Besting the Karunanidhi-Indira Alliance
by Sachi Sri Kantha, September 10, 2025
Exchanged comments with R. Kannan
Comments received from Kannan, for Part 82, by mail of June 25th were as follows’
“You have skillfully employed the Kalki cartoons and write-ups from Kalki, Economic and Political Weekly, and India Today. Muhammad Ali’s visit and the AIADMK deserters made the reading enjoyable. It is unclear to me how someone who rises because of a leader leaves him/her and joins his opponent without any qualms. In the current 35-member M.K. Stalin’s [Tamil Nadu] cabinet, eight ministers are erstwhile AIADMK men.”
My response to Kannan’s observation, sent by mail the following day was this.
“Your point of party-hopping is well taken. But, as far as DMK and Anna DMK were concerned during the MGR- Karunanidhi period of 45 years ago, Tamil Nadu politicians didn’t see a difference between the ideals between the parties. It was the same. But, between DMK and Congress, or DMK and BJP – the ideals are different. Now, politics is simply understood as a business or trade of money grabbing from public funds, under various ruses. It has come down to this, not only in India – but also in other nations.
Kalki cartoon (May 11, 1980) – Dr Hande as a charging virile bull aiming Karunanidhi
After I completed Part 82, I realized that ‘a vacancy’ was created for Jayalalitha’s entry into ADMK. During MGR’s first tenure (1977-79), MGR didn’t have Jayalalitha. He was grooming the careers of P.T. Saraswathi and Subbulakshmi Jegadeesan, by offering Cabinet posts. And he also promoted old hand Sathyavani Muthu as Central govt. Cabinet minister. As Saraswathi and Subbulakshmi, did unexpected flips in 1980, they ‘opened up the space’ for Jayalalitha, and she crept in willingly because her movie career had folded in 1980. Kannadasan, in his 1977 short critical booklet on MGR, had passingly mentioned, that ‘only P.T. Saraswathi had close access to MGR’.”
To my response, Kannan sent his expanded thoughts, as follows:
“My point about switching parties was more about showing gratitude and loyalty to one’s mentor, and how, after enjoying the benefits of that loyalty, one can easily shift to the mentor’s political or even personal rival. None of these people would have been anybody without MGR or, for that matter, even Karunanidhi – for instance, Valampuri John, whom Karunanidhi sent to the Rajya Sabha or Maya Thevar, a little-known lawyer who became nationally known after MGR fielded him in Dindigul and got him elected.
No party, apart from the communists and the BJP, has any concrete programme or policy in India.
Additionally, regarding the women ministers in MGR’s cabinet, I am unsure whether P.T. Saraswathi was close to MGR. She may have had access. She was one of the first to ditch him and move to Congress (I) Party, and then she became history.
Jayalalithaa told Junior Vikatan in 1984 that she wished to join the AIADMK, but in other interviews, she claims MGR wanted her to join. It could be both, in my view. MGR knew he was getting old and needed a charismatic figure to draw crowds. Initially, curious womenfolk came to see their leader’s mistress, but over time, Jaya built an independent following as the only anti-Karunanidhi force.”
I agree with Kannan’s views to the dot. Actress Jayalalitha’s entry into Anna DMK will be covered later. In May 1980, she was NOT an issue at all.
Kalki cartoon (June 15, 1980) – Indira inviting MGR, over the face of Karunanidhi standing in the room
MGR’s game strategy
How MGR moved his pawns to tackle the Karunanidhi-Indira alliance to face the May 1980 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly elections and succeeded, remains a puzzle. Who were MGR’s chief political advisors, following the defection of his then nominal number 2 – Nanjil K Manoharan, and five other Cabinet ministers? How did he choose the candidates for constituencies? Akin to his movie screen duels with villains, what particular criteria he focused on to blunt the force of his powerful rivals in DMK and Indira Congress? Biographers of MGR (Kannan) and Karunanishi (Panneerselvan) do offer brief perspectives.
