Mamata doesn't know to behave

Mamata Banerjee's unending tantrums
The Hindu
Monday, Aug 08, 2005
  

There is nothing Trinamool Congress leader Mamata Banerjee likes more than a good tantrum, and there is no saying who or what will provoke her. Some years ago she boycotted the Lok Sabha, apparently displeased with Speaker Shivraj Patil. On another occasion, with Speaker P.A. Sangma presiding, she threw her shawl at the chair. Last week Ms. Banerjee set a new low in parliamentary decorum: she flung a sheaf of papers at the Speaker's podium and then announced her `resignation' from the House. The theatrics were supposedly on account of Speaker Somnath Chatterjee's rejection of an adjournment motion she had sought to move on the issue of influx of Bangladeshi nationals. Alleging discrimination by Mr. Chatterjee, a livid Ms. Banerjee directed her ire at Deputy Speaker Charanjit Singh Atwal, forcing him to adjourn the House. Disruptions have long been a hallmark of the lower House. It is one thing for legislators to interrupt proceedings or even troop into the `well' of the House, a phenomenon so common that it has ceased to surprise. It is quite another for a party chief repeatedly and hysterically to work to undermine the authority of the Speaker. As a habitual offender, Ms. Banerjee certainly deserved the strictest punishment. However, Speaker Chatterjee showed grace as well as shrewdness in rejecting her `offer' of resignation; he also seemed in no hurry to admit the flood of privilege motions seeking to censure Ms. Banerjee on her `wild behaviour,' presumably on the reasoning that it is her normal state of political being.

With her public image at an all-career low, the Trinamool chief still needed to be shown her place, which the Speaker did. In a strongly worded statement, he rejected Ms. Banerjee's "grossly defamatory insinuation" that he was "prompted by political consideration" in disallowing her motion on the Bangladeshi immigration issue. As the Speaker pointed out, an adjournment motion on the same question produced a "full and comprehensive" discussion as recently as July 26; in fact, accommodating the Mamata demand would have meant violating the House rules. It was irresponsible of her to have absented herself from a discussion which she claimed was of crucial significance to her State. However, there is more than character trait on display here. Ms. Banerjee's career is going nowhere. The rabble-rousing `Mamatadi', who once had a considerable popular base, is today a marginal force in West Bengal politics. Thanks to the split in her party, the Left Front has scored vital breakthroughs in urban areas that were once Trinamool Congress citadels. Mamata's ally, the Bharatiya Janata Party, is in a crisis that bodes ill for its future. The constituents of the National Democratic Alliance are restive. She cannot go back to the Congress and she is not sure of the BJP. Will `Mamata' become a new Bengali synonym for frustration born of own-goal-scoring?