The entry of Rajinikanth into politics is just another addition to the depoliticisation of politics in Tamil Nadu. For the longest time, Tamil Nadu politics mostly has been personality-centric, rather than revolving around ideology and collective leadership, which is essential for constructing a fair polity.
Rajini was supposed to enter the political arena in 1996, when his fan clubs reached their zenith. He could have impacted politics at that point and gained more momentum among people. But he delayed his entry by nearly a couple of decades. He reasoned it out, saying he was learning the ground reality. But his speech on Sunday was barely reflective of the same. It had very little specifics about who he was politically. His speech was generic and took a moralistic stand instead.
He said things that a philosopher or a religious leader would have said. He spoke ambiguously of “spiritual politics.” He said that the mantras of the party would be truth, hard work and progress. However, politics is not rooted in mere morals, but in looking at everyday material struggles of people.
Tamil Nadu is a State that is polarised by religion, language, caste and class. It is unclear if Rajini is tolerant to the various segments and if “spiritual politics” translates into secular politics.
While he is yet to explain his religious standpoint, he has not made his political standpoint clear either. He said he will launch a party and contest in all constituencies. The need to start an independent party means that he negates all existing ones, which span left, right and centre politics. Despite this indirect negation, will he join another party a few years down the line?
The question is whether Rajini is powerful enough to cut across all anthropological divides to amass support the way M G Ramachandran did? I doubt it.
MGR’s successful entry into politics cannot entirely be credited to him. His entry was backed by strong ideas on anti-Brahminism and social injustice. Also, beyond ideology, MGR was instigated or rather coerced by Congress into entering politics. Congress could not directly challenge DMK in Tamil Nadu and had to use a divide-and-rule model to bite a slice off the vote bank of DMK.
DMK’s image was strongly intertwined with MGR. His followers had already tasted political power through his fan clubs. No political party, including DMK, could accommodate so many fans with a hunger for power. When MGR decided to walk out of DMK, the fan club members wanted a share of that power and followed suit.
His exit was justified when he opined strongly against family rule and demanded DMK to make their bill books transparent. He publicly asked DMK to declare the source of their funds. Even though the undercurrent was a game played by Congress, MGR had convinced people enough about the need to move away from DMK.
Rajini does not have similar affiliations in public. In 1996, he was influenced by G K Moopanar (Tamil Manila Congress) and DMK. He’d developed an aversion to late Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa, but that was personal.
He can generally be seen as an apolitical person and his advocacy falls in line with it. His opinions are rooted in eye-to-eye morality and individual values but politics is seated in more complex details of democracy and daily struggles. He is platonic.
His sympathy to Anitha’s death after NEET results was similar to Modi sympathising with Rohith Vemula. Both did not attend to the politics of their death. He did not, unlike Kamal Haasan, raise specific issues against the system. When he claims that the existing system is failing, he should provide the alternative while criticising.
In democracy, everybody is welcome into politics, but they should be equipped to deal with real specific problems faced by people and not run on generic morals.
While one cannot predict how far these broad values will get him support, we can only wait to watch if his fan clubs, like MGR’s, have the strength or power to draw him into mainstream politics. Finally, modern democratic party politics is not a Mahabharata drama that calls for the preaching of Bhagavad Gita but requires nuanced understanding of the political economy in our midst.
The author is Assistant Professor, Civil Society and Governance at Madras Institute of Developmental Studies