Cameron claims India support on Syria, Delhi raises issue
London/New Delhi: British Prime Minister David Cameron`s remarks that India was among countries which pointed the "finger of blame" for the Syrian crisis on President Bashar al Assad has prompted New Delhi to take up the matter with the UK government.
Taking serious note of the remarks, India raised it with the British government, both in London through its High Commission and in Delhi, official sources said in New Delhi on Monday.
"They have told us that it was a mistake," a source said.
In his statement during an emergency session of the House of Commons last week to convince MPs that Britain must join the US in taking military action against Syria, Cameron named India among countries that would support such a strike.
"In no way does the Opposition (Labour) motion even begin to point the finger of blame at President Assad. That is at odds with what has been said by NATO, President Obama and every European and regional leader I have spoken to; by the governments of Australia, Canada, Turkey and India, to name but a few; and by the whole Arab League," Cameron told the Commons on Thursday in reference to the Labour party`s motion against military action in Syria.
The British Prime Minister went on to lose the parliamentary vote on use of military force in Syria, and India has categorically ruled out any "military solution" to the Syrian crisis.
Reports suggest Cameron`s reference to India being among international governments that acknowledge the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime may have been a "clerical" error.
Downing Street said it was looking into the statement.
More from India
More from World
More from Sports
More from Entertaiment
- Zakir Naik's 'IRF' converted many to Islam?
- Is Zakir Naik's foundation converted many to Islam for monetary benefits?
- Is Zakir Naik's foundation converted many to Islam for monetary benefits?- Part II
- Why Pakistan commits heinous crime in Balochistan and POK?
- Why Pakistan commits heinous crime in Balochistan and POK?- Part II