NEW DELHI: The Trinamool Congress was built around one leader, one family name and one political belief – that Mamata Banerjee alone could hold the party together and lead it to victory every time. Barely a month after a crushing assembly defeat, that belief is facing its biggest test as a rebellion threatens to split the party she founded 28 years ago.
Prologue: The unthinkable
For nearly three decades, the Trinamool Congress (TMC) was Mamata Banerjee and Mamata Banerjee was the Trinamool Congress.She founded the party on January 1, 1998, after breaking away from the Congress, spent years battling the seemingly invincible CPM and, in 2011, achieved what many believed impossible: ending 34 years of Left rule in West Bengal.Through relentless street politics, welfare schemes and a carefully cultivated image as “Didi”, she transformed herself into Bengal’s undisputed political centre of gravity.Today, that edifice is facing its gravest crisis.Barely a month after suffering a crushing defeat in the 2026 assembly election, the TMC is confronting a rebellion unprecedented in its 28-year history. Fifty-eight of its 80 MLAs have rallied behind expelled leader Ritabrata Banerjee. The assembly speaker has recognised him as leader of the opposition. Senior leaders are questioning the party’s direction. Committees have been dissolved. And for the first time since the Trinamool’s birth, a rival faction is arguing that it, not Mamata Banerjee’s camp, represents the “real” TMC.The rebellion’s confidence was perhaps best captured by Ritabrata Banerjee’s remark after securing recognition as leader of the opposition in assembly.“We would request Mamata Banerjee to be our chief adviser to this opposition front.”For a leader who founded the party, built it and dominated Bengal politics through it for nearly three decades, the statement was both respectful and revolutionary.It suggested the battle was no longer about reforming the Trinamool Congress from within.It was about inheriting it.
Act I: The wheel turns
In May 2011, Kolkata celebrated the fall of a political giant.The Left front’s 34-year rule – the world’s longest-serving democratically elected communist government – had finally come to an end. Standing before jubilant supporters, Mamata Banerjee sought to reassure a deeply polarised state.“Bodloi noy, bodol chai” – change, not revenge.The slogan became the defining phrase of Bengal’s political transition.Yet Bengal’s political history has rarely followed the script written by its slogans.For more than three decades, the CPM had governed Bengal through a vast ecosystem of local committees, panchayat networks, trade unions, cooperative societies and neighbourhood party offices. In many districts, party offices often wielded more influence than formal institutions.When the regime fell, much of that machinery began moving.Local leaders switched sides. Panchayat chiefs recalibrated loyalties. Contractors adjusted. Organisational networks built under the Left increasingly aligned themselves with the new ruling establishment.Mamata Banerjee did not simply defeat the CPM.She inherited much of the ecosystem that had sustained it.The lesson was simple: in Bengal politics, institutions and leaders often survive by changing colours.Fifteen years later, the cycle appears to be repeating itself.The 2026 assembly election produced one of the most dramatic verdicts in the state’s political history. The BJP won 207 seats and formed its first government in West Bengal. The TMC was reduced to 80 seats. Mamata Banerjee herself lost Bhabanipur to her former lieutenant-turned-rival Suvendu Adhikari.The symbolism was impossible to miss.The politician who had dismantled the Left’s empire now found herself watching another political force dismantle her own.
