BJP echoes demand for second TN capital: Strategy to stay relevant?

BJP leader Pon Radhakarishnan's demand to make Madurai a second capital comes days after CM Edappadi Palaniswami denied that the government is considering such a proposal.
Pon Radhakrishnan
Pon Radhakrishnan
Written by:

The debate over making Madurai the second capital in Tamil Nadu is far from over despite Chief Minister Edappadi Palaniswami stating that the state government has no such plan to do so. Former Union Minister and BJP leader Pon Radhakrishnan on Monday batted for Madurai, arguing that the city should be made the second capital as it has the Meenakshi Amman temple. 

Pon Radhakrishnan’s statement, however, has raised several eyebrows. The BJP has nationally pushed for the centralisation of power - whether in projects such as one nation-one tax (GST), one nation-one ration card (universal ration card) or even in the abrogation of Article 370 and the bifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir state to two Union Territories. So, is Ponnar, as he is popularly known, advocating for decentralisation of power by demanding a second capital or merely pandering to local sentiment ahead of the 2021 Assembly Elections?  

Ramu Manivannan, Head of Department of Politics and Public Administration at Madras University, said the BJP leader’s statement appeared to be a question of identity crisis. “They are drawing on issues which are popular in imagination, but in which they have no root. Whatever can generate interest and debate in society, they stick on those issues. It’s their way of politicking to address the gap in politics.”  

While it was the AIADMK’s Madurai West unit led by Ministers RB Udhayakumar and Sellur K Raju that had first raised the issue for a second capital on August 16, Ramu Manivannan points out that the demand isn’t new. Then Chief Minister MG Ramachandran of the AIADMK had in 1981 proposed shifting the capital to Trichy from Chennai. At the time, he argued that Trichy being in the centre of the state would allow those traveling from all parts of the state easy access to the capital, as opposed to Chennai, which is in the north.  However, following protests, the issue was set aside until now. 

Diverting people’s attention

Suggesting that the second capital debate was a matter of diverting people’s attention from the real issues at the state, Ramu Manivannan says, “There is a crisis of governance, a crisis of accountability and the economy issues are serious. MGR had tried to do this too  to try and divert the attention of the public, this is a similar tactic.”

Stalin Rajangam, a writer in Madurai, believes that there is no such demand or longing from the people for a second capital, and those raising such issues are only small groups. “As far as BJP is concerned, they need a local sentiment. They take up issues or demands that have been ignored for a long time to try and get the votes of that area. They are doing this not just for local issues but also for caste matters,” says Stalin. 

He points to BJP’s promise to a section of the Devendra Kula Vellalar community, who have been demanding to be recognised as a separate sub-sect under the Most Backward Class category.  

“Devendra Kulla Vellalar issue has been there for about 30 years, but no one has looked at it in Tamil Nadu. But the BJP has promised to do this, to try and consolidate them as a vote bank. This is just like that. They take up an old issue of the area and promise to deliver,” observes Stalin. 

Like Ramu Manivannan, Stalin notes that the second capital debate is about diverting people’s attention from those that really matter. He cites the example of PMK leader Dr S Ramadoss’ earlier demands of creating a separate state for Vanniyars in north Tamil Nadu. “Ramadoss’ demand ended up being nothing more than just his opinion, with the issue not getting much traction,” he says, adding, “It is okay when they say that the separate capital is for administrative purposes. But these demands don’t seem like they have been made for administrative needs. This can be used for the benefit of a political party and to satisfy some caste groups.”

Conflicting stand in Andhra 

Significantly, in Andhra Pradesh, where the YSRCP government has proposed three capitals for decentralised administration, the BJP has a dual stand. While the local leadership is against the three capitals proposal, the Centre has said its role is ‘limited’ in the state’s decision. “In a state where there is already a debate they are so confused, and in a state where there is no debate, they are creating one. Look at the manipulation, where there is a debate they are playing a dual role and where there is no debate, they are creating a fresh debate on the subject,” says Ramu Manivannan, noting that the BJP is trying to keep themselves relevant in Tamil Nadu politics.  “Can they speak for what the people are asking for issues with regard to Centre-state, or the rights of the state. Can they speak for Cauvery issue? Immediately, the Centre will ask them to keep quiet.” 

Stalin says that although the second capital demand isn’t an issue for the people, the BJP hopes to benefit from raising the demand one day. “As far as I know, this second capital demand has never been a mass movement. But BJP’s game plan is that even if it’s not a mass movement today, but becomes one later, they can claim it as their own.” 

Related Stories

No stories found.
The News Minute
www.thenewsminute.com