As foreign secretary-level talks between India and Pakistan approach, a remarkably hawkish lobby is emerging in India which opposes any reconciliation between the two governments. This vocal lobby, consisting of former Indian high commissioners to Pakistan (G Parthasarathy and Satish Chandra) and intelligence chiefs (B Raman and A K Doval) would like to hold up progress in bilateral relations until Islamabad delivers on its "anti-terrorism" commitment to the hawks' satisfaction. It blames Pakistani agencies for the recent terrorist attacks in India.

The Bharatiya Janata Party is backing this lobby increasingly overtly. Even yesterday's Hindutva doves like Atal Behari Vajpayee have joined the hawkish chorus.

Besides the civil society-based peace movement, the only resolute and consistent opposition to the hawks comes from the organised Indian Left, comprising the Communist Party of India (Marxist), the Communist Party of India, the Revolutionary Socialist Party and the Forward Block.

It is important to understand the Left's positions and its dilemmas in dealing with the ruling United Progressive Alliance which it supports from the outside.

The Left is unhappy that the UPA has not fulfilled the promises of its own National Common Minimum Programme. The NCMP promised to "pursue an independent foreign policy and promote [global] multipolarity." But it has tailed the United States and supported unipolarity. Its economic and social policies also seriously deviate from the NCMP's promise of egalitarian development and re-assertion of secularism.

The UPA won the 2004 elections because the public was disgusted with the BJP's sectarian and communally divisive politics--revealed starkly in the Gujarat carnage of 2002. The electorate also felt insulted at the ludicrous "India Shining" campaign.

Yet, the UPA hasn't implemented its mandate. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh hasn't even once reiterated the UPA's commitment to secure justice for the Gujarat victims, tens of thousands of whom remain refugees in their own land. The UPA has passively watched Narendra Milosevic Modi's sabotage of the criminal justice process in Gujarat. Barring the National Rural Employment Guarantee and Right to Information Acts, the Alliance hasn't imparted substance to its social and economic promises. (Even on the RTI, it's dragging its feet.) The UPA's overall economic policy isn't sharply distinguishable from the BJP's.

This highlights the Left parties' predicament. They have acquired unprecedented relevance. In Parliament, they have grown to the highest-ever figure of 61 MPs. They are acknowledged even by conservative politicians as the UPA's "conscience-keepers".

Yet, their well-considered pleas on food security, labour laws, urban planning, and the rights to education and healthcare are ignored. The UPA's policies on rehabilitation, affirmative action, tribal rights, etc. differ sharply from theirs.

Nevertheless, the Left cannot withdraw support to the UPA and risk the BJP's return. It must perform a tightrope walk and continually mount pressure on the UPA through dialogue, advocacy, lobbying and protests. This difficult exercise also carries an additional cost--subordinating the Left's core concerns, programmes and organisational priorities to the task of keeping the BJP out of power.

It's therefore appropriate that the CPI and the CPI (M) are undertaking "serious introspection" on their functioning and internal structures. Such reflection is indispensable if the Left is to preserve its distinctive political identity.

The Left, despite its weaknesses, has played a uniquely worthy and irreplaceable role in India--as the voice of the underprivileged, as a force for democratisation and for extension of freedom, and as a repository of progressive ideas. If the Left didn't exist, we would have to invent it! Three questions demand the Left's serious reflection. Is it setting an example of good governance in West Bengal and Kerala, which is worthy of emulation? How can it achieve a major objective it set itself decades ago--namely, build/rebuild a base in the Hindi belt? And what's its strategy for expanding its political reach and inducting new cadres?

The first question calls for candid answers. In West Bengal, the Left is drifting Rightwards. It has revived the state's long-stagnant economy--but at an onerous cost to its own integrity and its image among the underprivileged. As Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee said in July, he's essentially following a "capitalist model."

This model is based upon accumulation by dispossession and impoverishment of the poor, through cleansing cities of slumdwellers and creating special economic zones with tax-breaks or dilution of labour laws.

Although the Left's base in Bengal has widened, it's shifting. An April 2006 poll showed a five per cent adverse swing in its support among the poor, and a 17 to 18 per cent gain among the rich.

Kerala is different. There, the Left parties have recovered their base among the poor and religious minorities. They even defeated the Muslim League in Muslim-dominated Malappuram. The Kerala problem is essentially internal to the CPI (M): a rift between the V S Achuthanandan and Pinarayi Vijayan factions. Achuthanandan's elevation as CM, albeit without control over portfolios like Home, has left his rivals fuming--and plotting. The factionalism extends to governmental decision-making too.

Take the Hindi belt. The CPI was once formidably strong in Bihar and in central and eastern Uttar Pradesh. But it suffered massive haemorrhage in Bihar. In UP, its entire unit was swallowed by the Samajwadi Party. The CPI is slowly rebuilding its base in these states.

The CPI (M) has had no major Hindi-speaking base, but is seeking small gains through temporary alliances with Centrist leaders. This brings it into a clash with the CPI. The two shouldn't drift apart; they should move towards unification. Their original programmatic differences have become irrelevant. They share each other's theoretical understanding, doctrine and practice.

The Left does face an uphill task in the Hindi belt given the hardening of caste politics, especially in UP. It cannot possibly relate to caste like other parties, without abandoning its distinctive class-oriented approach. The Left must also develop a credible strategy of self-rejuvenation and expansion. As of now, the CPI (M) has 9.5 lakh members and the CPI nearly 6 lakhs. Their membership has grown by 8 to 10 per cent over the past two years.

This is impressive when seen against the decline of Communist parties the world over after the collapse of the Soviet Union. It speaks to the Indian CPs' resilience. After stagnation between the mid-1990s and 2002, the CPI has made impressive membership gains, especially in Kerala and Bengal. But 18 per cent of its members don't renew their membership. The CPI (M) too suffers from significant non-renewal, especially in Tamil Nadu and Kerala.

The primary reason why the Left parties have not grown more rapidly in the Hindi belt despite agrarian distress, unemployment and frustration among the youth is their "image burden". They're seen as belonging to a long-bygone era of statism and public sector unions.

This image must be corrected. The Left must reassert its relevance in contemporary terms--as a force immersed in a democratic culture, with one of the longest international histories of working a parliamentary system.

The Left parties must develop innovative solutions to today's problems by putting flesh-and-blood people before capital. They must formulate alternatives in health, education, housing, water and electricity supply, and in macroeconomic policy. Only thus can they implement their agendas of secularism, justice and social cohesion and contribute to India-Pakistan reconciliation.

This article was originally published by The News International. Copyright 2006 The News International