On may 22, a few days after this magazine hits the stands, the United Progressive Alliance government will celebrate a year in power. The Communist Party of India and Communist Party of India (Marxist) will not, as they have already announced, join in on the celebrations. These two, as most people must be aware, support the UPA government 'from the outside', and while their morality will not allow them to withdraw this support thereby paving the way for the right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party and its allies to return to power, their ideology will not countenance being considered part of the establishment.

There is another reason, closer home, why the communists should not be celebrating anything at all this year. Most writers, analysts and political commentators-the first write everywhere but on the editorial and op-ed pages of newspapers; the second do so only on these pages; and the third not only do so on these pages, they even have their photographs carried-have missed this simple point that can be summed up in four words that have, through repeated usage, taken on the label of a cliché: what might have been.

When the communist parties won 61 seats to the 14th Lok Sabha in 2004 (their highest representation in the house ever), and a little later, when they decided that it was in everyone's best interests that they support an alliance of liberal parties, they were presented with a great opportunity. At a time when the world, and India, had written off communism as an idea that didn't work-the British Labour party, for instance, is far removed from the original ideology that spurred its creation-the CPI and CPI (M) suddenly found themselves with a chance to show what Communism Version 2.0 or New Communism was all about: pro-labour but not at the cost of efficiency and productivity; pro-domestic industry but not at the cost of competitiveness and quality; and pro-consumer but not at the expense of the exchequer.

Rather than do any of these, the communists have regressed. Where it suits them, they have supported the UPA's witch-hunting drive (the former Disinvestment Minister seems a clear victim although the same cannot be said, as assuredly, of the former Defence Minister). And where it suits them, they have either blocked key economic reforms or extracted their pound of flesh through riders that defeat the purpose of the exercise. Thus, when the government, after first announcing that it was all for hire-and-fire labour laws in SEZs (special economic zones), now speaks about units in SEZs not being allowed to hire-and-fire on demand, it is evident that it is bowing to pressure from its red allies.

There is a growing list of such influence: the communist parties were against the government raising the ceiling on foreign direct investment in telecommunications to 74 per cent and agreed only after ensuring that there were adequate riders (see The 74 Per Cent Effect on page 108); today, this change is yet to be notified. They are against any hike in oil prices as they claim these will hurt the common man by resulting in an increase in the price of diesel, kerosene and LPG (they will, but fact is, it is not good economics for the government to subsidise them). They are opposed to any dilution in the government's stake in public sector banks and banking reform in general; they fear this will eventually result in foreign companies controlling the Indian banking sector. And there are more such.

The people most affected by these are the communists themselves. Circa 2005, people in India and the world are looking to a pacifist liberal alternative to the bullying capitalist model that the us has made its own. Issues related to the quality of governance (both corporate and political), citizen-, consumer-, employee-, and investor-rights, and environment are gaining centre-stage. India's communists, with the mandate at their disposal, had an opportunity to become the champions of such issues. Instead, they have regressed to old-style hammer-and-sickle politics that will, eventually, harm them the most.