Left behind Ambivalence sometimes helps opportunism and sometimes escapism. The Indian left has a history of ambivalence towards war and national movements. It has therefore been accused of both. The left?s attitude to Kargil today has to be seen in this context. It may be recalled that the Indian communists advised against the ?Quit India? movement in 1942, because that would have been helping the fascists? cause. For the communists, ideology has often stood in the way of clear sight. For example, in 1962, a section of the Indian left refused to see the Chinese as aggressors. The communists have always been uncomfortable with the idea of being heard to mouth nationalistic sentiments in times of crisis. Some of them felt the Bangladesh war of 1971 was the right time to equate Indira Gandhi with Yahya Khan. For the communist, nationalistic interests had to be put in abeyance, interests of class which cut across national barriers had to be paramount. Even here, the Indian left did not distinguish itself by consistency, led as it was by communist thought in other countries. But the end of the Cold War meant a divergence in communist interests in different countries all over the world. The Indian left could, with maturity, discover for itself a new function geared to the needs of the country. It is here that the left has failed significantly so far. A cursory look at its response to Kargil will yield few obvious negative reactions. The left parties in general have grumbled about intelligence failure and third party mediation much as the Congress has done, targetting the Bharatiya Janata Party government rather than Pakistan. The point, however, lies elsewhere. A low key, slightly dyspeptic toeing of the government line is just not enough. There can be full blooded support offered at the nation?s hour of crisis, but Kargil is not the only crisis the country faces. The intruders at the border may be forced to retreat. But there is a danger of the ascendancy of fundamentalist forces on both sides of the border. One of India?s greatest points of pride is that it remains a secular democratic republic against fearful odds. Surely the left should be able to see the importance of preserving the secular fabric, especially when fundamentalist forces tend to gain ground even through unthinking popular sentiment ? the pressure on Dilip Kumar to return the friendship award from Pakistan, for example. To take a positive, high profile role in the hour of crisis, vision and a clear sense of priorities are needed. The left?s ideology seems to have become so much baggage. The best way the Indian left can recompense its past mistakes is to redeem the name of ideology in a place and time that has need for a focussed programme to uphold and maintain the secular fabric.