The Battle of Perceptions, Edappadi Palaniswami’s Fight to Assert Himself in Tamil Nadu’s Political Landscape
As the AIADMK Leader Navigates Alliance Politics, the DMK Frames the Election as Tamil Nadu vs. Delhi—and Palaniswami Faces a Battle Not Just for Power but for His Political Identity
Political narratives, if left unchallenged, can tilt the balance in elections. All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam general secretary Edappadi K. Palaniswami appears more cognisant of this than anyone else in the electoral field of Tamil Nadu this election season. Ever since he reluctantly returned to the National Democratic Alliance last April at the behest of the BJP’s principal poll strategist and Union Home Minister, Amit Shah, Mr. Palaniswami has been under attack from his rivals, chiefly from the ruling DMK and its allies.
The battle is not merely about winning seats. It is about perception. The DMK has worked assiduously to paint the AIADMK as subservient to the BJP, to frame the election as a contest between Tamil Nadu’s pride and Delhi’s encroachment, and to depict Mr. Palaniswami as a leader who has surrendered his party’s autonomy. Mr. Palaniswami, in turn, has been fighting to reclaim the narrative, to assert his authority within his own alliance, and to convince voters that he remains his own man.
The Narrative Against Palaniswami
Over the past few years, the DMK front has built a strong political narrative projecting the AIADMK leadership as being subservient to the BJP and the Narendra Modi-led Union government. This perception was bolstered by the decision of the erstwhile AIADMK government, under both O. Panneerselvam and Mr. Palaniswami, to embrace certain Central schemes that Jayalalithaa, their predecessor, had resisted during her lifetime. This included the Ujwal DISCOM Assurance Yojana (UDAY), which Tamil Nadu joined in January 2017, just a month after her death.
In recent times, this narrative gained further momentum after Mr. Modi and Mr. Shah repeatedly avoided endorsing Mr. Palaniswami as the NDA’s chief ministerial face in the Assembly election. Instead, the two leaders have publicly advocated a “BJP-inclusive NDA government” in Tamil Nadu, led by the AIADMK. The distinction is subtle but significant. By not naming Mr. Palaniswami as the chief ministerial candidate, the BJP leadership has left open the possibility that the chief ministership could be negotiated after the election—a possibility that the DMK has seized upon.
It is against this backdrop that DMK president and Chief Minister M.K. Stalin is attempting to frame this Assembly election as a Tamil Nadu-versus-New Delhi contest. For the DMK, which has historically positioned itself as the defender of Tamil interests against central encroachment, this is familiar and fertile ground.
The Nitish Kumar Comparison
Some leaders, including Congress MP B. Manickam Tagore and State Transport Minister S.S. Sivasankar, have warned that Mr. Palaniswami could potentially become the Nitish Kumar of Tamil Nadu. What they imply is that the BJP could, at some point, force him to step down as Chief Minister, much like Mr. Kumar, who has offered to resign as Bihar Chief Minister.
Critics also point to developments in Maharashtra, where splits in the Shiv Sena and Nationalist Congress Party are widely believed to have been encouraged by the BJP. Mr. Stalin has gone so far as to accuse Mr. Palaniswami of offering an “adimai sasanam” (slavery charter) to the Union Government.
These are serious charges. The comparison with Nitish Kumar is intended to suggest that Mr. Palaniswami’s alliance with the BJP is a one-way street—that he will be used to win the election and then discarded, that his party will be weakened, that he will be reduced to a figurehead.
The Evidence That Bolsters the Narrative
Some of Mr. Palaniswami’s actions and developments within the NDA in Tamil Nadu have lent weight to such criticism. For instance, the AIADMK leader has travelled to New Delhi twice to meet Mr. Shah to discuss the contours of the electoral alliance. This is a reversal of the typical process, where leaders of national parties who have limited influence in the Dravidian State visit Tamil Nadu to negotiate alliances with the dominant regional players.
