A Berlin Wall Across Our National Seaway

A Berlin Wall Across Our National Seaway

India and Sri Lanka recently declared that a feasibility study to construct a "Hanuman Bridge" across the Palk Straits will be undertaken. And now within few months Srilankan Investment Corporation Chairperson Mr. Jayasooriya had said that the feasibility is over and soon India and Sri Lanka are going to put their signatures for green signaling this project at a cost of Rs 4000 crores. A six way track for rail and road traffic is mooted. The distance of 29.2 kilometers between Thalaimannar and Thanuskodi which will be connected by this bridge, will dwarf the 23 kilometer sea bridge connecting Sweden and Denmark, Mr. Jayasoori proudly states.

At the outset this bridge seems to be a Berlin Wall to stall the Sethu Samudram Canal project conceived before 142 years, much before Suez Canal was mooted. India's coast from West to East extends to 3555 miles and to enable Indian ships to navigate within Indian territorial waters, the only missing link will be interlinked if Sethu Samudram Canal becomes reality. Further due to United Nations backed demarcation of exclusive economic zones will see our territorial waters extended up to 350 nautical miles from the coast. In such a changed milieu, it will be appropriate to expedite the construction of Sethu Samudram Canal. The last date of receipt of global tender for preparation of a feasibility study on Sethu Samudram Canal ended on 15th December 2001, and the nodal agency for implementation of Sethu Samudram Canal namely the Tuticorin Port Trust had then stated that the feasibility study will be over in 18 months. Now National Environmental Engineering Research Institute which had done preliminary study is entrusted with the task of doing the final study. Even the newly inducted Minister of State for Shipping Mr.Su.Thirunavukkarasar had said soon Sethu Samudram Project will commence.

If one had to recall the past it contains so many feasibility reports in queue. In 1860 Mr. A. D.Taylor of Indian Marine in his report estimated that the project could be completed in an estimated cost of 50 lakhs. These are the other feasibility reports during British rule namely British Parliament Committee Report (1862), The Report of Sir John Stuart the Chief Assistant Surveyor of Government of Ceylon (1871), The Report of Harbour Engineer George Robertson (1872), The Report of the South Indian Ship Canal Port and Coaling Station Ltd (1884), Southern Railway Company Report (1902), Sir Robert Brislow Harbour engineer of Government of India (1921), The Report of the Government of Madras on Harbour Development (1947).

In Independent India, for the first time the henceforth Rameswaram Shipping Canal got renamed as Sethu Samudram Canal in 19.5.1955 and plans to initiate a technical investigation for including this project in the II nd Five Year Plan gained momentum. Sir A. Ramaswamy Mudaliar Committee report (1955) in which the estimate of the project was merely 9.98 crores did not find favour for inclusion in the 2nd Five Year Plan. Thereafter Dr. Nagendra Singh Committee Report (1963), C.V. Venkateswaran Committee Report (1965), The revised estimate of C.V. Venkateswaran Committee (1971), The Technical Committee of Government of India (1980), The Report of the Harbour wing of the Ministry of Shipping (1981), Laksminarayanan Committee Report (1983), The unanimous resolution of Tamil Nadu Assembly (1986), Pallavan Transport Committee Report (1996), The National Environmental Research Institute report (1998) are in the league of reports that had favored this project over a period of 140 years. Now this project, which had been included in the IX th Plan, is going to be subjected for another feasibility study by global players.

As the rationale to have a National High ways is justifiable by all means, the dire need to have a National Seaway too is logical and is in national interest. If this canal is built near Adams Bridge linking Palk Straits with Gulf of Mannar, we can have an uninterrupted National Seaway.

And the recent decision of Indian and Srilankan Prime Ministers to have a bridge becomes a way for decent burial of for Sethu Samudram Canal. Instead in national interest India must desist from building a bridge and go ahead with the canal project. As Hanuman Bridge is attractive for the emotional of the ruling elite, we can even rename Sethu Samudram as Hanuman Samudram Canal and give clearance for this dream project.

