HVK Archives: Interview of Jyoti Basu - 1 of 3
Interview of Jyoti Basu - 1 of 3 - The Asian Age
M J Akbar
()
2 January 1997
Title : Interview of Jyoti Basu - 1 of 3
Author : M J Akbar
Publication : The Asian Age
Date : January 2, 1997
Q. In my view the high point of the year was not the appointment of the Prime
Minister, but the disappointment on the day on which you refused to become
Prime Minster.
A. (Laughs) Some people say that....including Hasina (Sheikh Hasina, Prime
Minster of Bangladesh).
Q. One of her aides said that you were the only Indian politician that
Bangladesh trusted.
A. (Smiles) I have known her for a long while; I knew her father... One good
thing has happened. Earlier when I went, for the first time, in '87, Ershad
was there, he invited me and I saw my ancestral place, my mother's house.
But President Ershad used. to say that unless you are anti-India you have no
place in Bangladesh politics. I said, why? Our Army and people helped you
in 1971 for liberation. He said, whatever be the arguments you might give,
this is the position. But this time when Hasina came to Delhi - I was with
her of course before she made a very good speech at the formal banquet. I
think for the first time in many years she talked about the sacrifices of the
Indian soldiers, and how the Indian people gave shelter here to refugees from
Bangladesh. It was a very, very good speech and recognised what happened at
that time. The Indian Army even trained their boys. The boys also fought:
there is no doubt about that, but the Indian Army trained them. So this is a
big change in the political view. And at the SAFTA meeting the Bangladesh
trade minister spoke very well. So there is a perceptible change. Now we
have to follow up by action in trade, commerce, culture. I told them that we
(the elders) know about the true culture of Bangladesh, because our ancestors
were from that side but our younger generation does not know anything. That
is bad. They have done so much for the Bengali language. We are going to
start, I think, a bus service from Calcutta to Dhaka and Dhaka to Calcutta.
We have calculated that it will also mean profit for them- But the young must
meet one another. Do you know that they do not wear burqa and all that, and
these girls in Bangladesh sing Rabindrashangeet better than us. I was
surprised. I made this point when I spoke at Stratford-upon-Avon (while
unveiling Rabindranath's bust in Shakespeare's birthplace) that there is no
other case like this in history where one poet has written the national
anthem of two countries.
Q. 1971 was a people's liberation movement in Bangladesh, but the
Establishment was pro-Pakistan. And the Establishment bided its time and took
revenge upon the victors of 1971.
A. But even now I am told that the situation is not, well...
Q. We can come back to this later, Sir, but I would like to jog your memory
and ask you what precisely happened when you were offered the chance to
become Prime Minister India.
A. Well, you understand - it is not good, but in India we have reached a
situation where, knowing fully well who I am, what my philosophy is, what my
beliefs are, they invited me, all of them together, unanimously, to sit on
the Prime Minister's chair. Because there was nobody else, they said, to stop
the BJP and so on.
Q. Who were "they"?
A. All of them. We said no, our (party) policy has been different. But they
said, 'You have been talking of a Third Alternative, your party has been the
main architect of this concept, and now you are saying that you will not take
this responsibility.' In fact, in the midst of the election campaign, at the
later stage, they sent us a message that we should not go on saying at every
meeting that we will not join the government, that people are talking about a
Third Alternative and we will think about it when the time comes. Then we
said we can't do it because our central committee resolution (preventing us
from joining a government in Delhi) stands. So we called an emergency meeting
of the central committee and there, by a majority - I don't know how many
votes, 35 to 20 or something like that - the decision was made (to keep out).
I was in the minority. Surjeet (Harkishen Singh Surjeet) was also in the
minority, I can tell you that.
We went back to them (the United Front leaders) and said this is the
decision. They were waiting. We said, we will help you. We will have a
Steering Committee, we will have a Common Minimum Programme which we did not
have during the Janata days. They were not convinced. They said, you please
discuss again. I said that already eight central committee members have left
town. I said, very good, I know who voted for who since I was presiding, so
we reconvened the meeting. I told the committee, we have come back to you.