Additionally, some allies, such as T.T.V. Dhinakaran of the Amma Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam, had sought to bypass the AIADMK entirely, saying they would deal directly with the BJP on seat-sharing arrangements. This is a direct challenge to Mr. Palaniswami’s authority. If allies can negotiate directly with the BJP, then the AIADMK’s role as the leader of the alliance is purely nominal.
Palaniswami’s Counter-Offensive
After these developments, however, Mr. Palaniswami appears to have mounted a calibrated counter to this perception. This week, he took many by surprise by ensuring that NDA leaders—including Piyush Goyal (BJP), R. Anumani (PMK), and Mr. Dhinakaran—visited MGR Maaligai, the AIADMK headquarters in Chennai. In their presence, Mr. Palaniswami took centre stage and announced the number of seats allotted to each party, underscoring his authority within the alliance.
He also pushed back by noting that DMK leaders such as Kanimozhi had also flown to Delhi to meet Congress leader Rahul Gandhi. The implication is clear: if the DMK can negotiate with its alliance partners in Delhi, why should the AIADMK be criticised for doing the same?
In a subtle yet significant signal, he allotted the BJP 27 seats, one short of what the DMK conceded to the Congress under pressure. This is a deliberate calculation. By giving the BJP slightly fewer seats than the Congress got from the DMK, Mr. Palaniswami is asserting that he is not yielding more to the BJP than the DMK yielded to its principal ally.
He also concluded the NDA seat-sharing exercise ahead of the DMK, which this time faced a more arduous task in persuading its allies to accept fewer seats. This is not a trivial achievement. The ability to finalise seat-sharing before the rival alliance gives the AIADMK a head start in campaigning.
Going a step further, Mr. Palaniswami has already declared the constituencies to be contested by allies and released the AIADMK’s first list of 23 candidates. He has also resumed his campaign, canvassing votes for the BJP’s Tamilsai Soundararajan, even before her party had formally announced its candidates. This is a display of confidence, but also of generosity. By campaigning for a BJP candidate, he is showing that he is committed to the alliance, and that he expects the BJP to reciprocate.
More importantly, he conceded just one seat in Chennai district to the BJP, notwithstanding the party’s improved performance in the region in the last Lok Sabha election. This is a clear signal that the AIADMK, not the BJP, is the dominant partner in the alliance.
Nonetheless, the decision of Tamil Maanila Congress (Moopanar) leader G.K. Vasan to field five candidates on the BJP’s lotus symbol, along with a similar move by another outfit, has effectively increased the BJP’s tally beyond what was formally allotted to it. This is a complication. The BJP now has more candidates in the field than the AIADMK had intended, potentially creating confusion among voters and competition for votes that the AIADMK had hoped would go to its own candidates.
The Man Behind the Maneuvers
For those familiar with Mr. Palaniswami’s political trajectory, such manoeuvres are not entirely surprising. He was, after all, the leader who managed to sideline Jayalalithaa’s long-time aide V.K. Sasikala. He has also asserted himself within the AIADMK by outmanoeuvring other leaders, including O. Panneerselvam, with whom he shared power for years before consolidating control.
Mr. Palaniswami is not a man who easily cedes authority. He has survived political battles that would have broken lesser leaders. His rise within the AIADMK was not handed to him; it was earned through a combination of political acumen, organisational skill, and sheer determination.
The current battle is, in many ways, similar to those he has fought before. He is being tested by forces within his own alliance, by rivals who seek to undermine him, and by a narrative that threatens to define him. His response has been calibrated: assert authority, demonstrate capability, and remind voters that he is still the leader.
The Real Test
His battle is far from over. His real test will come on May 4, election day, and should his party come within striking distance of power, it remains to be seen whether he can resist the BJP’s desire to be a partner in government.
If the AIADMK wins a majority on its own, Mr. Palaniswami’s position will be unassailable. He will be able to form a government without the BJP, or with the BJP in a junior role. But if the AIADMK falls short of a majority, the BJP’s leverage will increase. The national party will demand a share in government, and possibly a share in decision-making.
