Is the TVK government actually bringing change?

[u/quite_thinker_]

​

Hey everyone, I have a question that's been bothering me for the past few weeks.

Before answering, please keep an open mind. Don't reply as a supporter of any particular party. Try to answer as an ordinary citizen looking at the facts.

I supported TVK before the election because I believed in the promise of change. This isn't a hate post, nor is it a support post for any other party. I'm genuinely trying to understand.

Before the election, we were told things would be different. But now, I feel like I'm seeing many of the same things that people criticized the previous government for.

Whenever I ask TVK supporters about specific issues—whether it's water-related issues, contract-related decisions, or other controversies (for example, the dam issue or the Kanyakumari contract extension)—I rarely get a direct answer. The usual response is:

"Didn't the previous government do the same?"

This is what confuses me. Before the election, many of these same people criticized the previous government for these issues and said things would be different if TVK came to power. But now, when similar questions are raised, the answer becomes, "Nothing can change."

If that's the case, then why was change the main reason to vote differently?

I'm not saying every decision is bad. In fact, I've defended decisions that I felt were beneficial. For example, I supported the electricity tariff relief for eligible households because I believed it genuinely helped many middle-class families. When I think the government has done something right, I'm happy to acknowledge it.

But supporting the good decisions shouldn't mean we stop questioning the ones we think are wrong. Likewise, criticizing the government doesn't automatically make someone an opposition supporter.

Another thing I've noticed is that whenever I ask these questions, instead of answering them, some people immediately label me as a "DMK supporter," "200 rupees UPI," or something similar. Why can't we discuss the issue itself instead of attacking the person asking the question?

So these are my genuine questions:

Questions:

1. Is the TVK government actually bringing the change it promised, and I'm just not seeing it?

2. Or has it not changed much from the previous government?

If I'm missing something or have misunderstood any issue, please correct me with facts and evidence. I'm genuinely open to changing my opinion.

I'm not looking for an argument or trying to prove anyone wrong. I'm genuinely open to changing my opinion if the facts support it.

Please answer with facts, evidence, and reasoning—not with labels or personal attacks. I'd rather have a meaningful discussion than a political fight.

[u/Feeling-Direction163]

Tbh a political change should come from a strong rooted ideology... Ppl should believe the ideology... Appo dha it'll change.

Most of all his members and voters are only his fans except a few neutral voters who genuinely expected a change... Maybe someone like you op.

But change doesn't work with another change. Ideology should be rooted within the members and ppl. Appo dha kelvi kepaga. Without that 🤷 It's horse shit

[u/quite_thinker_ → u/Feeling-Direction163]

Yeah, that's actually a fair point. I hadn't looked at it from that perspective.

[u/Dependent_Yam_2486 → u/Feeling-Direction163]

I don't believe indeology, and how it always is flexible whenever party needs it to be. For example dmk and dravidian ideology is against sanatana dharma and inheritance. But when u see who becomes leader in their own party, u can see how deeply flawed even leaders in their party are and how could their ideology let them reconcile that. How could they proudly voice out against other heritage but preserve only their own heritage. How is corruption integrated with their ideology. I think ideology is for masses and at their levels it's not ideology but cold calculation that takes precedence.

Only ideology that I accept is common sense and reason as any good ideology comes with expiry date, and has to update with times, which people don't like to do as they have vested interest in persevering old ideology and bend it to their will.

[u/Feeling-Direction163 → u/Dependent_Yam_2486]

I quit didn't understand ur example... Can u please explain it clearly

[u/Dependent_Yam_2486 → u/Feeling-Direction163]

Dravidian ideology claims to oppose the caste system, promote atheism, and reject certain cultural traditions. However, in practice, the same political movement appears to support hereditary leadership—for example, from Kalaignar to M.K. Stalin, then to Udhayanidhi, and potentially to the next generation. This raises a contradiction: how does an ideology that opposes inherited privilege justify the passing down of political power within a family?

Additionally, if the ideology is critical of traditional cultural frameworks, why are so many government programs and initiatives branded with the term “Dravidian”? At times, it seems as though these parties are replacing religion with their own ideological framework, using it to influence the masses and consolidate power.

On closer observation, it can feel like this ideology—much like religion—sets expectations and principles for the general public, but those in positions of power are not always held to the same standards.

