Last Updated on July 12, 2026 12:35 am by INDIAN AWAAZ
Aafreen Hussain
West Bengal’s political landscape has been fundamentally reshaped by the decline of Trinamool Congress (TMC) dominance and the ascent of the BJP. However, the most significant tension is no longer just a binary clash between ruling and opposition parties; it is the internal crisis triggered by the emergence of a “Rebel TMC” faction, leaving voters to question whether this shift represents a genuine ideological evolution or merely a calculated realignment of political convenience.
The emergence of what is popularly referred to as the “Baghi TMC” or Rebel TMC has altered the political equation in ways that few anticipated. Former ministers, legislators, MPs and district-level organisers who once defended the TMC with unwavering loyalty are now among its fiercest critics or have aligned themselves with the BJP. This raises a fundamental question: Has the ideology changed, or have only the political loyalties shifted?
But where does the truth lie?
The first question confronting the people of Bengal is simple yet uncomfortable.If these leaders were aware of corruption, syndicate culture, extortion and administrative failures while serving in government, why did they remain silent for years?
Were they unwilling participants? Were they ignored? Or did they speak only after the political tide turned? These questions become sharper when many of the same leaders now promise clean governance under a different political banner.
Equally important is a question for the BJP.
If many former TMC leaders are now being welcomed into the BJP, how does the party reassure its own long-time workers that principles remain more important than political arithmetic?
Grassroots BJP workers spent years opposing the Trinamool on the streets. Some now find themselves sharing platforms with politicians they once accused of political intimidation and corruption. Can ideological conviction coexist comfortably with political pragmatism?
For the Rebel TMC, the challenge is even greater.
Is it a genuine political movement with a distinct ideology, or merely a temporary platform created by leaders searching for relevance after the fall of the previous government?
Political history shows that splinter groups often emerge after major electoral defeats. Some become enduring political forces. Others disappear once immediate ambitions are fulfilled.The electorate will ultimately decide which category the Rebel TMC belongs to.
The questions confronting the Trinamool Congress are perhaps the most uncomfortable of all. Why did so many experienced leaders leave?
Was it solely because the party lost power?
Or does the exodus reflect deeper concerns about internal democracy, leadership style, decision-making and organisational accountability? Can any political organisation survive if criticism from within is interpreted as disloyalty?
Whether voters agree with that assessment is another matter, but the criticism adds another dimension to Bengal’s evolving political debate.
Do people vote for ideology, for leadership, or simply for whoever appears capable of governing effectively?
If politicians can move effortlessly from one party to another while retaining their support base, does that suggest ideological flexibility or political convenience?
Amid this shifting landscape, CPI(M) state secretary Mohammed Salim has offered a perspective that differs from both the BJP and the Trinamool. He has argued that the BJP’s victory was not merely a triumph of its own organisation, but also the consequence of widespread public anger against the TMC’s governance. At the same time, he has maintained that the CPI(M) opposes both the BJP and the TMC, describing the contest as one between different political ideologies rather than simply between parties.
The TMC rejects this argument. Mamata Banerjee has repeatedly accused the BJP of attempting to engineer defections and has publicly challenged dissidents to either remain in the party or openly join the BJP rather than operate from within.
On Mamata Banerjee: Dilip Ghosh has repeatedly criticised Mamata Banerjee’s leadership, arguing that the current turmoil is the result of how the party was run over the years. In recent remarks surrounding political confrontations in Kolkata, he also dismissed TMC’s allegations against the BJP and accused the opposition of trying to divert attention from its own internal problems.
Indian politics has witnessed numerous defections over the decades. Yet Bengal’s situation is distinctive because many political personalities who once fiercely criticised the BJP now share its political space, while those who once defended the Trinamool now openly challenge its leadership.
This paradox has become one of the defining features of Bengal’s post-election politics. Yet, beyond slogans and press conferences, ordinary citizens continue to ask practical questions.
Will unemployment decline?
Will industries return?
Will political violence truly become a thing of the past?
Will corruption investigations lead to convictions regardless of political affiliation?
Will democratic institutions become stronger than political personalities?
Perhaps these are the questions that matter most. Political parties may celebrate victories, organise rallies and trade accusations. Leaders may change parties, alliances may shift and slogans may evolve. But history often judges governments not by the speeches they deliver but by the institutions they strengthen and the lives they improve.
West Bengal stands at a defining moment.
The struggle is no longer simply between the BJP and the TMC. It is a contest over credibility, accountability and public trust. The coming years will reveal whether the rise of the Rebel TMC represents a genuine political realignment or merely another chapter in India’s long history of shifting political loyalties.
Until those questions are answered, Bengal’s most important political debate will not be fought only in the Assembly or on television screens. It will be fought in the minds of millions of voters asking one simple question: Who truly changed the politicians, or merely the party they represent?