CM refutes DMK chief’s claim on Palar

‘While in power, Karunanidhi remained silent when A.P. tried to build a dam’

June 23, 2014 12:00 am | Updated November 16, 2021 07:06 pm IST - CHENNAI:

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa on Sunday accused DMK president M. Karunanidhi of having remained silent all along while in power and now trying to gain political mileage by issuing a statement on the issue of Andhra Pradesh reportedly trying to revive its plan for building a dam across the Palar.

In a statement here, Ms. Jayalalithaa said the DMK leader was known for lending a hand of relationship while he was in power. When voted out of office, he would try to project himself as a champion of the State’s rights.

While in power, Mr. Karunanidhi did nothing for getting the Cauvery tribunal’s award notified in the Union Gazette, nor did he try to protect the interests of the Tamils in the Mullaiperiyar dam row with Kerala. Now, “it is a mockery that >he has issued a statement on the Palar row to deceive the people, after having lost the people’s confidence and been voted out of power,” she said.

Mr. Karunanidhi in his statement chose to conceal the fact that it was the AIADMK government during 2001-06 that “fought the move of Andhra Pradesh to construct a dam,” the Chief Minister said. “It was my government that approached the Supreme Court against the move,” but Mr. Karunanidhi was trying to claim credit for it, she said.

The case was pending before the Supreme Court, and the Union Water Resources Ministry had already advised Andhra Pradesh to desist from constructing the dam. In these circumstances, Andhra Pradesh would not be able to construct the dam. However, the Tamil Nadu Chief Secretary wrote to the Union government on June 20, urging it to advise Andhra Pradesh against going ahead with its plan, the Chief Minister said.

Ms. Jayalalithaa said she was closely monitoring the developments. She said the rights of Tamil Nadu would be protected as it was done in the case of the Cauvery and Mullaiperiyar disputes.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.