NEW DELHI, September 17, 2013
“Even though the data did not support blocking the project from progressing, and the evidence showed the benefits from the project, the (Pachauri) committee arbitrarily and contrary to the findings of its own studies concluded that the project is not viable. Clearly, the recommendations of the committee is not tenable and is not supported by scientific data and environmental studies commissioned by the expert committee itself,” the Centre said in its 16-page submission.
The government dismissed the demand by Tamil Nadu government to declare the Adam’s Bridge as national monument. The affidavit asserted that the Sethusamudram Ship Channel Project (SSCP) has strategic, navigational and socio-economic benefits.
“The committee of eminent persons constituted in 2007 has exhaustively studied the case for and against the project and has noted that no archaeological study has been undertaken in the Ram Sethu/Adam’s Bridge area by the Archaeological Survey of India,” the top court said.
Regarding the state government’s affidavit submitted in April stating that a potential marine diversity hotspot could be affected by the project, the Centre said that the stand was not supported by the expert committee summary report. The government also claimed that the belief that the project would pose potential danger to livelihood of fishermen was wrong.
“The fish catch study carried out during the dredging and dumping operation reveals that there is increase in productivity,” the top court said.
Centre rejects Pachauri panel report, wants Sethusamudram project implemented
J. VENKATESAN
Submits channel will become a “valuable asset in terms of national defence and security”
The UPA government filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court on Monday, saying it wanted to implement the Sethusamudram project through the original alignment, cutting across the Ram Sethu.
A Bench, headed by Justice H.L. Dattu, will hear the case on Tuesday.
The Centre said it did not accept the recommendations of the expert committee, headed by Dr. Pachauri, that it was unlikely that public interest would be served if the project was implemented as per Alignment No. 4 A (an alternative route suggested by the court against the original alignment No. 6 that will cut through Ram Sethu.)
It rejected Tamil Nadu’s stand that the project be scrapped as it “is of questionable economic value and not in public interest.”
Given that Rs. 766.82 crore had already been spent on the project, implementing it further would improve its economic viability, the Centre said. “The project has strategic, navigational and socio-economic benefits and judging the economic viability of the project merely by the internal rate of return — which reflects only the commercial viability — may not be appropriate.”
Faulting the Pachauri Committee’s recommendations, the Centre said: “Though the data did not support blocking of the project… and the evidence showed benefits from the project, the committee arbitrarily and contrary to its own studies has concluded that the project is not viable. The recommendation of the committee is not tenable and is not supported by scientific data and by environmental studies commissioned by the committee itself. If the measures suggested for mitigation and post-commencement are undertaken, the project can be implemented.”
On Tamil Nadu’s stand that the project was untenable, the Centre said the channel would become a valuable asset in terms of national defence and security, facilitating easier and quicker access between Indian coasts. Moreover, it would generate jobs and additional income through small ancillary industries.
“The Environment Appraisal Committee had examined the project and suggested various safeguards which were stipulated in the environmental clearance issued for the project. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that the Environment Impact Assessment did not fully assess the adverse impact of the project,” the affidavit said.
The Centre contended that it would be wrong to state that the project had the potential of affecting the livelihood of fishermen because the expert committee, while commenting on the impact from land environment, indicated that the project would stimulate a lot of ancillary developments, leading to use of barren land for commercial activities.
On the demand of BJP leader Subramanian Swamy and the Tamil Nadu government that the Ram Sethu be declared a national monument, the Centre said the committee of eminent persons had noted in 2007 that there was no need for a study by the Archaeological Survey of India.
Tamil Nadu had sought a directive to the Centre to accept the Pachauri Committee’s report; direct the Centre not to implement the project by adopting either Alignment No. 4 A or No. 6, considering the eco-fragility of the surrounding area and the Gulf of Mannar and also as the project is of questionable economic value and not in public interest; to direct the Centre to declare Ram Sethu a national monument; and to restrain the Centre from undertaking any activity that will adversely affect Ram Sethu.