Now 45 years later, I have two documents for comparison; a negative evaluation by an anonymous journalist for India Today fortnightly, and a positive evaluation by poet Kannadasan, who knew MGR’s traits intimately. Contents of both documents are revealing. Rather than condensing what they had written, I provide the complete text of both documents in full, for historical record. Kannadasan’s thoughts was in Tamil, which is translated into English below.
A Negative Evaluation on MGR: India Today commentary [May 1, 1980]
“To M.G. Ramachandran (MGR), the pouchy-eyed, 63 year old movie star who streaked across the political firmament of Tamil Nadu like a meteor, all the world was a stage. Today, he is playing Julius Caesar and getting stabbed by a legion of Brutuses who are deserting his party, the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) in droves since he is no longer in power.
A sizeable chunk of his Cabinet – Nanjil Manoharan, Soundarapandian, G.R. Edmund, K. Narayanaswani Mudaliyar, Subblakshmi Jagadessand and P.T. Saraswathi – have left for greener pastures. His brain trust, Aravinda Bala Pazhanoor, who was an AIADMK representative in the Charan Singh Cabinet, has also quit the party. Most of them have betrayed MGR for his arch foe, M. Karunanidhi’s Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) from which he had broken away in 1972.
Their common complaint is that MGR ‘continuously insulted, ignored, and humiliated’ his colleagues, treated them like clerks, and kept them under surveillance. Perhaps MGR cannot be blamed for this – most of them used to reverentially refer to him in their public speeches as ‘the god of our hearts’ and ‘my beloved leader’.
But betrayal by errant party men is not his only woe. Like in many of his movies, MGR today stands on the edge of a dangerous precipice, fighting for survival with the Assembly elections only a month away. Unfortunately, the odds are stacked against him because in real life he cannot vet the script. Like his ascent to power on the crest of a popular wave in 1977 with all the trappings of a 70 mm extravaganza, his fall less than three years later during the recent parliamentary elections when his party could secure only two of the 39 parliamentary seats from Tamil Nadu was equally spectacular.
Once of his last chances of making a comeback was a breakdown in the Congress (I)-DMK alliance, which at one stage of the horse-trading seemed a distinct possibility. But with Mrs Gandhi declaring that Karunanidhi would become the chief minister if their alliance triumphed in the polls, their pact is now firmly sealed. On the other hand, the Janata Party, irked by his megalomania has broken its alliance with the AIADMK. He is now trying to ally with the Lok Dal, the Congress (U), the two communist parties and various splinter groups.
The AIADMK is, however, putting up a brave front. Said the mustachioed, school masterly party General Secretary, V.R. Nedunchezhian: ‘The party will not disintegrate and MGR is bent on avenging the dismissal of his government’. And as an after thought, he adds: ‘MGR is a totally different man today.’
MGR’s downfall can be traced to his playing the Hamlet while he was chief minister of the state with a population of 47 million. His paranoia of corruption and theatrical obsession with upholding what he thought were ‘principles’ made him an ineffective chief minister.
Said a civil servant who had once worked with MGR: ‘He was only concerned with corruption and suspected a pile of black money under every bed. He didn’t trust his ministers and centralized powers. Finally, he couldn’t take any decisions because he was afraid that somewhere along the line there might be room for corruption. People didn’t want corruption but they needed a government that worked.’
Despite all this, Karunanidhi was able to bring before the state legislature several charges of corruption against the MGR government involving bus permits and purchase of ships. While Karunanidhi had been indicted by the Sarkaria Commission of inquiry as a result of MGR’s crusade, he at least had some results to show, like the ambitious slum clearance project.
MGR alienated almost all sections of the population by his manic zeal. Even though women supported prohibition, they were left aghast by the draconian laws which filled the jails with thousands of tipplers till an amnesty had to be declared for them to take room for other criminals. He also alienated students, teachers, farmers, industrial workers and policemen with this rigid stance that finally crumbled, anyway, in the face of popular fury.