We counted, some few people changed their minds, but even then we were in a
minority.
Q. What were the arguments used by those opposed to you being Prime Minister,
like Sitaram Yechury and Prakash Karat?
A. The usual things (short laugh) like these are bourgeois parties... But we
are with them... When V.P. Singh was there it was the same thing: BJP was
there, and we told him that we cannot share a platform with you, but we will
support you from outside. This lime the argument was that we have disparate
elements, from various regions they have come, good thing 13 parties have got
together. They have fought the BJP and Congress. We thought: do they have any
differences? We say at the moment they do not have any differences, but at
some point they will have to have differences. See that they have a common
programme. That was our argument. Deve Gowda has not that experience. He may
be a good man and that sort of thing...
Q. The real Prime Minister of India is being described as Mr Surjeet.
A. (Laughs) No ... (Turns assertive) Being in a minority what could he do (in
the central committee)? What happened was that we formed a steering
committee; he is a member, I am a member too. I can't come to Delhi so often,
so he is active ... However, that was the argument of the majority of the
central committee. The minority thinking was: since we have the experience,
we know these people, we can keep them together for as long as possible. If
we were there we would see that the programmes would be some what carried
out, much better than what they would do if we were not there in the
government. This was the main argument: that. they would not be able to carry
out the programme. because their thinking is different. Our argument was:
this cannot last rive years. If we are there, much more than the others we
can make them accept some policies, put them before the country, whatever the
limits are. You can't remove every obstacle, that is not possible: but we
could do something for self-reliance, for the countryside, for panchayats,
all that we can push through. Anti-poverty programmes: it is there but it
does not reach the people. That is what is happening in India. So we can do
that much better. Of course, personally, I tell you (genuine relief in
laughter), the majority has saved me, personally, because this would have
been too much of a burden for me. Because of my health, nothing else. But it
is a political blunder. It is a historic blunder.
Q. You have taken the next question out of my mouth.
A. I said in a BBC interview: they asked me this question. I said, what
can I do? I am in a minority... I told Buddhadev Bhattacharya, you show this
interview in the book fair we are having on the 29th of January...
Q. Was not the CPM aware that the whole strategy of the Indian Marxist
movement has been since 1967 to first cooperate with the bourgeoisie parties:
in Bengal you cooperated with Ajoy Mukherjee and Pranab Mukherjee...
A. For many years we had to do it.
Q. You evolved from United Front to Left Front.
A. If there is a division among them, whatever be the state, we can utilise
that in the interests of the people. That has been our party congress
resolution. But unfortunately in our party programme we talk about states:
in section 112. Earlier we thought they would never allow us to function
even in the states, but things changed. But we never discussed about the
Centre, we thought it was absolutely a dream now, it would come later. But
things have happened since then: in the Centre also we have to play a part.
That is not in our party document, so we said we have to update that
programme. Then the argument came: how do we support a central government,
that is not in our programme.
Q. Today the situation is this: the Central government cannot survive one day
without you, and you want power without responsibility.
A. We thought that such a combine cannot last for five years, so we cannot
implement our programme. Then, we do not accept many of their (our partners')
policies, they do not accept many of ours. But the minimum programme was
there, and we could have implemented it much better than others. Because we
have the experience, nothing more; nothing personal. We have been running a
government with so many parties for the last twenty years. Earlier also we
worked with Ajoy Mukherjee who came out of the Congress.
Q. Why did V. P. Singh refuse to become Prime Minister? He was the first
choice, apparently.
A. Very ill.
Q. Cancer of the eve ?
A. And some-thing else with it. I think he is having dialysis every day. In
fact I had sent him, as a last resort, a homeopathic doctor, Bhola
Chakravorty. I think he has gone to America for treatment.