Karunanidhi happy
Special Correspondent writes from Chennai:
DMK president M. Karunanidhi has welcomed the Centre’s stand. “It is a welcome move, and one hopes the Supreme Court will give a favourable verdict soon,” he said in a statement.
Centre rejects TN opposition
The Centre has reiterated before the Supreme Court its resolve to go ahead with the controversial Sethusamudram project despite opposition from various quarters.
In an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, the Centre has criticised the Prime Minister-appointed R.K. Pachauri committee report on the project. In the affidavit, the shipping ministry has also claimed that the objections raised by Tamil Nadu on the proposal were not well-founded.
“Even though the data did not support blocking the project from progressing, and the evidence showed the benefits from the project, the (Pachauri) committee arbitrarily and contrary to the findings of its own studies concluded that the project is not viable. Clearly, the recommendations of the committee is not tenable and is not supported by scientific data and environmental studies commissioned by the expert committee itself,” the Centre said in its 16-page submission.
The government dismissed the demand by Tamil Nadu government to declare the Adam’s Bridge as national monument. The affidavit asserted that the Sethusamudram Ship Channel Project (SSCP) has strategic, navigational and socio-economic benefits.
“The committee of eminent persons constituted in 2007 has exhaustively studied the case for and against the project and has noted that no archaeological study has been undertaken in the Ram Sethu/Adam’s Bridge area by the Archaeological Survey of India,” the top court said.
Regarding the state government’s affidavit submitted in April stating that a potential marine diversity hotspot could be affected by the project, the Centre said that the stand was not supported by the expert committee summary report. The government also claimed that the belief that the project would pose potential danger to livelihood of fishermen was wrong.
“The fish catch study carried out during the dredging and dumping operation reveals that there is increase in productivity,” the top court said.
http://www.asianage.com/india/centre-rejects-tn-opposition-178
![]()
Capt. (R) Balakrishnan who had commanded the Frigate Trishul of the Indian Navy had noted in a series of articles that the Setusamudram Channel Project does NOT make nautical sense. His views have been upheld by the Pachauri committee appointed by the PM for over 2 years and declared that the project was NOT economically nor ecologically feasible.
Any guesses as to why DMK Chief Karunanidhi is raking up the issue despite such counsel from experts? With only 2000 ships worldwide of the category of 15,000 to 35,000 dwt., can Karunanidhi reasonably expect heavy traffic through this mid-ocean, shallow channel -- subject to the risks of perpetual sandbanks -- to make Tamilnadu a vallaras'u -- rivalling the navigation traffic through Suez or Panama canals which are land-based? Which Captain of which ship will choose and will risk navigating through a hazardous channel and subject his vessel to run aground hitting sandbanks?
A two-page article in Tughlak magazine (Tamil) by Venkat provides some details of interest.
Tad Murthy, an international expert on tsunamis had warned about the dangers posed by the channel because the area is tsunami-prone. And, if another tsunami strikes, the waves will rush through the channel devastating the south India coastline ports.
Fisherfolk of Tiruelveli and Kanyakumar districts are opposed to the project since it will ruin their livelihood. Pearl and conch diving industries will be decimated.
Even assuming Rs. 5 lakhs as cess for each navigating vessel, only ships with less than 30,000 tonnage can navigate the channel.
But, the total number of ships all over the world, of less than 30,000 tonnes are only 7,000 according to computations by Lloyd Insurance. Most ships are larger than 50,000 tonnes capacity. The total number of ships navigating ALL Indian ports has not exceeded 12,000 per year. So, the money spent so far on the project is wasted and more expenses should not be incurred for an uneconomical venture with very little nautical sense.
According to intelligence sources, most of the ships out of the 7000 with carrying capacities of less than 30,000 tonnes were either directly or indirectly owned by LTTE. An Interpol message noted that these 7000 vessels are used for illicit arms and drug trafficking.
DMK which did not raise a war-cry then is now taking up the cause of the channel project which does not make nautical sense, is an economic and ecological disaster. What is the reason? Don't the DMK cadre know the realities outlined? They know. Karunanidhi seems to have this up to feed the political hunger of his party folk.
