(Latest Op-Ed First; Verbatim Compilation of The Hindu
Op-Ed)
Star war: on
Kamal, Rajinikanth entering politics (23.02.18)
All these years, the Tamil film industry had enough space
for both
Rajinikanth and Kamal Haasan, two stars with wide fan bases who could
deliver one blockbuster after another. But Tamil Nadu’s political arena is
likely to be too small for both of them. With their entry into politics, the
actors will realise sooner than later that each can only succeed at the other’s
expense. Both Mr. Rajinikanth and Mr. Haasan are vying to fill the same
political space, the vacuum created by the death of Jayalalithaa. They are
hoping to take over the AIADMK’s vote bank on the assumption that the party
will not survive another election. While Mr. Haasan has indicated he is not
averse to political alliances, Mr. Rajinikanth has insisted he will contest all
234 Assembly constituencies. Inevitably, the two will find themselves in
opposite camps. Despite the age-related ill-health of its president M.
Karunanidhi, the principal opposition party, the DMK, remains in serious
contention for power with its organisational structure and cadre base. The
actor-politicians will therefore have to fight for their share from the rest of
the pie.
It is true that voters in Tamil
Nadu are tired of the electoral choices before them, having voted in
and out one of the two major Dravidian parties, the DMK and the AIADMK. A huge
chunk of the AIADMK’s vote-bank is actually an anti-DMK vote-bank; the converse
is true for a large section of the DMK’s vote-bank. Mr. Haasan, like Mr. Rajinikanth,
can try to tap into this negative sentiment as a third alternative. Indeed,
Vijayakanth, a contemporary of Mr. Rajinikanth and Mr. Haasan who joined
politics in 2005, won more political supporters than he did film fans precisely
because he offered an alternative to the two Dravidian parties. But he could
not attain the critical mass needed to mount a serious challenge and ended up
as a spoiler, not a king-maker. Unlike Mr. Rajinikanth, Mr. Haasan has been
more forthright in expressing his political views, through tweets, press
conferences, public speeches and columns. At the very least, Mr. Haasan appears
willing to articulate a political programme with a vision and stated goals, in
marked contrast to Mr. Rajinikanth who did not go beyond vague generalities
while announcing his entry into politics. But Mr. Haasan will be mistaken if he
assumes his star status in the film world will automatically open doors for him
in politics. Winning over voters in different regions with different livelihood
concerns and social identities is no easy task. His stardom may have earned him
immediate attention, but he will need to mobilise people around their own
interests if he wants to be a credible alternative. Otherwise, a Rajini-Kamal
joust might be no more than an interesting sidelight in the next Assembly
election.
XXX
Yet another
tectonic shift? (08.01.18)
The decision of Tamil superstar Rajinikanth to try his hand
at politics has added a totally new dimension to the Tamil Nadu political theatre,
which has been in turmoil for more than a year now. Except for a hiccup in
1988-90, Tamil Nadu politics has never been in such tumult and uncertainty
since the demise of Jayalalithaa in end 2016. Mr. Rajinikanth’s decision to
wear the political hat appears to be well thought out, as the State seems to be
poised for yet another tectonic shift in its political history. A recall of how
such shifts in Tamil Nadu politics in the past have changed the political
landscape of the State may help one make an intelligent guess about the likely
impact of yet another shift.
In the past
Politics in Tamil Nadu had experienced three major tectonic
shifts since the advent of democratic polity. The first one fully Dravidianised
the State’s politics and the next two partly de-Dravidianised it. The first
shift was the ouster of the national party, the Congress, from power in 1967,
and forever thereafter. The next was the expulsion of the redoubtable M.G.
Ramachandran (MGR) from the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) in 1972 and the
emergence of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) as the main
challenger to the DMK, reducing Tamil Nadu politics to just a play between two
Dravidian cousins thereafter. This historic Dindigul Lok Sabha by-election in
1973, which the newly formed AIADMK won, signalled the transfer of anti-DMK
votes to the AIADMK as MGR was seen as more capable of defeating the DMK. The
AIADMK relegated the Congress led by the towering K. Kamaraj and the DMK led by
the mighty M. Karunanidhi to the second and third spots, respectively. Since
then, the anti-DMK voters have been unwaveringly loyal to the AIADMK, except
perhaps only once in 1996.