MGR is now touring the districts intensively, listening to his cadres and trying to mend fences with leaders of the various sections whom he had once alienated. He is trying to get the sympathies of the people by harping on the claim that his government was ‘unjustly dismissed’. The recent alleged attempt on his life may also get him some sympathy.
His trump card in operation comeback is films. He is working overtime to finish some of his films in time for the elections. One of them is Ithuthan en pathil (This is my reply) which is supposed to be his political message and testament. But during his three years’ absence from the dream factory that is Tamil cinema a new crop of young actors has hogged the limelight, and Tamil cinema has gained a touch of realism that was not there in his heyday. Consequently, he finds himself an outsider and except for his cronies, producers are not willing to bet on him.
Voters of Tamil Nadu who defeated MGR as swiftly as they brought him to power always spring a surprise at the polls. Now it is to be seen what sort of a script they will write for MGR at the Assembly poll – whether like King Lear he will fail in his bid to avenge his fall or like Prospero regain his dukedom.”
****
Sprinkled with Shakespearean character allusions (Hamlet, King Lear and Prospero), this negative evaluation on MGR’s first tenure by an anonymous analyst appears now as an exercise of futility. This analyst probably saved his/her reputation by remaining anonymous, for crudely describing MGR as suffering from megalomania while his political opponents from Janata Party as well as DMK/Congress Party were immune to such a malaise. One could also infer that the Tamil Nadu voters in 1980 were more clear-headed in choosing MGR’s leadership, in preference to that of his political foes – Karunanidhi or R. Venkataraman/Karuppiah Moopanar alliance. Statistics provided in Table 1 comparing the 1977 and 1980 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly elections (presented in a PDF file nearby) indicate that Janata Party contesting 95 constituencies in 1980 could only win two (percent vote share 2.77%)! By contesting 177 constituencies, AIADMK won in 129 (percent vote share was 38.75%).
The dictionary defines megalomania as ‘insanity of self-exaltation, passion for grandiose things’. The 1980 election results proved that the leaders of DMK, Indira Congress Party and Janata Party became the sufferers from megalomania. MGR knew where he stood with the voters of Tamil Nadu. This was indeed the assessment of poet Kannadasan.
A Positive Evaluation on MGR: Kannadasan commentary [April, 1980]
The nomination day for the election was on April 25, 1980, Friday. Kannadasan had met MGR on April 27th Sunday. Here is what he wrote about his meeting with MGR.
I translate the complete text below.
“He is energetic. Smiling face. With self confidence and active. Compared to earlier days, he has polish.
He had returned to Chennai after submitting his candidacy papers at Madurai. I was not surprised when I met him today (Sunday) at Arkadu Muthali street. He talked with me for 90 minutes. I noted his brimming self confidence.
It’s reasonable. All over Tamil Nadu, there is sympathy for him. The debate of the poor folks was ‘We wished Indira’s return, but were against MGR’s dismissal’. Wherever they talk ‘Indira at Delhi; for our village, it’s MGR’. He had returned after hearing these sentiments from the populace, and realized that these folks do respect simple courtesy. Those who deserted him also couldn’t specifically point out any particular accusation.
Since the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly, until yesterday I didn’t meet MGR. Reason: That he had missed an alliance with Indira Congress, was a blow for me. But, how can I forget the love he showed to me, and the hate I expressed on him?
He believes that Anna DMK party will get 135 seats. I also think so. [Tamil Nadu] Folks have learnt how to vote. Thus, it’s not difficult to guess their mental frame. Like in Bengal or in Kerala, the situation of offering 10 for one party and another 10 for another party do not prevail in Tamil Nadu. To optimally choose one particular party for majority seems the pattern here.
