Abhishek Banerjee’s Attack Not Same As Mamata’s In 1990, But Battered TMC Can Still Use It In 3 Ways

Last Updated:May 31, 2026, 6:00 PM IST

Mamata’s skull fracture vs attack on Abhishek’s helmet: Can it be turning point for TMC that is fighting for survival? News18 explains 3 ways in which it could help

Abhishek and Mamata Banerjee. (PTI File)

The violent assault on Abhishek Banerjee could serve as a major strategic turning point for Mamata Banerjee, providing her a critical opportunity to rebuild her battered party, the Trinamool Congress (TMC), just like she did in 1990, and consolidate opposition unity following their recent state assembly poll rout, say analysts.

News18 explains.

WHAT HAD HAPPENED IN 1990?

Mamata Banerjee used the near-fatal 1990 attack on her to build an enduring “street fighter” persona, break away from the traditional Congress party establishment, and ultimately construct the anti-Left narrative that brought her to power.

On August 16, 1990, during a rally at the Hazra Crossing in Kolkata, CPI(M) youth wing cadres viciously assaulted Banerjeefracturing her skull with a lathi. She spent a month hospitalised, fighting for her life. Rather than withdrawing from the public eye, Banerjee strategically weaponized the incident to transform her political trajectory in four ways:

1. Weaponised the “Bandage as a Battle Flag”: Most politicians of her era would have retreated into a quiet, dignified convalescence, but Banerjee leaned heavily into her physical trauma. She returned to the political arena prominently wrapped in hospital bandages. This striking imagery established her as a living martyr. It evoked immense public sympathy and permanently cast her as a fearless, single-handed defender of the people against a brutal, state-sponsored communist machinery.

2. Separated Herself from the “Elite” Congress Culture: At the time of the attack, Banerjee was a Youth Congress leader. However, she grew deeply disillusioned by what she perceived as a lack of aggressive support from the state’s senior Congress leadership, whom she accused of colluding with the ruling Left Front. She used the attack to draw a sharp contrast between herself—a grounded, bleeding activist on the streets—and the “armchair” Congress elite who preferred backroom negotiations.

This alienation directly catalysed her decision to split from the Congress party in 1998 to form the Trinamool Congress (TMC), positioned explicitly as the true, uncompromising voice of Bengal.

3. Established Lasting Electoral Invincibility: The assassination attempt fundamentally altered how voters in Kolkata perceived her resilience. Shortly after her recovery, she contested the 1991 Lok Sabha elections and won the Kolkata South seat, solidifying her path to becoming a Union Minister in the PV Narasimha Rao cabinet.

4. Created a Reusable Political Template: The 1990 attack became the blueprint for Banerjee’s entire political methodology. Over the next three decades, she consistently returned to the narrative of her physical sacrifice whenever she faced steep political resistance—from the Singur and Nandigram land protests in the late 2000s, to campaigning from a wheelchair after a leg injury during the 2021 assembly elections.

Even decades later, she frequently brings up the “Hazra 1990″ incident in assembly debates and international speeches to reinforce her credentials as Bengal’s ultimate, unyielding survivor.

ATTACK ON ABHISHEK BANERJEE NOT THE SAME AS MAMATA’s…

Political analysts and observers dismiss the comparisons drawing parallels between the Sonarpur mob assault on Trinamool Congress (TMC) General Secretary Abhishek Banerjee and the historic 1990 attack on Mamata Banerjee.

Mamata Banerjee was then a rising insurgent leader fighting a formidable Left Front establishment. She operated as a grassroots street fighter with limited institutional support, carving out her political capital through sheer physical resilience. Abhishek Banerjee is the established, resource-rich, de facto “Number 2″ of the Trinamool Congress. His prominence stems heavily from his lineage as Mamata’s nephew rather than decades of independent grassroots survival, they say.

The Hazra crossing attack left Mamata Banerjee battling for her life after receiving fractures to her skull from lathi blows. She required 16 stitches, and her heavily bandaged head became an iconic, definitive symbol of her political comeback. The Sonarpur incident involved a crowd shoving, slapping, and pelting Abhishek with eggs and stones. Because he was wearing a cricket helmet, he avoided severe, life-threatening head trauma.

In 1990, the bipolar political landscape in West Bengal between the Congress and the Left Front left a massive vacuum for a new, sympathetic force to emerge. Mamata capitalized on the public outcry over state-sponsored violence. In 2026, the assault followed a severe election drubbing for the TMC, which is currently battling an existential crisis and intense public anger over its governance. Opponents and analysts point out that the aggression in Sonarpur reflects local resentment, chanting “thief” slogans at the convoy, making it difficult for the party to generate a pure wave of political sympathy, according to experts.

3 WAYS TMC COULD USE THE ATTACK ON ABHISHEK BANERJEE

The attack in Sonarpur — where a helmet-wearing Abhishek Banerjee was heckled and hit with rocks, shoes, and eggs — comes at a highly vulnerable period for the party. Analysts suggest this event holds the potential to alter West Bengal’s political landscape through three distinct avenues:

• Following the TMC’s devastating assembly election defeat, Mamata Banerjee’s national leverage within the INDIA bloc had severely diminished. However, the severity of the attack triggered immediate, unexpected solidarity from senior opposition figures. Top Congress leaders like Mallikarjun Kharge and Rahul Gandhi strongly condemned the assault, framing it as a “politics of vendetta”. This collective outrage offers a common cause that may help pull a fractured opposition back together around the TMC.
• Mamata Banerjee has a long political history of converting physical aggression against her or her party into powerful public movements, a playbook that originally propelled her to power against the Left Front. Mamata quickly launched an aggressive media counter-offensive, applying the slogan “RULERS BECAME KILLERS” against the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). By framing the ambush as a pre-planned assassination attempt where Abhishek “could have died on the spot,” the TMC is actively attempting to pivot public sentiment away from anti-incumbency and toward public sympathy.
• The incident reflects a dangerous uptick in political volatility across Bengal, meaning both sides are dug into uncompromising narratives. The TMC has called it pre-planned conspiracy, pointing at the deliberate removal of police protection; targeted violence against opposition leaders. The BJP, meanwhile, called it spontaneous public meltdown over 15 years of accumulated public anger.Ultimately, whether this shifts long-term momentum depends entirely on whether Mamata can translate this immediate political sympathy into sustained grassroots mobilization over the remainder of the election cycle.

KEY FAQs

What does “Mamata did it in 1990″ refer to?

It refers to an incident in which Mamata Banerjee was physically attacked, but the episode helped strengthen her public image as a fighter and contributed to her political rise.

Can Abhishek Banerjee turn the attack into a political advantage?

Supporters of Abhishek Banerjee argue that a strong public outreach campaign could generate sympathy and reinforce his leadership credentials within All India Trinamool Congress.

What are three things TMC could do?

Highlight the incident through public campaigns; use it to mobilize party workers at the grassroots level; frame the episode as evidence of political intimidation while focusing on governance and development issues.

With agency inputs

Read More