The Rediff Interview/Era Sezhiyan

'What is the purpose of meeting Thackeray without discussing politics'

The Janata Dal is at loggerheads with the Congress in almost all the states. But at the Centre, the United Front of which the Dal is a major constituent has accepted Congress support. Did you support this kind of about turn?

There was no other alternative. There were three groups. One is the BJP, another one is the Third Front and then the Congress. The Congress was prepared to give support from outside. Either you don't accept the support or go to the polls again, or within the framework available you try to work it out without compromising too much. This itself is a compromise, I don't deny that.

Is it not an opportunistic alliance?

There are two things. One, you sacrifice everything. But when opportunities come, why don't you exploit it? Before the election, we were fighting against the Congress and the BJP. You asked me why I joined hands with the Congress. The answer is, I prefer to join hands with the Congress than go with the BJP. We did this to contain the BJP.

What is the other option available? Only three groups are there. Either you are with them, or you keep quiet.

You could have kept quiet too.

Okay, okay, okay. If we had kept quiet, the biggest party, the BJP, would have stayed.

Let me ask you, why did the Congress, which was fighting against Partition and the Muslim League, join the ML in Kerala to defeat the Communists? What is the logic behind the act? The DMK was a secessionist party in your (Congress!) eyes, but why did you join with the DMK in 1970? Tell me.

I am asking you the same question. You are not in the Congress but in the Janata Dal.

These things happen in politics. Whenever an exigency comes, whenever opportunities are open, you have to choose the better one. Even the Communists felt there is no other go to contain the BJP. Whenever a greater menace comes, you have to join hands.

You call the BJP a greater menace.

I agree with their assessment at the present. When Germany was under Hitler, didn't the capitalist state of America join with Russia?

In that case, do you agree with the prime minister's meeting with Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray?

I don't agree with that act at all. He should have consulted the party before meeting him. What is the purpose of going and meeting him (Thackeray)without discussing politics? It has unnecessarily created a cloud of distrust.

Do you believe they did not discuss any politics?

I do not know. Both of them said that, and we have to take them at their word. But an ordinary, reasonable common man would feel they discussed (politics). My point is, why did he go and now disown everything? He should have anticipated these things before going there. In politics you should not do anything which you can't own up in public.

The speculation is that the meeting was to create a rift in the BJP-Shiv Sena alliance in Maharashtra and exploit the volatile situation in Gujarat. What do you say?

Maybe. Why couldn't he discuss all these things in the PAC and with our own leaders? The first criticism has come from the party president himself. He was not representing the party when he went there, he was representing Deve Gowda. That's bad.

When you are occupying a big position, you should also think of the implications on the party. When somebody tells an ordinary worker in the village, 'What's this? Your leader has gone and prostrated in front of that man,' how will he explain?

What, according to you, might have made Prime Minister Deve Gowda go and meet Thackeray? Is it to exploit the situation?

No, no. It's Deve Gowda's nature, that's all I can say. Deve Gowda does this kind of thing. Somebody commented about the difference between the functioning of Narasimha Rao and Deve Gowda. The difference is that Narasimha thinks, thinks and thinks but never decides, on the other hand this man decides everything first and thinks later! (Laughs).

He might have thought that was good for the party to split the BJP. He should have discussed it with the party first before he embarked (upon the mission). This is a very serious matter and a critical one too. In politics, if you succeed, people will forget your flaws. But if you fail, tons of criticism will be on you.

I don't blame him in the sense that he did anything wantonly or deliberately. Probably he over-reacted without consulting others, thinking that this is an easy way to do the other work. Probably the rebuff came so heavily that both sides are denying it. But it is very hard to convince people that it was a courtesy call. Probably maturity has not come to Deve Gowda in all India politics.

Do you agree with the charge that the prime minister acts as if he belongs to only Karnataka?

When your backyard is in a tumultuous state, you will have peace there (Delhi). Suppose, he loses his base in Karnataka, he will be in a very bad position at the all India level. Somebody said, he is the chief minister in Delhi or something like that which is not a very charitable remark. But he should rise above the level of Karnataka. It will take some time. Because he has only been attuned to the atmosphere of Karnataka.

Since there is a danger to the Karnataka government, probably he takes it more keenly. Take for example, Laloo Prasad Yadav. He is the all India president of the Janata Dal. How many times has he gone away from Bihar and Delhi to any other state?

Was it a mistake on the United Front's part to elect a person as the leader, one who is now criticised as a person whose mental make-up is not attuned to national politics?

That was the best material they could choose. There were three or four others too. Even if they had chosen anybody else, the same situation might have developed with some variations in degree.

They made a mistake. They could have consulted the party, the Janata Dal, instead of consulting only the leader. Whereas both the CPI and the CPI-M went to the party for approval.

Do you think if they had consulted the party, Hegde's name may have come up?

Hegde's argument would be blunted. Even at the time, he said it was not a good choice. He was at liberty to say so. I don't blame him. But his main grouse was that the party was not consulted. He says he was expelled when he pointed that out.

What are your future plans?

I am not in a hurry. I will be in politics, of course whether attached to a party or not. I am 73 and I have given more than fifty years of service to politics. I feel I have served too long (Laughs).