BJP in power for long will have disruptive effect on body politic—CPI(M) gen secy Surjeet in 2004

Former CPI(M) gen secy Harkishan Singh Surjeet, in this 2004 edition of Walk The Talk, reflected on party’s evolving stance on economic reforms, coalition govts, and secularism.

File photo of the late Harkishan Singh Surjeet | Wikimedia Commons

New Delhi: Harkishan Singh Surjeet was born in Punjab’s Jalandhar district in 1916. He served as secretary of Communist Party of India (CPI) during partition and later became one of the nine members of the original CPI(M) politburo after the CPI split in 1964.

He died on 1 August, 2008, at the age of 92.

A stalwart of Indian communism and a skilled backroom strategist, Surjeet served as CPI(M) general secretary from 1992 to 2005, shaping the party’s role during this era of coalition politics. The post of general secretary, vacant since the death of Sitaram Yechury last September, was filled last week with the election of M.A. Baby to the post.

In this 2004 edition of Walk The Talk, Surjeet sat down with Editor-in-Chief Shekhar Gupta for a candid conversation during which he reflected on the party’s evolving stance on economic reforms, coalition governments, and the importance of secularism in Indian democracy. He also spoke with trademark wit and frankness about working with leaders across ideological lines, including Sonia Gandhi, Atal Bihari Vajpayee and others. 

Here is a complete transcript of the interview, edited for clarity.

Shekhar Gupta (SG): Hello and welcome to Walk the Talk. My guest today is not somebody you see very often on your TV screens, but behind the scene or rather behind the screens. He’s the master puppeteer of Indian politics. And he’s back in action. The moment there’s an election, there’s a hung parliament, there’s instability. That’s the kind of playground he operates in. Comrade Harkishan Singh Surjeet, general secretary of the CPM. Really the great veteran of Indian politics. So Surjeet ji, how nice to have you and Walk The Talk. Thank you very much. I know, you’ve been struggling with some bad health lately. 

Harkishan Singh Surjeet (HSS): Uh, yes, yes. Some trouble. It’s alright now. 

SG: But you know, you’re doing very well for the age of 88, isn’t it? 

HSS: That is, I hope so. I feel to live some 10 more years. 

SG: Look, living is one thing, to be fully active. 

HSS: That is not the living. 

SG: Absolutely.

HSS: That is not the living. You retire. I am active in politics.

SG: And you started, I believe in the 1930, is it? 

HSS: 1931. I was in prison. Started in 1930. 

SG: In 1931 you were in prison? Started politics in 1930. When you were 15?

HSS: Yes.

SG: And what did you go to prison for at that point? 

HSS: Because Bhagat Singh’s martyrdom had taken place. On that day, governor had to come in Hoshiarpur, I was studying in Jalandhar. I went there to see, what is going to happen. Congress had decided that we will boycott and we will demonstrate against the governor and all that. When I reached there, nothing is there in the Congress office. I wanted to see what is happening. I was interested in politics because I used to hear the speeches of Mota Singh. Very fluent speaker. You see, you must have known. 

SG: Communist leader! 

HSS: He was not a communist at that time. 

SG: But he became one later. 

HSS: Mota Singh was a famous Babbar Akali leader. Leader of Babbar Akali, a group which has sacrificed a lot for the country’s freedom. So when I saw there was a person sitting there, I asked, what has happened? The government has decided to shoot the person who goes there to hang the flag. If you have the courage, you can do it. What can you do? When Army isn’t brought, I say, you give me, I took the challenge, I took the flag and then went to the courts in Hoshiarpur and hoisted the flag. At that time, the Army men were talking with each other. They had come to know, the Congress has dropped the idea. 

So when I hosted the flag, immediately two shots were there. No, no shot touched me. 

Bhakhale, was the Deputy Commissioner, collector. I remember now, a Maharashtrian, normally they were Englishmen. He came, saw and stopped firing. Then I was tried. He said, you are being sent for one year’s prison. 

I said, only one year? Then he said, “there’s nothing more than in this law” and I was sent from there, to Hoshiarpur prison. 

SG: And I believe since then you’ve served 10 years in jail, on various occasions.

HSS: 10 years. I have remained in jail actually. But, punishment were bit more.

SG: And some years underground as well?

HSS: Five years underground. There’s a young life which I spent for the cause of country’s freedom, at that time. 

SG: And you were more or less a Congressman at that time? 

HSS: I was in the Congress. I was in the Socialist Party. I came in the Communist Party. 

SG: So Surjeet that’s what people say about you also now that for four or five years you go underground. And the election comes and Mr Surjeet is back in action. Overground, you know, as I said, master puppeteer. Pulling strings. Kingmaker. 

HSS: I would say, you can say anything. No doubt. I never have the ambition to take the top job. Never. Even now, I don’t have any ambition to take the top job when the party has given me the top job in the country. That of course, I’m grateful to them.