[End of free translation and excerpting.]
Here is a report on small-sized ships; according to this report, there are only 2000 ships of Handysize, that is of deadweight of 15000 to 35000 tons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handysize
With this background information, read the report of Commander Muthiah of Sivakasi:
![]()
பதிவு செய்த நாள் : ஜூலை 15,2013,00:00 IST
சேது கால்வாய் திட்டம்: உண்மை என்ன?
ஊ.முருகையா, கடற்படை கமாண்டர் (பணி நிறைவு), சிவகாசியிலிருந்து எழுதுகிறார்: என், 35 ஆண்டு கடல்சார் பணிகளில் கிடைத்த அனுபவத்தை கொண்டு, சேது கால்வாய் திட்டத்தின் லாப, நஷ்டத்தை பற்றி மக்களுக்கு தெளிவுபடுத்த விரும்புகிறேன். அதிக நீளம் இல்லாத, சூயஸ் கால்வாயும், பனாமா கால்வாயும் இரு கடலுக்கு இடையே உள்ள, நிலப்பரப்பில் தோண்டப்பட்டு, இரு புறமும் மதில் எழுப்பப்பட்டு, கடல் மண்ணால், கால்வாய் மேவாத அளவுக்கு உருவாக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது.
கால்வாயின் இரண்டு புறம் உள்ள, கடல் பகுதியின் தரை மட்டம், கால்வாயின் தரை மட்டத்தை விட அதிகமாக இருக்கும். எனவே, இயற்கை சீற்றத்தாலும், ஆழ்கடல் மணல் அரிப்பாலும், ஆழ்கடல் நீரோட்டத்தாலும் கால்வாயின் ஆழத்துக்கு எந்த பாதிப்பும் இங்கு இல்லை. இதன் மராமத்து செலவும் மிகக் குறைவு. கப்பல் போக்குவரத்து மிக அதிகம். எனவே, வருமானம் அதிகம். சேது சமுத்திர கால்வாய் திட்டம், இதற்கு எதிர் மாறாக உள்ளது. சேது கால்வாய் திட்டம் என்பது, நடுக்கடலில் ஆழம் தோண்டி கால்வாய் அமைப்பது. இயற்கையை எதிர்த்து, நாம் போராட முடியாது. உலகில் உள்ள, அனைத்து கடல்சார் அமைப்புகளுக்கும், பாக் - ஜலசந்தி, மன்னார் வளைகுடாவைப் பற்றி நன்கு தெரியும். உலகிலேயே, மிக அதிகமான ஆழ்கடல் நீரோட்டம் உள்ளது இப்பகுதி. திசை மாறி மாறி வீசும் காற்றின் வேகமும், இந்தப் பகுதியில் தான் அதிகம்.
நாம் மணல் தோண்டிக் கொண்டே போனால், பின்னால், மணல் மேவிக் கொண்டே இருக்கும். இப்பகுதியில், கடலில், ஆறு மணிக்கு ஒரு முறை, நீர் மட்டம் ஏறும், இறங்கும். இந்த கால்வாயின் நீளம் அதிகமாக இருப்பதால், கடல் நீர் மட்டம் உயர்ந்துள்ள நேரத்திற்குள், கால்வாயை கடக்க முடியாது. காற்றின் வேகம், அதிகப்பட்டால் கப்பல் நேர் கோட்டில் செல்ல முடியாது. எவ்வளவு திறமை வாய்ந்த கேப்டன்களாக இருந்தாலும், தவறு நடந்து விடும். ஒரு கப்பல் சுற்றி வந்தால் நேரமும், எரிபொருளும் கூடுதல் ஆகும் என்பது சரி. 5,000 கோடி ரூபாய் மதிப்புள்ள சரக்கு கப்பலை, இம்மாதிரி பயணித்து விட்டு தரைதட்ட விடுவரா? சந்தேகத்தின் அடிப்படையில் உள்ள எந்த கால்வாயையும், கப்பல் கேப்டன்கள் புறக்கணித்து விடுவர். பின், நாம் கடையை திறந்து என்ன பிரயோஜனம்? கல்லா பெட்டி நிறைய வேண்டுமல்லவா?
