Communist Party of India (Marxist) general secretary Sitaram Yechury breathed his last Thursday at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi. He was 72. Admitted to the premier state-run medical institute on 19 August, he had been under treatment in the intensive care unit for an acute respiratory tract infection.
In 2009, ThePrint Editor-in-Chief Shekhar Gupta interviewed Yechury on NDTV’s Walk The Talk, discussing idealism, coalition governments, the Left’s opposition to the nuclear deal and the internal workings of the CPI(M).
Here is a transcript of an excerpt from the interview, edited for clarity.
Also Read: ‘Realists working under capitalist framework’ — what Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee of CPI(M) said in 2003
Shekhar Gupta: Hello and welcome to Walk the Talk. I am Shekhar Gupta and my guest today, well, the man always in the thick of action, but today even more so, Sitaram Yechury, CPI(M) politburo member. Welcome to Walk the Talk.
Sitaram Yechury: Thanks.
You know, the reason why Sitaram Yechury has not yet been on Walk the Talk is that there is no way of figuring out when is the perfect time to have Sitaram Yechury on the show and there is no such thing as an imperfect time.
Good. I mean, I am glad finally I am here on the Walk the Talk and let’s hope this is a good time for me to chat with you.
And there will be more, I know.
There will be more as it comes.
But you know, of all the public figures I know, your life seems to be the most fun.
Well, I enjoy it thoroughly. I enjoy it thoroughly and that’s why I am doing what I am doing. And I think that’s the way one should take life.
But you have seen your politics evolve.
Of course, yes. I mean, you start it off with idealism, let’s say, and wanting to change the society, wanting to change things for the better. And that still remains. In fact, that is the main motivation that one has. But politics has evolved. I mean, since like we have grown up, that was a time of a single party rule in the country and nobody really thought of coalitions ever being the order of the day. But once they started happening in the 90s, then you knew that Indian democracy is maturing. And in a sense, I wouldn’t say it’s a regression, all this fragmentation in which people talk of, you know, hunger, verdicts, you know.
Certainly not. As our politics got fragmented, our growth rates got better.
But the growth rates, I think it’s also a process of maturation. You know, you cannot have a social plurality that is as wide as we have in India and have a political monolith. I mean, your social diversity has to reflect in politics.
A political monolith which for 40 years didn’t even have real dissidents.
Precisely. And you know…
Except months maybe ‘69.
That’s right. I mean, 1967, 1969 was the period. But I think this is a process of maturation, which is very exciting. And I think the largest democratic exercise anywhere in the world and to deal with such diversity and its reflection in politics.
You said idealism. You didn’t say ideology.
Well, ideology and idealism, I think, are very, very closely related. I mean, in the sense, idealism urges you to seek a change. Now, what the change should be, that’s where ideology comes in. And I think that is how, at least in my case, both of them have merged.
Talk a little bit about how both have evolved, particularly in the past 10 years.
You see, there is a marked difference between, let’s say, the generation that I belong to or we belong to back in the ‘70s and what you have in the ‘90s and the turn of the century. And I think here, I mean, it’s not only a question of technological change and the changes that we have in terms of information access, which has been tremendously grown. But I think over this period, there has been a process of where sections that were otherwise marginalised are asserting themselves.
And in the last 10 years, you are finding a very, very big shift in terms of the realignment within the political stream that is in India and which is, I mean, for the good. I mean, I don’t really have any complaints about it. But all of us will have to find our equations within that. And I think that process is still on because there’s a lot of grappling going on. And people are not really able to come to terms with, you know, some assertion of, let’s say, one marginalised group coming up and not being able to understand how to relate to it. But I think everybody will have to realise that this is the order of the day. You will have these multiple pressures.
But you know, your party and ideology have also evolved from not accepting parliamentary democracy to now actually inviting FDI although with your own qualifications.
