‘Mulayam should have been rightful PM… (as for Gujral) he feels he deserved it ’

in Jalandhar. I went there to see what was going to happen. The Congress had decided that we’d boycott and demonstrate against the governor. When I reached there, there was nothing in the Congress office. I wanted to see what was happening. I was interested in politics because I used to hear speeches by Master Mota Singh.

A Communist leader.

He was not a Communist at that time. Mota Singh was a famous Babbar Akali leader — that group which has sacrificed a lot for the country’s freedom.

So when I went inside, there was a person sitting inside and I asked him what had happened. He said the government had decided to shoot the person who goes to hang the flag… He said if you have the courage you can do it… I said I’d do it. I took up the challenge, took the flag, went to the courts in Hoshiarpur and hoisted the flag. At that time, the Army men were talking with each other, they had heard that the Congress had dropped the idea. So, when I hoisted the flag, immediately two shots rang out. No shot touched me.

Wagle was the deputy commissioner-collector, I remember now, at that time — a Maharashtrian, normally there were Englishmen. When he came and saw a boy of 15 years, he said, ‘what is this?’ He stopped the firing. Then I was tried and he said, ‘you are being sent for one year’s imprisonment.’ I said, ‘only one year?’ He said, ‘no, then four years.’ I said, ‘only four years?’ Then he said, ‘there’s nothing more that is written in this law.’ I was sent to Hoshiarpur prison.

And I believe that since then you have served 10 years in jail on various occasions.

Ten years I have remained in jail actually. But the punishment may have been more.

And some years underground as well.

Five years underground. This is the youth I spent for the cause of the country’s freedom.

But that’s what people say about you now also — that for four-five years you go underground and when elections come Mr Surjeet is back in action overground. You know, as I said, master puppeteer, pulling strings, king-maker.

…You can say anything. No doubt, I never had the ambition to take the top job. Never. Even now, I don’t have any ambition to take the top job…

But the ambition is there to decide who takes the top job.

I would not say to decide that, but to play some role in that…

But Surjeetji, last time something went wrong. Last time, you installed not one but two governments in power and both lasted for short periods — Gowda and Gujral. It seemed, that somehow, you failed in your attempt and what you were trying to do.

I would not say that I failed in the attempts…the tactics of the Congress party became different. First, they had decided to support the government from outside — when Narasimha Rao was there. And subsequently, when things changed later on, they wanted to know — first they had a talk with me — if we could have a united government?

They wanted to join the government?

Yes, they wanted to join the government. I can cite examples of who talked to me and all that. They were sent by the Congress when the breaking point came. There were three persons who came to talk on how that could be avoided. Then in that talk, they mooted the idea of a joint government.

Which three were these?

They were… I’ll let you know, let me remember the names. They were close to, in those days, the Prime Minister.

Prime Minister means Narasimha Rao or Gowda?

No, Gowda was not the PM at that time. I am talking about the Congress PM.

That was Narasimha Rao.

Yes.

And then they decided not to join.

No. Then they decided to create issues on how they could separate, how the government could go. That was the earlier point, not the point you were referring to. It had happened earlier.

Then, when the Gowda government had fallen… then I believe your choice for PM was Mulayam Singh Yadav.

That is true. Because, there you see, in reality, according to me, Congress itself wanted to share power again. We were not for that. So, in that case they had brought this idea, how it could work etc. Out of all this came that we could not work together. That was the position. Then the issue of a new leadership came up.

And then Mr Gujral got elected, but I believe the choice was Mulayam.

That’s true. Nobody knew…

The name of Gujral was not there.

No, three names came up. It was decided that we’d take a majority vote. Whosoever gets the majority, he will be the Prime Minister. In that, 120 votes were for Mulayam Singh, 20 votes were for Moopanar and some 10-15 were for somebody else. This was the division of the votes.

So, our Andhra Pradesh friend, who was the convenor, he came to me in the dead of the night, around 1 am, and said these are the results. I said, ‘then announce it. No problem. If this is the result, people have chosen Mulayam Singh. Make the announcement tomorrow morning’. I had to go to Moscow to attend a conference.

That same night.

So I left at 4 am. And I left with the knowledge that a decision has been taken. When I reached there, somebody from the embassy told me that I am wanted, that somebody wants to talk to me. They told me that they were meeting in the house of our comrade, here in Delhi, and that discussions are on. And it’s being discussed who should be the Prime Minister…

So, in terms of the numbers, in terms of the decision which you had helped take, Mulayam should have been the PM?

