Regardless of his alliances, the new actor-turned-politician is already coming across as a DMK-lite figure.
The fervent discourse and impassioned writings surrounding the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) evoke a sense of confusion.
Despite being a nascent political entity—having been announced in February and conducting its inaugural political event last month—the relentless media speculation implies that actor Vijay has firmly established himself in the political arena.
Prior to the party’s conference in Vikravandi, Tamil Nadu, last month, there was little indication of Vijay’s political beliefs. However, his statements during the conference, along with the resolutions adopted at the party’s executive council meeting on November 3, reveal that TVK, in terms of policies and ideologies, resembles a diluted version of the DMK, offering little that is innovative.
Although Vijay has attempted to position his party as both anti-Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and anti-DMK, such claims appear increasingly insincere, as the party’s stance aligns closely with traditional Dravidian politics.
This situation is not entirely unexpected, as certain elements in Tamil Nadu’s political landscape are so deeply ingrained that it is challenging to navigate without them.
For example, parties must essentially function as ‘kazhagams’ and inevitably reference EVR (Erode Venkatappa Ramasamy), despite the fact that his ideologies were fundamentally rooted in bigotry.
It is a lamentable aspect of Indian politics that Dravidian ideology, which is based on animosity and nationalism, is often mistaken for a legitimate liberal perspective. This misperception arises because the Dravidian framework has dominated the political narrative for decades.
Vijay has shown respect to all the self-proclaimed Dravidian symbols and has positioned himself as aligned with communist ideologies, regardless of their outdated and irrelevant nature.
This situation exemplifies a persistent issue in Tamil Nadu politics. No political party can assert a right-of-centre perspective on economic matters. Consequently, the familiar narrative portraying corporations as embodiments of evil and depicting private enterprises as exploitative is delivered with predictable regularity.
The 49-year-old actor, one of the highest-paid in the nation and whose lifestyle is vastly different from that of the average citizen, espouses socialist principles. While the sentiment itself is not inherently flawed, it often represents a largely unsuccessful ideology. It is ironic that the same actor, who previously endorsed a cola brand, is now expected to be taken seriously when he criticizes such companies.
The discourse surrounding socialism is not isolated; it is accompanied by vehement opposition to large-scale development projects. Thus, it is unsurprising that Vijay’s political party stands against the proposed airport project in Parandur, Chennai.
Undoubtedly, all development initiatives incur costs, often resulting in environmental degradation. This is the reality of contemporary progress. However, it is the responsibility of civil society to assess whether the benefits of such trade-offs ultimately serve the greater good of the populace.
All political parties adopt an adversarial stance when in opposition, only to shift to a contrasting position upon gaining power. In this context, Vijay, by positioning himself as an opponent, has opted to articulate his views in terms reminiscent of the communist manifesto.
Furthermore, consider the resolutions adopted during the party’s meeting on Sunday. The opposition to NEET has been addressed. The stance against ‘one nation, one election’ has also been confirmed. Concerns regarding Tasmac culture and the increasing prevalence of drug use have been raised. These issues are essentially standard responses, pre-set from the outset.
Regarding language matters, the role of the Governor, and other pertinent issues, Vijay’s party has made its stance unmistakably clear, aligning closely with that of the DMK. It is noteworthy that the DMK, despite its governing position and ability to effect change, also publicly opposes Tasmac.
Thus, one must accept that a party lacking any policy distinction from the DMK claims it will offer a different approach.
Typically, newcomers to Tamil Nadu’s political landscape are often labeled as the BJP’s B or C team, yet they frequently resemble DMK replicas, ultimately fragmenting or diluting the anti-DMK vote.
A recent example is Kamal Haasan’s ill-fated party, Makkal Needhi Maiam. The veteran actor made numerous critical remarks about the DMK, only to align with it during election time. Consequently, Vijay’s statements should be approached with caution, if not outright skepticism.
However, TVK has effectively contributed to media discourse, generating headlines in the process. It has also shielded the beleaguered All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) from significant criticism. This has sparked speculation that Vijay’s party may collaborate with EPS’s faction (EPS refers to Edappadi K Palaniswami). Additionally, Vijay has indicated a willingness to share power with other political entities.
There is considerable speculation regarding whether this is a strategy to attract VCK into its coalition. This approach represents a longstanding public relations tactic aimed at shaping the narrative. It diverts attention from the more pressing question: Is the TVK in a position to negotiate seat-sharing arrangements with more established political entities?
Additionally, the TVK has provoked a reaction from Seeman’s Naam Tamilar Katchi. Although Seeman has been positioning himself as a potential ally to the TVK, he appears to have dismissed this notion for the time being, resulting in a barrage of criticisms directed at the TVK from him.
This reaction is not unexpected. In the process of building a political party, any publicity can be beneficial, as per the traditional media adage.
Vijay has effectively managed the visual aspects of his campaign thus far. However, aside from this, the actor’s party has yet to present any substantial proposals worthy of serious discussion. Regrettably, the current political landscape in this country seems to prioritize sensationalism over meaningful dialogue.
