As the cliche goes, one week is a long period in politics. And five months, therefore, would technically be very long. The political changes that Tamil Nadu witnessed in the past five months since the assumption of office by the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK)-led government have been reflected in the byelections to the Madurantakam and Dharapuram Assembly constituencies, both reserved for the Scheduled Castes (SCs).
Internally, the two Dravidian parties — the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) — witnessed high drama soon after the TVK emerged as the single largest party in the Assembly election held in April-May. Three days after C. Joseph Vijay became the Chief Minister (on May 10), a group of 25 AIADMK MLAs broke ranks with party general secretary Edappadi K. Palaniswami and voted in favour of the TVK in the Assembly during the trust motion. By then, most of the allies had deserted the DMK and jumped on to the TVK bandwagon. Four MLAs — two from the Congress and one MLA each from the Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi and the Indian Union Muslim League — were later made Ministers. The State’s first multi-party Council of Ministers was in place. Meanwhile, the AIADMK’s six MLAs, who cross-voted in favour of the TVK in the Assembly in violation of the party’s direction, had quit their Assembly seats and joined the ruling party. A number of former Ministers and functionaries of the party followed suit.
On expected lines
It was against this backdrop that the byelections were held on October 6. When the results were out on October 9, they were along expected lines as byelections in the State have always gone in favour of the ruling party. In that sense, the victory of the TVK in the two constituencies was not surprising. However, while it was definitely among the probabilities, it was nevertheless not considered a certainty for a couple of reasons: first, the TVK did not secure a majority of its own in the April-May Assembly election, though it had a vote share of about 35%. Second, given a high degree of SC representation in the Cabinet, the talk had been doing the rounds in political and bureaucratic circles about the possible consolidation of intermediary castes, accounting for a substantial section of the population in the two constituencies.
Factors that were also expected to impact the elections included old caste and political alignments. In Dharapuram, the ruling party came third five months ago, securing around 23% of the votes polled. Besides, the constituency, where the intermediary community of Kongu Vellala Gounders accounts for around 40% and the SCs around 30% of the electors, is the AIADMK’s traditional stronghold in the western belt. In a conversation a few weeks ago, a TVK Minister sounded more confident about his party’s prospects in Madurantakam than in Dharapuram. Another factor in the mix was that the two TVK candidates had been victors in the Assembly election, as AIADMK candidates. A significant feature of the byelections was that the number of complaints about money distribution was fewer than in the past.
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and TVK president C. Joseph Vijay with party candidate for Madurantakam Maragatham Kumaravel at a campaign meeting.
| Photo Credit:
PTI
Apart from the changes in political alignments, the big change that was noticed in the byelections was the manner Mr. Vijay had campaigned in the two places. In a stark contrast to his propaganda work during the Assembly election, when he made personal appearances only in a handful of areas, he devoted two days each to Madurantakam and Dharapuram, taking along his nominees with him on the campaign vehicle. His campaign tour was packed with drama: he had a cup of tea at a roadside shop; drove a tractor; had a bullock cart ride; and even plucked drumsticks at a farm. “Mr. Vijay staked his personal image and aura to overcome widespread dissatisfaction with the party’s candidates, particularly in Dharapuram. He literally sweated through intense public outreach and campaigning across these constituencies, while his Ministers and party workers left nothing to chance,” says R. Kannan, a former diplomat-turned-writer.
Notably, in the course of his campaign, Mr. Vijay did not make any grand announcements or perceptive observations. However, both in Madurantakam and Dharapuram, he sought to project the TVK as the “true inheritor” of the legacies of AIADMK stalwarts M.G. Ramachandran and Jayalalithaa. He came down heavily on the AIADMK for “getting closer” to its traditional adversary, the DMK.
Shorn of theatrics
Comparatively, the campaigns of his political rivals seemed shorn of theatrics. Mr. Vijay’s key challengers — former Chief Ministers M.K. Stalin of the DMK and Edappadi K. Palaniswami of the AIADMK — stuck to the conventional style of campaign. Both his opponents criticised Mr. Vijay for not being “serious” in matters of governance. Both attacked him and the TVK for having “forced” the byelections, which were held only to ensure that their government kept going.