The third shift was the split in the AIADMK following MGR’s
death and the advent of Jayalalithaa, who rejuvenated the party as more
powerful than before. While the first shift in 1967 drove Tamil Nadu into
Dravidian exclusivism, the second and the third diluted the Dravidian content
of the State polity, by forcing the AIADMK and DMK to align with national
parties. Slowly, the national-minded voters increasingly turned to the AIADMK,
seeing it as less exclusivist Dravidian in its impulses, further shrinking the
space for national parties in the State.
Vacuum and uncertainty
But, recently, the sudden demise of Jayalalithaa and the
equally abrupt retreat of Mr. Karunanidhi from politics forced by age — both
occurring almost simultaneously — have completely changed the settled
assumptions and accepted grammar of the State’s politics. An unprecedented
leadership vacuum has enveloped the two parties and Tamil Nadu and led to an
uncertainty, never faced, surrounding the State’s politics. And, more recently,
the shocking win of sidelined AIADMK leader T.T.V. Dhinakaran and the amazing
defeat of the DMK, which forfeited its deposit, in the recent R.K. Nagar
by-election have deepened the uncertainty, indicating that the solution to the
uncertainty may not come from either of the two Dravidian parties at all. This
has put the DMK on the back foot. When Jayalalithaa passed away, the DMK had
assumed that it would return to power if the Edappadi K. Palaniswami government
fell. It even began working with Mr. Dhinakaran to pull it down. But the
reverse in R.K. Nagar seems to have compelled the DMK to review its strategy to
force early elections, which it may not want so early now.
Rajinikanth’s advantages
Clearly, the monolithic Dravidian politics, which dominated
the State for 50 years, is defreezing, perhaps even melting down. This is the
context for Mr. Rajinikanth’s plunge. He has said he would form his party and
fight the next Assembly polls, whenever it was held. But, with that eventuality
nowhere near, Mr. Rajinikanth seems to have bought for himself enough time to
organise his party, shape its philosophy and policies before launching it. The
way he has handled the major announcement and managed the excitement it has
generated, and now consolidating his fan clubs with the use of technology,
indicates that he seems to have been well advised not to rush in, but instead
gather his forces for what he first called as the war that lay ahead. The
announcement of the virtual entry far ahead of the actual one seems to make
strategic sense. He has undoubtedly taken advantage of the uncertainty in the
State’s politics by registering himself with its people as the new force
strongly in the reckoning in the next elections.
Of the many factors that may go in his favour, the anti-DMK
voters who have been loyal to the AIADMK may shift to him as now he, and not
the weakened AIADMK, may be seen as the one who can do it. Also, the
anti-AIADMK votes, of which the DMK has been the main beneficiary, may shift to
him. Another factor that may favour him is the entry of more than 37 lakh new
voters crossing 18 by the 2019 Lok Sabha polls, and a further 23 lakh by 2021
on the electoral rolls of Tamil Nadu. With the two Dravidian parties not as
attractive to the youth as before — the DMK leader M.K. Stalin himself has
lamented that politics does not attract the youth — it is logical for Mr.
Rajinikanth to position himself as the new face.
Puritans will argue that Mr. Rajinikanth’s entry will
promote a personality cult that undermines merit and principles in politics.
While no one can say that a personality cult is good, equally, no one will
disagree that dynastic politics is worse as it is a personality cult by
inheritance as in the example of Indira Gandhi passing on the baton to Rajiv
Gandhi to Sonia Gandhi to Rahul Gandhi now. Given the experience of the DMK,
Mr. Rajinikanth should know that if he avoids the dynastic shadow over his politics,
his family will be his personal asset; otherwise, it will become a political
liability.
Making a connect
Significantly, his entry has not met with any major
opposition though some fringe groups have questioned his being an ‘outsider’ in
terms of his roots. The apparent Tamil chauvinistic impulses of the Dravidian
movement did not inhibit MGR, a Malayali, from winning and ruling Tamil Nadu,
nor did that undermine Jayalalithaa’s domination in the State. The inclusive
cultural DNA of Tamil Nadu, which the chauvinist image of Tamil Nadu masks, is
bound to accommodate Mr. Rajinikanth as well. More importantly, most new
political parties in Tamil Nadu have connected themselves to Dravidian
ancestry. But Mr. Rajinikanth’s branding of his politics as “spiritual” too
seems a well-thought-out idea to distinguish and distance himself from the
anti-god moorings of the politics of the State where people are becoming
increasingly religious.
In sum, Mr. Rajinikanth’s political advent has the potential
to erode the stagnating and fatiguing DMK and AIADMK and sweep away the smaller
local parties. With profound changes in the offing, interesting days lie ahead.
