Prakash Karat, 56, rarely grants interviews.

The Communist Party of India-Marxist Politburo member is probably the most influential figure in the CPI-M after General Secretary Harkishen Singh Surjeet.

It was Karat and fellow ideologue Sitaram Yechury who forced the CPI-M to turn down the prime minister's post for Marxist icon Jyoti Basu at the head of the United Front government in 1997.

The hardliner Karat's undiminished influence was in evidence last month when, despite the strong advocacy of Surjeet, Basu and Yechury, the Politburo decided that the party should stay out of the Congress party-led United Progressive Alliance government.

Karat recently granted an exclusive interview to Contributing Editor Sheela Bhatt, shedding rare light on his party's expectations from the Manmohan Singh government.

This lengthy interview -- which we publish in two parts -- first appeared in India Abroad, the newspaper owned by rediff.com

What is your take on the recent election?

The election was significant because after six years of governance, the Bharatiya Janata Party and its allies were rejected by the people.

Our party had set out three aims for this election. One was to defeat the BJP and its allies. Second was the formation of a new, secular government. Third, to increase the CPI-M and the Left's representation in Parliament.

We are gratified that all three aims have been fulfilled. The CPI-M and other Left parties' campaign was that six years of BJP rule benefited only 10 percent of Indians, that the BJP government was the most pro-American in history. Largely, the people have accepted that. 

Many are surprised the Left won 61 parliamentary seats, that it is alive and kicking.

The mainstream media tends to underestimate and underplay the Left's role and its strength. This time we won 61 seats but in 1991 too the Left got 56 seats. Since the last 10 years the CPI-M has been maintaining a steady 30 to 34 seats, but this is the first time we have crossed 40. To that extent it's an achievement, but we are not satisfied.

We believe we have a larger role to play. 

So Communism is not dead, as some believed not too long ago?

It is true the international Left movement suffered a setback after the Soviet Union's collapse. But we didn't suffer its negative fallout because we are deeply rooted among the people. We are the biggest party in Kerala, Tripura and West Bengal. We are running the government in Tripura and West Bengal.

But we are not satisfied with what we have achieved so far.

Former law minister Arun Jaitley told us that the Left's 61 seats is not a mandate for the country to turn Left.

So? [It is] Good enough, that is why we have not joined the government. Our message to the people was that if you increase our strength there will be a secular government in New Delhi. We did not say we will join the government.

In West Bengal, Kerala and Tripura, where we are strong, our campaign was that 'we are the most consistent fighter against the BJP and its policies, and if you want a secular government as an alternative then strengthen the Left. We will ensure a secular government. The Congress party can't ensure it.'

We will play an important role in seeing that a secular government remains at the Center. 

Will secularism have priority over economic policy?

Yes. The danger to secularism posed by the BJP was the main issue in this election. The second issue was the impact of the BJP government's policies on ordinary people, on farmers, on workers, on people in traditional and small industries. We consistently opposed these policies. We said these policies are not in the interests of the people; these policies are in the interests of people sitting in Washington. That point has reached home deeply. 

Indo-US relations have come a long way during the previous government. With 61 seats, you have limited influence over international relations.  

I am sure the Congress-led coalition government will take corrective steps. The Vajpayee government had given up our independent foreign policy. They tied the country's foreign policy to America's global policy. Not just strategic or military ties, it was basically setting India in alignment with what America wants for its global strategy or hegemony.

Even on Iraq, according to me, the Indian government played a very shameful role, of not firmly opposing America's occupation of Iraq.  

But we did not send troops to Iraq.

That was because of pressure from the entire Opposition. They had planned the troops, and had selected an army division. They had selected an officer who was to command it. It was because of public opinion built up by the Opposition that they were forced to step back.

There must be a course correction in foreign policy. We should go back to our independent foreign policy. You have ties with America, but in the past we also had close relations with Russia. We should continue with it.

We are now developing good relations with China. The Vajpayee government took a right step there. We should have closer relations with Europe.

What we are saying is, we should promote multi-polarity in the world and you don't accept the uni-polar situation where America dictates to the world. 

Do you have any pacifying words over Indo-US relations?

We are saying that India, being a major developing country in Asia, has more convergence of interests with countries like China, Brazil and South Africa. We have taken some initiatives with them in connection with the World Trade Organization. We should develop multi-level ties.

Yes, America is important for us but we should have good economic and trade relations. We should not become totally subject to America's interests in the region. 

Are friendly ties with America not in the national interest?

Go by the record. This is the first country, which welcomed (President George) Bush's National Missile Defense Policy. Why are we doing it? What is in India's interest to support America's missile defense system? This is a servile attitude and not an independent attitude. 

But if you look around, your views don't jell well among the middle class in large parts of India. 

No, I don't think so. A large section of the middle class of India is patriotic and they don't like India becoming a subordinate to the United States. A small section of the middle class may have tied up its interests with America's economic interests in various regions, but large sections of India's middle class accept our point of view.

On Iraq, I can tell you there is anger among all sections. The middle class is patriotic, they don't like what is being done in Iraq by America. After all, you are talking about the middle class which has voted out the BJP in Mumbai, Kolkata, New Delhi and Chennai. The middle class has voted out the BJP in big cities and one of the reasons is also this (India's alliance with the US).

You allowed cheap imports at America's and the West's dictates, and what happened to your domestic industries? Many BJP supporters were retailers who opposed allowing foreign companies in retail trade. But the government allowed foreign investment in retail trade. There is a large section of the middle class which was fed up with the BJP's economic policy.

A large section of the middle class does not approve of the servile attitude exhibited by the Vajpayee government. We are for a dialogue with Pakistan but we are not for a dialogue because America tells us. We said keep America out of the picture and you deal directly with Pakistan, have bilateral talks. (US Secretary of State) Colin Powell need not come to India and then go to Islamabad to make us talk!

The Left is called opportunist because in some states you are shedding blood fighting the Congress party but in the Centre you are supporting the same party.

In fact, in West Bengal our main success this time was in ensuring that the Trinamool-BJP alliance was defeated. They were our main Opposition and not the Congress party. This time the Congress party has gained in West Bengal.

But you do agree you have problems with the Congress party?

Yes, we are not for the Congress party's policies. We want a secular government. That is our main criteria for supporting it. But we do not agree with its economic policies.

Next: 'We don't hide our politics. We are not opportunists'

Photograph: Sondeep Shankar/Saab Press

Image: Uday Kuckian