Between them, Sonia Gandhi's media managers and the External Affairs Ministry have succeeded in amusing/irritating several high-ranking visitors at India's cost. Time-honoured procedures of diplomatic protocol have been torn up by courtiers more loyal than the queen herself.

Let me explain. A few weeks from now the Crown Prince of Morocco will arrive on a state visit. The new government understands the significance of our ties to the Arab world perfectly well. How unfortunate it would be if the trip were marred by breach of protocol.

The office held by the Crown Prince is analogous to the Vice-President's. (He is, in fact, coming in response to an invitation by K. R. Narayanan made when he held the post.) As a guest of the nation, the Crown Prince will stay at Rashtrapati Bhavan as a matter of course, an honour not given to, say, Margaret Thatcher when she was the British PrimeMinister.

Diplomatic protocol recognises that a head of state or his deputy takes precedence over a head of government on ceremonial occasions such as a state visit (assuming that the same person doesn't hold both offices). In keeping with this it is Atal Behari Vajpayee and his ministers who must call upon the visitor, not the other way round.

There are just two persons whom the Crown Prince will visit. The first, perfectly in keeping with time-honoured precedent, is the President of India. The second instance is the breach of protocol referred to above: Morocco's heir apparent will call upon Sonia Gandhi.

As I understand it, this is not being done at the insistence of the Crown Prince. It is the work of some bureaucrats in the Indian External Affairs Ministry. And the reason offered is that it isn't safe for Sonia Gandhi to drive down from 10, Janpath to Rashtrapati Bhavan!

This is just about the stupidest excuse I have ever heard. The distance between 10, Janpath and Rashtrapati Bhavan is easilycovered in five minutes. And even less if you, like Sonia Gandhi, have the Special Protection Group (SPG) clearing the roads of the hoi polloi.

During the recent election campaign Sonia Gandhi visited about 150 constituencies. Does the Foreign Office -- elements of it anyway -- expect us to believe that all those places were safe but Rashtrapati Bhavan is not?

I am afraid it isn't the security experts but Sonia Gandhi's media managers who are responsible. It looks wonderful on television to see foreign VVIPs being graciously welcomed by Sonia Gandhi at her house. Much less dramatic to see her trudging up Rashtrapati Bhavan steps like a host of others!

At times, however, the lady is a little more polite to guests. Her meeting with Nelson Mandela was at Rashtrapati Bhavan. (The great South African leader probably saw no reason to pander to white-skin arrogance here after a lifetime of battling it at home.) And, predictably, it was she who sought an audience with Pope John Paul II, not the other wayround.

But the majority have been advised by the Foreign Office to pay homage at 10, Janpath. Of course this is nothing new. It began in the days of Narasimha Rao, and was continued by Deve Gowda and Gujral. But that is no reason for the Vajpayee ministry to accept farcical claims of ``security''.

Frankly, it is time that the whole question of security for Indian VVIPs was re-examined. When the SPG was created -- by Rajiv Gandhi lest we forget -- the agency was given one mission: to protect the President, the Vice-President, and the Prime Minister of the day. There was no mention of former office bearers, leave alone their wives and children.

The Rao government amended the SPG Act to shield former Prime Ministers as well, for five years after they demit office. In an open bid to woo 10, Janpath, this was later extended to 10 years. (Rajiv Gandhi had been rejected by the voters in 1989; Sonia Gandhi and her children would have been ineligible for SPG protection as of 1994.)

The expenditure on securityis now crossing all rational limits. The SPG's budget is Rs 50 crore, but the hidden costs are greater. Sprawling bungalows are provided even for the likes of Priyanka Vadra. There is an outer ring of security provided by either the local police or para-military forces.

These are the standard expenses. Sonia Gandhi's whirlwind campaign across India cost taxpayers quite an additional packet. The SPG had to ferry bullet-proof cars all over the country. The total cost of providing security during her campaign came to roughly five crore rupees.

We can only be thankful that Chenamma Gowda or Shiela Gujral didn't campaign! After all, under the law they too are entitled to the same level of protection. And so are their children.

The utterly ridiculous state of affairs is exposed by the case of Prabhakar Rao, son of former Prime Minister Rao. The Enforcement Directorate wanted to interrogate him in connection with the urea scam. He went underground, with full SPG cover. Rao's guards, the head of the SPGexplained, couldn't divulge his whereabouts but they wouldn't prevent his arrest!

Want more? Narasimha Rao himself is no stranger to criminal charges. But under the law the SPG must protect his person (at least until 2006) even if he ends up in Tihar Jail!

Chew over this nugget: the SPG Act mandates that Prabhakar Rao and Priyanka Gandhi receive a greater degree of protection than, say, L. K. Advani. Yet the Intelligence Bureau privately admits that the threat perception to the Home Minister is far greater. Does that make any sense at all?

Amending the SPG Act will take time and trouble. Until that is done you can't really blame the SPG for obeying the law as it stands. But what shall we say of the mandarins in the External Affairs Ministry? Which Act of Parliament are they obeying in insisting that the Crown Prince of Morocco and other distinguished guests call upon Sonia Gandhi? By what authority are they turning protocol upside-down, implicitly giving Sonia Gandhi a higher rank in the hierarchy thaneven the Prime Minister?

I wonder if the Foreign Office has thought of the message being sent out: Delhi's streets are unsafe in spite of all the security given to Sonia Gandhi. Is that really what any patriotic citizen, even a naturalised Indian, wants the world to hear?