Tamil Nadu: Governor’s indecisiveness and Election Commission’s silence

Chennai: Governor C. Vidyasagar Rao’s indecisiveness and the Election Commission’s silence have only served to escalate the political crisis in Tamil Nadu, roiled by uncertainty ever since the death of former chief minister J. Jayalalithaa on 5 December.

Rao’s refusal to convene the legislative assembly to test the majority of the state government, even after 19 MLAs of the ruling All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) withdrew support to chief minister Edappadi K. Palaniswami, and his claim that he can’t intervene in a “party’s issue” sparked controversy as opposition parties claimed that the governor was failing to uphold his “constitutional obligations and moral responsibility”.

Last Wednesday, Rao had conveyed to leaders from the Communist Party of India, Communist Party of India (Marxist), Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK) and Manithaneya Makkal Katchi that the “ball was yet to come to his court”, as they met him to urge a trust vote.

ALSO READ: Tamil Nadu governor refuses to convene assembly for floor test

“Was it not an internal party affair when the governor made O. Panneerselvam and Palaniswami shake each other’s hands after the merger, during the swearing-in of the latter,” asked Ramu Manivannan, professor and head of department of politics and public administration, University of Madras.

Leader of the opposition and working president of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) M.K. Stalin had said last week that the governor was “indulging in politics”.

“We have been saying from the beginning that the union government is behind everything that is happening in Tamil Nadu,” he said.

Stalin also alleged that Rao was acting “in favour of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which is eyeing a back door entry into Tamil Nadu politics”.

“(We have) never been in such a bad situation where a governor visits the state for mediating between the factions in a ruling party and then goes back,” said Manivannan.

Tamil Nadu has not had a full-time governor in the past year.

Though 19 MLAs support the ruling AIADMK’s sidelined deputy general secretary, T.T.V. Dhinakaran, the Palaniswami government has more MLAs who “act like sleeper cells” and will cross over to Dhinakaran’s side when required, according to his camp.

Though the factionalism between Palaniswami and deputy CM O. Panneerselvam reached an end on 21 August, it paved the way for a fresh round of faction politics in the party.

ALSO READ: Has the merger of AIADMK factions backfired?

While this crisis has been on for the last three weeks, a much more important issue has been pending before the Election Commission (EC) for over five months—the AIADMK’s disputed “two leaves” symbol and name.

Just before the scheduled by-poll for the R.K. Nagar constituency, which has been lying vacant since Jayalalithaa’s death on 5 December, the EC decided to freeze the party’s name and election symbol. The by-poll was later cancelled following allegations that money was used to buy votes.

A decision by the EC will go a long way to sort out the confusion in the party and indicate who will lead the party, say observers.

In February, after Panneerselvam–who was then the chief minister—denounced general secretary of AIADMK V.K. Sasikala as she attempted to dethrone him to emerge as the next heir of Jayalalithaa, the party was vertically split into two factions.

Subsequently, Sasikala was sent to a Bengaluru prison after being convicted in a disproportionate assets case. She named Palaniswami as CM and Dhinakaran as the deputy general secretary of the party.

While Panneerselvam was attempting to oust Sasikala and her family from the AIAMDK, Dhinakaran was jailed for allegedly bribing “unnamed” EC officials to retrieve the party’s two leaves symbol. Palaniswami, who was supporting Dhinakaran, decided to sideline him, leading to more chaos in the ruling party.

While the factions had sent “truck-loads” of affidavits to the EC earlier, to show their respective factions’ strengths, after last month’s merger, the united AIADMK said that it would “withdraw” the letters submitted earlier to retrieve the party symbol.

However, Sasikala was the respondent to the initial petition filed by the Panneerselvam faction and any “unilateral withdrawal of the earlier complaint could mean that the Sasikala camp could end up owning the symbol”, said N. Sathiya Moorthy, director of the Chennai chapter of the Observer Research Foundation.