The overarching question about Tamil Nadu’s Dravidian politics today is whether the two grand old parties that have dominated the State for six decades—the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) since 1967 and its offshoot, the All India Anna DMK (AIADMK), from 1972—are facing an existential challenge. With an aggressive new political force redefining political equations, the question has assumed urgency, more so in the face of the defections from the AIADMK.
Such doubts were raised in the past too, whenever the two parties experienced internal fractures. Political pundits wrote off the DMK after it was reduced to a mere two seats in the aftermath of Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination in 1991. Similarly, the AIADMK has survived some anxious times, first after the demise of its founder-leader, M.G. Ramachandran (MGR) and then after the defeat of his successor, J. Jayalalithaa. Today, some years after her demise and the subsequent failure to build a strong leader, it is facing another existential crisis.
While Tamil Nadu’s voters have, time and again, reposed their faith in these two Dravidian parties, this year, the matinee idol-turned-politician C. Joseph Vijay made a stunning debut as a “master disrupter” with his Thamizhaga Vetri Kazhagam (TVK). His usurpation of power has cost the DMK its No. 1 position and whipped up disorder within the AIADMK.
Defeat and the following desertions have shaken the edifice of the two established parties, with the DMK struggling to recoup after its rout and the AIADMK caught in a crisis that seems to threaten its very survival. While disruptions, desertions, and splits are not unsurprising in a party that has suffered a streak of defeats since 2021, no party, at least in Tamil Nadu, has witnessed such rapid mass desertions, triggered by fabricated narratives and fallacious reasoning, as has the AIADMK. These are not spontaneous actions. Behind them lurks a sinister motive that cannot be overlooked. To a large extent, parallels must be drawn with the BJP-triggered mass exodus from the Trinamool Congress in West Bengal.
What is emerging is a clear attempt to cannibalise the AIADMK—a party that has contributed significantly to the State’s social and economic capital in its more than three decades of rule—and to destabilise it in a way that will make its revival difficult. There is little reason to believe that there is mass disenchantment against the AIADMK. In fact, both the DMK and the AIADMK, notwithstanding the many corruption charges against their functionaries, have put the State among the top five in India in all developmental parameters.
Political analysts, therefore, claim that these engineered desertions are part of a more disturbing long-term agenda by forces inimical to the Dravidian ideology and its welfare politics. The primary intention of these forces is to occupy the political space that the AIADMK has enjoyed in Tamil Nadu politics. The attempt to hollow out Dravidianism as a political factor got an unexpected boost with Vijay’s victory, which has turned Tamil Nadu politics topsy-turvy.
The desertions continue
The TVK pitched itself as the primary opponent of the DMK, and by winning, it indeed relegated the hitherto main opposition party, the AIADMK, to third place, while pushing the ruling DMK, which has enjoyed successive victories since the 2019 parliamentary election, to the opposition benches. After its win, the TVK has been eagerly accepting into its fold the many AIADMK leaders who are jumping ship.
It is broadly known by now that Vijay’s political hatchet man Aadav Arjuna, a member of ‘Lottery King’ Martin’s family and now a Minister in Vijay’s Cabinet, along with the TVK general secretary N. Anand are overseeing the desertions from the AIADMK. The idea is to strengthen the TVK’s numbers and stabilise the government, which is propped up at this time by the DMK’s long-term allies, the Congress, the VCK, the IUML, and the Left, who may or may not be relied upon to continue their support at crucial times.
Six AIADMK MLAs, including former minister C. Vijayabaskar and M.R. Vijayabaskar, have resigned and joined the TVK, while some 20 others, including heavyweights and former Ministers such as S. P. Velumani, C. Ve. Shanmugam and Natham S. Viswanathan defied the party whip to extend support to the TVK in the trust vote. Aadhav Arjuna has, in fact, openly declared that “the AIADMK would soon merge with the TVK”.
What role is the BJP playing in all this? Can it be responsible for the AIADMK’s purges? It could partly be the cause. Since the death of Jayalalithaa, the BJP has played a dubious role in the AIADMK’s internal affairs, forcing alliances on it and influencing its key decisions. From former Chief Minister O. Panneerselvam’s botched-up ‘Dharma Yudham’ to Edappadi Palaniswami’s election as party leader, the BJP has had a strong behind-the-scenes influence on the party that cannot be dismissed. The BJP’s aim even then was clear: to undermine the AIADMK so much that it would collapse and vacate the space for the BJP to position itself as the main opponent to the ideologically-driven DMK. With the TVK emerging as the usurper, the BJP is playing second-fiddle for the time being.