He should have been the rightful Prime Minister.

And something robbed Mulayam of what was his rightful prime ministership at that time?

At that time, yes.

Who did that? Who organised that? Somebody must have worked behind the scenes when you were away.

See, what happened was that I was asked why I had taken this decision. I was contacted there itself and asked why this has happened. Then I was told that our Bihar leader Laloo Prasad and Sharad Yadav who’s now with the government’s side — both were standing there saying in no case we’ll accept him.

They both said, under no circumstances we’ll accept Mulayam Singh Yadav?

I was told they said that. I was not here. I was told that when they both objected, there was a deadlock. I said, ‘what deadlock? The decision has been taken by majority.’ They could not answer. Anyway, talks went on.

And Mr Chandrababu Naidu? What was his view on Mulayam?

The real thing was Naidu should have announced that the majority says this. He had no business in inquiring…

Naidu was the convenor, he should have announced.

He was the convenor. It is he who came to me. And I went (to Moscow) with satisfaction, thinking the matter is over now. He delayed the announcement and he went and met at Jyoti Basu’s house.

They waited for you to leave?

No. They wanted to contact me to get my approval. As soon as I reached the airport there, I was told ‘you are wanted immediately’.

So sir, is it your view that if Mulayam had got the prime ministership then, which was his due because he had got the majority votes, it would have been a more stable government than Mr Gujral’s?

Naturally, because this is the result of the consensus by all. Another thing was how to meet this emergency. We had to tell somebody to be there. In that case, who should be there than Gujral. I said alright. And then I talked to Gujral. I said this is a big responsibility.

So it was a lottery for Gujral.

Whatever you may say. I would not call it a lottery, because he feels he deserved it.

Do you think this was one more historic blunder? Denying Mulayam the prime ministership at that time for the Third Front or for the anti-BJP Front?

Not only that. I am saying that it was a blunder in the sense that a majority decision was violated. When 120 persons are on one side, 20 on the other side, then what is the fun…

So, when you are talking of democracy, when 120 and 20 and 10-15 voters are on separate sides, but you made that person a PM who didn’t have any (votes). This became an appointment not an election.

That is what I am saying. I was not present at that time. I had no other choice. All of my colleagues had gathered there. They were coming to the same conclusion — that the government has to be formed. It should not be seen that we are not able to form the government at all. So that was the position.

But when the Gujral government was formed did you feel that it would not last very long?

I did not expect it to last very long.

Surjeetji is this hypocrisy on the Congress’s part — we will support you from outside but we will not join but we still want power?

No, this is not their position. They were prepared to join. We did not let them.

So was this hypocrisy on your part — we will run the government with your support, but we will not have you there?

That was the situation. I don’t call it hypocrisy. I call it a peculiar situation which had come if they did not want somebody else to come.

So sir, was that a mistake?

I will not call it a mistake… Experiments were there.

The second thing, you see in politics, funny things happen. Congress pulled down the government because of DMK, because of Jain Commission. And today Mrs Gandhi is calling Karunanidhi. How does that square with the Congress’ behaviour in the past?

That you can ask her, not me. I am not responsible for the decisions of the Congress.

But have you been given the courtesy of an apology at least by the Congress party, that we are sorry we pulled down the government. Now we want a Front in which the DMK will also be a partner.

No, that is not what I am saying. Now, our target is that we do not want the BJP to rule the country. We want the unity of the country to be defended. In that respect, we feel very seriously that if the BJP will remain in power for long, it will have a very disruptive effect on the body politics of the country. In that respect we want…the first job is to see that the BJP doesn’t come in power.

But Surjeetji, tell that to the voter today. This is the 21st century… it’s a very young nation. More than 50 per cent of our country is around 20 years of age. They are not given so much to ideology. There is a feel-good mood. They are joining a globalised world. Why should they vote only on ideology when there are many contradictions. For example: Take the BJP’s NDA coalition. Not one constituent of the coalition is fighting the BJP in any of its states. Whereas, whatever coalitions you build up, one front or two fronts, its partners will be fighting each other, particularly the Congress party. Now, in Kerala and Bengal, you’ll say the Congress party has this wrong or that wrong and in other states, you’ll ask people to vote for the Congress party.

That is true because the reality of the situation has to be faced. What are the combinations of forces in any particular state. On the basis of that, you have to decide. Because now that you have targeted to put an end to the rule of the BJP, you have to calculate what are the forces in each state. Who can be relied on to defeat the BJP. Not that we have got differences…

But people today vote for governance. They don’t vote to defeat anybody.

