‘The elections were a debacle for the Left. The people wanted to teach us a lesson’

•Coomi Kapoor: Was the idea of hastily putting together a Third Front,without any commonality of ideology,a historic blunder in retrospect?

Firstly,we never called it the Third Front. We always said an alternative—a non-Congress,non-BJP alternative. The media gave the name ‘Third Front’ and it became an accepted term. I strongly believe that the idea of an alternative is correct. We have been talking about an alternative since 1977-78. But we always meant it to be an alternative which emerged through the people’s movements,people’s actions based on certain policies and programmes. It cannot be a kind of ready-made group,bringing certain political parties together at the time of elections and projecting them as an alternative. That’s where our understanding went wrong. Moreover,our electoral adjustments with certain parties were mainly state-specific. The electoral adjustments with AIADMK was only in Tamil Nadu,with Telugu Desam only in Andhra,with JD(S) only in Karnataka but there was a tendency to project them as a national alternative. So the way we projected the alternative became very unrealistic,unviable.

Having said that,India cannot be a bipolar polity,with just the BJP or Congress. Beyond politics,certain social classes,certain social forces can never be represented by Congress or BJP. In such a situation,the Left has a definite role to represent these classes. India can never become a two-party system even though Congress and BJP would like to see such a system to emerge.

I think regional parties are a reality and have a role to play. But Congress and BJP have a peculiar approach to regional parties: if regional parties align with them,they are okay. If regional parties align with the Left,or regional parties try to pursue an independent course,then regional parties are dubbed as negative forces.

•D.K. Singh: After the elections,hasn’t your party become a regional party too?

The CPI is down to four seats in the Lok Sabha but it is a national party. The CPI’s strength,or the strength of the Left,is not reflected in the number of seats we have won. We have a national presence. But in a coalition era,we don’t get to fight all the seats. For instance,the CPI and the CPI-M together are a force to be reckoned with in Tamil Nadu politics but in coalition politics,we don’t get to fight many seats—we fought only six seats; three each. If we had fought on our own,we would have won more. So the electoral success of the Left is one thing,the actual mass-base is another. There is a disconnect between the two.

•Manoj C.G.: A view heard after your party’s national executive and the Kerala state executive meeting was that the CPI played second fiddle to CPI(M) on the Third Front question and other decisions of the Left.

I do not agree with this because the decisions were taken collectively—even the decision to support the Congress-led UPA government from outside was a collective decision of the four Left parties. This was the practice at the national level. In Kerala,in West Bengal,there were some state-specific problems. In Kerala,there were certain issues that could have been handled differently. For instance,the Lavalin case could have been handled differently.

•Coomi Kapoor: How differently?

This is an issue to be discussed within the LDF and in the CPI-M primarily,because the charge is levelled against the CPI-M state secretary Pinarayi Vijayan. It is a public issue now and the LDF as a government has to address that issue. Previously similar allegations have been made and the leaders had stepped down from their positions. Then there was an inquiry,they were proved innocent and they were reinstated. Also,the way some parties were treated,for instance,the JD(S) could have been dealt with differently.

•Manoj C.G.: Would you like Mr Pinaryi Vijayan to step down?

The allegation is against the CPI (M) state secretary and the LDF committee will have to discuss.

•Coomi Kapoor: What about the projection of Mayawati?

The Left did not project Mayawati ji or anybody as the prime ministerial candidate. After the confidence vote in Parliament last July,the BSP and the Left started working together. That was when people began to speculate about Mayawati being the prime ministerial candidate. We were asked if we supported her as the prime ministerial candidate. If asked such a question,you will not say no—after all,this is a democracy. If she can be the Chief Minister of the most populous state in India,if she has the numbers to stake claim to form the government at Delhi,who can prevent her? When Mr Manmohan Singh and Mr. Advani were named as prime ministerial candidates,this question did not arise. Why are these questions being asked in Mayawati’s case? I think there is an element of prejudice here,a bias against Mayawati.

•Seema Chishti: Where was the commonality between the Left and Mayawati?

Mayawati represents certain social sections. Today,Dalits represent a major component of India’s downtrodden masses. They are economically exploited and politically they have a say. They can be potential natural allies of the working class movement. And Mayawati represents such sections.

•Dhiraj Nayyar: One consequence of your parting ways with the UPA was that you lost ownership of many pro-people programmes of the UPA. Now Congress has complete claim over the Centre-Left agenda. Do you have any regrets about it?

Definitely. We played a role in all these schemes. In fact,when the UPA’s Common Minimum Programme was drafted,I was involved in discussions on NREGA on behalf of my party and we had to move amendments to strengthen it. Then,we had to fight for the Forest Rights Act. During the election campaign,we did speak about these things but the Congress treated them as their own.