In administrative execution ability, MGR may not be a Churchill. But, in estimating the mood of the populace, he had always won. With me, he didn’t bother talking about political issues. On the contrary, he did offer advice to my son Kalaivanan for an hour. As Kalaivanan had become a cinema actor, MGR performed some ‘asanas’ [yoga elements] on his own, to maintain body fitness. As one who had been in the art field for half a century, how MGR could maintain such a body frame, did surprise my son. Even though the election related activities were in full swing, MGR didn’t care about it. He advised my son: ‘You cannot maintain your body with meat and fish only. You need to take a lot of leaf varieties.’ In between, he was answering the phone calls calmly. The group who was funding his campaign was waiting for him.
I didn’t see a Madurai Veeran, Mannathi Mannan, Raja Desingu or Nadodi Mannan. [Note by Sachi: all four were MGR movies for which Kannadasan had written the dialogues.] But I was meeting a great individual who carried peoples’ trust. There were times, he had told ‘If it’s to be written, only Kannadsan should write’. And there were also times, ‘Kannadasan should not write’. But, I have not met anyone, like how he had appreciated my verses.
His policy has been ‘If a rival, let him be a rival; if a pal, let him be a pal.’ But, he never back stabs anyone, while calling him as a pal. Current political environment seems favorable to him. Reason: His Cabinet has been dismissed without citation of any charge sheets.
To one of his movie, I wrote the dialogue [for him]: ‘There are some who went bad, without trusting me. But none exist among those who trusted me.’ This is being revealed now. Those who deserted him have become address-less. Those who trusted him do expect good times.
His horoscope is devilish. He seems like falling. But, he’d stand up. He had never met a long term fall. Tamilians recognize him as only a Tamil. Folks don’t believe that either he belongs to another ethnic group or that his hands are corrupted in the ship purchase deals.
This election comes when folks have gained political clarity. Manifestos, colorful wall posters and stage propaganda blasts were simple election period activities. Folks do not vote believing such ephemera.
That MGR had chosen Madurai as his constituency, which is noted for Communist vote bloc, Mukkulathor [Three clans – Thevar community] bloc and Nedumaran. When it came for a decision ‘either Indira or MGR’, folks chose Indira. When it comes to ‘either MGR or DMK?’ – Let’s wait and see.”
MGR and his Party candidates
Kannadasan had informed (prior to the voting day), that MGR believed his party would win 135 seats. Kannadasan also agreed with this estimation. The election results showed that, MGR’s estimate missed his count by less than 6 (see, Table 1). This was within the margin of error. How did MGR achieve this victory against the Karunanidhi-Indira Gandhi alliance?
Here is my evaluation, after 45 years. In India and the so-called democratic countries, where elections and public voting are considered as the gold standard for popularity of leaders, almost all the politicians promote themselves as ‘leaders’. But to achieve the status of a ‘leader’, one should have ‘followers’ as well. Without followers, none can achieve the status of a ‘leader’. Majority among politicians indulge in self-promotion and delude themselves as a ‘leader’ but never had ‘followers’ behind them. The best known examples are Subramanian Swamy in Tamil Nadu, and V. Anandasangaree in Eelam. Another category of political leaders form a vanity party and contest ONLY one election, and when the next election comes around within few years, the newly formed party would lose its luster and remain only as an empty shell. Followers would have deserted the party and the leader wholesale. This had happened in Tamil Nadu and elsewhere, to movie actors who promoted themselves as the ‘MGR of next generation’.
When he was a neophyte to politics as the leader of a breakaway party from DMK, MGR could win the general election within 5 years of establishing his party in 1977. Three years later, even after half a dozen of his Cabinet members and those who held elite positions deserted him for selfish reasons, MGR did prove that he had the ‘leadership’ mettle, and did have real followers.
This was clearly indicated, by the candidates MGR approved for the 1980 Legislative Assembly elections. Among the 177 chosen as candidates of Anna DMK party, 129 were winners. Detailed analysis of the performance of these 177 Anna DMK party candidates are revealed in five specific categories.
Category 1: 41 candidates contested the same constituency in which they were elected in 1977 and won again.
Category 2: 2 candidates contested a different constituency in 1980 and won again. MGR also belonged to this mini-group.
