Is Nitin Gadkari reconsidering Mr. Townshend’s Proposal - 1861? He should scrap the Sethusamudram Kaarasthan Project, declare Ramasetu National Monument.

A proposal was by made by Mr. Townshend in 1861. He proposed siting the canal through the Pamban Pass. His proposal was to deepen the existing tortuous Pamban Channel to enable the passage of large vessels. However, the objections to its adoption, with a curved channel, and subject to the strong currents through the Pamban Pass were so obvious that it put the Scheme outside the pale of practical consideration.

From a brief overview of the Sethusamudram hey kaarasthan is presented by the following accounts of studies/proposals made since 1861. 

This Gulf of Mannar appears to be the most-studied navigational route in maritime history -- for over 163 years and now there is a news report that indicates that Nitin Gadkari is considering studying it further.

It is surprising that the principal objective of all these project proposals/studies seems to be overlooked in all initiatives. It is a transportation project to move freight from west coast to east coast of Indian southern shoreline. Aren't there transportation alternatives available to achieve the freight movement?

Some alternatives are: 1. Laying pipeline connecting the western ports into the hinterland to supply oil and gas products; 2. Improved container ports on the west coast and east coast and high-speed freight corridors between the west and east coast container ports; 3. Providing rail-road links between Talaimannar and Dhanushkodi networking into the Trans-Asian Railway and Highway systems to provide opportunities for improved Sri Lanka-India bilateral trade and commerce.

What should Nitin Gadkari do? He should tell the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Sethusamudram Project under arbitration in the Court is shelved, that Rama Setu is declared National Heritage Monument, that pilgrim site facilities, tourism facilities will be improved in this Sacred Monument zone and the Sacred Marine Bio-Reserve of Gulf of Mannar.

It is time to bring closure to this Sethusamudram hey kaarasthan (which means, a conspiratorial place in Marathi).

Kalyanaraman

History of Sethusamudram Channel?

1. Pre Independence Proposals

Between 1860 and 1922, as many as nine proposals were made for cutting a Ship Channel across the narrow strip of land to connect the Gulf of Mannar and the Palk Bay with the object of providing a short-cut for ocean-going ships plying between the West Coast of India and the East Coast. These were:

1. 1860 Commander Taylor’s Proposal

2. 1861 Mr. Townshend’s Proposal

3. 1862 Parliamentary Committee’s Proposal

4. 1863 His Excellency Sir William dennison’s R.E. (Governor of Madras) Proposal

5. 1871 Mr. Stoddart’s Proposal

6. 1872 Mr. Robertson’s (Harbour Engineer for India) Proposal

7. 1884 Sir John Code’s Proposal for South India Ship Canal, Port & Coaling Station, Limited

8. 1903 S.I. Railway Engineer’s Proposal based on their Survey

9. 1922 Sir Robert Bristow’s (Harbour Engineer to the Government of Madras) Proposal

A brief survey of these various proposals extracted from Sir Bristow’s Report is given hereunder:  

1.1. Commander Taylor’s Proposal - 1860

The earliest proposal for cutting a link canal was made in 1860 by Commander Taylor of the Indian Marine. In his paper, he advocated cutting a canal across the Tonitorai Peninsula at a place about 12 miles west of the Pamban Pass. He stated “The southern end would start from ‘Port Lorne’, a natural harbour, a few miles down the coast from Mandapam, about seven miles in length and four-and-a-half miles in breadth, the greater part of which had a depth of 24 feet, and for some considerable extent up to 30 feet, the deepest parts being 36 feet. It was well sheltered by the Musal and Muli Islands and reefs. Its entrance had only a depth of less than 15 feet, but if this were depend, it would make the harbour a safe one for the anchorage of all vessels during the South-West Monsoon”.  

The Scheme involved the excavation of a deep cutting nearly three miles in length through the dry land and deepening to five fathoms for at least three miles on each side to connect it with the harbour on the south, and the deep water on the north. It would also involve cutting a channel across the reef barrier at the southern entrance to the harbour. It was at first stated to cost only about £ 90,000, but further inquiries brought the estimate up to £ 1,500,000. The Northern approach would be exposed to the North-East monsoon and would require special protective works. Owing to the great expense involved and the extra work to be done in comparison with a canal across the Island of Rameswaram (please see proposals 3 to 9), the Scheme was not seriously considered.  

