The revolutionary leader (‘Puratchi Thalaivi’ in Tamil) is dead and thereby springs a revolution. 
The images could not have been starker. Tamil film’s heart-throb and upcoming politician Jayalalitha (spelt with just one ‘a’ at the end) was sitting beside the body of her mentor, long-time hero and Tamil Nadu chief minister M G Ramachandran (MGR) in a flower-decked truck that was about to take the matinee idol on his last journey. 
Suddenly a few strong arms grab her by the hand and pull her down from the truck. Jayalalitha was seen as the ‘other woman’ in MGR’s life and a section of his admirers felt she had no place in the cortege of their idol.
That was December 1987. Cut to December 2016. The ‘other woman’ became ‘Puratchi Thalaivi’ Jayalalithaa, with an extra ‘a’ because of her belief in numerology, and five-time chief minister of Tamil Nadu. As she lay in state at Chennai’s Rajaji Hall last week, much of the focus was on the other woman who was beside Jayalalithaa’s body, Sashikala Natarajan. 
No, there were no dramatic scenes of 1987 of pulling and pushing, perhaps in the same manner as there were no riots and self-immolations as had happened in the wake of MGR’s death.
Supporters of demonetisation would want us to believe it was the lack of hard cash to fund rioters that had kept the hoodlums at bay but that will take some convincing.
But the whispers were loud enough to be heard all over India; what will happen to the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) that was nurtured into an all-conquering political machine, first by MGR and then by Jayalalithaa? 
If the scenes of the two burials were stark in their differences, so is the irony of the situation in which the party sees itself presently. 
The Dravidar Kazhagam (DK), the fountainhead of the AIADMK, was founded by social reformer E V Ramasamy in 1944. The DK itself was an offshoot of the Justice Party whose raison d’etre was the fight of the lower caste Hindus, to which Ramasamy belonged, against the hegemony of the upper classes, especially the more educated and elite Brahmins.
Just five years after its formation, C N Annadurai broke away from the DK and founded the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK). For 20 years Annadurai was the unquestioned leader of the DMK but his death in 1969 set the ball rolling for the eventual fallout of two of the party’s stalwarts, Muthuvel Karunanidhi and MGR. In 1972 MGR broke away from the DMK and ingeniously added the ‘Anna’ prefix to the party to form the AIADMK.
All these ‘kazhagams’ maintained their anti-upper caste Hindu ideology but the AIADMK, curiously, was led by two upper caste Hindus. MGR was a Nair from Kerala’s Palakkad district while Jayalalithaa was an Iyengar from Mandya district in Karnataka, both communities are considered upper caste in their respective states.
The going was good for the AIADMK as long as these two upper caste Hindus were at the helm of the party. The Tamils, along with the Sikhs and the Marathas, are perhaps the most fiercely proud sub-nationalists in India but, ironically, their major political party was led by two people who by birth were not Tamilians. 
Both MGR and Jayalalithaa had maintained larger-than-life personas, mainly thanks to their movie roles. But now with the lower castes getting their first shot at leading the party after 44 years, the AIADMK is in such a crisis that, if not handled with equanimity, could end up in yet another breakup.
All sorts of rumours are floating around Chennai as well as in the national capital these days; and so are the questions about the role that Sashikala will have in the party. Is she the ‘natural’ heir of Jayalalithaa’s position and power, not to mention her vast estate, as Jayalalithaa was to MGR’s? 
Just because she had been living with the deceased chief minister for three decades or more, is she entitled to all that Jayalalithaa possessed? Jayalalithaa herself had described Sashikala’s role as nothing more than a glorified major-domo. 
For a person who had disowned her husband, children and all other relatives just to be with the chief minister, why did she permit all these people to hover around Jayalalithaa’s body as it lay in state? 
Last, but not the least, what happens if Sashikala takes the reins of the party but is eventually convicted in the disproportionate assets case in which the Supreme Court has reserved judgment more than six months ago? Legal experts are baffled why the Supreme Court should take such an extraordinarily long time to pass judgment.
Speculation is also rife what role Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) will play in Tamil Nadu politics in the days to come. Modi’s Information and Broadcasting Minister Venkaiah Naidu, who had camped in Chennai after Jayalalithaa’s condition took a turn for the worse, is on record saying the AIADMK is closest to the BJP in ideology.
Modi’s visit to Chennai to pay homage to the departed leader witnessed some poignant moments when he consoled both Sashikala and new Chief Minister Ottakara Paneerselvam. Sashikala was also seen introducing her husband Natarajan to Modi, leaving many to wonder why the man who was thrown out of Jayalalithaa’s home was getting such prominence even before her body was laid to rest.
Paneerselvam’s elevation to the chief minister’s post seemed to suggest there is truce within the party, however temporary, but Sashikala and her entourage could be more interested in controlling the party. Paneerselvam is not exactly known for his independent views or out-of-the-box initiatives and Sashikala must be hoping that the party, under her, could hold the reins of the government by proxy. They already have a template in the Sonia Gandhi-Manmohan Singh era.
Modi could help steer the shaky ship from afar, and thereby try and get a foothold for the BJP in Tamil Nadu, but Sashikala’s rise to party leadership is bound to create tension within the AIADMK, a situation that could well suit rival DMK to make its move to break the ruling party. 
Jayalalithaa had maintained she did not believe in nurturing a successor because she felt every occasion throws up its own chosen one. For the sake of the AIADMK and, more importantly, for the sake of Tamil Nadu, one must hope her words come true. But as things stand today, a revolt and a split could well be the outcome.


Red card for 
the Speaker   
All of India is talking about demonetisation, except of course the people who are paid to do so – its elected members of parliament.
For three weeks both houses of parliament have been at a standstill because of protests and counter-protests, the subject being demonetisation. The cost of Rs90mn per day is only one loss, but it is the tax payer’s money which is being profligately spent by the MPs.
Perhaps for the first time in its history, the Indian parliament also witnessed agitation by the Treasury benches, a clear case of the fence eating the crop. Veteran parliamentarian and BJP stalwart Lal Krishna Advani wondered aloud: “Who is running the house?”
In the midst of all this, two persons seemed to take no part of it at all – the presiding officers of the two houses.
Now, if you are an umpire or a referee in a cricket or football match, what do you do when you see blatantly unruly behaviour by players? You warn them once or even twice before sending them off to cool their heels on the side-lines.
The presiding officers – the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman – are empowered to do far more than your ordinary referee/umpire. And what do they do in the present instance? They simply adjourn the respective houses endlessly. 
In all these days of mayhem, only once did one hear a warning given to one of the members when Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman Pallath Joseph Kurien named Congress member Pramod Tiwari and told him that action would be taken against him if he didn’t behave. Thereafter Tiwari was on his best behaviour.
The Speaker and the Chairman can ask a member to be physically thrown out of the house if need be. They can suspend any/all unruly members. They can deny the salaries and perks of any/all members. They can do even more, adjourn the house sine die. 
Nothing of that sort has happened till date. This is democracy at its worst and the presiding officers in the temple of democracy have been found wanting. Really sorry state of affairs.