The conspicuous silence of Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) over the Jana Nayagan controversy has triggered uneasy questions in Tamil Nadu's political circles. Is Vijay's party behaving like an extension of his fan club rather than a serious political outfit? Or is this silence a calculated move to keep its options open with the powers that be in Delhi?
These questions have gained urgency as actor Vijay faces a second round of questioning by the CBI and his much-hyped film Jana Nayagan remains stuck between the courts and the CBFC. The coincidence of these developments has only sharpened scrutiny of TVK's response or the lack of it.
There has been no strong statement questioning the delay in the film's release. No sharp attack on the CBFC. No protest over the non-release of what is projected to be Vijay's final film. Not a single TVK spokesperson has participated in television debates on the Jana Nayagan issue. The party's official stance has been one of studied restraint, explained away with a familiar refrain: "We trust the judicial process."
Beyond routine attacks on the DMK and broad denunciations of communal politics, largely echoing Vijay's speeches, TVK has avoided press conferences, major political interventions, or demonstrations of strategic depth. Even in the immediate aftermath of the tragic Karur stampede, the party retreated into a cocoon. While the DMK set the initial narrative, squarely blaming Vijay and TVK for the tragedy that claimed 41 lives, no party spokesperson stepped forward to counter it.
Eventually, TVK regrouped, pushed back legally, and went to the Supreme Court, forcing the DMK to respond. But in a political climate defined by power asymmetries, this recourse to Delhi also exposed TVK to the perception of vulnerability to the Centre and the BJP.
This marks a shift. While Vijay's early rallies attacked the BJP's communal politics as forcefully as the DMK's dynasty and corruption, post-stampede his primary adversary appears to be the DMK. Though he continues to oppose the BJP ideologically, his tone towards the ruling party at the centre has softened perceptibly.
Ironically, the DMK's ferocious response after the stampede may have backfired. Its relentless attacks on Vijay exposed its nervousness about his political potential and may have nudged him closer to Delhi's power corridors. Since then, subtle signals of support have emerged from both the Congress and the BJP, an unusual convergence that has not gone unnoticed.
TVK has undeniably evolved in some respects. Senior leaders such as Sengottayan have joined from the AIADMK. Electoral strategy committees have been formed. Journalists have been brought in as spokespersons. Yet, when confronted with crises like Karur or Jana Nayagan, the party's instinct remains the same: political silence outside the courtroom.
A narrative of Vijay being targeted by the Centre through the CBFC is steadily building, but it is the Congress that is articulating this argument, not TVK itself. For a party aspiring to power, this is a strange abdication of political space.
Politics is about demonstrating power at the right moment. For a fledgling party in a state dominated by deeply entrenched Dravidian organisations, this is not optional, it is essential. Vijay has repeatedly demonstrated fan power. What his party has yet to demonstrate is political power: grassroots mobilisation, issue-based agitation, and consistent public engagement.
This gap raises an uncomfortable question: does TVK lack a genuine grassroots structure?
The difference between a fan base and an ideologically committed cadre is fundamental. A fan reacts to the star. A political worker reacts to issues, mobilises sentiment, and converts it into votes. Cadres understand local problems and work the ground. Fans do not.
History offers clear lessons. MGR succeeded because he understood and embedded himself in Dravidian political ideology and organisation. Jayalalithaa strengthened that structure. NT Rama Rao rode on an anti-Congress wave and fan fervour to power in 1984, but the Telugu Desam Party learnt and built political structures after its defeat in 1989 and Chandrababu Naidu later built a durable organisation.
In Tamil Nadu, Vijayakanth's DMDK proved to be a third political force with an 8 per cent vote share in its first election in 2006 because it had a strong organisational base, something other actors, including Kamal Hassan, could not achieve.
On issues ranging from Thiruparankundram to broader governance debates, TVK has rarely taken categorical, aggressive positions. Its headquarters has yet to emerge as a fountainhead of ideas, strategy, or political direction. The party still revolves overwhelmingly around Vijay's star power, an unhealthy dependence on electoral politics. Even a respectable vote share may not translate into real impact without committed cadres on the ground.
TVK has also been ambiguous on alliances. Smaller parties may join for a boost from Vijay's fan base, but that may strengthen the allies more than TVK itself.
The party urgently needs to demonstrate grassroots mettle and political mobilisation, and it needs to do so soon. Otherwise, the question will linger: is Vijay's political project still a fan club struggling to evolve into a party?
Whether TVK can make that transition before the elections may well determine not just its future politics, but the course Dravidian politics will take.
(The author is Executive Editor, NDTV)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