முழு சுமையோடு வரும் கப்பல், தரையில் உட்கார்ந்து விட்டால், பின் இந்த கால்வாயின் பூகோளமே மாறிவிடும். இந்த கால்வாய் மராமத்துக்கு பின் ஆழம் தோண்டிக் கொண்டே இருக்க வேண்டும். குறைந்தது, ஆழம் தோண்டும், 10, "டிரெட்ஜர்' கப்பல்களை வாடகைக்கு எடுக்க வேண்டும். நாம் செலவு செய்யும் பணத்துக்கு, வட்டி கூட கட்ட முடியாது. பின் ஏது வருமானம்? இப்பிரச்னையை வைத்து, பலர், பாமர மக்களை திசை திருப்பி அரசியல் செய்கின்றனர். இதுவரை, மக்கள் வரிப்பணத்தை, கடலில் கொட்டியது போதும். மக்கள் அறிவாளி ஆகிவிட்டனர். இனி, மக்களை ஏமாற்ற முடியாது. உண்மையிலேயே, தமிழ் மண்ணுக்கு ஏதாவது செய்ய வேண்டும் என்று நினைத்தால், தென்னக நதிகளை இணைக்க பாடுபடட்டும். மக்களுக்கு, ஓரளவு ருசியான குடி தண்ணீராவது கிடைக்கும்.
http://www.dinamalar.com/splpart_detail.asp?id=67
English translation:
Dinamalar, 15 July 2013 (Tamil Daily)
What is the truth about Setusamudram Channel Project?
U. Murugaiah, Indian Navy Commander (Retd.) writes from Sivakasi. Based on my 35 years' experience working in the oceans, I wish to inform the public about the pros and cons of the Setusamudram Channel Project. Short distance Suez and Panama canals are canals dug in the land between two oceans; the canals have embankments on either side and are so designed as to prevent sandbanks entering the canals.
The canal bed is at a higher elevation than the sea-bed on either end of the canals and hence, during high waves during sea-sstorms or movements of sands from the ocean beds do not adversely affect the depth of the canals. Hence, the maintenance costs of the canals are very minimal. Navigation through the canals involves a large number of high-volume carrying ships and hence, the revenue earned by the canals is high. The Setusamudram Channel Project is an exact opposite of this situation.
Setusmudram Channel Project is a deepening of the mid-ocean to create a navigable channel and is an affront against natural forces. We cannot fight against nature. All organizations and institutions involved with coastal zones and oceans know about the Gulf of Mannar and the Persian Gulf. This Mannar region is situated in the ocean with very deep ocean depths and very heavy wind-currents alternating with clocjk-wise and anti-clockwise movements of wind-currents.
If we keep on dredging the deep-ocean sands, sandbanks will keep filling up the dredged areas. In this Gulf of Mannar ocean region, sea-depths (bathymetry) increase and decrease cyclically every six hours. Because the Setusamudram channel is long, navigation through the channel is NOT possible during the periods when the ocean waves reach great heights. When the wind currents intensify, the ships cannot navigate in a straight-line. However efficient a ship's captain, mistakes will occur. As the ship tosses about, time is lost and increased consumption of fuel will result in higher navigation costs. Will any captain allow a Rs. 5000 crore ship to be exposed to such navigational hazards including the possibility of getting stuck in sand-beds? Any captain will avoid navigation of a ship through such nautically hazardous channels. So, what is the benefit of opening the shop of such a Setusamudram channel? Should we not be ensuring income to the nation's exchequer through charges levied for navigation through a channel?
If a fully-laden ship gets grounded in a sand-bank, the entire geography of the channel will be changed. Continuous dredging of the channel will be required apart from regular maintenance of the depth of the channel and at the minimum, the channel has to be deepened as a continuing process. We may have to rent 10 dredger vessels. We cannot even service the interest payments for the capital costs we incur. Then, where is the income from the channel?
Many people are diverting attention from the real issues and politicising the channel issue.