That’s right. I mean, in the sense, you see, ultimately, you know, at least I believe in Marxism is a creative science, which is the concrete analysis of concrete conditions. As conditions change, If your analysis doesn’t, I firmly believe you’re not a Marxist. You know, for being a Marxist, you need to keep pace.
It also sounds like Keynes. I changed my mind as facts do. What do you do, sir?
Absolutely. Absolutely. But the classical economists, including Keynes, had a lot of grounding in the Marxist method.
So you don’t see Marxism as a dogma?
No. Not at all.
Which cannot change or must not change with time?
Not at all. And if it doesn’t change, it’s not Marxism. On the contrary, that’s what I firmly believe.
Also Read: ‘This secret will perish with me’ — when Narasimha Rao was asked if India delayed nuclear test
So tell me, before we get to the current politics, what were the two or three moments of truth in the last 20 years? You know, the arrival of Gorbachev, the change in China, the change in India, Gujarat riots.
Well, I mean, I think the one turning point in India, let’s say the last two decades or so, was definitely the rise of Hindu fundamentalism and communalism and the destruction of the Babri Masjid, I would say, is a defining point in the evolution of modern Indian politics. And that, I mean, brought back in that sense what people thought, at least my generation thought, was buried with the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. I mean, we thought we’d settle that issue forever. But then its resurrection was one defining moment as far as India, Indian politics is concerned. And it brought back, in a sense, the fundamental battle between three visions that you had during the freedom struggle. You had a Congress vision of a secular democratic republic. You had a Left vision which said, you’ve got to go beyond this, convert your political independence into the economic independence of the people. Then you had the Right-wing vision, which had a twin expression. You had the Muslim League and the RSS, both talking in terms of the religious denomination of our society. Now, that battle, which we all thought was somehow settled with the independence partition of the country, however unfortunate. But obviously that has not been settled.
I mean, that battle continues. So that was one defining moment in the sense saying that our presumption that you had moved into a modern civil society is no longer as solid as you thought it was. So that is one thing. And then I think the impact of global developments—collapse of the Soviet Union has had a very big impact, though not really accepted by many explicitly. Implicitly, of course, they would.
How do you reconcile this Third Front? One doesn’t need any psephologists to tell us that the Third Front, even if it does brilliantly, can barely cross 150 (seats). So the only way you can bring the Third Front into power is by having the Congress not just as its single largest constituent, but by having the Congress at least twice as big or more than twice as big as the Third Front’s single largest constituent. How do you balance that?
No, I mean, what we are aiming at, let’s say, you see, going by the experience of the last 15 years or so, all the major formations, all were forged post elections. If you remember 1996, the United Front came after the election.
NDA came after 1998, UPA came after 2004. So this time also, I think after 2009, this new front will emerge. It will not be as you and I are watching it today. I think there will be a new regrouping. And in that regrouping, the ideal would be to have a majority without the Congress. Now, if that can happen, because I think a lot of the Congress allies in the UPI also would be rethinking at that stage.
Congress allies, you are working very hard to defeat right now. DMK you are up against, right? And Lalu and Paswan, how much can they get? And Mamta definitely is not a Congress ally that you want.
No.
So the next coalition formation will also be a function, in fact, will be more a function of who cannot go with whom. That is… For example, if Congress wishes that the Left comes to support them, then Mamata will go out. So your strength, which, if I may suggest, will not be the same as last year, will again be netted up against Mamata’s.
True. I mean, in a sense, you have these inherent contradictions. If DMK is here, AIADMK would not be there. If Left is there, Mamata will not be there. And if Mulayam is there, Mayawati won’t be there. You know, these are the problems that will be there. But I think eventually it all finally boils down to the numbers that you get post-election.
But you won’t go so far as to say, with the Congress, never, over my dead body. I’ll sit in the Opposition.
No, I mean, in the sense, right now, I would only say that this is what I’m aiming at, a non-Congress coalition.
Because good politicians don’t talk in absolutist or maximalist sense.
Never, never. I mean, we always wait and see how the situation emerges, but at the moment, this is what we want to achieve.
