Special committee on Sethusamudram project punctures Government claims
Read more at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/sethusamudram-project-rajendra-kumar-pachauri-upa/1/251985.html
The UPA government may have rejected the findings of the R. K. Pachauri committee , which studied the controversial Sethusamudram project , but the panel head is resolute on each and every observation made in the report.
Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, the head of the government-appointed eight-member committee, told Mail Today on Wednesday that not only is the present proposed alignment - 4A - of the Sethusamudram Ship Canal Project (SSCP) "economically nonviable", but some of the assumptions (made by the government) about the economic returns from the project are also "over optimistic".
Pachauri made this claim four days after the UPA government submitted an affidavit to the Supreme Court citing the project's "economic, navigational and strategic advantages" as reasons to pursue the controversial project, which cuts through the mythological "Ram Setu", despite the panel's observations.
In an exclusive interview to Mail Today , Pachauri defended his team's "purely scientific findings" and wished "luck" to the UPA government if it " still" wanted to proceed with the project.
'Outdated'
The scientist dismissed the government's proposal as outdated.
According to him, the last major project of a similar scale was the "Panama Canal". "That's the only one I can think of, and even that was more than a century ago... In those days, people did not think in ecological, environmental terms, the way we do now. We also have computers, technology, science, stimulation and other stuff that can help us see the larger picture, picture for the future... We should use it now, rely on it," Pachauri said.
Defending his team's findings, he said: " As for our scientific study, our dedicated team did it for a period of over one year, taking into account different factors and circumstances. We considered two parameters in the study - the project's impact on ecology and economy - and no one can find any fault with it whatsoever."
The panel report, a copy of which is with Mail Today, states: "From the foregoing, it can be seen that the project, including the possibility of adopting the alignment 4A, could potentially result in ecological threats that could pose a risk to the ecosystems in the surrounding area and, in particular, to the biosphere reserve." The report punctures holes in some of the key economic claims of the government.
It states that the "benchmark rate of return of 12 per cent isn't met for the range of scenarios examined in the case of alignment 4A". Pachauri said, "We found it economically unviable. Assumptions of the rate of return and other economic parameters were much too 'optimistic'. The return was not even meeting the Planning Commission set 12 per cent rate of return."
The report concludes: "Given the doubts raised by the detailed analysis, it is unlikely that the public interest would be served by pursuing the project on the alignment 4A." Pachauri also warned against other variables such as risk of oil spills, cyclones, tsunamis and other natural threats. "There was a massive cyclone at the very spot in 1964. One has to take into account the impact of such natural phenomena. Besides we also have to keep in mind climate change, its impact on the (rising) sea levels and their relation to the project," he said.
About the breach of the ' Ram Setu', Pachauri said: " The 4A alignment that we surveyed will require cutting through 'that' which is called the part of 'Ram Setu' by some people... but of course, our study has entirely been based on science and has got nothing to do with any religion." He said if the government rejects alignment 4A, it could possibly take years to work out another alignment.
"All the other existing alignments have already been ruled out by the SC and other authorities... In fact, it was the SC that asked the government to get a scientific study done on this alignment, and now that we have found it unviable... finding a new one could take some years," he said.
14 comments:
I am not sure why this website is so against the Sethusamudram project. Hindu activists have jumped into an issue of which they know little. The Sri Lankan writer whose article was reproduced in this website is a Christian.
So should we support the Sethusamudram project? It will speed up the ship traffic between Mumbai and Chennai. It will ensure that India better controls the sealanes on its southern flank. It will neutralize Sri Lanka and any Chinese attempts to use Sri Lanka as a platform to threaten India, a move supported by hardline Buddhists in Sri Lanka.
The proposed Sethusamudram sealane will have to be dredged deeper to ensure a deeper canal that bigger ships can traverse. The Palk Straits were a maritime corridor in early days prior to the silting of the water ways. Most ships in the classical era either traveled between Dhanuskodi and Rameshwaram or between Mannar island and the Sri Lankan mainland - Tirukethiswaram.
That rerouting of the initial Sethu Samudram concept to avail of the earlier sea routes without necessarily disturbing the geographic formation known as Hanuman's bridge would be ideal. It will cost more - but is worth it, not in terms of India's economy but in terms of India's defence and power projection. To hell with the fishermen's lobby, the backward unimaginative elements within the RSS who know nothing of Hindu history, opportunists like Subramanian Swamy who once again know little, the environmentalists and Sri Lanka - India needs to build this for India's sake.
And this can be done while keeping Hanuman's bridge largely intact - provided a new engineering design (that is more expensive) is considered. But when the ruling UPA has siphoned out billions of dollars (not rupees mind you), an extra cost will not be that prohibitive by comparison.
