The DMK leadership and the bourgeois press is trying to make it appear to the public, that the Marxist party by its undemocratic and unilateral behaviour provoked and pushed the DMK over to the BJP camp.

A section of the press charged that Surjeet's press reaction to Shri Karunanidhi's stand. viz., "Jayalalitha was a greater danger to the country than communalism", hurt Karunanidhi, which led to his crossing over to the BJP camp. After Jayalalitha's meeting Surjeet, the press asked Surjeet for his reaction to Mr Karunanidhi's formulation. Surjeet emphatically said that "There is something wrong in the line of such thinking". Surjeet's reaction is a political criticism of Mr Karunanidhi's erroneous political position. The question of "personal hurt" does not arise. It should be noted that the DMK took the crucial decision to cross over to the BJP on April 13, before Jayalalitha visited Surjeet on the following day.

Mr Karunanidhi charged the CPI(M) with not functioning the Third Front, but simply wasting time by empty talk. The CPI(M) was also charged with not consulting the former constituents of the United Front while taking political decisions.

It is a fact that after the electoral defeat in the 1998 parliamentary elections, the United Front ceased to exist in the same organisational form as before. Nevertheless, the Left parties kept in touch with and consulted former United Front constituents from time to time.

It is such prior consultations that resulted in the holding of the All India People's Convention in Defence of Secularism and against Communalism in Delhi on February 20, 1999. It is such interaction among the former constituents of the United Front, that brought forth co-operation from the DMK, TMC and such other parties in various parts of the country, to the united call of the Left parties for a Protest Day on February 9, 1999, against the increase in administered prices of food grains by the BJP government.

Even in the present political crisis, the Left, particularly the CPI(M) continued to interact with the top leadership of the DMK, TMC, RJD, SP, JD, AGP, PWP, etc. The complaint by the DMK that the CPI(M) did not invite them to join the opposition parties' delegation to the President on April 14 is without basis. The appointment with the President for a deputation by the opposition parties was not sought by the CPI(M) or the Left. It was Sharad Pawar as leader of the Opposition who asked for the time. The CPI(M) itself was one of the parties informed about the appointment, as other opposition parties. Mr Maran himself admits that he was also invited by Sharad Pawar to join the delegation. We do not know the position regarding an invitation to the TMC. Hence the DMK's charge that the CPI(M) did not invite them for the Opposition delegation to the President, is devoid of any substance.

Mr Karunanidhi charges the CPI(M) of not having discussed with the DMK, when it decided to extend issue-based support to Congress(I) from outside if it were to form an alternative government at the centre. Mr Karunanidhi speaks as though the CPI(M) has taken a new position.

It is not a new decision arrived at by the CPI(M) in the present political crisis. This was decided upon by the 1998 April Central Committee meeting, when the BJP government formed after the elections, had brought forward a Confidence Motion, in accordance with the direction of the President. In the event of the BJP being defeated, and the Congress coming forward to form an alternate government, and seeking CPI(M) support, the April Central Committee decided on issue-based support from outside to any Congress government. Even so, the Central Committee reiterated that:

"No question arises of having any front or alliance with the Congress. But in order to prevent the BJP from consolidating its hold over state power, and the infiltration of the administration that it seeks to do, we had decided to support the Congress, if and when the situation arises, from outside."

Again, when in July 1998, Jayalalitha threatened to withdraw support to the Vajpayee government and the issue of an alternative government came to the fore, the Central Committee stated:

"Our Party indicated that in the eventuality of the downfall of the Vajpayee government, there has to be a secular alternative government as mid-term elections cannot be thought of immediately. In such a situation, we re-iterated the stand taken at the time of the confidence vote, that we would extend support from outside to the formation of a Congress-led government in the framework spelt out in the last Central Committee Report."

Referring to this July Central Committee stand, the Organisational Report of the recently concluded XVI Party Congress, states:

"Underlying the stand was the understanding that we would not enter into any alliance with the Congress, but have an approach of issue-based support to the Congress government from outside."

It was this consistent stand of the CPI(M) that is reiterated now, when again Jayalalitha threatened to withdraw support to the Vajpayee government. And after the withdrawal of support, and the fall of Vajpayee government, the prospect of an alternative government was opened up. The CPI(M) is persevering in applying our declared line. It is a travesty of truth to pose this decision, as a new one taken suddenly.