Enough of this. Already a lot of tax-payers' money has been sunk in the ocean for this channel. People have become smart. They cannot be fooled anymore. If really someone wants to do something real for Tamil land, let the rivers of the nation be interlinked, at least some sweet drinking water will be available to the people.http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2013/07/setusamudram-channel-what-is-truth-u.html
Any guesses as to why DMK Chief Karunanidhi is raking up the issue despite such counsel from experts? With only 2000 ships worldwide of the category of 15,000 to 35,000 dwt., can Karunanidhi reasonably expect heavy traffic through this mid-ocean, shallow channel -- subject to the risks of perpetual sandbanks -- to make Tamilnadu a vallaras'u -- rivalling the navigation traffic through Suez or Panama canals which are land-based? Which Captain of which ship will choose and will risk navigating through a hazardous channel and subject his vessel to run aground hitting sandbanks?
A two-page article in Tughlak magazine (Tamil) by Venkat provides some details of interest.
Tad Murthy, an international expert on tsunamis had warned about the dangers posed by the channel because the area is tsunami-prone. And, if another tsunami strikes, the waves will rush through the channel devastating the south India coastline ports.
Fisherfolk of Tiruelveli and Kanyakumar districts are opposed to the project since it will ruin their livelihood. Pearl and conch diving industries will be decimated.
Even assuming Rs. 5 lakhs as cess for each navigating vessel, only ships with less than 30,000 tonnage can navigate the channel.
But, the total number of ships all over the world, of less than 30,000 tonnes are only 7,000 according to computations by Lloyd Insurance. Most ships are larger than 50,000 tonnes capacity. The total number of ships navigating ALL Indian ports has not exceeded 12,000 per year. So, the money spent so far on the project is wasted and more expenses should not be incurred for an uneconomical venture with very little nautical sense.
According to intelligence sources, most of the ships out of the 7000 with carrying capacities of less than 30,000 tonnes were either directly or indirectly owned by LTTE. An Interpol message noted that these 7000 vessels are used for illicit arms and drug trafficking.
DMK which did not raise a war-cry then is now taking up the cause of the channel project which does not make nautical sense, is an economic and ecological disaster. What is the reason? Don't the DMK cadre know the realities outlined? They know. Karunanidhi seems to have this up to feed the political hunger of his party folk.
[End of free translation and excerpting.]
Here is a report on small-sized ships; according to this report, there are only 2000 ships of Handysize, that is of deadweight of 15000 to 35000 tons:
Handysize most usually refers to a dry bulk vessel (or, less commonly, to a product tanker) with deadweight of about 15,000–35,000 tons. Above this size are Handymax bulkers (typically 35,000 - 58,000 tons deadweight); there is no well-defined or widely accepted size sector below 15,000 tons.Handysize is numerically the most common size of bulk carrier, with nearly 2000 units in service totalling about 43 million tons.
Handysize is also sometimes used to refer to the span of up to 60,000 tons, with Handymax being a subclassification, rather than a larger category...Handysize bulkers are built mainly by shipyards in Japan, Korea, China, Vietnam, thePhilippines and India, though a few other countries also have the capacity to build such vessels. The most common industry-standard specification handysize bulker is now about 32,000 metric tons of deadweight on a summer draft of about 10 metres (33 ft), and features 5 cargo holds with hydraulically operated hatch covers, with four 30 metric ton cranes for cargo handling. Some handysizes are also fitted with stanchions to enable logs to be loaded in stacks on deck. Such vessels are often referred to as 'handy loggers'.
Despite multiple recent orders for new ships, the handysize sector still has the highest average age profile of the major bulk carrier sectors.
Today, most of handysize vessels operate within regional trade routes. These ships are capable of traveling to small ports with length and draught restrictions, as well as lacking the infrastructure for cargo loading and unloading. They are used to carry small bulk cargoes, often in parcel size where individual cargo holds may have a different commodity. Their dry bulk cargo includes iron ore, coal, cement, phosphate, finished steel products, wooden logs, fertilizer, and grains to name a few.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handysize
With this background information, read the report of Commander Muthiah of Sivakasi:
சேது கால்வாய் திட்டம்: உண்மை என்ன?
