You Could Not Criticise Abhishek’: TMC Rebel Reveals the Breaking Point Behind Growing Dissent in Trinamool Congress

‘ Kolkata: As the Trinamool Congress grapples with its worst political crisis since coming to power in 2011, a striking statement from a rebel party leader has thrown fresh light on the internal tensions that have been simmering beneath the surface for years. “You could not criticise Abhishek,” the leader reportedly said while explaining why discontent gradually transformed into open rebellion inside the party. The remark is being viewed by political observers as perhaps the clearest indication yet of the growing divide within the Trinamool Congress over leadership, internal democracy, and the future direction of the party after its devastating electoral defeat. While the party’s public face remained united under Mamata Banerjee, many leaders now claim that dissent had become increasingly difficult inside the organisation, particularly when it involved decisions associated with Abhishek Banerjee, the party’s national general secretary and widely regarded as Mamata Banerjee’s political heir. According to rebel leaders, the problem was not merely about individual personalities but about the emergence of a culture where questioning key decisions became increasingly risky. Several disgruntled leaders reportedly felt that a small circle around the top leadership had acquired disproportionate influence over candidate selection, organisational appointments, campaign strategy, and administrative decisions. Over time, many senior leaders began feeling sidelined despite decades of service to the party. The issue gained prominence after Trinamool Congress suffered a stunning electoral setback that ended its long dominance over West Bengal politics. Defeats often trigger introspection within political parties, but in TMC’s case, the loss appears to have opened a floodgate of accumulated grievances. Leaders who remained silent during years of electoral success have suddenly become vocal about organisational shortcomings, strategic errors, and what they describe as excessive centralisation of power. At the centre of the controversy stands Abhishek Banerjee, who has emerged as one of the most influential leaders within the Trinamool Congress over the past decade. Supporters view him as the architect of the party’s modern organisational structure, a dynamic campaigner capable of connecting with younger voters, and the natural successor to Mamata Banerjee. Critics, however, argue that his growing influence gradually altered the party’s internal power balance and reduced space for alternative viewpoints. The rebel leader’s comments suggest that the issue was not necessarily direct opposition to Abhishek himself but the perception that criticism of decisions associated with him became politically unacceptable. According to dissidents, this created an environment where genuine feedback, organisational debate, and corrective mechanisms weakened over time. Many leaders allegedly felt that expressing disagreement could result in loss of position, marginalisation, or exclusion from important party activities. Political analysts note that such tensions are not uncommon in parties undergoing leadership transition. For years, Mamata Banerjee’s personal authority kept various factions united. Her immense popularity and electoral success ensured that internal disagreements rarely surfaced publicly. However, as discussions about succession intensified and Abhishek’s role expanded, underlying rivalries and anxieties became more visible. The debate is also closely linked to a broader question facing the Trinamool Congress: should the party remain a highly centralised organisation built around a single leadership structure, or should it evolve into a more collective and institution-driven political movement? The electoral defeat has given fresh momentum to leaders advocating organisational reforms and greater internal consultation. Supporters of Abhishek Banerjee strongly reject allegations that dissent was suppressed. They argue that he modernised the party, strengthened grassroots structures, improved campaign management, and helped expand Trinamool’s influence beyond West Bengal. According to his supporters, criticism following the electoral defeat is partly driven by leaders seeking to avoid accountability for their own failures. Nevertheless, the perception of a widening gap between sections of the old guard and the newer leadership remains a significant challenge for the party. Reports of legislators skipping meetings, disciplinary action against dissidents, and growing speculation about possible defections have intensified concerns regarding organisational unity. The crisis is particularly sensitive because the Trinamool Congress is no longer dealing with internal issues from a position of strength. For the first time in fifteen years, the party finds itself in opposition. Electoral defeats often expose weaknesses that remained hidden during periods of political dominance. The transition from government to opposition is forcing the party to confront difficult questions about leadership, strategy, accountability, and succession. Many political observers believe the coming months could determine whether the Trinamool Congress successfully reinvents itself or faces deeper fragmentation. Mamata Banerjee still commands significant respect and loyalty among party workers, but even her supporters acknowledge that rebuilding after a major defeat will require honest assessment of what went wrong. The rebel leader’s statement about criticism of Abhishek Banerjee may therefore represent more than a personal grievance. It symbolizes a larger debate unfolding within the party about power, accountability, and the future of one of India’s most influential regional political movements. For years, electoral victories allowed Trinamool Congress to paper over internal differences. Defeat, however, has changed the equation. Questions that were once whispered in private rooms are now being voiced publicly. And as the party struggles to redefine itself in opposition, the battle over leadership and organisational culture may prove just as consequential as any contest against political rivals. Because in politics, electoral defeats do not merely change governments—they often reveal the unresolved tensions that success had long concealed.