Somnath Chatterjee was the speaker of the Lok Sabha, India's lower house of Parliament, from 2004 to 2009. A widely admired parliamentarian from West Bengal, Mr. Chatterjee had joined the Communist Party of India (Marxist) in 1968. In 2008, he was expelled from the party for refusing to step down as speaker during a no-confidence vote against the government on the issue of the India-U.S. civilian nuclear deal.
He retired from politics in 2009, and now, along with his wife, Renu, he runs a women's college, a free clinic and computer training center in Shantiniketan, part of his former constituency. He spoke to India Ink at his Kolkata home.
India's new president, Pranab Mukherjee, is an old political rival of yours, and the two of you have been West Bengal's representatives in Delhi for several decades. Any recollections of Mr. Mukherjee that you would like to share with us as ste ps into his new role?
I entered Parliament in 1971, and he was in the Rajya Sabha [upper house of Parliament], though I knew him from a bit earlier. Gradually he held important posts in the government and I had to interact with him, as members of Parliament and also as an acquaintance. I always found him soft-spoken; he never showed much arrogance except sometimes when he lost his temper for a short while â€" but he would always adjust.
He is very knowledgeable about political affairs, has a great memory and prepares very well, which is a great quality. The president's role is largely ceremonial, and I don't give much emphasis to him being a Bengali, but there is of course a certain comfort zone that he speaks my language, hails from my region. So I'm happy that he has become the president of India.
Critics say that the president's post should go to an apolitical person, and that Mr. Mukherjee is too entrenched in the Congress Party to be an impartial presi dent.
There is very little occasion for the president to be concerned with a political tussle, except for imposing president's rule [when a state government is suspended and the federal government takes over] or when inviting a new government after elections. But the president has very limited discretion. He has to follow the democratic principles enshrined in the constitution. It would be a sad day for India if the president took politically motivated decisions. Like it was tragic when President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed signed the proclamation of emergency [in 1975, at the behest of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi].
So there may be occasions… like if I was president, I would have dismissed the Narasimha Rao government the day the Babri mosque was demolished [in Ayodhya on Dec. 6, 1992, by fanatic Hindu mobs]. But the prime minister kept quiet and so did the president.
Both in 2007 and 2012 there was some talk of you being a possible presidential candidate.
< p>This year it is a complete media creation. I was approached in 2007 by several people, several leaders. But I was then in the party, so I told everybody that it was going to be the party's decision. Then Prakash Karat [Communist Party of India (Marxist) general secretary] came and told me that the party did not wish to propose any names for president.The party that you served for 40 years seems to be in a crisis. Election results have been bad in West Bengal and Kerala, the iconic Jawaharlal Nehru University unit was recently scrapped after questioning the leadership, the Left movement in India seems to be in disarray. Do you think the problem starts right at the top? Is Prakash Karat the wrong man to lead the party?
The present leadership has brought about this situation, I have no doubt about it. They are unable to understand the political situation in the country. They have lost the pulse of the people â€" they are now groping in the dark. And the problem i n the Communist Party is the domination of the central leadership. The three state units that matter â€" Bengal, Kerala and Tripura - they are submissive to central diktats. The central committee meetings have just become rituals. Only a handful of people attend them and impose their decisions.
There is arrogance at the top level and signs of corruption and nepotism among lower functionaries. So the rural people and factory workers who were the backbone of the party felt the left leaders were no longer their friends - that is why they left the party. After all these election debacles, somebody should have lost his post.
You described your expulsion from the party in 2008 as one of the saddest days of your life. When you decided to go against the party line in the no-confidence vote, did you expect such a harsh reaction?
Yes, I did expect it. But I believed that it would be after a proper procedure; at least I would be asked to give an explanation why I had taken this step. Till then not a finger had ever been pointed at me. I had fought 11 elections for the party, I had enjoyed the affection and support of so many leaders over the years, the party had accepted me as the speaker. Yet no one ever asked me to explain my stand. This is the result of arrogance. Is there anybody to say no to Prakash Karat? So we must suffer. And if I may say so, everybody very naively accepted that decision without raising a point.
How do you rate Mamata Banerjee's one year in power as West Bengal chief minister?
This state has many problems. My only agony is that some problems are multiplying, and new problems are coming up. I hope that she is able to do something about it. Of course, all those problems cannot be wished away easily, but numerically she is in a position of great strength in the assembly. She is still quite popular in the state because there is no rival coming up.
Industrialization of West Bengal has been a difficul t challenge for successive governments. Some people credit Ms. Banerjee's victory to the protests in Singur against the proposed Tata Nano factory.
The Singur movement was wrong. It was dangerous. It has put back West Bengal by decades. But people were so unhappy with the Left government that even such an anti-West Bengal act has been forgotten. Thousands of jobs would have been created. Tremendous economic development would taken place. I know six banks had opened their branches there, which have now been shut down. It would have brought about a sea change in the situation.
I don't agree that Mamata Banerjee's victory in West Bengal was because of that movement. There may have been some local opposition, but that would not have been shared by the people of the whole state. The fact is the Left government had lost its touch with the people.
