Chennai Express: Can MK Stalin Return To Power Once More?

In March 1953, Chennai—then known as Madras—witnessed an extraordinary gathering at the iconic Marina Beach. Thousands had assembled to pay homage to Joseph Stalin, the Soviet supremo credited with playing a decisive role in defeating Adolf Hitler in the Second World War.

The world had not yet been jolted by the later revelations of Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev regarding the alleged excesses of Stalin’s regime. To many across the globe, especially among anti-fascist forces, Stalin remained a towering hero.

Among the principal speakers at the Marina that day was a young, fiery orator—M. Karunanidhi. He had arrived at the meeting after visiting his newborn child. In an emotionally charged speech before the sea of mourners, Karunanidhi announced that, in memory of the great leader, he would name his son Stalin.

Thus began the story of Muthuvel Karunanidhi Stalin, now seeking his second term as the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu.

Starting his political activities at the age of 14, M.K. Stalin, despite being the son of one of the most consequential leaders of Tamil Nadu, had to wait in the wings for a long time before catapulting himself to the position of chief minister of one of the most economically and socially developed states in the country.

At the hustings, Stalin, with more than six decades of political experience behind him, will be defending his incumbent government—and that too, at a time when Tamil Nadu politics is witnessing an unusual churn.

Stalin is treading a political terrain that even the founding figures of his party — C.N. Annadurai and M. Karunanidhi—had never ventured into.

In the past five years, Stalin, as Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and leader of a formidable regional force, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), has come to symbolise the resistance many parties have mounted against the NDA government.

At the centre of this confrontation lies the defence of federalism—an idea deeply embedded in the ideological foundations of the Dravidian movement. For Stalin and his party, the struggle has been framed not merely as a political contest but as a fight to safeguard the federal balance of the Indian Union, a principle that the Dravidian tradition has long held close.

As the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) expanded its footprint across the country, Stalin and his party, the DMK, positioned themselves as an ideological bulwark against what they describe as the advancing juggernaut of the Sangh Parivar.

Stalin has repeatedly taken on the Union government for what he calls the financial strangulation of states, alleging that the Centre attaches political conditions to the transfer of funds. He has also been an outspoken critic of the National Education Policy 2020, arguing that it undermines federal principles and threatens the linguistic and cultural diversity of states like Tamil Nadu.

The Union government’s push for ‘One Nation One Election’ and its plan to carry out constituency delimitation based on the latest census figures have been strongly opposed by Tamil Nadu. The state Assembly passed a resolution arguing that both proposals run contrary to the spirit of the Constitution and could undermine the federal balance of the Union.

The opposition was particularly sharp over delimitation, with concerns that states which had successfully controlled population growth might lose parliamentary representation. Amid the growing criticism, Union Home Minister Amit Shah assured that southern states would not lose Lok Sabha seats after delimitation.

Stalin’s confrontation with Governor R.N. Ravi snowballed into a major constitutional dispute when the Tamil Nadu government moved the Supreme Court over delays in granting assent to bills passed by the state legislature.

The Court delivered what many described as a landmark judgement, laying down time limits for Governors to act on bills passed by state legislatures. The ruling triggered a wider constitutional debate and eventually led to a presidential reference to the Supreme Court seeking clarification on certain aspects of the judgement.

Although the Court’s response to the reference appeared to dilute the spirit of its earlier observations, the larger constitutional question—whether the Court’s opinion on a presidential reference carries the force of a binding judicial order—continues to be debated among legal scholars and political observers.

Through these positions, Stalin has sought to project himself not merely as a regional leader but as a prominent voice in the broader national opposition to the BJP’s ideological and political agenda.  He walked with Rahul Gandhi during the Bharat Jodo Yatra and was in Bihar when the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) caused a hue and cry.

“M.K. Stalin is more comparable to C.N. Annadurai than to his father, M. Karunanidhi. Karunanidhi governed for long periods but did not always have to confront an ideologically antagonistic government at the Centre. Stalin, on the other hand, faces a Union government that is ideologically diametrically opposed to the DMK,” says Vignesh Rajahmani, political scientist and author of The Dravidian Way.

In the past five years, these battles have set Stalin apart, shaping his image as a leader who has consistently taken on the Union government while foregrounding questions of federalism and state rights.

Through these positions, Stalin has sought to project himself not merely as a regional leader but as a prominent voice in the broader national opposition to the BJP’s ideological and political agenda. “M.K. Stalin has emerged as a national leader who fights the BJP because of his ideological commitment,” says R. Sudha, Congress MP from Mayiladuthurai.

“He has raised the standard of politics in the state. I consider him a role model for us to follow—both for his commitment to ideology and for the way he treats even his opponents,” she adds.

Unlike many heirs apparent of towering political leaders, Stalin did not have a smooth passage to the leadership of the DMK. His rise unfolded alongside the settlement of internal fissures within the family and the party and the turbulence of Tamil Nadu politics.

Stalin was born to M. Karunanidhi and his second wife, Dayalu Ammal. He plunged into politics early, beginning with campaign work for his uncle Murasoli Maran. His first major political exposure, however, came during the 1967 anti-Hindi imposition agitation —a movement that ultimately helped propel the DMK to power in the state.

But the years that followed were far from smooth for either the party or Stalin. During the Emergency in India, Stalin was arrested and jailed. It was a time when state governments were frequently dismissed at the discretion of the Union government. Accusing it of corruption, the Centre dismissed the Karunanidhi government, deepening the political crisis for the DMK.