Q. How did Deve Gowda emerge suddenly? He was the darkest of the horses. Did
you not think of someone who has been in national politics longer, like his
rival Rama Krishna Hegde?
A. Here the difficulty was that even before the election campaign Hegde, made
a statement that we must get together with the Congress. And you know they
have a rivalry, they have two groups and so on. When we met in Delhi I said
that you could have also taken up this job, but I don't know, you have your
local differences ... this (statement about the Congress) went against him.
He said that we must join the Congress to form a government at the Centre.
Later on he said he had changed, but we don't know. Gowda also has the
majority in Karnataka, there is no doubt about that. Hegde is a very
intelligent person, I have known him for a long, time. But there was nobody
else.
Q. Didn't Laloo Yadav make a bid to become Prime Minister?
A. (Voice drops a little) Nobody thought of him.
Q. If the statement sabotaged Hegde, then is not there a contradiction
because Deve Gowda is also lasting because of the Congress.
A. No, that was to stop the BJP. That is also part of our programme. The
Congress also issued a four-line statement that we will not support the BJP.
Then we went to the President. There was also... there were some difficulties
there. We said, this is the statement, and these are our numbers, so you
call Deve Gowda to form a government. He said, no, this is not enough: the
Congress has said we will not support the BJP, but has it said that it will
support this formation? (Laughs softly).
Q. Was the President using a technicality?
A. Quite legitimately. Then a message was sent to the Congress: I think Deve
Gowda himself took the message. The President also told Deve Gowda to meet
Narasimha Rao, ask whether Congress will support him. But it should be
unconditional support, otherwise nothing happens. Deve Gowda went, then at
half past one they passed this resolution. It is a mystery what happened to
that resolution for a few hours. Within these few hours, the first party, the
BJP, was given the opportunity to form the government. We told the President,
very good, you have given them the opportunity but why have you given them so
much time? He should have given them only seven days time to get a vote of
confidence. That, he (the President) didn't reply to us. So the 13-day
government was there. And then the Congress gave unconditional support.
Q. Did you ever feel that the Tamil Manila Congress would go with the BJP
during this period?
A. No. The BJP has nothing there in Tamil Nadu. There may be a question of
them going back to the Congress, but they have not decided.
Q. Did you know that when your name was proposed for Prime Minister, the
Congress was very upset and was in the process of getting MPs to say you
would not be acceptable?
A. Why? I thought Narasimha Rao was a good friend of mine (laughs). Because
he thought the government might get permanency or something....It may be
that; I don't know...
Q. Do You think the CPI compromised the Left by joining the government?
A. I do not think so. But again this is a minority view. (Short laugh). But
it has not affected our Left Front. In Delhi we often meet; that has not been
adversely affected. But what is happening now is: the other day Deve Gowda
called me, for some personal discussion and I told him, why do you bother how
long you will be there? What you have promised the people in the minimum
programme, carry it out. He had two good meetings, one with the chief
ministers on the basic needs of the people, the other on public distribution
system. There are many others: power, roads, health. This should immediately
be done. Reduce the prices by fifty per cent; this will be a good message to
millions of people.
Q. His finance minister will not allow it.
A. No, no, no: this he will allow. He has to. This is a unanimous decision.
And all the centrally-sponsored schemes should be transferred to the states
along with the funds: in the Congress time also there was such a decision but
it has never been carried out. Now that has started happening. Just started:
I don't day that the process is complete. So I told him this time when I met
him, you do these things: it will have a big impact on the vast majority of
the poorer sections, and they are the majority. And I told him, why do you
have so much fear of foreigners? When they come for business they come for
business. Why is America doing business with China? They come for profits.
Now if it helps us, we accept that: we have not got the technology which we
need; we don't want to be backward, all that is all right. But we should not
be afraid of them so much and listen to their advice. They tell, us for
instance, about not giving subsidy. Why does America give subsidy? Hundreds
of millions of dollars to its farmers.
