Infighting in the Trinamool Congress in Cooch Behar has surfaced again in the district, this time between Abhijit De Bhowmik, the district president, and Sajal Sarkar, the party president of Cooch Behar-II block.
According to party insiders, differences cropped up as Sarkar defied district president De Bhowmik’s approved list of committee members for the block and independently formed his own block-level committee, which he then publicised on social media.
In response, De Bhowmik declared Sarkar’s committee “unauthorised” and showcaused Sarkar, thus deepening the rift.
“We decided on Sunday that the block president’s recent actions and comments violate party norms. He announced a committee on social media without organisational approval. A showcause letter to him demands he respond within seven days,” De Bhowmik said on Monday.
In the letter, Sarkar has been accused of breaching the party’s discipline, said Girindranath Barman, the Trinamool district chairman.
“If Sarkar’s response to the showcause is unsatisfactory, the district committee will take further action,” Barman said.
The friction reportedly began about a month ago.
In September, the Trinamool district leadership announced the names of block presidents and chairpersons across Cooch Behar.
However, the Cooch Behar-II block was left out, which led to speculations within party circles about who would be included or dropped.
Finally, on October 10, De Bhowmik released a list of chairpersons and presidents for all 13 panchayat areas that are under the block. The next day, Sarkar was officially declared block president, along with a nine-member block committee.
But shortly afterward, Sarkar released an alternate list of committee members — one that omitted many names from the district president’s approved list.
Sarkar issued a fresh list of area-level presidents for all 13 panchayats. This, circulated on social media, was deemed “completely unauthorised and without party approval” by district leadership.
“Only the party’s district leadership can form organisational committees. The block president’s unilateral action is a clear violation of party rules,” said the district president.
Sarkar was defiant. “I do not accept what the district president is saying. I was appointed block president by the state leadership, so I have the authority to form the committee. The committee I announced is valid. The district president’s committee is not,” Sarkar said.
On the showcause, he said: “I will take the matter to the state leadership. I see no reason to respond to the district president.”