Category 3: 6 candidates contested the same constituency in which they lost in 1977, and lost again.
Category 4: 9 candidates contested the same constituency they won in 1977, but lost in 1980.
Category 5: 8 candidates contested the same constituency they lost in 1977, but won in 1980.
Table 2 MGRs Anna DMK party’s 129 candidates elected in the 1980 Tamil Nadu Assembly Election
Thus, cumulatively 66 among the 1977 Anna DMK slate of 200 were repeat candidates in 1980 slate of 177. These 66 can be identified as ‘real’ foot soldiers of MGR’s leadership, in fair and foul weather. It is far easier to join a well-established ruling party after 10 years, and capture top slot, like what MGR’s successor Jayalalitha achieved subsequently in post-MGR period. But credit should go to these 66 individuals who accepted MGR’s leadership in 1972, labored harder to set the foundation stones and expand party’s voter base in the first 8 years of its existence. They also deserve recognition for posterity, because only those who deserted MGR had received coverage in the newsmedia (see above, the India Today, May 1, 1980). Table 3 (provided as pdf file) identify the names of candidates belonging to all five categories. Among the 5 categories, six individuals in Category 3 couldn’t enter the portals of the Legislative Assembly, despite two attempts. Their names (and the particular constituencies they contested) are as follows: G. Krishnaswamy (Gingee), M. Deivigam (Rishivandiam), C. Periasamy (Coonoor), Asokan alias Karuppiah (Ariyalur), Bala Velayutham (Mayuram) and P. Ponnambalam (Thirumayam). I don’t have any information about how MGR compensated for their loyalty to the party.
A special category among Anna DMK party candidates were ‘new entrants’ in 1980, who received party tickets.
From DMK party: V.R. Nedunchezhiyan, K. Rajaram, actor S.S. Rajendran and P.U. Shunmugam. All four were senior leaders of DMK and had legislative experience in the state assembly previously. Except P.U. Shunmugam, other three won their constituencies.
From Indian National Congress party: S.D. Ugamchand and D. Ramasami. Both were Congress Party rebel politicians; they did NOT receive ticket from that party for the 1980 election. As they were locally popular, MGR prudently included them, and both posted victories for Anna DMK.
From Swatantra Party: Dr. H.V. Hande, a seasoned ex-legislator was accommodated into Anna DMK party ticket as a stealth candidate to target DMK leader Karunanidhi’s campaigning mobility during election period. Outcome: Karunanidhi could only scrape through a whisker thin majority of only 699 vote margin. Please check the Kalki cartoon of May 11, 1980, presented nearby. In the Anna Nagar constituency (#8) Karunanidhi polled 51,290 (48.97%), to exceed Hande’s count of 50,591 (48.31%).
Results and Analysis
87 among the 129 Anna DMK’s winning candidates had received more than 50.0% of vote share. Among these, six candidates representing Vellakoil, Bhavani, Tirupparankundram, Vedasandur, Vedaranyam and Sivakasi collected over 60.0% of the polled votes. MGR, standing at Madurai West constituency (#142) missed the 60% mark by a fraction, by receiving 59.61% of the votes.
Vote details for Madurai West constituency were as follows:
Electors 152,756; Voters 96,495; Poll percentage 63.17%; Valid votes 95,646.
