Last Updated:
Choosing between the survival of her party and the future of her nephew will be an agonising crucible for Mamata Banerjee
Congress leader Sonia Gandhi (left) and TMC chief Mamata Banerjee held a closed-door meeting recently. File pic
Rahul Gandhi and Abhishek Banerjee: two scions who have become the defining faces of internal friction within their respective parties.
A few years ago, the “G-23″ rebellion fractured the Congress from within. While no dissenter explicitly asked Rahul Gandhi to step aside, the deep-seated disgruntlement stemmed from a growing sense of exclusion among veteran stalwarts. Many questioned why the very leaders who had built the UPA and revived the party were being systematically kept out of the core decision-making matrix. While Sonia Gandhi did invite some of the rebels for separate ice-breaking meetings, she steadfastly refused to accept that her son could be part of the structural problem. Over time, the dissent faded; heavyweights like Ghulam Nabi Azad walked away, while others were quietly co-opted back into the system. In the end, blood proved thicker than water. Today, Rahul Gandhi stands as the undisputed epicentre of the Congress, leaving those who left to bitterly accuse Sonia Gandhi of being consumed by putra moh (blind maternal attachment).
The situation gripping the Trinamool Congress (TMC) today bears striking similarities, with Abhishek Banerjee emerging as the epicentre of a widening internal rebellion. The latest casualty of this friction is Kalyan Banerjee, who until recently stood as one of Mamata Banerjee’s most fiercely loyal defenders. Now, reports suggest he has placed a stark, uncompromising ultimatum before the party supremo for his continuation: it is either the party or Abhishek.
He is far from alone in this sentiment. Many of those driving the recent internal mutiny point directly to Abhishek Banerjee’s top-down style of functioning as the primary driver behind the party’s current decline. Much like the Congress old guard, several veteran leaders who have shed blood and sweat for the TMC since its inception feel increasingly sidelined. In their view, Abhishek’s rapid ascent has fundamentally altered the very DNA of the organisation.
Unlike Mamata Banerjee, who has traditionally relied on raw political instinct and a fierce connection to ground realities, Abhishek is often perceived as having a limited bond with the grassroots cadre. Critics view him as an entitled leader parachuted into power, far more comfortable with corporate, boardroom-style management than gruelling public mobilisation. A party that was built on the raw, emotive sentiment of Maa, Maati, Manush is now, in their view, being mechanically run through external consultants, metrics, and drawing-board politics.
Yet, even those most critical of Abhishek reserve a significant portion of their disappointment for Mamata Banerjee herself. Insiders believe she should have anticipated that her bhaipo (nephew) could never be universally acceptable to a battle-hardened old guard.
Choosing between the survival of her party and the future of her nephew will be an agonising crucible for Mamata Banerjee. Sonia Gandhi faced the exact same dilemma and chose her son. The critical difference, however, remains in the structural durability of the two outfits; while the grand old Congress managed to absorb its dissent and roll onward, the TMC today appears to be facing a far deeper, potentially existential internal crisis.
For Mamata Banerjee, blood may yet triumph over political pragmatism—but the cost to her legacy has never been higher.
About the Author
Pallavi Ghosh has covered politics and Parliament for 15 years, and has reported extensively on Congress, UPA-I and UPA-II, and has now included the Finance Ministry and Niti Aayog in her reportage. S…Read More
Read More
