politics of adulation in south india

8/13/2019 Politics of Adulation in South India

1/34

The Politics of Adulation: Cinema and the Production of Politicians in South IndiaAuthor(s): Sara DickeySource: The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 52, No. 2 (May, 1993), pp. 340-372Published by: Association for Asian StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2059651

Accessed: 26/11/2010 04:48

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=afas.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Association for Asian Studiesis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The

Journal of Asian Studies.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=afashttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2059651?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=afashttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=afashttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2059651?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=afas


2/34

The PoliticsofAdulation:Cinemaand the Production fPoliticians n SouthIndiaSARA DICKEY

POPULAR SOUTH INDIAN CINEMA is a highlymelodramatic ntertainmentorm,plotted round mprobable wists f fate nd setin exaggeratedocales,filledwithsongs,dances,and fight cenes. Patronized rimarily y the poor, it is typicallydismissedby critics,who find ts vastpopularity itherbemusing r indicative fviewers'moral ndintellectualegradation.venmore onfoundingormany bservershas beencinema'scriticalrolein state and nationalpolitics.Cinemaandpoliticshavea longhistoryf mutual nvolvementn South ndia.Partiesand movements ave converted ilms ntopropagandaforms y insertingpolitical deologies, ymbols, nd allegories.Cinemapersonnel avebuilton theirreputationso become lectedeaders.While few vertly oliticalmovies ave ppearedsincethe ate 1960s, theuse of cinema s a political pringboardas continuedntothepresentnd hasbeenmostsustained n the stateofTamil Nadu, where he astfive hiefministers avehad film onnections. espite critics'misgivings, inemais, in fact, xtraordinarilyell suitedto promoting olitical eaders.Moreover,tprovideshetraining roundnotonlyfor hewell-knownasesoffilm tars upportedbyadoring udiences,butalso for eaders fanotherype: hosefollowers hoattainauthority yvirtue ftheir dulationfor hestar.'The more visiblemutual nfluencesffilm nd politicsoften parkcommentsbyboth ndians ndforeigners.et thefrequentuips aboutthefilm-politicsexusthatappear in politicalspeeches,newspaper olumns,and academic studieshavebeen balancedby littlesystematicttention o whythis connection ersists.Thefewthoughtfulonsiderationsf the problem nclude Baskaran's 1981) detailedstudy ffilm nd ndiannationalism;nd works y Hardgrave1965a, 1975),Forrester(1976), Barnett1976), and Sivathamby1981) addressing inema connectionsn

SaraDickeyis AssistantProfessorfAnthropologyt BowdoinCollege.I wish to thankV. Kirushnasamynd N. Prakash,who introducedme to fanclubleaders nd frequentlyccompaniedme during nterviews. am gratefulo Ted Adams,F.G. Bailey,E. V. Daniel, MichaelH. Fisher, tephenHughes,David Kertzer, amelaPrice,and GuentherRothforreading nd commentingn earlier ersions f thisarticle.Discus-sionswithS. TheodoreBaskaran,MattisonMines,PremilaPaul, and R. P. Nair were alsohelpful.'Most of thefieldresearch or hisworktookplace in thecityofMadurai, Tamil Nadustate,duringOctober1985-January987 andMay-June1990, when spokewith membersand leaders f fanclubsfor everal ctors, s well as withotherfilmgoers. ieldwork uringtheseperiodswas also carried ut withpoliticians nd film ndustrymembersn Madras.

TheJournal fAsian Studies 2, no. 2 (May 1993):340-372.C) 1993 by the Association orAsian Studies, nc.340


3/34

THE POLITICS OF ADULATION IN SOUTH INDIA 341Dravidianparty olitics.Most ofthesewerewritten efore 976, the year hat thefilm tarM. G. RamachandranMGR) cameto power n Tamil Nadu. Morerecently,two studies f film-staroliticians aveappeared:Elder and Schmitthenner's1985)brief nalysis fN. T. Rama Rao's success n AndhraPradesh nd Pandian's 1992)provocative ssayon MGR's use of the media in Tamil Nadu. Only Hardgrave(1975) has considered hepolitical positionoffanclubs in any depth. Together,theseworks rovideuseful nalysis fpolitical vents nd strategies. o understandfully inema'spowerfulbility oproducepolitical eaders,however,we must ookmorecarefullyt the places wherecinemaand politics overlap, n the waysthatcertainfilm images dovetailwith the exigenciesof electoral politics, and theexpectationsnherent n the leader-followerelationship. n this article, suggestthe ways inema nd the electoral olitical ystem ogetherre well suited o creatingmovie tar-politicians,nd examine hepreviouslynremarkednfluencehe adulationof such leaderscan produce n the lowerranksof political organizations. hesefeatures avea widersignificance, ecauseappreciation f thefactors hat enhancecinema'spotential eads to a more ubtleunderstandingf theforces hatforge iesbetween olitical eaders nd followersn South ndia, and indicateswaysthat newleadersmaycircumventraditional estrictionsn representativeeadership.Cinema s highly opular hroughoutndia. AlthoughNorth ndian films endto be flashier echnically nd to incorporatemoregraphic violencethan others,mainstreaminemais similar n form nd content cross the country. inguisticdiversity,owever,means hatnosingleproductionenterontrolsheentire ountry,andfilm ersonnelend obe regionallyased.Themainproductionites reBombay,Madras, and Calcutta;of these, BombaydominatesNorthIndia and Madras theSouth, paralleling hecountry'smajor inguistic ivide. Even withinSouth ndia,each ofthe four tateshas a differentfficialanguage, nd films remade in eachof these anguages.As a result, espite requent ubbing f filmsnd themultilingualabilitiesof some actors,each stateor language regionhas produced ts own topmovie tars.Film starshavebegunto enter olitics nmany reasof ndia; inNorthIndia they ncludesuch figures s Vyjayanthimala,unil Dutt, Shatrugan inha,and AmitabhBachchan. But film tarshaveappeared n politicsmostfrequently,attained hegreatest uccess, nd lastedthe longest n thesouthern tates.The most successfulnd notorious f these eadershas been MGR, a popularmovie starforforty ears nd Tamil Nadu's chiefminister rom1977 until hisdeathin 1987. My focushere s on MGR and Tamil Nadu politics, yetmuch ofthis nalysis s relevant o thethree ther outh ndian states nd to otherpoliticalactorsas well. With the partial exceptionof Kerala, wheremany commerciallyviablefilms re closer owhat s elsewherealled "art"or"parallel" inema,popularcinemathroughoutouth ndia is similar n formnd content.A number f SouthIndian actorshave triedto use film s a political stepping tone, ncludingN. T.Rama Rao in Andhra radesh,Raj Kumar nKarnataka, nd PremNazir inKerala.Raj Kumar'sfan lubshave lso spoken ut onpolitical ssues. WhileMGR remainsthe most strikinglyuccessful f filmstar-politicians, is rise illustrateswidelyapplicableprinciplesn buildingpolitical followings.To examine hecharacteristicsfelectoral oliticsand of leadership hat haveheightenedinema's ffectivenessnproducing olitical eaders, focus n two inkedphenomena: he magecreated hrough ilms nd thepolitical ctivities f fan lubs.Thefilm tar'smage spotentiallyignificantor numberfreasons. y broadcastingan attractivemage,films an overcome problem aced y many spiring oliticiansin developing ountrieswithelectoral olitical ystems: arnering idespread otersupportwhere ccessto voters hroughmass media is limited.Few voters n India


4/34

342 SARA DICKEYwatchthenightly ews on television o see politicians nd heartheir peeches, ndpoliticians annotrely n newspapers or ontactwithvotersbecauserelativelyewpeopleread thepaperregularly. venradio s limited s a disseminatingmedium,since mostpeople listenonlyto moviesongs.Cinema s extremelyopularamongand accessible o theurban nd ruralpoor,whocomprise hegreatmajority f theelectorate, aking t potentiallyhe mosteffective assmedium vailable;my 1986survey f lower-class eighborhoodsn Maduraiindicated hatmost residents awat least one moviea week. In addition,the image createdby cinema-which canbe tightlyontrolledysuccessfulctors-often orrespondsiththetypes f magesthat have traditionallyeen necessaryo the SouthIndian leaderwho emphasizesconcern ith hephysical,piritual,ndmaterial ell-beingf hisor her onstituents.Finally, heappealof such magescancrosscut hecompeting onstituencies ithinstatewide lectoral arties.Fan clubs also have provedto be useful to the actorentering olitics.Theyprovide preexisting etwork fsupporters,ften ighly rganized, hatcan easilybe transformedntoa politicalcadre.Theiractivities requentlyperationalize heimage of the star. Club leadersthemselvesmay also earnpublic meritfortheseactivities, ventually ainingaccess to politicalpositionfor hemselvesalbeitat amoremodest evel thanthestar,and withgreaternsecurityhanthosewho risethrough regular arty pparatus).Thus, cinemabecomes inkedwithpolitics na number fways nd at a variety f evels. The reasons or hese inks also tellussomethingboutthepoliticalbehavior f leaders nd electoratesmoregenerally.

Tamil Cinemaand DravidianPoliticsMGR's success was precededby a long history f interaction etweenSouthIndian cinema and politics. I review hishistory o illustrate he extentof theirmutual nvolvement,escribeheevents hathave haped hepresent olitical ontext,and introduce omeof themajorpoliticalfigureswhohaveemerged rom hefilmindustry.Cinemareached ndia in 1896, and the first outh Indianfeature ilmswereproduced n 1916. Tamil filmbecame politicizedduring the Non-cooperationMovement,when the lastyears f silentmovies aw theoccasional ntroductionfGandhiansocial reform hemes.The adventofsoundin theearly1930s attractedlargenumbers ftheater ersonnel,many f whomwere lready ctive n the ndiannationalistmovementBaskaran1981:87-88, 101-2), acceleratinghepoliticizationof cinema. Despite frequent trict ensorship y the British,manyTamil filmscontinued o incorporateomeform fnationalist ropagandauntil ndependence,leading othecreation fstrong iesbetween outh ndian ntellectualsndcinema.