You came up with a creative formulation during the nuclear deal crisis. You said that fighting communalism and fighting US imperialism were at the same level. And if one was a more urgent threat right now, you could compromise with the other, which in this case meant voting with the BJP. Does that still remain?
Finally, when the BJP came out with its manifesto, all the talk of opposing the deal and renegotiating the deal has just been completely wiped out.
So, was it, would you reflect on your decision to vote with BJP at that point?
Well, there I would say it was more the BJP voting with us than we did. I mean, in the sense, we were going ahead of them.
So did BJP do it for cynical political reasons?
I mean, it was that cynicism.
But you undermined your own government.
No, but we wanted the government not to proceed on this issue because that was not part of our common minimum programme (CMP). You see, our whole point was, we are supporting you on the basis of the CMP.
Look back on that crisis. Do you regret that it wasn’t resolved internally?
Yes, I mean, in the sense, it would have been much better if they had accepted the suggestion that I had made and we had made, that to postpone this entire thing till the new administration comes in the US. And all of us know, the whole world knows, Democrats are much more sticklers to non-proliferation. Now, how they will view it, it would have been much better.
Or they would not have given you the deal?
I don’t know. Why not? I mean, in the sense, once the Congress had passed it, both of them in the US Congress, they were all together, Democrats and Republicans. That presumption also, I’m a little sceptical in accepting that the Democrats would never have given you this deal. I mean, that was the argument. As long as Bush is there, get this through. My point would have been that, let’s say, now that Obama has come, now this talk of CTBT (Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty), you know, everything getting revived, etc. In that situation, we would have been in election mode by this time. So let this term be over. Let the new governments take power on both sides.
Now you are, now you said the Prime Minister said, I would have resigned. Were you told that?
No. We were not told that then. In fact, I would have thought that this is where they should have accepted it. I think sometime in October 2007, he said, ours is not a single agenda government. In life, we have to live with disappointments. This is what Manmohan Singh said. So that should have been the point.
But couldn’t you have also used that line with yourself, in life, you have to live with some disappointments?
I mean, we are. We were living with a lot of disappointments with this government, in terms of trying to push them to do what they themselves promised.
Does the Left also get a similar realisation that without Congress, you can’t form a government? There is no way you can form a government. Let’s be realistic.
No. That’s what I’m saying. There you will have to actually see the concrete strength post-election.
Because the Prime Minister said they never interfere on a day-to-day basis. They are educated people. They have personal integrity. Would you say some of that about him?
We never evaluate personality, saying so-and-so is good or bad. It’s only a question of policy. But he was determined to go ahead with this because he believes, I think he still does believe, that the nuclear deal is the best for India. We believe completely the opposite.
So it was an intellectual, philosophical disagreement?
It is. It is intellectual, philosophical, we hope. But I hope there’s nothing more material behind the deal, which I don’t know about. But at the most important level where the Opposition thus came in is our relationship with what we would call US imperialism.
Now, I’m pushing the envelope. I’m stating that whatever the numbers, a non-BJP government cannot come to power without the Congress, whether Congress is in it or supports it from outside. The numbers simply won’t stack up. If you take out BJP, Shiv Sena, Akali numbers, and of those who can’t go together, right? If you net Mayawati with Mulayam, DMK with AIADMK, Mamata with Left, it all squares up. If that happens, are you then saying, or would you say that Congress minus Manmohan Singh? Or would you assess that?
Only later. As facts present themselves. Because I think, you know, again, for the first time this has happened. When the 14th Lok Sabha ended, Congress plus the BJP did not add up to a majority in the House. You know, which is very interesting. In the sense, this is the first time it’s ever happened in our modern political, you know, existence. So, now that is also an indication, yes, there may be a possibility of a larger Third Front grouping. But again, as I said, let’s wait for the numbers to come and only then we can decide.
So, you’re not ruling out anything?
I’m only saying like it’s happened in 2004, 1998, 1996. 2009 will also see the formation of a new front post-elections.
