Phantom of the opera

All these, he explained, were samples of communism on the ascendant.

Cases of the ‘‘working class’’ organising itself under ‘‘the red banner of protest’’ were cited: ‘‘Demonstrations … held at Seattle, Cancun, Genoa … Waves of strike actions have overwhelmed such developed capitalist nations as Britain, France, Germany, Belgium and Australia … There has been a marked upswing in the intensity and depth of anti-war movements.’’

The political ‘‘evidence’’? ‘‘In Germany and Spain, the electorate has given a drubbing to the ruling coalitions of the right and the centre-right … The Bolivarian revolution in Venezuela has found echoes across the continent of Latin America … Fidel’s Cuba serves as the hub of activities … Socialism is the future.’’

Why is Biswas’ piece important? Simply because he was chosen to deliver a message. His essay came just after the ‘‘corporate media’’ had attacked the CPI(M) for calling a nationwide strike.

The article’s moral posturing represents a make-believe universe. Has socialism really knocked out its opponents? Consider the alternative world view.

Germany has just elected — admittedly, after an indecisive verdict — a chancellor who models herself on Margaret Thatcher. Japan’s prime minister called and won an election that was a referendum on privatisation.

Tony Blair, re-elected this year, is the most rightwing Labour leader in Britain’s history. Even France wonders how long it can sustain its luxurious labour laws. Vietnam talks doi moi and economic reforms.

As for the hordes protesting outside the WTO meeting in Seattle or the G-8 summit in Genoa, how does one explain the paradox of anti-globalisation forces mobilising themselves by using the very energies unleashed by globalisation — the Internet, cheap telephone calls, easier air travel? Who’s won here? Globalisation — or its users/abusers?

Finally, China: if China’s economic miracle is evidence of communist policies, then, please, Uncle Karat, can’t India be communist too?

Beyond the rhetoric, some hard questions need to be asked. Why has the CPI(M) painted itself into such a corner in Delhi? Why has it so relentlessly pursued a ‘‘just say no’’ line? This is not a philosophical query; it is an attempt to understand political logic.

Coalition partners often play hardball. Indeed, in the United Front years (1996-98), Harkishen Singh Surjeet — Prakash Karat’s predecessor as CPI(M) general secretary — virtually ran the government, cut deals, had a say in appointments, giving here, taking there.

Karat’s way is different — he prefers to focus on policy issues. Fair enough; but where is it

leading to?

The Left has just agreed to come back to the UPA coordination committee. It had walked out after the government spoke of selling 10 per cent of its stake in BHEL. The CPI(M) made this a life-and-death issue, resorting to brinkmanship. Was BHEL really that important? In the wider context, it was a minor crinkle. A seasoned political practitioner would not have treated it with a sledgehammer.

Those who develop a taste for fire surrender their pyromania to the law of unforeseen consequences. What will happen if India votes against Iran at the IAEA in November? Will the Left again find an excuse to stomp out of the coordination committee?

By nudging the Iran vote into pre-electoral discourse — the Left takes on the Congress in West Bengal (28 per cent Muslim) and Kerala (22 per cent) early next year — the CPI(M) is treading on a minefield. H.D. Deve Gowda and Mulayam Singh Yadav — permanently aggrieved third frontwallahs — have already backed the Left on Iran, smelling a chance to embarrass the Congress.

Where will it end up this winter? Will, crazily, Iran’s bomb become a faultline in domestic politics? Maybe People’s Democracy could run an astrology column.