The Ride of Power: Mamata Banerjee from being an Opponent party leader to a State leader

Nature of Power- Power in the most general sense may refer to any kind of influence exercised by objects, individuals or groups upon each other. “Power terms in modern social science refers to subsets of relations among social units such that the behaviours of one or more units depend in some circumstances on the behaviour of other units”-Dahl,1961
According to Max Weber power is the probability that one actor within a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his own will despite resistance regardless of the basis on which this probability rests.
Power is the ability of one group or person to influence another within the given social system (Martin, year). Power may also refer to as having the authority to influence other individuals and group. The authority to exercise power may be perceived legitimately by the social structure. The important difference between power and authority consists in the fact that power is essentially tied to the personality of the individuals whereas, authority is always associated with some social position or roles. So, in other words, power is a contingent property, a property of individuals, rather than a property of social structure (Martin, 1978). Some kind of obedience is also subjected to power. Power can be seen as unjust or evil from the perspective of the members anchored to the low-end status. Similarly, power can be seen as a means of controlling things to meet some ends from the high-end perspective. The exercise of power is accepted as a widespread phenomenon is today’s reality.
In the subsequent section we would deal with the different theories of power, types of power and properties of power.
Modern thinking about power can be traced back into the writings of Nicollo Machiavell (the prince in the 16th century) and Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan, mid-17th century). The books are considered classics of political writing, and the contrasts between them represents the two main routes along which though about power has continued to this day (Clegg,1989). Machiavelli and Hobbes took an analytically and empirically oriented stance toward power. In regard to the modern concerns of power, Hobbesian view of power had been found to be more fertile than the Machiavellian view of power. The Hobbesian view of power outlined more in details the derivation of modern power and its conceptualization. Hobbes work on power and his conception of problem of order have shaped the understanding and experience of the modern world, (Clegg, 1989).
Machiavelli represents a strategic and decentralized thinking about power and organization. Machiavelli views world as far more dissonant, a difficult place to play upon. It is the place which is without the guidance of any overall conductor. It is the world where individuals cannot serve power since it cannot be located anywhere so simply, and one has to get power out of the sheer force therefore, one can only advice on strategies for it development in specific sites (reference,).
On the other hand Power for Hobbes was more centralized and focused on sovereignty. In comparison to Machiavelli Hobbes had taken a more pessimistic view of human nature (reference). For him man was at the lowest level of morality. And in order to let everyone behave in a moralistic way, the society should have supreme governance over its people.
Thus, according to Hobbes’s basic premise there exists a total political community, the embodiment of which is the state, or the community, or the society. This is the single unit, ordered according to a uniform principle, possessing a continuity of time and place, from which the power stems. Whereas, according to Machiavelli, total power is a desirable final end, which is achieved rarely (Empowerment and community planning, 2011).
From Hobbes and Machievelli’s conception of centralized and decentralized power, Max Weber had extended the meaning of power and tried to relate it with his concept of bureaucracy. His concept of power was marked as a sharp departure from the other prevalent thoughts of power. He linked power with concepts of authority and rule. Weber viewed power as source of domination which was primarily influenced by the economic and the authoritarian interests. He historically researched the sources of formal authority that activates legitimate power and identified three sources of legitimation: the charismatic, the traditional and the rational-legal (Empowerment and community planning, 2011).
Robert Dahl’s (1961) approach to power grew as a sharp reaction against classical elitism. Dahl located the discussion of power within the boundaries of an actual community and concluded that there is no single elite to govern rather different actors (or people) prevails over different issues, producing ‘pluralist’ rather ‘elitist’ distribution of power (Clegg,1989). Power is exercised in a community by particular concrete individuals, while others are prevented from doing what they prefer to do. Power is exercised in order to cause those who are subject to it to follow the private preferences of those who posses power. Power, is the production of obedience to the preferences of those subject to it so as to include those preferences (Empowerment and Community planning, 2011). According to him, most people exercise power through voting and therefore, the decision making process is an open process (Dahl, 1961).
