Tamil Nadu’s politics of Dravidianist mobilisation is at a historical crossroads, which is ironic given that this month marks the 50th anniversary of the social movement’s emergence as a supreme political force in the State. For the first time since 1967 there are questions about whether either of the leading parties of this movement, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), will continue into the 21st century in the role of a pre-eminent force dominating State politics.
The question of paramount importance now facing Tamil Nadu politics is this: will a charismatic leader emerge, of the calibre of former Chief Ministers Jayalalithaa of the AIADMK or M. Karunanidhi of the DMK , to restore governance centred on welfare schemes, or will national parties such as the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) finally succeed in breaching the impregnable politics of this State?
Leader-dependent parties
Powerful leaders have always mattered in the firmament of Dravidian politics since the early phases of the movement that unseated the Congress party. At that time, resurgent Dravidianism envisioned by Periyar E.V. Ramasamy and C.N. Annadurai was purposefully fashioned as a policy of “assertive populism” feeding the sentiments of small-propertied groups among the middle castes of Tamil Nadu.
The momentum of Dravidianist mobilisation during those years, which derived strength from the campaigns against Brahminism, Hindi and the diktats of north Indian politics, was driven primarily by the personas of these charismatic leaders.
To the extent that the centralisation of leadership runs contrary to the principles of organisational equity and delegated political authority, both highly relevant in the diverse, stratified social landscape of Tamil Nadu, the DMK and the AIADMK developed institutional weakness in terms of over-reliance on these leaders.
Nevertheless, the fact that these two regional parties did not cede ground in State politics to national parties, such as the Congress and the BJP, over the past five decades, demonstrates the political acumen and flexible approach of their leaders.
Specifically, these dominant personalities must be credited for bending, in the twilight decades of the 20th century, the very definition of the Dravidian philosophy that they had built their parties and political careers on, making the State’s agenda more inclusive of groups in Tamil society that had been, until then, excluded from their ethnic-based appeals.
However, the task facing the two Dravidian parties today does not end with the mission to fill the extant leadership vacuum, which has emerged since the death of Jayalalithaa and the retreat of Mr. Karunanidhi. It must include radical organisational reforms if they are to deliver stable governance to the people.
In the AIADMK, Jayalalithaa deliberately degraded the primary through tertiary leadership structures over decades and genuflection became the sole means of political survival. The implosion of the party in a bitter conflict between Jayalalithaa acolyte O. Panneerselvam and the current Chief Minister, Edappadi K. Palaniswami, is symptomatic of the malaise in its ranks.
The situation facing the DMK is no less serious. The party’s working president, M.K. Stalin, despite being the planned successor to Mr. Karunanidhi, has hardly been tested politically as his father was over multiple decades. He must also contend with his brother M.K. Alagiri’s popularity among party cadres in the southern districts, especially Madurai. Further, the extended branches of the first family of the DMK, including the Maran clan, could throw up challenges to Mr. Stalin’s ambition of State-wide pre-eminence.
Sustainable policy agenda
In terms of policy focus, the blunting of the radical edge of Dravidian politics by social accommodation-ism meant that the only vestige of the prior era that remained in vogue was the sharp policy focus on mass welfare schemes and the social sector more broadly.
Could this reliance — some would call it over-reliance — on pro-poor welfarism enable the parties of the Dravidian era to overcome the climate of deep political uncertainty? Distribution of largesse can help garner political legitimacy in the eyes of the voting populace, yet in a highly aspirational State such as Tamil Nadu, it will probably take more than “freebies” to emerge as a top performer, not to mention the risk that runaway public expenditure can endanger fiscal stability.
If growth industries are to view Tamil Nadu as the investment destination of choice, then a profound shake-up in governance philosophy may be needed, one that moves away from extortion and political thuggery and toward a commitment to providing public goods such as robust infrastructure, in a transparent, accountable manner.
For this to become a reality, a significant transformation of attitude within the senior leadership of both parties may be a prerequisite. In the case of Chief Minister Palaniswami, the man picked to helm the government by the powers that be, broad-based support from the Tamil Nadu polity may only come if he demonstrates the willingness to strike out on his own and the courage to snap the strings of control of the family of V.K. Sasikala, Jayalalithaa’s confidante and convict in the disproportionate assets case.
Reality check
There appears to be a deep-seated distaste of the entire Sasikala clan among the general population, including of AIADMK Deputy General Secretary T.T.V. Dinakaran, for their association with political subterfuge bankrolled by dubiously acquired wealth. If the AIADMK could escape the shadow of this family, it would in some regards win itself a reprieve and perhaps even some much-needed public goodwill.
Across the aisle, Mr. Stalin has a question mark hanging over his State-wide popularity, particularly regarding whether he will be considered the legitimate inheritor of the historical legacy of his father, a bold screenwriter and avant garde Dravidianist leader. Yet he would be wise to sidestep the sort of theatrics that his party appeared to be basking in last month in the State legislature, when DMK members reportedly engaged in unruly conduct on the floor of the House. He would be wiser still to rise above petty political bickering around the issue of delegitimising the legacy of Jayalalithaa by demanding her name and photographs be removed from all government offices and policies.
In Tamil Nadu, there is space for a credible, well-intentioned opposition party to make its voice heard on the behalf of the people, and hold the party in power to account. If the DMK prioritises this aspect of its wider responsibility, it could regain the political capital that it may have squandered during recent bouts of misdirected rambunctiousness.
Mood of a nation
However, neither Dravidian party may have the luxury of time to recalibrate its leadership and organisational engines and chart a new course in the post-2016 reality of Indian politics, because a saffron shadow is creeping across the land and sweeping past all manner of social cleavages in numerous States.
The BJP’s stunning victories in the Assembly elections in Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand this month are indicative of the magnetic pull of economic development rooted in the values of Hindutva, a muscular, majoritarian pragmatism in governance that eschews “appeasement” and is built on the image of a “strongman” Prime Minister.
What might worry the leadership of the Dravidian parties the most is the fact that this socio-economic paradigm is in stark contrast to the philosophy of mass welfarism, their core modus operandi since 1967. If that pro-BJP, pro-Modi mood that so obviously animated the voters of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand captures the imagination of Tamil Nadu’s voter demographic, the road ahead for the AIADMK and DMK is likely to be quite bumpy indeed.
narayan@thehindu.co.in
