Q: For how long have you been in touch with the BJP before unification of the Janata Dal, the Lok Shakti and the Samata Party?

A: The results of the 1998 Lok Sabha elections made me realise that if the JD and the BJP joined hands, Laloo Yadav's RJD won't be able to get even two seats in Bihar. But the momentum picked up only due to the move initiated by George Fernandes two months ago to bring like-minded (anti-Congress) parties on one platform.

Q: Isn't it true that the unification cameabout due to the realisation that the JD was a sinking ship and most of the JD leaders were in no position to win an election?

A: The JD is a national party with presence in almost every state. But it had, of course, considerably weakened over the years. But it is like dried grass which when watered rejuvenates.

Q: Why have the three parties not merged?

A: It is indeed a merger. All three parties will contest on one symbol and they have one president. What else do you require? It is like the 1977-type situation when there was no time to have meetings of the national executives of the respective parties. It is a formality which will be completed after the elections.

Q: What if you don't get the JD symbol? Will people like Ram Krishna Hegde and George Fernandes accept Sharad Yadav as their leader?

A: Since the move was initiated by George saheb, there is no reason to doubt that he won't accept the JD's leadership and contest on the Chakra symbol. We are sure to get the JD electionsymbol because almost the entire party is with us. Moreover, it has swelled its ranks much more than the people who left it to join the Congress.

Q: How has the turnaround come about - from being an anti-communalism crusader to a pro-BJP leader?

A: Let me clarify at the very outset that the JD was formed not against communalism but against corruption. The JD was formed with tactical support of the very party which is dubbed as communal today. Bofors and dynastic rule were the issues for the JD's genesis. The same issues are still relevant. Laloo's corruption, Jayalalitha's corruption and dynastic rule in the Congress. The same issues still dominate the political scene in the country. The only new issue is that of the foreign origin of the Congress president.

Q: But weren't you one of the torch-bearers of secularism, always criticising the BJP for its strident Hindutva line?

A: I always regarded the Congress as a more communal party than the BJP. If the Congress's conscience was clear,even 100 BJP governments in UP would not have been able to demolish the Babri mosque. Everyone knows that the Congress got the Babri Masjid unlocked, performed shilanyas of the Ram temple on the mosque premises and used the issue for electoral gains.

If Indira Gandhi could impose Emergency for such a long period, couldn't the Congress impose Emergency within the two-acre area of the mosque only for a few days?

The Congress now wants to wash its hands off the issue by blaming Narasimha Rao for everything. What was Sonia Gandhi doing then? That too when she was on a higher pedestal than she is today!

Q: The JD has so far advocated equidistance from both the BJP and the Congress. Why did it have to change its stand?

A: There is nothing like a third force now. See who are now claiming to maintain equidistance from both the BJP and the Congress - Sharad Pawar who himself was part of the Congress till a few months ago or Mulayam Singh Yadav who has described Sonia Gandhi as his enemy number one,using language I can't even think of. If he sees the Congress as the bigger enemy, as we too perceive, why doesn't he join the NDA and demolish the Congress? In today's bipolar politics they can't remain neutral.

With the kind of small outfits that they have, they will have to support either the Congress or the BJP. Even a pretence of remaining neutral today means lending indirect support to one or the other party. The BJP Government would have survived had any of these parties maintained equidistance.

Q. Have you accepted the BJP in its entirety with its policies and ideological friends?

A. The BJP has already abandoned all the issues which we used to criticise - like Ayodhya, Mathura, Kashi, Article 370 and Common Civil Code. Now it does not have any hidden agenda. We will support the BJP on the basis of the National Agenda for Governance. Nothing more, nothing less.

Q. But the BJP is known for its anti-minority plank. How will you deal with that?

A. This is a misconception. Sikhstoo are a minority but who got them killed in 1984. So if they are with the BJP today, it's because of their anti-Congress stance. Similarly, the DMK is with the BJP not because it is enamoured by the BJP's policies but because of its anti-AIADMK plank.

We have nothing to do with the BJP but are still with it due to anti-Laloo feelings. George himself belongs to a minority community (Christian) and does not believe in a Hindu Rashtra, but he is with the BJP because he wants to end Laloo's corrupt and casteist regime. Now local issues dominate national politics.

Q. Former PM Chandra Shekhar has recently described the BJP and the Socialists as leopards who can't change their spots. Can they?

A. Spots are only on the skin which can be used as showpieces in drawing rooms; we are real tigers in flesh and blood. You can see the BJP has changed its hard-line stand.

Q. How long will the experiment last given the saying that Socialists can't remain united for six months and can't live separately formore than one year?

A. This is not a Socialist reunion as is being projected. Hegde came from the Congress. So did so many others.

Q. There is a feeling within the BJP that George has united the three parties to present himself as a consensus prime ministerial candidate. And that your front can usurp the NDA.

A. There is no harm in anyone harbouring any ambition. I can't say whether he does nurture this ambition but as of now Atal Behari Vajpayee is the only prime ministerial candidate of the NDA. There is nothing so far to suggest that the new front can take over the NDA. The BJP is the dominant party and we will have to accept it as such.