Kolkata: For nearly three decades, the Trinamool Congress (TMC) revolved around one political figure – Mamata Banerjee. Since she founded the party in 1998 after breaking away from the Congress, the TMC had survived electoral battles, defections and internal disagreements without suffering a formal split.
That changed on Wednesday.
In a dramatic turn of events, 58 MLAs wrested control of the party’s legislature wing, elected rebel leader Ritabrata Banerjee as their leader and secured recognition from the Assembly Speaker. The development marked the first formal split in the 28-year-old party and exposed deep divisions that had been building beneath the surface for months.
While the rebellion appeared sudden, it was the culmination of growing dissatisfaction within sections of the party after TMC’s defeat in the Assembly elections on May 4.
Also Read: Firhad Hakim, Mamata’s Close Aide, Resigns As Kolkata Mayor Amid TMC Crisis
The Growing Discontent
According to party insiders, the election loss intensified concerns among several legislators about what they viewed as the growing concentration of power around TMC national general secretary Abhishek Banerjee, Mamata Banerjee’s nephew.
The unease became visible on May 6 during a meeting of newly elected MLAs. Mamata Banerjee reportedly asked legislators to applaud Abhishek for his role in the election campaign. Though intended as a gesture of appreciation, some MLAs privately interpreted it as a sign that the party’s future was increasingly being shaped around a single family.
The first open challenge emerged on May 19 when Ritabrata Banerjee and Entally MLA Sandipan Saha questioned why Falta MLA Jahangir Khan had not been expelled despite publicly withdrawing from the repoll campaign. Since Jahangir was widely seen as being close to Abhishek, the criticism was interpreted as a direct challenge to the party leadership.
Veteran leader Kunal Ghosh also raised similar concerns at the time, though he later distanced himself from the rebel camp.
The situation escalated further on May 22.
Ritabrata Banerjee, who was in Delhi to complete formalities related to the end of his Rajya Sabha term, visited Banga Bhavan for lunch. There, he had what was later described as an “accidental” meeting with Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari.
What initially appeared to be an ordinary political interaction quickly gained significance when Ritabrata publicly praised Adhikari’s decision to invite opposition legislators and MPs to government review meetings, calling it a healthy democratic practice.
The remarks immediately sparked speculation about growing differences within the TMC.
The Signature Controversy That Changed Everything
The real turning point came three days later.
On May 25, allegations emerged that signatures of several legislators had been forged on documents submitted to the Speaker regarding the leadership structure of the legislature party.
What initially looked like a procedural dispute soon became a major political flashpoint.
On May 27, Ritabrata Banerjee and Sandipan Saha formally approached the Speaker alleging forgery. The Assembly secretariat subsequently informed the police, leading to a CID investigation.
As investigators began contacting legislators over the following days, the controversy became a rallying point for dissatisfied MLAs.
The dispute was no longer about signatures. It had become a wider debate about leadership, internal democracy and the future direction of the party.
Meanwhile, another incident deepened concerns about the disconnect between the leadership and a section of the organisation.
On May 30, Abhishek Banerjee came under a mob attack during a visit to Sonarpur. While political parties across the spectrum condemned the attack, several TMC leaders privately noted what they described as a muted response from sections of the organisation and legislature party.
For many observers, it was a sign that discontent within the party had become far deeper than the leadership had anticipated.
The next day, Mamata Banerjee called a meeting of newly elected MLAs at her Kalighat residence. However, poor attendance reportedly weakened attempts to project unity and discipline within the party ranks.
The crisis reached a breaking point on June 1.
Hours after Suvendu Adhikari publicly revealed that the CID investigation had been initiated based on complaints by Ritabrata and Sandipan, the TMC expelled both leaders.
Instead of ending the rebellion, the move accelerated it.
The expelled leaders intensified their criticism of Abhishek Banerjee, accusing him of centralising authority within the party. Within rebel circles, the campaign soon acquired a name – “Operation Crown Prince”.
Even as the TMC leadership attempted to regain control by sending fresh communications to the Speaker regarding the legislature party leadership, support continued shifting towards the rebels.
The final blow came on Wednesday.
A group of 58 MLAs submitted a letter to the Speaker electing Ritabrata Banerjee as leader of the legislature party and naming a new leadership team. The Speaker accepted their claim, effectively recognising the rebel faction as the official legislature wing of the TMC.
Soon after, many of the same MLAs attended a government review meeting convened by Chief Minister Suvendu Adhikari at Nabanna, underlining the extent of the shift in political loyalties.
For the TMC, the crisis is about far more than losing control of its legislature wing.
The split has exposed unresolved questions about leadership succession, internal democracy and the role of Abhishek Banerjee within the organisation. It has also raised questions about whether the party can maintain unity in the post-Mamata era.
The irony is striking.
Not long ago, Ritabrata Banerjee frequently invoked Vladimir Lenin while describing Mamata Banerjee’s ability to connect with ordinary people. On Wednesday, the former CPI(M) leader found himself leading what supporters called a “legislative revolution” against the very leader he once compared to Lenin.
For a party built around Mamata Banerjee’s authority and political appeal, the events of the last 13 days may be remembered as the moment everything changed.
(With inputs from PTI)