In a statement released today, Ms Jayalalithaa said that the minority DMK government's chief minister Karunanidhi, through a resolution adopted in the DMK general council on the Mullai Periyar dam issue, had proved that he had hands only to hold the hands of the unions government and ensure the growth of his family members, and not to secure the legitimate rights of the Tamil people.  

Ms Jayalalithaa said that during her tenure, the Supreme Court, due to the skilled arguments presented before it, had on the 27th of February 2006 ordered that the water storage level in the Mullai Periyar dam be increased to 142 feet from 136 feet. Immediately after, the Kerala government had passed a legislation, which was an insult to the apex court's order. A petition was immediately filed on behalf of her government in the Supreme Court challenging the new legislation.  

Unfortunately, after the 2006 assembly elections, which took place within 2 months, a change of rule took place and the issue was diverted. Instead of taking steps to raise the water level in the Mullai Periyar dam, Karunanidhi out of selfishness had given credence to the Kerala government's law. This apart, when the Mullai Periyar case was being heard in the Supreme Court, no strong arguments were put forth on behalf of Tamil Nadu. When the Supreme Court had decided to transfer the case to a Constitution Bench, it was not opposed by Tamil Nadu. This was a great planned betrayal deliberately committed by Karunanidhi.  

This was the situation not only in the Mullai Periyar issue, but also in all river water sharing disputes. The Cauvery Tribunal had delivered its final verdict in February 2007. Though three years had passed since then, Karunanidhi had not taken any steps to set up monitoring committees to implement the verdict or to get the verdict published in the union government's gazette.  

The situation even today was that Tamil Nadu would receive water only if excess rain was recorded in Karnataka and the water could not be stored in the reservoirs there.  

Ms Jayalalithaa pointed out that Karunanidhi, who had initially announced that the Hogennakal composite drinking water project was being dropped completely, later following pressure from opposition parties had announced that the scheme would be launched. However, the truth was that the scheme has not been launched till date.  

Likewise Karunanidhi had not taken any steps to prevent the Andhra Pradesh government from constructing check dams across Paalaar and Ponnaiyaaru. Present  reports suggested that the Kerala government too was planning to construct a dam across Paampaar. All the rights of Tamil Nadu were being stripped, she charged.  

Ms Jayalalithaa said that Karunanidhi, who had made tall speeches about river water sharing disputes with neighbouring states before coming to power, had not taken any steps to secure the rights of Tamil Nadu after coming to power. When she had released a statement in connection with the union government granting permission for conducting the survey for construction of a new dam across Mullaiperiyar, Karunanidhi had argued that permission had not been granted. After coming to know that the union government had indeed granted permission, he said that a public meeting would be held condemning the union minister for environment. Later scared of the repercussions from the Centre, and keeping in mind the welfare of various members of his family, he had changed the announcement and said that a public meeting would be held to condemn the Kerala government. Later, lacking courage for even that, he dropped the meeting altogether. He then started moaning that he did not know whom to approach for justice.  

Now, the constitution bench of the Supreme Court has set up a five-member committee chaired by a retired chief justice of India. This committee will comprise of two technical experts on behalf of the union government and one each on behalf of Tamil Nadu and Kerala.  

Two days ago when Karunanidhi was asked about the Supreme Court's order, he had said that it was not a decision that was in favour of the Kerala government.  But now, he has washed his hands off the issue through the DMK general council resolution. She said that it was improper for a chief minister who should protect the welfare of Tamil Nadu to announce that the state would not be a part of an expert committee constituted by the Supreme Court.  

Ms Jayalalithaa pointed out that the Supreme Court had given such a verdict only in a case filed by the Tamil Nadu government. Under such circumstances, if a representative of Tamil Nadu was not to be a part of the expert committee set up as per the orders of the Supreme Court, would it not mean that the Tamil Nadu government was supporting the Kerala government's law subverting the supreme court's earlier verdict, she wondered.  

She asked whether or not the situation would come about wherein the views of Tamil Nadu could not be reflected, if no one was appointed on behalf of the state.  

If no one was appointed on behalf of Tamil Nadu to the five-member committee, then would not the Supreme Court construe that there was nothing to be said on behalf of the state? 

In such circumstances, if this committee submitted a report favorable to the Kerala government in the Supreme Court, would not the Supreme Court be pushed into a situation where it would have to give a verdict against Tamil Nadu?  

If a verdict against the welfare of Tamil Nadu was given, then the appeal would have to be filed in the Supreme Court. Would this not lead to needless delay? 

Karunanidhi's announcement that Tamil Nadu would not be a part of the five-member committee without giving a thought to any of this, was an improper act. Or had Karunanidhi taken the decision to barter away the rights of Tamil Nadu out of selfishness, she wondered and added that the reasons behind his actions were not known.  

She said that Karunanidhi could not justify his actions in any manner.  

A chief minister who had assumed office after taking oath that he would remain true to the Indian Constitution, ignoring a verdict of the constitution bench amounted to violating the Indian constitution. Karunanidhi had committed a great betrayal by giving up a right of Tamil Nadu by taking a decision that the state would not be a part of the five-member committee. He had failed in his duty.  

The minority DMK government's chief minister Karunanidhi had washed his hands off the Mullai Periyar issue through this betrayal. Would he have washed his hands if in similar fashion it was his family's issue? She said that it was ridulous that a resolution had been passed in the DMK general council describing the rule by such an irresponsible Chief minister as a golden era.  

Ms Jayalalithaa expressed her strong condemnation to the betrayal of Karunanidhi. She urged that steps be taken to appoint a capable person to the five member committee on behalf of Tamil Nadu, to reflect the the views of the state in the committee and to establish the rights of Tamil Nadu.