•Dhiraj Nayyar: At any point,did you weigh the possibility that you would lose claim to these programmes by walking out of the UPA?

No,we didn’t think of it at that point in time. But the role of the Left is known. Everybody acknowledges that because of the Left,our banking industry and insurance industry are relatively safe. The Indian economy has not been completely shattered because of the Left’s consistent position on public sector banking,public sector insurance,etc. The credit for the strength of the Indian economy should go to the Left.

•Dhiraj Nayyar: But in West Bengal,Mamata Banerjee has claimed the pro-poor stance.

In West Bengal,the Left Front has been in power for the past three decades and has many achievements. The Left Front has brought drastic changes to the countryside. Now West Bengal has to move to the next stage of development. That is where the question of industrial development came up; how we conceived and tried to implement industrial development in West Bengal is questionable. That is how Nandigram happened. We were critical of a chemical hub being set up in a populated area like Nandigram. Finally,the government had to give up that project. Then there is the question of land acquisition—the Left has always fought for land reforms,the Left distributed land. When land has to be acquired for industrial development,they should take the people into confidence. At Singur,it was a question of land acquisition. Land is a very sensitive issue. The Left should have been more sensitive and taken up this issue differently.

•Manoj C.G.: After the CPI’s national executive meeting,you made a statement that Left leaders should shed their arrogance. Was it aimed at the CPI-M’s central

leadership?

It is aimed at all Left leaders. The strength of the Left is the basic honesty and the commitment to the people and the country. The Communists do not have any interest other than the interest of the proletariat. When you work in a bourgeois system,you are bound to get infected by certain bourgeois evils—that was what we are cautioning against. The Left should be a model. There should not be any arrogance when you deal with people.

•Mihir Sharma: The CPI’s current strength in Parliament is reminiscent of 1977 and the big fall the CPI suffered between 1971 and 77. That fall was ascribed to putting aside purity of ideology and Communist ethics for a voice at the Centre. Are you still searching for a voice at the Centre?

Lenin said learn from the masses and lead the masses. If we forget this,we will be nowhere. In a parliamentary democracy,your electoral victory does matter,your presence in Parliament,in legislative assembly and in other elected bodies,matters. As you said,we have faced similar situations before. We are not holy angels,but we are not devils either. Sometimes people try to teach us a lesson. This time the people wanted to teach us a lesson,so let us accept it with all humility.

•Soumya Pal: Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee was a favourite with the media and the industry. Do you think that in the medium and long run,he will become a serious liability to the Communist movement in India?

The media has been projecting him as the “new Left”. Even the Prime Minister was praising him. The media is trying to create a conflict—that the national leadership of the Left is very dogmatic but he is very pragmatic. Being in the system,we Communists are fighting against the system. Somewhere down the line,the media and others tried to project Buddhadeb as the defender of the system. That is where the fault lies.

•Dhiraj Nayyar: Do you agree that in this election,Rahul Gandhi attracted the youth to the Congress?

India is a young nation. The youth is a factor but I don’t subscribe to this Rahul Gandhi part of the argument. When you win,anything can be attributed to the success. Nowadays,we are witnessing what is called democratic dynasty. There is also money power. Nobody talks of money power,the way money is spent during elections. Parties like ours will find it extremely difficult to participate in elections if this trend continues. There is a need for electoral reforms.

•Raj Kamal Jha: When you look back at the polls,what do you think the Congress got right?

One is the fear of the BJP and the way it conducted its campaign. BJP did not speak on any issues—it attacked the PM and went back to its core agenda of Hindutva. Then,after projecting Mr. Advani,it projected Mr. Narendra Modi. Finally,the party justified Varun Gandhi’s hate speech—they identified with that kind of hate politics. This really scared the people. Secondly,the Left’s projection of an alternative was not seen as a viable,realistic one by the people. That’s why when we asked people to give a mandate for a non-BJP,non-Congress alternative,secular government,people didn’t give that mandate. We could not convince the people. That gave Congress the advantage. There were also certain national factors,certain state-specific factors. For instance,in Andhra Pradesh,the Congress’s vote percentage has gone down by three per cent but they got more seats because there was a triangular contest. This happened in Tamil Nadu also,to an extent.

•D.K. Singh: How do you explain Mamata Banerjee’s victory? Was it due to local issues or national issues?

There were state-specific reasons for the electoral result. We have to,definitely,discuss the way the LDF functioned in Kerala or the way the decisions were taken in West Bengal. Also,the Muslims moved away from the Left Front. In Kerala,even Scheduled Castes—the traditional supporters of the Left—moved away from us.

Transcribed by Deepu Sebastian Edmond