I went to school back in the eighties and early nineties, when examinations and report cards were a reality of life (and a grim one, for most of us), unlike children blessed by Kapil Sibal and his policy of no exams-only grades. And one of the spectacularly unremarkable aspects in that dreaded report card was a column on “remarks”, where teachers generally made their casual remarks about your humdrum, non-academic pursuits.

“Talkative” used to be a pretty common observation those days.

I am sure neither Markandey Katju, the honourable chairman of the Press Council of India, nor Mamata Banerjee, the equally honourable chief minister of West Bengal, did their schooling in the boring eighties and early nineties, when Mithun Chakravarty was cult hero and Amitabh Bachchan considered a has-been star. But I am equally certain that both had the word “talkative” writ large on their report cards.

The two just do not seem to know the basics of being loquacious and opinionated: where, how, when and why to start and stop throwing their ideas and opinions.

So take this, for instance: NDTV reported on Nov 29 afternoon that Katju has called Banerjee "intolerant and whimsical", as also warned that she would lose power if she did not change (LINK HERE).

While the first has little by way of news/novelty value, the latter is irrelevant. Who is Katju, as any self-respecting, Mamata-worshipping Trinamool supporter would retort, to warn Didi about the do’s and don’ts of grabbing or losing power? Does he have any experience? Has he ever been in power, let alone losing it? And whimsical? Pray, half of India might use the same word for Katju himself. Will that mean half a warning that he would cease to be the Press Council chief soon?

In a letter to Banerjee, Katju has reportedly sought action against policemen who arrested Jadavpur University professor Ambikesh Mahapatra for circulating on email a caricature involving Banerjee, Mukul Roy and Dinesh Trivedi, respectively her favoured and out-of-favour party MPs and former railway ministers and also for arresting Shiladitya Chowdhury, a farmer who questioned Banerjee’s farm policies.

This is extremely sensible, coming as it does on the day the Supreme Court had a few harsh words for the government on Section 66A of IT Act, which led to the absurd and condemnable arrests in Palghar, Maharashtra, of people who posted allegedly derogatory remarks on the Thackerays, Balasaheb and nephew Raj, on Facebook.

But Katju, in his wisdom and enthusiasm, didn’t stop there. Calling Banerjee’s ways "very unhealthy", he said Mamata "will not be able to remain chief minister for long unless she changed her ways and became more tolerant”.

“It is still not too late if you listen to my advice and change your ways,” he advised. “I had praised you at one time. But of late you seem to have become increasingly intolerant and whimsical."

Anyone who has followed the Trinamool chief for a little more than just the last few months, since she outed the Left and assumed power in Kolkata, will know Banerjee has always been like that — “intolerant and whimsical”, in Katju’s words (not mine!). She managed a record win despite that. And she managed to win some (and lose some, as is always the case for incumbent governments in India) in the municipal and bypolls since.

So why, as the self-respecting Trinamool supporter would retort again, would she care for Katju’s advice?

And what does Banerjee do? As return favour, Banerjee retorted at a function later the same day: “Those who are criticising and demeaning our government, I do not have any relation with them. I do not care about what others say about me. I am here only for the cause of the people." (LINK)

And who, ahem, would decide the “cause of the people”, if not those very same people themselves? Yes, Trinamool Congress created history in the summer of 2011 by ousting 34 years of Left Front administration in West Bengal. But it won 48 percent of votes, against the Left’s 42 percent, which means half the state is, theoretically, against her. Not all of them are, of course, “criticising and demeaning” her government, but many, again theoretically, could be.

How can you be a chief minister and still say you do want “any relation” with much of half the state’s population? How can you “not care” about what that significant “others” say? What cause, if any, is she espousing by branding any assessment/disapproval/criticism of her administration as being essentially “Maoist” in nature?

Both Katju and Banerjee would do their constituencies a lot of favour by remembering they are not morally or ethically responsible or bound by the duty of their offices to serve the 24x7 news cycle. They should talk within their head before speaking out, lest their present-day public report cards also dish out that remark: extremely talkative!