DMK loss, TVK victory: What does the Tamil Nadu mandate mean for Periyar’s legacy

By Vidya Bhushan Rawat* 

DMK leader M.K. Stalin has shown rare courage and decency in accepting the Tamil Nadu mandate with grace. Electoral verdicts are not always a rejection of governance; they often reflect lapses in management, as elections today demand not only campaigning but booth organization, voter mobilization, and outreach to diverse communities. Stalin’s government delivered effective administration and economic growth, while also prioritizing libraries and world‑class health facilities—an unusual focus among chief ministers.  

Despite ideological strength and coalition politics rooted in Periyar and Ambedkar, caste discrimination and violence against Dalits persist at the ground level. Some intellectuals dismiss this as a nationwide problem, but Tamil Nadu, the land of Periyar, carries a special responsibility. A party inheriting his legacy must ensure its cadres confront caste violence as forcefully as Periyar did.  

Attempts to portray Periyar as anti‑Dalit have long been advanced by Brahmanical elites, including self‑styled liberals, and sometimes echoed by Ambedkarites seeking distinct political space. Yet Periyar’s record against caste oppression is well‑documented. Violence against Dalits occurs across India—from Uttar Pradesh to Gujarat—and the real test lies in how governments and political cadres respond.  

Tamil Nadu pioneered categorisation among SC, ST, and OBC communities, a model that had its critics among Dalits. Reports now suggest caste violence has risen in recent years and institutional mechanisms faltered. Still, Tamil Nadu remains ahead: district‑level Human Rights Courts exist here, unlike in most states, and legal support for Dalits is comparatively stronger.  

Stalin distinguished himself by taking firm positions on reservation, NEET, and delimitation—issues where northern OBC leaders failed to act. His rejection of overtures from AIADMK and BJP to form government respects the mandate, which is clearly against them. Joseph Vijay, as leader of the single largest party, must be allowed to form government. BJP miscalculated in expecting his dependence on their support. Congress’s swift move, though clumsy, prevented backroom manipulation by the governor.  

DMK and AIADMK may converse or even consider future mergers, but DMK’s roots in Periyar’s Self‑Respect Movement remain unique. Founded by Anna Durai, Karunanidhi, and others aligned with Periyar’s rationalist vision, DMK pioneered social welfare, including the mid‑day meal scheme that continues to provide nutritious food in schools—still unmatched in many northern states.  

Tamil Nadu has consistently rejected national parties. Vijay’s commitment to Ambedkar and Periyar’s vision reinforces the state’s secular, liberal trajectory. Politics here is fought on programmes and visions, not on religion or food habits. In rejecting divisive politics, Tamil Nadu’s people deserve recognition.  

The governor’s role is limited: he must invite TVK to prove its majority on the floor. DMK has rightly chosen opposition, respecting the verdict. Any denial of Vijay’s claim would undermine democratic procedure.  

Those writing obituaries for DMK and Stalin should reconsider. The party has weathered setbacks before and risen stronger. Stalin’s humility in accepting defeat without blame is a rare example in today’s noisy politics.  

Tamil Nadu has rejected nationalist parties, and interference by the governor will backfire. Good sense must prevail, and the new government should be allowed to take shape.  

---

*Human rights defender