Alien interests dictate Intelligence Bureau agenda (Sunday Guardian)

MADHAV NALAPAT  NEW DELHI | 8th Apr

Soldiers perform a demonstration drill during an Army fair at Khasa, Amritsar earlier this year. AFP he high-level involvement of officials (including at the senior ministerial level) in the planting of a 4 April report in a daily about what it insinuated was a coup attempt by the Army has uncovered the grip that the intelligence agencies of key countries have over policy in India. In particular, a small group of European countries led by Italy and France "operate a seamless web of diplomat-agents, businessperson-agents, NGO-agents and scholar-agents not just to collect information, but to ensure that a policy matrix gets chosen that would ensure that India or its entities never pose a commercial challenge to them," a senior official within one of the infiltrated agencies claimed. As an example of their reach, he claimed that "information on Sonia Gandhi and her children by the Italian, French and Spanish missions in Delhi is far more comprehensive than the sketchy details available with the Intelligence Bureau" about the family that controls policy within the Manmohan Singh government. Such depth and accuracy can be attributed to "the easy access that diplomats and other nationals of these countries have to Sonia Gandhi and her immediate family" i.e., children and sisters, "access that is far superior to that of even Cabinet ministers in the Manmohan Singh government", the source ended. Another key official pointed to the past controversy over the cryogenic engines, where false charges by the IB led to the removal of key scientists from the labs and consequent slowdown of a critical programme. "These charges were manufactured by the CIA to sabotage the cryogenic engine programme, yet not a single IB officer responsible for the damage has been held to account." Alluding to a more recent case, he pointed out that "none of the senior intelligence officials who supervised CIA agent Robinder Singh (of RAW) have had their careers blighted by their negligence in allowing him to operate for so long and finally escape in 2004". Instead, "many of those directly responsible for this fiasco have been rewarded with promotions". Clearly, the IB and other agencies are unwilling to turn the spotlight on possible black sheep within their own ranks, "even though detection of foreign agents within the system is needed for the security of the country to be safeguarded", a retired official directly aware of the Robinder Singh escape claimed, adding that "the partiality to France in particular began when Brajesh Mishra was the National Security Advisor (1998-2004) and has continued to the present, only Italy has been added to the list". If these officials are correct, there is a concerted effort to ensure that India does not repeat the trajectory of China in emerging as a viable competitor to European hi-tech companies. "Look at the absurd laws governing the internet in India. These rules seem designed to ensure that the flexibility and freedom needed for India to generate its own Yahoo! or Google got snuffed out." These sources claim that the Intelligence Bureau "had substantial influence in the initial drafting of the restrictive laws on internet dissemination and content in India" and that the IB "relied on information provided by agents of countries eager to ensure that India not emerge as a global knowledge industry destination". Unless there is a permissive atmosphere in the internet domain in India, followed by a massive expansion in coverage and bandwidth, India will miss the bus in this key sector. Instead, "there is excessive regulation that is designed to ensure that the sector does not grow to anywhere near its full potential," claimed an official, adding that "this suits foreign entities perfectly". According to former officials aware of the way in which the agency relies on outside advice formally and informally, "the extent of reliance of the IB on input provided by intelligence agencies of countries that have a commercial interest in hobbling innovation in India needs to be investigated, and business expertise injected into the IB", so that the agency does not unwittingly serve the commercial interests of foreign countries. The US, the UK, France and other countries that are collectively linked to NATO ensure that their intelligence agencies serve the interests of domestic business and other constituencies, "whereas the IB does the reverse, often serving external interests over domestic". In the case of Kudankulam, for instance, this newspaper was the first (6 November 2011) to detect the massive involvement of foreign agencies in the agitation against the plant, well before there was any official acknowledgement of this fact. "That the NGOs were funded from countries close to the highest levels of the UPA may explain why the IB was asleep," a former official claimed. According to several officials, much of the "information" and "advice" provided by selected foreign agencies to their contacts in the IB are designed to "gain a commercial advantage for their companies, often by tarring domestic and other rivals with vague charges, so as to blacklist them". Because of its ignorance of the world of commerce and international markets, the IB "has become an effective instrument for selected countries to advance their agenda in India". The episode of the leak of the so-called coup attempt has shown the reach within the highest levels of the government of those eager to mislead Indian agencies into giving information that degrades the military's capabilities and tarnishes those seeking to reduce the influence of middlemen in arms purchases. "If the IB investigated the lifestyles of the top six former military and civilian officials connected with procurement decisions during 2005-2011, much will tumble out. But those from the countries that have benefited from the six will ensure that such a probe never be carried out," a former official lamented. http://www.sunday-guardian.com/investigation/alien-interests-dictate-intelligence-bureau-agenda

