It’s too early to say anything definitive. Only when we are close to the first round of polling will we get an idea of how things are shaping up. But I can tell you what the CPI(M) is aiming for. We are looking for a shift in the policy direction that’s essentially related to four areas. One, tackling the global economic recession; second, how can we tackle the communal and terror menace more effectively; third is the question of greater social justice and the fourth is the question of an independent foreign policy. We are convinced that such a shift cannot happen with any dispensation that is led by the BJP or the Congress. So, we are trying to work out a political alternative that is capable of effecting such a shift. That may sound very ambitious with the sort of partners we have, but so far, all of them have decided to cooperate with us. The nitty-gritty of it will be worked out only when the time for it arrives.

•Unni Rajen Shanker: What if we face a 2004 kind of situation again?

That is speculative. The electoral battle has begun. My objective is to win the battle. Let’s see what happens after the battle is over.

•D.K. Singh: CPI(M) General Secretary Prakash Karat has been saying that the Congress deceived you. You had many discussions with Sonia Gandhi. At any point, did you sense she was being insincere?

Sincere, insincere are not terms I would use. The original draft of the common minimum programme that came for our consideration contained the formulation that India shall work for a strategic relationship with USA. After our objection, this was changed to say that India would work to improve relations with all countries, including USA. The nuclear deal per se was not the issue. Our point was that since we had agreed not to proceed along that course, it should not be done. A section in the Congress understood that. But there was another section that saw it as the best time to get the deal through. To be fair, on all these issues, Sonia Gandhi saw our point of view. The idea was to, as far as possible, work together but on this particular issue, I think they went ahead and did what they agreed not to do.

•D.K. Singh: Your party has been pretty tough on the Prime Minister and soft on the Congress President.

Our party does not choose between personalities. We go by policies. The Prime Minister is the head of the government which implements the policies. He will naturally be in the line of fire more than anybody else.

•Manoj C.G.: In hindsight, do you think allowing the government to go to the IAEA was a tactical mistake on your part?

If at that stage they had not gone to the IAEA, I think the nuclear deal would not have happened. From the moment you let it go to the IAEA, it was on autopilot. We were supporting this government, keeping it going; nobody wanted early elections and we did not want to precipitate a situation whereby elections would be held before schedule. Also, in our opinion, it would not be good for the country to create a situation where the BJP alone could lead a coalition, full term.

•Coomi Kapoor: How will you reassure voters that the Third Front govt will not be unstable?

If you look at the instability of non-Congress, non-BJP governments—the Janata government, the V.P. Singh government or the I.K. Gujral government—the instability rose from the outside support that had to be taken from the BJP or the Congress. The one way to not get into an unstable situation is to have the numbers add up in such a way that you will not need decisive outside support.

•Vandita Mishra: What has tied the Third Front together always seemed weak in the face of things that set them apart. How will it be different this time? Also, if the Left gets the largest numbers, will it participate in the Third Front government?

As far as Left participation is concerned, we are tied by the decision of our party congress, which says that if such a situation arises, the Central Committee will take a decision. So, this is a decision that can be taken only after the elections. We see a difference this time compared to earlier occasions: this time, it is not just a numbers game. Why is so much churning taking place? Why have NDA allies for the last 11-12 years, like the BJD, left them? Why have Lalu Prasad Yadav, Ram Vilas Paswan and Mulayam Yadav, who kept this government going, got together now? Apart from what is normally ascribed to political opportunism or positioning, I think there is another undercurrent that must be recognised and that is, the impact of this recession is actually very intense at the lower level. People are losing jobs, their insecurity is mounting and this has hurt agriculture very badly. So people are looking for an alternative and we will have to provide it.

•Ravish Tiwari: There are blocs that will not be together because of their domestic bipolarity, parties which don’t see eye to eye, like Jayalalithaa and Karunanidhi in Tamil Nadu. So will the Congress be a part of the Third Front Government?

The last time the DMK was in the Lok Sabha, the AIADMK was not there. They did not win a single seat. We are aiming for a situation where you will be able to overcome these problems but if you are not able to, then we will have to take the call again. Right now, along the east coast, NDA has lost all its allies. In UP and Bihar (with 120 seats), other parties are more dominant than the Congress or the BJP. So in 270 seats—or one half of the total seats—the main player is neither of them. In the last election, 30 per cent of votes went to non-BJP, non-Congress parties. And both of them formed a government with only about 35 per cent of the votes.

•Manoj C.G.: If you form the next government, what will be the factors in selecting the Prime Minister—the largest party or acceptability?

Both will play a role. We have a Constitution where the sovereignty of the people was established. Now, before the people elect their representatives, any discussion or choice of who will be the prime ministerial candidate shows a deep disrespect for the process. Theoretically, it’s possible that Mr Advani will be defeated from Gandhinagar; then will you still have him as prime minister?

•VANDITA MISHRA: Deve Gowda and I.K. Gujral were both from the Rajya Sabha, so you did not actually follow this principle in the past.

No, but they both came back from the Lok Sabha, unlike Dr Manmohan Singh.

•Saubhik Chakrabarti: The CPM manifesto says the Fiscal Responsibility Act should be junked. The bond markets are nervous about the extent of borrowing programme and if you are in power you will have partners whose spending propensities can be very high. There’s also India’s sovereign credit rating. Given all this, do you think junking the Fiscal Responsibility Act is a good governance tactic?

