As Pranab Mukherjee has pointed out, Basu and Harkishen Singh Surjeet were the architects of the UPA in 2004. The reason was that they were not prisoners of dogma. Instead, they were realists who could distinguish between two alternatives even if, at first sight, there was little to choose between them.

Basu and Surjeet were aware, for instance, that a reluctance to stand by the UPA would mean playing into the BJP's hands. It was a mistake which the Left had made earlier in its anti-Congress zeal. Both in 1977 and 1989, it was on the same side of the fence as the Jan Sangh to help in the formation and running of non-Congress governments, even if these were led by former Congressmen.

The result of these missteps was the strengthening of the BJP, enabling it move from the margins of politics to centre-stage. It was only when the government of H.D. Deve Gowda was formed in 1996 with the Congress's outside support that the communists found themselves for the first time to be on the same side of the party, which they had castigated as one of feudal and capitalist exploiters from the days of their slogan, yeh azadi jhooti hai.

Basu (and Surjeet) saw to it that this mistake was not made in 2004. And, yet, as the term of Manmohan Singh government drew to a close, the CPI(M) chose to ignore Basu by lining up with the BJP on the nuclear deal and threatening to topple the government. The party also sacked one of its popular members, the Speaker, Somnath Chatterjee, because he followed Basu's advice to preside over the trust vote in Parliament in direct contravention of the party's diktat.

The CPI(M) acted, of course, in line with what Amartya Sen has described as its “Stalinist traditions”. But it was precisely these traditions which Basu opposed not because he was a lesser communist than some of the present office-bearers in the politburo, but because he understood the pitfalls of dogmatism when the party was weak at the national level and when it might find itself in the company of “reactionaries” because of its adamancy rather than on the side of those who may have progressive traits.

In the event, this is exactly what has happened. By ignoring Basu, the CPI(M) has become even weaker at the all-India level than what it was five years ago. And when the biggest party on the Left loses ground, the smaller ones also follow suit. Basu was, of course, too ill to intervene. He may not also have had the desire to engage in ideological jousting with party men who were far younger. But the lesson which the party and the rest of the political class is likely to draw is how the CPI(M) may become more error-prone in Basu's absence.

At the state level, too, the difference between Basu's approach to political adversaries and of those now in the corridors of power was evident when he personally got in touch with Mamata Banerjee at the height of the Singur-Nandigram agitation to ease the situation. Although nothing came of the meeting, if only because Basu was no longer in charge, the episode revived memories of the time when opponents were not enemies. The cordial relations between Basu and Siddhartha Shankar Ray with both calling each other by their first names - Jyoti and Manu (which is Ray's nickname) - was a reminder of those more relaxed days.

In contrast, Mamata Banerjee and Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee are practically not on speaking terms. The former, for instance, is apparently unhappy even with the Prime Minister (whose visit to Kolkata last Saturday was boycotted by her) because of the courtesy which Manmohan Singh and Bhattacharjee extend to one another when they meet. It is these episodes which show that the passing of Basu is the end of an era not only in terms of a political phase, which saw the ascent and then decline of the Left, but also where gracious behaviour is concerned.

Basu was not flawless, of course. It was during his regime that West Bengal lost its primacy of place as an industrial state and its reputed educational institutions like Presidency College deteriorated because of political interference. The party, too, accommodated anti-social elements whose depredations were all too apparent in Nandigram. If the Left is perceived to be in dire straits now where election prospects are concerned, the seeds of its degeneration were sown in Basu's time. From this standpoint, he was a giant with the feet of clay. But as a towering figure, who was an obvious gentleman, he will be remembered with affection. (IPA Service)