Dravida Peravai will launch a march from Pondicherry to Rameshwaram to draw the attention of the people of Southern Tamil Nadu over the neglect of Tuticorin Port and the overall economy of South by constructing a BERLIN WALL ACROSS PALK STRAITS WHICH WILL SEND SETHU SAMUDRAM CANAL PROJECT FOR A BURIAL. We have appraised the situation by email to COMRADE GEORGE FERNANDES, NDA CONVENOR, and today i.e 14th July 2002.–Nandhi Varman  http://www.boloji.com/analysis/044.htm

HURDLES GALORE FOR SETHU SAMUDRAM PROJECT

Analysis of Alternatives

Five alternative routes for the construction of Sethusamudram ship canal were considered. Based on the evaluation of impacts of the project during construction and operation phases, the alignment (4) suggested by the Steering Committee near the Moonru Iruppu Chatram has been identified as the best alternative (Refer: Fig.5.16) which will cause the least damage to the biota and the environment.

This report is not the first of its kind. For 140 years many such reports were gathering dust. N.Nandhivarman General Secretary Dravida Peravai in a Memorandum personally handed over to Union Defense Minister George Fernandes at Delhi on 22.02.2001 and published in World page of Dinamani Tamil daily dated 23rd February 2001. In verbatim it is reproduced here:

Presenting last year's Union budget (2000-2001) The Honorable Union Minister of Finance was kind enough to announce in the floor of Parliament as: "Hon'ble members are aware that the Sethu Samudram Ship Canal project has the potential of providing a shorter route between the East and West Coast Ports. I am glad to inform that Government had approved the undertaking of a detailed feasibility study and environmental impact assessment of the project at a total cost of Rs 4.8 crore. I have made necessary provision for this in the budget."

"Though it is in the manifesto of the National Democratic alliance and almost all leaders of Tamil Nadu have demanded this project, nothing emerges out of these promises, I am sorry to point out. The Union Finance Minister's budgetary announcement was hailed as a great achievement because after having been conceived 140 years back, there appeared to be light at the end of the tunnel. But in spite of the recent promise made by the Prime Minister, I am sorry to say, it is going to be a chase of the mirage. I, as one of the Trustees to the Tuticorin Port Trust, the nodal agency to implement this project had been raising this issue in the board meetings. Quoting from the minutes of the Tuticorin Port Trust, it becomes evident that the nodal agency had no information or plans, while once again election platforms will hear promises galore from personalities. About 20 expert committees have conducted detailed studies and came to the conclusion that the scheme is technically feasible and economically viable.

Report of Commander A.D.Taylor of the Indian Marine, 1860 (Cost Rs 50 lakhs)

Report of the British Parliamentary Committee, 1862

Sir John Stuart, Chief assistant to the Surveyor General of Ceylonese Government 1871

Harbour Engineer George Robertson Report 1872

Proposal by the South Indian Ship Canal Port and Coaling Station Ltd 1884

Proposal by the South Indian Railway Railway Company 1902

Report of the Harbour Engineer Sir Robert Brislow to Government of India 1921

Port Development scheme by Government of Madras 1947

Dr.Sir.A.Ramasamy Mudaliar Committee 1955

Dr.Nagendra Singh Committee 1963

C.V.Venkateswaran Committee 1965 (Rs 37 crore)

C.V.Venkateswaran Committee (cost up gradation) 1971 (Rs 53 crore)

Government of India Technical Committee confirms feasibility of the scheme but shelves it due to cost factor 1980 (Rs 110 crore)

Ministry of Shipping and Transport (Port Wing) Committee 1981

H.R.Lakshminarayanan Committee 1983 (Rs 282 crore)

Tamil Nadu Assembly passes unanimous resolution 

seeking implementation of Sethu project 1986

Report of Pallavan Consultancy Services Ltd 1996 (Rs 685 to Rs 1200 crores depending on the draft)

Now that it becomes clear that all these expert committees have found the project feasible, the one constituted in the allocation made by the Union Minister would have also have endorsed the same view.