Q. To come to the larger question: how long do you think the Deve Gowda
government will last? Minority governments do not have a history of survival
in Delhi.
A. It cannot: that we are clear; about the negative part we are clear. But
how long it will last, the positive part, that I cannot say. I told Deve
Gowda, why should you bother. This is a very critical situation. Let the
Congress combine and put its house in order. But in the meanwhile, budgets
are coming; you have a very good Planning Commission, very good people. Madhu
Dandavate is in charge. The Ninth Plan is coming soon. It is ready;
yesterday we were supposed to get it. A meeting has been called on that. I
said, you carry on with all this. Later on, if you are thrown out, you are
thrown out. If we are still together then, then it is a sort of election
manifesto for you.
Q. Can you envisage a coalition with the Congress?
A. That we cannot think of at the moment. The Congress - some of them I know
very well; sometimes they telephone me and so on. I say, 'Look, in the
earlier days, in Nehru's time, sometimes even in Indira's time, there were
discussions in the Congress. On economic policies, politics, social policies
and so on. But nowadays you people don't discuss anything. I can't
understand this.' (Laughs) they say Narora or something like that... I said,
discuss, let people know where you stand. I tell Congressmen, you have a lot
of experience on economic policies, from '91-'92: what lessons should we
draw? Some negative things are there; maybe some positive things are also
there. Let the country hear. And then only can we think of talking to you.
Otherwise if you don't change your policies, if you think all your policies
are all right, then how can we discuss. And you are wholly divided; your only
point is that someone wants to become minister, get hold of the government:
this will not help. Discussion on policy matters is very, very important, I
have been telling them. I don't know what they are going to do now: unanimous
resolution or something...
Q. But how is Deve Gowda any different from a Congress prime minister?
A. As I said, in economic thinking and all that I don't think he differs that
much.
Q. And the finance minister, Mr Chidambaram, sounds more rightwing than Dr
Manmohan Singh.
A. He is a little rigid, according to me. Of course, I don't know him
personally, but I have met him on some issues. In some ways of course he has
helped, but he tends to be rigid. On Centre-state relations, a committee has
been set up: Sarkaria report is there, our documents are there. This is very
important for India. And Kashmir: I said, give them whatever they want,
within India. What is wrong with it, nothing is wrong with it. Karan Singh
came to me the other day. He has been made chairman of some committee that
is dealing with autonomy. I said, you please don't recommend for different
parts of Kashmir to become separate states. One Kashmir, and within that the
other two regions should also get autonomy, as much autonomy as you can give
them, keeping one or two subjects with the Centre. And some restoration of
what was taken away earlier, what you had given to the Kashmiris. Kashmiris
have lost faith in India and Congress is responsible for that. Unnecessarily
in 1983 Indira drove out Farooq. I told her this man - I came to know him
just now, after he became the chief minister, we had meetings in Srinagar and
so on - is saying that I am an Indian, I don't belong to Pakistan, I will
never go there, I am willing to say that from the housetops anywhere in
India. Why don't you utilise what be is saying. She had other ideas. I
said, if you don't have one government somewhere, just as you don't have a
government in West Bengal, what does it matter? In a parliamentary system,
in a federal system, things change. But she said, it is not that, whatever
he tells you, he is doing something else. I said, you tell me, what is he
doing? I'll go and tell him because I know him very well now. She wouldn't
tell me. She said, I have some report... this, that. Then they start buying
MLAs and make the worst person chief minister, G.M.Shah.
Q. Are you going to intervene in the Kashmir situation personally? You have
the credibility to do so.
A. Personally, what can I do? I have not really met Farooq after he has won.
I met him once, but not for long. Karan Singh has some other ideas: I told
him clearly, look at the situation I am facing in Darjeeling just now. We
had 'settled it long ago; it was a very good settlement which we thought
would be a model. Then somebody makes a statement on Uttarakhand and passions
are aroused.
