Leadership styles in Tamil Nadu politics
Anna’s decision to leave the Dravida Kazhagam and the formation of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam in 1949 marked the transition in the landscape of Tamil Nadu politics
Tamil Nadu politics has witnessed different styles of leadership from C Rajagopalachari (Rajaji) to MK Stalin in the post-independence period. The national movement for freedom had brought forth several prominent personalities and leaders in Madras Presidency, especially Satyamurthy, Rajaji, EV Ramasamy (Periyar) and Kamaraj. The relationship between Satyamurthy and Kamaraj was also like a mentor-disciple bond that would stand the tests and challenges of Rajaji’s rivalry with Satyamurthy, which would extend against Kamaraj in the later years. Kamaraj was a natural leader with extraordinary common sense, shrewd political acumen and traditional wisdom.
It was the breaking away of Periyar from the Indian National Congress and the launching of Self-Respect Movement in 1925 that gave another momentum to the politics in the Madras Presidency. The joining of CN Annadurai (Anna) in the Justice Party in 1935 and his subsequent association with Periyar as his trusted lieutenant are not only critical turning points in the history of politics in Tamil Nadu but also in the making of a new generation of future leaders at the time of historical political transition of Indian independence and the beginning of an era of state politics within the Indian federation. Anna’s decision to leave the Dravida Kazhagam and the formation of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam in 1949 marked the transition in the landscape of Tamil Nadu politics from the influential non-party political movement to party-political electoral politics.
In the process, the young, articulate and talented artists, orators, writers, Tamil language enthusiasts, political activists and strategists emerged in the political arena inspired by the intellectual influence, democratic credentials and leadership qualities of Anna. Though Periyar was more authoritative and paternalistic in his relationship with Anna, he was equally emotive and thoughtful in his ties with people, especially towards Anna. The relationship between Periyar and Anna was often cited by historians as the ties of proud father and argumentative son. Anna neither failed nor hidden his respect and admiration towards his mentor. Anna was a gentle and smiling mentor-teacher to his close associates, including Karunanidhi, Neduncheziyan, EVK Sampath, Mathiyazhagan, NV Natarajan, MG Ramachandran and several others. He was an elder brother to all in terms of his intellectual maturity, political encouragement, party discipline and personal appreciation towards his younger colleagues and party members.
Anna was a great debater and a steadfast democrat, who ensured the building of strong democratic organisational foundations and electoral representative mechanism for the party from within. Though Anna held a deep self-belief, yet he relied on charismatic influence of MGR as much as the political acumen of Karunanidhi that would extend beyond the time and imagination of Anna himself leading to the new course and destiny of Tamil Nadu politics as revealed by EVK Sampath at the time of leaving the DMK and tearful separation from Anna.
Karunanidhi was an activist with remarkable organisational skills, besides the ability raise money for the party. He cultivated a strong interaction and maintained an effective communication with the party members at the districts. Though Karunanidhi deviated from Anna in his approach to party organisation because of his quest to control and promote personal loyalty that would ultimately establish his complete authority and result in the conversion of the party as a family fiefdom, yet he never drifted or moved away from the social and ideological foundations of the party and the movement. It is this strong ideological commitment combined with his abilities of shrewd control of the party and strategic electoral alliance making that helped him and the DMK party to sail over the crisis of two major rebellions of enormous significance, such as first one led by MG Ramachandran (MGR) in 1972 and V Gopalasamy (Vaiko) in 1994 that cast doubts on the survival and stability of the party in the years to come. Karunanidhi continued to inspire with derision, control and influence critics and the ruling All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) as an active and influential leader of the opposition both inside the assembly and outside in the public arena in the state politics because of his unwavering ideological stock.
MGR was a popular hero with the conscious construction of a popular image about him. Anna and Karunanidhi were both behind the making of MGR as a mass hero and popular idol for the political ends though MGR possessed more than required criteria of charming personality and exceptional dedication. MGR was the charismatic leader with a well-concealed ego and image conscious roles in both public and personal life. He held a deep empathy and compassion towards the poor. He understood his potential and tested himself and others under the conditions of his personal charisma, public image and political loyalty. The ADMK party that he founded also revolved around him and the rivalry against his friend-turned-arch rival Karunanidhi than any political and ideological battles with clearly laid rules of personal loyalty and worship of power for other leaders and followers around him. But the masses admired him for his highly charitable qualities like genrousity and extraordinary humanitarian gestures. MGR, therefore, remained a true hero for the masses, both in reel and real life.
MGR wanted to ensure that his successor should possess popular appeal and provide continuity to the resistance against the DMK because he knew without these twin qualities that the party would disintegrate after his end. He therefore elevated Jayalalithaa as the propaganda secretary and made subtle announcements to this effect. Though Jayalalithaa did not emerge as MGR’s successor all at once, she did survive the scheming plots hatched against her as she proved to every one of her strong will and rare courage in the man’s world of Indian politics and Tamil Nadu politics being no exception. Jayalalithaa was a suave, intelligent and lonely person for whom politics was not a choice, yet her destiny was intertwined with it. She did not wield authority because of her charisma or popular appeal but due to her courage and determination.
Stalin has been the leader in the making for a long time until he became a leader of his own after the passing away of his father and leader Karunanidhi. Stalin’s long years of observation of his father and leader as well as his role and engagements within the party and government has made him more grounded to the realities of changing political conditions both in the state and at the national politics besides the contemporary challenges of Hindutva politics, development priorities and the role of social media. Stalin at best wants to revive and restore the ideological foundations of the party combined with the participatory leadership styles by expanding the scope for outreach through application of technology.
In summing up, it needs to be mentioned that Tamil Nadu is at the end phase of a long-drawn golden era of outstanding political leaders with uncertainty, and dilemma looming large over the training, potential and capabilities of the generation next getting ready for the battles in and outside the ring(s) of politics.
Prof.Ramu Manivannan is a Fulbright Scholar - Political Scientist - Social Activist in areas of education, human rights and sustainable development. He is currently the Director, Multiversity – Centre for Indigenous Knowledge Systems, Kurumbapalayam Village, Vellore District, Tamil Nadu.