ஊ.முருகையா, கடற்படை கமாண்டர் (பணி நிறைவு), சிவகாசியிலிருந்து எழுதுகிறார்: என், 35 ஆண்டு கடல்சார் பணிகளில் கிடைத்த அனுபவத்தை கொண்டு, சேது கால்வாய் திட்டத்தின் லாப, நஷ்டத்தை பற்றி மக்களுக்கு தெளிவுபடுத்த விரும்புகிறேன். அதிக நீளம் இல்லாத, சூயஸ் கால்வாயும், பனாமா கால்வாயும் இரு கடலுக்கு இடையே உள்ள, நிலப்பரப்பில் தோண்டப்பட்டு, இரு புறமும் மதில் எழுப்பப்பட்டு, கடல் மண்ணால், கால்வாய் மேவாத அளவுக்கு உருவாக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது.
கால்வாயின் இரண்டு புறம் உள்ள, கடல் பகுதியின் தரை மட்டம், கால்வாயின் தரை மட்டத்தை விட அதிகமாக இருக்கும். எனவே, இயற்கை சீற்றத்தாலும், ஆழ்கடல் மணல் அரிப்பாலும், ஆழ்கடல் நீரோட்டத்தாலும் கால்வாயின் ஆழத்துக்கு எந்த பாதிப்பும் இங்கு இல்லை. இதன் மராமத்து செலவும் மிகக் குறைவு. கப்பல் போக்குவரத்து மிக அதிகம். எனவே, வருமானம் அதிகம். சேது சமுத்திர கால்வாய் திட்டம், இதற்கு எதிர் மாறாக உள்ளது. சேது கால்வாய் திட்டம் என்பது, நடுக்கடலில் ஆழம் தோண்டி கால்வாய் அமைப்பது. இயற்கையை எதிர்த்து, நாம் போராட முடியாது. உலகில் உள்ள, அனைத்து கடல்சார் அமைப்புகளுக்கும், பாக் - ஜலசந்தி, மன்னார் வளைகுடாவைப் பற்றி நன்கு தெரியும். உலகிலேயே, மிக அதிகமான ஆழ்கடல் நீரோட்டம் உள்ளது இப்பகுதி. திசை மாறி மாறி வீசும் காற்றின் வேகமும், இந்தப் பகுதியில் தான் அதிகம்.
நாம் மணல் தோண்டிக் கொண்டே போனால், பின்னால், மணல் மேவிக் கொண்டே இருக்கும். இப்பகுதியில், கடலில், ஆறு மணிக்கு ஒரு முறை, நீர் மட்டம் ஏறும், இறங்கும். இந்த கால்வாயின் நீளம் அதிகமாக இருப்பதால், கடல் நீர் மட்டம் உயர்ந்துள்ள நேரத்திற்குள், கால்வாயை கடக்க முடியாது. காற்றின் வேகம், அதிகப்பட்டால் கப்பல் நேர் கோட்டில் செல்ல முடியாது. எவ்வளவு திறமை வாய்ந்த கேப்டன்களாக இருந்தாலும், தவறு நடந்து விடும். ஒரு கப்பல் சுற்றி வந்தால் நேரமும், எரிபொருளும் கூடுதல் ஆகும் என்பது சரி. 5,000 கோடி ரூபாய் மதிப்புள்ள சரக்கு கப்பலை, இம்மாதிரி பயணித்து விட்டு தரைதட்ட விடுவரா? சந்தேகத்தின் அடிப்படையில் உள்ள எந்த கால்வாயையும், கப்பல் கேப்டன்கள் புறக்கணித்து விடுவர். பின், நாம் கடையை திறந்து என்ன பிரயோஜனம்? கல்லா பெட்டி நிறைய வேண்டுமல்லவா?