SG: But the ambition is always there to decide who takes the top job. 

HSS: I would not say that to decide about that, but to play some role in that. Who is there so that the fate of the country depends on that.

SG: But Surjeet ji, last time something went wrong, you know, last time you, you installed not one, but two governments in power and both lasted for short periods, (H.D. Deve) Gowda and (Inder Kumar) Gujral. It, seemed that somehow you failed in your attempt. And what you were trying to do? 

HSS: I would not say I failed in attempts because the tactics of the Congress party became different. First, they had decided to support the government from outside. When Narasimha Rao was there, and subsequently when later on things changed, they wanted to know, first they had a talk with me, can we have a united government? 

SG: Did they wanted to join the government? 

HSS: Yes. They wanted to join the government. I can cite examples who talked to me and all that. They were sent by the Congress. Breaking point came then, and there were three persons who came to talk, on the how this can be avoided. Then in that talk, they moved to the idea, is it not possible to have a joint government?

SG: So, which three were these? Who all came? 

HSS: I will, let you know. Let me remember the names right. They were closer to, in those days, the Prime Minister. Yes. 

SG: Prime Minister means, Narasimha or Gowda? 

HSS: No Gowda was not the Prime Minister. I’m talking about the Congress Prime Minister.

SG: Narasimha Rao?

HSS: They were closer to Narasimha Rao at that time, yes. 

SG: And then they decided not to join? 

HSS: No, then they decided to create issues. How they can separate. How the government can go. That was the point, the earlier point, not the point which you are referring to. It is earlier it had happened. 

SG: When, you know, when one government had fallen, the Gowda government had fallen because of (Sitaram) Kesri and securities and then I believe your choice for Prime Minister was Mulayam Singh Yadav? 

HSS: That is true because there, you see, then in fact, in reality, according to me, Congress itself wanted again to share the power. We were not for that. So in that case, they brought this idea, that how this can work and all this thing, and out of that, this thing came, no, we cannot work together. That was a position. Then the issue of new leadership came in. 

SG: Then Mr Gujral got elected, but I believe the choice was Mulayam. Is that true? 

HSS: That’s true. Nobody knew name of Mulayam Singh Yadav, but then it was decided democratically. 

SG: The name of Gujral was not there? 

HSS: No, three names came. It was decided that let us take the decision by majority. Whosoever gets the majority, he will be the Prime Minister. In that vote 120 votes were more for Mulayam Singh. 4, 10 or 15 votes for somebody else. So these are the division of the votes, Madhya Pradesh fellow, a friend who was the convener, he came to me at that the night, at 1, and he said, this is the result. I said, then announce. No problem. If this is the result, people have chosen Mulayam. 

SG: So Mulayam must be the Prime Minister? 

HSS: Make announcement about that. I had to go to Moscow to attend the conference that same night. So I left at four. And I left, thinking the decision has been taken. When I reached there, somebody from the embassy is there immediately. You are wanted. And they want to talk to you. Then they’re meeting in the house of our comrade, and he is here himself. In Delhi. They’re meeting there and then discussions are on and in those discussions it is being discussed that who should be the Prime Minister? They came to the conclusion. Out of all that this should not be, then it came that he should be. 

SG: So in terms of the numbers? And in terms of decision that you had helped Mulayam become the Prime Minister? 

HSS: He should have been the Prime Minister.

SG: And, something robbed Mulayam of what was his rightful prime ministership at that time?

HSS: At that time, yes. Right. 

SG: And who did that sir? Who organised that? Somebody must have worked behind the scenes. When you were away. 

HSS: You see, what happened was what I was told. That I was told, why you have taken this decision, why have you done? I was contacting from there itself, why this has happened. Then I was told, when he went back. Then our Bihar leader.. 

SG: Lalu? 

HSS: Lalu Prasad and this one fellow who’s now with the government side. 

SG: Who? Ram Vilas Paswan? Sharad Yadav? 

HSS: Yes, Sharad Yadav, both (Lalu and Sharad) were standing there. In no case we’ll accept him.

SG: They both said under no circumstances? 

HSS: They said, that’s what I’m saying. I was told. I was not here. I was told when they both objected, then deadlock was there. I said, what deadlock? The decision was taken by majority. They could not answer. Anyway, then there were talks…

SG: And Mr Chandrababu Naidu. What was his view on Mulayam Singh Yadav?

HSS: Naidu told me, I (Naidu) should have announced. Majority says this, no business of this person.

SG: Naidu was a convener. He should have announced. 

HSS: He was a convener. It is he who came to me and I went with satisfaction. Now the matter is over. He has been elected. 

SG: And he delayed the announcement. 

HSS: He delayed the announcement and he went there and sent, and then they met at Jyoti Basu’s house, here.

