In politics, there is no logical link between good human beings and successful political parties. A successful political party may have a leader with detestable human qualities. By contrast, a person with sterling qualities ─ honesty, integrity, humility, selfless service, intellectual brilliance, courage to fight and make sacrifices for one’s principles ─ may become the leader of a failed political party.
Sitaram Yechury exemplified the second category.
The communist movement in India has failed. The Communist Party of India (Marxist), the largest contingent of the communist movement, has only four MPs in the Lok Sabha, with 1.78% in the national vote share. It heads a coalition government in only one Indian state, Kerala. Its two other strongholds, West Bengal and Tripura, have crumbled. There are no signs on the horizon that the communists will ever become a formidable force capable of shaping India’s destiny.
What then explains the outpouring of grief at the passing of Sitaram Yechury, general secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) on September 12? Not in recent memory has the death of a communist leader in India been mourned by so many people across the political and social spectrum.
Social media is inundated with messages that convey a deep sense of loss. Political leaders, mostly from the non-Bharatiya Janata Party space, have extolled his qualities and said his untimely departure has left a void. These are not stock-in-trade condolence messages. They are genuine and heartfelt. Not many in the BJP, the party he staunchly opposed, have publicly commented. But even the saner people in the Sangh Parivar must have privately felt that Indian politics has become poorer with the exit of a good man.
Yechury was that kind of leader who had earned the admiration, bordering on respect, even of those who vehemently rejected the communist ideology and never voted for a communist party. Such admiration and respect are not earned easily. A lifetime of tapasya is needed to build a public persona that authentically reflects the fine intrinsic character of a person.
We live in an age when both the common people and the well-placed elite have no respect for the tribe of politicians. We also live in an age when many politicians are known to hire, with hefty fees, public relations agencies to present a likeable image of themselves to the world. But Yechury, even after he had become nationally famous and started to exert considerable influence in political circles well beyond the confines of his party, was far removed from this malign brand of politics.
In this sense, he represented the best of communist idealism. When I went to meet him at the Communist Party of India (Marxist)’s headquarters near Delhi’s Gole Market a few years ago, I was shocked to see how utterly Gandhian his office was. Its utter lack of ostentation was in stark contrast to the opulent, almost seven-star headquarters of the ruling BJP on Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg, not so far away.
Yechury lived a simple life in a modest home in Delhi. Unlike most politicians in the national capital, he was most accessible to common people, party cadre, activists in the movements of students, farmers and the media. This kind of transparency is becoming rare in Indian politics.
He also possessed another quality that has become scarce among Indian politicians. In the best traditions of the communist movement, he developed the intellectual side of his personality right from his days as a student activist in the 1970s, and he never abandoned his cerebral pursuits till the end. A prolific writer, he edited his party’s weekly newspaper People’s Democracy for many years. He wrote the drafts of his party’s resolutions and other documents, which, unlike in most other parties, are read and debated seriously by communists in their internal forums. He also frequently wrote in the mainstream media.
Leftists in India ─ regardless of whether they belong to the Communist Party of India (Marxist), Communist Party of India or other segments of the Left ─ have always exerted an influence on public discourse disproportionate to their electoral might. This is because they are articulate communicators of their party’s cogent thinking on various issues. In this, Yechury stood head and shoulders above others. While this burnished his public image, another factor enhanced his influence in Indian politics. Since the mid-1990s, he became the face of the communist Left in efforts to build alliance politics ─ first anti-BJP and anti-Congress, then anti-BJP and non-Congress, and in with the advent of the INDIA alliance last year, anti-BJP and pro-Congress.
In 1996 and 1997, he played a key role in the formation of two short-lived United Front governments headed by HD Deve Gowda and IK Gujral. (This was the time when he, along with his party colleague Prakash Karat, famously stopped Jyoti Basu from becoming India’s first communist prime minister. There was nothing personal against Basu in their stand; it was the principled decision of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) not to dilute its “revolutionary” ideology. However, one wonders whether the Communist Party of India (Marxist) would take the same inflexible stand now if, hypothetically speaking, a similar opportunity to lead a coalition government at the Centre were to present itself again.)
In 2004 and 2009, Yechury was again in the thick of things with the formation of the two United Progressive Alliance governments headed by Manmohan Singh. The birth of the INDIA formation and its impressive showing in the 2024 elections enhanced the importance of his alliance-building acumen. After all, he enjoyed the trust and goodwill of not only the leaders of all the INDIA block partners, but also of key leaders outside the alliance such as Chandrababu Naidu, Nitish Kumar (both of whose parties are a part of Modi 3.0) and Naveen Patnaik.
Yechury’s centrality in giving a new orientation to post-Modi alliance-building was widely recognised. No one felt threatened or intimidated by him. That is why, his demise is being regarded as untimely and a void difficult to fill.
While Yechury’s unique personal qualities account for his popularity, what accounts for the utter failure of the party he led and the movement he represented? This calls for a separate analysis, and now is not the occasion for it. Nevertheless, one thing is undeniable. After the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union and all Eastern European countries and the disintegration of the Soviet Union itself in 1991, Yechury became less doctrinaire and more pragmatic and broad-minded. Privately, in conversations with me, he would even praise Atal Bihari Vajpayee and LK Advani for their liberal outlook.
I know from personal experience that former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, with whom I worked closely in the Prime Minister’s Office, admired Yechury ─ and the admiration was amply reciprocated. Here is an incident I vividly recall. Once Prime Minister Vajpayee had convened an all-party meeting in the old Parliament House. Yechury represented the Communist Party of India (Marxist) at the meeting. After the meeting was over, Vajpayee spotted Yechury and quipped with a big smile, “Hello Comrade Sitaram ji, aap kaise hain?” And then, pointing a finger at me, he said, “Do you know that I have a comrade in my office?” He was referring to my own communist past as an activist of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) before I joined the BJP in 1996.
Yechury joined the banter and replied, “Haan, Atal ji. Hum hi ne Sudheendra ko aap ke paas bhejaa hai!” We only have sent Sudheendra to your party. This made both Vajpayee and Yechury have a hearty laugh.
The last time I closely interacted with Yechury was in 2022, when we worked together for the campaign of Yashwant Sinha, who had been unanimously chosen as the opposition’s candidate in the presidential election. All the meetings of opposition leaders used to be held at Sharad Pawar’s residence in New Delhi.
One day, Yechury asked me, “How is Advaniji’s health?” He knew my close association with the BJP stalwart. I said he was in good health despite his age (he was 94 then). “Please convey my regards to him,” Yechury said. “The BJP was a different kind of party under Atalji and Advaniji. We all admired their struggle against the Emergency and for the restoration of democracy. And they both took bold initiatives to normalise India-Pakistan relations. Advaniji even had to pay a political price for taking a principled stand.”
There was a youthful dreamer in Yechury till the very end and it showed on his face. The dream was for a better India and a better world. A world of peace and justice for all. And an India where diversity was protected and celebrated, and not derided and turned divisive for narrow political ends. He held on to that dream despite setbacks in politics and in his personal life. (His son Ashish died of Covid in 2021.) Many differed with the ideology of his party. But none who interacted with him closely failed to admire his deep humanism and unwavering patriotism.
Comrade Sitaram, I join millions of your grieving friends and admirers in bidding adieu to you with a final Lal Salam. India will remember you for a long time.
The writer, who served as an aide to India’s former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, is the founder of the Forum for a New South Asia – Powered by India-Pakistan-China Cooperation. His X handle is @SudheenKulkarni and he welcomes comments at sudheenkulkarni@gmail.com.
