The Big Story: Split wide open

Acting Tamil Nadu Chief Minister O Panneerselvam, apparently prompted by the “spirit of Jayalalithaa”, made startling late night revelations on Tuesday. He claimed that he had been forced to resign as chief minister to make way for VK Sasikala, once J Jayalalithaa’s closest aide. He claimed injury and insult by All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam members who belonged to the Sasikala camp. He also offered to take back his resignation as chief minister if the “people are with me”. Sasikala responded by firing him from the post of party treasurer.

While the chips are yet to fall into place, this much is clear: the AIADMK is now split wide open. Panneerselvam’s denouement was the culmination of events on Tuesday, when dissent within the party seemed to grow louder. It started with lurid rumours about the circumstances of J Jayalalithaa’s death, escalated to claims that the late chief minister had never wanted Sasikala to succeed her and finally to declarations that Sasikala was unfit to lead the state. Opposition came broadly from two camps: AIADMK leader Manoj Pandian and PH Pandian, a former AIADMK leader who had been edged out by Sasikala; as well as from Deepa Jayakumar, Jayalalithaa’s niece.

Some observers would be strongly reminded of a similar upheaval almost three decades ago. The death in 1987 of MG Ramachandran, who headed the AIADMK at the time, had also plunged the party into crisis, eventually cleaving it into two. At that time, Jayalalithaa, his protege, had been pitted against candidates backed by the MGR household. Articles from that time speak of the same outpouring of grief, the same adulation for a dead leader who combined his movie star appeal with welfare schemes in his name, the same numbers game between rivals in the state assembly. And commentators like the late Cho Ramaswamy are quoted making observations that would hold true 30 years later: “The AIADMK even during MGR’s rule was more a fan club than a party. People voted for MGR rather than for any ideology.”

At this juncture, the AIADMK may hesitate to split; the perils of the anti-defection law could hold it back. But the present stand-off can be traced back to the party’s fatal flaw: its habit of arranging itself as a constellation around a star leader, of thriving on a cult of personality rather than a well-defined ideology. Back in 1988, Ramaswamy had predicted that the AIADMK would wither away. It did not because it found the next star leader in Jayalalithaa. The current turmoil could well be the making of yet another political megalith. But it would mean that the party remains trapped in the cycle of history, surviving from one personality cult to the other.

The Big Scroll

Sruthisagar Yamunan takes stock of the crisis in Tamil Nadu.

Sandhya Radhakrisnan pens a profile of O Panneerselvam, tea shop owner turned chief minister.

TM Krishna points out what really bothers us about Sasikala’s ascent to chief ministership.

Political pickings

  1. In their first phone conversation, United States President Donald Trupm and Prime Minister Narendra Modi reportedly talked H1-B visas, Pakistan-sponsored terror and the South China Sea.
  2. The Bahujan Samaj Party in Uttar Padesh now promises caste quotas for the upper caste poor.
  3. In the Lok Sabha on Tuesday, Modi claimed demonetisation was perfectly timed and tore into the Congress-Samjawadi Party combine of Rahul Gandhi and Akhilesh Yadav, currently joining forces to fight the Uttar Pradesh elections.

Punditry

  1. In the Indian Express, Pratap Bhanu Mehta on how citizens are being rendered more transparent to the state while the state grows inscrutable to citizens.
  2. In the Hindu, Narayan Lakshman argues a dose of realism is needed in weighing the choices that Tamil Nadu’s political leadership now faces.
  3. In the Business Standard, Shyam Saran on how the budget disappoints ecological sustainability.

Don’t miss...

Supriya Sharma reports on a village that busts the myth of the Muslim votebank in Uttar Pradesh:

“Ali explained his voting philosophy: ‘I follow the turn taken by the people of my area. As I head to the polling booth, I ask those coming back: Kya hulchul bane? What’s the buzz? Arre, kahan diye? Whom did you vote for? People say we voted for so and so, others confirm we also voted for so and so. When everyone is heading in one direction, where else will we go?’

Such voting behaviour is common across communities – people tend to confer with their neighbours. Since the villages of Uttar Pradesh are spatially organised along caste and religious lines, it contributes to the impression that voting decisions are entirely determined by identity. The perception is the strongest when it comes to Muslims, who are portrayed as a ‘votebank’ working in tandem across the state.”