Indian politics has a peculiar habit of repeating itself. Leaders who appear invincible at the height of their power suddenly discover that loyalty in politics often lasts only as long as victory does. The moment the throne begins to shake, courtiers disappear, factions emerge, and ambitious lieutenants start measuring the curtains for a new regime. That is precisely the fate confronting Trinamool Congress founder Mamata Banerjee today. For nearly one-and-a-half decades, Mamata dominated West Bengal politics with an iron grip. She dismantled the mighty Left Front, reduced the Congress to irrelevance, and built the TMC into a formidable electoral machine. But political history is littered with examples of leaders who mistook personal popularity for institutional strength. The latest turmoil within the TMC is a reminder that parties built around a single individual often struggle to survive succession battles. The story is hardly unique. Arvind Kejriwal’s Aam Aadmi Party, once projected as a national alternative, has witnessed internal rebellions and electoral setbacks. K. Chandrasekhar Rao’s Bharat Rashtra Samithi, after losing power in Telangana, found itself battling defections, dwindling morale, and even signs of dissent from within the family, with daughter K. Kavitha increasingly charting an independent political course. Tamil Nadu’s AIADMK has spent years battling factional wars after the demise of J. Jayalalithaa, with leaders such as O. Panneerselvam and Edappadi K. Palaniswami fighting for control of the party’s legacy. The pattern is unmistakable. Power keeps factions together; defeat exposes fault lines. In fact, this culture did not originate with regional parties. The Congress perfected it over decades. From state satraps changing loyalties overnight to leaders abandoning sinking ships, Indian politics has long rewarded opportunism. Regional parties merely adopted and refined the model. The TMC’s troubles appear to stem from a familiar source: succession politics. Mamata Banerjee’s efforts to elevate her nephew, Abhishek Banerjee, as the party’s undisputed heir have not gone down well with every section of the organisation. Many senior leaders who spent decades building the party reportedly feel sidelined. The resentment that remained hidden during electoral success is now surfacing after a bruising political setback.
What makes the situation particularly dangerous for Mamata is not merely the criticism from opponents but the discontent within her own ranks. Reports of disagreements among legislators, organisational confusion, public expressions of frustration by party leaders, and visible distancing by some senior figures indicate a party grappling with an identity crisis. The contrast with Mamata’s earlier years is striking. Once, a call from “Didi” could bring thousands onto the streets. Today, critics argue that the enthusiasm appears considerably diminished. The aura of invincibility that surrounded the TMC leadership has clearly taken a hit. The larger question is whether the present crisis could evolve into a full-fledged split similar to what happened in Maharashtra’s Shiv Sena. When Eknath Shinde broke away with a substantial number of legislators, the consequences were devastating for Uddhav Thackeray. What initially appeared to be a temporary rebellion eventually transformed into a battle over the party’s name, symbol, and political legacy. Could West Bengal witness a similar drama? Politics teaches us never to dismiss such possibilities. If a sufficiently large section of legislators decides to organise itself as a separate bloc, legal and constitutional complications could follow. The battle would no longer be about individual leaders but about ownership of the party’s future. For Mamata Banerjee, the challenge is therefore larger than winning the next election. She must convince her own party that the TMC remains bigger than one family. If she fails, the very forces that helped her rise against the Left could turn against her. The irony is hard to miss. Mamata built her career fighting political monopolies and entrenched establishments. Today, she risks becoming a victim of the same dynastic and personality-centric politics that have weakened so many regional parties before her. In politics, power creates loyalty. But only institutions create longevity. The TMC’s current turmoil is a reminder that when a party becomes synonymous with a family, its decline often begins the moment that family’s authority is questioned. And in West Bengal, that questioning has already begun.