This association nded, however,with India's independencen 1947 (Baskaran1981:120, 124).Film was not long severedfrompolitics.The connection urfaced venmorestronglyn the 1950s and 1960s, when eadersof theDravidianmovement eganto use cinemato support hedriveformassmembership. he Dravidianmovementhad grownout ofupper-caste on-Brahmans'esentmentfBrahmans' ncreasingsocialdominance t the end of thenineteenthentury. his resentmenturst ntopolitics t thebeginning fthetwentiethentury, ueledbyan inability o break"the almost exclusive ontrol fgovernmentobs and political ifeby Brahmans"(Irschick1969:17), and by the suggestions f contemporarymostlyEuropean)


5/34

THE POLITICS OF ADULATION IN SOUTH INDIA 343historianshat heAryan onquerors-northernndians,withwhomBrahmanswereidentified-had long ago enslaved the Dravidians nd destroyed heirproudandancient ivilizationHardgrave1965b:9-10; Sastri1966:68-70, 74).In 1916 theSouth ndianLiberalFederation, ommonly nown s theJusticeParty,wasformed. heparty, lmost ll ofwhosemembers ere litenon-Brahmans,contested lectionsfor the nexttwentyyearswithvarying uccess. In the mid-1930s, when its fortuneswere at their owest,the partywas takenoverby theradical ctivistE. V. RamasamyEVR, oftenknownas "Periyar," GreatOne").EVR and his dramatic nti-Brahmanrotests ut newlife nto theparty. n 1944EVR reorganizedheJustice arty nto theDravidaKazhagam DK), theDravidianFederation,nd launched Tamil"culturalffensive,"ncludingheatricalroductionsofa reinterpretedamayana-a version ransposing eroand villain, n which theSri LankandemonkingRavanabecomes heroic Dravidian f excellentharacter,'and theAryan rinceRama a conniving,despicableharacter"Hardgrave 965a:400).This and laterpoliticaluses of drama apitalized n thestrongiteraryocus mongTamils ofall socioeconomic ackgrounds, hoholdtheskillful se of anguage nhigh esteem. Despite such attempts t mass propaganda,however,the party'smembership ontinued o be drawnfrom heelite.,In 1949 prominentmembers f the DK such as C. N. Annadurai nd Mu.Karunanidhi rokewiththeparty oform heDravidaMunnetraKazhagam DMK),the DravidianProgressive ederation, orwhich theysoughtmass membership.Membershipwas primarily rban,the partyplatform earedto the "socially ndeconomically rustratedlements f theurbanpopulation" Hardgrave1965b:38).The DMK's earlyplatformtressed hecreation fa separate nd united Dravidianstate nd thepromotion f a "Dravidian" deology. n the 1960s, after he Tamil-languagestate of Madras now Tamil Nadu) had been formed nd thegoal of amore ncompassing ravidian tatetherebyndermined, arty eaders urned romlinguisticndethnic eparatistssues omore ypical read-and-butterolitical ssues:wages, highprices,and foodshortages.Most important, heprincipalfocuswasnow on the "commonpeople" and theirneglected oncerns.Dramatic ncreasesnelectionwinnings ollowed; ytheearly1960stheDMK hadgained nough egislativeseats to secure ts role as themajoropposition artyHardgrave1965a:409; Barnett1976:118f).Duringthisperiodofpolicytransformation,ne ofAnnadurai'smoreeffectivemeansof attractinghe masses was to havemoviestars ddresspartyrallies. Healso sought ouse films s a mediumofpoliticizationndmobilization.His timingwas ideal. Before ndependence, egular ontactwithcinemahad been limited tourban reas;buta rural lectrificationrogram eginningn the ate 1940sfacilitatedtheproliferationfcinemahalls,coinciding ortuitouslyith theDMK'S initialuseof film s a politicalmedium see Sivathamby 981:25).Annadurai nd Karunanidhi,who had put theirpowersofrhetoric o use forthe DK as playwrights, ow used filmscripts o articulate nd disseminate heircriticism fsocial evils and politicaloppression.The extent nd intensityftheircriticismppearto havebeenunprecedentednTamil cinema, nd initiallyhockedmanyviewers. Annadurai'sVeelaikkaariServantWoman, 1948), forexample,presented trenchantritiqueof both social conditions-particularly he powervested n landlords,who weretraditionallyllied withtherulingCongressPartyof JawaharlalNehru and Mohandas K. Gandhi-and religiousattitudes seeSivathamby 981:26). Parasakthia nameof thegoddessParvathi,1952), whichwas written yKarunanidhi nd introduced heactorShivajiGanesan, aunchedscathing ttackon Hinduism.The chasteyoungheroine fthefilm,who has been


6/34

344 SARA DICKEYwidowed, mpoverished,nd sexually ssaulted, s arrestedfter rowning erchildand attemptingo drownherself. hargedwithmurdering erchild, she accusesthe udge,"Wheredid yougo whenmychildand I were iving nthe street orner?Whatdid you do whenmychild was suckingmy drybreast nvain?Parvathy . .did not come to feedmychild" (quoted in David 1983:35). Such "dialogue," asthese earingmonologueswerecalled,became themainstay fmuchTamil cinemain the 1950s and 1960s. Dramaticand rousing, heyprovedto be popular withviewers, nd successful oolsforpropagating MK political deals.MGR's relationship ith theDMK began in theearly1950s and strengthenedthrough he decade. His positionwas solidified yShivajiGanesan'sdeparture orthe CongressParty n 1961. MGR, whosefilmstyleemphasizedforcefulctionover hecritical hetoricontributedyAnnaduraindKarunanidhi, ained ncreasinginfluence othoverfilms nd within heparty s thetwopartyeadersbecamemoreheavily nvolvedn electoral olitickingseeSivathamby981:38). While thedivisionbetween anguageand action can be overdrawn, would argue thatan essentialelement f MGR's successwas his complementaryse ofboth n an unprecedentedway. His own forte ppearsto have been fighting kill rather hanelocutionaryelegance, nd he very ikelyunderstoodhepower nddrawofphysical ravado orviewerswho were notonly ess learned n theartsofrhetoric ut also oppressed,often hrough hepowerofwords,by thosewho wereso educated.Nonetheless,evenin thosefilmsover which he wielded thegreatest ontrol includingNadodiMannan,discussedbelow),emotionally owerfulnd artisticallyloquent anguageremained n importantlementof thefilms'persuasive ower, and such speecheswouldbe memorized nd quotedbyviewers ordecadesafter.MGR soon became o popular hathecouldwieldsubstantial ontrol vermanyaspectsofhis films, nsuring hattheyenhanced heparty's mage and his own.As Forresterointsout, "always,either xplicitly r just below thesurface, herewas a politicalmessage n his films: heDMK iS theparty hatdoes in real ifewhatMGR does in thefilm,theparty hat oves and serves hepoor, thatdoes battlewithevil, that delivers he oppressed" 1976:288). This allegoricalmessagewasreinforcedy the use of party ymbols nd colors in the films.MGR did not,however, llow his identitynsideor outside theparty o becometotallymergedwith thatoftheDMK. He builtup his imageas herobymaking ndependent ndwidelypublicizeddonations o charities, nd began to suggestthroughhis filmsthat the ideals he espoused"could be achievedonlythrough leader ikeMGR."Eventually,peoplebeganto think he eaderwhomtheywantedwasnotsomebodylikeMGR but MGR himself" Sivathamby 981:46).MGR worked o establishhimself s a herowithin heparty s well. The DMKhad beguncontestinglections n 1957, and MGR subsequently uiltup a legionof supporters rom hoselegislatorswhose campaignshe financed romhis filmfortune.n addition,his fan lubs became nvolvedwithparty ecruitmentndvotermobilizationForrester 976:288-89).The combinationf thisfinancial,lectoral,nd cinematic id assured heactor'sindispensabilityo theparty or ometime.After heDMK wonthe state egislativeelectionsn 1967 andbecametheruling artynTamilNadu, however,many MKofficials ame to feel ess dependent n MGR's supportForrester 976:288-89).As MGR sensedtheerosion f his influence, is conflicts ithKarunanidhi eganto grow.ChiefMinister nnadurai'seath n 1969wasfollowed y thecrystalizationof twomainfactions ithin heparty, ach oyal o oneof thetworivals.Karunanidhiwas chosenchiefminister ypartymembers.


7/34

THE POLITICS OF ADULATION IN SOUTH INDIA 345Despite its internal ivisions, he DMK managedan overwhelmingictorynthe 1971 elections.Confident owabouttheirholdovertheelectorate,manyparty

members eganto express "growing oncern verthepopularitynd strengthfM. G. Ramachandrannd his M.G.R. manrams fanclubs}." Given the party'sstrengthn the egislature,t seemedwise to attempt o "curb whatwas perceivedas a growingmenace"ofpowerconcentratedn the hands of film ctors nd theirfans Barnett 976:294).Karunanidhi ade everalttemptso weakenMGR'spositionwithin heparty.MGR respondedn 1972 bylodging number f charges gainsttheparty, vidently elievingthatsuchpressurewould convinceKarunanidhi ogranthimthe cabinetposition hathad so farbeenrefused. nstead,Karunanidhiand other artyeaders espondedt oncebytaking heopportunityo banishMGRfrom heparty, ccusinghim of "indiscipline"Forrester 976:289).MGR's responsewas just as swift nd dramatic.He immediatelynnouncedthe formationf his own party,theAnnadurai-DMKADMK), structuredn largepartaroundhis fanclubs. VeryfewDMK legislatorseftwithMGR, but a highpercentage f the rankand file accompaniedhim (Forrester 976:289; Barnett1976:296-97). Becausetheschism esulted rom clash ofpersonalitiesatherhanpolicies,therewas virtually o differencen ideologybetween he two parties.Thenew ADMK, like thepartyfromwhichit had split off, ppealed to students ndlaborers nd to the lowermiddleclass and backward astes Barnett1976:303).Anydirect ontestbetween he twopartieswas postponedby PrimeMinisterIndira Gandhi's declaration f a nationwide mergencyn June 1975-officially

denouncedby the DMK-and imposition f President'sRule in Tamil Nadu inJanuary 976, dissolving hestate's xecutive nd legislative ranches.MGR, whohad been courtinghecentral nd stateCongress rganizations' avor inceforminghisparty,raveledoDelhi toexpress ispersonalpproval ftheEmergencyForrester1976:296; see also Kohli 1990:162).2State lectionswereheldshortlyfter andhi'sCongress overnmentasdefeatedand replacedby theJanataParty n 1977. This timetheADMK won the majorityofseats,and installedMGR as chiefminister. houghhis finalmoviehadappearedin 1976, MGR maintained ersonal nd party upportby emphasizingpopulistmeasures hat buttressed is imageas heroof the masses.Two ofthe mostpopularof these were the Nutritious Noon Meals Scheme-a lunch program forschoolchildren-andthe Old-Age Pension.AfterGandhi returned o power,shedismissed ll non-Congresstategovernmentsn 1980, including heADMK, andcalled for new elections.Despite an electoral lliance betweenCongress nd theDMK, however, he ADMK once again won a "routing"victoryJagathrakshakan1984:108).The political ontent fTamil films ecame ubdued n the 1970s, particularlyafterMGR's departureromcreen cting.Today,Karunanidhi s only nfrequentlyinvolved n filmmaking. fewotherdirectors ontinue o be associatedwiththeparties-T. RajendarwiththeDMK and BhagyarajwiththeADMK, for xample-but none of themfills movieswith political protestor allegory s Annadurai,Karunanidhi, nd MGR did.Yet while the content f filmshas becomeless political,cinemaand politicshavecontinued osharepersonnel.A lookat themost uccessful ftheSouth ndianfilm rtists oenter olitics, ther hanMGR, demonstratesherange f ndividuals

21t was also at this timethatMGR changedhisparty'sname to Akila IntiyaAnnaduraiDMK, theAll IndiaAnnadurai MK (AIADMK), apparently earing ban on regionalparties(Pandian 1992:29n). In popularusage, however, heparty ontinues o be referredo morefrequentlys theADMK (theTamil acronyms A Ti Mu Ka), and I follow hisusage.


