert Blackwill, Washington's ambassador in Delhi, admitted to a group of MPs over cocktails, the parliamentary resolution was the sharpest denunciation of America's conduct. Even France, Russia or China had not been as harsh. Blackwill's remarks may have been an eyeopener for the MPs. They may have realised the pressure the Indian Government had been under, trying to balance global realities with local pressure for an anti-US line.

No tightrope walking was evident in Parliament though. Rather, a combination of NAM nostalgia, Cold War hangover and competitive jockeying for the Muslim vote won the day.

Inaugurating the discussion in the Rajya Sabha, K. Natwar Singh (Congress) complimented Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and his ministerial colleagues for "playing a seminal role in producing a draft acceptable to all of us". Nevertheless he gently pointed out to Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha that his statement calling Pakistan a fit case for pre-emptive strikes amounted to justifying America's principle of unilateralism.

BJP ally C. Ramachandriah (TDP) was anything but gentle. He broke the tradition of not making critical remarks about a resolution moved by the chair. "Can I presume," he asked, "that there is some element of impracticability in our foreign policy? The prime minister said that the war was not going to break out. But ultimately it broke out and it's now going to be concluded." In the Lok Sabha, the Government was spared such embarrassment. No one, not even the Congress, questioned Sinha's view on pre-emptive strikes. Instead S. Jaipal Reddy (Congress) protested against a "lowly US official" contradicting Sinha's statement.

Earlier there had been much hairsplitting on whether the resolution should "condemn" the invasion or merely "deplore" it. Initially the Government offered to adopt the text of a motion submitted by Pranab Mukherjee (Congress), which used the phrase "deep concern". The Opposition wanted something harsher. The Government came up with a draft in Hindi ("ninda") and English ("deplore"). As per the dictionary consulted, ninda could be translated to both "deplore" and "condemn". So the Hindi draft was adopted.

Congress circles admit that the party felt compelled to demand a resolution because the BJP National Executive's resolution in Indore "was stronger than the Congress Working Committee statement of March 22".

Whatever the political compulsions, the diplomatic message has scarcely been positive. In Gulf War II as in Gulf War I, India may have scored a self-goal.