Still, it is a measure of the quality of many of the contributions to this volume that even in this fast-changing situation, their insights and analyses have worn so well. In 'Radicalism of the Right And Logics of Secularism', Aijaz Ahmed criticises the practical default of the Left in addressing the problematic of nationalism in our time: "A national definition of the polity—in other words, the cement of a national project—is an objective requirement of the material processes that have been unleashed by the very terms of economic and political modernity. If the Left cannot provide that cement, and if the liberal centre begins to collapse, an aggressive kind of rightist nationalism will have to step into that vacuum to resolve a crisis that is produced by the objective processes of state formation and capitalist development—and the right-wing nationalism is bound to take advantage of precisely that misery of the masses and the petty bourgeois strata which the liberal model promised to alleviate, but did not." The compensatory identities so much in evidence—caste, community, region—are merely symptoms of the failure to crystallise a radical secularism. The anodyne liberal secularism of the Congress variety is hopelessly incapable of meeting the challenge of Hindu communalism with its enviable ability to focus the radical discontents that are abroad in our society. The fact that the Party of December 6 is unable to generate a radical programme which can actually translate those energies—beyond demolishing ancient monuments, defacing nameplates and terrorising weak and defenceless persons—is something to be grateful for. But heroic gratitude can hardly be the sum of the Left's historic responsibility.