It was 1977. The All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, which had broken away from the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam in 1972, was getting ready for its first general elections under its founder, actor-politician M.G. Ramachandran. “You can erase one Ramachandran from Tamil Nadu politics, but a 1,000 more will emerge,” MGR, as Ramachandran is popularly known, had then told the roaring crowd at a rally in Madurai.
On June 23, those who witnessed the chaotic AIADMK general council meeting, might be wishing that at least one of those 1,000 MGRs emerges soon. The party is turning 50 this year. But, the mood is not festive as it is facing a ‘mid-life crisis’ and is without a charismatic leader to take it forward.
Former chief ministers O. Panneerselvam, 71, and Edappadi K. Palaniswami, 68, are now in an open tussle for the leadership of the party. Panneerselvam wants the existing dual leadership to continue, while Palaniswami wants to be the outright leader. “Both Palaniswami and Panneerselvam claim to be the leaders, but lack any skills,” said Durai Karuna, a Dravidian movement researcher and political analyst. “They are not capable of leading like MGR or J. Jayalalithaa.”
The internal conflict seemed to begin in the first week of June when a poster was put up opposite Panneerselvam’s house in Theni. The poster called for unitary leadership under Palaniswami, who reacted to it from his hometown, Salem, saying: “Everything is fine now. Why should the AIADMK be a single-leader party?” But, within days, as the party’s district secretaries and officeholders met at the headquarters in Chennai, voices supporting Palaniswami to be the sole leader emerged.
One of Palaniswami’s known lieutenants ‘Madhavaram’ V. Moorthy raised the issue first and others followed suit. When Panneerselvam’s supporters asked Moorthy why was he raising the issue now, Palaniswami intervened: “Let him speak. This is a democratic party; everyone has the right to express themselves.” Soon, at least 60 of the 72 district secretaries batted for Palaniswami’s leadership.
Panneerselvam said he was ready for talks, but Palaniswami only sent emissaries—former ministers R.B. Udhaya Kumar and Sellur K. Raju (both are from Madurai and belong to Panneerselvam’s Thevar community). With the issue remaining unsettled, Panneerselvam moved court seeking a stay on the party’s general council meeting on June 23. But, the Madras High Court dismissed the petition on June 22—20 hours before the meeting—saying it does not have jurisdiction to get involved in a political party’s affairs.
Back on the road: V.K. Sasikala near a statue of MGR. After a year of silence, she recently held a roadshow | AFP
The Panneerselvam faction responded with a writ petition before the court. It prayed that no resolution—other than the 23 resolutions already cleared by Panneerselvam—should be passed. The group also sought a direction from the court that party bylaws should not be amended at the June 23 meeting. They feared that Palaniswami would be elected the sole leader at the meeting. Surprisingly, the court granted the petition, just six hours before the meeting.
But, once the meeting began, the restrictions imposed by the court were not enough to protect Panneerselvam from the unruly behaviour of the Palaniswami camp. They chanted slogans against Panneerselvam, threw water bottles at him and refused to pass the 23 other resolutions till a resolution to make Palaniswami the sole leader was passed. When Panneerselvam supporter and former minister R. Vaithilingam came to the dais, he found the microphone switched off and water bottles flying at him.
Then, Palaniswami proposed a resolution to appoint Tamil Magan Hussain as the party’s presidium chairman. (On June 28, the Panneerselvam camp moved court saying this resolution was in violation of the earlier court order).
The meeting concluded with Palaniswami’s supporters declaring that the general council will meet again on July 11 and a resolution to elect a sole leader will be passed. The day after the June 23 meeting, Palaniswami supporter and former law minister C.Ve. Shanmugam said that all posts created after 2017 were invalid, including coordinator and joint coordinator—the posts, held by Palaniswami and Panneerselvam, respectively; together, the posts have the powers of the general secretary.
K.C. Palanisamy, former MP and AIADMK leader, who was expelled from the party, said that if the appointments were invalid, then his expulsion, too, was invalid. “I was removed from the party in 2018,” he said. “V.K. Sasikala was removed in 2017. I am still a member, legally.” Then, so is Sasikala.