That is what I am saying. This issue will also come out of governance. Whether the governance of the BJP has helped the country move forward. If that is so, naturally the people will choose that.

But Surjeetji, that old position is not there…the CPM’s position that the Congress party is untouchable.

No. The situation has changed now. The monopoly of power by the Congress is gone. It’s not there at the moment. Congress is not in the same position. And in the states also, where they are there, they are not in the position where they used to be. The situation is quite different now.

So today, you have differences with the Congress on economic policy.

That is why the question of running two fronts or one front comes. I have made it very clear. Sonia Gandhi made it clear that there are very serious economic policies’ differences.

But do you get a sense that the Congress party is willing to compromise on some of those policies?

I think there is a rethinking inside the Congress, according to me, that they have to revise some of their policies.

Because the BJP, to keep their coalition together, has sacrificed three major policies, three major issues — Article 370, the common personal law and Ayodhya. They have put these on the backburner. What is it that you want the Congress to put on the backburner?

I don’t agree that they have put these on the backburner.

Mr Pramod Mahajan said on this programme that we’ll have three issues. One is Vajpayee versus Sonia. Can you contest Vajpayee?

That contest is not there. Sonia has said no.

But people understand that it’s Vajpayee versus Sonia. You can’t hide her.

There is no question of hiding when she is not saying anything about what she’s going to do later.

But you don’t have a fundamental opposition to Sonia becoming Prime Minister?

Fundamental opposition? How can that be? Because I know, hundreds of our boys are married in Europe. Many girls are also married outside. With all this in mind, I can’t tell them to get out since they have married that girl abroad and all this thing and your citizenship is taken away. That is not the way. It should be applicable to all, not one.

So you think this foreign national issue is over?

We don’t think that’s a relevant issue of foreigner and non-foreigner.

His second point was… He said three things: Sonia versus Vajpayee; five years governance versus 50 years of governance; and third a united NDA against a divided Opposition.

First I’ll take your third point… it has been proved clearly that it’s not united. Seven of their components have left them. Why have they left them if there are no differences? Because they know that they will not be able to face the country. That is why they left them and are joining the Opposition.

Surjeetji let me take you back again to the last time you tried to rig something like this together. We just talked about one mistake — denying Mulayam the prime ministership that should have been his own. But the other historic blunder is something that Jyoti Basu’s talked about. Basu’s refusal to become Prime Minister. You tell me what’s your view on that. Should he have done that?

If you know the position we had in the central committee, my position, Jyoti Basu’s position and all that…

You were in favour of that.

At that time, our position was what the majority says…

But it was a mistake at that time. Tactically it was a mistake.

The party, in the records, has referred to this. That is all.

But if Jyoti Basu had taken the prime ministership, would that government have survived longer?

The opinion is there… that depended on the various parties, how they would react. Because that depended solely on them.

And if a situation like this came up again, will the CPM be willing to offer one of its own candidates, say Buddhadev Bhattacharya, for PM?

I don’t see this situation coming… unnecessarily discussing a question which is of no use. I don’t see this situation coming. Jyoti Basu’s personality was quite a different matter…

You don’t see the CPM having any other leader with an acceptance like that.

No, I did not say that no leader is there. Otherwise the CPM would not exist if there is no leader in that sense. My position is that this moment, the situation is quite different than the situation used to be at that time.

So as of now, the situation is different in the sense that by and large it is believed or expected that the NDA will come back to power. But if it doesn’t come back to power, we are, perhaps, left with no choice other than Sonia.

I can’t say that this is the only choice. Because I don’t believe that they can come to power in the next election. I don’t believe that.

You mean the NDA?

Yes, I am telling you the situation. You go into the various states.

And sir, if NDA doesn’t come to power and if your two fronts have a majority of seats, then obviously the larger number of seats will be with the Congress coalition because Congress is the largest party. And it’s unrealistic to think that the Congress will choose Arjun Singh as the Prime Minister. Then if it is Sonia, will the Left be OK with that?

…Why should you say that the combination which we will have will not have more say? Why shouldn’t I claim…

Because you speak a language of realism. You don’t speak slogans like many other politicians.

I am saying that the position can be… lot of shifts take place. I am confident that we have very good scope.

But fundamentally, today you are not opposed to Sonia Gandhi. It’s not a no, no.

No, no can’t be said. Anything can happen in this country. How can I say no, no.

But whatever happens Surjeetji, you have your work cut out. We’ll see more of you.

Thank you.