Sitaram Yechury, in the thick of things

Yechury tells Udit Misra why 'the index of Opposition unity' has always been a key factor in Indian

To someone uninitiated in Indian politics,  and only to someone uninitiated in Indian politics, Sitaram Yechury, general secretary (GS) of the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M), which has just nine Lok Sabha seats (1.66 per cent of the total), would appear to be another insignificant Opposition leader. But as the events of the recent weeks have shown — there was a massive clamour demanding that the CPI-M allow Yechury a third term in the Rajya Sabha, some even calling it a “historic blunder” by the party — he is in a singularly unique position.

Notwithstanding his party’s meagre strength in the lower House of Parliament, Yechury, an economist by training, is arguably India’s most articulate Opposition leader at present. Many have said that his not being in the House will further weaken the already anaemic Opposition in Parliament. It is crucial in this regard that I met him a day after Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar, whom many saw as the possible leader to challenge Narendra Modi in 2019, had, reeling from a sudden, albeit opportune, stroke of conscience, joined hands with Modi.

There was then much to talk about and too little time. So Yechury called me to the CPI-M office in New Delhi. 

I find Yechury sitting on a simple chair in a non-AC enclosure talking to one of his party functionaries. It is decided that we should break from the format — talking over lunch — since the canteen downstairs would be too noisy. So we go to his office room, which is much cooler and has several stacks of papers on different tables. But two things catch my attention: A paperback copy of How Will Capitalism End? by Wolfgang Streeck and a small bottle of Sualin, a traditional, and rather addictive, cure for a sore throat. Not at all surprising I think — I am meeting a Left politician after all!

Of course, Yechury is one of the most soft-spoken ones. To break the ice, I try to refresh his memory by telling him that in 2012, when I worked for Forbes India magazine, I had commissioned a piece from him on the Union Budget. He does not remember but is immediately curious: “Did I write?” I say yes, he did. And he is completely surprised and we both laugh.

I ask him why he chose not to get back to the Rajya Sabha. “As early as 2015, when I took charge as GS, I had made it clear that I will quit Parliament. But the party felt it would mean gifting a seat to the Trinamool Congress. Therefore, the party decided that I should continue till my term is completed. Subsequently, in April itself when asked I had ruled out a third term. But as the West Bengal state committee made a proposal to the Central Committee, it was discussed.”

What does he make of this government’s economic policies, I ask. I add that, on the face of it, they are quite similar to what the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance pursued. “Of course, there is a design. The Bharatiya Janata Party is the political arm of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, whose objective is to replace the secular democratic republic of India with their version of, what they call, the Hindu Rashtra.” He carries on, “On the economic front, they continue with the neoliberal reform trajectory, but in our opinion it cannot solve the problems of the Indian people.”

Why, I ask. “Because, in India, the problem is not the lack of availability of capital to invest, rather the lack of demand for that capital to produce something that people can buy. So unless you address the issue of demand expansion, the solution cannot be found.”

Then he tears into the agrarian distress and blames the government for ignoring it till it reached this point. Similarly, demonetiation “completely crippled our informal economy, which employs the bulk of the labour force”. Unemployment, too, is worsening, especially in the services sector such as the information technology industry, he points out. “Where will the demand come from?”

So what should the government do? “What India requires is a new ‘new deal’, which involves a massive dose of public investment needed to build infrastructure.” But this government has ramped up Budget allocations for roads and railways, I point out.

“Yes, but via the PPP (public–private partnership) route. Look at the international experience. Why has the London transport got back to public funding? Why did British rail get re-nationalised?” He says the problem with involving private players is that they have a cost of financing — while the government doesn’t — and as a result, they impose higher user charges.

But the government, too, has a cost of financing, I rebut. “Yes, but it can finance itself by plugging the other (revenue) loopholes,” he retorts and goes for the Modi government’s weakest spot in terms of managing the economy — the resolution of non-performing assets in the banking system.

“What is stopping the government from seizing the properties and getting back the money?” By now, Yechury, the potent voice of the Opposition, was in full flow — hunched forward, elbows on the table, looking directly at me. Everything around paled into insignificance. For a moment, I glance at the Sualin bottle, but it isn’t required because the very next moment, he is at his impish best. “Except, of course, it is class interest, as we call it,” he says softly and arches back into his chair, chuckling.

The message came that the canteen is relatively empty and we can go for lunch. I float the last question for the afternoon: What does he make of Modi’s pro-poor turnaround and his apparent political success in doing so?

“The turnaround is only in the slogans,” he guffaws and then comes up with a surprising analogy to explain what is happening in Indian politics. “This government is applying the Manmohan Desai movie logic. When Desai was asked how all his films were super hits, he had said the success lies in one factor alone — that from the moment people come to watch the film till the time they leave the theatre, they should not think.” It is quite hilarious to see him rattle off one slogan after another that the current government has employed, leaving a trail of unmet promises yet bamboozling the public.

We reach the canteen and there’s just one person eating. We pick a stainless steel thali each and reach the counter. There is little food left now and the person serving has to place the bowls at an angle to serve the little dal that is left. Yechury seemed most excited about the egg curry. We carry on and he says, “The BJP has perfected the art of losing elections but forming governments.” Again, he lists the examples. But doesn’t this also show the failure of the Opposition, I ask. “It does. The index of Opposition unity has always been the most important factor in Indian politics. But this can only be forged through durable popular struggles by creating an alternative political narrative.”

This time I go for the Opposition’s weak spot. As I enjoy a hot serving of simple and tasty arhar dal and rice, along with a juicy piece of the mango pickle, I say, “By the looks of it, Modi is likely to field a ‘grand alliance’ in 2019 before any such effort from the Opposition. Do you worry that the Opposition parties enjoy so little credibility?”

Yechury says there is no point blaming the people. “Unless there is an alternative narrative, who will they follow,” he says. “An alternative narrative can happen only over time, with people realising that their struggles will not get over by slogans.” But he cautions that people, especially those in north India, are being roused along communal lines and given minor doles to win elections.

And that, he emphasises, will not be good for the country in the long run.