Thanks Shekhar.

Of all the public figures I know, your life seems to be the most fun.

Well, I enjoy it thoroughly, which is why I am doing what I am doing. And I think that is the way one should take life.

You have seen your politics evolve?

Of course. I mean you started out with idealism, wanting to change society, wanting to change things for the better. That is the motivation. But things have evolved. We have grown up. That was the time of 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 1990s, we knew that Indian democracy is maturing.

Politics has got fragmented, our growth rates have got better.

Not just growth rate, I think it is a process of maturation. You cannot have a social plurality that is as wide as we have in India and have a political monolith. Your social diversity has to reflect in your politics.

A political monolith which for 40 years did not even have real dissidence, except once in 1969.

Precisely, 1967-69 was the period. This is a process of maturation, which is very exciting. The largest democracy in the world — to deal with such diversity and its reflection on politics is...

You said idealism not ideology.

Ideology and idealism are very closely related. Idealism urges you to seek a change. What that change should be is where ideology comes in. At least in my case, both of them have merged.

Talk a little about how both have evolved, particularly in the past 10 years.

There is a marked difference between the generation I belong to or we belong to — back in the 1970s — and what you have in the 1990s and the turn of the century. It is not only a question of technological change or change in information access which has tremendously grown. During this period, there has been a process where sections that were otherwise marginalised are asserting themselves. In the last 10 years, one finds a very big shift in terms of realignment within the political stream in India, which is for the good. I don’t have any complaints about it. All of us will have to find our equations within that. There is a lot of grappling going on. People are not able to come to terms with some assertion of one marginalised group coming up and not being able to understand how to relate to it. But everybody will have to realise this is the order of the day.

But your party and ideology have also evolved — from not accepting parliamentary democracy to now inviting FDI.

That’s right. Ultimately Marxism is a creative science which is the concrete analysis of concrete conditions. Conditions change and if your analysis doesn’t, you are not a Marxist.

You don’t see Marxism as a dogma, which cannot or must not change with time.

Not at all. If it does not change, then it is not Marxism.

Before we get into current politics, what are the two or three moments of truth in the last 20 years? Say the arrival of Gorbachev, the change in China, the change in India, Gujarat riots...

One turning point in India in the last two decades or so is definitely the rise of Hindu fundamentalism and communalism. The destruction of Babri Masjid is the defining point in the evolution of modern Indian politics, as that brought back to people’s minds the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. We thought we had settled that issue forever. But its resurrection was the defining point as far as Indian politics is concerned. It brought back the fundamental battle between three visions you had during the freedom struggle. You had a Congress vision of a secure democratic republic, you had a Left vision which said you had to go beyond this. Convert the political independence to the economic independence of the people. Then you had the Right-wing vision which had a twin expression — the Muslim League and the RSS — both talking in terms of religious denomination of society. Now, that battle we thought had got somewhat settled with Independence and Partition. But obviously it had not been settled. That battle continues. The collapse of the Soviet Union has had a very huge impact on the evolution of India.

So, ideologically, in terms of evolution and change what was the bigger event — Babri Masjid or the collapse of the Soviet Union or change in China?

Both the Babri Masjid demolition and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Because collapse of Soviet Union consolidated the movement towards globalisation, as it happened during the 90s and that laid the foundation for the present day crisis in capitalism.

Why is the change in China not so important?

China does not have a direct bearing like the other two. But it’s very important. It is one of the most creative experiments going on in the history.

But that also led to changes in your mind in terms of economics.

There was and is a change in the mindset and that happened because of all this. It’s actually a fundamental fact of Marxism; it took us a long time to realise it. You have to engage with the existing reality. It’s only through such an engagement that you can change the reality. You can’t fence off anything in today’s world. You have to engage with it. In the process, you have to change it. That was a fresh thinking which came about during the middle of the 90s and in the late 90s and led to many policy shifts in West Bengal. Through our experience we had come to a realisation that land reforms have reached a plateau in West Bengal. In Singur, for instance, for less than 1,000 acres of land, 12,000 people took compensation. That means 12 families on one acre.

You use a nice phrase, ‘engaging with reality’. Is today’s Third Front a part of that?