8/34

346 SARA DICKEYand imagesmakingthis transition. hivaji Ganesan,who after eavingthe DMKcame to be seenthrough is filmroles as a respectablefamilyman," has becomemore ctive npolitics incethedeathof hisold rival.He hadmaintained enerallyharmonious elationswith theCongressPartyformanyyears, ouring hestate nitssupport uringnumerous lections.The onlynotable ensions hat rosebetweenShivajiand theCongresswereover his fanclubs' role in determiningheparty'selectoral andidatessee, e.g., IndianExpress,ebruary and 17, 1986). A formerMaduraimunicipalofficial nd vice president f the Madurai DistrictCongressCommittee oldmelate n 1986 that hivaji'sfan lubs hadhelpedtheparty. Onlynow andthendo they auseproblems," e said, "and in theendthey lways upporttheparty."nJanuary 988,however,hivaji plitfrom heCongressndannouncedtheformationfhisownparty, heTamilagaMunnetraMunnani TamilProgressiveFront).Several ther ctors ndactressesoinedhim.Whenthisparty ailed o gainany substantial ollowing, hivajiagreed n 1990 to become tate eaderofthenewJanataDal party,which at thatpointheld a majorityn thenationalParliament.Despite recent llnesses,he continues o be a respected iguren stateand nationalpolitics.Jayalalitha,MGR's lastmainfilmheroine,s thepresenthiefministerfTamilNadu. ShefirstoinedtheADMK in an officialapacityn theearly1980s, inductedpersonally yMGR. Popularly elieved o be his secretwife-she is referredo byparty upporterss "anni" elderbrother's ife)-Jayalalithawas oftenMGR's maincompanion n processionsnd motorcades ntilthechiefministereftformedicaltreatmentn theUnitedStates n 1984. After isreturn, owever, ewas invariablyaccompanied yhis wifeofforty ears,V. N. Janaki, n actresswho had retiredafter ne ofherfirst ilms o marryMGR.3Jayalalitha, hena member f thenationalParliament, eld thepost ofpartypropaganda ecretaryormuch of theADMK's rule. Her risewithin heADMK wasunusuallyapid,promptingheresentmentf somepartytalwarts,nd heroppositionsolidifiedn a faction ed byR. M. Veerappan, stateministerwho had oncebeenin chargeofall MGR's fanclubs. MGR-who seemedwaryofstrongdeputies-playedthese worivals gainst achother oryears, levating irst ne and thentheother n thepartyhierarchy,ndJayalalitha's ortunesscillated ccordingly. et,publicly t least,Jayalalithahoseto follow heTamil filmheroine's ypicalrole.Whenher fanclub leadersprotestedhefavoritismhowntoVeerappan upportersin the 1986 local elections yseparating rom heparty, herepudiated herebelsand announced hat hewould workfor hecampaign n anywayMGR instructed,becauseMGR was her"god" and his word,her"Bible" (IndianExpress, ebruary14, 1986).

3ThedigressionsfMGR and these wowomen rom hemoral odethatMGR propoundedas a majorelement f hispolitical magehavebeennotablywell "managed" over theyears.MGR was married wicebeforemarrying anaki,Janakihad also been married, nd theprevious pousewas still alive in both cases at the timeofMGR's andJanaki'smarriage.See Pandian (1992:119-20) for revealingdiscussionof the waysin whichMGR's laterbiographersmanipulatedthese situations o make thempalatable and even attractive ofollowers. he validityofJayalalitha's ositionas anni was neverquestionedby fanclubmembers.Nor did her own unorthodox onjugal history eceivemorethan the briefestattention uringher recent ampaignas head of herparty,notablebecauseunderminingherposition s a respectable omanwouldhavebeenoneoftheeasiestwaysfor heoppositiontoundermine othJayalalithand theADMK. The reasons hisdid nottakeplace arebeyondthe scopeof this workbut would be ofsignificantnterest orunderstandingherelationof thepress,political nterests,nd theformation fpublic opinion.


9/34

THE POLITICS OF ADULATION IN SOUTH INDIA 347

I

lhlt

t

Illustration . Poster n Madras advertisingheshowing fan oldMGR-Jayalalithailm,NiirumNeruppum,n 1991. (Photograph yRaja Enok.)MGR died in late December1987. But insteadof selecting ne of themainfactionaleadersto replacehim, as was expected,theparty hoseV. N. Janaki,MGR's widow,as thenew chiefminister. anakiwasclosely lliedwithVeerappan,however,ndfightsmong heir ollowersnd those fJayalalithapparentlyromptedPrimeMinisterRajiv Gandhi'sdecision o imposePresident's ule on Tamil Nadu

at thebeginningfFebruary988.Janaki'sministry asdissolved.n the egislativeelectionsheld in 1989, the DMK won a majority nd Karunanidhibecamechiefminister nce again.Jayalalitha,owthe head oftheADMK partynd,sinceJune1991, chiefministerofTamil Nadu, is the closestof all Tamil artists o followingn MGR's footsteps.Yet she never culpted film mage comparable o MGR's, and herdifficult isetopowerwas hamperednpartbythe ongstandingtigma ttachedoTamilwomenin theperformingrts-a stigmathat constrainsmalefilm ctorsfar ess and maybe partially esponsible or the lack of female inema artists ttempting o enterpolitics.Off-screennd on, mostof herfamehad to come through errelationshipwithMGR;4 her magebefore erelection ould be classifiedn SouthAsianterms

4In thisrespect, ayalalithaollowed hemodel setbyall female tate ndnational eadersin SouthAsia I knowof n the last fifty ears, ach of whom gainedpowervia herrelationto a man. This includes ndian PrimeMinister ndiraGandhi, PakistaniPrimeMinisterBenazirBhutto, ndBangladeshi ppositioneaderSheikhHasinaWazed, whosefathersadheadedtheirrespective ountries; nd Sri LankanPrime Minister irimavoBandaranaike,BangladeshiPrimeMinisterBegumKhaleedaZia, and Tamil Nadu ChiefMinisterV. N.Janaki, ll of whomreplaced heirhusbands.Jayalalithas thefirstwiththe status f eader'sconsort.Most ofthesewomen njoyed owerbased on their wn authority ncethey ttainedpositions f eadership.The fact hat,tomyknowledge,no womenhavereached op levels


10/34

348 SARA DICKEYas one of hero's consort.The more activeroles taken by many actresses oday-such as the recent rend f heroines mploying raphicviolence o crusade gainstpolitical orruption-werehardly vailabletoJayalalitha. s an actress/individual,in contrast,he was regardeds somewhat candalouslymodern"withherconventeducation nd Western lothes. Aside fromherpopularrecognition,hepoliticalusethatJayalalithamade ofcinemawasthusrestrictedodrawing n her onnectionwithMGR and herposition s his supporter. hese weresufficiento launchherelectoral areer.Moreover, espitethe hindrancesnd limitations f her on- andoff-screenmages,Jayalalitha as commanded small but vocal group ofherownpolitically riented anclubs, and these haveplayedsomerole in hersuccess. Shehas also used herBrahman aste statusto help counteracthe actress's tigma ofimpurity,mphasizing er casteespecially mongBrahmanswho control ortionsof thepress.Her leadershipn the ADMK's recent andslidevictory-won by thelargestmargin n state electoralhistory-has gainedhernewrespect mong muchof the electorate.Despite thevariety ffactors hatmayhave contributedo thevictory,manyTamilssaythatJayalalithaascome ntoherown.She nowcommandsa solid powerbaseand is widelyviewed s an intelligenteader, ven by hercritics.While she still makes iberaluse of MGR's name andofpopulist chemes hat chohis,much of herauthority owderives rom erownpresence ather hanfrom erformerelationship ith MGR.It is not yetclear whether ayalalitha's ong-term olitical success will rivalthat ofMGR. In neighboring ndhraPradesh, however, Telugu filmstarhasachieved position f similar tanding.N. T. RamaRao (NTR), who claimsMGRas his model nd "elderbrother"Elder ndSchmitthenner985:382), entered oliticssuddenlywhen he formed ishomegrown elugu Desam (Telugu Nation) Party n1982 and then rouncedhepowerfulndhighly avored ongress arty inemonthslater. Nine years ater, fterhis party ost the 1991 elections,he becamea leaderin the nationalJanataDal coalition.NTR, too,had chosenhisfilmroles arefully,playing nlyheroes, utunlikeMGR had made his reputation layingHindu gods(mostfrequentlyrishna nd Rama). In the ate 1980s, he evenbeganto wearthesaffronobes nd turban fa sanyassin, religious scetic. Herevoter dentificationofthepoliticianwithhisscreen ersonages reportedo be evenmore traightforwardthan n MGR's case (see below), especially n rural reasofAndhra,whereElderand Schmitthenner1985:383) statethatNTR is thought ohaveactually cquiredthevirtues f thegods in the processof portrayinghem.Althoughhe was notidentifieds theprotectorf the poor in mostof his films,NTR comes fromritually ow agricultural aste and took care to emphasizehis own impoverishedoriginsn hiscampaigniteraturend speeches Elder ndSchmitthenner985:381).Thus political figures ontinue o be drawnfrom he ranksof the cinema nSouth ndia. While filmsmaking harppoliticalcommentaryrenow rareoutsideofKerala,and even n TamilNadu-aside from ree howings frousing ld MGRmovies during campaign stumps-films are infrequentlytilized for politicalpropaganda, he recurrentrossover fpersonnel rom inemato politics s a signof continuednteraction etween hetwo. Clearly,despite ertain arallels n otherfilm ndustries,hisconnection as a greaternfluence n thepoliticalscenethanin other ountriesor nother egionsf ndia).While theUnited tates, or xample,now has severalformer ctors nd entertainersn office, nd Hollywood politicalsupport-financialnd testimonial-isbecomingncreasinglyignificantornationalandsometimes ven ocalcandidatesseeBrownstein 990), it is doubtfulhatmanyof leadershipwithout uch connections s one indicator fhowdifficultt is forwomen torise to positions fwidespread ublic authorityn SouthAsia.


11/34

THE POLITICS OF ADULATION IN SOUTH INDIA 349

Illustration . Roadside cutoutofChiefMinister ayalalithanMadraserectedn 1991. (Photograph y Raja Enok.)votershavebeen swayedbya passionforTheKnute ocknetory r evenDirtyHarry.The circumstanceshat have allowed Tamil Nadu's most powerful igures f thelast two decadesto risethrough inemapersist, nd derivefrom combination fdistinctiveharacteristicsftheSouth ndianpoliticalarena.