Zardari visit to focus on mutual prosperity (PO)

By M D Nalapat
Those who know everything end up knowing nothing. US intelligence agencies suck up every bit of information that money and machine can pick up, and in the process, end up fundamentally misreading ground realities. Such an example has been followed by NATO, and has led to the numerous disastrous evaluations made by that military alliance, most recently in Libya. While President Nicholas Sarkozy of France is known to be a cowboy, prone toride roughshod over commonsense in his decisions, it was a surprise to see UK Prime Minister David Cameron trot meekly behind Sarkozy in the disastrous intervention in Libya against a Head of State who had surrendered his WMD, his intelligence secrets and almost 80% of the treasury to various members of the NATO alliance. Intervention in Libya was seized upon by Sarkozy to convey an impression of toughness and idealism that was severely tarnished by his marriage to a much younger woman known to favour the company of billionaires, in the process abandoning a dutiful and elegant - albeit middle-aged - wife. Since his marriage to Carla Bruni, the French president’s main achievement is to have produced a child with her. That, and ensuring that Libya becomes a haven for terrorists and a prolific source of illicit arms for violent groups across Africa 


However, Libya is only one of the many locations where NATO intelligence has gone horribly wrong. In the case of Afghanistan, the Taliban revived because of cash given by the alliance to warlords who were (not so secret) supporters of the militia. It is with NATO money that the Taliban have once again become a force, and it is because of NATO tactics that an organisation that was detested by the people of Afghanistan has once again found support within the broader public, as being the only group willing to take on the foreign occupiers of that unhappy country. Just as the situation in Iraq stabilised only when US troops abandoned their shows of force and retreated behind the barracks - albeit after a surge in numbers - so also the Taliban will be on the defensive only after NATO troops leave Afghanistan to its own people. The sight of heavily armed troops with a legal license to shoot and kill innocents on suspicion is driving the people of Afghanistan into the embrace of extremists. However, NATO continues to believe in the spin that it has fed to media outlets such as CNN and BBC, that its troops are beloved by the Afghan people, who - or so NATO media claim - are “unhappy that they are to leave in two years time”. In fact, if they were to leave in two weeks time, the people of Afghanistan ( minus the few that profit out of the occupation) would be even happier. NATO has burst out of the boundaries of Europe, but its mindset remains that of 19th century Europe, a continent that believes it has the right to order around the rest of the world, and does so with brute force whenever it finds a foe that is weak enough to safely be attacked.

In Pakistan as well, NATO - headed by the US - has lost the plot. While in the case of Myanmar, Hillary Clinton foams on about the military being in command, the same US Secretary of State has not been able to conceal her dislike for President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan, perhaps because he shares so many personality traits with Bill Clinton. During the controversy over the re-instatement of the Chief Justice of Pakistan and the discussions surrounding the giving of an extension of tenure to General Ashfaq Kayani, it is no secret that in both cases, the US was opposed to the wishes of the civilian President of Pakistan and helped force him to agree to both the re-instatement of Chief Justice Choudhury and the extension of tenure to General Kayani, despite the fact that these decisions severely weakened the civilian government in Islamabad. While it dislikes the generals in Myanmar, the US State Department teamed up with the US Department of Defense in being ultra-respectful of the Pakistan army as compared to its treatment of the civilian administration. It is only during the past year that there has been a small change in such open preference by the US and other key NATO powers for the men in uniform in Pakistan over elected officials. In contrast, India has always favoured the civilian side, except when US pressure forced then PM Atal Behari Vajpayee to give a red carpet welcome to coup master Pervez Musharraf twelve years ago.

It is again no secret that India was unhappy at such a stance by a country with which it is steadily entering into a close partnership, although fear of US reaction kept such disquiet from being openly expressed in public. Of course, the huge group of those in Delhi who sing whatever tune is the current NATO favourite began a drumbeat of commentary that India should “recognize reality and accept that General Kayani and not the President or Prime Minister of Pakistan was the person to deal with”. Fortunately, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, despite his affection for several of the NATO allies, has continued the traditional policy of giving pride of place to the civilian administration, despite the lack of results of such a policy.

