When extreme malleability threatens political morals we still tend to look at the CPM to see if someone cares for the straight and the narrow. This reflex is born out of many past examples in which communists have appeared to care for political ethics. Even now, and whatever one’s differences with the CPM on matters of policy and politics, communists almost certainly have the most flattering honesty to venality ratio among all political parties. But there have been, ever since the Left allowed the UPA to become a governing coalition, a strong tendency towards abundantly hypocritical moralising. This is discrediting the CPM. The endless speechifying on Manmohan Singh’s economics when Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee’s is scarcely different in intent and substance is one way the CPM is losing credibility. The party’s super-convenient stand during the office of profit controversy is another demonstration. But perhaps the most remarkable example came last weekend when Prakash Karat said private companies named in the Volcker report must also be probed. Parliament is supposed to be appraised by the CPM this week of the “omission”.

We would like to draw Mr Karat’s attention to a robust opinion piece he had written in

The Hindu on November 9, 2005. Two points he made are relevant. Karat had argued Natwar Singh was being targeted in the Volcker report for opposing the Iraq invasion and leading a Congress delegation to Iraq. He had also questioned whether the Iraqi oil vouchers were at all an “illegal deal through political patronage” or whether they were, more innocently, “a business transaction like other contracts entered into by Indian business enterprises”. So, in November 2005 Karat had said Natwar Singh was a victim of imperialist conspiracy and that the oil deals were probably quite kosher.

... contd.