Peter Bachrach and Morton Baratz (1962) developed a model as a response to Dahl’s pluralistic model of power. This model is also a critique of Dahl’s basic premises. Bachrach and Baratz also have a doubt as whether the decision making process is really open or democratic as Dahl assumed. They mainly dealt with the connection between the overt face of power- where the decisions are made and the other, the covert face of power- which is the ability to prevent decision making. They pointed to the strategy of mobilizing bias to prevent discussion on certain issues and thus to determine what is important and unimportant. They referred to this organizing of what stays in and what is out as the non-decision making process where power conflicts do not rise above the pubic face of power which is confined to certain values, rituals or beliefs that tend to favour the vested interests of one (or more) groups relative to others (Bachrach & Baratz, 1962).
Steven lukes (1974) took Bachrach and Baratz’s approach further. Power, according to Luke’s is the ability to implant in people’s mind interests that are contrary to their own good. Luke’s analysis of power was a strong committement ethic of responsible individualism (Clegg,1989). According to Lukes, It was the responsible individuals who exercised power. Responsible individuals were the agency who had the choice of exercising power within its the structure. Lukes concluded that the relationship between power and structure remains residual to the central conception of agency (Cleggs, 1989). Agency was conceived in terms of moral responsibility where, responsible individuals chose whether to act in terms of their own self interest or in terms of the real interest for the betterment of the society as a whole. So, it was he who shifted the discussion from community power to focus on power as a three-dimensional model into the discussion of the subject. The third dimension that Lukes added to the already two dimensions of power- was the latent dimension of power. While the overt dimension of power dealt with the declared political preferences, as they reveal themselves in open political play, and the covert dimension dealt with political preferences that revealed themselves through complaints about political non-issues and the third dimension dealt with the relations between the political preferences and real interests.
John Gaventa (1980) researched the phenomenon of ‘quiescence’- the silent agreement in conditions of glaring inequality and tried to understand why, in difficult conditions of oppression and discrimination, no resistance arises against rule of a social elite. He found that the social elite make use of its power principally to prevent the rise of conflicts in its domain, and to attain social quiescence (Empowerment and Community planning, 2011). In other words, such a situation that represented a lack of conflict was seen as both the sign and the consequence of the deliberate use of power mechanisms. Thus, the purpose of power was to hinder groups from participating into the decision making process. This silent agreement, may not reflect the expression of desire to take part in the decision making process but may be seen as an evidence of blind submission to the situation. The violation of quiescence is a rebellion, which can be either participating in the decision making process or non-acceptance
Gaventa based his model of understanding of quiescence and rebellion on Lukes’ three dimensions of power (Lukes, 1974). His model of power explains the processes of power and powerlessness in situations of social equality. He claimed that during the phase of power shift there can be a rebellion or a challenge to turn the situation around. In other words, the situation can be illustrated as: a loss of power by A or a gain of power by B. Before this is established there has to exist an open conflict. And B has to take certain steps to overcome its powerlessness adding to it B has to plan for certain actions so that he can mobilize those actions. By means of these processes B will be able to develop his resources both real and symbolic in order to engage in the conflict
Michel Foucaut (1977) in his book Discipline and Punish: The British of the Prison conceptualizes power as a technique which gets its full meaning through its disciplinary character. Foucault (1977) sees the methods of surveillance and assessment of individuals as in prisons, an effective tool developed to bring a uniform and a systematic order on tractable individuals. He still explains that even when these individuals provoke resistance, resistance merely serves to demonstrate the necessity of that discipline which provokes it (Foucault,1977). These disciplinary practices get diffused through schools, the army, the asylum, and eventually into the capitalist factory. They become strategic to the extent that they are effective constitutions of power (Clegg, 1989). The disciplinary power is not negative as someone may intuitively think of it but it brings out the positive outcomes. Although, Foucault believed that the disciplinary power may not spread out uniformly in the society but he certainly believed that most of the social institutions were already affected by it. ‘Disciplinary’ power is one of the conceptions of power which Foucault (1979a) argues have characterized the ‘modern epoch’, from the nineteenth century onwards. The other is termed ‘bio-power’ (Foucault, 1984:140-4). On one hand, disciplinary power is targeted at particular individuals or collection of individuals, bio-power is oriented to the subjugation of bodies and control of populations in general (Clegg, 1989). Sexuality was the area of bio-power as Foucault had seen. Medicine was perceived as a source of surveillance more than as an instrument for researching the truth. Bio power took two forms: a) Anatomo-politics, which aims to discipline the human body and b) Bio-politics, which aims at controlling and regulating population growth, health, life expectancy and so on. In both cases, sex was central, and society came to see life as a political object (Empowerment and Community Planning, 2011).
