Sometime in the 12th century BC, the Trojans opened the impenetrable gates of the city of Troy to usher in a massive wooden horse offered by the Greeks as a token of peace to end the ten-year war.
Once the horse was wheeled in, Greek warriors emerged from its belly. The rest is history.
The ancient tale of deceit seems to be repeating itself in Tamil Nadu, as C Joseph Vijay’s TVK welcomes former AIADMK ministers and functionaries into its fold.
Many of them could be Trojan horses, carrying allegations of corruption and the potential to poison a party that came to power on the promise of clean politics.
In that sense, if TVK loses its unblemished image – and probably its grip on power – the credit should go to AIADMK general secretary Edappadi K Palaniswami.
For months, disgruntled AIADMK functionaries have accused EPS of running the party like a one-man show. They say decisions are centralised, dissent is unwelcome, and electoral setbacks are brushed aside rather than introspected.
The complaints have grown louder after the party’s successive assembly election defeats. Beneath these complaints lies another reality: many no longer see a political future in a party reduced to third place in the assembly.
This may look like the disintegration of AIADMK, but it is as much an impending crisis for Vijay. Every time an AIADMK heavyweight walks into TVK, cameras flash, bouquets are exchanged, and speeches about “new beginnings” follow. But political baggage does not disappear at the Panaiyur entrance.
Vijay did not build his political brand on experience. He built it on the promise of being different. His pitch was refreshingly uncomplicated: clean politics, clean faces, and a clean break from the old order. The more veterans with questionable reputations join TVK, the blurrier that distinction becomes.
And, ironically, the man responsible for this transformation may be sitting in the AIADMK headquarters.
This is not the first time EPS has faced a crisis of control. When AIADMK plunged into chaos after J Jayalalithaa’s death in 2016, many analysts predicted fragmentation of the party and the fall of the govt.
Yet EPS quietly proved everyone wrong. He outlasted rebellions, kept legislators together, completed the govt’s full term, and emerged as the undisputed leader of the party.
It was arguably the finest phase of his political career. But politics rarely rewards yesterday’s victories indefinitely. Electoral defeats gradually eroded EPS’s aura.
Those who stayed through difficult years now appear increasingly willing to seek political futures elsewhere. The exodus is no longer merely about ambition; it reflects declining confidence in the leadership’s ability to revive the party.
For Vijay, this influx poses a challenge that he appears reluctant to acknowledge. Every senior entrant expects influence, organisational authority and, eventually, electoral tickets.
Many of these former AIADMK ministers have spent decades exercising power. They are unlikely to settle for ceremonial positions while first-generation TVK workers call the shots.
Sooner or later, someone will ask an uncomfortable question: who owns TVK — those who founded it or those who found it convenient to join later? Growth and expansion are essential for any political movement aspiring to govern.
But there is a difference between broadening a coalition and diluting an identity. Edappadi Palaniswami may not have defeated TVK at the ballot box; he may have sent enough former colleagues to do the job from within.
Disclaimer
Views expressed above are the author’s own.
