The group led by AIADMK joint coordinator (co-coordinator) Edappadi K. Palaniswami does not seem to be receptive to the idea of a compromise with the rebel group led by party coordinator O. Panneerselvam.
A cross-section of members of the Palaniswami group is of the view that most sections of the rank and file of the party are behind Mr. Palaniswami. “When such is the case, why should we have any compromise with them?" is the response of the members of this group.
Notwithstanding this position, there is an opinion on either side of the party that the High Court order has “brought the two factions of the party together”. But what may come in the way of the two sides is the baggage of recent history, wherein many unpleasant incidents took place. Having indulged in accusations and counter-accusations in the last several weeks, it may not be easy for the two sides to adopt a ‘forget and forgive’ approach swiftly. This means both sides require a ‘cooling-off’ period.
A chronicler of the AIADMK’s history observes that when compared to what transpired between the factions of Jayalalithaa and Janaki Ramachandran in 1988, the exchange of views between the Palaniswami and Panneerselvam groups was not that strong. So, there should not be “any great problem” between them to overcome their differences.
Mr. Panneerselvam, during his interaction with the media at the mausoleum of former Chief Minister Jayalalithaa, dropped enough hints that he would not be averse to the notion of working together with the other group. In fact, when a journalist reminded him about the events that took place at the general council meeting on June 23, the party coordinator cited former Chief Minister C.N. Annadurai and said those who were in positions of leadership should absorb humiliation and strive for the welfare of the workers of the party.
So far, publicly, the response of the Palaniswami group has been muted. K.P. Munusamy, deputy coordinator and now a strong supporter of the joint coordinator, said his side would come out with its position on the High Court order after studying it fully. However, he rejected the contention that the development was a ‘setback’ to his group.
