The deposed coordinator of the AIADMK, O. Panneerselvam, who came from nowhere to become Chief Minister in September 2001 and survived several political challenges since then, now stands isolated in the party.
As the electoral political history of the State has been unkind to those who moved out of the two principal parties — the DMK and the AIADMK — in the last 50-odd years, Mr. Panneerselvam appears to be facing a bleak future as he has limited options. As put by one of his associates, Mr. Panneerselvam may have to tread the path being followed by the sidelined former interim general secretary, V.K. Sasikala, and AMMK general secretary T.T.V. Dhinakaran, who was eased out of the party five years ago in the wake of the camps of Edappadi K. Palaniswami and Mr. Panneerselvam coming together.
It remains to be seen whether Mr. Panneerselvam would join hands with Ms. Sasikala and Mr. Dhinakaran. As he is also known to be an open admirer of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, it would be interesting to see how he is going to approach the BJP in future, and the latter's response to his overtures.
In fact, the element of Mr. Panneerselvam’s “soft corner” for Ms. Sasikala was highlighted by former Minister Dindigul C. Sreenivasan at the general council meeting on Monday as one of the reasons for the action taken against him. Mr. Sreenivasan recalled that in March, at the farm house of Mr. Panneerselvam, Theni district secretary S.P.M. Syed Khan got a motion passed, calling for the readmission of Ms. Sasikala, which went against the party’s position on the issue.
Since the controversy over the nature of leadership broke out nearly a month ago, the Palaniswami camp has been portraying Mr. Panneerselvam as one who has been adopting a “friendly disposition” towards the DMK. At the general council, speakers questioned his loyalty to the party, by pointing out that Mr. Panneerselvam said in the Assembly last year that his father was a great fan of DMK leader Karunanidhi, and he had memorised Karunanidhi’s dialogues from the Tamil film Parasakthi (1952). Their contention is that such admiration would not have been prevalent among “true followers” of party founder M.G. Ramachandran, who had dubbed Karunanidhi an “evil force”.
On the Sasikala issue, Mr. Panneerselvam has maintained that it is for the party headquarters’ office-bearers to take a call. As for the row over loyalty, Kovai Selvaraj, a spokesperson for his camp, said what the former coordinator stated pertained to the position till the departure of MGR from the DMK in 1972, and this had no relevance to the present.
When asked whether the absence of Mr. Panneerselvam would make the party weak in districts south of Madurai, R.B. Udhayakumar, secretary of the Puratchi Thalaivi Peravai, replied in the negative, and said if one were to go by the AIADMK’s history, leaders who were once prominent in the party could not shine in politics after they left the organisation. Among them were V.R. Nedunchezhiyan, S.D. Somasundaram, and Su. Thirunavukkarasar. “What matters more is the party and its symbol, the ‘two leaves’,” Mr. Udhayakumar said.
One factor that could go in favour of Mr. Panneerselvam is time. The Lok Sabha election is due only in 2024, by when he hopes to be in the formation that emerges victorious in the polls.
