Its apparent reason is that for a man so accused to preside over a human rights meeting is profoundly ironic, and a travesty in which the CPI(M) for one shall have no part. This stance is not particularly worse than the self-righteous humbug that are the CPI(M)'s usual declarations, but the sanctimoniousness of it does take the breath away. Few would seriously contend that relevance has ever been the party's strong point but, even by its liberal standards, this is hypocrisy run riot.

How come the thought to boycott a meeting chaired by Advani presents itself no less than sevenmonths after the BJP government took office at the Centre? It could not have slipped the minds of Basu and partymen in the intervening period that Advani had been so accused. But perhaps it is a greater outrage that he should preside over such a meeting than that he should be the home minister of this country, which the CPI(M) does not seem to have had greater problems accepting than its general hostility to the BJP government involves. So clearly it is the thought of attending a meeting on human rights chaired by Advani that the party finds galling.

Nor should it be otherwise. If the CPI(M) is also a party which cannot contain its eagerness to join a Congress-led government, what of it? Senior Congress leaders may have been indicted for their role in a few thousand deaths during the Delhi riots of 1984, but a few thousand lives are surely as nothing in the pantheon of human rights as compared to the noble cause of secularism? So anyone who may have been connected with the demolition of a mosque mustnaturally be more of an untouchable than those who have human blood, and plenty of it, on their hands.

So much for the CPI(M)'s ambivalent morality, examples of which are not in short supply. Then there is the little matter of India's federal structure. The Prime Minister may think that Bihar is under a mafia raj, but even the most outlandish mind could not imagine that he would therefore omit to invite its chief minister to a Centre-State meeting.

That is because the basic tenets of federal democracy require leaders at the federal and state level to do business with each other, much as they may dislike each other's faces. The CPI(M), of course, is not troubled overmuch by these minor points. West Bengal home minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharya made as much clear when he declared not only that that CPI(M) would stay away but that it would strive to keep other parties away as well.

This is a fine prospect. Much more of this sort of thing and India can say goodbye to even such governance as it currentlyboasts. But let not the CPI(M) scream murder the next time it decides that the federal system is being abused by the central government. The CPI(M) is already guilty on that count.