In any country,the military is much less concerned about economic issues than the civilian administration. Even in the US, the Pentagon has openly complained about cutbacks, ignoring the immense economic hardship being endured by more than 60 million citizens in that country. In the USSR and in the Iran of the Shah ,the military consumed so large a share of national resources that the economy faltered and living standards fell. This was in contrast to Deng Xiaoping, who downsized the military because of his focus on the economy. China’s military began to grow substantially only by the mid-1990s,when its economy took off into superpower range. As for India, the only reason why the country is being able to spend so much on purchasingforeign armaments (it is the world’s largest purchaser of such items) is because its economy is growing despite an incompetent and corrupt government.

The calculation on Raisina Hill is that the people of Pakistan share with the people of India a common desire for economic betterment, and that as a consequence, will welcome an India-Pakistan partnership that assures hundreds of thousands of new jobs on both sides of the border. Those involved in such calculations say that India-Pakistan trade can jump to more than $20 billion in two years, and to $50 billion in five years, if the two countries jointly frame policies that synergies mutual strengths. The green signal for the proposed Iran-Pakistan-India-China pipeline is indicative of the desire by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to ensure that Pakistan becomes as crucial an economic trading partner of India as China has become His early comments showed that President Zardari accepted the need for playing the business card with India, and indications are that a substantial contingent of businesspersons from Pakistan will be present in Delhi on April 8,the day the President of Pakistan visits his country’s eastern neighbour. Indications are that visa procedures will be substantially liberalised for business travellers from across the border, and that Pakistan will be given favoured access to key markets in India, so that exports multiply in value.

Once business links become strong, this lobby will become an effective force in pushing for better relations across the entire spectrum of India-Pakistan relations, including contentious issues not related to trade and commerce. At present, neither Pakistan nor India has a strong lobby on the other side. It is hoped that the business community will perform this function in a few years time, especially in a context where economic ties between China and India are blooming. So important is India as a trading partner for China that state-owned enterprises in the PRC are in favour of good relations across the Sino-Indian border, much more so than the PLA, which is still cautious and conservative while looking at India.

That President Zardari is going to the famous dargah of Ajmere Sharif has also gained him appreciation in India, where General Zia’s refusal to go to that shrine three decades back is still remembered, as also General Musharraf’s “lack of time” to visit the dargah. It is known that those who favour a more Wahabi outlook are opposed to visits to Ajmere Sharif,and by making it the center point of his brief stay in India, President Zardari has sent a message across the globe that he is on the side of religious moderates rather than conseratives. Not, of course, that this will be understood in the NATO capitals that have done so much to weaken him over the years. However, India is different. Unlike the US, this is a country that appreciates the moderate stand taken by President Zardari for peace and prosperity, and is preparing to give him a warm welcome when he arrives, and to ensure that he returns with concessions that will generate substantial economic benefits to Pakistan.


http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=148775

Senior minister Sutradhar of coup report? (Sunday Guardian)

