Jayalalithaa's fate sealed, Tamil Nadu's future still uncertain

While Madras remains indifferent to the verdict against Jayalalithaa - the former chief minister of Tamil Nadu, Chennai is reeling from it. The apparent contradiction in this statement would immediately be apparent to a Madrasi, though not always to a Chennaite, but it’s worth understanding it either way.

Madras, today, constitutes the intelligentsia (for lack of a better word) of the city of Chennai, and they recognise the fact that this verdict just means that Tamil Nadu is about to enter into some serious difficulties. They see it for what it is: one lone crusader’s stand against some of the most glaring illegalities that run rampant in this country, which would have come to absolutely nothing if the opposition party hadn’t supported and pushed it so hard, especially by moving the case to a special bench in Bangalore. But let’s not take away the impression that the DMK did this out of any pure motives, considering the involvement of their own top brass in the massive 2G corruption scandal. So in a continuation to the saga of one-upmanship, the DMK pushed for the case against Jayalalithaa to be prosecuted fairly, and the Supreme Court of India had to grant that it needed to be. 

However, this piece is not about the verdict at all. My concern is about the fundamental problem here. Let’s start with the reason for the case being moved to Bangalore in the first place. That is the greatest tragedy here - the fact that, in order for a case to be prosecuted fairly, it needs to be taken as far away from those in power as possible. Now this might be a fix in cases where state political figures are called into accountability (after all, for it to be a solution, it should address the root cause of the problem and not just the actual problem itself), but how would this work in, for instance, the land-grabbing case against the top echelon in the Congress? Do we move the case to a whole other country where these heavyweight politicians could wield no power? This means the Supreme Court would basically need to admit that it cannot mete out justice to everyone equally. Maybe we could move it to China or Pakistan? Sounds ridiculous to me; but then, so did moving the case out of Chennai to Bangalore. 

And now is where we discuss Chennai - formerly known as Madras. Even before the verdict was handed out, I received two text messages from practicing advocates in the Madras High Court, advising me to get all my loved ones and stay indoors. Many shops and companies had already declared a half-day, before the verdict was out. Did they know what the verdict would be? Of course they did! Most people knew what it would be when the case was moved to Bangalore. We knew we would finally get an honest verdict.

Of course, we all know what happened once the verdict was actually pronounced. Arson, cases of self-immolation, murderous threats made against Subramanian Swamy (the complainant in the case) and just about any individual who seemed a potential supporter of the BJP, as well as the outbreak of fights between the DMK and the AIADMK. As one friend put it, “She’s convicted, but we are all under house arrest!”

The followers of Jayalalithaa are outraged. After all, they say, plenty of other politicians have been far more corrupt, but were mindful enough of the law to set up shell companies and sell stock for considerably higher values than they have ever been worth. She has been convicted for “old-school” corruption, where she has basically not even attempted to cover up the fact that her assets are vastly disproportionate to her income. She is easily the best leader any Indian state has ever had, they say. However, nobody can be held above the law.

Which brings me to the tragedy of Indian politics - the violence that has washed over Tamil Nadu after the verdict was made known. But to what end? All that the AIADMK cadre has effectively done through this insane reaction to the verdict is give the Supreme Court of India reason to, upon its own initiative, get involved in cases regarding powerful politicians and ensure that the ends of justice be met. They certainly haven’t done either their leader or their party even the slightest bit of good with it. It is unfortunate that such pathetic bullying tactics are employed, but it is hardly surprising in a political scenario dominated by thugs, profiteers, and criminals. 

With an eye to the future, however, one must note that Jayalalithaa is also guilty of what other politicians around the country indulge in -- disallow anyone else with strength of character from climbing to the top-most ranks of their respective parties.

Meanwhile, a dark time in Tamil Nadu’s politics is in store. We will now have a stand-in chief minister, or to call it what it is, a puppet chief minister, as we did briefly back in 2001 when Jayalalitha appointed O Paneerselvam to the post, due to a conviction in another disproportionate assets case. It is even more shameful that the same person who was ridiculed back then for being the puppet chief minister will take up the same post again. It's as if the AIADMK does not even intend to pretend to be anything more than a corporation set up to aid Jayalalithaa in the running (or whatever one would call it) of the state. 

However, the problem goes a little deeper this time, for if the judgment of the special bench is upheld by the High Court and then the Supreme Court (as seems likely at this juncture), what happens to Tamil Nadu during this power vacuum? Jayalalithaa might have proven herself to be a most redoubtable leader, but even she might find it hard to ensure the state suffers no adversity from this and she might also find it hard to be as effective from prison. There is absolutely nobody to take over from her, and the AIADMK brass will insist that she continue as the leader (yes, even if she cannot contest any elections during the next 10 years). None of the younger leaders of the party (some of whom are extremely capable individuals) would ever possess the temerity to suggest otherwise. That is the Tamilian way of doing politics and the logical outcome of this illogical system will be the power struggle between outsiders once the elders have moved on, in one way or another. 

That is what happened in the past as well. Periyar refused to allow any suitable and strong personalities to flourish within the Dravida Kazhagam, so Annadurai broke away from the DK and created the DMK. Then, Karunanidhi (who is probably the only truly masterful politician of the lot) managed, with his political machinations involving the appointed leader of the party, V R Nedunchezhiyan, to take over the reins of the party. He won two terms as the chief minister, settled in and started addressing himself as the Sheikh Mujibur Rahman of the DMK, when the late MGR took umbrage and broke away from the DMK. The AIADMK was born, and MGR became the chief minister in 1977. Then, when MGR was dying and appointed his wife, Janaki Ramachandran, as the chief minister (and she lasted 24 days), the AIADMK split into two factions, with the more charismatic leader Jayalalithaa leading the AIADMK and Janaki at the helm of the the AIADMK (J). Both factions received a drubbing in the next elections, following which, Janaki stepped down and Jayalalithaa took over the whole show.

And so history has repeated itself for, by my count, the fourth time in Tamil Nadu. Yet again, we have a situation where senior DMK leader Karunanidhi is 90-years-old and refusing to relinquish his mantle while Jayalalithaa has ensured that no strong leaders come up in the AIADMK, and never will, for as long as she is interested in politics. What this effectively means is that Tamil Nadu is about to face the biggest power vacuum it has ever seen as a bunch of lesser-known politicians, who haven’t yet succeeded in alienating any of the power brokers, will begin to slowly work their way up party ranks so that they can eventually slip into positions of power when the time is ripe.

And while we can trust Jayalalithaa to ensure that her puppet chief minister does everything as she would, there is a vast difference between a strong leader running the state and one who does so by proxy. 

To compound matters, there is the utter dearth of any sort of viable alternatives within any of the other parties, including the DMK, who will probably continue to enjoy Karunanidhi’s vice-like grip. And if he ever moves on, we shall see the rule of his son, Stalin, and we shall see the same brand of politics being perpetuated. Then there are the MDMK and DMDK - “sideshow parties” that nobody has ever taken seriously enough and whose politics seem more about comic relief than anything else.

So while this judgment is definitely a victory for the rule of law, it might also have just ushered in one of the darkest periods in Tamil Nadu’s history.

Captain to the rescue? Sure, out of the dosa pan and into the fire!

Rudra Krishna is a lawyer and animal rights activist from Chennai. He is also the author of 'Onus of Karma', published by Penguin.