M.G. Ramachandran (ADMK) 57,019 (59.61%)
Pon Muthuramalingam (DMK) 35,953 (37.59%)
A.C.Kamaraj (Janata Party) 2,178 (2.28%)
Myandi (Ind) 130 (0.14%)
K.U.Subburasu (Ind) 124 (0.13%)
V.M.S.Velsamy Nadar (Ind) 123 (0.13%)
J.S. Krishnan (Ind) 119 (0.12%)
With the exit of Nanjil K. Manoharan, there is evidence that MGR probably relied on the counsel of senior DMK leaders V.R. Nedunchezhian and K. Rajaram for candidate selection and election strategy. As recorded by Kannan and Paneerselvan, the adopted strategy was to pin down the leading DMK figures (Karunanidhi, Anbhazagan and Sadiq Paksha, as well as deserter Nanjil Manoharan) to their constituencies in Chennai localities by pitting them with strong personalities from the Anna DMK camp. Karunanidhi against Dr H.V.Hande at Anna Nagar (constituency #8), K.Anbhazagan against Valampuri John at Purasawalkam (constituency #6), and S.J. Sadiq Paksha against K.A. Krishnaswamy at Thousand Lights (constituency #10). While Karunanidhi scraped through for his victory, Anbhazhagan (DMK’s then No.2) was able to win by a vote margin of 5,708, by polling 52,729 votes (52,35%), Sadiq Paksha (holding DMK’s then Treasurer position) lost by a whisker of vote margin 307. One never knows what was the sentiments of MGR, when the results of Mylapore (constituency #13) was announced. His candidate T. K. Kapali had defeated the deserter Nanjil Manoharan by a vote margin of 3,316! Among the seven prominent defectors from Anna DMK, only Manoharan was given a ticket from DMK party and he lost.
MGR’s camp was also helped by the personality conflicts that arose between the DMK – Congress Party alliance. This had been summed up apttly in a two page post-election analysis that appeared in the Economic and Political Weekly. It was captioned, ‘Odd Man Out’. This indeed was a left handed compliment to MGR’s standing in Tamil Nadu. Excerpts from a few paragraphs in the 2nd page are given below:
“Fighting with his back to the wall, MGR must only have been heartened at the dissensions that developed in the enemy camp. Talks on seat sharing between DMK and Congress (I) suddenly ground to a hald over the issue of Chief Ministership. It was obvious that Indira Gandhi must have promised the chair to Karunanidhi during the discussions on the last poll itself in return for a majority of seats in the Lok Sabha. Even so, she baulked at a public affirmation of this and allowed her Tamil Nadu unit to twist Karunanidhi’s arm, in order to keep the issue open till the elections were over. Karunanidhi who had already given 50 percent seats to the Congress (I), to the chagrin of his partymen, had yielded enough. He held his ground with such determination that the lady spoke at last and granted him his wish.
Once this was done, the apportioning of constituencies between the two parties took place fairly smoothly, but when it came to selecting candidates the going was a lot rougher for both parties….
It became an open secret that those who had enough leverage to reach the ears of Sanjay Gandhi got the seat – and those usually happened to be the more moneyed and connected among the rival claimants. The bitterness this generated led to serious clashes in several places, and in the end rebel candidates filed their nominations in more than 25 percent of the constituencies. One such, Dorai Ramaswamy, from Vellakoil constituency, had been with Congress (I) through thick and thin and was popular among its cadre, but was passed over in favour of a landed tycoon who had at best been a fair weather friend of the party. MGR promptly allotted Ramaswamy his party’s symbol and the latter trounced his Congress (I) rival by the second biggest margin in the election.”
In his memoirs, Karunanidhi had pointed accusing fingers on ploys executed by R. Venkataraman, the then Union Finance Minister, for attempting to increase the victory opportunities of Congress (I) candidates, at the expense of DMK candidates, though both parties were in an alliance. Karunanidhi also had indicated that ‘the one in a responsible Ministerial rank at the Center’ [i.e,, Venkataraman] also arranged funding via a Chennai industry source to Anna DMK candidate (i.e., Dr. H.V. Hande) to defeat him, at Anna Nagar constituency. According to Karunanidhi, the Congress Party leaders in Tamil Nadu functioned with the thoughts that, suppose Congress tally happened to be higher than that of DMK, they could claim the chief minister rank.
To continue with the ‘Odd Man Out’ report of the Economic and Political Weekly,
“Why was the alliance defeated in the polls? Why did it experience a 12 percent swing away within such a short period? Was it due to rising prices? Or the unjustified dismissal of the MGR government? Or people’s disapproval of coalition government? Or, the naming of Karunanidhi as the Chief Minister? Or the mis-match between Congress (I) and DMK?
