DESPITE THE political storm around it, all out efforts are being made to complete the Sethusamudram shipping canal project before 2010. Last week’s arguments in the Supreme Court have raised hopes of choosing a path for the canal that would be acceptable to all parties, a top official of the Sethusamudram Corporation told TEHELKA. The canal would provide a navigable route for ships travelling between the eastern and western coasts of India.

Presently, Indian ships that need to travel from one coast to the other circle around Sri Lanka to reach their destination. From Tamil Nadu’s point of view, the canal would boost maritime trade, the development of Kolachel and Tuticorin ports and the overall economic growth of its southern districts. The project has, however, faced many barriers.

Dredging operations off the Rameswaram coast for the canal had been suspended following an interim stay order granted by the Supreme Court in response to a flurry of petitions against the destruction of Adam’s Bridge/Ram Setu. Petitioners argued that Adam’s Bridge was built by Lord Ram and damaging it would hurt Hindu sentiments. Geologists, however, say the disputed site is a natural formation of limestone shoals and that similar formations exist elsewhere. The issue took a political turn with the BJP and the Sangh Parivar staging agitations against the project and inflaming religious passions on the issue. The UPA government drew criticism for hurting Hindu religious sentiments after an affidavit submitted by the Archaeological Survey of India claimed there was no evidence to prove the existence of Ram. Chief Minister M Karunanidhi turned his ire against Lord Ram, a symbol of Aryan racism in Dravidian politics. His comments precipitated matters. “Who is this Ram? In which engineering college did he study and become a civil engineer? When did he build this so-called bridge? Is there any evidence for this?”

The Supreme Court has witnessed several interesting arguments in the case. In May, former attorney general, K Parasaran, representing Hindu Munnani leader, Rama Gopalan, had argued that the Ram Setu was a sacred place and breaking it would permanently scar the Hindu faith. To that, Justice Raveendran asked “Can just a small portion of Ram Setu be touched for purposes of development? In our country, the Himalayas, Goverdhan and Tirupathi hills, rivers and land are all worshipped. Do you mean to say that the land can’t be touched, dams can’t be constructed across rivers and hills can’t be touched for stones?”

Last week, the Court directed the Centre to explore the feasibility of an alternative path for the canal. Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan asked whether a path with a slight deviation from the Dhanushkodi point could be considered so that a bridge could be avoided. Interestingly, highly placed sources in the state government say the currently chosen path had been approved by the previous BJP government and that it was the best path for the canal. The choice of the current path was endorsed in the report of the committee of eminent persons appointed by the Centre last October to re-examine the project.

From the top:An aerial view of the Adam’s Bridge

Manwhile, in a controversial development, Fali Nariman, appearing for the Centre, argued in Court that after rescuing Sita from Lanka, Lord Ram destroyed the bridge with his magic bow. He cited from the Kamba Ramayana — the Tamil version of Ramayana — in support of his argument and stated “Lord Ram broke the bridge into three parts. Anything that is broken is not a bridge. We cannot worship something that has been destroyed.” He also claimed that the Telugu version of Ramayana also states that Lord Ram destroyed the bridge.

Of late, the Sethusamudram project has been subjected to criticism from different quarters. In January, Chief of Naval Staff Admiral Sureesh Mehta made a controversial statement, “It is a viable project but, on completion, will be useful only for small ships and not to big ships navigating international routes.” (Interestingly, Mehta had spoken in favour of the project when he was Flag Officer Commander in Chief of the Eastern Naval Command in 2005. “The project will cut down the distance ships have to travel and save fuel. The increase in traffic, thanks to these advantages will not allow infiltration of LTTE,” he had said.) Union shipping minister TR Baalu rebutted charges that the project would be economically unviable and stated around 79 percent of ships that visited Indian ports during 2006-07 were small ones weighing less than 50,000 tonnes.

Experts support Baalu. M Subramaniam, a professor at the Construction Industry Development Council and a marine expert, accuses the media of ignoring the positive aspects of the project. He estimates that ships navigating from the eastern and western coasts of India through the Sethusamudram canal would save Rs 54 lakh per trip — based on present fuel costs — because of the shorter distance. The project also envisages creation of two multipurpose harbours at Thondi and Rameswaram and three fishing harbours at Mookaiyar, Sethubavachatram and Muthupet. Efforts are on to develop the Kolachel port in Kanyakumari district as a hub for major trans-shipment containers. The chairman and managing director of the Sethusamudram Corporation, K Suresh, had recently stated that Kolachel had the capacity to handle mainline vessels because of the availability of a 15-metre draft and Kolachel’s proximity to international maritime vessel routes between Europe and the Far East.

There is overwhelming support for the project in the southern districts. In June, the Tamil Nadu Chamber of Commerce and Industry (TNCCI) organised a seminar in Madurai on the topic, “What’s the confusion in completing the Sethusamudram project?” Speakers from different fields urged the Centre to expedite the project. “The canal will give a boost to the economic development of the southern districts. It should be implemented at the earliest, and not be made a scapegoat for religious and political reasons” S Rethinavelu, president, TNCCI told TEHELKA.

THE HEAD of one of the oldest Mutts in the country, His Holiness Arunagirinatha Gnanasambanda Desika Paramacharya of Madurai Adheenam, is a firm supporter of the project. He told TEHELKA that the project must be executed soon without hurting Hindu sentiments.

He said he was even prepared to take part in agitations in favour of the project. N Sethuraman, leader of the Thevar-based All India Moovender Munnani Kazhagam, accused the BJP of creating hurdles for the project for political gains, after having approved the canal path during its rule. Thevars, along with Nadars and Dalits are dominant castes in the southern districts of Tamil Nadu.

MDMK headquarters secretary, KS Radhakrishnan said Karunanidhi had created hurdles for the project with his controversial remarks about Lord Ram. “He has only complicated matters with his remarks,” he said. The DMK, however, is unapologetic. Party MP and Karunanidhi’s daughter Kanimozhi said the DMK was a rationalist party with the tradition of questioning beliefs. “In Tamil Nadu, the Siddhars had stated, centuries ago, that you can’t offer flowers and recite mantras to a stone and call it God, when God actually lives within you.” She said the DMK’s political opponents, including the AIADMK, supported the project earlier but were now opposing it merely because the DMK was in power.