Velumani flags AIADMK rift, seeks Sasikala return

Chennai, Aug 4:

Disgruntled AIADMK leader S P Velumani on Monday signalled that internal differences within the party remain unresolved, even as he complied with the leadership’s directive by attending the Dheeran Chinnamalai memorial event at Odanilai near Arachalur in Erode district, as per the invite issued by party chief Edappadi K Palaniswami.

Speaking to reporters in Palani at a separate event, Velumani urged the reinduction of former interim general secretary V K Sasikala and AMMK general secretary T T V Dinakaran into the AIADMK. He made it clear that his faction would not accept the new organisational posts announced by the party leadership.

Velumani maintained that the party could function effectively only if the earlier organisational structure, including district secretary posts, was restored. He reiterated that the ongoing differences within the party had not been resolved.

His remarks have once again brought the AIADMK’s internal rift into focus ahead of the Assembly Budget Session scheduled to commence on August 5.

Earlier in the day, Palaniswami had announced that Velumani would attend the memorial event in Erode while senior leader Thangamani would participate in a similar programme in Salem, a move seen as an attempt to project unity. However, Velumani’s statements and his show of strength, arriving with supporters in a large cavalcade, underscored continuing tensions.

The differences between Palaniswami and senior leaders, including Velumani and C Ve Shanmugam, have persisted despite earlier reconciliation efforts. Though the rebel leaders were accommodated within the party, they were not reinstated to their previous district secretary positions.

While both camps have publicly indicated that efforts are underway to resolve the issues, the Velumani camp continues to press for convening a general council meeting to review the party’s electoral defeat and restore the earlier organisational framework—demands that the leadership has so far not accepted, viewing them as a challenge to Palaniswami’s authority.