MGR called it a vote for stability in the state even as the January verdict was a vote for stability in the Centre. Indira Gandhi blamed it on the naming of Karunanidhi as the Chief Minister. Karunanidhi – who himself managed to scrape through by a mere 699 votes – would only say that it was ‘neither necessary nor desirable to go into the reasons for defeat.’ One thing must be recognized: the results have something to do with the image projected by MGR that he was a changed man, cinema hero style. It had also to do with the national swing of votes away from Congress (I), even if small….
The final results of the election resemble closely the distribution that existed in the dissolved assembly given in brackets: – AIADMK 129 (126); DMK 38 (49); Congress (I) 30 (27): CPI(M) 11 (12); CPI 10 (5) and Janata 2 (7). All the splinters and small parties put together secured 12 seats, chiefly in alliance wih the AIADMK.
Much as Indira would have the country belief that her party’s failure was because of Karunanidhi becoming a liability, figures speak otherwise. Both parties contested equal number of seats, 110 each, and it cannot be said that constituency selection was unfavourable to Congress (I); the opposite is more likely the truth. But in the end DMK obtained 38 seats and 22.3 percent of votes against Congress (I)’s 30 seats and 20.7 percent votes. If one of the partners was a drag on the alliance it looks to have been the Congress (I).”
Aftermath
In the aftermath of the elections, it could be said that MGR was relieved, and Karunanidhi would have felt that ‘why on earth, he fumbled into this sort of unwanted alliance with Indira Congress that doomed his reputation as a master strategist’. He would have felt like the hunter who set the trap to bring down a powerful beast, only to have his own leg trapped by his device. The penultimate paragraph in the ‘Odd Man Out’ commentary framed the situation perfectly as follows:
“The DMK-Congress (I) relations are steadily worsening, despite the best efforts of Karunanidhi to shore them up. The two parties will separately in the assembly…Middlemen are busy trying to bring Congress (I) and AiADMK together. MGR has made the right conciliatory noises towards the Centre and has been careful not to rub in the Congress (I) defeat. Addressing a massive thanksgiving meeting he thanked Indira Gandhi for not foisting cases against him ‘even though she has all the powers’. He was also thankful that she had not described him corrupt even after dismissing his government.”
For her part, Indira Gandhi also might have learnt a lesson on the pull MGR carried among Tamil Nadu populace. An apt cartoon that appeared in the Kalki weekly of June 15, 1980 ( presented nearby) said it all. As the cartoon depicts the scene, Indira Gandhi was seated, and one chair is vacant. Karunanidhi is standing with raised hands above the head. MGR is entering the room, with greeting hands in front of chest. Indira says pointing to the vacant chair ‘Is it MGR? Come! Come! Be seated here!’The lips of MGR and Karunanidhi shows a difference. While MGR smiles, Karunanidhi appears wistful!
Cited Sources
Anon: Governor’s whims. India Today, Apr 16, 1980, p. 29.
Anon: A Fallen Idol. India Today, May 1, 1980, p. 34.
Anon: Odd Man Out. Economic and Political Weekly, June 14, 1980, pp. 1042-1044,
Anon: Vetrikku Vazhthu; Tholvikkum Vazhthu.. Kalki, June 15, 1980.
Kannan: MGR – A Life, Penguin Random House India, Gurgaon, Haryana, 2017, 281-286.
Kavignar Kannadasan: Santhithaen Sinthhithaen [I met; I thought], Vanathi Pathipagam, Chennai, 5th ed, 1989, pp. 89-92.
Karunanidhi: Nenjukku Neethi [Justice to the Heart], vol. 3, Thirumagal Nilayam, Chennai, 1997, pp. 398-406.
A.S. Paneerselvan: Karunanidhi – a Life, Penguin Random House India, Gurgaon, Haryana, 2021, pp. 264-266.