Mann’s (1986) idea of Organizational Outflanking states ‘societies as organized power networks’. This concept makes it explicitly clear that the extent to which organizational resources and tools to activate these resources are necessary for efficient resistance against power. The advantage of power relation is on the side of those who possess an organizational advantage. Hence, those who possess the organizational advantage will always succeed in overcoming those who lack organizational resources by means of a principal strategy which Mann calls as organizational outflanking. Organizational outflanking finds expression in the ability to eliminate resistance with relative ease, to prevent them in advance by means of organizational priority, as well as to impose the order desirable to those doing the outflanking.
For Mann there are four sources, bases or resources of social power. They are the ideological, economic, military and political relationships. Organizational outflanking creates an advantage in the power relations for the outflankers as opposed to the outflanked. Powerlessness in a situation of organizational may be attributed to a lack of knowledge among the outflanked. There are various kind factors that can lead to lack of knowledge: a) Ignorance, b) Isolation, c) Division.
‘Organizational outflanking does not describe a particular tactic or mechanism of power, but is a given of social situation. It makes clear that a lack in organizational resources characterize everyone who is outside the networks and alliances of power; it makes clear why disempowerment is common social phenomenon; it enriches the explanation of quiescence or powerlessness (Gaventa, 1980); the culture of silence expresses a surrender of the organizationally outflanked, stemming from a knowledge that they are incapable of preventing the outflanked’. Thus, organizational outflanking makes it clear the necessity of active organizational development in order to gain significant achievements while resisting power. (rearrange).
Stewart Clegg (1989) sees power as a circular process that flows through three channels which he calls ‘circuits of power’. These circuits are: a) the overt circuit of power, b) the social circuit of power and the system-economic circuit of power. Clegg’s circuit of power provides a strategic approach to power relations. The circuit describe a field in which all the possibilities are open, and none of the sides have the possibility of maintaining advantages or fixed state over a period of time. Another important idea stems from the fact that a stormy and dynamic environment which requires complex resources creates a permanent opportunity for change and for the incorporation of new groups in the power relations. The three circuits of power also propose an interesting tool for evaluating the degree of power achieved in the process of resistance. According to Clegg, power and resistance are two separate, although interdependent, aspects of social life. He distinguished between two types of resistance: effective resistance which is an organized resistance and is very rare and it becomes possible only under the conditions of victory over the organizational outflanking. Such resistance becomes is recognized as a new power and creates an entire new field of relations and other is the episodic resistance which is the most common form of resistance. Episodic resistance increases the stability of power and confirms its representational character. A hunger strike by prisoners may be an example of episodic resistance. (Clegg,1989, Empowerment and Community Planning, 2011) (read again).
Antony Giddens (1982,1984) talks about power as a part of social theory that he developed, which he called Structuration. Giddens (1984:257) defines power as ‘ the capacity to achieve outcomes. Whether or not these are connected to purely sectional interests is not germane to its definition’. In contrast to Lukes’ idea of power and structure as dialectical, Giddens (1982,1984) sees power and structure as two separate entity. Instead he reconstituted it as a duality in which power and structure are interpreted. He called this the ‘duality of structure’. In other words, power is integrated within a complex social practice, in which human agency has structural qualities, and the social structure is a part of human activity that creates it and ensures its continuity. Human agency is ineradicable tied to power: without power there is no human agency. The power is defined in terms of agency, which is defined in terms of action and which in turn is defined as power. Giddens’ duality of structure sees the social structure and the human agency as two factors which build and activate the social relations, and power as central component of both (Cleggs, 1989; Empowerment and Community Planning,2011).