TVK supporters wearing face masks bearing actor-turned-politician Vijay’s image ahead of a party meeting in February 2026.
| Photo Credit:
C. Venkatachalapathy/The Hindu
The AIADMK fell into the BJP’s trap to ensure its own political survival. It extended support to many of the Centre’s contentious Bills, including the Citzenship Amendment Act. It allied with it in the 2019 Parliament and 2021 Assembly polls. But in the 2024 parliamentary election, the AIADMK contested alone, only to team up with the BJP for the 2026 Assembly election. This, despite disenchanted cadres and functionaries. “A sort of uneasy partnership existed between the two, similar to that between a master and his vassal,” said a political analyst.
The various desertions, however, have neither rattled the AIADMK leadership nor sent its rank and file into panic. The exits are confined to a few first- and second-rung leaders and their immediate followers. The cadres, who are the party’s mainstay through its decades of victory and defeat, largely remain intact with the party, say observers. Their loyalty is tied to the party and the iconic retta elai (Two Leaves) symbol. “In fact, the space left by the deserters has now been allotted to those working for the party at the grassroots level for a long time. The party is being infused with fresh air,” said a senior party functionary.
Earlier, migrations were mostly to the DMK, with deserters (barring a few exceptions) rarely joining national parties like the BJP or the Congress. Interestingly, desertions from the DMK, even during its 13-year hiatus from power, were sporadic. For those AIADMK members reluctant to shift to the DMK because of the strong antipathy cultivated over the years by MGR and Jayalalithaa (ironically, half the ministers in the DMK cabinet were one-time AIADMK leaders), the TVK offers a comfortable alternative with its soft, Hindutva-coated Dravidianism. Like the AIADMK, the TVK is not a strident follower of Periyar, although he is paraded as one of its political and social icons. As Vijay puts it, “We do not subscribe to Periyar’s atheism, but we do endorse his principles of self-respect and social justice.” He even mocked statements by the DMK and its then allies, the Left and the VCK, about the “threats of fascism,” claiming their actions were worse.
At this point, it would be politically immature to write off a party such as the AIADMK. It has, like the DMK, cultivated, consolidated, and taken deep roots into Tamil Nadu’s electoral politics. Its cadre base and structure are likely to endure. Behind the desertions, thus, something else is at play—an attempt to sow doubts in the minds of cadres about the party leadership. “Those who revolted against it are those who elected him as general secretary. His growing stature in the party has made a few frontline leaders jealous,” said the senior functionary.
Palaniswami’s authoritativeness or arrogance?
For his part, Palaniswami, AIADMK general secretary and former Chief Minister, is to be blamed at least partly for the chaos in his party. He does not tolerate strong leaders. In fact, although he kept a low profile when powerful leaders like Jayalalithaa were alive, after V.K. Sasikala, Jayalalithaa’s former aide, made him Chief Minister before going to jail in the disproportionate assets case, Palaniswami grew in strength and stature through carefully curated moves. After being elected as general secretary in a controversial meeting that saw the exit of a few senior leaders, nothing could stop him from taking total control of the party. He deliberately induced desertions of many seniors and kept a few others on the bench. O. Paneerselvam, a two-time Chief Minister and a powerful post-Jayalalithaa leader, who shared leadership with him for a brief spell, was expelled.
The ‘dual leadership’ arrangement was uncomfortable for Palaniswami, who wanted both party and administration to himself. Seeing Panneerselvam as a threat, he ensured that he never rejoined the party despite the latter’s unconditional willingness to do so. In a huff, Panneerselvam joined the DMK, fighting and retaining his Periyakulam seat.
Palaniswami also saw a threat in senior leader K.A. Senkottaiyan, now a minister in the TVK cabinet. Palaniswami ignored Senkottaiyan and even ridiculed him at one point. JCD Prabhakaran, once an active AIADMK functionary, contested from the TVK and became Speaker. Yet another senior leader, S. Semmalai, an MLA and Minister since MGR’s days, was denied a ticket. He quit the party. The list is long…
The main grievance of those who have left the AIADMK is that Palaniswami’s authoritativeness is, of late, bordering on arrogance. They accuse him of promoting his son. But Palaniswami has remained unflappable, dismissing the accusations and the desertions. He has adopted different yardsticks to deal with rebels—readmitting those who submit to his power and shunning those who resign. Many MLAs, including Velumani, returned quietly and accepted Palaniswami’s amnesty. The AIADMK approached the Madras High Court, asking it to instruct the Speaker to initiate disqualification proceedings against those who joined the TVK. The aggressive stand was meant to assert his control over the party and to pre-empt future dissent.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi, along with AIADMK General Secretary Edappadi K. Palaniswami, PMK President Anbumani Ramadoss, Tamil Maanila Congress President G.K. Vasan, and others, at an election campaign rally in Tiruchirappalli in March 2026.