So please - know before your criticize.
Thanks for sharing your opinion Mr Raja.
I repeat what you have said. Please know the facts of Pachauri committee before you criticize. It says how unviable the project is.
As for your comment in the first para - on Hindu activists and Srilankan Christians, I ask you when are you going to be a Tamilian? Read my article 'All Tamils must unite to save Ram-Setu' at
http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.in/2013/02/all-tamils-must-unite-to-save-ram-setu.html
Also read Capt Balakrishnan's analysis at
http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.in/2013/02/setu-channel-makes-mo-nautical-sense.html
and Dr Badrinarayanan's interview at
http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.in/2013/02/ram-setu-man-made-structure-geologist.html
Finally you seen to say that you don't want the RamSetu to be disturbed. That is fine. Suggest an alternative route.
I think I will have to post an article on Heritage rules of Govt of India to show that it goes against human wisdom to disturb this structure.
Setu Project would invite disputes under International law. Read the next article. Just posted.
But I am not Tamilian. I want to defend India on its southern flank. Pauchari is an environmentalist. Like the human rights lobby, they are funded by the west. Didn't his organization along with Al Gore win the nobel prize?
The alternative route is the old route used by Indian mariners provided it is dredged which will cost - but thats ok. It should be between Rameshwaram island and the Indian mainland - below the Pamban bridge.
This is not a Tamilian issue - its an Indian issue. We non Tamilians can also comment on this issue of maritime interest and India's defence. Tamil Nadu has no monopoly. Between India's defense and the likes of Pachauri and Sri Lankan activists - I know who to support.
I am not a Tamilian but that should not prevent me from commenting on a project of national importance. The old route Indian mariners took was between Rameshwaram island and the Indian mainland - under the Pamban bridge. This explained the old ports in Nagapattinam. This route needs to be dredged by 60 feet and made into a deep water canal to allow deep water post-Panamax ships to traverse between Mumbai and Chennai. These ships should either be naval vessels or commercial container traffic. The channel will have to be dredged deeper than expected. The likes of Pauchari are western financed environmentalists - who won the Nobel Prize along with Al Gore. I respect him but that does not mean that he dictate defense policy. As to your point on international law - whose law? Sri Lanka is a rogue nation that has shot on our citizens/fishermen. Kachativu should not have been theirs in the first place. Indira Gandhi gave it away. Regardless, the routing between Rameshwaram and the Indian mainland solves the international law issue. I caution however that the new route would be expensive. But look at our Government - at the billions they have stolen. So once again, this is not a Tamilian issue and I as a Punjabi am still entitled to comment. It distresses me that there is no informed debate - everyone has an opinion without addressing the issue of India's defense. If Chennai is attacked by Chinese warships based in Sri Lanka, how will the Indian navy based in Mumbai or Kerala respond? A better route but that is outside our waters is between Mannar Island and the Sri Lankan mainland.
Dear Mr Raja,
I am sure you have not read the articles in the links I have provided.
I asked you to see the Tamil angle, because you saw things through Hindu angle (and even claimed that RSS does not know Hindu history!!!) and Christian angle (because the writer was christian). I wanted you to see the Tamil angle in the article for you to see the historicity of Ram Setu and the need to protect it as a rare Heritage relic. I am prodding the Tamils to take pride of this site and take ownership of this site in their land and protect it from destruction.
You claim that sea travel was a norm in this route in olden times. No. There were fishing trawlers around the islands, but Ram Setu continued to exist as a land route to Lanka. No one in the past ever thought that Ram Setu must be broken and given way for sea travel. Infact there are records to show that fisherfolks did puja at the middle of the Setu before going on their fishing. Before the 1964 cyclone devastated Dhansuhkoti, it was customary for fishermen to go to the Ramar island (which was roughly in the middle of the Ram Setu, it was above sea water then) stay there for 3 days to do puja.
Before that Ram Setu was partly intact and facilitated to go over to Lanka. Even 100 years ago, Bharathiyar spoke of "Sinhgala theevinukkOr paalam amaippOm, Sethuvai mEduruththi veedhi samaippOm" (Let us make a bridge to the island of Sinhala. Let us raise the Setu and lay a street on that".)
The sea route was one of the several ideas that the British had when they introduced transport routes all over India at that time but this Setu project was given up even at time. Infact in December 1914, the then Governor of Madras Presidency Lord Pentland wrote to Indian Viceroy Lord Hardinge to conduct an archeological survey at Ram Setu to ascertain whether it can be declared as a National Monument.
