No one will grudge the Samajwadi Party satisfaction at its good performance in the UP elections where it won 26 seats. The CPI(M) has recognised that the Samajwadi Party is the major force opposed to the BJP in Uttar Pradesh, which has been adopting a consistent anti-communal position. What is however notable in the presentation is the effort to justify the wrong position adopted by the Samajwadi Party on the question of the formation of the alternative government at the Centre in April 1999 and seeking to interpret the verdict of the Lok Sabha elections as a vindication of his line. In so doing, a frontal attack has been made on the line adopted by the CPI(M) on the formation of an alternative government six months ago and during the elections.

The CPI(M) stands for the unity of the Left, democratic and secular forces in order to fight the danger posed by the BJP and the communal forces. This becomes all the more important in view of the return of the BJP alliance to power at the Centre. To strengthen the unity of the Left and secular forces it is necessary to recognise that there are divergent views on certain issues, while underlining the common need to fight the danger posed by the Hindutva forces.

Shri Mulayam Singh blames the Congress party for the BJP coming back to power. The CPI(M) has made the same point about the Congress failure but in a different way. While the Samajwadi Party has focussed solely on the foreign origin of Sonia Gandhi, the CPI(M) Central Committee meeting held to take stock of the post-election situation, stated that the Congress Party recorded a poor result primarily because of its blinkered slogan that it is the only party capable of providing a stable government at the Centre on its own. This approach devoid of any change in its basic policies, had no appeal to the people. For a large section of the people the Congress represented the same old discredited policies. The BJP's success in making the election personality-oriented as one between Atal Behari Vajpayee v/s Sonia Gandhi affected the Congress prospects, as this prevented the real issues being posed before the electorate.

It is untenable to conclude from the results, as the Samajwadi Party has done, that blocking a Congress-led government to come to power in April was a correct line vindicated by the results. Shri Mulayam Singh recounts the meeting held on April 21, 1999 at his residence where he led the opposition to any support to a Congress-led government as proof of his consistent opposition to any truck with the Congress. He does not explain how he changed his position overnight on the formation of an alternative government to the BJP. The CPI(M) had consistently argued that the Left parties and its old partners in the United Front like the Samajwadi Party should remain together and support a Congress government from the outside, as an interim arrangement, till the people are prepared to face fresh elections.

By reversing its earlier position of demanding that the Congress take the initiative to form such a government, the Samajwadi Party and those who agreed with it like the Forward Bloc and the RSP, effectively scuttled the chances of an alternative government at the Centre. The failure to put in place such a government has cost the secular forces support in these elections. Conversely the BJP could politically benefit from such a failure.

Shri Mulayam Singh's efforts to pose a government led by Comrade Jyoti Basu as an alternative to a Congress-led government at the last moment was nothing but a pretext to justify the abrupt reversal of his stand. The Samajwadi Party leadership knew very well the stand of the CPI(M) about the formation of an alternative government. The CPI(M) had also made it abundantly clear that it could not be in any coalition government with the Congress. The only tactic that could be pursued was to support a Congress government from outside on an issue to issue basis. Such a course of action would have resulted in a big setback for the BJP both at the national level and in Uttar Pradesh.

UP POLL RESULTS

The elections in Uttar Pradesh have fortunately resulted in a debacle for the BJP. The main reason for this defeat of the BJP is the strong anti-BJP mood among the people. The erosion of the BJP vote in all sections has led to a nearly nine per cent drop in its voting percentage compared to the 1998 elections. Though the Samajwadi Party also lost 4.7 per cent of the votes compared to the last elections, it was able to gain six more seats due to the fact that it was the major opposition party in many constituencies. It is not only the Samajwadi Party which has gained. The BSP also has improved from 4 to 14 seats with a one percent increase in its vote share. The Congress has got 10 seats with nearly the same percentage of votes increase as the loss of the BJP. So overall, all the major anti-BJP parties have made gains in UP.

The results have confirmed that the tactics adopted by the CPI(M), which is a small force in UP, was broadly correct. It called for the defeat of the BJP as the primary goal and campaigned among the people to support the most effective candidate in each constituency to defeat the BJP. As per the pre-election assessment of the Party, the candidates of the Samajwadi Party were best placed in the largest number of constituencies to fight the BJP effectively. In the second category came the BSP and in third place was the Congress. It is unfortunate that the General Secretary of the Samajwadi party, Shri Amar Singh, launched a campaign painting in false colours the approach of the CPI(M) in Uttar Pradesh. He went to the extent of accusing the CPI(M) of helping the BJP in some constituencies. Contrary to what Amar Singh states, the CPI(M) supported 42 candidates of the Samajwadi Party out of approximately 60 seats in which it has some presence. By and large the assessment made by the Party units in Uttar Pradesh proved to be correct except in one or two cases.

It is surprising that Shri Mulayam Singh seeks to embellish his political line by pointing out that the CPI(M) has suffered a serious setback due to its alleged support to the Congress in the elections. He has also indirectly alluded that the people of West Bengal have rejected the CPI(M) line. The CPI(M) has won 32 seats in these elections and maintained its position as the third largest party in the Lok Sabha without losing any seats. It has been able to do this by maintaining its position in West Bengal, Kerala and Tripura, the three states where the Left has a strong base. Unlike what Shri Mulayam Singh imagines. The CPI(M) has actually marginally improved its polling percentage in West Bengal while the Left Front has more or less maintained the percentage of votes polled in 1998. It is the three per cent loss of the Congress vote to the Trinamul-BJP combine, which contributed to a loss of four seats for the Left Front. The Samajwadi Party must surely know that the CPI(M) and the Left have achieved this success in the three states by defeating both the Congress and the BJP.

The difference between the approach of the Samajwadi Party and the CPI(M) is not one of being pro-or anti-Congress. It is about working out correct tactics to fight the main danger which is represented by the BJP. The CPI(M) in its Calcutta Congress held in October 1998 spelt out the tactical line of the Party. The BJP having assumed power at the Centre poses the main danger to the democratic and secular forces and to the unity of the country. In fighting the BJP, the CPI(M) will not ally with the Congress; however, it differentiates the Congress from the BJP. Though both are the same in class terms, on the question of communalism, the differentiation must be made as to who poses the greater danger in the context of the developments in the last few years.

The CPI(M) is consistent in its approach. It did not contemplate having a united front with the Congress or a coalition government with the Congress. How these tactics worked out can be seen in the example of Maharashtra after the elections. The CPI(M) with two MLAs extended support to the Congress-NCP coalition government but made it clear it would be issue-based. There was no other option if the Shiv Sena-BJP combine was to be kept out of power. The Samajwadi Party with two MLAs also took a similar position of helping to form the government, but unlike the CPI(M) it has joined the government with a minister.

According to the Samajwadi Party, the way forward for the third alternative lies in the political approach that it adopted for the elections. The Samajwadi Party should examine this on the basis of the experience of its alliance with the NCP.

The CPI(M) is committed to a Left and democratic programme through which alone a real alternative can be presented. Until then in the present situation the Left, democratic and secular forces which can be part of an immediate third alternative must maintain their independent identity and demarcate from the Congress by stating their opposition to its policies and practices. However in the face of the main danger from the BJP, the difference between the BJP and the Congress on the vital issue of secularism must not be overlooked.