A Master of Grievance Politics

AS THE SON of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and DMK supremo M Karunanidhi, MK Stalin’s political identity is inseparable from the ideologi­cal weight of the Dravidian movement—a movement that reshaped the state’s social and political fabric through its emphasis on social justice, linguistic pride, and resistance to northern cultural dominance. Stalin’s leadership, then, is not merely a continuation of this legacy; it is a careful negotia­tion with it—a balancing act between honouring the past and navigating the evolving demands of contemporary politics.

He has positioned himself as a cartographer mapping the fault lines that divide the interests of the northern political majority from the aspira­tions of the southern states. Using the NEP and the looming spectre of parliamentary delimitation, Stalin has undertaken a coali­tion-building exercise to form a southern bloc capable of challenging Delhi’s gravita­tional pull. What Stalin understands is that Tamil Nadu’s defiance is not isolationist. It is a demand for recognition—not just for Tamil identity but for the right of all states to define their place in India’s complex, multivocal narrative.

His statement that the NEP is “not education policy; it is saffron policy” is a deliberate act of rhetorical framing. By recasting the NEP as a vehicle for Hindi he­gemony rather than an educational reform, Stalin taps into Tamil Nadu’s longstanding cultural anxieties. His assertion that Tamil Nadu “will not accept this hazardous NEP scheme” even if incentivised with “ ₹100,000 crores” exemplifies a leader positioning himself as morally immovable, staking Tamil Nadu’s edu­cational sovereignty on a platform of defiance. This is Stalin performing as the inheritor of a rich legacy of resistance—one that echoes Periyar’s rejection of cultural homogenisation and Annadurai’s defence of linguistic pride.

By calling out the “swallowing” of languages like Bhojpuri and Maithili by Hindi, Stalin seeks to cast himself as a moral sentinel for all non-Hindi-speaking states. Of course, his invocations of Tamil Nadu’s potential losses—in culture, in identity, in parliamentary power—are calculated to resonate with the Tamil voter’s anxieties. By framing these issues as assaults on Tamil Nadu’s dignity, Stalin seizes the emotive power of grievance politics. This is not merely a fight for justice, it is an invitation for voters to perceive themselves as participants in a righteous cause—one in which Stalin’s leadership becomes indispensable.

Stalin’s rise in politics has been marked by a constant need to assert his own identity within a movement defined by towering personalities. His political career has been shadowed by the long silhouette of his father—a five-time chief minister and one of modern India’s most formidable regional leaders. Karunanidhi was not just a politician, he was a writer, playwright, and cultural architect who translated the Dravidian movement’s ideals into a coherent political vision. Stalin’s path, on the other hand, has been one of continuity rather than reinvention, for the Dravidian legacy is both an asset and a burden. It demands that Stalin adopt the vocabu­lary of resistance—that he stand as the protector of Tamil Nadu’s autonomy, its language, and its cultural selfhood. His challenge is also to modernise this resistance. The ideologi­cal framework of the Dravidian movement—secularism, rationalism, and anti-caste politics—remains powerful, yet it requires adaptation to meet the concerns of Tamil Nadu’s newer, younger electorate. Stalin’s emphasis on economic development, infrastructure, and social welfare reflects his awareness that Tamil Nadu’s electorate now demands more than cultural pride—it demands tangible progress.

language politicsMK StalinNorth-South IndiaTamil Naduthree language formula