No NDA, no UPA, a Third Front. A third type.
Exactly, an alternate front.
A Third Front which will have to have Congress at the forefront. Without that the numbers won’t add up.
That is why, I’m only hoping that the numbers may add up.
And if that happens, you’re not drawing the line either saying we’ll never let the Congress lead it or we’ll never let Manmohan Singh lead it?
No, all these are issues that will only come up after the elections.
So, right now you’re not drawing the line?
No, nothing.
Tell me about yourself. Your party, in fact contrary to what people think, one, it is the most democratic party from within, in India. I think second most democratic party is BJP. Like it or not. Because all the others have no democracy, including Congress. Second, your party, again contrary to what people think, has a huge diversity in terms of personalities, in its top leadership. Define yourself.
Well, I’m essentially, for the final analysis, I’m a party man. That one thing, not only a democratic party that we are, but we are also a party which I think so far has been following and that has been our strength–that whatever be your internal differences, once the party decides, that’s the line. So, you would never know what is Sitaram’s opinion within the CPIM.
We can speculate.
You can speculate. You’re most welcome to do that. But that is what I would say, the collective voice of the party.
But, you know, do you have any role models? Because comparisons with Surjit are made. As somebody who goes and reconciles people, ideas, a pragmatist.
No, in the sense, I mean, there have been qualities of all our leaders. I think my idea would be to pick up the best from all of them. Surjit was, of course, a great negotiator. I mean, he was a man who just thought on his feet. His speed is amazing. You can’t normally think of anybody like that. But Jyoti Basu, in the other sense, is a great, what do you call it, he’s also a reconciliator. In a different sense, in a very administrative sense of delivery.
But it’s evident that he felt let down.
In 1996.
No, not just in 1996, but also in the way you broke up, you and the Congress broke up.
I know. In the sense, that’s what, you see, Jyoti Basu, if you remember, once made the statement saying, all my life I fought the Congress, I’ll continue to fight. But it’s not good for India if Congress disintegrates. A very controversial statement at that time. But there was a point in what he was saying, that it is the Congress that can keep this country together and stave off the communal danger.
So, did he have a strong difference? Did he try to intervene during the crisis that you had with UPA?
I mean, in the sense, he would only keep suggesting ways to try and find a solution. He was always wanting to find a solution. But at the same time, eventually, I think, when everything happened the way it happened, he said, now let us work for the Third front.
But, see, could your party have handled it better in terms of not issuing very stern statements on the nuclear deal? Almost insulting in fact. When you have a Prime Minister, you can do some of these things behind the scenes. You know, wagging your fingers is not a good idea.
That, I mean, I suppose, in the present situation, that is never a good idea. I never believed in that. Even if you have to push a knife through, you can do it with a smile.
As is done in politics.
So, I mean, it’s not a question of sternness and wagging your fingers, etc. But, you see, we also felt let down at that point of time. Why such an insistence on something that was not pre-agreed? So, there was a lot of acrimony that ought not to have happened. And even if this was to be done, prior discussions, what you wanted, it would have been a lot more helpful rather than just suddenly bringing it and imposing on the others.
So, are you talking with Congress at all right now?
No.
Because you might have to. They might have to. They may be going to talk to you.
Let’s see about it. I think it will happen post-elections. But, at the moment, I would ideally want a situation where there can be the numbers tallied up together without the Congress. Which, of course, you thoroughly disbelieve that that’s ever going to happen.
My math is poor, but it doesn’t seem to add up.
Let’s see.
All I can say is, you know, I have written something about all the certainties of the next election. I could have added one more. Whatever happens, come May 16th, you’ll be a very busy man. Maybe we’ll have a conversation after that.
Sure.
Until then, all the very best for campaigning. And may the best coalition or the best numbers win.
Thanks.
Thank you very much.
Also Read: BJP needs to drop its hate agenda to become a normal party — what VP Singh said in 2005