MADHAV NALAPAT  NEW DELHI | 4th Apr

Sources involved in tracking sensitive developments claim that a senior minister of the UPA government was the mastermind of the April 4 front page item in a daily newspaper about a suspected coup attempt. The sources claim that the minister is connected - through his close relative - with the defense procurement lobbies gunning for Chief of Army Staff General V K Singh,and that the decision to "trick the newspaper into running a baseless report was to drain away support for General Singh within the political class",who could be expected to unite against any effort at creating a Pakistan-style situation in India. However,the minister in question appears to have miscalculated  the response of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Defense Minister to the report."The minister assumed that both would decline comment on the report, in view of their strained relations with the Army chief, but instead both came out foursquare against the newspaper.This surprised both the minister as well as journalists who relied on him for the initial information," a source claimed. Others say that a close relative of the minister in question has been "regularly meeting with arms merchants and their lobbyists,including on his many visits abroad".They say that the Intelligence Bureau seems clueless about such activities,as "its net does not cover the influential people in question". Those connected with national security say that "the net of arms merchants is very wide, with Dubai,London and Bangkok being the three locations where they usually wine,dine and otherwise entertain VVIPs from India". In order to ensure protection for their operations,a lot of which involves dubious money transfers, such agencies and individuals "usually function as auxiliaries of foreign intelligence agencies, and are told to ferret out sensitive and secret information from their contacts". These sources claim that "non-declared units of selected NATO member country intelligence agencies (especially one with a huge presence in the defense procurement market in India ) regularly liase with lobbyists and employees of arms manufacturers,and use them for operations such as honeytrapping".In such a context,"their link with relatives of ministers is a worry." According to these sources,the minister in question "is well-known to senior journalistic levels of the publication" that ran the coup report. A military source was "surprised that the newspaper in question ran such a story,in view of the high level of competence of its senior staff", but added that " a senior minister being the source of the initial information would explain their belief in the truth of the report". Other military sources warned that the "objective behind the leak was not merely to discredit the Chief but to paralyse the army in its training function". Already, procurements have slowed to dangerous levels because of repeated - and often accurate - claims of graft. Should the military's freedom to undertake routine training exercises of the sort described in the report get curtailed" because of imaginary fears of a coup, "the military would very soon lose its fighting edge". Military sources claim that even some civilian officials "are linked to arms lobbyists and through them to foreign intelligence agencies",and that these "want to take away even the little freedom of action that is left with the military" since the Nehru-era policy of removing of discretion from the uniformed services to the civilian side. While no one accuses the senior minister of wanting to degrade the capabilities of the army, these sources say that he has perhaps unwittingly "played into the hands of certain arms lobbyists who are salivating not only at the prospect of garnering huge army orders during the balance of the UPA's term in office" but "who seek to weaken the training function of the army and thereby render the force less effective against the sort of challenges that it is facing in Kashmir and other threatres." Army sources say that "the strong rebuttal by the PM and the RM (Raksha or Defense Minister) has cheered those in the service who were unhappy at the way the Chief is being treated". However,this total denial of the news report would have come as a shock to friends and admirers of the senior minister in the newspaper,who took his conclusion that a coup was being planned at face value,and decided to run a report that took up the entire front page with an imaginary scenario that has inadvertently purveyed the falsehood that the Indian army is going the way of its Pakistan counterpart,and that General Singh is itching to do a Musharraf to Manmohan Singh's Nawaz Sharif. http://www.sunday-guardian.com/investigation/senior-minister-sutradhar-of-coup-report

General Singh Pays for Integrity (The Diplomat)

By Madhav Nalapat

Lutyensway (sometimes known asLutyens Bungalow Zone) India’s own version of the Washington D.C. Beltway, has split into two factions: one rooting for Chief of Army Staff Gen. V. K. Singh, and the other wanting him to go the way of Muammar Gaddafi.

Most of the Indian public seems sympathetic to the general’s lament that purchases of defense equipment in India are carried out through an opaque process and – surprise, surprise – may involve bribes. However, those who are or were involved in the business of government, whether as ministers or as officials, seem to be of the view that the Army Chief has “gone berserk,” in the words of retired diplomat Brajesh Mishra, who was passed over for promotion by Indira Gandhi in the 1980s but who was appointed National Security Advisor and Principal Secretary to Prime Minister A.B. Vajpayee in 1998.

Mishra is contemptuous of Defense Minister A. K. Antony’s refusal to sack the army chief, and points to the Bharatiya Janata Party-led National Democratic Alliance decision in 1998 to sack then-Chief of Naval Staff Vishnu Bhagwat “for insubordination.” That was the only sacking of the chief of a wing of the military by a civilian government, and ushered in a repeat of the 1959 to 1962 period, when military advice was ignored in favor of “broader” considerations, a situation that continues to this day. Adm. Bhagwat had doubts about the suitability of Vice Admiral Harinder Singh to be appointed his deputy, and made his doubts known in public.  The naval chief was less outspoken on his view that more attention needed to be paid to indigenization of naval production, including through the involvement of domestic private industry. Such views angered the lobbies within the government that sought a continuation of the partnership between government and foreign suppliers that had made India the largest defense market in the world, despite its poverty-stricken population and substantial domestic scientific and manufacturing capacity.

In private, Bhagwat also expressed doubts about the integrity of Singh, who had the support of powerful lobbies in Lutyensway. Politics is expensive in India, and so is the foreign travel and education for the offspring of India’s officials. Bhagwat’s call for the domestic manufacture of naval craft and equipment, not by the visibly incompetent state sector but by private players, was subversive of the symbiotic relationship between state-owned enterprises and designated foreign suppliers, which generated so much business in offshore banking havens.

As for the admiral’s plea that honesty ought to be a requisite for high military office, this was even more damaging to the established order, where each layer of decision-making took home a slice of the pie. National Security Advisor Brajesh Mishra and his political masters were clear that Bhagwat had to be shown the door before he could challenge the status quo in military procurement. After that, if any chief of an armed service opposed any of the decisions foisted on him by politicians and their civil service subordinates, protests were mouthed in silence. That is, until V.K. Singh came along.

