Leader of the Opposition Edappadi K. Palaniswami on Sunday alleged that some “traitors”, in a tacit alliance with the ruling DMK, were attempting to split the AIADMK.
Addressing party cadre, who gave him a rousing welcome near the airport , Mr. Palaniswami said loyal cadre of the AIADMK were upset over the indecorous act of former Chief Minister O. Panneerselvam making a forceful entry into the party headquarters in Chennai and orchestrating violence with a group of hooligans. The AIADMK, which was working for the poor and downtrodden since its inception, was vibrant. None could destablilise the party.
Their dream would never fructify and the cadre would give him (Mr. Panneerselvam) a fitting lesson for having a “tacit understanding” with the DMK, Mr. Palaniswami said without directly naming anybody.
Dismissing the offer of rapprochement by the faction led by Mr. Panneerselvam, he said the question of working again with a person who led hooligans to vandalise “MGR Maligai’ the “revered” party headquarters, break the portraits of leaders, and set fire to valuables did not arise. A person in a position to question the wrongdoers had himself indulged in the unbecoming acts.
“I am not against him. I rose to this position from a cadre. I can visualise the pulse of the cadre. The point is whether he is loyal to the party or not,” Mr. Palaniswami said and added that he had been with the AIADMK since 1974 irrespective of whether the party was in power or not and even during crisis. He had never deviated from his position nor changed colours. But, Mr. Panneerselvam was changing his stand frequently, and betraying the party.
When Ms. Jayalalithaa contested in Bodinaickanur constituency in 1989 after the party split into two factions, Mr. Panneerselvam worked against her and he was the chief agent of actress “Venniraaadai” Nirmala, who was pitted by the rival group against Jayalalithaa. How could he claim that he had been a trusted person to her? Mr. Palaniswami questioned.
He said that when Mr. Panneerselvam returned to the mainstream after a rapprochement in the aftermath of his revolt he had the support of just about 10% of general council members and 11 MLAs. Since several leaders and cadre expressed their intention for rapprochement he was made party coordinator and Deputy Chief Minister. But he had again shown his true colours. He was claiming that he had saved the AIADMK government. But Mr. Panneerselvam actually voted against the government when a confidence motion was moved. How could he claim that he had been loyal to the government and the party.
Launching a scathing attack on the DMK government, Mr. Palaniswami said that it had failed miserably on all forms of governance. It had done nothing except inaugurate schemes introduced by his government. He wondered how Chief Minister M.K. Stalin, who claimed shortage of sufficient funds to implement schemes, could allot ₹80 crore to establish a ‘pen’ monument in honour of his father and late CM M. Karunanidhi.