Way back in 1860 when the Suez Canal was on the drawing board the British Maritime pioneers had discovered that a shipping canal off Rameshwaram coast will save approximately 36 hours of sailing time between Madras and Tuticorin and reduce the distance by 434 nautical miles i.e. about 803 kms. The latest in the series of studies is by the Tamil Nadu Government owned Pallavan Consultancy Services, which says in its Report on March 1996 that "the project can be completed at an estimated capital cost (1996 price) of Rs 685 crore, Rs 760 crore, and Rs 1200 crore for a canal of 30 feet, 31 feet, and 35 feet draft respectively. The payback period is 17 years, and thereafter the benefit from the canal project would be Rs 47 crore in the first year and Rs 100 to Rs 120 crore in the subsequent years. According to the 1996 ratings earnings of foreign exchange is estimated at Rs 35 crore besides a reduction in fuel import by Rs 200 crore. The approved Sethu Canal alignment envisages the creation of a 180 km long and 200 meters wide canal to connect the Gulf of Mannar with the Palk Straits off Rameshwaram in Tamil Nadu. But major dredging needs only to be done only for about 15 kms on Mannar side and 12 kms on the Palk Bay side since a natural shipping canal already exists there.

In view of the economic benefits that will generate prosperity to Southern Tamil Nadu, we urge the Union Government to give the go ahead or speed up negotiations to hand over the project too private sector under B.O.T.basis. Nanguneri Free Trade Zone inaugurated recently is in the near vicinity. Unless infrastructure projects of gigantic nature like Sethu Canal project are taken up it will not achieve the required prosperity in our times.

We only urge what the NDA Manifesto promises, what the Prime Minister promised to the people of Tamil Nadu in a Marumalarchi DMK rally at Chennai, what has been incorporated in the previous years budget, what had been announced by the Union Defense Minister in Rameshwaram and Tuticorin on 6.1.1999 and in which as translator of his speech, I have little memory left to recall that promise, to be fulfilled before the Assembly elections ahead, as after having waited for 141 years for this project, the people of Tamil Nadu must get it.". Thus Dravida Peravai urged the Union Government.

Close on the heels of submission of this memorandum, the Union Budget was presented for the year 2001-2002. Dinamani, Tamil daily in its front page published the salient features of the budget. In the same front page it pointed out that no funds were allocated for the Sethu Samudram project. The funds allocated for the year 2000-2001were not utilized since a comprehensive feasibility study for which those funds were earmarked was not undertaken during that financial year. Dinamani recalled Nandhivarman's meeting with Union Defence Minister previous week in this connection and said as feared, in budget no funds were allocated for Sethu samudram project. It also stated MDMK General Secretary Vaiko expressed disappointment over these lacunae. Subsequently Junior Vikatan published a story in its issue of 14 th March 2001.Then there were protests from all quarters.

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TAMIL STUDIES PUBLISHED MY BOOK ON PERIYAR EVR : 2009

THIRU.VIVEK ANAND GANESAN IS AN ARDENT FOLLOWER OF ARINGNAR ANNA. HE HOSTED THE FIRST WEBSITE OF DRAVIDA PERAVAI FROM USA. SINCE TEMPLATE WAS NOT HELPFUL TO UPLOAD FROM INDIA, WE OPTED FOR A DELHI BASED HOSTING COMPANY. 

