How Sengotaiyan’s Ouster Exposes The AIADMK’s Deep Divides

The expulsion of K.A. Sengotaiyan from the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) may look like a routine act of party discipline. But political observers and analysts will not miss the larger story lying beneath the surface. The tragic story of a party caught between loyalty and leadership, discipline and dissent, legacy and survival. It cannot be viewed as merely a senior leader’s fall from grace. More importantly, it should be seen as a mirror reflecting the deepening rift and contradictions within the AIADMK as it heads toward the 2026 Tamil Nadu assembly elections.

Regardless of what one may think of Sengotaiyan, it is indisputable that for over five decades, he was one of AIADMK’s most steadfast figures. From the party’s founding under M. G. Ramachandran to its heyday under J. Jayalalithaa, he remained the archetype of the loyal soldier: soft-spoken, disciplined, and deeply rooted in the party’s organisational base.

A nine-time MLA and veteran organiser, Sengotaiyan was never seen as a rebel. Perhaps he could never be one. He built the party’s grassroots machinery in Erode, helped mobilise crowds for Jayalalithaa’s tours, and kept the party functioning during its most turbulent phases. His reputation was that of a man who worked quietly, without courting controversy or seeking power for himself. In fact, it is commonly believed that the chief minister’s chair was first offered to him by V.K. Sasikala before she chose Edappadi K. Palaniswami (EPS).

That such a figure should now be expelled for “anti-party activities” reveals how far the AIADMK has drifted from its own ethos. Sengotaiyan’s decision to engage with expelled leaders like O. Panneerselvam (OPS), T. T.V. Dhinakaran, and Sasikala was not really a coup against EPS, the party’s current general secretary. Instead, it has to be viewed as a plea for reconciliation. Indeed, it is a pragmatic recognition that a fractured AIADMK cannot hope to challenge the ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) in the 2026 elections. His effort, therefore, was aimed at bridging the divides within the party and reviving its once-powerful coalition among the Thevar, Gounder, and other intermediate caste blocs.

Also read: The Grounder Grip: Can Edappadi Palaniswami Revive AIADMK's Fortunes in Tamil Nadu?

EPS, however, saw this as betrayal. His swift and unilateral decision to expel Sengotaiyan reflects a pattern that has become increasingly visible since he consolidated control over the party: a tendency to conflate dissent with disloyalty. The justification offered was “strict party discipline,” but the real motive appears to have been to eliminate any possibility of rival power centres emerging. Ironically, this attempt at control has only exposed the deep fissures within AIADMK.

Senior leaders have remained conspicuously silent, an indication of either fear or resignation. Within the rank and file, there is growing unease about EPS’s centralised leadership style, which many see as authoritarian and unresponsive. The AIADMK, once renowned for its strong regional networks and charismatic local leadership, now appears to be a top-down structure held together more by command than conviction.

Sengotaiyan’s expulsion has also revived an uncomfortable truth: caste still plays a crucial role in Tamil Nadu’s political arithmetic. The AIADMK’s core support base has traditionally rested on a careful balance between the Gounders (EPS’s community stronghold in the west) and the Thevars (who dominate the southern belt and have been represented by OPS, Sasikala, and TTV). By alienating this Thevar-aligned faction, EPS risks splitting a coalition that has historically determined electoral outcomes in southern Tamil Nadu. The timing of this fracture could not be worse, especially when the party’s electoral prospects were already uncertain. In the Lok Sabha elections and recent bypolls, AIADMK’s performance has been dismal.

The DMK, under Tamil Nadu chief minister M.K. Stalin, appears stable, disciplined, and ideologically coherent – a contrast that amplifies AIADMK’s own disarray. The rise of Vijay’s Tamizhaga Vetri Kazhagam (TVK), which is drawing youth and first-time voters frustrated with traditional Dravidian parties, adds yet another challenge. Amid this churn, EPS’s insistence on rigid discipline over inclusive dialogue seems increasingly self-defeating.

Further complicating matters is AIADMK’s uneasy relationship with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). What was once a tactical alliance has become a source of ideological and electoral tension. Many in the AIADMK’s Dravidian base view the BJP’s Hindutva politics as alien to Tamil Nadu’s secular and rationalist ethos.

The recent defection of AIADMK MLA P. H. Manoj Pandian to the DMK is emblematic of this unease. A known supporter of OPS, Pandian accused the AIADMK of becoming a “branch of the BJP” and declared the DMK a more authentic vessel for Dravidian values. His exit signals more than individual dissent. It marks the erosion of ideological clarity within AIADMK and the possible beginning of wider realignments before 2026.

Of course, EPS’s defenders argue that his hardline approach is necessary to maintain party unity and prevent chaos. But, don’t we know that discipline without dialogue can only breed discontent? Expelling a veteran like Sengotaiyan, who has served the party longer than most in the party, sends a chilling message: that even decades of loyalty offer no protection if one questions the leadership. The silence of senior functionaries, rather than indicating agreement, reflects the shrinking space for internal debate. A party that once prided itself on its disciplined mass base is now struggling with a growing democratic deficit at the top.

There is also a larger symbolic dimension to this crisis. The AIADMK has always been a movement rooted in loyalty, first to MGR and then to Jayalalithaa. After Jayalalithaa’s passing, it faced an identity vacuum, a struggle to balance legacy with new leadership. EPS’s consolidation of power temporarily filled that vacuum, but at the cost of inclusivity. What Sengotaiyan’s expulsion lays bare is that the transition from a leader-centric movement to a sustainable democratic organisation remains incomplete. The party is still haunted by its past, even as it struggles to redefine its future.

Strategically, the risks are apparent. A divided AIADMK heading into 2026 will find it nearly impossible to counter the DMK’s electoral machinery. The opposition space in Tamil Nadu is already crowded, with the BJP trying to make inroads and new entrants like Vijay’s TVK attracting fresh enthusiasm.

Also read: The Actor Who Won’t Step Off the Set: Vijay’s Struggle With Real Politics

If the AIADMK remains internally fractured, it will not only lose its claim as the primary opposition but may also find its traditional vote base slipping away to both regional and national competitors. The expulsion of Sengotaiyan, then, is not merely about party discipline. In fact, it is a test of the AIADMK’s capacity for introspection. It forces the question: can a party that silences its elders and sidelines its loyalists truly reinvent itself for a new political era? Or will it continue down a path where short-term control outweighs long-term survival?

Sengotaiyan’s legacy, in that sense, is deeply ironic. A man who devoted his life to building and preserving the AIADMK’s structure now stands outside of it, branded disloyal for urging unity. His rebellion, if we could really call that, was reluctant, even tragic, born of a sense that the party he helped nurture was losing its moral and political compass. 

The ball is in EPS’s court. He must now decide whether he wants to lead a disciplined but diminished party or a cohesive and competitive one. Will he realise that political authority without moral legitimacy rarely lasts? The expulsion of Sengotaiyan may secure EPS’s immediate control, but it has certainly cost him something more valuable: the confidence of a generation of cadres who once saw AIADMK as a family bound by loyalty, not fear. In that sense, this episode is not just about one man’s fate. It is perhaps more about a party losing sight of its soul.

P. John J. Kennedy is an educator and political analyst based in Bengaluru.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.