Taking into consideration the different theoretical underpinnings of power, the following properties of power can be stated: * Power is not innate. Power has to be acquired either by virtue of one’s visible social situation or through struggle. * Power is not integrated in social structure rather it is a personal disposition. Power can be exercised via the social structure in terms of assuming authority. * Power belongs to human agency. In other words, it belongs to either an individual or a group of individuals. * Power is also subjected to obedience where one party is prevented from taking part in power game. * Power is also the mobilization of bias as to serve one’s vested interest. * Power is rebellious and challenging
In the light of theoretical perspectives of power, the present paper attempts to investigate how power shift took place in West Bengal. It also deals with the factors (extrinsic and intrinsic) with led Mamata Banerjee to be the ruler of the state. The last section of the paper will try to elaborate on controversies surrounding her governance.
West Bengal-
Mamata Banerjee better known as ‘didi’ is one of the fire-band leaders of the present times. Mamata Banerjee who is known for her charismatic personality brought about the change in the political arena of West Bengal by removing leftists who ruled for the long 34 years. The worldwide rankings of her in the ‘Bloomberg Markets’ magazine and the ‘Times Magazine’ had validated the views about her time to time. No women politician in India and South Asia has ever appeared on such rankings world-wide. Her erratic yet determined ways of action earned her a place in the Bloomberg Markets magazine list of 50 influential people in the world of finance and has been named among the top 100 influential people in the World (Times Magazine, year). Mamata Banerjee is the first ever Indian politician to receive the honorary black belt from the Seoul-based KUKKIWON, the apex body of Korean martial art in Taekwondo for her fighting spirit and enthusiasm for sports. The title puts her on par with US-president Obama and British Soccer Star David Beckham.
Biographical sketch-
Mamata Banerjee was born in Kolkata in a Bengali family to Promileswar Banerjee and Gayatri devi. She belonged to a lower-middle class family. Mamata Banerjee graduated with an honours degree in History from Jogamaya Devi College in the 1970s. Later she earned a master’s degree in Islamic History from the University of Calcutta. And this was followed by a degree in education from Shri Shikshayatan College. She had also earned a law degree from Jogesh Chandra Chaudhuri Law college, Kolkata (reference)
Brief outline of Mamata Banerjee’s Political career- all through her life she led a blustered political career. She had faced many setbacks and also had overcome them with all grace and dignity. She in her very early school days joined politics, the Congress Party in West Bengal. She served in a variety of positions within the party and in other local political organizations. At a very young age she became the general secretary of the state Mahila Congress (1976-80). In 1984 general election, Banerjee beat her rival Somnath Chaterjee and became one of India’s youngest parliament members ever. She also became the General- Secretary of the Indian Youth Congress.
Under P.V. NarshimaRao’s government which was formed in 1991, Mamata Banerjee was made the Union Minister of State for Human Resources Development, Youth affairs and Sports, and Women and Child Development. Her differences and disregard with the government started growing with the passing time and she alleged the Congress to act in the interest of the CPI-M in West Bengal. All these issues finally led her to establish the All India Trinamool Congress in 1997. Trinamool congress led by Mamata Banerjee quickly became an apparent opposition to the long-standing Communist government in West Bengal.
In 1999, she again joined the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government and was the Minister of Railways. During her tenure she was credited with introducing 19 new trains for 2000-2001 fiscal year. But with BJP too, she could not adhere for a long time owing to her protest against the hike in petroleum prices and finally she walked out of the Government following the tehelka expose.
In 2001 she again allied with the Congress party with a speculation that the alliance could unseat the communists in West Bengal.
Again in 2004 she returned back to NDA Government and she was appointed as Minister of coal and mines after the election in 2004.
Mamata Banerjee emerged as a powerful force to stand against the idea of industrialization in West Bengal under Buddhadeb Bhattacharya government.
In 2009, she allied with the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) led by Indian National Congress. The alliance won 26 seats and Banerjee joined the Central cabinet as the railway Minister for the second time.