It is pertinent to note that throughout this one year, the DMK leadership was fully aware of our stand of issue-based support to the Congress(I) government from outside, but the DMK leadership did not come out even once, against our repeatedly declared stand. In a number of discussions with the DMK over the last one year, we had made it clear that in the eventuality of the Vajpayee government falling, we will extend support from outside to the Congress while maintaining the unity of all the parties of the third force, including the DMK. This would be the best way to strengthen and advance the third alternative.

On the other hand, it will be a shocking revelation to the public, that it was the DMK leader Mr Maran, when he met Surjeet at Delhi before the AIADMK's withdrawal of support who requested Surjeet, 'to prevail on Sonia Gandhi, to take the DMK as a Congress-led coalition partner, and to tell Sonia Gandhi that the DMK would make a better partner in the Congress alliance, than the AIADMK.'

It was Surjeet, who had to tell Mr Maran, that it would be politically wrong for the DMK to be an ally of the Congress, and that it would weaken all efforts to forge a non-Congress, non-BJP alternative. Surjeet firmly declined Mr Maran's request. This being the true position, where is the political morality in charging the CPI(M) with supporting the Congress. The boot is on the other foot.

Similarly, baseless is the charge of the DMK leadership that the CPI(M) negotiated with Jayalalitha for forging a front, without consulting the DMK and TMC. When the CPI(M) consistently rejected any front or alliance with Congress(I), even while extending issue-based support from outside, to suggest that the CPI(M) negotiated for a front with Jayalalitha, is nothing short of a canard spread by the DMK leadership and a section of the bourgeois press. What had happened was that Jayalalitha, after handing over her letter of withdrawal of support to the Vajpayee government, to the President, wished to call upon Surjeet. She met Surjeet at his residence, and explained her political position. If this is to be construed as a discussion for a front with Jayalalitha, a question arises. BJP leaders called upon Mr Karunanidhi prior to the vote of confidence, and had discussions with him. Shall we construe this as Karunanidhi having discussions with the BJP, on joining the BJP alliance? This presumption, if anything, could be the more realistic one since the DMK, subsequently, voted in favour of the BJP-led government, and continues to be a partner in the BJP-led front.

The true position is that the DMK leadership had already taken an opportunist political decision, on their own, to vote in favour of the BJP in the Confidence Motion.

N Sankaraiah, secretary of the Tamil Nadu State Committee of the CPI(M) had contacted Mr Karunanidhi by phone on April 13, 1999, to seek clarification on some of his statements. it is reported that Mr Karunanidhi told Sankaraiah, "Why not allow the BJP government for another three or four months; why allow Jayalalitha to take the credit".

It is obvious that Mr Karunanidhi was keeping both opportunist options open, i.e., to try to forestall Jayalalitha, by joining in a front with Congress(I), failing which, occupy the place in the BJP-led front, vacated by Jayalalitha. Failing to succeed in the first option, the DMK chose the latter option.

The crass opportunism of DMK leadership stands sharply exposed, when it will be seen that the shift over to the BJP was made, closely following the mass signature campaign against communalism, which was initiated for the whole state by Mr Karunanidhi, along with leaders of TMC, CPI(M), CPI and JD.

All statements made by the DMK leadership, as "Left leaving them in the lurch", CPI(M) not consulting them while deciding on extending issue-based support to Congress(I) government", "CPI(M) not consulting them before negotiating with Jayalalitha for a joint front", etc., are concoctions, meant to cover up their opportunist shift, which vast sections of their own ranks were not able to digest.

This is the modus operandi adopted by some other parties when placed in similar circumstances. This exactly was what Chandra Babu Naidu also did at the time of the confidence vote moved by Vajpayee government, formed immediately following the 1998 elections.

The Steering Committee of the United Front met to decide on the stand to be taken on voting on the Confidence Motion moved by Vajpayee. Although Chandra Babu Naidu was the Convener of the United Front Steering Committee, he absented himself from the meeting. The meeting unanimously decided to vote against the Confidence Motion.

But Chandra Babu Naidu betrayed the United Front and voted in favour of the BJP government's Confidence Motion. In fact, it was the TDP's vote that was crucial in retaining the BJP-led government. Yet Chandra Babu Naidu accused the United Front Steering Committee of having taken a decision in his absence. He thus tried to shift the responsibility of his betrayal on to the Left and other parties.