PoliticalSystems nd LeadershipTo comprehend inema's role in supporting politician'scareerrequires nunderstandingfpertinent eatures f Tamil Nadu and Indianpolitics.The mostimportantre theperson-centeredspects f ndianpolitical eadership, hepatronagesystem revalentn India, and thestructure fpartypolitics n Tamil Nadu.The first ignificant spectof the politicalcontext s the striking uccess nIndia of person-centeredolitics, a phenomenonmore popularlyreferredo as"personality olitics." The political"personality"n this formulations someonewho nspiresotesnot because fpolitical ecord,tands n issues, revencommunalaffiliation,ut becauseofpopularity ased on personal ttractiveness.t should bestressed hat his ttractivenesss determined oreby aspects uch as personal atureand even familybackground hanby physicalfeatures, lthoughthe lattermay


12/34

350 SARA DICKEYcertainly elp. Such leadershavebeenable to build a mythologyboutthemselvesthat serves s a protective oating,attracting oters' rust nd repelling ttemptstodiscoveromething nderneathheouter mage.They remore ikely obe foundat thestate or nationalrather hanthelocal level Bailey 1983:85); recentnotableexamples ncludeMGR, Rajiv Gandhi,andAmitabhBachchan,who was the mostpopularmovie star n India foryears nd recently ecame one of the firstHindifilm tars o enter olitics but leftfollowingllegations f nvolvement ith llicitcarmspayments).5Whilethephenomenonfpolitical uccess asedonpersonalppeal s not imitedto India, it is notably requentndwidespread here.Not all elected eaders ossesssuch appeal by anymeans, but thosewho do generally ucceed overcandidateswhoseappeal is limitedto otherfactors,uch as a lengthyncumbencyr a solidreputations an efficientdministrator.inemastars reoneexample f ndividualswho achieve such appeal throughout wide population;others,past and present,includefreedom ighters, rators, aste leaders,heads of religiousorganizations,unionorganizers,tudent eaders, nd gang lords.The appeal of "personality"s partofa general mphasis n Tamil Nadu andprobablymuch of ndia on a person-centeredolitics-as opposedto, for xample,thepoliticsof "issues," forwhichNorthAmericans ronounce preference.hisperson-centeredrientation,which has been notedby a number fobserversforexample,Brass 1965:54-55; Bailey 1983; Price 1989; Mines and Gourishankar1990), appears n theemphasis hatpoliticians lace on developing nd spreadingan awareness f their person" n a varietyfways.Anypublicevent ftheslightestpolitical ignificanceequires stagefromwhich mportant igureswill speak,andon whichas many ocal politicians nd officials s possiblewill crowdto promotethemselvesydemonstratingheir ssociationwithother mportantersonages.Allimportantuildings egin onstructionith dedicationya localorhigher oliticiananda cornerstone-layingeremony-with hepolitican's ame nscribed n the stone.There is a similarobsessionwithphoto opportunities. ppearances n numerousphotographs-which reusuallypublishedwithnames n newspapers r leaflets-putforthheperson, rove hat he orhewas involved na certainmportantvent,andperhaps reservehatperson's xistence,r essence,n thesamewaythatplacinga nameona building ornerstoneoes. The importance fdocumenting heperson,and theprestigehatderives romppearingnd being dentifiedn suchdocuments,are not limited to politics. For example, Caplan notes the importance f thephotographsaken of charitable onors at Madraswomen'sorganizations' fficialevents nd the photographs' ole in signifyingrestige 1985:190). It shouldbenoted thateachofthese s a reciprocalvent;thepresence f thepolitician, r anyrespected erson, lso bestowshonoron theceremonyroccasion.Cinemabothcreates ndpreserveshewidely ublicized, ynamic,nd attractiveimages o valuable nperson-centeredolitics.Successfulctors anselect nd shapetheirfilmroles n accordwithany image theywould like to project.MGR wasextremelyuccessfultmanipulating isroles nd image:healwaysplayed hehero,never hevillain,and demanded o rewrite is lines iftheywereunsuitable o hisrole as defender f thedowntrodden. ther actors,such as N. T. Rama Rao of

5Itshould be clear that am not conflatingpersonality"withcharisma;norwould Iidentifyach ofthese ndividuals s a charismaticeader. t shouldalso be noted thatwhilemydiscussion f the "person"mayat timesbe relevant o recentdebates on thenature fpersonhood n South Asia (e.g., Marriott nd Inden 1977, Marriott1989, Mines andGourishankar 990), myuse of the term s distinct, nd it is notmy intention o addressthatdebatedirectly ere.


13/34

THE POLITICS OF ADULATION IN SOUTH INDIA 351Andhra Pradesh,have achieved similar success with their own carefullymoldedheroic mages.Because ofthepopularityfcinema nd the glamour ttached o itsstars, nyfilm tarwho enters oliticswill be perceived s a "personality"yviewersand attract oteson thatbasis although, s discussedbelow, some magestranslateinto greater oliticalcapitalthanothers).Regardless f the image created, he filmstar has an additional dvantage nentering oliticsbecauseof the cultural mportancefheroes.There s a particularintensityffollowing, depthofdevotion, elt or eaders erceived o be "heroes."6Not all politicians, fcourse, re heroic igures.n fact, politician" s often dirtyword n India. Tamils that knew,of all social classes,portrayedmostpoliticiansas concernedolelywiththeir wnwelfare. he heroic eader,by contrast,s virtuousbecause ofworksdone for the good of others.Most heroic eadershave achievedtheir tatusby fighting gainst something r someone nimicalto theirfollowers,gaining piritual r materialwell-being or heir upportersn the process.Tamils'heroes ave ncludedkings,freedomighters,eaders fresistancemovements,ocialreformers,nd literary igures.Heroes lsotendto be ascribed ivine ttributes, tendencyhat s easily llowedin Hinduism.Polytheisticndia has ancient raditionsfgod-heroes uchas Ramawho performheirdeeds on earth s humans, nd of local human heroeswho aredeifiedbefore r afterdeath. Appaduraiand Breckenridge1976:190, 191) notethat South ndiantempledeitiesareconceived f as sovereigns,hat s, as personsof highestrank who command and bestowresources, nd Price, explainingtheattitude oward levated eaders,notesthat"superior tatus nd power . . havedivine attributesn popularHinduism" (1989:571). Thus there s no ideologicalimpedimento assigning eroic eaders hequalities fdeities,nor ventoworshipingthem s gods. Noris it a contradictionothink f leader ikeMGR simultaneouslyas a familymember, ince in South India this is precisely he relationshipmostfrequentlyerceived etweenworshipersnd gods in thedevotional hakti radition,wheredivinities reworshiped nd implored s parents, hildren, nd siblings, swell as lovers nd friends.Cinema,ofcourse,can encourage ivineassociations.MGR, who would laterplaythe ead in TheLifeofjesusChrist, ncesang,"Ifyou followme, the poor willnever uffer. irstChrist ame and preached; henGandhi came and preached;butthe people have forgotten. ow I will set thingsright." n another ilm,MGRagreedto aid some slumdwellers nd was told by them, "Really you are a God"(quotedinHardgrave1975:10). A friend's usband nce toldme, "MGR is a god;MGR is a king;MGR is my eader."Thisman, alongwithmany ther ans, elievedthatMGR would live forever. hese perceptions, ncouraged y films nd addedto beliefsthat MGR gave enormous id to the poor and was able to conqueroverwhelmingdds, made him intonothing ess thana superhumaneader.Thuscinema an be a powerfulool n constructingn attractivemage. Cinemais also useful o actorswho aspireto politicsbecause of thepoliticaland cultural6The intensityffollowers'dolizationofMGR was widely regarded s fanatical.Thiswas demonstrated ostrecentlyn December1987, when newsof his death ed to riotsbyfrenzied evotees,whosmashed tatues fMGR's rivals, ooted shops, and burnedvehicles.Some followers illedthemselves o demonstrateheextent f their rief nd devotion.Twoto threemillion people attendedMGR's funeral,where police opened fireto control heagitated crowds.Mournersweresaid to be angry nd disbelieving hat theirhero, alwaysthe victorover his cinematic nd political enemies, should finally e vanquishedhimself.Other ventshavesparked imilar esponses,ncludingMGR's 1972 dismissal rom heDMK(Jagathrakshakan984:1-2, 81-82) and the deathof C. N. Annadurai, he belovedfounderof theDMK party, n 1969.


14/34

352 SARA DICKEYimportance ttachedto charity r patronage.One of themain means of gainingpoliticalsupport n India is doing favors;n Bailey'swords,suchfavors an vary"from hewholly egitimate ssistance iven to a constituent ho is having roublemaking the bureaucracyive him somethingwhich s legallyhis right,down tothesurreptitiousnd entirelyllegal offerf cash in return or vote" (1983:86).To offerne illustration,f community eedsa well and therulingpartywill notsanction he expenditure,n oppositionpartymaythenprovide themoneywiththe likelyassurance fgaininga bloc of votes. No matterhow strong leader'spublic image, voter upport an be lost if an opponentprovides ssistancewhilethe leader gnoresvoters'needs.This "altruism" s essential o the leadersMinesand Gourishankar efer o as "institutional ig-men" periyar, eriyavar), personswhosepreeminence ependsbothon the institutionsontrollednd on theirown"charisma," kill, and idiosyncrasies,nd who "attractfollowersnd enact theirroles s generouseaders hroughhe charitable'nstitutionshat hey ontrol"MinesandGourishankar990:762). Theirsatellite nstitutionsypically orm "galactic"patternwitha "characteristic andalastructure,"nd are headed by lieutenantswho draw power from theirassociationwith the generous eader (Mines andGourishankar990:763, 764). This model fitsMGR and his fanclub organizationwell. In thiscase,generositys crucial oauthorityt each evelof theorganization.Charity nd gift-givingarry deep-seated ultural ignificance hatunderliestheutility facquiringvotesthrough avors.While thesumoftransactionsefinesgivers' nd receivers' tatuses hroughoutndia, theexchange fmaterial oods forpolitical upport s a longstandinglement fSouth Indianpoliticalrelationships.The sovereigntyfTamil kingswas traditionallyependent n their bility ogivegifts f land, titles,or honors o certain ubjects, nd theacceptance f suchgiftsdenoted oyaltynd service o thesovereignDirks 1986:311-12, Price 1989:563;see also Mines and Gourishankar 990:764; Shulman 1985:22-23, 368). Stein(1981:134ff.)locates theoriginofthisfeature fkingship n the Pallava dynastysome timeduringthe eighthcentury .D. Lower-leveleaderswho pledgedtheirfollowinghared n theking'squalities,whichPricecontends ent egitimationothe eaders' lordship ver heir wn, esser omains" 1989:563). Thus, sheargues,"valuesofkingship onstituted modelfor uthorityhatbytheeighteenthenturyhadpenetratedhe totalpolitydownto thevillage evel,"allowingmaintenance fthe "institutionalasesformonarchicalulturen localities"venafterhedestructionof the argermonarchiesuring olonialrule 1989:563-64). Elements f thismodelfor uthority ersist oday.Contemporaryeaders reseenas having "dutyto carefor the material nterests f [their]followers"Brass 1990:96). These traditionalcommitmentsccompany oliticalpatronage elationshipsn present-day adurai,wherepoliticians' cts ofbeneficenceccur n stark ontrast o thecorruptionndbureaucratic nresponsiveness et with by the poor in their ttempts o acquireeventhosematerialmprovementsccorded hemby governmentaws orprograms.Cinemaplaysa role n patronage ecause t can show a politiciangivingfavorsto peoplewho are like members f theaudience.This occursoccasionallyn filmsbut morefrequentlynthenewsreelshatrunbeforemovies ndthatoften roadcastthe atestpublicevents t whichwell-known oliticianshaveaided thepoor. Suchdepictionsboth substitute ordirectgivingand, in the case of newsreels, preadthe effects f the singlegiftor act to othersbeyond heactual recipients.n thisway the cinematicdepictionmakessingleacts of charity-even fictional nes-moreefficienty spreading heir ffectso a vastlywideraudience thantheactorand politician an reach lone,even f theeffectmaybe slightlymorediluted thanhad the act been carried ut in personratherhanon screen. n addition,fan lubs


