New Delhi, Sep 15 (IANS) : A recent comment by Jagadish Chandra Barma Basunia, a first-time Lok Sabha member from Cooch Behar, that 17 rebel Trinamool Congress Parliamentarians are poised to join the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) before next month’s Durga Puja has set off a political storm in West Bengal.
Despite drawing no support, being refuted, or being met with silence by colleagues, as well as BJP state leaders, his statement has reignited the debate on the “Aya Ram, Gaya Ram” (he comes; he goes) expression that is said to have originated in 1967 from Haryana, when then state Legislative Assembly member Gaya Lal shifted his party allegiances three times in two weeks.
Though not as dramatic as Haryana’s Gaya Lal, Basunia and 19 other Trinamool MPs broke away from the party following its defeat in the state assembly elections early this year.
With the victorious BJP refusing to induct them, the rebels aligned themselves with the little-known Nationalist Citizens Party of India (NCPI), a party registered only in 2023 and virtually invisible in West Bengal politics.
This move was widely interpreted as a tactical manoeuvre designed to avoid immediate disqualification under the anti-defection law.
Months later, the Lok Sabha Speaker has not recognised NCPI as a separate Parliamentary group. At the time of writing, the official Lok Sabha website continues to list 28 Trinamool MPs, all elected under the party’s symbol in the 2024 general election.
Basunia’s dramatic claim has thus raised questions about its feasibility under Parliamentary rules and constitutional provisions.
Experts point out that the rebels’ position is far more precarious than Basunia’s confident announcement suggests. The BJP itself has been quick to distance itself from the speculation.
Under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, a group of legislators may avoid disqualification if at least two-thirds of them merge with another party. But such a merger must be formally recognised by the Speaker.
Here, without that recognition, the rebels’ claim to immunity is legally fragile. The Trinamool Congress has already petitioned the Supreme Court seeking the removal of the 20 MPs, and the matter is under judicial consideration.
In this context, Basunia’s now implying a “second exodus” appears premature. The BJP’s own response underscores this caution.
BJP’s West Bengal unit president Samik Bhattacharya swiftly rejected Basunia’s claim, insisting that the BJP was not in talks to induct the rebels en masse. He stressed that the party would not admit leaders simply because they wished to join, hinting at both political and organisational concerns.
Other BJP leaders have also expressed resentment at the idea of welcoming defectors from the Trinamool.
Besides, the Trinamool rebels themselves appear far from united. Several MPs, including Satabdi Roy and Abu Taher Khan, have publicly contradicted Basunia, saying he was speaking in a personal capacity.
Others have remained conspicuously silent, suggesting contradictions. Three of them, all MPs from Murshidabad district, Abu Taher Khan, Khalilur Rahman, and Yusuf Pathan, have been consistently refusing to consider joining the BJP, citing the religious and political composition of their constituencies.
Though they have chosen to support the ruling National Democratic Alliance (NDA), directly aligning with the BJP risks alienating their voter base in a district where Muslims comprise almost 70 per cent of the population.
Incidentally, political observers believe the NCPI was used as a vehicle to park the MPs until the Speaker’s decision, allowing the BJP to avoid direct confrontation with the anti-defection law.
Now, the longer the Speaker delays recognition, the more tenuous becomes the rebels’ position, where they are trapped in a limbo, with neither being fully part of the Trinamool nor officially acknowledged as members of the NCPI. This complicates Basunia’s claim of a grand migration to the BJP. Even if all 17 MPs were willing, the constitutional and procedural hurdles remain formidable.
The Speaker’s discretion is paramount, and until he rules, the rebels cannot claim the protection of the two-thirds merger clause. The Supreme Court’s pending judgment adds another layer of uncertainty. In effect, the rebels are caught between ambition and legality, their future hinging on decisions beyond their control.
Basunia’s announcement, therefore, seems more like a claim than imminent reality. It may serve to keep the rebels in the headlines and pressure the Speaker to act, but it does not change Constitutional facts. A “second exodus” into the BJP thus appears uncertain until these hurdles are cleared, and for now, the path looks effectively blocked.
