CHENNAI: Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam’s twin victories in Madurantakam and Dharapuram came as no surprise, but the scale of the wins fell short of the landslide its leadership had promised. The Oct 6 bypolls proved that wresting the two seats from the AIADMK was no cakewalk, despite an intensive campaign by chief minister C Joseph Vijay, who took to the skies in a helicopter and the roads to reach voters in the two constituencies. The wins raised TVK’s strength in the Tamil Nadu assembly from 107 to 109, but the margins offered little evidence of the sweeping mandate the party had sought.Vijay left little to chance during the campaign, travelling through dozens of villages and making unscheduled stops to connect with voters. He rode a bullock cart, drove a tractor, plucked drumsticks and sipped tea with locals at roadside stalls. Yet, the final tally fell short of the expectations set by the party’s second-rung leaders Aadhav Arjuna and K A Sengottaiyan, who had predicted victory margins of up to one lakh votes in Madurantakam and around 75,000 in Dharapuram.In the April assembly election, TVK polled 61,090 votes in Madurantakam, finishing around 7,000 votes behind the AIADMK despite contesting without allies. This time, it entered the fray with the backing of its former allies, VCK, Congress, IUML and MDMK, under the Secular Social Justice Victory Alliance. PMK’s decision not to support any party also worked to TVK’s advantage. A shift in a section of vanniyar votes, along with support from the VCK’s traditional vote base, helped strengthen its position in the multi-cornered contest.These advantages, however, did not translate into the emphatic victories the TVK leadership had projected. Vijay had urged voters to deliver a historic mandate, while Aadhav Arjuna had publicly forecast a one-lakh-vote margin in Madurantakam. Leaders of the alliance partners joined the campaign for TVK candidate Maragatham Kumaravel. The results, while delivering both seats, exposed the gap between the party’s expectations and its actual electoral performance.“TVK won both seats, but missed a landslide. The victory was not impressive,” said political commentator Tharasu Shyam.DMK, though defeated, emerged with a political gain of its own. After finishing third in the April election, it moved to second place in both constituencies, demonstrating its organisational strength against the ruling party and Vijay’s star appeal. The party deployed micro-level campaigning, with functionaries reaching out to small groups of 30 to 50 voters, while attacking Vijay and TVK over the political defections that triggered the bypolls. DMK candidate I Paranthaman’s suitcase campaign sought to portray TVK’s induction of former AIADMK MLAs as horse-trading, alleging that defectors had switched sides for money.The performance offered DMK an opportunity to assert its position as the principal opposition, both inside and outside the assembly. The party could take some satisfaction from contesting without long-time allies such as VCK and still finishing ahead of AIADMK.AIADMK emerged as the biggest loser. Having won both constituencies in April, it slipped to third place in the bypolls, reducing its assembly strength from 47 to 45. The defeats could embolden rebel factions and encourage TVK to step up efforts to attract AIADMK functionaries and cadres, further weakening the party’s organisation. They also deal a blow to general secretary Edappadi K Palaniswami and could give fresh ammunition to rival power centres led by former ministers C Ve Shanmugam and S P Velumani, intensifying pressure on the party leadership.
