These are excerpts from the statement issued by DMK president M. Karunanidhi on the Sethusamudram issue in Chennai on Monday.

"I am accused [by Chief Minister Jayalalithaa] of projecting myself in all the Government organised functions.

"How many Government functions have I participated in the last four years? It is true that I have participated in three or four functions organised by Union Minister Thiru. T.R. Baalu, at Chennai because of his insistence despite my resistance. I can understand from her statement to what extent this has irritated Jayalalithaa.

"When T.R. Baalu invited me for a function organised at Krishnagiri recently, I had expressed my inability. Jayalalithaa accuses me of projecting myself in all Government sponsored functions. But people know very well as to who projected herself at the V.O.C. Memorial inauguration function, held at Tirunelveli, on 23rd June.

"Jayalalithaa even insulted the Member of Parliament from Tirunelveli Constituency by not allowing him to speak.

"Further, Jayalalithaa described me as the patriarch in two or three places in her statement. Is it a crime to run a family, as per her dictionary? A family is run by a man and a woman. Is it wrong?

"Jayalalithaa attempts to establish that Sethusamudram Project has materialised following the demands made by MGR and herself. Is this true?

"Forty-five years ago, in the year 1960 itself, Anna spoke regarding Sethusamudram Project. Resolutions were passed demanding implementation of Sethusamudram Project, in the DMK conferences held at Tirupparankundram in 1961 and at Virugambakkam in 1966.

`Awakening Day'

"After coming to power, in the year 1967, Anna declared `Awakening Day' and insisted on the implementation of Sethusamudram Project, and Tuticorin Harbour Project, and also continued to insist on the same during the subsequent Assembly session.

"When attempts were made to change the Tuticorin Harbour Project into a mere fishing harbour, Arignar Anna, who was then Chief Minister, met Thiru. V.K.R.V. Rao, the then Union Shipping Minister, at India Cements Guest House. He took his predecessor Chief Minister Bakthavathchalam, and Industries Minister R. Venkataraman, and gave an assurance to the Union Minister that in the event of the Tuticorin Harbour Project incurring losses, the State Government would bear the same.

"When I was Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, in the year 1972, I presided over the function in which the then Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi declared open the statue of V.O. Chidambram, at the entrance of Tuticorin Harbour; in that function also, I spoke about the importance of the Sethusamudram Project in the usage and development of the Tuticorin Harbour.

"But, concealing all these facts in her lengthy statement, Jayalalithaa blows her own trumpet, as if she alone was instrumental in bringing about this scheme.

"If, as she says, the steps to press for implementation of the project were taken in the year 1998, who was the party in power then? Was it not the DMK? Was I not the Chief Minister? When this is the case, how can Jayalalithaa's claim she was instrumental in ensuring the project becoming a reality be true?

Credit for success

"She claims that her efforts in 1998 paved way for the implementation of the scheme. What about the steps taken by Arignar Anna and the DMK the other parties of Tamil Nadu, particularly, the voices of my brothers like Vaiko in Parliament regarding this scheme? Cannot they take credit for the success?

"The issues which are raised by Jayalalithaa now had already been raised by a section of the press favourably disposed towards her. "The Prime Minister's Office had taken note of the issues and asked for clarification from the Tuticorin Port Trust, and all particulars were immediately sent to the Prime Minister's Office.

"Fully considered"

"The Prime Minister's Office forwarded this reply to the Ministry of Environment, who forwarded the same to the expert committee. The committee thoroughly studied the issues raised, and the clarifications rendered and came to the conclusion that all aspects of the environmental impact were fully taken care of. Hence, the claim by Jayalalithaa that the Environment Ministry hastily cleared the scheme is wrong.

"Jayalalithaa had stated that only on her insistence, the report from NEERI was obtained in the year 1998. Perhaps she was not aware of what had happened subsequently. The Tuticorin Port Trust was not satisfied with the first report of NEERI and had sought a detailed report, and obtained the same subsequently.

"In November 2004, a case was filed under the instigation of somebody, wherein a question was asked whether their report was compiled after a detailed study, NEERI affirmed to the court positively. From the above it is clear that the claim of Jayalalithaa that there was no proper study of the scheme is born out of jealousy.

"When the public hearings were conducted peacefully during September 2004, report of the proceedings were not forwarded to the Union Government. On the contrary, when subsequent meetings held in November 2004, the ruling party men wantonly created disturbances during the proceedings and hence the meetings could not be held. This resulted in the delay in the implementation of the project.

"Therefore, Tuticorin Port Trust filed a writ petition in Madras High Court. At the same time, at the instigation of the ruling party an individual filed a petition praying not to implement the project. While hearing both the petitions, the High Court Bench consisting of the Chief Justice, rejected the application of the individual and entertained the writ petition filed by the Tuticorin Port Trust and opined that this project has to be necessarily implemented and described the scheme as one which would make India a highly industrialised country. The Bench further stated that such development-oriented schemes should not be axed in the name of environment protection. The Bench also directed that the proceedings of the public hearing should be immediately sent to the Union Ministry. The Court had only directed that the proceedings of the public hearing should be sent and not the No Objection Certificate. From this it is clear that No Objection Certificate is not mandatory.

"Even after the public hearings were over on 2/2/2005, the reports were not forwarded to the Union Ministry as directed by the First Bench of the High Court.

"Despite the receipt of letters dated 7th and 18th February and a request in person made on 10th February, the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board had not forwarded the report. Therefore, the Tuticorin Port Trust had to inform this to the Ministry. This necessitated the Union Environment Ministry to issue a notification dated 2/3/2005, mandating that the proceedings of the public hearing should be sent to the Union Ministry within 7 days. It is only after the Tuticorin Port Trust moved the Madras High Court with a contempt petition for not obeying the order of the Chief Justice Bench, and the same was reported in the newspapers, that Jayalalithaa Government forwarded the report to the Environment Ministry on 4/3/2005."

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National

News: Front Page | National | Tamil Nadu | Andhra Pradesh | Karnataka | Kerala | New Delhi | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous | Engagements |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Updates: Breaking News |