As BJP leaders celebrated, they reached for language strikingly similar to that used by Mamata Banerjee fifteen years earlier.“Badla nahi, badlav.”Not revenge, but change.Yet just as in 2011, political reality proved more complicated than political messaging.Reports of post-poll clashes surfaced from several districts. Local Trinamool workers complained of intimidation. Party offices that had functioned as nerve centres of political power suddenly found themselves vulnerable.Most importantly, the psychology of power changed.For fifteen years, access to government, contracts, influence and protection flowed through the Trinamool Congress.Suddenly, those channels pointed elsewhere.In politics, survival often depends on proximity to power.And power had changed hands.The first sign that the crisis ran deeper than an electoral defeat came in Falta.Traditionally regarded as a Trinamool stronghold, the constituency should have offered the party an opportunity to demonstrate resilience after the election debacle.Instead, it delivered a political shock.TMC candidate Jahangir Khan publicly announced his withdrawal from the repoll campaign, though his name remained on the ballot because the deadline for withdrawing nominations had passed.The result was devastating.The BJP won comfortably. The CPM and Congress also finished ahead of the Trinamool Congress.The former ruling party was pushed to fourth place.Within Trinamool circles, the result triggered alarm.Election defeats can be rationalised. A fourth-place finish in a traditional stronghold is harder to explain away.The atmosphere inside the organisation began shifting from disappointment to panic.
Act II: Operation crown prince
If the election defeat exposed the Trinamool’s vulnerabilities, what followed revealed its internal fault lines.The seeds of the rebellion were sown almost immediately after the results.According to rebel leaders, the trigger came at a meeting of newly elected MLAs on May 6.At the gathering, Mamata Banerjee reportedly asked legislators to rise and applaud her nephew and party national general secretary Abhishek Banerjee for his role in the election campaign.What was intended as recognition was interpreted very differently by a section of legislators.Expelled MLA Sandipan Saha would later describe the episode as a turning point.“As for the trigger point, it occurred following the party’s electoral defeat. When we attended the party meeting, a directive was issued to all MLAs. No one was permitted to utter a single word of criticism regarding Abhishek. Instead, we were instructed that he had performed exceptionally well and that everyone must rise to accord him a standing ovation,” Saha alleged.His criticism became even sharper.“This included MLAs who have been serving in the assembly since a time when Abhishek Banerjee was likely still attending school. They too were compelled to stand up and join in the standing ovation,” the rebel leader said.The comments offer perhaps the clearest window yet into what the rebellion is really about.The rebels insist they are fighting to save the Trinamool Congress, but perhaps their battle is against what they see as the growing concentration of power around Abhishek Banerjee.For years, Mamata’s nephew had been viewed as the party’s political heir. He was entrusted with organisational responsibilities, election management and strategic decision-making. As national general secretary, he increasingly became the face of the next generation.But succession politics inevitably creates winners and losers.Many senior leaders who had spent decades building the party felt sidelined as younger leaders rose through the ranks. Others worried that decision-making was becoming concentrated within an increasingly small circle.The first public signs of dissent emerged on May 19.At a party meeting, Ritabrata Banerjee and Sandipan Saha questioned why Falta MLA Jahangir Khan had not been expelled despite publicly distancing himself from the repoll campaign.Since Jahangir was widely seen as being close to Abhishek Banerjee, the criticism was interpreted as a direct challenge to the power structure evolving around him.The turning point came three days later.On May 22, Ritabrata Banerjee, who was in Delhi to complete formalities following the end of his Rajya Sabha tenure, visited Banga Bhavan for lunch.There, he had what PTI described as an “accidental” meeting with chief minister Suvendu Adhikari.Soon afterwards, another controversy engulfed the party.On May 25, allegations surfaced that signatures of several legislators had been forged on documents submitted to the Speaker regarding the leadership structure of the legislature party.The issue quickly escalated.On May 27, Ritabrata Banerjee and Sandipan Saha formally complained to the speaker. The assembly secretariat approached police. A CID investigation was launched.As legislators were questioned, what began as a procedural dispute evolved into a political rebellion.The signature controversy became a rallying point for disgruntled MLAs.Meetings multiplied. Lobbying intensified. And factions emerged.The crisis deepened further after Abhishek Banerjee came under a mob attack during a visit to Sonarpur on May 30.While political parties condemned the incident, several TMC leaders privately noted the muted response from sections of the organisation, interpreting it as evidence of a widening disconnect between the leadership and elected representatives.By the end of May, the erosion of authority had become visible.A meeting convened by Mamata Banerjee at her Kalighat residence reportedly witnessed poor attendance, depriving the leadership of the show of unity it had hoped to project.The rebel campaign had gained momentum and its target was unmistakable.