In India, neither merit nor wealth determines promotion in the higher ranks of the military, judiciary or administration, but the calendar. Appointments are made based on the age of the person selected. A previous Chief of Army Staff, Gen. J.J. Singh, ensured that the succession would go first to a close friend, Gen. Deepak Kapoor. After that, Gen. V.K. Singh’s tenure could be shortened by a third by “persuading” the general to increase his age by a year as a condition for being recommended as chief. According to V .K. Singh, he agreed to this only as a temporary measure, no doubt expecting that his original date of birth (recorded in the hospital where he was born) would be restored after he took over the top job in the Army in 2010. Unfortunately for him, the general made the same mistakes as Bhagwat in undertaking a cleanup operation at Army HQ and GHQ. Gen. Singh was an inconvenience to the system, a fact which caused many to conclude that he had to go.

Singh clearly doesn’t want his predecessor's favorite, Lt-Gen. Bikramjit Singh, to succeed him as Army chief. After Bikramjit, another acolyte of J.J. Singh, Lt-Gen. Dalbir Suhag, will take over as Commander of the Armed Services (COAS). That J.J. Singh, Bikramjit Singh and Suhag are all three members of India’s tiny but influential Sikh community (Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, is himself one) has injected a communal color to the controversy. In fact there are allegations that J.J. Singh engineered the date of birth controversy to ensure that his two fellow Sikhs follow V.K. Singh into the post of COAS. However, it needs to be said that the Sikh community is among the most vibrant in the country, and it’s impossible to count the number of sacrifices made by Sikh soldiers in defense of India.

The Defense Ministry would have been well advised to correct the (newly enforced) date of birth of Gen. V. K. Singh, but as in the case of Bhagwat, the general has made himself a target of international arms dealers, who see his insistence on high ethical standards and action against corrupt military officers as a danger to long-established monopolies. Defense Minister Antony, never one to challenge the interests of the political class or the recommendations of his officials, went along with their decision to cut short Singh’s tenure. The result has been Armsgate, a scam whose stain has only just begun to spread.

And what of Brajesh Mishra, who had more than a finger in several defense decisions during 1998 to 2004? This is the man who as national security advisor allowed the Pakistan Army to build concrete bunkers in Indian-held territory during 1998 to 99, and refuse to take action against the military and intelligence chiefs responsible for sleeping on their watch during the 11 months when the Kargil heights were being infiltrated by Pakistan army units. Indeed, the then-chief of army staff was on a visit to Poland when a brigadier blew the whistle on the incursion. The brigadier was subsequently sacked for his whistle-blowing, while the first step taken by the general – if my army sources are correct – was to ensure that his son got posted out of the country on a U.N. assignment, and therefore out of harm’s way.

Mishra also took no action against then COAS Gen. V.P. Malik, nor other generals such as N.C. Vij, who effectively allowed the incursion to take place. Nor did he enquire why the Leh-Manali road remained unoperational throughout the brief 1999 conflict that cost 1,300 Indian lives before the Pakistanis were ejected from their posts. Indeed, it was Mishra who as national security advisor allowed the hijackers of IC 814 to escape on December 24, 1999 after it landed in Amritsar, and he was responsible for two disastrous unilateral ceasefires in Kashmir in subsequent years that allowed Pakistan-trained terror groups to regroup in the Valley and kill several hundred more innocents as a consequence.

Clearly, allowing the Pakistan army to occupy strategic frontier heights is not an offense, but fighting for probity is. Small wonder that he and others equally fortunate want Gen. V. K. Singh to go the way of Admiral Bhagwat.

http://the-diplomat.com/indian-decade/2012/04/04/general-singh-pays-for-integrity/

Democracy, Mamata-style (Sunday Guardian)