Yes, it is a reflection of such an engagement. Just look at what is happening in the country. From the election campaign also it’s very obvious that people are yearning for some relief. They are not defining what that change should be. They are not in a position to do so. It is our job to define what that change should be. The disintegration that is appearing in the groupings — NDA, UPA — is also a reflection of this. The Third Front is trying to give an expression to the yearning of the people. Our aim is to bring them together on certain issues regarding a shift in policy direction.

Policy direction in terms of economics or society?

Both. In some areas I think there needs be a shift. One is economics — how to beat the present global crisis. The other is how to strengthen the secular democratic foundations. The third is on the question of social justice...

...When you say that, your own party’s record in West Bengal is not glowing with success. The Sachar Committee report is thrown at you often enough.

It all depends on the parameters. The number of people who have gained from the land reforms, Panchayati Raj should be higher than anywhere else. There is a deeper issue. The problem is madrasa education. That is not recognised. Many of the minorities are educated in the madrasas. Unless we are able to persuade them to adopt changes that will give them some sort of recognition, they can’t even sit for these exams.

How do you reconcile the Third Front? You don’t need a psephologist to tell us that the Third Front, even if it does brilliantly, can barely cross 150. So the only way you can bring the Third Front to power is by having the Congress not just as its single largest constituent, but having the Congress at least twice as big as the Third Front’s single largest constituent. How do you balance that?

In the last 15 years or so, all major formations were forged post-elections. United Front came into existence after the 1996 elections, the NDA after 1998, the UPA after 2004. This time too, a Front will emerge. It won’t be like what you and I are seeing today. I think there will be a new regrouping and in that regrouping the ideal would be to have a majority without the Congress. That can happen because a lot of the Congress allies in the UPA would also be rethinking at that stage.

You are working very hard to defeat Congress allies right now. DMK you are up against. Lalu and Paswan — how much can they get? Mamata is not a Congress ally that you want. If the Congress wishes for the Left to support them, then Mamata will go out. So your strength, if I may suggest, will not be the same as last year.

You have these inherent contradictions. If DMK is there, AIADMK will not be there. If Left is there, then Mamata won’t be there. If Mulayam is there, Mayawati will not be there. I think, eventually, it all boils down to the numbers you get post-elections.

But you won’t go as far as to say, with the Congress never, over my dead body, I will sit in the Opposition.

I am aiming at a non-Congress coalition.

How do you look at the recent tu tu main main between Advani and Manmohan Singh?

It is really unfortunate. They are really bereft of issues. As the major Opposition, the BJP ought to be joining issues with the government on policy matters. You have this global recession. Government reports suggest that one crore people are losing their jobs. What is the government doing on the issue? These are the issues that you discuss. Rather than calling him weak, taunting him back and saying that you are more words than action.

You came up with a creative formulation during the nuclear deal crisis. You said fighting communalism and fighting US imperialism were at the same level. And if one was a more urgent threat then you could compromise with the other a bit, which, in this case, meant voting with the BJP. Does that still remain?

No, our comprehension was completely justified when the BJP came out with their manifesto. All the talk of opposing the deal and re-negotiating the deal has been completely...

...So would you reflect on your decision to vote with the BJP at that point?

It was more of the BJP voting with us than the other way around.

You undermined your own government.

We wanted the government not to proceed on this issue because it was not part of our common minimum programme.

When you look back on that crisis, do you regret that it was not resolved internally between you and the UPA?

It would have been much better if they had accepted the suggestions that we had made: to postpone this thing until the new administration comes in the US. The whole world knows that the Democrats are much more sticklers to non-proliferation.

But they would not have given you the deal.

Why not? That presumption I am skeptical in accepting that the Democrats would never have given you this deal. That was the argument as long as Bush was there. My point will be, now that Obama has come, this talk of CTBT and everything is getting revived, we would have been in election mode by this time. So let this term be over, let the new governments on both sides...

...You said that the PM would have resigned. Were you told that?

No, we were not told that.

I think the Obama administration would have come much stronger at us with the CTBT etc.

I think they will still do that. That is my fear.

Meanwhile, the Prime Minister is praising you.

Look at it the other way round. Now the realisation has come that without the Left they can’t form the next government.

Do the Left parties also have a similar realisation that without the Congress they can’t form a government?

You will have to look at the concrete strength, post-election.