Act III: Et Tu, TMC?
The decisive rupture came on June 1.Hours after it became public that the CID probe had been initiated on complaints filed by Ritabrata Banerjee and Sandipan Saha, the TMC expelled both leaders.Instead of containing the crisis, the move accelerated it.The expelled leaders sharpened their attack on Abhishek Banerjee, accusing him of centralising authority within the organisation.Support rapidly shifted towards the dissidents.Then came the moment that transformed a political rebellion into an institutional reality.On June 4, a group of 58 MLAs submitted a letter to the speaker electing Ritabrata Banerjee as leader of the legislature party and nominating a new leadership team.
The speaker accepted their claim.For the first time in the party’s history, a majority of Trinamool legislators had openly defied Mamata Banerjee.The rebels justified their actions as necessary for the effective functioning of the opposition.“After deliberating among ourselves, we concluded that if we were to effectively discharge our duties within the assembly and serve our respective constituencies, we needed to form a distinct group,” Sandipan Saha said.“Furthermore, we determined that this group should constitute the principal opposition and that the Leader of the Opposition should be selected from within this group.”The battle soon centred on competing claims over the leader of the opposition post.Mamata Banerjee had proposed Sobhandeb Chattopadhyay.The rebels challenged the process.“Some MLAs were not even present for selecting the LoP, yet their names were inscribed in block letters,” Saha alleged.“When we voiced our objections, we submitted a formal letter to the speaker, who then ordered an inquiry. Once the inquiry commenced, evidence began to surface confirming the veracity of these allegations. Other MLAs began reaching out to us.”The face of this rebellion is among the most unlikely in Bengal politics.Ritabrata Banerjee began his political career in the CPM and rose rapidly through the Students Federation of India. He became one of the Left’s most visible young leaders and was rewarded with a Rajya Sabha seat.Then the CPM expelled him.After a period in political wilderness, he joined the TMC, where he rebuilt his career, headed the party’s trade union wing, secured another Rajya Sabha term and eventually entered the assembly.Not long ago, he was publicly invoking Vladimir Lenin while explaining Mamata Banerjee’s political appeal.Today, he is leading the biggest revolt against her.And parallels with Maharashtra’s Shiv Sena and NCP splits are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.Like Eknath Shinde an Ajit Pawar, Ritabrata’s strategy has centred on demonstrating legislative strength rather than organisational control.The difference is that this battle is unfolding entirely within opposition politics.Yet the danger for Mamata Banerjee remains enormous.If the rebels can demonstrate influence beyond the assembly – in Parliament, local bodies and organisational structures – they may eventually seek recognition as the authentic TMC.That battle could determine ownership of the party’s name, symbol and political inheritance.The fallout has already begun.The TMC dissolved its committees and frontal organisations, citing the need for introspection.Then came another symbolic blow.Firhad Hakim, one of Mamata Banerjee’s closest political associates, stepped down as Kolkata mayor.The crisis was no longer confined to the assembly, it was spreading through the organisation itself.
Epilogue: The empire strikes itself
The tragedy of politics is not that leaders lose power. It is that they often become victims of the same systems they once mastered.The Left front built a vast political machine and watched it migrate to the TMC.The TMC built an even larger machine and is now watching parts of it drift away in search of a new centre of gravity.Not long ago, Ritabrata Banerjee was invoking Lenin to explain Mamata Banerjee’s appeal among ordinary Bengalis. Today, he leads the biggest challenge to her authority since she founded the party in 1998.The irony is difficult to miss.In 2011, Mamata Banerjee inherited a political ecosystem abandoned by the Left.In 2026, she is watching parts of her own machine drift away in search of a new political home.The twin flowers once replaced the hammer and sickle.Now they are fighting to avoid the same fate.