| Photo Credit:
PTI
Semmalai told Frontline over phone from the US that Palaniswami was averse to seniors in the party. “He feels threatened and insecure. It was Amma who gave me a ticket to contest from Mettur in the 2016 election. After her death, Palaniswami started ignoring me. I never spoke ill against him until I left the party a few months ago. Even the cadres are disillusioned. The party is now in the hands of a few selfish individuals,” he said.
The AIADMK forgave the rebels who defied its whip but rejoined the party, and asked the Speaker to drop disqualification proceedings against them. But the disqualification of those who resigned continued. The party has, in fact, challenged the Speaker’s decision on resignations in the Madras High Court, arguing that his acceptance of the resignations was invalid. In 2017, the then Speaker P. Dhanapal had disqualified 18 AIADMK MLAs, loyal to the estranged party legislator, TTV Dhinakaran, nephew of Sasikala, after they withdrew support to Palaniswami. It was upheld by the court in October 2018.
The poaching of the AIADMK’s rank and file is not new in a competitive political sphere. “It is a systemic problem in a clientele-based politics. As the principles of liberal democracy are at stake, such things are bound to happen. Instead of preparing the people for a democracy of values and culture, we have confined it to elections,” said G Palanithurai, an expert in decentralised governance and a former professor of Panchayati Raj Studies, Gandhigram Rural University, Tamil Nadu.
The DMK has called all such desertions a “betrayal” of the people’s mandate, and initiated an exercise to identify the reasons for its own defeat. Its leader MK Stalin has hinted at sweeping structural changes to “cater to Gen Z’s political aspirations”. But the AIADMK seems to be struggling to recoup.
This in itself means nothing. In the 1991 Assembly election, the DMK won just 2 of 234 seats. In the 1996 election, the AIADMK, led by Jayalalithaa, won only 8 seats. The defeats did not decimate them. While parties such as the AIADMK and the DMK, which boast of strong structural stability, are largely immune to disturbances and destabilisation within their ranks, analysts argue that this changes when a powerful third alternative like the TVK emerges.
The TVK with 108 seats has secured 34.92 per cent of the vote share in its electoral debut, eclipsing the performance of the DMK and AIADMK. The DMK’s vote share fell from 37.7 per cent (2021) to 24.2 per cent, a drop of 13.5 per cent. The AIADMK, which has seen a steady erosion of vote share since the 2019 Parliament election, fell from 33.29 in 2021 to 21.24 per cent. The TVK finished second in 74 seats and third in 51 seats. The DMK won 59 seats, came second in 80, and finished third in 37, while the AIADMK won 47, finished second in 44, and came third in 81.
For the AIADMK, the decline to third place in a significant number of constituencies signals not merely an electoral setback, but a danger that threatens to eat into its vitals. As a strong cadre-based party, it could pull itself out of this mess if its leadership acts prudently and remains accommodative.
Established parties worldwide are experiencing a serious erosion in membership, with the emergence of personality-driven populist parties whose unconventional approach and aggressive social media tools are rewriting equations between party and people. Tamil Nadu is seeing this phenomenon play out today.
The TVK has not sold any new ideology to the electorate. Its narrative is limited to “a clean, corruption-free administration”. The fight between “Us and Them” is not based on any ideological differences. The TVK, like the Dravidian parties, shares Periyar’s self-respect and Ambedkar’s social justice principles. But its resilience in the face of fascist incursions is not known and has not been tested.
Neither have the two Dravidian majors lost relevance in the political context of Tamil Nadu. They are being challenged, like established parties elsewhere, and how they respond and evolve will determine where they stand in the long arc of political and social change. Despite TVK’s dramatic entry, the fact that the DMK and AIADMK largely retain their core vote bank cannot be overlooked.
The AIADMK, however, is at a crossroads today. The implications of any moves to destroy it are not good for democracy or for Tamil Nadu. The ways in which it will impact the State will be far-reaching.
Also Read | Vijay and the reinvention of Dravidian politics
Also Read | What awaits Chief Minister Vijay
