‘The government has a soft corner for monopoly firms’

CPI secretary general A B Bardhan thinks some positive influence from the Left can make the UPA serve the needs of  the people and adhere to the CMP

Sanjay Kapoor Delhi

Communist Party of India (CPI) secretary general A B Bardhan is not entirely unhappy with the way the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government has been running its affairs. But what really irks him is the manner in which the government is mollycoddling monopolistic companies like Reliance. However, he is also confident that the Left parties have been able make the UPA government follow pro-poor programmes. One thing that could hurt the UPA government, he fears, is the Congress' desire to form a single party government.

Excerpts from the interview:

Following your trip to Pakistan, both you and Harkishen Singh Surjeet seem quite convinced about Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf's sincerity in bringing peace to this region.

Why should we question anybody's sincerity? I don't think any dialogue can start by assuming that someone is not sincere. We discussed all issues that concern India and Pakistan — be it Kashmir, water, or the other confidence building measures. To me it seems that nobody has sat down and talked the Kashmir issue out seriously, it has always been bypassed. And I don't think there is a need for the US to interfere.

But the US has been claiming that they were responsible for the thaw between the two countries.

Two neighbouring countries meet, two concerned leaders meet, there is a give and take, and a solution acceptable to both countries and to the people in Kashmir is evolved. What role do you think does the US can have in this?

Pakistan has been talking about third party mediation from time to time.

That was at a time when the two leaders were not meeting. Now they are, so what do you need the US for?

Do you think the possibility of peace in this region has brightened since the UPA government came to power?

I think so. This government has not been alternating between threats and gestures of peace, like what the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) was doing. Deliberate flip-flop makes the people question the government's sincerity. The UPA government has been taking the peace process more seriously.

Some time ago, you suggested that the CPI should merge with the CPI(M). What are the social and political changes that have taken place that suggest the futility of carrying on with an independent existence?

Let me be very clear, nowhere have I used the word "merger". It is nowhere in my draft resolution. It is a word discovered by the media. All that we have been talking about is the unification of the communist movement, and certainly that means the CPI and the CPI(M). The differences can be debated and discussed.

It seemed that the CPI(M) leadership spurned your offer.

I made no offer. I just made a suggestion based on our assessment of the situation. If that does not match the CPI(M)'s assessment, then, well, it is their view.

Do you think the Left's joining the government would have exercised a greater control over the UPA?

I do not know. May be the spheres in which the Left took responsibility would have seen some good work. But there is one advantage in the present position. We can oversee the entire government, rather than managing a few fields.

You have expressed some major reservations about the government's economic policies. Many people who do not see the Left very kindly think you are not very serious about taking your demands to their possible conclusion.

I feel our position is very clear. After all, whatever conflict there is with the government, it has nothing to do with any demands that we make for ourselves. We are not asking for any portfolios or posts. We have always talked of people's issues. No one can accuse us of making any partisan demands. Some people think the country can advance only by following the policies of neoliberalism. We do not think so.

Has your pressure been able to force the UPA government to follow your polices?

Not to the extent that we had wished. We have been able to see that they refrain from some acts, they go slow in certain others and they undertake some that we want them to. I think it is our pressure that made them consider the needs of agriculture much more seriously than they have all these years. There is a greater investment in agriculture, more credit is being given to farmers. Education and healthcare investments are also going up. These are issues where we have exercised a good deal of pressure.

Another area where you have been quite trenchant is in your opposition to foreign investment in public sector banks.

We do not oppose foreign investment per se. Foreign investments have been made in our country and there is no reason why we should oppose them. But if foreign investments are only meant to take over our existing industries, then that is of no use. Secondly, foreign investments should not jeopardise our national security, and they should not acquire a grip over our all financial resources. 

The flip side is that there is a lobby of domestic industrialists who take advantage of your ideological position to save themselves from competition.

I don't think anybody is saving them from competition. According to us, so called competition which this government encourages and which their economic policy presumes is only leading to monopoly growth. And, that is taking place irrespective of what we say. For instance, the monopoly that Reliance has acquired over energy of all types, from oil to electricity, has got nothing to do with foreign investments.

Who is giving competition to Reliance in the sphere of oil? Oil is actually dominated by our public sector but of late we see monopoly growth of Reliance at the expense of our public sector.

So, are you putting up pressure on the government to curb monopoly growth as witnessed in the case of Reliance?

That has been our fundamental position: All that is happening in the name of competition is monopoly growth. Some of these monopolistic firms do not respect any rules. Their highly-paid executives are meant to find out how to bypass rules. The government also works itself into a position where it cannot control them. Everybody knew that Reliance was short-circuiting all long-distance calls.

Do you think the government is responding to your pressure in ensuring that the rule of law is implemented where monopoly houses are concerned?

That is where we are not fully satisfied. We think the government has a soft corner for domestic and foreign monopoly firms. We have clearly stated that this is a bourgeoisie government.

Is your agenda for the party to join the UPA government?

No

You are by and large determined to ensure that this government completes its full term.

We would like it to. But, that would depend on this government more or less implementing the Common Minimum Program (CMP).

How many marks would you give the UPA government for executing the CMP?

There is no ultimatum and time limit. But we hope that due to public pressure and due to our struggle, they will not find it easy to deviate from the CMP.

Are you worried about the progressive decline of the Congress and the inability of the Left parties to occupy the space, especially in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar?

I am not worried about the decline of the Congress. However, this decline should not mean the growth of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). But I am certainly worried that the Left has not been able to fill in the vacuum as fast as it should have.

Any reason why the Left has not been able to do so?

The social reality has been working as a negative factor for quite some time. Caste is very much a social reality. It can play a positive role if, for instance, it works on emancipation. If, instead, caste is only used by the affluent to support vested interests, it plays a negative role.

So, the retreat of the Congress and the inability of the Left are actually giving space to caste based parties?

That is the tragedy. But you continue to play with them in every state.

Electoral tactics can differ from political tactics. According to our political tactics, we think that people's awareness, greater consciousness and a more developed class outlook can combat caste feelings.

Is there a need to reinvent the communist movement in this country?

That is said by those who assess the work of the communist parties negatively. They think we play only a marginal role.

I do not think so. Sixty-one members providing the government with the majority it needs, giving the government a credible programme and insisting that it works in the interests of the common people is not a marginal force. But, at the same time, it is not a decisive force. So, strengthening the communist movement is very necessary.

Has the character of the Congress changed in the last 10 or 20 years?

The only thing that has changed is that they have come to realise that they can no longer think of one-party rule. So, they have more or less reconciled themselves to coalition politics. In Bihar and Jharkhand, they thought they could expand their political space just because they were heading the UPA government. And by that they only disrupted the UPA. And the result is there for all to see.

Do you see any possibility of a third front being revived?

The most stable alternative in our reckoning would be a Leftist and a more secular alternative. That will be the real third front rather than a conglomeration of all types of parties solely on the basis of being anti-BJP or anti-Congress.

Finally, do you think the US exercises considerable influence over the functioning of the government of India?

I don't think so. We are not a banana republic.