Sasikala, who has been silent since being released from prison in February 2021, recently set out on a roadshow. But, she may not be able put up a fight against Palaniswami or even the less-popular Panneerselvam. Her nephew T.T.V. Dhinakaran had launched a new political party. Dhinakaran and Sasikala are also part of the Thevar community, but even if they join hands with Panneerselvam, the three of them may not be able to take over the party as none of them have wide support within the AIADMK.
In 1973, MGR had created a 29-page policy document and called it Annaism. He explained that Annaism was a blend of the best aspects of Gandhism, communism and capitalism. “But the leaders and the officeholders have not only forgotten Annaism, but also Annadurai, who inspired MGR,” said Durai Karuna. He added that though the party had witnessed many rebellions, such as Jayalalithaa’s rebellion against MGR’s wife, Janaki, and multiple rebellions against Jayalalithaa herself, there were never ugly scenes like what transpired in the general council meeting.
Consequently, the way Panneerselvam was treated has got him some sympathy. M. Sundaramurthy, a party member from Dindigul, who witnessed the general council meeting, said: “EPS has only gained. He was CM, CM candidate and is now opposition leader.” He added that Panneerselvam has given in to Palaniswami’s demands time and again. “If EPS had held talks and behaved graciously, OPS would have accepted this time, too,” said Sundaramurthy. “But, EPS is behaving in an atrocious way, which is unacceptable.” Sources said that the Palaniswami camp met on June 27; their plan is to expel Panneerselvam.
Panneerselvam’s son, O.P. Raveendranath Kumar, told THE WEEK that the rejection of all the 23 resolutions at the meeting was unjust. “There were crucial resolutions, like condemning the DMK for maladministration and requesting the Centre to confer the Bharat Ratna on our leader Jayalalithaa in our golden jubilee year,” said Kumar, an MP. “But, by rejecting these, they have proven that they are against Amma and are indirectly supporting the DMK.”
Party insiders allege that Palaniswami spent several hundred crores of rupees to buy district secretaries, officeholders and general council members. But, the fact remains that many partymen stand firmly behind him. Palaniswami’s plan to gain support was put into motion almost five years ago as he did not like the idea of waiting for Panneerselvam’s consent in deciding party affairs under the dual leadership system.
This plan gained momentum before the 2021 election when strategist Sunil Kanugolu, who is now with the Congress, began working for Palaniswami.
Kanugolu was in Chennai a week before the general council meeting and facilitated Palaniswami’s meetings with a few political leaders and media heads in Tamil Nadu. Party insiders say he also facilitated a telephone conversation with Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, hours after the Madras High Court rejected Panneerselvam’s petition for a stay. Sources say the Rahul-EPS call annoyed the BJP leadership, who were tracking the developments in Tamil Nadu. Highly placed sources in the Panneerselvam camp say that Panneerselvam’s writ petition got immediate attention only because of the BJP’s annoyance at the said call. “Did EPS seek Rahul’s help? Did Delhi come to help OPS at the last minute? Interesting turn of events,” tweeted Aspire Swaminathan, former AIADMK IT wing secretary, who has remained on good terms with many officeholders in the party.
Former minister and party spokesperson D. Jayakumar said unitary leadership would strengthen the party and added that Palaniswami had proved himself as chief minister. This endorsement is particularly significant because Jayakumar is upset at being overlooked by Palaniswami for a Rajya Sabha ticket and then for a senior party post.
Would a sole leader make the state’s prime opposition party, which commands 30 per cent of the votes, significantly stronger? Political analyst Raveendran Thuraisamy believes the opposite to be true. “AIADMK votes since 1998 are soft hindutva votes,” he said. “These voters have already accepted the BJP in 2019 and 2021. If you look at it caste-wise, the AIADMK has the support of the Gounders in the west and the Thevars in the south. Gounders back EPS, bringing in 5.5 per cent of the votes, while a section of the Thevars back OPS; this would translate to 3 per cent of the votes. So only a dual leadership can save the AIADMK at this point of time.”