The latest round of expression of divergent views within the AIADMK, which began on Sunday with rebel leader C.Ve. Shanmugam’s salvo against the general secretary Edappadi K. Palaniswami, on Monday saw some office bearers joining the political discourse and making points for and against the party leadership. 

Former Agriculture Minister and the AIADMK’s whip in the Assembly, “Agri” S.S. Krishnamurthy told journalists in Tiruvannamalai that the rationale behind Mr Palaniswami holding district-wise consultations with functionaries of the party was to hear views of the grassroots workers. On Saturday, he conducted a three-hour-long meeting with representatives of three constituencies in Kancheepuram district.  “Such an exercise is not possible when the executive or the general council meets. Only senior office-bearers can speak, as there are 175 to 200 members in the executive and  3,000-odd members in the general council,” Mr Krishnamurthy explained.  

Emphasising Mr Palaniswami was “not shy” about convening the executive and the general council, the former Minister said the party chief would like to first complete the district-wise consultations. 

As for Mr Shanmugam’s criticism,  Mr Krishnamurthy contended the dissident leader was making observations “out of frustration” that his district - Villupuram - was slipping out of “his hold,” and the present district secretary, R. Pasupathy, had been functioning well.  On the charge that the party chief was for bringing in his son, Mithun, into the party, the AIADMK’s whip replied when Mr Palaniswami was Chief Minister or out of power, his son  had never taken part in government functions and party events. “On the contrary, Mr Shanmugam is practising family politics in Villupuram,” Mr Krishnamurthy alleged, adding the main factor behind successive electoral setbacks of the party was that Mr Palaniswami went by views of leaders such as Mr Shanmugam.

He reminded the dissident leader it was the present general secretary who had accommodated his for becoming an MP (Rajya Sabha), after he lost in Villupuram during the 2021 Assembly election, and the change of constituency to Mailam in 2026. Mr Palaniswami had also restored the post of district secretary to him and given the “plum portfolio” of Minerals during 2017-2021.    

Regarding the AIADMK’s performance in Villupuram district, the former Minister wanted Mr Shanmugam to introspect on the matter and ponder over the defeat of three of his nominees. He contended that it was the complaint of allies in the district that the dissident leader did not get along well with them.  But, in Tiruvannamalai, the Dravidian major had won in five constituencies, due to coordinated work of volunteers of all. Likewise, in Salem, it had bagged five seats. 

Urging Mr Shanmugam to exercise restraint while making comments and reminding him that Mr Palaniswami had “magnanimously” condoned the act of rebellion by him and 20 other legislators, Mr Krishnamurthy cautioned him that “else, there will be serious consequences.”

Meanwhile, in a post on his social media handle, former Health Minister C. Vijayabaskar, who was one of the 21 rebels, stated that “the leadership that views hardworking and genuine party workers as adversaries, and the politics that regards questioning itself as a crime” did not provide “the path to victory.”  He added history did not remember “how many have been removed [from the organisation] but how many have been brought together and how many battles have been won.”

Raj Satyen, the party’s  information technology wing secretary,  claimed a “narrative” was being set against the party with the idea of continuously dragging  the general secretary’s family and apolitical persons into the debate on the AIADMK. It was “regrettable” that this had spread from social media to the mainstream.  Observing that the party volunteers and the next generation [leaders] had been bearing “several pains” over the party’s setback, subsequent “intra-party events” and belittling of their work, Mr Satyen said “given the present circumstances, it is wrong to speak about unnecessary matters.”