Being a people?s minister can be a thankless and hazardous job. All are welcome at Mr Subhas Chakraborty?s home, and the sports and youth affairs minister?s magnanimity is too general to be able to distinguish between the good, the bad and the dodgy. His ministerial patronage is showered mostly on the flower of Bengal?s youth. But this could also be fraught with perils. Sometimes the wrong people, even the truly nasty ones, take his name in vain. Mr Chakraborty has, of course, an inexhaustible fund of candour, stoicism and luck that invariably sees him through the unsavoury consequences of such episodes ? and thus the good work continues. So when another man with an interesting criminal-political record is ?caught? by the police, and the minister?s name is linked with this man?s misdemeanours, Mr Chakraborty has only to do what he has done before ? appear candidly sinned or conspired against.

The scenario around the minister involves a classic network of public institutions: the Bengal criminal nexus, a sporting club and some of its players, the police and the Communist Party of India (Marxist). There is nothing new about this network either, although the sporting element gives it a newish zing. And these public bodies are not only interconnected, but each also has its own internal politics, stakes and modus operandi. Besides, the plot of the ?Hathkata Dilip? episode is tied up, indirectly, with the Avtar Singh episode. In all this tangle, the sporting club has found a way of dealing with the players, of striking a politic balance between tackling them and looking after them. But the police and the party are likely to be faced with trickier problems and choices. The CPI(M) is itself divided in its attitude towards the minister. But it has come up with the unique plan of not starting an inquiry into the allegations against him unless it has some ?evidence? of his association with the criminal. So first the evidence, and then the inquiry. But the party?s dividedness over the minister must be confusing the police quite profoundly. Having to handle conflicting pressures is not an easy thing to pull off in the glare of the media. If Mr Dilip Banerjee is able to provide them with vital leads about his links with the party, particularly during the elections, then should they, or should they not, follow up and publish these leads? This dilemma is, therefore, linked to the factional politics within the party over the minister. But in all this, Hathkata Dilip might have to realize, like many before him, the implications of his own expendability to those who do not need him any more. And Mr Chakraborty ? like Eliot?s Macavity, the Mystery Cat ? must trust in the magic of having been ?not there?, yet again.