Q. Even the CPM unit re has gone over to the Gorkhaland movement?
A. The majority has gone but some remain with us. A new committee is there.
Q. To go back to the national scene: Around the budget session there could be
a serious effort to create a coalition government with the Congress. Parts
of the United Front could merge with the Congress.
A. (Laughs) In India anything may happen, but we are not in it. We will see
out position..
Q. There is a thought, vis a vis Kashmir that rather than taking away Article
370 the time may have come to give all states provisions of 370.
A. Maybe not Article 370. But that is what Centre-state relations mean; that
is what we have been talking about. That is why we are not very satisfied
with Justice Sarkaria's report, except the financial part. The political part
remains to be resolved. And unless you have trust in the people, nothing
positive is going to happen: India will break up. You see the North East, it
is Army rule. Terrorism, insurrection, has resurfaced again. Once again it is
the. Congress government which is responsible. They have succeeded in
corrupting the North East. The tribal people are really not corrupt, but this
is what has happened there.
Q. The last year has seen the courts, in a sense, set the agenda. How do you
react to this development?
A. This is another point in parliamentary democracy: we have three wings, the
legislature, the government and the judiciary. Now, like a military take-over
it is a judicial take-over. For the time being it may be good, because there
is no other alternative for anybody the way corruption is going. But in
parliamentary democracy it is not correct. The balance must be there.
Q. You have a problem with the Congress, but not with those who left it, and
in fact they are beginning to rejoin it. If today the Congress accepts the
Common Minimum Programme of the United Front. will the CPM support a
Congress government.
A. It is a big 'if.'
Q. The Congress will do anything to come to power Their MPs have not
come to Delhi to drink coffee.
A. I can't discuss that because, as I have been telling you, why don't they
spell out what their policy is? In Delhi they told their previous finance
minister Manmohan Singh to write a document, a critique of what has been
happening during this period of the United Front. It seems he wrote
something which they did not like, because he said that it is a sort of
continuation of what the Congress started. So they didn't like that; they
wanted the government to be condemned. But he did not do it; he is an honest
man. The Congress Party must tell us what is their policy, what are they
going to do? You see the condition of the economy; they started all this.
They thought it will advance the cause of India, but it has not. The rupee
has gone down, exports have gone down, nothing is happening in the
countryside. As for self-reliance, where is it? Nothing is there. That is why
I say, Congress is they biggest party today even though its votes have gone
down: if they discuss politics, economics, and this period - what has
happened, what is to be done, where are the lessons from their experience,
then one can think of talking to them.
Q. Do you take the Bengal -Congress seriously?
A. Bengal Congress we don't know.... groups...
Q. Do you see them as a serious force or as a collection of mavericks?
A. They still have votes there is no doubt about it, about 38 per cent of the
votes.
But again, no policies. Where is their manifesto? What will they do if they
form the government? Nothing They don't tell the people. But even they get
votes because, according to me, those people lack that consciousness. And
negatives votes are always there: we have been in power for 20 years now. We
can't solve everybody's problems.
Q. Twenty years: quite remarkable. Do you think the Bengal Congress will do a
bit of a double cross and attack you in Bengal on the Farakka waters
settlement with Bangladesh?
A. I told them in Delhi, your Congress had a Tin Bigha pact. It was an
international pact between Mujib Rehman and Indira Gandhi, but you didn't do
anything for years altogether. They would have gone to the United Nations.
Then I told them, the then Congress government, to leave it to me. I don't
want any police or anything from you,, but this must be done. Because we did
not give them Berubari, so Mujib agreed that in lieu of it they should get
Tin Bigha.
That also created a difficulty for me before I went to Bangladesh, they were
saying that Jyotibabu has done this Tin Bigha, he will solve the water
problem also! (Laughs) I said, it is not so easy.