In 2010, TMC won the Kolkata Municipal Corporation in a margin of 62 seats. And finally, in 2011 she knocked down the world’s longest running democratically elected communist government. Trinamool congress was in power after 34 long years of left rule which was no doubt an incredible feat to achieve.

Situational Factors which favoured Mamata Banerjee to rise to the power: * On 20th October 2005, she protested against the forceful land acquisition and the heinous abuses meted out on the local farmers in the name of industrial development. * In 2006, she forcibly came in the way of blocking the development of the Tata Motors car project in Singur. She performed a series of action like going on indefinite hunger strike, pulling support from many other social activists like Medha Patker and launching strikes. * After the successful protest launched and the win over Tata motor car project in singur, Banerjee was quick enough to jump in the second land-acquisition episode witnessed in January,2007 in Nandigram, a rural area in the district of Purba Medinipur where a chemical hub under the SEZ policy led by the Indonesian-based Salim Group was supposed to set up. The chemical hub required an acquisition of over 14,000 acres of land. Expectedly the prospect of losing the land and their livelihood created an atmosphere of hatred towards the communist government. Eventually, the villagers who were always the supporter of the CPM government, this particular event turned them against the communist government and organized a resistance movement under the name of Bhumi Ucched Pratirodh Committee (BUPC). * The movement gained its momentum after 14 local farmers were brutally killed in the police firing. Many people of the lower classes were made homeless due to this political damage. * This barbaric event helped Mamata Banerjee to mobilize the intellectuals like class of well-known writers, artists, poets and activists like Mahasweta Devi, Aparna Sen, Medha Patkar and also the support of Maoists to fight against the forceful land acquisition. All these factors finally forced the Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee government to withdraw their plan which was to set up the chemical hub in Nandigram.

The situational factors outlined above to some extent suggest the events that triggered the power shift in Bengal. It might be interesting to find out the similarity of the situations when communist government CPM (M) came into the power. The communist government during the 1970s stood up and faced the ‘semi-fascist’ terror created by the then congress government. That was the time when West Bengal was the site of the most noxious and vicious violence targeted towards the left cadres and other innocent individuals (Basu, 2009). The communist party could come into the power because the party took a firm stand to bring about a change in the quality of life of the workers, peasant and other toilers. It exerted itself in enhancing the life of all working people and also because it acknowledged and accepted the ideology of Marxism-Leninism as its guiding force.
On the other hand, after coming into the power and ruling the state for nearly three decades when the communist government in the very recent past created an atmosphere of rural anarchism in terms of violent land-acquisition and brutal killings of the innocent villagers in the name of so called industrialization, the actions performed by Mamata Banerjee along with her party members and her firm stand on these issues, explicitly reflects the kind of similarity it borne with the unrest period of 1970s. When such social upheavals takes place one can rightly explain how and why an opposition party can be in a position to demobilize the strength of the ruling government and can come into the power despite the efforts of all those in the power. John Gaventa’s (1980) model of power and powerlessness holds true here. In his line of thought in both the situation the power shift was rebellious as he predicted. Certain actions were taken to overcome the powerlessness of the opponent party. And by performing those actions it helped the opponent party to build on the resources as we could see how in both the situations the opponent party mobilized the different sections of society to garner support for them.
The other reasons that also worked in the favour of Mamata Banerjee’s rise to power, was the absence of any other strong opponent party in Bengal fighting for the state power.
It is a well known fact that Communism in Bengal has always been elitist. Unlike the communist movement in Kerala where the movement depended on the support of the low-status group (especially the Ezhava caste) Communist movement in Bengal had been led by the ‘Bhadraloks’ (intellectuals) coming from well established rich Bengali families. They had come into the power on the basis of their elite leadership. And there has always been an ideological discrepancy in regard to why the sons of wealthy and influential families adopted the ideology of Marxism and had become communists (Franda,1971). Despite the differences, communist party after coming into the power had taken certain steps that helped them to remain consistent with their initial party ideology of improving the quality of all working people. Operation Barga was one such action. It was one of the major land reform programs that empowered the life of Bargardars and disempowered the landowners. During the first decade of their tenure the total number of agricultural labourers increased and it was the highest in India. The overall productivity increased and the year round employment increased the real wages. The famine stricken Bengal transformed into the ‘rice-bowl’ of India (Bag,year).