The DMK’s narrative—that the AIADMK is subservient to the BJP—is aimed at making voters wary of giving the AIADMK a narrow victory. If voters believe that a close AIADMK win will lead to BJP domination, they may choose to vote for the DMK instead. Mr. Palaniswami’s challenge is to convince them that he can win decisively, and that even if he doesn’t, he will not surrender his party’s autonomy.
Conclusion: A Battle of Narratives
The Tamil Nadu Assembly election is, in many ways, a battle of narratives. The DMK’s narrative is that the AIADMK is subservient to Delhi, that Mr. Palaniswami cannot be trusted to protect Tamil Nadu’s interests, and that a vote for the AIADMK is a vote for the BJP.
Mr. Palaniswami’s narrative is that he is his own man, that the AIADMK remains the dominant force in Tamil Nadu politics, and that the alliance with the BJP is a tactical arrangement that does not compromise his party’s autonomy.
The election will decide which narrative prevails. If the AIADMK wins, Mr. Palaniswami will have a chance to prove that he can govern without surrendering to the BJP. If the DMK wins, the narrative of AIADMK subservience will be reinforced.
For Mr. Palaniswami, the battle is not just for power. It is for his political identity.
Q&A: Unpacking Edappadi Palaniswami’s Political Battle
Q1: What is the central political narrative that the DMK is promoting against Edappadi Palaniswami and the AIADMK?
A: The DMK has built a strong narrative that the AIADMK leadership is subservient to the BJP and the Modi-led Union government. DMK chief M.K. Stalin is framing the Assembly election as a Tamil Nadu-versus-New Delhi contest, accusing Palaniswami of offering an “adimai sasanam” (slavery charter) to the Union Government. This narrative is bolstered by the BJP leadership’s reluctance to name Palaniswami as the NDA’s chief ministerial candidate and by AIADMK’s embrace of Central schemes that Jayalalithaa had resisted.
Q2: Why have some leaders compared Edappadi Palaniswami to Nitish Kumar of Bihar?
A: Congress MP B. Manickam Tagore and DMK leader S.S. Sivasankar have warned that Palaniswami could become the Nitish Kumar of Tamil Nadu. This comparison implies that the BJP could, after the election, force him to step down as Chief Minister, much like Kumar has offered to resign in Bihar. Critics also point to Maharashtra, where splits in the Shiv Sena and NCP are widely believed to have been encouraged by the BJP, suggesting a pattern of BJP undermining regional allies.
Q3: How has Palaniswami pushed back against the narrative of subservience?
A: Palaniswami has mounted a calibrated counter-offensive. He ensured NDA leaders visited AIADMK headquarters, where he announced seat allocations, underscoring his authority. He allotted the BJP 27 seats—one less than the DMK conceded to the Congress. He concluded seat-sharing before the DMK, released candidate lists early, and resumed campaigning, even canvassing for a BJP candidate. He also noted that DMK leaders have flown to Delhi to meet Congress leaders, arguing that both alliances negotiate similarly.
Q4: What complications has Palaniswami faced within his own alliance?
A: Some allies, such as T.T.V. Dhinakaran of the AMMK, sought to bypass the AIADMK entirely, saying they would deal directly with the BJP on seat-sharing—a direct challenge to Palaniswami’s authority. Additionally, the decision of Tamil Maanila Congress (Moopanar) leader G.K. Vasan to field five candidates on the BJP’s lotus symbol, along with a similar move by another outfit, effectively increased the BJP’s tally beyond what was formally allotted, potentially creating confusion and competition for votes.
Q5: What will be the real test for Palaniswami after the election?
A: The real test will come if the AIADMK falls short of a majority. If the party wins a majority on its own, Palaniswami’s position will be unassailable—he can form government without the BJP or with it in a junior role. But if the AIADMK needs the BJP to form government, the national party’s leverage will increase, and it may demand a share in power and decision-making. The DMK’s narrative is designed to make voters wary of giving the AIADMK a narrow victory, fearing it would lead to BJP domination. Palaniswami must convince voters he can win decisively and maintain his party’s autonomy.