Q. What did Comrade Surjeet discuss with Mr Kesari when they met last week?
A. He has been meeting him: he asked whether Congress wanted to withdraw its
support, or what....tell us. Until now, they have said that they are not in a
position to withdraw. They (the Congress) say that you should also discuss
with us, in Parliament and so on. Our view is: Surjeet and I both told Deve
Gowda that in Parliament, if you are getting Congress support, and you are
going to put the Budget; there is no harm in your discussing. In parliament
politics, even opposition discusses with the government.
Q. So there will be co-ordination with the Congress in the next session?
A. In Parliament there should be.
Q. Just one point about the Farakka settlement: was your real problem in
Dhaka or in Delhi?
A. I have been talking to our foreign minister, who wen to Dhaka. Our MPs
also went, Somnath (Chatterjee) and Gita (Mukherjee). I have been telling
them that you must look at it a little politically. And all these figures,
this 40,000 cusecs and all that....
Since 1988 you have not had any treaty with them. Up to 1988 you had a treaty
on Farakka waters. Year after year you are talking to them. As far as the
West Bengal government is concerned no on has talked to us. But let us look
at this politically. Let us have some experts with us: how much of all this
is true, what we are saying about how it will affect our Calcutta port. And
there is no doubt that everything is drying up, in the Jessore area and so
on. So, let us look at figures and options, why do we stick to these old
ideas? So I said (to Delhi) I am going there, not as your representative but
she (Hasina) has invited me, I am going. She has invited some of my other
ministers also, I am taking them along and going. She sent me a message that
she wants to discuss this Farakka water. That seems to be her main problem.
Fundamentalists were after her blood. So, let us help her. Even now there are
some 17 per cent Hindus there and they have some faith in her. So. let us see
... We took our experts, from here and from Delhi; our chief secretary, who
has studied the issue very well. They carried on the discussion during the
five -days we were there. and we saw from the figures that some people are
talking things which are not correct. These 40,000 cusecs we got only once.,
we never got 40,000 cusecs except once. And now there is a guarantee for, us
of 40,000 cusecs at least three times. And if the flow is less, an
arrangement has been worked out. I told Hasina, for two years let us see what
happens: how much you gain, how much I lose, let us see. She said, no, no
this two year period will not help, let us have a longer treaty Ultimately it
became one of 30 years.
But then there is a clause that every five years it will be reviewed. Each
has to suffer if there is less water, or gain if there is more water: but
both have to share gains and losses. That two year period has also been
included; after two years there will be review of what has happened. So my
thing is also accepted. Let us see what happens. Then she said that after
this other things will open out. You know, our industrialists went in a
delegation to ask for the use of Chittagong port for supplies to the North
East region. Other bigger things are there, but they won't come: gas etc ...
very difficult. But trade has started very well, It is unequal trade of
course; bound to be in the beginning: last year, I said at the Chamber of
Commerce reception they gave me, we sent Rs 3470 crores worth of goods to
Bangladesh, you sent only Rs 280 crores. I said, only eeleesh maach and
jaamdani saree will not do; you have so many other things. They are very
keen. But I hope our industrialists also behave properly. They have sent a
memorandum to the government of India; they want the tariff to be reduced by
50 per cent on 40 or 50 items. That I think will be done by the government of
India.
Q. If we have a government of India.
A. (Laughs.) As long as it goes on. That is our parliamentary democracy.
What can you do about it?
Q. One last question, Sir. If you had become Prime Minister of India, who
would have become chief minister of Bengal?
A. (Smiles.) That my party would have decided.
Q. But surely you would have had a view.
A. I cannot say... I told you the other things about our inner-party
meetings, which we normally do not say (laughs) about who was a minority, who
was a majority.
But this I cannot tell you. It is the party which has decided whether I
should be here, so I am here for twenty years.
Q. How many people in the world do you think would have so calmly, and
without any rancour accepted a party decision and not become Prime Minister
of the country?
A. (Laughs.) I can't take so much credit for myself.
Q. On that our case rests for naming you Man of the Year.
Back
Top
|