After the consolidation of power for quite a long period of time, the communist party had eventually shied away from their initial commitment. ‘Their lack of political will and un-imagination to tackle the education and the social service of the unprivileged ones were attributed to pervasive social conservatism and patriarchy of the party’s ‘bhadraloks’ ‘gentleman’ leadership’. (Bag,year). The educational system of Bengal deteriorated. They addressed very little to the prevalent social inequalities in terms of class, caste, or creed, ethnicity beyond the token quotas of the Government for the posts. Even though the major land reforms provided a very little upward mobility for the marginalized sections of Bengal their overall enhancement of the quality of life remained doubtful.
It seemed that the communist party comprised of the elites failed to understand and address the issues of the extreme margins of the society where in Mamata Banerjee the rogue politician deeply rooted in Gandhian philosophy and her radical involvement in Singur and Nandigram issue gave an alternative to peoples of Bengal think of a new dynamic leader.
The factors explained above were extrinsic factors which gave a competitive advantage to Mamata Banerjee to fight for the State power. In the Subsequent section we would discuss about the factors which are intrinsic to her and which mediated through the prevalent situational factors.

Mediating factors that helped her assuming the power- * Persistence- Mamata Banerjee is one of the most stern and persistent politician. And Persistence works because it wears down the opposition (reference). Even though she was associated with the promotion of the idea of anti-industrialization, she no way pulled herself back rather stood for it with all her enthusiasm. Her strict bearing on both the Tata project issue in Singur and setting up of chemical hub at nandigram had shifted the situation in her advantage that had finally forced the government to give up. * Empathy- The diminutive and simple Mamata becomes significant against this backdrop for she had taken a large corporate group head on and said farmers' emotions were of supreme significance (reference). Her ability to put herself in another’s place seemed helpful in acquiring power. Her concern for the local farmers during the land acquisition period in the name of industrialization helped her win the gram( rural) bangla. * Being Unconventional- In post-liberalisation Indian politics one person who stands out for her dress, and which goes well with her deeds is Mamata Banerjee. ‘In her over two decades of active political life, one thing that has remained constant has been her penchant for simplicity and this is amply illustrated in her dress, and deeds’ (reference). Her unconventional way of dressing helped her to connect with millions of Kolkata’s poor family. She wears a simple cotton sari, throws a cloth bag –‘jhola’called and wears a pair of rubber sandals. ‘For years, the Kolkata elite derided her as a jhee—an ugly diminutive for a housemaid—and witheringly mocked her accent and clothes ‘(reference) Nonetheless, many do consider her a’ better model for a communist leader than the real ones’ (reference). * Persuasive Language- The slogan Maa-maati-manush (Mother-land-people) caught the fancy of millions of people in West Bengal. She is considered to be a fiery orator and her powerful persuasive communication helped ordinary people to relate with her. * Ideologies- Mamata Banerjee is a believer of the Gandhian philosophy and used his ideologies to protest against the different atrocities non-violently. She fasted to show self-sacrifice and committed to her belief. Her humility and simplicity draws affection towards her from the different sections of people. ‘Unlike other political leaders, she is scrupulously honest and has not used caste, class, religion, language, money, or any divisive argument to wrest power. Instead, she has used that neglected political tool: a genuine cause ‘(reference). * Energy- She is known as a street-fighter. Putting her in the middle of war is like a situation is like being at home to her (reference). She is enthusiastic, energetic and often unpredictable but still she no one could hold her back from advancing in her political career. * Odd Actions- Her resorts to unconventional actions either condemned her in the light of being eccentric or brought her to the lime light of success. She has broken all the rules. She has abused others, danced on a politician's car, threatened to commit suicide publicly from a pole, picketed inside the well of parliament hurled her shawl at the august speaker and grabbed political opponents by their collars (reference). But still her unconventional actions had been able to galvanize the mass. Through her actions she could mobilize people from every section of the society farmers, bureaucrats, writers, artists, intellectuals, even corporate types.