In a situation of recession, any concern about deficits makes neither economic sense nor common sense. No recession can be overcome unless you get into huge deficits. First, you will have to get out of this recessional situation. Thank God we have not reached deflation and recession. One of the reasons we will not reach those is because we are holding elections, the biggest stimulus we could give our economy. Elections in India are times when everyone finds gainful employment. That cushions us from the global impact—so the timing has been very fortuitous. Still, you will have a situation where you will have large deficits for some time till the economy starts stimulating its internal dynamics.

•Saubhik Chakrabarti: If you scrap the Act, you will be signaling fiscal irresponsibility, not emergency fiscal management.

Fiscal prudence will come not necessarily through legal limits, but from how efficiently you run the government. A new global economic order has already begun. Can you imagine the President of USA saying that there will be a 90 per cent tax on bonuses given to executives from companies that have received a bailout package? Can you imagine Margaret Thatcher’s England now going around nationalising all the banks? We in India have to come to terms with the new reality and see how we will work in this situation.

•D.K. Singh: You have entered into an alliance with the AIADMK. Do you accept their ideology on issues such as Ram Setu?

No, on many of these issues we have made our stand clear. All these things will be discussed when the situation arises. Till then, there are the four areas I have already mentioned where we are all in agreement. That is why we proceeded forward.

•Ravish Tiwari: On the nuclear deal, did the CPI(M) think the Samajwadi Party would part ways with the Left so early and so quickly?

They had said that they were going to be with us on the nuclear deal issue and we went ahead with what they said. But that was not to be; there were other issues that developed which forced SP to do what it did. There was a government at the Centre that was not friendly to them and a state government that was not friendly to them. The moment the UP elections were over and Mayawati led the government, that’s when the process started. The Mayawati government was entangling them in various things. They had to get the Centre on their side and this was the only way to make it happen.

•Ravish Tiwari: Does it ever bother you that your new friend Mayawati has thrice formed a government with the BJP’s support?

We are conscious of the fact. Let elections take place. The final act of this political drama will unfold only after the elections.

•Dhiraj Nayyar: Do you think the Indian Left is still too far to the left to make a decisive impact on the new economic order?

No, I think we are just far enough to the left to influence economic growth. Few people understood why in those four years, we stopped the government on various crucial bills. If we had not done that, imagine what would have been the situation now. Many banks would have collapsed and your pension funds would have vanished and crores of Indians would have been affected.

•Vinay Sitapati: When Veerappa Moily was here, he said that Mr Karat is very different from Mr Surjeet. How would you respond to that?

Everybody is different from the other. What would’ve taken Harkishen Singh Surjeet only an instinct to capture will take us a certain amount of collective discussion. Surjeet had a richness of experience, having dealt with people in different conditions.

•Sweta Dutta: Recently, Somnath Chatterjee said the Left is a very negative party: it is non-BJP, non-Congress and pro nothing.

I don’t know in what context he may have said that. We are anti-Congress, anti-BJP but pro-Left.

•Raj Kamal Jha: Everyone you have joined hands with has been with BJP post 1992. Did this come up in your discussions and have they said they won’t have anything to do with BJP?

It’s only after there was a commitment to work for a non-Congress, non-BJP alternative that we went ahead.

•Raj Kamal Jha: Do you see this glue sticking or does it depend on the strength of the numbers on May 16?

I am hoping that the glue sticks but as you said, it all depends on the numbers post elections. Unfortunately, there are parties which were with both the UPA and NDA governments. You had the same ministers, only the Prime Minister was different. Mr Baalu of the DMK was a minister all through. What we have sought from such parties and Naveen Patnaik is a non-BJP, non-Congress alternative. Only after that have we discussed the sharing of seats.

•Unni Rajen Shanker: In Kerala, the CPI(M) has tied up with Abdul Naseer Madani, an Islamic fundamentalist who claims to have been reformed. You seem to be making adjustments that are politically pragmatic. Ten years ago, would you have done that?

No. Even now we are not doing it. What is happening in Kerala with Mr Madani is that in an election situation, you ask for everybody’s support. Now he has declared his support for the LDF and in some places, he has been campaigning though there is no alliance. If he is supporting the LDF, then there is little we can do. But on the question of combating communalism, whether it is Hindu right wing communalism or Muslim fundamentalism, there will never be any compromise.

•Ashutosh: You said you will play referee. Is it engraved in leftist ideology to never be part of the Establishment yet make all attempts to influence it?

No, the likeness to being referee is always a commitment to fair play. When the game is going on, we want to ensure a fair play. When we start playing then, of course, the ball game is different.

•Dhiraj Nayyar: How much does the CPI(M) regret the exit of Tata from West Bengal?

It’s not really to do with Tata but the CPI(M) regrets the industrialisation process got diverted. We believed we had reached a stage in West Bengal where the advantages of land reforms had hit a plateau. It is of deep concern because in Singur, the land acquired for Nano was less than 1,000 acres and more that 12,000 people had taken the compensation as owners. That means one acre of land had 12 owners. What was probably happening was that you had one family tilling the land, the rest cycling rickshaws, doing household work and somehow eking out a living. Unless you have rapid industrialisation, it is not possible to proceed beyond the gains they had already received. So Nano not happening has been a setback.

Transcribed by Hamari Jamatia