The turmoil also created space for the meteoric rise of film star-turned-politician M.G. Ramachandran, who broke away from the DMK to form the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK). Until MGR’s death, the DMK remained largely pushed to the margins of Tamil Nadu politics.

During this uncertain period, Stalin briefly tried his hand at cinema, but success eluded him. The political tide turned in 1989 when the DMK returned to power with a sweeping mandate. Stalin won the Thousand Lights seat in Chennai.

By then, his elder brother, M.K. Alagiri, had been sent to build the party in Madurai, allowing Stalin to remain close to his father, who was the chief minister. Stalin went on to win from the Thousand Lights constituency four times and steadily emerged as the de facto heir apparent, even as Alagiri remained keen to inherit the party mantle.

A turning point came in 1996 when Stalin became the mayor of Chennai. The position proved to be a political game-changer. His tenure showcased his administrative abilities and helped consolidate his stature within the party. As a senior DMK leader at the party headquarters remarked, Stalin’s mayoralty helped him firmly establish himself as the number two in the organisation. Many civic initiatives undertaken by Stalin during his tenure as mayor of Chennai—aimed at modernising and beautifying the city—earned him the sobriquet “Managara Thanthai” (Father of the City).

But politics in Tamil Nadu was anything but easy. J. Jayalalithaa’s combative style made life politically difficult for both M. Karunanidhi and Stalin. Karunanidhi himself was dramatically arrested in a corruption case during the AIADMK regime, an episode that triggered national outrage. Around the same time, Stalin was also caught in a bitter fratricidal struggle with his elder brother M.K. Alagiri. The rivalry peaked when Alagiri was arrested in connection with the murder of a Stalin associate.

After the DMK returned to power, Stalin was appointed Deputy Chief Minister under Karunanidhi, in 2009. He used this stint to widen his outreach among the public and steadily consolidate his position as the de facto leader of the party.

“After that, it became smooth once Kalaignar departed. There was no looking back. I have seen him grow in the party from an ordinary worker since 1967,” says former MP and DMK leader R.S. Bharathi. His sincerity and unwavering commitment to Dravidian ideology have been evident right from those early days. That is what has made him one of the most important politicians in the present Hindutva era,” he notes.

“He is among the most astute politicians in present-day Indian politics. Ideology is his muscle memory,” said Vignesh Rajahmani. He points to Stalin’s sharp political instincts during media interactions and his ideological commitment. “When asked about the Congress’ demand for power-sharing, Stalin responded crisply that such an arrangement would not work in Tamil Nadu. On another occasion, when asked to react to remarks by former Congress leader Mani Shankar Aiyar suggesting that the DMK should leave the INDIA alliance, Stalin’s reply was equally pointed. Quoting Karunanidhi, he remarked that “he knew his own limits,” recalls Rajahmani.

His political astuteness was on full display during the seat-sharing negotiations with the Congress. A section within the Congress had been pushing for snapping ties with the DMK and exploring an alignment with actor-politician Vijay’s fledgling party, the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK). Yet, Stalin managed to keep the grand old party firmly within the DMK-led alliance, without conceding significantly to its demands. At the same time, he succeeded in bringing together several other political forces—including the Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhagam (DMDK) party, formed by late actor Vijaykanth—under the umbrella of the alliance.

“It is M.K. Stalin’s personal rapport with leaders of the alliance parties, and his diplomacy, that helped the coalition survive this time,” adds R. S. Bharathi.

Echoing this view, senior journalist and editor of Kalaignar TV, Tirumavelan—who has closely followed Stalin since his days as the mayor of Chennai—says the chief minister’s personal relationships with alliance leaders have helped keep the front together despite multiple challenges.

“He attends to their concerns and seeks their opinion on important matters. That makes the bond within the alliance stronger and more cohesive,” he adds.

This broad coalition-building, even at the cost of the DMK contesting fewer seats, underlined Stalin’s emphasis on consolidating a wider opposition front rather than maximising his party’s immediate electoral share.

D. Ravikumar, MP and a leader of the VCK, sees Stalin as one of the most important politicians today for three reasons: his ideological commitment, his political resolve to challenge Hindutva, and his administrative capabilities.

“He is a wonderful performer, a relentless crusader, and a lovable leader,” he adds.

The constant political sparring with the Union government, the revival of issues central to Dravidian ideology, and the leadership vacuum in the rival AIADMK—which many observers say has left the party politically rudderless—have all contributed to Stalin’s growing stature.

When Stalin inherited the mantle after Karunanidhi’s death, party insiders say that he carefully accommodated senior leaders from his father’s era, giving important responsibilities to figures such as T.R. Baalu and Duraimurugan.

At the same time, the next generation of the family has also moved into key roles. Udhayanidhi Stalin is already the Deputy Chief Minister, while Kanimozhi Karunanidhi, Stalin’s half-sister, has emerged as one of the party’s national faces. Allegations of dynastic politics are, therefore, a frequent charge raised by the DMK’s opponents.

Taking a cue from his father and grandfather, Udhayanidhi has sharpened the ideological contest with the Sangh Parivar, often invoking what he describes as the true features of Sanatana Dharma.

More than anything else, Stalin has succeeded in reframing the political contest in Tamil Nadu as one between Dravidianism and its ideological adversaries. That political acumen, observers say, continues to resonate strongly among large sections of the Tamil electorate.

N.K. Bhoopesh is an assistant editor, reporting on South India with a focus on politics, developmental challenges, and stories rooted in social justice