On September 15, 1981, Karunanidhi was arrested for protesting against the Sri Lankan government’s actions on Eelam Tamils. He was released two weeks later on September 29th.

On July 27, 1983, Karunanidhi led a protest demonstration in Chennai, to condemn the ‘Black July’ atrocities against Eelam Tamils and plantation Tamils. He resigned his Anna Nagar constituency seat in the Tamil Nadu legislative assembly to show his solidarity for the plight of Eelam Tamils.

On June 3, 1986, Karunanidhi’s 62nd birthday felicitation function was held in Chennai. To support the Eelam Tamil cause, funds were collected from his well wishers and pledged that such collected funds would be distributed to the Tamil militant movements.

These deeds of Karunanidhi in 1980s had a common linking strand. These were carried out merely to upstage the then Chief Minister MGR’s hand and not much with sincerity to the cause of Eelam Tamils. Then in May 2000, Karunanidhi as the Chief Minister waffled as follows:

“On May 12, he said: “We (the DMK) will be happy if they (the LTTE) get Tamil Eelam, either through negotiations or through armed conflict.” He assured the House at the same time that the State would not be allowed to be used as a base by the LTTE. On May 13, he did a volte face. He explained that he did not support the establishment of an independent Eelam and that what he meant was that he would be happy to see an end to the Sri Lankan conflict and the creation of conditions in which Tamils could live peacefu lly. Then on May 15, he elaborated on how the DMK “distanced itself” from the LTTE many years ago, and that just because the DMK had at one time supported “Tamil Eelam” it should not be construed that “we supported all the activities of the LTTE”. [‘Some Questions in Tamil Nadu’ – cover story, Frontline magazine, Chennai, May 27, 2000]

To continue with the political expediency of Karunanidhi, the Chennai’s Frontline magazine again reported as follows:

“The vacillation continued, and on June 3 Karunanidhi mooted a “Czech-type division” of Sri Lanka. (He likened it to the separation of a man “from an unwilling wife.”) He affirmed that it would be ‘a negotiated political’ settlement as required by India but appeared to ignore the fact that it did not conform to the other, more important, condition that any settlement should be ‘within the framework of Sri Lanka’s territorial unity and integrity’. The suggestion drew instant protests. It was described var iously by other political parties - including the BJP and some of its allies - and newspapers as ‘vague’, ‘irresponsible’, ‘irrelevant’, ‘inappropriate’, ‘dangerous’ and ‘violative of the declared policy of India’.

Five days later, on June 8, DMK leader and Union Minister for Commerce and Industry Murasoli Maran blamed the media for ‘blowing it out of proportion’. However, interestingly, Karunanidhi had no complaints against the media when he issued a four-page statement on June 6, elaborating his earlier suggestion and defending it as ‘a right medicine, even if it is bitter’….” [‘The double speak in Tamil Nadu’, Frontline magazine, June 24, 2000]

Having been burnt by the dismissal of his Cabinet by the panjandrums of New Delhi in 1976 and 1991, the prime political objective of Karunanidhi since then for survival has remained simple; just performing an acrobatic act of having one foot planted in New Delhi (irrespective of which Party gains power) and keeping the other foot in Chennai.