முழு சுமையோடு வரும் கப்பல், தரையில் உட்கார்ந்து விட்டால், பின் இந்த கால்வாயின் பூகோளமே மாறிவிடும். இந்த கால்வாய் மராமத்துக்கு பின் ஆழம் தோண்டிக் கொண்டே இருக்க வேண்டும். குறைந்தது, ஆழம் தோண்டும், 10, "டிரெட்ஜர்' கப்பல்களை வாடகைக்கு எடுக்க வேண்டும். நாம் செலவு செய்யும் பணத்துக்கு, வட்டி கூட கட்ட முடியாது. பின் ஏது வருமானம்? இப்பிரச்னையை வைத்து, பலர், பாமர மக்களை திசை திருப்பி அரசியல் செய்கின்றனர். இதுவரை, மக்கள் வரிப்பணத்தை, கடலில் கொட்டியது போதும். மக்கள் அறிவாளி ஆகிவிட்டனர். இனி, மக்களை ஏமாற்ற முடியாது. உண்மையிலேயே, தமிழ் மண்ணுக்கு ஏதாவது செய்ய வேண்டும் என்று நினைத்தால், தென்னக நதிகளை இணைக்க பாடுபடட்டும். மக்களுக்கு, ஓரளவு ருசியான குடி தண்ணீராவது கிடைக்கும்.
http://www.dinamalar.com/splpart_detail.asp?id=67
English translation:
Dinamalar, 15 July 2013 (Tamil Daily)
What is the truth about Setusamudram Channel Project?
U. Murugaiah, Indian Navy Commander (Retd.) writes from Sivakasi. Based on my 35 years' experience working in the oceans, I wish to inform the public about the pros and cons of the Setusamudram Channel Project. Short distance Suez and Panama canals are canals dug in the land between two oceans; the canals have embankments on either side and are so designed as to prevent sandbanks entering the canals.
The canal bed is at a higher elevation than the sea-bed on either end of the canals and hence, during high waves during sea-sstorms or movements of sands from the ocean beds do not adversely affect the depth of the canals. Hence, the maintenance costs of the canals are very minimal. Navigation through the canals involves a large number of high-volume carrying ships and hence, the revenue earned by the canals is high. The Setusamudram Channel Project is an exact opposite of this situation.
Setusmudram Channel Project is a deepening of the mid-ocean to create a navigable channel and is an affront against natural forces. We cannot fight against nature. All organizations and institutions involved with coastal zones and oceans know about the Gulf of Mannar and the Persian Gulf. This Mannar region is situated in the ocean with very deep ocean depths and very heavy wind-currents alternating with clocjk-wise and anti-clockwise movements of wind-currents.
If we keep on dredging the deep-ocean sands, sandbanks will keep filling up the dredged areas. In this Gulf of Mannar ocean region, sea-depths (bathymetry) increase and decrease cyclically every six hours. Because the Setusamudram channel is long, navigation through the channel is NOT possible during the periods when the ocean waves reach great heights. When the wind currents intensify, the ships cannot navigate in a straight-line. However efficient a ship's captain, mistakes will occur. As the ship tosses about, time is lost and increased consumption of fuel will result in higher navigation costs. Will any captain allow a Rs. 5000 crore ship to be exposed to such navigational hazards including the possibility of getting stuck in sand-beds? Any captain will avoid navigation of a ship through such nautically hazardous channels. So, what is the benefit of opening the shop of such a Setusamudram channel? Should we not be ensuring income to the nation's exchequer through charges levied for navigation through a channel?
If a fully-laden ship gets grounded in a sand-bank, the entire geography of the channel will be changed. Continuous dredging of the channel will be required apart from regular maintenance of the depth of the channel and at the minimum, the channel has to be deepened as a continuing process. We may have to rent 10 dredger vessels. We cannot even service the interest payments for the capital costs we incur. Then, where is the income from the channel?
Many people are diverting attention from the real issues and politicising the channel issue.
Enough of this. Already a lot of tax-payers' money has been sunk in the ocean for this channel. People have become smart. They cannot be fooled anymore. If really someone wants to do something real for Tamil land, let the rivers of the nation be interlinked, at least some sweet drinking water will be available to the people.