VAIKO WROTE FROM VELLORE PRISON on 7.10.2002

1 st February 2002 , when I landed in New Delhi, that day TIMES OF INDIA reported Historians protest statement on removal of the Histories of Chera, Chozha, Pandian Kings and also Sahthavagana rulers history from NCERT texts under Murali Manohar Joshi's Human Resources Development Ministry pressure. I issued statements, wrote in New Times Observer of Pondicherry. This while we met him in Vellore jail we told him. Vaiko from Vellore prison on 7.10.2002 wrote this letter to me "

VAIKO'S HISTORICAL MARCH TO INTERLINK INDIAN RIVERS

THE STATES

A march with a difference

T.S. SUBRAMANIAN
in Chennai

Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam leader Vaiko makes his political presence felt in Tamil Nadu by successfully completing a long march across the State.

K. PICHUMANI 

MDMK general secretary Vaiko leading the march in Chennai in the early hours of September 15.

IF there is one important outcome of the 42-day "renaissance march" of Vaiko and his cadre across Tamil Nadu, it is that his Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (MDMK) has reached the people of the State. It was a march that began with a difference and ended with a difference. On September 15, the last day of the 1,025-km-long march, Vaiko outwitted the police and marched into Chennai on a route that was banned to him. The whole incident - the hamhanded arrest of Vaiko and six of his cadre and their release after six hours - showed the Jayalalithaa government in a poor light. Vaiko went on to address a huge public meeting at the Island Grounds in Chennai that evening to cap a successful march.

Two days earlier, Chennai Police Commissioner K. Natarajan had denied permission to Vaiko and his cadre to march into Chennai along the route they wanted. The permission was denied in the interest of the public, free flow of traffic and to maintain law and order, the Police Commissioner said. Chief Minister Jayalalithaa alleged that Vaiko insisted on marching through important roads in Chennai in order to create "confusion" and law and order problem. Processions were allowed in Chennai only on a particular road, and this was in accordance with the Supreme Court guidelines, she said. Vaiko said the march had all along been peaceful, and so denial of permission to him to march into Chennai was illegal and undemocratic. (The All India Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam government had jailed Vaiko and eight other MDMK leaders for 19 months under the Prevention of Terrorism Act.)

The renaissance march began on August 5 from Tirunelveli town, about 620 km from Chennai. An important demand that the march highlighted was the inter-linking of rivers, especially the rivers in the south. Another demand was to affirm the rights of Tamil Nadu in sharing the Cauvery river waters with neighbouring Karnataka. The march also aimed at preparing the people to establish a society that was free of communal canker, propagating the tenets of the Dravidian movement and mobilising people's opinion against the ruling AIADMK's atrocities. "The march is not for deriving any political advantage. It has social, economic and cultural aims. We dedicate ourselves to establishing a casteless society. We want to reach the people," Vaiko said.

It was an eventful march with Vaiko and about 3,000 young MDMK cadre walking through cities, towns and hundreds of villages covering 15 districts. Vaiko led the march, dressed in spotless white dhoti and white shirt, with a black towel around his shoulders. The cadre were dressed in black trousers and black shirts. They walked in a file of three, holding MDMK flags.

Hundreds of people waited along the route to give them a rapturous welcome. As Vaiko said at a public meeting, "they showered unalloyed affection on us, expecting nothing in return". He was touched by the "selfless affection" that his cadre showered on him. When an old woman asked him why he was walking without an umbrella in the sun, he told her: "When you have walked a mile in the sun and you don't have chappals, where is the need for an umbrella for me?" In a village called Olimathi, near Tiruvarur, Thanjavur, an 85-year-old woman asked one of her two grandsons to press something into Vaiko's hands. It was a 50-paise coin. "I don't have more than this," she told him. Vaiko put the coin in an envelope along with a note on how he got it, and decided to treasure it forever.

Vaiko at the public meeting in Island Grounds, Chennai with MDMK presidium chairman L. Ganesan (left) on September 15.

Vaiko addressed public meetings in big and small towns. As L. Ganesan, MDMK presidium chairman, and M. Kannappan, treasurer, said Vaiko and his men learnt of people's problems directly from them. He listened to the grievances of peasants, workers, women, Dalits and hut-dwellers. According to Vaiko, the universal complaint was the lack of drinking water in villages.