S. Gurumurthy is Editor of Thuglak Tamil
magazine, and a political and economic commentator
XXX
Looking for
substance in style: the politics of Rajinikanth (03.01.18)
For those of us who remember the first flush of excitement
that ‘Rajini style’ caused in Tamil society in the 1970s, style was the man.
The idea that Rajinikanth, the superstar of Tamil cinema, is best known for his
style has been with us for so long that not many associate his films with
substance. That some of his early films and performances showed promise is
nearly forgotten. He has come to be associated with superhuman achievements.
His mythic appeal has been converted into innumerable jokes about impossible
feats. The time has come when his fans and admirers have accepted his style as
his work itself. This will be as true for his films as for his present foray into
politics.
Improbable hopes
“Style is art,” Susan Sontag said, questioning the
distinction often made between style and substance, between form and content.
Mr. Rajinikanth’s art, if the word can be associated with him, is his style.
Sontag also warned against interpretation, calling it the “revenge of the
intellect upon art”. As the leading figure in the Tamil celluloid world takes
the plunge into politics, it may be too early to interpret the actor’s politics
and political intentions. Looking for substance or a political vision can wait.
It is, for now, as futile as looking for deeper meanings and hidden subtexts in
his fast-moving films with improbable fight sequences.
Questions are being raised: whether his entry will worsen
the cult of hero worship and charisma-driven politics in Tamil Nadu; whether he
is laying the ground for right-wing politics to take root in what was until now
inhospitable terrain for it; whether he is self-driven or being pushed by other
forces. All these concerns are no doubt valid and require answers. However, in
the immediate social and political context of present-day Tamil Nadu, other
questions have to be raised first.
Why does Mr. Rajinikanth want to enter politics? He says the
present system is not right and needs to be changed; that there is political
degradation in Tamil Nadu; that the State has become a laughing stock; that
rulers have become looters; and that if he did nothing to stem the rot even at
this stage, he would be wracked by guilt till his death. It may appear that the
situation he describes does prevail in Tamil Nadu after the demise of
Jayalalithaa and the inability of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) president M.
Karunanidhi to remain active in politics for health reasons. The present All
India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) regime in Tamil Nadu is quite
unpopular by all accounts. However, are the rest of the claims of the
politician-to-be true? Politics did not suddenly degrade in the last one year
and corruption is not a recent phenomenon. If something causes great shame and
embarrassment to the people of Tamil Nadu, it is the ease with which film
personalities, both the famous and the also-rans, enter public life and are
seen as natural political leaders. Most parties are led by those who do not
create or tolerate a second-rung leadership and are virtually clubs run by
individuals. Film stars have been floating political outfits based on individual
popularity and converting their fan clubs into local units. There is little
doubt that what Mr. Rajinikanth is planning is just one more party on this
list. A party of one followed by numberless zeroes.
Endemic corruption has been punished by the electorate in
the past. The verdicts of 1996 and 2011 in the State Assembly elections were
clear mandates against the misdeeds of the AIADMK and the DMK regimes of the
day. The State has a few core issues on which its interests are seen to be
under threat, and parties, willy-nilly, have to take a position on these
matters. It is difficult to avoid an issue-based agenda in the State. It is
true that the two main parties have done their bit to render elections devoid
of issues by their election-time promises of freebies and, in recent years,
rampant voter bribery. The mere absence of a tall leader capable of helming the
State now cannot be used to make a claim that it has no ideological moorings or
that Tamil Nadu is a ‘night-foundered skiff’ that can find safe harbour only in
a new leader who does not have the trappings and baggage of its present
political class. The truth is that Tamil Nadu voters are not so bereft of
political options as some observers say.
Who needs a messiah?
It cannot be forgotten that despite phases of political
instability, new alliances and coalitions within the political spectrum have
come to power at the Centre when the two main parties were unable to form the
government on their own. The question is not whether Mr. Rajinikanth will be the
State’s saviour, but whether the State requires a messiah in the first place.
He has sought to project himself in a messianic role by claiming that he is not
looking for power but only guardians or sentinels of the exchequer to prevent
plunder and loot. He said the battle has to be joined soon and that only
cowards turn away from war. For good measure he quoted the Gita on one’s duty
to wage war when required. The use of martial metaphors and the image of a
protector or saviour reveals a mindset that wants those governing to be patrons
and the governed their clients. This sort of clientelism is not something that
can bring about any systemic change, but would rather entrench patronage and
corruption.