****
Though you claim to see it from an Indian angle, the justifications you have given are flawed. First of all, let Pachauri be an environmentalist and shared Nobel Prize with Al Gore (that enhances his credibility for us to listen to what he says on environmental issues of the Project), but what he has given, merits scrutiny. He did not say things from out of the blue or without basis. He did not go by the religious angle but looked at viability and had given his report. What he has given has already been told by experts of respective fields.
Your suggestion of cutting across the Pamban bridge would not get favour because post- tsunami it was found that sedimentation and coral reefs doubled around the Pamban island. The region is naturally sedimentary and any dredging process can not stop for all times to come if the pass-way has to be made. That is the problem with the project. And the supplementary problem is where you would deposit the sediments. It is on Lankan side. Do you think Srilanka would remain quiet at that? There is jurisdiction for Srilanka to object the Project at international forums and stall the project.
And you seem to believe that the canal in this region would serve the defense purpose of India and would check the Lankan - Chinese interests. Does this make any sense? Instead the best way is to increase the navy's presence and vigilance in the region.
@ Raja,
Read the article on how the project is a White elephant.
http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.in/2008/06/setu-project-white-elephant.html
You seem to be so casual about the exorbitant money spent. Money wasted so far does not justify that the Govt an spend even more on a new alignment via pamban bridge - which is not viable. What are the returns to the country and economy?
Click the archives on Ram Sethu in the side bar of this blog. There are 85 articles so far. You can read a lot of information on the non-viability of the project and the colossal loss on many fronts.
You sound like a pro - Tamil and anti srilanka. Know that if this project is done, it is the Tamil dominant Jaffna that is going to suffer due to massive inundations.
Read this link on how Jaffan would be affected in the event of Setu project coming up.
http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.in/2008/11/fragile-jaffna-threatened-by-sscp.html
Thank you for publishing my comments.
This will be my last comment. A few responses.
First on the RSS. I do not think they know Hindu culture. They are good organizers but not intellectuals - which is fine as long as they do not comment on India's military interests. That is a whole separate article that I can not enter into here.
Two on Sri Lanka. Just because I am anti Sri Lankan does not make me pro Tamilian. Its ok to be pro Tamilian but my argument is on Indian military interest as an Indian national.
1,000 Indian soldiers died in Sri Lanka because Sri Lanka's then President armed and supported the LTTE to fight the Indians. The LTTE even imported arms through the port of Colombo with the explicit knowledge and finance of the Sri Lankan President. Many Indians died. The current President in Sri Lanka is now leasing his country out to the Chinese, including in areas opposite to Ramnad.
Now, to your point on the Sethusamudram never being a sea route, I disagree. I am a mariner, not a historian like you. But let me comment.
If you were to look at the old Roman maps, the ships went through the Palk Straits. The main channel was too shallow because of rock formation. They had to detour between Rameshwaram Island and the Indian mainland or between Mannar Island and the Sri Lankan mainland. This explains the old Hindu temples on either side of the Sethusamudram which were ports of call. It also explains the hordes of Roman coins excavated in the neighbourhood.
Now that's your heritage that you can be proud of as a South Indian. I am a bystander. As a mariner, we studied the old routes.
I would reiterate my assertion that there is no informed debate, only a one sided argument against this project without factoring India's defence needs and commercial maritime needs.
As for the debris being placed in Sri Lanka - so be it. I care less. International law is always violated. China hopes to dam the Brahmaputra upstream and will get away with it. India built Farakka regardless of Bangladesh.
I will exit this debate at this point. Thank you.
Dear Mr Raja,
This is not a debate but an attempt to place on records the facts on Ram Setu. It is unfortunate that you - a mariner - chose to keep away from this discussion. Anyway I would like to record here my counter views and believe that you are reading them and respond at your will.
I would even request you to write here or write separate articles to be posted in my blog on mariner's point of view and defense point of view that you have been saying. Such sharing of knowledge is good for everyone. Hope you agree with me. You can even take a look at Capt H. Balakrishnan's (Indian Navy)interview that it makes no nautical sense to have the Setu Project in this link:
http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.in/2013/02/setu-channel-makes-mo-nautical-sense.html
I have no issues with you on what you think of RSS or Srilankan Govt, because I consider them to be your views to which you are entitled. But on navigation across the Pamban strait in the north- south direction, I don't agree with you as facts of the past speak differently. It had not been a feature of all times in the past.
As per records there was no Pamban island in the past, say, before the 15th century. Rameshwaram and the Pamban was an extension of mainland Ramnad. It was separated from the mainland in 1484 when a storm struck the region. The present Pamban strait was created due to submergence caused by the storm at that time. The depth was at the most 5 feet then. From then onwards small ships were able to pass through that gap created by the storm. Later it was deepened but the region was dotted with 21 islands of which 3 namely Poomarichan island, Pulivasal island and Krusodai island are so close to the Pamban strait that they were all remnants that were jotting up above the sea level.