In the light of the present discussion it can be rightly pointed out that Mamata Banerjee was a successful leader who alone with the visionary of changing the prevalent administrative condition in West Bengal influenced million others to join her. Noted sociologist and writer Ashis Nandy calls her ‘victory epochal’. Bengal politics, he says, ‘has finally been democratized’ (reference). Her victory brought hope among the people of Bengal. She was across all the sections of the people of Bengal. She was among the intelligentsias, affluent persons, middle-class and also the lower-class section of people. But in the context of the present scenario after coming into the power her claims about bring the ‘Poriborton’ (Change) in Bengal had come to a halt. The successful leader had come to known as a ‘power abuser’ a dictator where her government is compared with Nazism (Times of India, 2012). She was a great opposition leader and a great fighter but apparently finding it difficult to get into the role of an administrator which certainly needs some about of diplomacy and self-restrain
Things not expected from a good administrator: * Centralized decision making process- Mamata Banerjee is now known for her intolerant behaviour where in many instances her intolerance was explicit. She does not listen to anyone. Her government represents a one woman army. Despite where efforts had been made to do something good clear instances of cases where she imposed her decision on others can be seen both Dinesh Trivedi’s (Union Railway Minister) and Damayanti Sen’s (IPS officer,Kolkata) rape case where the former was forced to meet her demands or resign from the cabinet as the railway minister owing to rise in the fares and the latter was transferred to low-profile posting because she successfully cracked the case and Mamata Banerjee presumably thought it was an effort to malign her government. So, the decisions she or her party members take are always in the lieu of her interest. As, Katju righly puts it, ‘chief minister likes herself to be surrounded by "yes men" (The Times of India,2012; Indian express,2012). * Erratic Behaviour- even though there has been many instances of her strange behaviour which condemned her early in the career of her politics, it seems after coming into the power her erratic, eccentric behaviour is coming more to the fore because now she is overwhelmed by the majority. She is known for her bouts of temper and her hot headedness. Two recent instances where she publicly humiliated her guard at the Kolkata Book-fair for making her wait for her car and yelled at photojournalists who were struggling to take her picture during the ‘Mati’ festival in Burdwan district, West Bengal clearly shows her unpredictable streaks of behaviour (IBN live,2013). * Eccentricity – her eccentricity as a ruler can be shown in her decisions of playing Rabindra Sangeet at the traffic signals which would add up on her dreams of making Kolkata like London,a city which is clean and aesthetically beautiful, painting Kolkata in blue because to give a uniform colour to the state as Jaipur is known for its ‘pink’ colour Kolkata can also be known as the ‘blue city’ and also the removal of communism (Karl Marx, Freidrich Engles) from state school history curriculum rather texts are to be rewritten to highlight their roles of Marx, Engels, and the Bolsheviks in modern democratic movement (Times of India, 2012) * Losing democratic values- the TMC government is now practicing undemocratic actions. To put in Katju’s word, ‘She is dictatorial, whimsical, undemocratic and intolerant’ (Times of India,2012). Her episodes of dictatorship can be witnessed in the arrest case of the Professor Ambikesh Mahapatra of Jadavpur University, West Bengal, for merely sharing a cartoon of her online and farmer Shiladitya Chowdhury who in a rally dared to question her about her policies. Mamata Banerjee had been criticized highly for victimizing and harassing them. Her actions were represented as the extreme violation of the freedom of expression. Even in the news paper issue where she had instructed her government to buy only eight newspaper and taking off the list of all those which critically talks about her actions and policies clearly shows how she condemned the ‘free thinking’ among the readers. It clearly suggests that she cannot take criticisms and is insecured because she thinks everyone is running a conspiracy against her government. It is very surprising that being a successful leader who handled public relation for so long cannot take criticisms positively.
Conclusion- In the light of the theoretical perspective of power this article draws on the factors which led her to come into the power and also examined the controversies which had surfaced around her personal character and her governance. However, Mamata Banerjee is a successful leader who worked hard for the working people and is left with three more years and her future political career will depend on how she is going to control her personal eccentricities and win the hearts of her people of West Bengal.