Tectonic turbulence in Dravidian politics

The power vacuum in Tamil Nadu has opened up its politics to an opportunity for change, which voters must examine

March 11, 2021 12:02 am | Updated 01:46 am IST

Though every State (and one Union Territory) of India that will have Assembly elections this year represents a uniquely eclectic matrix of power across the contesting parties and challenges to status quo , nowhere has a sea change in ground realities swept across the political landscape more than in Tamil Nadu . For the first time in half a century, the land of the Dravidian movement is joining the democratic fray sans the towering personalities of leaders in both the major parties that have historically ruled it — the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK). The passing of M. Karunanidhi (DMK) and Jayalalithaa (AIADMK), respectively, the heads of these two parties, who had delivered multiple victories at the hustings and set the template in terms of an autocratic style of managing the cadres, has created a power vacuum that has opened up the politics of the State to a historic opportunity for change. To better understand this opportunity, it is instructive to examine the vectors of change.

Inheritance of leadership

First, retaining our focus on the DMK and the AIADMK, there has been a dramatic shift in the fundamental nature of leadership. It is true that the DMK has had a more successful ‘business continuity plan.’ Its current president, M.K. Stalin, was the duly anointed successor to step into his father’s shoes after Karunanidhi’s passing . Karunanidhi’s final gift to his party, the orderly transition of the mantle of leadership to his son, helped swiftly see off an early challenge to Mr. Stalin from older sibling and southern-region strongman, M.K. Alagiri. However, despite Mr. Stalin’s many years of experience in Tamil Nadu as the Mayor of Chennai, MLA, Minister for Rural Development and Local Administration, Deputy Chief Minister, Leader of the Opposition and, since August 2018, the President of his party , he is yet to deliver a single State Assembly election victory.

Also read | For AIADMK and DMK, no titans to lead, but not any ship in storm

Karunanidhi led the DMK to victory in elections no fewer than 10 times. By comparison, there remain unanswered questions about whether Mr. Stalin could rise to the formidable standards of his father in terms of organisational shrewdness and personal charisma — at least in the realm of State politics. It augurs well for Mr. Stalin that he presided over the DMK’s thumping victory in the parliamentary election in 2019 , with the DMK and its allies capturing 38 out of 39 seats in play. But will voters be convinced by Mr. Stalin’s promise of leadership to the extent that they will vote the same way in 2021 as they did two years ago?

Contrarily, the AIADMK, as it remained after the passing of Jayalalithaa , was a pale shadow of its former self. The responsibility for that rests squarely on the shoulders of the late leader herself, for it was Jayalalithaa who systematically degraded at least four rungs of potential future leaders beneath her within the party organisation. It was Jayalalithaa who institutionalised a culture of abject servility and compulsory public displays of fealty and subservience to her persona, among every member of her party, high or low. More than that, she formalised an unapologetically dictatorial style of decision-making within the party, and within the government when the AIADMK was in power, making a mockery of whatever party and administrative structures were in place.

However, the past four years of leadership under the AIADMK have seen the survivors of this unipolar period in their party’s politics pull themselves together and deliver a measure of what could genuinely be described as ‘good governance’ to the people of the State, whether in terms of flood management, negotiating with the Centre regarding funds to fight the COVID-19 pandemic or allowing industries more space to operate rather than extorting them out of business. That they did so despite the rumblings of dissatisfaction and dissent within their ranks in the early post-Jayalalithaa days is nothing short of remarkable. What was considered a fragile peace between Chief Minister Edappadi K. Palaniswami and Deputy Chief Minister O. Panneerselvam at the start has turned out to be surprisingly robust.

Also read | How Palaniswami consolidated power

The looming question that this analysis begs is this: will Tamil Nadu voters recognise and reward good governance of this sort, or will other factors determine their election preferences?

Reading the voter

Voters in this State have periodically proved that they have a penchant for putting into power at the State level a different party to the one that swept up a majority of seats in the parliamentary elections. A close review of this split in voting preferences suggests that a pattern may have emerged: since the start of the 21st century, the DMK and the AIADMK have, respectively, cornered a majority of seats in the parliamentary and State Assembly elections for 15 years each.

Opinion |  The ‘patronising’ Dravidian movement

It would not be unreasonable to surmise that this points to a collective belief on the part of voters in the State that the AIADMK is a party with strong governance credentials at the State level, whereas the DMK has proven its mettle as a bulwark against a heavy-handed central government. Yet, given the dramatic change in the balance of power and prevailing political ideologies in Tamil Nadu over the past few years, even this assumption now stands on wobbly ground. A signpost hinting at potential election outcomes this time is the C-Voter survey, which has most recently indicated a sweep by the DMK.

Impending ideological clash

This brings us to the second major change in the political landscape — the growing national footprint of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its brand of muscular Hindutva politics, which is now attempting to storm the bastions of the southern States and West Bengal.

Comment | New paradigm for Dravidianism

To understand the position that the BJP occupies in the pantheon of political parties in Tamil Nadu, it is necessary to go back to the very roots of the Dravidian movement. What began as an aggressively anti-Brahmin, anti-caste, anti-religion, anti-North Indian, anti-Hindi imposition policy orientation in the early days of the Dravida Kazhagam under Periyar E.V. Ramasamy and the DMK under C.N. Annadurai, was transformed through the 1970s and beyond, under the pressure of political competition from the rival AIADMK, into a far more inclusive, accommodationist bent of leadership.

As many additional lower- and middle-castes were integrated into the broad Dravidianist agenda as fronted by both the DMK and the AIADMK, the priorities shifted from the “assertive populism” capitalising on hostility toward the central government and its tenets to the entrenchment of “paternalistic populism” comprising a charismatic but self-enriching autocrat distributing mass welfare goods.

While some of the historical elements of assertive populism have faded away as the populace has adjusted to the socio-economic realities of post-liberalisation India, a persistent echo of Tamil exceptionalism remains deeply embedded within the collective psyche of the common woman and man of this State. Not only does this exceptionalism have to do with the uniqueness of the Tamil language, traditions, cinema, rural subcultures and the complexities of caste politics, but there is also a shared visceral aversion to the idea of the Tamil people genuflecting to the diktats of a distant, Hindi-speaking, upper caste- and Hindu-dominated government in New Delhi.

Comment |  When Dravidianism and Hindutva met

To an extent, the implied preference for ideologically committed leaders who are exceptionally skilled at managing the party organisation is inconsistent with the quality and tenor of leadership seen in the AIADMK recently. The concern over political arrangements that might dilute the prospects for realising the dream of Tamil exceptionalism is also inconsistent with the AIADMK’s election alliance with the BJP. The BJP has done itself few favours in terms of its own political positioning in the State, as it has tried to score points on issues relating to Hindutva politics rather than Dravidianism. If a majority of voters are fundamentally hostile to the Sangh Parivar ideology, why would they care?

Ultimately, the notion of perceived exceptionalism bolstered by a strong preference for regional politics capable of pushing back against overzealous, homogenising ideologies of national parties, could be the wind beneath the wings of the DMK at the hustings next month.

narayan@thehindu.co.in

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.