Mr. Stalin charged the ruling party with being more interested in “purchasing” MLAs to protect the government. The AIADMK leader’s repeated message to the electors was to teach a “befitting lesson” to the nominees of the TVK, who had crossed over from his party and were in the fray again. The Naam Tamilar Katchi and the Left were present, but their performance did not make any qualitative difference.
For all the intense campaigning by the Chief Minister, the results were not “one-sided”. In both constituencies, the TVK’s vote share did not exceed the 40% mark, despite the ruling party adding many parties to its alliance this time, unlike in April-May when it was on its own. The ruling party must have had its moments of anxiety when AIADMK nominee K. Banumathi was ahead of TVK candidate P. Sathyabama in the initial four rounds of counting in Dharapuram. Subsequently, the latter overtook her and DMK nominee S. Suganya finished as the runner-up.
Encouraging for the DMK
“As far as the DMK is concerned, I would say the result is, in a sense, encouraging, as we faced the electorate virtually single-handedly, barring the support of the Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhagam (DMDK). In both places, our vote share is about 30%, which is an achievement,” says A. Subburathinam, who was elected in 1991 to the Assembly from Palani on AIADMK ticket and crossed over to the DMK early this year.
Despite the reduction in his party’s vote share, former AIADMK Minister ‘Pollachi’ V. Jayaraman does not feel that the party’s base has been eroded. He also contends that the TVK does not mean what it says. Referring to the Chief Minister’s statement during the campaign on how the previous governments did not follow up properly with Keralam regarding the Anamalaiyar-Nallar scheme, a project to provide water to the western belt, the AIADMK’s functionary points to reports that suddenly surfaced in the media about a group of Ministers who would go to Thiruvananthapuram on the eve of polling day to discuss the scheme. Eventually, the visit did not materialise.
Another former Minister of the AIADMK, R.B. Udhayakumar, is quick to restate that traditionally in Tamil Nadu, byelections have been favourable to the ruling party. “You have to view the outcome only that way. I do not think this will have serious implications for our party,” he says.
It remains to be seen how the rebels in the party, including former Ministers S.P. Velumani and C.Ve. Shanmugam, make their next move, as they have not been able to corner Mr. Palaniswami within the organisation.
More dissidents
There is a perception that the outcome may encourage the TVK to attract more dissidents from the AIADMK to its fold. “What would cranes do in a dry pond?” asks S. Semmalai, Health and Education Minister in Jayalalithaa’s Cabinet during 2001-04, who joined the TVK at Dharapuram on September 30, 2026. “We do not have to do anything, as the AIADMK’s volunteers would have seen the writing on the wall when their party finished third at both the places,” he explains.
Despite the TVK government being seen as one that is being propped up by diverse social groups, including the SCs, Mr. Vijay did not refer in his speeches in a significant way to his government’s work and plans for the welfare of the community. After all, it is his government that has eight Ministers from the SCs. On the other hand, in the run-up to the byelections, the Chief Minister’s visit to the Vanjiamman temple near Dharapuram, a place of worship dear to the Gounders, and Public Works Minister Aadhav Arjuna’s reported statement about his party having 17 legislators from another intermediary community, the Vanniyars, did not go unnoticed.
A seasoned leader of the SCs from northern districts says, “It looks that the TVK, just like the DMK while in power, is of the view that there is no necessity to woo the community in a deliberate manner, as the votes of the SCs will go to it even otherwise.” However, Mr. Semmalai, who hails from Salem and belongs to the Vanniyar community, says, “In the reserved constituencies, only the SCs can contest. But electors are from all communities. Besides, Mr. Vijay respects all communities, apart from representing all of them.”
In a nutshell, the results, though favourable to the TVK, have not provided any overwhelming support to the ruling party and the nature of the verdict should keep Mr. Vijay and his colleagues on toes. As Dr. Kannan says, it is still too early to declare the State is shifting back to a bipolar political landscape, though current trends point to that possibility.