By Madhav Nalapat

Mamata Banerjee speaks to the workers of media organisations at a demonstration to press for the implementation of Majithia Wage Boards awards, in New Delhi last month. PTI amata Banerjee may not have been an outstanding success in any portfolio that she handled, and not just because the lady has an itch to resign from an administrative responsibility whenever it appears to her that such a step would generate public applause. Rajiv Gandhi knew his cheli well, and hence declined to make her a minister. Instead, Mamata was put in charge of the Youth Congress, which acted as both cheerleader and protection squad for the party in CPI(M)-ruled West Bengal. Ms Banerjee dealt with Marxist cadres in a no-nonsense way, trading blow for blow and broken bone for broken bone, although the fact that the CPI(M) was in power meant that the party could call upon more goons than the Youth Congress, and besides had the state police as their auxiliary force, foisting cases against Mamata and her supporters. While Priyaranjan Das Munshi was considered the street fighter par excellence in the 1970s, by the end of the 1980s, that honour went to Mamata Banerjee. Perhaps because he was partial to charming women, or was a secret admirer of pugilistic reflexes in the fair sex, P.V. Narasimha Rao brought Ms Banerjee into the Union Cabinet in 1991. In days, he was to discover the qualities that made CPI(M) veterans reach for their blood pressure medication whenever they thought of Mamata. Many a tantrum later, she finally bade goodbye to ministerial office in 1993, only to be brought back seven years later by another gallant man, Atal Behari Vajpayee. Despite the BJP PM's charming ways, Mamata left him for Sonia Gandhi and the Congress, returning to the NDA in 2004, in the final months of their period in office. Although Mamata Banerjee did not prove lucky for the NDA in 2004, she did for the UPA in 2009, having once again teamed up with Sonia Gandhi after the Congress had parted ways with the CPI and the CPI(M) over the Nuclear Bill. By then, she had become Ms No, blocking the Singur and Nandigram projects, thereby depriving West Bengal of more than 130,000 new jobs. By 2005, Mamata had become a devotee of Mahatma Gandhi's economics, even though she had serious doctrinal differences over his theory of non-violence. Ms Banerjee was opposed to large industry, or indeed any industry, except those that did not need any land to be set up, such as painting or music. She knew that by then, the Bengali had become used to industrial under-development, and was wary of those who sought to convert West Bengal into another Maharashtra or Gujarat. Simple living and high thinking was the Mamata motto, and it has to be admitted that she followed her own precept, living in a tiny Kolkata dwelling in the shadow of Mother Kali, along with a dozen relatives, including her only boss, her mother. Mother Kali obviously found something likable in her feisty disciple, for neither Mamata's lack of administrative achievement nor her negative attitude towards industrialisation stopped one of the most evolved and cultured people in the world, Bengalis, from voting the Mamata — sorry, Trinamool — Congress to office in 2011. Both Singur and Nandigram had significant concentrations of Muslim voters, many of whom resented the fact that they were to lose their land so that some tycoon could set up a mammoth factory. This columnist has for long believed that if the state ever needed to commandeer land "for public purposes", it ought to take over twice the land needed, and distribute half to those losing their lands, in proportion to their loss. Coupled with monetary compensation for the extent of territory actually surrendered, such a scheme would ensure that those losing land would also be gainers from the appreciation in values that would follow the setting up of a giant factory. The present system of merely monetary compensation (that too at prices that are usually far below market value) cheat the persons who surrender land, to the benefit of those who get the land — again at very low prices — from the government. However, such details were of no interest to Ms Banerjee, to whom all is either Black or White. In a paraphrase of the words of that champion of "military democracy", George W. Bush, those who are not with Mamata are deemed to be against her. And like President Bush, she believes in Open Season on the latter category. Being Chief Minister Mamata is a tad different from being Sheikha Banerjee, an absolute ruler in the category of the Sheikh of Dubai, for example. While the latter is the law of the land, in the case of Mamata Banerjee, despite her extraordinary talents, state property belongs neither to her nor to her party. Such a small detail, however, has not stood in the way of Mamata refusing to meet anyone not a professed admirer, or allowing the venerable Kolkata library to offer its members any English-language newspaper or any mass-circulated Bengali paper. Clearly, Ms Banerjee does not want citizens to waste their time reading newspapers when so many good books are going unread. As for development, seeing for themselves in Singur and Nandigram what Mamata Banerjee is capable of, unsurprisingly, few industrialists are willing to make huge investments in West Bengal.

ad Mamata Banerjee been a good neighbour to Bangladesh, such an attitude may have changed. Or had she devoted 20% of the time that she has spent on sacking Dinesh Trivedi into making the Manmohan Singh government finally establish adequate road and other links with ASEAN via Assam, her state may have entered into a boom period. But for Mamata Banerjee, it is not just that all politics is local, but that the only politics she practises is local. Mamata Banerjee cares not a hoot for any vote not belonging to her home state. And because of such an exclusive focus on the next Kolkata headline, even in the newspapers banished by her from state libraries, she is likely to become unpopular as rapidly as she won the favour of her voters in better times. Democracy, Mamata-style, may be a diet too spicy for the Indian diet. http://www.sunday-guardian.com/analysis/democracy-mamata-style