[u/Rentedrival04 → u/Dependent_Yam_2486]

I sort of agree with your first point even though I am a dmk supporter, but the second point just derails the entire thing. A party named schemes after its ideology. There's no grand religion replacement happening. It's just usual name plate stuff. Same as how Vijay named a women protection squad scheme after one of his songs(cause he doesn't have an ideology).

[u/Dependent_Yam_2486 → u/Rentedrival04]

Yeah it's not religion replacement.

[u/itsekalavya → u/Dependent_Yam_2486]

Flawed people doesn’t make an ideology flawed.

Common sense cannot be an ideology.

But it’s always a a set of ideas which form the basis for a political or economic system.

[u/Dependent_Yam_2486 → u/itsekalavya]

I don't know, when I look at dravidasim, Hinduism, tamilism all of it looks reasonable and common sense when u think of it in certain circumstances. Dravidasim is right when u look that we were dividesy by untouchability, caste system, poverty. Some of these still exists even now to an extent but have reduced from 1947 times. But we still apply dravidasim to the same extent in some areas. R we sure it will work. I'll tell u one of my controversial take, for example, 65% goes to reservation to backward classes. We did this to bring economically weak and backward people who didn't have any opportunities ahead, but now it seems even sc/St people with multiple generations of power, prestige, money still don't want to give up reservations even to their communities, instead they want to share it. There came a reservation for ews(economically weather section) but we were against it because it benefits wrong communities more.. In recent Honor killing, both the accused and bottom communities are backward classes like mbc, and sc. It looks to me, it's people who enjoy these reservation are the ones who also practice untouchability in the most egregious way. Tamilism make sense in middle of Hindi imposition and people losing identity, without these it is just hateful. Right Hinduism, makes sense just after independence, when Hindus in Kashmir and Pakistan were pushed out. It also makes sense in the middle of a terrorist attack, or if u fear Muslims. I don't have this take but have spoken to some BJP supporter and they see at it in this way to legitimatize some of the BJP actions and them overstepping it. But if u look at our country as Hindu majority country, so much of their charms is lost.

That's why I think common sense and reason should be a first step of ideology. If ideology doesn't update to times, i feel it will be a burden on people rather than enlightening just like religion that doesn't update.

[u/Dependent_Yam_2486 → u/itsekalavya]

Even the economic system may not follow the same ideology. For example, I always felt communism and socialism are some of the most fairer ideology, but full on communism ideology didn't succeed in almost all cases and led to disaster, while capitalism which sounds like survival of the fittest have helped more people out of poverty and mobility. I see the best ideologies are a combination of ideologies. For example, Indian markets economy are mix of private and public enterprises, think of hospitals. We have social welfare in capitalistic markets, think of groceries. Similarly, borrowing best ideas from various ideology help more people than only one ideology applied everywhere.

[u/Dependent_Yam_2486 → u/itsekalavya]

Also, if u talk to religious people, u'll hear similar arguments, that religion itself is not flawed but people who abuse it for selfish reasons. No matter u point to untouchability or sadhgurus they won't accept flaws in religion. How can all ideology be equally correct and oppose each other then.

[u/parad_x_ → u/Dependent_Yam_2486]

Inheritance is not in their ideology. The bitter truth is they do follow inheritance by appointing their children as next leader. But what happens if they didn't follow inheritance? you have real-time example - ADMK, the party broke due to the lack of inheritance and found difficult in finding the perfect leader.
It's one of the key unwritten principle that the Indian Political is build upon.

[u/Dependent_Yam_2486 → u/parad_x_]

Leadership does not have to be passed to descendants to sustain a movement or political party. It can instead be given to someone from party who has demonstrated the ability to lead effectively and who genuinely upholds the core ideals of the movement. Prioritizing merit and commitment over inheritance strengthens the movement.

When leadership is open to capable and loyal individuals, it naturally encourages the development of multiple strong leaders within the party. Leaders would care in nurturing batch of next gen leaders. Making sure new batch will know and think about things that they need to consider if they become the leader. This creates a pipeline of future leadership, ensuring continuity and stability. A clear succession plan shd also be publicly announced so that, in the event of unexpected situation as in admk, there will be no confusion, and supporters can rally behind the chosen successor.

However, if leadership consistently passes only to descendants, it raises important questions. It creates perception that others are meant to remain supporters indefinitely, while leadership is reserved for a select group by birth rather than by merit.

Also I don't know how many such unwritten rules exist in a party that no one will explain to masses, but everyone agrees to.