The march was to end at Island Grounds in Chennai on September 15, the birthday of C.N. Annadurai, the founder of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam. On September 13, as the MDMK leader and his cadre reached Singaperumalkovil, 40 km from Chennai, the Police Commissioner denied permission to Vaiko and his cadre to march into the city. Vaiko vowed to march ahead. "Our march had so far been entirely peaceful. We have not created any law and order problem," he said.

On the night of September 14, after Vaiko had addressed a public meeting at St. Thomas Mount, on the outskirts of the city, he and his men were about to retire for the day at a marriage hall when the Superintendent of Police (Chengalpattu East) arrived there and told Vaiko that he and his men would not be allowed to go in a procession into Chennai. The police officer tried to hand over to Vaiko a copy of the notice on the regulatory order in force in Chennai. The MDMK general secretary, however, told him: "Our march [into the city] will be peaceful. Nobody will be put to any trouble," and declined to receive the notice. Vaiko rejected a suggestion that the marchers could travel into the city in vehicles. After the police officer left, Vaiko consulted Ganesan and a strategy was worked out.

Around 1 a.m. on September 15, Vaiko asked his cadre to resume the march. (As per their original plan, they were to march into Chennai only in the late afternoon of September 15.) And he started walking briskly, covering 16 km in less than three hours. The cadre moved after him, walking along the edge of the road. Mysteriously, street lamps went off on their route. As word spread, the police force was alerted. About a kilometre away, a police contingent tried to stop the marchers but to no avail. Reporters and television channel crew arrived on the scene. The police then tried to stop the march by parking jeeps further ahead, and at another point, parking water tankers across the road. "But we were able to get through," said G. Nanmaran, MDMK spokesman.

On Kamarajar Salai, Vaiko "took an on-the-spot decision", and took the service road that cut through the beach sands. They walked in pitch darkness. Near Anna Square the marchers again got into the main road and surged enthusiastically towards Island Grounds about 500 metres away. But police vehicles blocked the Napier Bridge, which leads to Island Grounds. Hundreds of policemen were massed around.

When the police asked Vaiko and his men to disperse and threatened to use force, Vaiko asked the party volunteers to squat on the road. After a heated argument with police officials, Vaiko told them that he would agree to be arrested if the police allowed his 3,000 men to march into Island Grounds in groups of three. The police agreed, and Vaiko and six of his men were arrested around 5-30 a.m. under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (disobedience to order duly promulgated by a public servant). As Vaiko climbed into a police van, several cadre broke down. Vaiko and six others were detained at the police station in Chintadripet and released at 12-20 p.m. The release was celebrated with gusto by party volunteers, who hailed Vaiko as a "fearless fighter".

A huge crowd gathered at Island Grounds that evening. Manmohan Singh Kohli, who had climbed Mount Everest in 1960,1962 and 1965, was the chief guest. Addressing the public meeting, Vaiko said: "We need a new deal, a new deal for India. We need a new deal for Tamil Nadu, where farmers' problems should be solved." A terrible water scarcity prevailed everywhere in Tamil Nadu, he said. Paddy fields were lying fallow. Prosperous towns such as Pollachi, Arni and Kancheepuram were on the decline, he said.

The only solution for the water scarcity was the inter-linking of rivers in the country, he said. "Parliament should pass a legislation to bring all inter-State rivers under the Centre's control. As a priority item, all the rivers in the south should be inter-linked."

This was Vaiko's second long march. From July 27 to September 15, 1994, he had undertaken an "awakening march" from Kanyakumari to Chennai to highlight what he called the "anti-people policies" of the then AIADMK government.

Volume 21 - Issue 20, Sept. 25 - Oct. 08, 2004India's National Magazine
from the publishers of THE HINDU

Printer friendly page   
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail