True, her current responses to Lalgarh have been less alarming than they could have been. The Trinamool seems to have been reined in for now. But Mamata is a politician looking to defeat the Left by going to its left and she is not terribly good at presenting and promoting a positive agenda. Her tactical strength comes from the ability to politically mobilise grievance.

There’s plenty of grievance in Bengal, including as yet relatively unexploited ones like those nurtured by the state’s large army of informally unemployed. A part of the CPM’s machine but restive because of the protector’s change in fortune, this army looks good for a Mamata-style attempt at mobilisation.

But if Mamata won’t or can’t convince industrial capital to invest, if she continues to falsely posit an agriculture vs industry problem — a 100 projects the size of the ex-Nano plant will take up less than 1 per cent of the state’s farm land — and if she deifies the small peasant to the extent of shutting out the possibility of change in farm production techniques, it is hard to see how she can offer solutions. If she can’t offer solutions she becomes a part of the problem defined by the machine and Maoists. And all this is assuming she scrupulously stays away from flirting with the Maoists for ground level mobilisation.

For Bengal’s future, winning back Lalgarh is necessary but nowhere near sufficient.

saubhik.chakrabarti@expressindia.com