SG: So they waited for you to leave? 

HSS: No, no leave. They wanted to contact me to get my approval. They wanted to contact me I reach there and as soon as I reach the airport, I am told you are wanted immediately. 

SG: Sir, is it your view that if Mulayam had got the prime ministership then, which was his due? Because he had the votes. He had, he had a vast majority with him. Then it would’ve been a more stable government than Mr Gujral ran?

HSS: It was naturally. Naturally, because this is the result of the consensus by all. Other thing was how to meet this emergency. We have to tell somebody to be there. So in that case, who should be there? Then Gujral said, all right. Then I talked to Gujral. I said, there’s a big responsibility. 

SG: So it was a lottery for Mr Gujral? 

HSS: (Chuckles) Whatever you may say. I would not say that loudly because everybody feels, he feels he deserved it. 

SG: Right. 

SG: Do you think this was one more historic blunder, denying Mulayam Singh the prime ministership at that time? For the third front or for the anti-BJP alliance? 

HSS: Not only that, I’m saying it was blunder in the sense that, decision, majority decision was violated: 120, are on one side and 20 on the other side, and then what is the fun? 

SG: So, Surjeet ji why you talk about democracy? And you made someone a Prime Minister who did not have even two votes. This is not election, this appointment. 

HSS: That is what I’m saying because. I was not present at that time. I had no other choice. All of my colleagues are gathered there. They’re coming to some conclusion that, we should form the government, it should not be seen that we are not able to form the government at all. So that was the position. 

SG: So when the Gujral government was formed, did you thought that this government will not last very long? 

HSS: I did not expect it that this will last long, very long.

SG: But will it go this soon you thought? 

HSS: No, because I was in the battle. I was coming to know that Congress is anxious. Why on the base of our support they should continue for long. And they were not, they did not want us to spread. Our inference everywhere that these are the measures they are taking. 

SG: So Surjeet ji is this hypocrisy on the Congress’s part that we will support you from outside, but we will not join, but we still want power?

HSS: No, no, they, it is not their position. They were prepared to join. We did not want them. 

SG: So, was this hypocrisy on your part that we will run the government with your support, but we’ll not have you there? 

HSS: That was the situation. I don’t call hypocrisy, I call it a peculiar situation, which is coming if they did not want somebody else to come.

SG: Sir, was that a mistake? 

HSS: I will not say that mistake because that situation emerged many times. And we had to meet that situation again. Experiments were there. 

SG: If you see in our politics, funny things happen. Congress pulled down that government because of DMK, Jain Commission. And today Mrs Gandhi is calling Karunanidhi. How does that square with Congress’s behavior in the past?

HSS: That you can ask her (Sonia Gandhi) Not me. So far, I’m not responsible for the decisions of the Congress. But they have taken. 

SG: But you don’t mind that? 

HSS: To mind means for fairness in politics to that extent, which you are imagining…we have to find out. 

SG: Right. But have you been given the courtesy of an apology, at least by the Congress party that we are, sorry, we pulled down the government over the DMK now we want to build a front in which DMK will also be a partner? 

HSS: No, that is not what I’m saying, our target is, we do not want BJP to rule the country. We’d want the unity of the country to be defended. In that respect, we feel very seriously if the BJP remains in power for long it’ll have a very disruptive effect on the body politic of the country. In that respect, we want first job is to see that the BJP doesn’t come in power. 

SG: Surjeet ji, how do you convince today’s voter—a young, 21st-century voter who isn’t driven much by ideology? More than 50 percent of our population is in their 20s, living in a globalized, aspirational India. There’s a feel-good mood, and ideology doesn’t necessarily shape their vote. Why should they vote purely on ideological lines? Also, take the NDA coalition for example—not one of its partners contests against the BJP in any state. But in the coalitions you are trying to build, parties like the Congress are both allies and rivals. In Kerala and Bengal, you criticise the Congress sharply, yet in other states, you want people to vote for them. Isn’t that a contradiction? 

HSS: That is true, because the reality of the situation has to be faced. What is the combination of forces in the particular state? Only based on that, you have to decide, because now if you have targeted yourself to put an end to the rule of BJP, then you have to calculate what are the forces in each state. Who can be rallied to defeat the BJP?

SG: But people today vote for governance. They don’t vote to defeat anybody. 

HSS: I’m saying that is what this issue will come out of governance, whether the governance of BJP has helped the country to move forward. If that is so naturally the case, people will choose that. 

SG: So Surjeet ji, old position is no longer there, the CPM position that the Congress party is untouchable? 

HSS: No, no. The situation has changed now. Monopoly of the power where the Congress has gone, is not there at the moment. Congress is not in the same position and in the states also where they’re there, they’re not in that position, which they used to be. Our situation is quite different now.