15/34

THE POLITICS OF ADULATION IN SOUTH INDIA 353make a pointof carryingut social serviceprojects, ncludinghighlypublicizeddistributionsf valuablegifts o thepoor,all done in thename of the star.Theseevents rerepresentedndaccepted s instances f thefilm tar's argesse, egardlessofwhether hestar s present.It is instructiveo note,however,hat inema ndothermediahavenotobviatedthe need forthe personal ppearance nd the personalfavor. n additionto hiswidelypublicizedprograms o benefit hepoor,MGR found t advisableto makenumerous ublic appearances mongthe "commonpeople," attendingweddings,namingchildren, nd blessing lderlywomen.While cinema can provideheroes,events uringmy tays tronglyuggestedhatneithert nor nyother ommunicationsmedium ancarry candidate f,all other hings eingequal, theoppositionmakessufficientersonal ppearances ftheproper ort.Bothgetting ne'snameand faceknown nd getting hingsdone are crucialto electoral uccess.Image and patronagenot onlyare complementaryather hancontradictory,they an be mutually ependent.Whilethedistinctionetweenheattractiveerson/imageandpatronages a meansofgainingpolitical upport arallels longstandingdivision n SouthAsian political studies between piritual nd materialbases ofsupportbeginning, erhaps,withBarth's 1959) saintand chief)-which in thiscasecould be stated s the nonmaterialr symbolic nd moral oinageofthemediaversushematerialdvantageffan lub activitiesnd other venues ffavor-givingthere s ample evidence hat theyoftenwork necessarilyogether.Adulationandtransactionoexistfor most followers,n what Brass has called "a curiousandspecificallyndian ombinationfdevotionnd materialism"1990:96). Price dentifiestheir complementaritylearly n discussinghistoricallymbeddedbut persistentmodels of lordship: at thecoreofkinglymodels,"she argues,"is theconvictionthatdailywell-being r relief rom istresss dependent n discrete cts ofmercyand generosityrom uperior eings,humanor divine." The "beauty nd dazzle"oftheking"symbolized hepotentialitiesf wealthfor he communitys a whole"(1989:571), a statement hat could easily applyto MGR and his fanfollowing.Cinema inksthe mageofbeauty nd theprestationsf wealth,factorsn electoralsuccess,by bothadvertisingheperson nd amplifyinghe effects fthe laudabledeeds.Patronage nd personal ppeal are importantn politicsthroughoutndia. InTamil Nadu, a thirdfactor-the statepoliticalstructure-makescinemaan evenmoreuseful oolthan tmightbe elsewhere.Members f the egislaturere electedfromocalwards.As in the restof ndia, the parties' andidates reusually hosenaccording o whatHardgrave nd Kochanek 1986:285) call the "social baseoftheconstituency"ndthecandidate'sbility odraw hevotes fthe rea'smost ignificantcommunal roups. n Tamil Nadu, "communal" ies argelymean 'ati (caste)ties.The political ignificancefcaste s certainly otuniqueto thisstate;typically,sBrasspointsout, "powerat the local level, includingthe abilityto contest s aserious andidate n legislative ssembly lections, ependsupontheexistence fabase of caste support n clusters f villages" (1990:122-23). (See also Robinson1988.) But it is notable hatr.eligiousnd linguisticminorityroups re relativelysmall in Tamil Nadu, and arerarely factorn politicalcampaigns.While recentHindu-Muslim lashes uggest hatthismaybe changing, he variety fcommunaltiesfoundn India areherenonethelessenerallyimited o caste oyalties.Politicalparties ourt hese ommunities. venstateministersremore ikely o be selectedfor heir asteaffiliationhanfor heir xpertise,s thepartyn power ttempts omaximize ts communal epresentation.


16/34


17/34

THE POLITICS OF ADULATION IN SOUTH INDIA 355a movie mage ntoan effectiveolitical mage. In the process,he also transformedhis networkffan lubs nto crucialpolitical upport ystem. et whilehissuccesswas remarkable, is methodswere neither niquenor diosyncratic.he meansbywhichhe transposed is imagefrom ne sphere o another, nd therolethatthisimageplayed ngaining hepolitical upport f both udiencesnd fan lubmembers,provide n illustrationf cinema'spoweras a politicalresource or hefilm tar.In forty ears ffilm cting,MGR haddevelopedn image s a dashing omantichero ndtheprotectorfthepoor, n image hat ans ametoaccept s a representationofhis own personalnature.Bornabout 1915 in Sri Lanka,MGR is said to haveleft choolat theage ofsixwhen his father ied. His impoverishedamilymovedto Tamil Nadu, whereMGR and his elderbrotheroined a boys' dramatroupe.By 1936 MGR had made his first ilm,and his firsthit came out in 1947. HejoinedC. N. Annadurai's MK party everalyears ater.As Tamil politicalconsciousness ose in the 1950s and 1960s, MGR craftedhisfilm ndpoliticalmagecarefully.alledthe"DouglasFairbanksf South ndia,"MGR hadoften layed he swashbucklingero nhisearly ilms.With hisgrowingpolitical nvolvement, e added manyroles that reflectedhepopulist deologyoftheDMK party, requentlylaying heoppressed ut victorious nderdog. ikeotherTamil movies of the time,MGR's filmswere filled with flowery ialogue, lovesongs, nddramatic ights. was told alwaysbymen orbywomenwho disavowedsuch feelings hemselves)hat MGR's femalefansweregreatly wayedbyhis lovescenes. It was his acrobaticfightsequences,however, hat were most famous.HandsomeMGR fought he dark--kinnedillainswithswords, ticks, nd fists-and alwayswon. Good triumphedver vil as MGR saved thedayfor hepoorandfor heheroine.The filmNadodiMannan VagabondKing, orVagabondand King) was one ofhis mostpopularmovies. It is a primeexampleof how rhetoricnd actionwerecombined o buildan imageas a herooftheoppressed,nd of howhisfilms reateda basis forhis subsequentpoliticalcareer. Releasedin 1958, NadodiMannanwaswritten, irected, nd producedby MGR, and is said to have "assured"MGR'spositionofstrength ithinthe DMK (Sivathamby 981:39). It made cleveruse oftherising un, symbol f theDMK, and closedwitha shot of theparty's lackandred flag. In thisfilm,based on ThePrisonerfZenda,MGR playsthe double roleofvagabond evolutionarynd aristocraticing.In the two characters'irstmeeting,thevagabondtriesto convince he kingof the need forpeople's rule. When thekingresponds hathe is oneof thepeople,MGR thevagabond rguespassionately:

Howis itpossible or ou, ccustomeds you retoseeing our upfilled othebrimwithmilk, ounderstandhepeoplewho ive n themidst fsewage? ouhave o struggleverwhich fyour wothousandarmentso wear.Thepeoplelongtohave ustonethin arment ithwhich o hide their akednessndsavetheir onor-howcouldyoupossibly nderstandhis?Yourcourtesanseap tospread silkcarpet efore ou.Thepeoplemustbreak ff he thornshat earinto heir eet s they o,trudgingnward. ow is itconceivablehatyou houldbe one ofthem?

Quicklypersuadedby such an eloquentargument, he king agreesto join forceswiththerevolutionarynd together ight he evil agents readCongressParty) ntheland.Charactersndspeechesuchas these oreshadowedGR's ownpolitical hetoric.At the end of thefilm,whenthevagabonddisguised s thekinghas rescued hereal kingfromhis evil ministers nd an islandprincess rom he adoptivefather


18/34

356 SARA DICKEYwho triedto marry er,and the two MGR characters ave returnedn triumph,the new king issuesa proclamationhat "could easilypass forthe DMK electionmanifesto"Hardgrave 975:14). MGR is reportedo havesaid that NadodiMannanhas beenproduced o showthat theDMK iS thepartywhich s serving hepeopleofthiscountry"Anna,December5, 1958, quoted in Pandian 1992:34). Almostthirty ears ater,thepresident fa Maduraifanclub toldme thatNadodiMannanwas his favoritemovie because"that film s thefight etween heruling lassandthe working lass. ... Everything GR announced n thatcourt,he does nowas chiefminister."In his manymovies,MGR smashedtyrantsnd replaced hemwith his ownpopulistrule,worshiped is mother, ondemned he use of alcohol,and gavefoodand clothingto the poor. He playedrickshaw ullersand revolutionaryeaders,charmingovers, nd dutiful ons.His characterizationsdentifiedtrongly iththelowerclass. Combinedwitha bewitching lamour nd charm, hey dded up to aglittering hampionship f the poor. This was an image thatvotersbelieved n.Fans knewthat MGR was what they aw in the movies,and acceptedthemovieimageas therealperson.Poor and uneducated oters specially aw MGR as theirhero.Unlikemostotherfilm tars,MGR was perceived s someonewho not onlyunderstoodnd cared about theproblems f theworking lass, but also possessedthe necessary owerto attack nd solve thoseproblems.The nature f thisidentificationf MGR withhis screenroles s interesting.It was not a simple equationof the two. Rather, n conversationsbout the filmstar, t becameclearthatpeoplebelieved hatMGR would not have chosen o playtheroleshe did unlesshe sincerely elieved n the valueshis charactersspoused.Forhis followers,MGR's roleswerean illustrationf how he himselfwouldact inreal-life ircumstances.hus thepartshe choseto playnotonly presagedhis laterpolitical mage, they lso created he basis of a politicalfollowing. n his actionsand speeches n the manyfilms ike Nadodi Mannan,MGR sympathizedwith,articulated,nd either emoved r overcame heobstacles o socioeconomicecurityand politicalpowerfacedby thepoor. Manyofthepoorfeltthathe had a directunderstandingf and empathy or he difficultiesn their ives,and believedthatonce in powerhe wouldworkto alleviatethemas he had in his films.

Once in office,MGR was able to maintainhis immensepersonalpopularitydespitethe factthat he had made no movies n theprevious en years.When Ireturnedo Maduraiin 1991-92, his old films till playedin numerous heatersto packedhouses.As chiefminister,MGR tookcareto burnish is film mage byassociating imself ith motionallyharged ndeasily dentifiablessues includingprohibitionf lcohol, ubsidized ousing,ndfood ndclothing onationso children)withthe result hatvoterswould citehisgovernment elfare rogramso me side-by-sidewith his actions n movies s evidence hat MGR "helps people like us."One measure fhis popularitywas thepersonal loseness hatmanyfollowersfelt o thechiefminister. eople talkedaboutMGR as if he werea close relative.Manyfollowershought fhim as a protecting, elpingolderbrother; was oncesurprised o see evena twelve-year-oldirl pointto one of the many pictures fMGR in herfamily'sinyhouse nd referohim as "enkal nnan"myelderbrother).Some womentalkedofhimas a father,nd told me that othersfantasizedbouthim as a lover.The perception f such relationships,t least the platonicones,implies heassumptionfreciprocaleelingsromMGR; in fact, herewasa regularlyexpressed elief hatMGR was directlynterestedn each ofhis followers,s wellas in thepooras a whole. In onepopularmyth, t was often aid thatthe childlessMGR gaveall hismoney o thepoor,who took theplace ofhis own children.As


19/34

THE P-OLITICS OF ADULATION IN SOUTH INDIA 357proof, eople wouldpointto their hildren nd say,"See that chooluniform? GRgave thatto us last yearat the harvest estival." t was also believedthat whenMGR died, he would leave a littlemoney o his wife nd bequeaththe rest o thepoor.When thisdid nothappen, people explained hat eitherhis wife had takenthemoney r intrapartyivalries ad consumedt. For mostvoters,MGR's honestyand integrity erebeyondquestion:I heardrepeatedly hat while his ministersmightbe corruptnd greedy,MGR neverwas.Statementsuch as these demonstrate ow MGR's filmimage propagatedpublicperceptionf the chiefminister hat orrespondedo that mage.Poor peoplebelievedthatthe honestMGR, who had nothingbut theirown best intereststheart,would defend hem n real life as he had foryears n his films.After ll,would he have made suchmovies f his heartdid not agreewith them?For hispart,MGR demonstrated reciprocal evotion o thepoorthroughwell-publicizedacts of charity nd populistpoliticalmeasures.His imagewas so strong hat theactualeffectsfhis economicpolicies,which rguablywereultimately etrimentalto the poorand beneficial o the rich see Pandian 1992:21ff.forone discussion),went unnoticedbymost voters.Nor was he held accountablebyhis followers oraberrationsuchas thebehaviorf the ministerse hadchosen, hus argelyvoidingthe paradoxcharitable eadersoftenface in that "the more effective heyare atattracting lients,the moreinfluentialheybecome,and themore people doubttheir ltruism"MinesandGourishankar990:780). Indeed, t was not theministerswhohadattractedollowersoMGR's party;t wasMGR whom heywouldfollow-as was said again and again-to any partyhe choseto grace.

MGR's Fan Clubs and PoliticsMGR's cinematicallyeneratedmagesurvivedmany ttacks y politicalrivals,and muchdamning vidence fhis owncorruption. onetheless,whilethe strongpersonalppealof someoneike MGR is difficultocombat,by tself t is insufficient,as I have argued,to keepa leader n power.Thus theimportancefhis fanclubs.Their significance as derivedfirst rom heirroleas a crucialgrass-roots etworkin the ADMK party, nd second from hepropagandavalue of the social servicestheyperform, hichoperationalizehephilanthropicmage. Theyhave also serveda further urpose,that of adjuncttraininggroundforADMK politicians.WhileMGR's fanorganization as changed omewhat incehisdeath, t has remained nimportantlementwithin heparty.MGR's fan lubsare similar o other tars' lubs n South ndia in many espects.In Madurai,where haveworkedwiththeseorganizationsince 1985, such clubsare popularamong youngmen. Women, forwhom the "rowdy"public nature f

manyfanclub activitiess judgedinappropriate,arely elongto fanclubs.7Most7I heardof one or two MGR Women's Branchesmakila nni),but was told thesewerepurely oliticalorganizations, ith noneof the other ctivities ormally ssociatedwithfanclubs. I also learned n 1991 that one club had recentlynducted ix womenwhose roleisto identifyhoseneighborhoodesidentsmostdeservingfsocial services:womenwere saidto be more ffectivet this work incethey requentlynterneighbors' omes nd canmoreeasily scertain heirneeds.Evenin thiscase,however,women'sparticipationn other lubactivitieswas considerednappropriate. y thetime women reachtheir ate teens, most areeithermarried r preparing ormarriage,nd thepublic activities f a fan lub areconstruedas improper or and by) them.The vaguely icentious eputationf cinema tself lso keepswomen awayfrom anclubs.


20/34

358 SARA DICKEYmembersre ofthe ower lass and have essthan secondarychooleducationseealso Pandian1992:19-20). Local clubsareneighborhoodased,reflectinghecasteand occupationalmakeupof theresidentialreafromwhichtheydraw. While mostactivitiesre, n fact, ecreationalincludingmeetings, ilmgoing,nd publicdisplaysof dancing skill), the ethosof fan clubs emphasizes ocial service see Dickey, inpress). Clubs varywidely n membership ize, extent factivities, nd intricacy forganization. he largestgroupsare usually highlyorganized n both urbanandrural reas,witha bureaucratictructure hat devolvesfrom hestate/nationaloreven international)pex to district nd/or city,ward,and local ("branch") evels.Most fan clubs are devotedto starswithoutpoliticalcareers nd do not carry utpolitical ctivities although, s suggested elow,some could easilybe transformedintopolitical rganizations);n TamilNadu, those fMGR, Shivaji,and Jayalalithahave beenexceptionaln thisregard.MGR's fanclubs are also distinct n that, ofall the clubs thatexistedduringhis term n office, is werethe most intricatelyorganized,bestfunded, nd thereforehe mostfrequentlynvolved n majorsocialservice ctivities.While fan clubs are verypopular n Madurai, it is quite difficult o estimatehow manythere re. The only individualswithaccurate nformationre districtandstate eaders,whotend o believe hat t is in the nterestf their tar's eputationtoclaim smany lubs s possible, ndoftenmake ontradictorytatements. oreover,there s no accounting f unofficial anclubs, those that have not paid the feesnecessaryo register ith the central ody. n 1986 thedistrict ajnikanth residentclaimed hat herewere1,300 Rajniclubs n Madurai ity nd2,600 in thedistrict-numbers hat,basedon myobservation,re far oohigh.The Kamalhasandistrictclub leaders stimated more ikelyfigure f350 clubs in thecity.A ward eaderof theMGR organization ut thefigure t almost1,000 MGR clubs in Madurai.TheHinduhad reportedmorethan 800 MGR fanclubs in the DMK in 1972, butMGR himself laimed20,000 when he splitfrom heparty hatyear see Barnett1976:312n),Hardgrave eportedlaimsof between ,000 and 5,000 for ll ofSouthIndia in 1969 (1975:18), and Pandianrecentlyited n unattributediguref "about10,000 branches"n Tamil Nadu (1992:30). Shivaji Productions oastedofmorethan3,000 Shivajiclubs in 1969, but one club leaderestimated nly 700 in thestate t thattime Hardgrave1975:18). My ownvery ough stimate n 1986 was500 or more MGR clubs in the Maduraiarea, and approximately00 Rajnikanthand Kamalhasanclubs, respectively. ased on the less than definitivevidenceofconversationsithfan lub leaders ndobservationsf newclub signboards, suspectthat henumberfMGR clubshasdeclined lightlynd theothersncreasedomewhatin the subsequentyears. have too little informationbout Shivaji fanclubs toestimate heirnumbers.Unfortunately,hese are the mosthelpful tatistics o befound.To myknowledge here re no reliablequantitative ata about anyaspectsoffanclubs,and mycontacts id notprovide sizableenough amplefromwhichto project uchdata.

MGR's Fan Clubs as a Political CadreMGR's clubsbegan rganizingnthemid-1950s, mong hefirstan rganizationsto appear.When MGR leftthe DMK he was accompaniedby fewhigh-level MKofficials ut tookmuchof the party'smassfollowingwithhim, includingmanythousands f fan lub members. hesegroups oonevolved ntoa tightly rganized,intricate etwork fpoliticalsupport.


21/34


22/34

360 SARA DICKEY

.. l aion 3. Patfm t forin hfaclu

. .. ..... .

sX - . ::~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

event,withpictures f C. N. Annaduraileft) nd MGR decoratingthe top front.in 1985. 1 learnedof thisprojectthe followingyear,and about half the twentyneighborhoodesidentsasked oulddescribet in somedetail,providing escriptionsthatusuallycorrespondedloselywithMurugan's ccount.Club membershad decided to try nd procure"ironboxes" for ome of thepeoplein their rea whomake a livingby pressing lothing, nd who wereentitledbya government elfare ct to receive uchtools.According o Murugan,

Manypeoplewould sk us for heseronboxes, o we went o thecity ollector[thedistrict'sopgovernmentfficial] ith petition ith ortyames. hen hecollectorame to check o-make ure hat ll these ortyeoplereally eedtheirons.Whenhefoundt wastrue,weset date for hepresentationf he rons],andtheministerame.Forthat unction,egavethepeople dentificationardsso they ould ollect he ron oxes.As always t suchfunctions,herewere greatnumber fspeeches raisingMGR.The socialwelfareminister layeda prominent ole,eagerto be associatedwithapopular eader nd togaincredit or roviding harity. nce thespeecheshadbeenmade,the chosenrecipientsameforwards theywere alled,presentedheir ards,and received heirnew irons.Afterward, urugansaid, "theseforty eople eachgave us tenrupees nd said, 'Take these400 rupees nd conductmeetings nd dosomething or hepoor.' In thatwaywe meetourclub expenses.I asked Muruganwho providedthe moneyfor the irons-the club or thegovernmentminister? e answered,


23/34

THE POLITICS OF ADULATION IN SOUTH INDIA 361A governmentlan providest. But these oorpeople,because f their tatus,cannot o directlyo the ollector.heywill come ous-people whocan go tothecollectorndwho ive n theirame treet.f wehave publicmeeting, ewillgo andaskthem ach forRs.5 to conducthemeeting.We ourselvessk[them or elp]frequently.henthey antell only s their roblems. heywillsay, Why an'tyouhelpus with hisgovernmentcheme?" henwemust alkto theminister. e have o act fpeople skusfor hings, e have o give hem,ortheywillstopbelievingn us and therewillbe noclub.Like newsreel epictions fMGR's own acts ofbenevolence,uch eventshavehad theeffect fspreading heir nfluence eyond he mmediate ecipients o otherswho come to learnof them. Therewas little a political rival could say to swayvoterswhentheyhad concreteroof fMGR's givingnature. resentationeremoniessuchas thisone allowthe fan lubs andthepolitical fficialthe "servants" fMGR)and, most importantly, GR himself o receivecredit for the important ct ofgiving-even thoughthe ironsactuallycame frompublic government rogramsandmoney.Just s lower evel eadersreceivemerit n theaudience's yesfor heirappearanceswith and proximityo all higher fficials,o thehigher fficials aincreditfrom he good worksdone by thosebelow them in the name of someoneabove them. Thus there s both an evolving nd devolvinghierarchical hain ofassociation hatspreads hebenefits ccrued n both directions. uch reciprocalityis notunique n South ndianpolitics; tfits loselywithPrice'smonarchical ulture

model ndwith hegalactic eadershiptructuresescribedyMines nd Gourishankar.What is leftunexplained ytheseothermodels, however, nd what remains o beseenhere s the meansbywhichsubordinateeaders onvert heir ssociationwithhigher eaders ntopersonal tanding.These fanclubssupportedMGR (and laterJayalalitha) y canvassing orvotes,preparingor ndappearing tparty allies, ndproviding ackupwork n elections.They lsocarried utprojectshatdemonstratedhecandidate'sndparty's enerosityto thepoor. Campaign nd service ctivitiesrovidedhecrucial acking, hesupportandpromotional djunctto theheroic mageMGR had builtthrough inema. Buttheirusefulness,s theaboveanalysis uggests,has notbeenrestrictedo the starwhose name adorned them. In addition, fan club membershiphas affordedopportunitiesorpolitical nvolvement o members hemselves.

MGR's Fan Clubs as a Route toPersonal Political PowerMemberswork side by side withregularpartymembers o preparefor argeparty atheringsnd to canvassneighborhoodstelection imes.Whilemembership

in an MGR clubprovides uchopportunitiesordirect olitical nvolvemento anymember,fora few it also has opened a route to personal political power andadvancement ithintheparty. n fact,this is one of theonlymeans ofattainingsuchpowerthat s opentopeopleof thesocialstanding fmostfanclubmembers.Two factors ontributeo theirdifficultyn attaining ubliclyrecognized orms fpersonalpower. First, makingdirect claims to powerfor oneself s even moreinappropriateoryoungmenof ittlesocial or financialmeansthan t is for thersin Tamil society.Second,even if such a personwereto do so, he would almostcertainlyack the resources ecessaryo substantiate is claimsthrough he normalroutes fpatronage,wealth, nd ascriptivetatus.


24/34


25/34

THE POLITICS OF ADULATION IN SOUTH INDIA 363My observationsnd thoseofpartymembersuggested hatofficialsnd politicianswith a backgroundn fanclubs are generallymuch less secure n theirpositionsthan re fellow fficials.While thismay derive n part from he antecedent actorsof low socioeconomictatus, t is at the very east compoundedby the stigma offan lub association.Any trong ffinityor he filmworld s an indication f mentaland moraldegenerationnTamil Nadu (see Dickey 1989:27). Accordingly, egularpartyofficialswereskeptical nd suspiciousof thosewho had risen through heclubs (a longstanding entiment, s suggestedby Barnett bove). A local partyorganizer, ot connectedwith the clubs, told me thatclub officialsould notbetrustedwith "seriouspartyduties," implying hattheyhad neither he rigorousexperiencenorthe intelligence ecessary or this work.MGR himself eemedtohave differenttandards ordifferentarieties fofficials;my impressionwas thathe replaced hosefrom anclubsmuchmorefrequentlyhanothers. However, tmust lso be said thatMGR wasunpredictableegardingll levels f party eadershipin his last fewyears.)But no party eaders,regardlessf their eelings orMGR's fanclub members,could denythatthe clubsbrought ritical upport o theparty.At the"All-WorldInternational GR Fan Club Conference" eld in Madurai in 1986, MGR calledthefan clubs the "backboneof theparty" nd a necessaryink between hepartyand thepeople (The Hindu,July 14, 1986). The relatively ophisticated nd well-educatedministershatMGR chosemayhaveaddedrespectabilityo hisparty, uthe washighlyware hat he fan lubs, throughheirocal-level ower nd influenceandthe nthusiasmhey ncouragedor ismovies,were undamentalo hiscontinuingpopularitynd success.

Two Club Leaders: Pandian and MuruganI first ecameaware of the role ofMGR fanclubs in raising few of theirmembers s budding politicians hrough andian,a young branch lub secretary.His adoration f MGR was immense, nd Pandian was an eloquentdefender fhishero. n 1985-86 he was still n thefirsttages fhisclimbtoward olitical osition,and was followingn the footstepsf his olderfriend,Murugan. Murugan,wholeadstheheadclub ofthetenthward-an areathat ncludes andian's eighborhood-had bythenrisen s far s he could within he fanorganization nd seemedon thevergeofattaining politicalpost.Because hisroute o political osition asnotbeen notedpreviouslyn academicliteraturer thepress, includea brief ut detailed case studyof these two men.Although ndividual, hey xemplifyhosewhoattempt o workup through heseranks, nd their torieshighlight mportant spectsof the politicalclimb. Theiraccountsprovide llustrationsf how political powercan be achievedoutsidetheusualparty rena,and facilitaten understandingfhow sucha route ircumventsnormal ulturalproscriptionsgainsttheacquisition fpublic power bymen likethem.Pandianhelpedfound branchMGR club in 1985, andwhen methim wastreasurer f thatclub. Until his father ied thirteen ears arlierhis familyhadbeenfairly ell-off. is mostconsciousmotivationn hisfan lub involvement asthepromotionnd glorificationfMGR, but considerablevidence uggested hathe was also motivated y a desire to regain omething fhis family's ormer ndrightfultature-"rightful" ecauseof theirhighcaste nd previous ocial standing.


26/34

364 SARA DICKEYThroughhis position s officern an MGR fanclub, he has been able to reclaimsome socialpower.

Pandiansaid thathe had becomea fanfromwatchingMGR movieswhenhewas a boy. AfterMGR came to power,Pandianand his friends ecamepoliticalfollowerss well. Theywere mpressed iththegood things henew chiefministerdid forpoorpeople, especiallyhis noonmeals program or choolchildren,nd itwas their nthusiasmhatpromptedhem ostart club; thus ikemostotherMGRclubs, theirshad politicalovertones rom he beginning.They also spokeof hishonesty, indness, nd virility.The latter mphasisdistinguished lub members'remarks rom hoseof otherfans. Pandian'sremarkswere typical;he claimed,"Nooneelse hashismajesty.Evena cowardwouldbecomebrave fter eeingour eader[fight] ike that n the movies,"and whenwe firstmet he proclaimed hat"foreveryyear MGRJgrowshe becomesthat much morevigorous."Pandianand several therfans tarted heirMGR club with forty eople, andPandianwaschosen o be treasurer,e says,becausehewasconsidered elleducated,being just one yearshortof secondarychool completion.He was proudof thispositionbecause t was the sameone thatMGR had in theDMK just before e wasremoved rom hatparty.Recently andianmoved up to the post ofsecretarynhis club, second n command o thepresident.FanclubmembershipivesPandian everalypes fexperiencehatmay ontributeto a moredirectrole in politics.The most important f these are his leadershipwithin he club, his involvementn neighborhoodervice, nd his activesupportof electoral andidates.First, s an electedclub leader,Pandian s one ofthethreepeople responsible ormakingall decisionsregarding he club's internal ffairs.Within hefan lub,he hasgainedconsiderableuthoritynd responsibility.econd,he has also had a morevisiblerole n hisneighborhoodinceestablishingheclub.His club occasionally oldspublicmeetings orwhich platformnd loudspeakersare erected, nd Pandian and the other club leaders will speak to large crowds.ThroughMurugan,Pandianhas become nvolvedwiththe head club ofhis wardand is a featuredpeaker t meetings eldon his street.He has also becomebetterknownto neighbors hrough lub social services uch as distributingweetsandschool uniformso local children.His involvement ithelection ampaigning ashelpedhim earnpointswithintheparty ndgivenhimexperiencehat hould be valuable n the eventofhis ownfuture andidacy.For Pandian and his friends, ampaigninghas usuallymeantdistributingeafletsnd carryingut the menial asksrequired orhosting ignitarieswhocometo stumpfor andidates.After e became nvolvedwith the head club,he also began to travel o othercities to do preparatory ork for lections.Mostrecently,eworkeds thegroup gentfor heADMK'S MLA (member f the egislativeassembly) andidate orhisward,organizingll fan lubcampaignwork n hisarea.Pandianreportedhathis candidatehad wonbysucha margin hat DMK ministerlivingnearby skedtheDMK youth eaderwhether e had done anywork t all inthearea.Beinga club leader n a neighborhoodfpoorand low-caste esidents asgivenPandian an ideal positionfromwhichto supportMGR-now as beforeMGR'sdeath-at the same time as he gains local prominence. eople such as Pandian,who lack social and financial esources, re generally onstrained rom cquiringpersonal owerbycultural njunctionsgainstobvious ttempts o gainpoweroverpeers.Those who risethrough hefanclub hierarchy,owever, re notperceivedas seeking ersonal ower; ather, hey hemselvesremotivatedy-and satisfactorilyrepresentheir ctions n terms f-the goal ofglorifying GR, the leaderwho,


27/34

THE POLITICS OF ADULATION IN SOUTH INDIA 365as everyone nows,considerednot his own needsbut onlythose of thepoor. Inidentifyinghemselvess followersfMGR and attemptingo associate hemselveswithhis humbleyet illustriousmage, fan club leadershave been able to couchtheirpersonal tatus dvancementn terms f gaining powerand gloryforMGR.This strategyppears o havebeenmaintained espiteMGR's death. The fanswithwhom spokein 1990 emphasized heir eader's ontinuing resencen his films,whichstill play frequentlynd hearten hesefans while encouraging heir ctivesupport.Pandian'sown politicaldesires have remainedmuted. He is not in a strongenoughpositionto statehis own aspirations learly;to do so would make himappear mbitious nd presumptuous. is statementsuggest hatpolitical mbitionsonhis ownpartwouldhavebeentaken s interferingithhis currentoboffurtheringthegood name ofMGR, andperhaps n his mindas direct ompetitionwithMGRas well. Becauseclear ambitions o personal ower n thepublicrealm re frownedonfor man of his socioeconomic osition, t was crucial hathe be seenas workingsolelyto promoteMGR. He has been most consciousof his goals forMGR, notforhimself;s withmostfan lubleaders, is effortsre dealistic ather han ynical.When leftMadurai nearly1987, it seemed ikely hatPandianwouldachievehigher ositions n thefuture.His involvement iththehead clubwas a strategicmove; it gave himgreatereveragewithinthe overallfanorganizationo promotebothhis hero nd,eventually, imself.Had MGR remainedn office andianwouldhave continued o speakat the headclub'spublicmeetings, nd as he grew n ageandexperience ouldalmost ertainlyave become mediator etween eighborhoodresidentsnd thepublicofficials ho control uchthings s inconvenientegulationsor the local government'sursestrings.Althoughhe was unable to achievesuchstaturewhilehis partywas out ofpower-he simplydid not have access to thosein control-his work n electoral ampaignsduringthattimehelpedhimto gaincredit nd visibility othwithin heclub and within he ocalbranches ftheparty.His positionhas been furthertrengthenedytheADMK's return o power,and itis likelythat he will soon put his record s a follower o work to gain furtherauthority ithin heparty rganizationnd his local area.Murugan,Pandian'smentor nd president f theirward'shead club, providesan exampleof thepath Pandianmayfollow nd of the laterstagesof a politicalrise through hefanorganization.Now in his late forties,Muruganbecamea fanof MGR when the actorwas in his cinematicheyday.He claimed to have seenNadodiMannanten or fifteenimes,morethananyotherfilm, because "in thatfilmMGR implementshe lawsverywell." When MGR was "transferred"ut oftheDMK, as Muruganput it, he and a largegroupoffriendseft hatparty o jointhenewADMK and begantheir wnMGR fan club. Theyrented smallbuildingandestablishedhemselvesn theirneighborhood.Muruganwaschosen s presidentof the club at that time, and has remained o eversince. Sometimethereafter,thanks o the club's activities nd theinfluence f its leaders,Murugan's lub wasnamed as the head club of theirward. Maduraihas about sixty-five ardsfor apopulation fnearly nemillion, nd Murugan's urisdictionxtends vera sizablearea.Althoughhehad less to sayaboutMGR's star ualitiesthandid manyyoungermembers, t was obviousthatMuruganrespectedMGR greatly. n 1986 he saw"no justification"or heADMK to exist withoutMGR, and predictedaccurately)that heADMK would plit nto wopartiesnd fallfrom ower fterMGR's departure.He was also proudofhis leader's ltruism o thepoor,and duringour interviewshe spokefrequentlyf MGR's acts ofgenerosity. e also believedthat he and his


