Personal angst, public interest, and a sharp eye for a political opportunity have combined in different measures to prompt Tamil Nadu Chief Minister O. Panneerselvam to do what he himself may have regarded as unthinkable: revolt against the AIADMK leadership . A die-hard loyalist of Jayalalithaa, and by extension of his one-time benefactor Ms. Sasikala, Mr. Panneerselvam, who was perceived as the archetypal feudal supplicant, chose his moment to strike back at the patricians in the party. After years of bowing before Jayalalithaa, and doing as he was told unquestioningly, the three-time stand-in Chief Minister wanted, entirely legitimately, more leeway under Ms. Sasikala. Clearly, he realised after Jayalalithaa’s death, that he would have to put up with another round of slavish obeisance. But it was when he sensed the public mood turning against Ms. Sasikala that he found the courage and the strength to protest. In invoking Jayalalithaa’s name to justify his revolt, Mr. Panneerselvam is trying to project that it is he who is her chosen political heir. It is difficult to say how successful he will be in inheriting this mantle, but the political damage he has done to Ms. Sasikala is considerable. Not many AIADMK MLAs may have joined his revolt, but it has touched a chord with the rank and file, something she will have to contend with. On the defensive as she awaits a Supreme Court judgment in the disproportionate assets case , the long-standing friend of Jayalalithaa appears vulnerable both legally and politically. Clearly, the cloak of invincibility that Jayalalithaa seemed to have on her during even the most testing times was not Ms. Sasikala’s to wear.
What Mr. Panneerselvam demonstrated to the AIADMK cadre was that there was nothing to recommend Ms. Sasikala other than her proximity to Jayalalithaa; in this she was only marginally better placed than Deepa Jayakumar, Jayalalithaa’s niece, who is also making a bid to inherit the political legacy without ever having any kind of association with politics. Mr. Panneerselvam’s revolt, which took some time coming, did have a political repercussion, as a small clutch of party leaders disenchanted with Ms. Sasikala gravitated towards him. It gave Governor C. Vidyasagar Rao, and the Centre, some breathing time. Mr. Rao, who is yet to come to Chennai after Mr. Panneerselvam’s resignation, is in no hurry to swear in Ms. Sasikala as Chief Minister. To do so now would be a huge mistake in the event of a conviction in the judgment, expected in a few days. No matter what else it does or does not, this revenge of the underdog is a success. It might not help Mr. Panneerselvam much in the short term, but could have long-term implications for Ms. Sasikala. That is the nature of revenge.
