In a commentary, People’s Democracy says “The UP results are an assertion that the multi-party system is a reality and parliamentary democracy in India cannot be constrained into a two-party system.” Elsewhere, the party gloats over the fall of the BJP, saying victory in the state would have set the stage for the BJP’s comeback at the national level. However, even the BSP does not get much praise, the CPM’s assessment of the return of Mayawati being that it is “welcome to the extent” that there is now no need to form a government with opportunistic alliances. “Having cynically played the game of caste politics and ‘social engineering’, the BJP learnt… that the BSP has proved superior in this sport,” it says.

As the weekly says, this is the first time since 1952 that the left has gone unrepresented in the UP assembly; in its opinion, because of growing caste fragmentation.

Art attack

The CPM says that the attack at the MS University in Vadodara and a student’s arrest were outrageous. Importantly, says the front page editorial ‘Stop this vigilantism’, the exhibition was part of an internal assessment and not meant for public display. “Nevertheless, even if they were, will the saffron brigade now target the temples at Khajuraho and Konarak for their sexually explicit sculptures?” the CPM asks.

The editorial believes the primary motivation behind the attacks is to sharpen communal polarisation for political and electoral gains. And it rests upon the “secular democratic public opinion” to oppose this.

Judicious checks

CPM politburo member S. Ramachandran Pillai writes in People’s Democracy, “The government should show political will and determination to make necessary amendments to the Constitution, including other legislative measures for the constitution of a National Judicial Commission and for asserting the supremacy of the Parliament.” He believes that the method of appointment of judges is “defective” because it is not open to public scrutiny and lacks accountability. The impeachment provisions are “impractical and unworkable” while “even a reasonable criticism” of a judgement can be branded as contempt of court under the provisions of the present law.