As cynicism envelops the State, it is useful to remember that
the only vacuum in Tamil Nadu today is the absence of a strong personality.
Democracy can survive without such personages. All it requires is that
individuals and institutions play the roles expected of them in adhering to the
law and the Constitution. It is in the nature of democracy to appear inchoate
in trying times. To believe that this is a systemic dystopia that requires
emancipation by a messiah amounts to a disbelief in the fundamental nature of
democracy itself. This does not mean that the polity should shut out a
newcomer. The much-reviled system can accommodate Mr. Rajinikanth and more of
his ilk. However, it is a stretch to say that the entry of those currently
outside the political and electoral system is a dire necessity. Some have used the
language of cinema to describe Mr. Rajinikanth’s political entry as the release
of a blockbuster. It looks like he intends to play the deus ex machina that
will enter in the final moment to resolve all the problems of Tamil Nadu at one
go. The people may cheer at such contrivances on screen, but it is doubtful if
they will do so in real life.
The star and his fans
Given the nature of relations between a hero and a fan,
there is a credible fear that Mr. Rajinikanth’s presence may result in those
backing him losing their political instincts and remaining blind followers with
little concern even for the preservation of their rights. Some see his open
espousal of ‘spiritual politics’ as a challenge to the core ideology of
Dravidian parties. These are indeed portentous. However, the danger here is not
merely about right-wing politics taking roots. It is the movement away from a
political legacy rooted in ideology to one that is solely personality-centric.
Even the foremost practitioner of charisma-driven and personality-centric
politics, M.G. Ramachandran, built his popularity on a platform of welfarism
and social justice. Mr. Rajinikanth represents a change the State does not
need.
XXX
Star turn: on actor Rajinikanth's
foray into politics (02.01.18)
For more than 22 years, Tamil film star Rajinikanth
fed the expectation of his entry into politics without fulfilling it.
In 1995, when he spoke up against AIADMK leader Jayalalithaa, his statement had
a resonance not only among his fans but also the wider public. But then he made
his peace with Jayalalithaa and humoured leaders from across the political
spectrum. With Jayalalithaa’s death, however, his political ambition found a
new life; he held a series of meetings with his fans as if to test his support
base. On New Year’s Eve, when he
announced his decision to enter politics, he took care to appear as if he
were stepping in to fill a political vacuum in the interest of the people of
Tamil Nadu, and not to further his own ambition. With the AIADMK in disarray
and DMK patriarch M. Karunanidhi politically inactive on account of age-related
ill-health, the political scene in the State seems set for a churn. Actor Kamal
Haasan too had spoken of his intention to start a party. With neither the BJP
nor the Congress being in a position to challenge the two Dravidian parties,
Mr. Rajinikanth could have seen this as an opportune moment to cash in on his
fan base after his failure to take advantage of the public sentiment in 1996.
There is no denying Mr. Rajinikanth’s mass appeal, but as in
the case of AIADMK founder M.G. Ramachandran and Jayalalithaa, he doesn’t seem
to have a clearly defined ideological position or political programme. Other
than saying that his politics will be “spiritual” and neither religious nor
casteist, he has not yet articulated a comprehensive political vision. But in a
State in which political corruption has been a major issue, resulting in strong
electoral verdicts against both major Dravidian parties, his success in
politics is likely to be determined by whether he can project himself as a person
people can trust and as an agent of the kind of political change that Tamil
Nadu really desires. This ties in with his attempt to project himself
as all things to all people, a messiah of sorts. Thus, his assurance that he
will resign three years after he is voted to power if he is unable to fulfil
his yet-to-be-made promises. Mr. Rajinikanth would like to rule as a repository
of people’s trust rather than as their direct representative. Even when he
created a platform to interact with his fans and supporters, he did not solicit
their views or attempt to come to grips with their grievances. By all accounts,
Mr. Rajinikanth is preparing to be guided by his own sense of destiny. Other
than his movies, and a few stray political comments, people have little to go
by. But Mr. Rajinikanth must be aware that charisma is a powerful force in
Tamil Nadu politics, enough to catapult others before him to power. With his
eye seemingly fixed on the next State Assembly election, policies and
programmes can wait.
(All of the above articles have been taken straight from The
Hindu. We owe it all to them. This is just an effort to consolidate opinions
expressed in The Hindu in a subject-wise manner.)
No comments:
Post a Comment