The TVK government’s successive policy reversals show Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay is willing to correct course, but the speed with which decisions are being announced and withdrawn points to a need for stronger internal consultation, according to political analyst T Ramakrishnan.
In an exclusive interview with The FederalRamakrishnan spoke about the Tamil Nadu government’s style of functioning, its reversals and the possible political implications.
Edited excerpts:
The TN government has announced and then withdrawn or rephrased several decisions, including the recent order that exempted Law & Order from the ambit of the RTI Act. Does this indicate that Vijay is still finding his footing in administration, or is this simply his style of functioning?
Responding to public sentiment or feedback from different stakeholders and taking corrective measures are not new to this government. Previous governments have also gone back on some of their announcements and decisions.
Vijay is willing to carry out course correction. These kinds of actions show that he is willing to do course correction. You can view it that way also.
But I wish there had been better consultation and better discussions within the government and among different ministers. It need not necessarily be only those dealing with the particular subjects. Given their experience, some people may have expertise, and you can have consultations and discussions with different people before coming up with announcements and before firming up decisions.
I think this is where the government is somewhat lagging behind. The recent RTI episode involved the government exempting the Public (Law and Order) Department from the RTI Act before revoking the order following criticism.
On delimitation, TVK took a strong position in the Assembly, but at the Southern Zonal Council meeting chaired by Amit Shah, Vijay spoke about protecting Tamil Nadu’s share of seats. Is there a difference between what the party says in the Assembly and what it projects to the Union government?
Yes, I think the kind of posturing that he took initially and then tried to change in a nuanced manner subsequently will not carry conviction. It will not satisfy even his own supporters.
My take on delimitation per se is different. You cannot keep sticking to the 1971 Census population because we are now in 2026 and 55 years have gone. But what you can ask for is that the proportion in which these southern states are represented should not be disturbed.
The point here is that he is not making that argument. The problem with him is that at one place he wants to position or project himself as one who is the saviour of the state’s rights by taking, I would say, not a very sound stand. But subsequently, perhaps whether he is getting influenced by the ambience where he was present, or maybe through some self-deliberation that he would have undertaken subsequently, we don’t know what made him change his stand in a nuanced manner.
But the point is that his tone subsequently was entirely different from what it was earlier. So that won’t satisfy his own supporters, let alone others.
You have emphasised the need for better consultation. Several farmers’ and fisherfolk associations are also upset about the way some decisions have been taken. Does this risk the TVK losing support among these communities?
When we talk to many associations, like farmers’ associations and fisherfolk associations, many of them are quite upset with the way in which TVK takes decisions.
For example, in the case of farmers and the crop loan waiver, there was too much confusion. First, there was a question of whether half the loan would be written off and all that.
On the other side, in the case of fisherfolk, initially there was an announcement that a new Secretariat would come up closer to the beach, at Pattinapakkam. Fisherfolk are very much upset and have been protesting. We have seen a couple of protests in the last fortnight, and they are very strong in their protests also.
The government has subsequently said that the Pattinapakkam site is under review and that alternative locations are being studied after protests by fishermen and residents.
Could the upcoming by-election also have an impact? Could these issues affect TVK’s prospects in the by-election?
I think the government might have been going slow as far as this Secretariat project is concerned. That is my reading.
Number two is the crop loan waiver. Of course, he assured the people one thing. He said that up to ₹1 lakh, it is for small and marginal farmers as a full waiver, and for those who are other farmers — those who own five acres of dry land or in excess of 2.5 acres of wet land — it is 50%.
So, he could have done that way. But anyway, he didn’t do that first. He said ₹50,000, then ₹75,000 and then he said something else. He had made three announcements.
This kind of quick change shows that the government did not pay much attention to the decisions that it took. There could have been better deliberations within itself as well as with those who are outside the government. That’s number one.
But whether the government would stand to lose the support of fishermen or farmers at this juncture, I don’t think so. It is too early.
The crop-loan issue has already triggered protests from farmers’ organisations, with farmers demanding a fresh order and pointing to TVK’s pre-election commitment on loan waivers.