SG: But you have differences with the Congress on economic policy?

HSS: That is why the question of one front, two fronts comes. I have made it very clear. Sonia Gandhi made it clear, the economic policy differences, they are very serious differences. 

SG: But do you get a sense that the Congress party is willing to compromise on some of those policies? 

HSS: I think there’s a rethinking inside the Congress, according to me, that they had to revise the policies. 

SG: Because the BJP, to keep the coalition together, has sacrificed three major policies or three major issues, Article 370, common personal law, and Ayodhya, they put these on the back-burner. What is it that you want the Congress to put on the back-burner? 

HSS: I don’t agree that they have put it in the back-burner. 

SG: Mr Pramod Mahajan said on this programme that we will have three issues in the next election. One is Vajpayee vs Sonia. Can you fight Vajpayee? 

HSS: That is not there. That is not there. The contest is not there. Sonia said, no, I’m not in that way.

SG: But people understand this Vajpayee vs Sonia, you can’t hide her. 

HSS: What? No question of hiding when she’s not saying. That, but what I’m going to do later and all that…

SG: But you don’t have a fundamental opposition to Sonia becoming Prime Minister?

HSS: I don’t want a fundamental opposition. How can it be? Because I know hundreds of our boys are married in Europe, many girls are married. I can’t tell them to get out since you are married to that girl and all these things, citizenship is taken, that should be applicable to all, not one. 

SG: So you think this foreign national issue is now over? 

HSS: We don’t think that’s a relevant issue of foreigner and no foreigner. 

SG: Mahajan’s second point was that, five years governance vs 50 years of governance, on that you might have a different point of view, and third, a united NDA against a divided Opposition.

HSS: First, I take your third point. In that it has shown clearly it’s not united. Seven of their components have left them. Why they have left them if no differences were there? Because they know we’ll not be able to face the country. That is why they left them and they’re joining the Opposition. 

SG: We just talked about one mistake denying Mulayam the prime ministership, which would’ve been his own. But the other historic blunder is something that Jyoti Basu talked about. Jyoti Basu’s refusal to become Prime Minister. You tell me, what’s your view on that? Should he have done it at that point? 

HSS: That is, you know, the position that we had in the central committee. My position, Jyoti Basu’s position and all this thing is there. 

SG: You were in favour of it? 

HSS: That is, at that time, my opinion, but, our position is, what the majority says, that is decided. Central committee majority. 

SG: But it was a mistake at that time? 

HSS: Party records has referred to this. That is all. 

SG: Okay, but if Jyoti Basu had assumed prime ministership, would that government have survived longer? 

HSS: That is a big opinion. Opinion is there that, depends on the various parties, how they will react, because that is dependent solely on them. 

SG: And if a situation like this came up again. Will the CPM be willing to offer one of its own candidates? 

HSS: I don’t see a situation coming unnecessary, discussing this question of knowing…

SG: But if a situation like this comes… 

HSS: I don’t see the situation coming…Jyoti Basu’s personality had quite a different manner at that time. The experience, the country itself, acceptance from the country, that thing I don’t see. 

SG: You don’t see CPM having any other leader, who has the same kind of acceptance? 

HSS: No, I will not say that no leader is there, if otherwise, CPM will not exist if no leader is there in that sense. My position is, at this moment, the situation is quite different than situation used to be at that time. 

SG: So, you know, as of now as a situation is different in the sense that by and large, it’s believed or it’s expected that the NDA will come back to power. But if it doesn’t come back to power, we are perhaps left with no choice but Sonia? 

HSS: I can’t say that is the only choice, because I don’t believe that they can come into power in the next elections. I don’t believe that. 

SG: You mean the NDA? 

HSS: Yes because I tell you the situation, you go into the various states. 

SG: And sir, if NDA does not come to power, and, if your two fronts have a majority of seats, then obviously the larger number of seats would be the Congress coalition. Because Congress is the largest party. And it’s unrealistic to think that Congress will choose Arjun Singh as Prime Minister, then if it’s Sonia, will the Left be okay with that? 

HSS: I said, why should you say that the combination which we will be having will not have more say? Why should not I claim? Why you want me to give up the claim? 

SG: Because you speak a language of realism. You don’t speak slogans like many other politicians. 

HSS: (Chuckles) No, I’m saying the position can be, a lot of shifts take place.

SG: But fundamentally today you are not opposed to Sonia Gandhi. You will not say it’s not a no-no. 

HSS: Can’t be said. Anything can happen in this country. How can I say no-no? 

SG: But, for her to get there, you, between you and her, you have to somehow get the 272, the magic number. 

HSS: No. This is not that. 

SG: Well, whatever happens Surjeet ji you have your work cut out and I think we’ll see a lot more of you. 

HSS: Thank you. 

SG: On the very best. I hope you help recover. 

HSS: Thank you.