28/34

366 SARA DICKEYfellowsprovided ssentialpolitical support, rediting is club's labor in MaduraiwithprovidingheADMK'S largestwinduring he astmunicipal overnmentlections,and noting, s a measure f theirdedication, hatsomememberswere ailed after"defending" heirparty rom rivalparty's ttack.>Moreover, oMurugan, ll fan lub activitieswere"completely bout politics."He already aw thepeople in the tenthwardas his constituents. atisfyingheirdemands nd approaching owerfulministersnvolved ome realcalculations f hisownpower nd influence,n addition o theglory heseeffortsould bringMGR.UnlikePandian, Muruganwas explicit bout hispolitical mbitions.He hopedfora seat nthenextMaduraimunicipallectionswheneverheymight e), and predictedthathe had an 80 percent hanceofbeing chosenas theparty andidate. At thetime he toldme this,his chanceswereenhancedby a friendship ith a powerfulstateminister romMadurai. The minister ad supposedly ssuredhim that "thistimewewill allowyoutocontest."Murugan ventually oped tohave an MLA post,butsaid he could notyet ffordt; to runforMaduraiCorporationouncillorwouldrequireRs.5,000 of his own fundsforfees,but foran MLA seat he would needRs.200,000 (U.S.$400 or $16,000, respectively,t thetime,but much higher nspending quivalents).UnfortunatelyorMurugan,MGR neverheldmunicipal lections;but while tis difficulto judge preciselywhat thehead club leader'schancesfor seat wouldhavebeen, t seems ikely ewouldhavebeen n a strong osition, eing longtime,effective,nd well-connectedupporterf theparty nd one ripefor ome sort ofreward.And likePandian,hispolitical areerwashindered ytheADMK'S fallfrompower.Muruganwas furtherlowedby his wife'sdeath in 1989. Friendsof thefamily old me he was so grief-strickene stopped appearing n public for ometime. I was unable to see Murugan n 1990 or 1991, but Pandianreported hatMurugan tillgivesorders o have work arriedut andoccasionallyddresses ranchclubs n hiswards,butgenerally as lessenthusiasm hanbefore or oliticalwork.To summarize he routes f Pandianand Murugantowardpolitical positions:bothmenhelpedestablish n MGR fanclub, and werechosen s one of themainleaders ftheir espectivelubs.Thisgavethem dealpositions romwhich o supportMGR, and also led to leadershipndprominence ithin heir wnneighborhoods.Pandian's role in partypolitics was limited to providinghelp with electioncampaigning. ince no one has been allowed to join thehead club since its earlydays, I expected hathe would continue o act as secretaryf his own club andtake on an adjunctmembershipfsorts n theheadclub,wherehe hadclearly eenaccepted.Had the ADMK remained n power,as Pandiangrewin experience, ewould lmost ertainlyavebecome, ikeMurugan, mediator etween eighborhoodresidentsnd public officials.In Muruganwe see whatPandiancouldbe in five o fifteenears, omeone essnaively nd morepragmaticallyoncernedwithadvancingMGR and thus his ownposition.Murugangainedgreat dvantage rom isgroupbecoming he head clubin its ward. Over fifteen ears,he had sufficientpportunitiesorparty ervice,publicvisibility,nd contacts ithpoliticianso be promised municipal overnmentseatand, possibly, o be awarded t. Where hewouldgo from herewoulddependon howmuchpower nd moneyhe couldgain by putting hatposition o use, aswell as on howlonghisparty ontrolled majority.t is not ikely,however, hateitherMuruganor Pandian would risemuchhigher hanthe district evel, giventhe distinction etweenthose who rise throughpartyranksand those who risethrough hefanclubs.


29/34

THE POLITICS OF ADULATION IN SOUTH INDIA 367These twomensuggest ome of thedifferencesetween hosewho risethroughwhat I have called patronage nd adulationpolitics, corresponding ereto partyranksversus the fanclubs. Pandian and Murugan both began with the goal ofpromotingevotion o their eader.Pandianwas ust beginning o realize hepersonaladvancementhat he mightalso gain along theway,whileMuruganby then hadcrystalized ispolitical mbitions nd was beginning o make useof thepatronagethathe had developed.Neitherone had losthis belief n MGR, nor did it appearthat ither adbegunto use others'dulation fMGR cynically orhis ownpurposes.We can also see that, ncepolitical ositions reached, oth dulation ndpatronagearenecessaryoall party fficials:ctsofpatronagesuchas the presentationf ronsby Murugan's lub) formaintenance fpopularsupport, nd theadulationofthepopulaceforMGR (and theresulting upport orhisrepresentatives)o getofficials

through ry pellswhenactsofpatronage annotbe easily accomplished.The fanclubs have servednot just as an alternate oute to the ADMK partyapparatus, utalso as an alternate or few fthosewho, ikePandian ndMurugan,lack the ability o gain personal owerthroughny of the usual routes.MGR's fanclubs, and other nstitutionshatfunction n the periphery f politics,provideaccess to limitedpower.The limitationsrose n this case becauseMGR and otherhigh party fficials urbedtheamountand security f the power thata fanclubleader ouldachieven the traditionalarty ndpolitical rena.Nonetheless, andianand other uch eadersmaygainsubstantialocalpowerthrough anclubactivities,especially hrough hepatronage ventuallycquiredby obtaining fficial avors orlocal people. Theyhavebeen able to do thisnotby attempting o win power forthemselves ut through hesupport fMGR.The fanclubs havechanged omewhat inceMGR died. First,membershavehad to deal witha deaththatmanyclaimed would never ccur. In fact, s notedabove,someyears fterMGR's death was toldthat number fmembers latantlystated that MGR was still alive. Othersdenyit symbolically y sayingthat hisessence iveson, and somedenyhisdeath'ssignificance y redoubling heir ffortsto promote evotion o the "spirit"or "memory" f MGR. Second,thepowerofthefanclubs is notwhat t used to be. When theADMK lost control fthe stategovernmentnd its human and financial esources, he club organization'sccessto theseresourcesnd thepowertheyfosterwas substantiallyurtailed-resulting,forexample, in a sharp drop in the abilityto hold presentationeremonies odemonstratehe party's, eaders',and fanclubs' generosityo the poor. Yet theclubshave remained forcewithin heADMK party nd its factions ecauseoftheparty's wnnecessityo recall ts links withMGR (still theparty's reatest raw)in order o maintain opular support.This need to emphasizeclosenessto MGR can also be seen in struggles orparty eadership, eginningwith theparty egislators' hoice ofMGR's wife,V.N. Janaki, o succeedhim as chiefminister, ather hanan experienced olitician,and followed ysubsequentbattles hat havefocused n claimsof "true follower"status.The fanclubs themselves ave insisted n their llegianceto MGR ratherthanJayalalitha, or xample,oranyother urrent artyhead. Somefanclubshaveconsidered ormingheir wnparty edicated o MGR's memoryTheHindu, April1, 1988). Now thatthepartyhas returned o powerwithJayalalitha t its head,theplace of MGR's fanclubs remains o be seen. They have been hamperedbyfactional plitsafterMGR's death,andJayalalitha, erhaps ensingthe suspicionin whichmanyclub membershaveheld her since herearly tormy ayswiththeparty, asnotembracedheorganizations a whole. A portionf thefans' ntagonismwas also a response oJayalalitha'sometimes ess thandocile image, bothin her


30/34

368 SARA DICKEYfilms nd later n thepress.)Yet their tatusas dedicatedbelievershas providedthe means nd sentiment roundwhichto remain rganized n theyears incetheirleader'sdemise.

The Use of CinemaWhile cinema'spresence n South Indian politicshas oftenbeen noted, thereasons or ts usefulness avenot beenwidely ppreciated.The basis of cinema'sutility s itspopularitymongand accessibilityo thebulk ofvoters, nrivaled yanyothermassmedium.Filmallows thesuccessfulctorto craft widelyfamiliar,politicallyttractivemage.This individuallyailoredmageworkswell in a person-

centeredpolitical system that highlightsthe unusual, attractive ndividual.Furthermore,he actor s at liberty o create n imageemphasizing enerosityndmorality, othof whichare traditionallyentral o attracting nd maintainingfollowing. n Tamil Nadu, literarynd rhetorical rowess nspiresgreatrespect.Thesequalities,as well as others uchas braverynd, in male stars' ases,virility,can enable the construction fa "heroic"personathat nspires particular epthofdevotion. inally, or ll these easons, ilmmages anbe directedt constituenciesthatoverarch r transcend henarrowerommunal onstituencieshat aretypicallypatchedtogethern statewide,broad-based oliticalparties.Thus, cinemacan beused to craft nd support unifyingnd widely upported eaderdisplayingmanyofthequalities raditionallyesirablen such figureutalsocapable fcircumventingotherrestrictionsfthepoliticalsystem.Simultaneously, an clubs' serviceactivities upportthe actor-politician yoperationalizinghe altruisticmage. The fanorganizationlso suppliesa networkof committed anseager to supportthe star and the partythroughgrass-rootscampaigning nd canvassing nd otherpoliticalwork. Moreover, inema unitesdevotion o the belovedimagewithcalculatedpatronagerelationships-elementsoften erceived o be mutually ontradictoryut, as I haveargued,not at all so-making he candidate specially trong hrough hiscombination f adulation ndtransaction.Thesetwoelementsmakecinema n ultimate ource f politicalgain for thersbesides he star. Because adulation or hestar nd thegoodworks hatdemonstrateit redound o thedoers'credit, nhanced n partbytheevolving/devolvinghainofmeritgained from cts of patronage, anclub membership an providea fewlower-classmen withthefoundation o developpoliticalreputationsf their wn.Lower-classmen are generally estricted rom he moreusual routesto creatingpowerbases; in few cases does self-promotions an attractivendividualhave anyappropriate lace. Instead,theyworkfor hegood ofanother,n thiscase someonewhoseownglittermayrub off hroughssociation.The structure f similar hainsofassociation asbeennoted lsewherePrice 1989; MinesandGourishankar990);hereI have also examinedhow the powerthattravels hrough hatstructuresgenerated. anssupportMGR's reputation or elfless enerosity ydemonstratingthatgenerosity,uttingt into ction hroughocial ervicectivities. heir ssociationwith hese oodworks xhibitsheir wnardent evotionndmayhelpthem stablishtheir wnreputations.n thefan lubs, dulationnddevotion roperlyemonstratedsupportnotonlythe dolized star andothersn between) ut also can lead to localauthority, atronage oles,and, potentially, partypositionforthe club leader.Thuscinemahelps ocal leaders vercomeongstandingimitationsn entrancentothepoliticalsystem.


31/34

THE POLITICS OF ADULATION IN SOUTH INDIA 369Cinemaworks estas a political oolwhen ll thefactorseviewed ere oincide.This helps xplainwhy ome ctors spiringo office avefailed espite eingpopular

performers.n Kerala,for xample,PremNazirwasunable to winan election.Thisdoes notsurprise eoplefamiliarwith hisacting,whopointout thathe hadhardlycreated n inspirationalmage. In his long career,he playedbuffoonsnd villainsand the "evergreen" omancer, ut he was not commonly erceived s a dynamichero.9 n Karnataka,Raj Kum

politics of adulation in south india

Documents