New Delhi: Tamil Nadu chief minister and DMK supreme M Karunanidhi has raked the Lanka-LTTE issue again and has embarrassed ally Congress by calling LTTE chief Prabhakaram “ a good friend”.
In an interview to a private news channel, Karunanidhi said, “Is Prabhakaran a terrorist? No, I don’t see it that way. Prabhakaran is my good friend. I am not a terrorist. I will deeply regret it if Prabhakaran is killed. I will regret it. I will say it happened because of a lack of unity among the Tamil groups in Sri Lanka".
“Some people in Prabhakaran's group might be involved in terrorism. But that is not Prabhakaran's fault,” he added.
Karunanidhi’s statement came on a day when Congress reiterated that it considered LTTE a terrorist outfit.
“As far as Indian Government is concerned, LTTE is a terrorist organisation and Prabhakaran is a terrorist. The Government and Congress party consider LTTE to be responsible for Rajiv Gandhi's assassination. We would expect Lanka to hand Prabhakaran over to us. Karunanidhi's remarks saying "prabhakaran is not a terrorist" are his personal,” party spokesperson Kapil Sibal said.
Meanwhile, Sri Lanka termed Karunanidhi’s remarks as a poll stunt and said the Tamil Nadu chief minister was a "Chanakya" trying to exploit the issue for electoral gains.
Mr Karunanidhi is a Chanakya. He knows what to say and when. Not that he is not aware of Prabhakaran's attitude," Minister for Social Service and Social Welfare, Douglas Devananda, was quoted as saying by news agency PTI.
The Sri Lankan Tamil leader and cabinet minister said it was "shrewd diplomacy" in the backdrop of elections in India.
"One should know that Prabhakaran has kept nearly 70,000 innocent Tamil civilians as hostage and using them as a human shield," Devananda, who is the chairman of the task force for rehabilitation and development of North (Sri Lanka), said.
The LTTE is known to be one of the most dreaded terror groups in the world involved in many civilian killings, including the assassination of former Indian prime minister Rajiv Gandhi.
Comments
0 comment