The PM said they never interfered 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 personalities, saying so and so is good or bad. It’s only a question of policy. He was adamant to go ahead with the deal. He believed, and I think he still does, that the nuclear deal is the best for India. We believe completely the opposite.

I am stating that whatever the numbers, a non-BJP government cannot come to power without the Congress whether the Congress is in it or gives support from outside. The numbers won’t simply stack up. If you take out BJP, Shiv Sena, Akali Dal numbers and of those who can’t go together. If you net Mayawati with Mulayam, DMK with AIADMK, Mamata with Left, it all squares up; if that happened, are you then saying or would you say that the Congress minus Manmohan Singh or would you assess that as facts present themselves.

When the 14th Lok Sabha ended, the Congress plus the BJP did not add up to a majority in the House. That is also a larger indication of a larger Third Front grouping. But let’s wait for the numbers to come.

A Third Front that will have to have the Congress or the Fourth Front — without that the numbers won’t add up.

Ideally, we hope that the numbers will add up.

Why not project a PM of your own?

I have serious theoretical problems with that.

Because the other two Fronts — the NDA and the UPA — have their own PMs. The Fourth Front has three PMs — Ram Vilas Paswan, Lalu Prasad Yadav and Mulayam Singh Yadav.

The Constitution rests the sovereignty of the country with the people. The people elect their representatives and whoever has a majority forms the government, headed by the PM. Indira Gandhi lost the election as the sitting PM. Suppose one of them who had been projected loses?

Are you more worried about your own candidates losing elections? I hope you don’t name Deve Gowda.

No. I am saying that let’s wait.

Because Mayawati’s name comes and goes away. Nobody says no. Do you see her as the future PM in this formulation?

We have said this is an issue that will come on the agenda post-elections.

What do you think of her?

She is a very unique leader. Whether it will come up to the question of her becoming PM or not — well she has also agreed that this is an issue we will talk post-elections.

How is she different from others?

She is much more decisive in many ways. This is a very good quality for a leader to have.

She is decisive because she has no party executive, no general secretary, no manifesto, no spokesman.

That is why in a coalition she will have to show a quality of taking everyone together. But these are issues that we will take up post-elections.

Tell me about yourself. Your party, contrary to what people think, is the most democratic party within India. I think the second most democratic is the BJP, whether you like it or not, because all the others have no democracy, including the Congress. Second, again contrary to what people think, your party has a huge diversity in terms of personality in the top leadership. Define yourself.

I am a party man. Not only are we a democratic party but we are also a party that has so far been following the party decision. That has been our strength, whatever maybe our internal differences, once the party decides that is the party line. So you never know what is Sitaram’s opinion within the PB.

Do you have any role models? Because comparisons with Surjeet are made often as somebody who goes and reconciles people, ideas — a pragmatist.

Yes, there have been qualities in all our leaders. My idea is to pick the best from all of them. Surjeet was a great negotiator. Jyoti Basu is also a reconciliator in an administrative sense.

Did he try to intervene in the crisis that you had with the UPA?

He would keep suggesting ways to find a solution.

Also on the issue of the expulsion of Somnath Chatterjee.

All of us, including the party, think that it was very unfortunate.

But all of you were missing at his farewell dinner.

Honestly, I was not invited.

Do you see yourself as the new Surjeet?

Surjeet was a big strength of our party, because he sincerely believed that secular forces should not be divided.

You see the Congress as a secular force too?

Yes. While this whole controversy was happening, there was the argument that it should not appear as if the BJP is the only one who can run a coalition successfully. Then I had to point out to the Congress leaders that they could run it successfully only because they kept the Hindutva agenda on the backburner.

Could your party have handled it better in terms of not issuing statements almost insulting the PM?

I suppose in the present situation it never is a good idea. It’s not a question of sternness, wagging your fingers etc. but you see we also felt let down at that point of time.

So are you talking to the Congress right now?

No, let’s see post-elections. At the moment, I would want a situation where the numbers tally up without the Congress. Which you thoroughly disbelieve is ever going to happen.

My math is poor, but still it does not seem to add up. Come May 16, you’ll be a very busy man. Maybe we will have a conversation after that. Till then, all the best for campaigning.

Thanks a lot.