Apart from this limited navigation facilitated by the storm of 1484, there had been no other movement in the north- south section. But the east- west navigation from Indian side to Srilankan side was brisk.
To substantiate my claim that on the later and lesser evolved level of navigation across the Palk strait, let me quote from the archives of British records of 1859 written by Edward Eastwick. Please take a look at that to know when and how navigation (limited) started in that corridor.
(cont'd)
(continued from above)
From
http://www.chaf.lib.latrobe.edu.au/dcd/page.php?title=&record=1981
" The island, which is about 14 miles in length by 5 in breadth, is said, and no doubt with truth, to have once joined the mainland of Rámnád, and to have been separated from it by a violent storm. This took place in 1484 A.D., in the reign of Achudapa Náik, Rájá of Madura. A small breach was then made, but the water was so shallow as to be passable on foot till the time of Achudapa's successor, Visuvarada Náik, when another hurricane enlarged the passage, which was continually increased by succeeding storms. The passage was further enlarged by the Dutch when they possessed the island. But the greatest improvements have been made since 1830 by the British Government. Before these improvements were made the passage was excessively crooked, and the depth, at high water and neap tides, only about five ft., so that dhonies without keels, even after discharging most of their cargo, would be often days getting through when the current was strong. There is now a channel called the Pámban Pass, the whole breach being about a mile broad, while the channel for ships clear of rocks is about 90 ft. wide and 10½ ft. deep, so that keeled vessels can pass through in either direction without delay and without discharging cargo. Even this space has been obtained by much labour, at an expense of upwards of £15,000, the work of dredging having been carried on since 1837. The expenditure, however, has been repaid by a proportionate increase in the number of vessels which have passed through. The trade has increased from 17,000 tons in 1822 to 160,000 tons in 1853. Vessels of 200 tons have passed, and even the war steamers Pluto and Nemesis; and freight between Colombo and Negapatam has been reduced by about six rupees, or more than one-half, a ton.
The channel takes its name from the small town of Pámban at the W. extremity of the island, and on the opposite shore is Rámeshwaram, which is a town of about 1000 houses, most of which are well built, and many of them terraced. There are some good streets running at right angles with the pagoda, the inhabitants being chiefly the attendants on the shrine."
Dear Editor
I will need to exit this debate for several reasons. I thank you for the excellent information that you had provided from the British Archives. It is very useful and I will study that.
We forget to use our archives depending instead on the maritime research undertaken by foreign academics.
My information was based on several sources. I will refer you to three. You will definitely use them for your future research.
One was a UNESCO exercise - In Search of Sindbad: the Maritime Silk Route.
Related to this was the 27,000 kilometer scientific expedition called the - Maritime Route from Venice to Osaka.
Even more relevant was the synopsis of different research material, much of it South Indian, in a UNESCO publication by Professor Senake Bandaranayake called 'Sri Lanka and the Silk Route of the Sea'. The latter has much information on the Sethu Samudram.
This last source would be most useful for you.
However factor in the bias of many international academics to downplay India's maritime contribution. This is witnessed more so in the last publication I referred you to. Do not take everything at face value but read deeper into what they say.
Ultimately, it is India's Maritime Silk Route, it is the Indian navy, it is the Indian Ocean and it is India's need to project power in a region stretching from Aden to Singapore, from Kanya Kumari to the Antartic. India needs to build naval relations with South Africa, Tanzania and Madasgascar. Its in our national interest. The old princely state of Travancore becomes very important here.
I will be silent now onwards.
Hindustan Zindabad
Ok Mr Raja. I respect your decision. I hope you would be following the comments in this article. I say this because I am planning to do an article on the maps of Ramsetu right form the time it was an isthumus during Holocene until the current or recent times. It would be mostly pictorial where i intend to highlight that navigation across the Setu was not done and not possible until the Pamban breach was made in the 15th century due to natural causes (cyclones). I would leave the link here once it is posted.
On your comment on Silk route courtesy UNESCO, I browsed the net and found one such map on Spice route. But that need not be construed as a marine map because the map shows the route that took them to places where spices were procured. There was a silk route too but that touches Colombo and then encircles Srilanka and lands at Madras and form there to Indonesia.
The spice route shows a landing at Colombo. Then from there to Mannar or northern tip of Srilanka. The line goes along the western shore of Srilanka but that need not be a marine route but coastal route to spice regions.
The maps can be viewed in this site:
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001591/159189E.pdf
@ Mr Raja,
Posted the article on Setu Project and Srilankan Tamil views.
Post a Comment