We the regional, marginalised people

The Centre’s proposed move to disinvest 10 per cent of the equity of Neyveli Lignite Corporation (NLC) was threatening to become a serious law and order issue—despite the prime minister’s assurance that its employees were to be offered divested shares. The power production in southern states went downhill as workers went on strike.

The 2,400 MW thermal power generated by NLC is the lifeline for the industries in south India when the monsoon is weak. And the disinvestment decision coincided with the bad monsoon period.

It, therefore, became the duty of state government to tackle the issue to maintain order. Chief Minister Dr Kalignar M Karunanidhi said if the Centre did not reconsider its decision, the DMK will be forced to support the government from outside. This was misrepresented by a section of the media as withdrawal of support. The writer, too, misquoted him, saying Dr Karunanidhi had threatened to pull out of UPA over the issue.

A few years ago, as the writer mentioned, the DMK had forced the Vajpayee government to roll back its move to disinvest 100 per cent equity of the Salem Steel Plant.

It is true that the move was shelved when the DMK had lodged its protest. But the public sector steel plant has since come out of the red and is currently taking up Rs 1,500 crore expansion programme.

I would like to emphasise that the DMK has been consistent in opposing any move that went against public opinion— be it from the Vajpayee government or the one headed by Dr Manmohan Singh.

The DMK’s relation with the Centre has always been based on democratic principles. Stray incidents and state-level political agendas have never been allowed to interfere.

Even after Dr Karunanidhi was arrested and the Late Thiru Murasoli Maran and myself—who were Union ministers at the time— detained during Jayalalithaa’s regime, the DMK (which was a constituent of the ruling NDA coalition) did not demand the dismissal of the AIADMK government.

When the 1-yr-old Vajpayee government was facing a trial of strength in Lok Sabha after Jayalalithaa withdrew support, the DMK, which was in the opposition then, extended unconditional support to the government.

It is not without reason that the Late Mrs Indira Gandhi had publicly acknowledged that DMK was a reliable ally but when it decides to oppose on a principle, it will fight tooth and nail.

Describing a political party with nearly a century-old history as “mouse” reflects the mindset of the writer, to whom the phase of coalition politics does not seem palatable. And as for the view that north Indian journalists boast that they do not know what PMK stood for—it only reveals their limited understanding of Tamil Nadu politics.

The Vanniyar social movement, which the PMK had spearheaded from 1984, is part of their struggle for the upliftment of most backward communities.

To refresh the memory of the writer—so she can cast aside her prejudice against the DMK—the Dravidian party has been in the forefront of most national struggles, including the one against Emergency and against the misuse of POTA.

Over 500 DMK leaders—including the Late Thiru Murasoli Maran, Thiru MK Stalin and I—were jailed during the Emergency and the DMK government was dismissed in 1976.

When the NDA government and its Home minister LK Advani failed to fulfill the commitment made in the Parliament—that the provisions of POTA will not be misused against political activists—the DMK withdrew its support to the Vajpayee government.

The party played a key role in the election of VP Singh as the prime minister under the National Front government and H D Deve Gowda and IK Gujral as Prime Ministers under the United Front government.

It declined to accept the Congress demand that its ministers step down temporarily till they were cleared of the charges of involvement in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. The Congress has since revised its stand in this regard and the two parties enjoy cordial relations now.

Regarding the recent tussle between the AIIMS Director and the Union Health Minister Dr Anbumani Ramadoss, the prime minister has rightly backed his cabinet colleague. The issue is not professional or surgical competence of Dr Venugopal, but his role as an administrator. When the Delhi High Court directed that there cannot be a demonstration in hospitals that could disrupt work, the AIIMS Director appeared to have allowed the doctors to go on strike for nearly 18 days.

I do not wish to dwell on the issue as the matter is sub-judice.

But regarding the writer’s claim that the PMK did not take into account that the AIIMS episode has alienated a sizable section of Congress’ urban middle-class and upper caste base, I wish to point out that the Congress poll plank in the last elections was “Congress ke haath aam admi ke saath”.

I also expect seasoned journalists to keep abreast of political developments before levelling charges like the DMK did not share power with Congress in Tamil Nadu.

After a meeting with Congress president Sonia Gandhi, Dr Karunanidhi told reporters that the issue of power sharing did not figure in the talks. It was also made clear by the DMK before the elections, that the national leadership of Congress had agreed not to stake claim to power if the DPA headed by the DMK, is voted in.

It is time the mediapersons rise above prejudices and understand the political and social churning in the country. Though the writer appears to be a votary of the classical two party system and an even sharing of the political power between the BJP and the Congress, the country, unfortunately, has moved far away from such a scenario.

Regional parties are an important factor in national politics now and will continue to play a role in national affairs. Under the circumstances, the feelings of 16 or six elected Members of Parliament should also be taken into account by the government in a truly federal democratic set up and not brushed aside as the writer opines. That, after all, is what democracy is all about.