1.2. Mr. Townshend’s Proposal - 1861

The next proposal was by Mr. Townshend. He proposed siting the canal through the Pamban Pass. His proposal was to deepen the existing tortuous Pamban Channel to enable the passage of large vessels. However, the objections to its adoption, with a curved channel, and subject to the strong currents through the Pamban Pass were so obvious that it put the Scheme outside the pale of practical consideration.

1.3. Parliamentary Committee’s Proposal - 1862

In 1862, a Parliamentary Committee of Her Majesty’s Government was appointed to report on the site for a canal across the Island of Rameswaram, and they recommended an alignment situated about two miles East of Pamban, crossing the Island in a straight Northerly direction.

1.4. His Excellency Sir William Dennison's Proposal (Governor of

       Madras)- 1863 

In 1863, His Excellency Sir William Dennison, R.E., Acting Governor of Madras, visited Pamban and selected a site which he considered the most advantageous. This was about a mile further East from that recommended by the Parliamentary Committee. Probably he visited the Island during the North-East monsoon, as he chose the best position for a sheltered Northern approach at a time when the Northern seas were rough and the Southern seas were calm. In the South-West monsoon, the Southern side will be rough and the Northern side calm. This alignment was unsuitable, as its Southern entrance would be very much exposed during the South-West monsoon.  

1.5. Mr. Stoddart's Proposal- 1871  

Subsequently in 1871, Mr. Stoddart recommended a site about one mile West of Dennison’s alignment and parallel to it. This was practically the same as the one suggested by the Parliamentary Committee. This alignment was protected by the reefs and small islands on the Southern side from the South-West monsoon; its Northern approach was, however, exposed to the North-East monsoon.  

1.6. Mr. Robertson's (Harbour Engineer to the Govt. of India) 

        Proposal - 1872

In March, 1872, Sir Elphinstone, M.P., wrote to the Under Secretary of State for India, requesting that “Mr. Robertson, Harbour Engineer for India, should be directed to proceed to Pamban and examine the locality closely and minutely and give his opinion as to the best mode of proceeding in the matter, which is every month becoming of greater importance to the commerce and trade of the East”.  

Mr. Robertson accordingly visited Pamban and selected a new site about a mile from Pamban with its Southern entrance well within the protection of Kurisadi and Shingle Islands leaving the Northern entrance quite unprotected from the North-East Monsoon as he was of the opinion “that the point of paramount importance was the protection of the Southern entrance from the swell of the South-West monsoon”. He did not evidently make a close examination of the channel leading to the Southern entrance which would be narrow and would require an enormous amount of dredging to fit it for the passage of vessels.  

1.7. Sir John Code's Proposal - 1884  

After a lapse of 12 years in the year 1884, “The South India Ship Canal Port and Coaling Station, Limited,” U.K., considered the project for the construction of a canal across the Rameswaram Island and instructed Sir John Code, Consulting Engineer, to prepare a report and estimate. His report discussed the previous schemes and decided on the best alignment for the canal. The southern entrance was just near that recommended by Mr. Stoddart in 1871, but the placed his line of canal obliquely on land so that the northern entrance would “derive considerable shelter from the northerly stretch of the coast immediately to the eastward”. He states “there will be a further advantage than the improved sheltering of the entrances, viz., the bringing of the course of vessels passing through it more directly in the line of the winds both in the North-East and South-West Monsoons. This I regard as a material consideration seeing that vessels of the largest class which have their sides so high above the water will be much less liable to be deflected from their true course while passing through the canal, owing to the wind being almost invariably either ahead or astern, whichever monsoon might be blowing”.  

The Secretary of State for India granted the South India Ship Canal Port and Coaling Station, Limited, a perpetual concession, reserving the right to purchase the canal under certain conditions. Correspondence between the Home and the Indian Governments was carried on for some years. The Madras Government in their proceeding, dated the 14thOctober 1890, however, advised the Government of India to reject the scheme on the ground that the shoals at the Palk Straits between Pt. Calimere and Pt. Pedro would prevent the projected canal being made use of by vessels of a deep-sea draft. Apparently, the Madras Government Adviser had not studied the Ceylon Government chart of the channel north of Ceylon, which showed ample waterway. The present Drawing No. 2, in which soundings taken from the Admiralty Chart Nos. 68-A and 2197 are plotted would also show that there is a minimum depth of 33 to 34 feet by the route via the Pedro Channel. In this drawing, this channel route is also marked for easy reference.  

Another point worth mentioning here is that in those days dredging and deepening a channel in the open sea conditions in the Palk Straits where they may get fiver or six feet waves in fair weather, could not be thought of, as dredgers could work only in two or three feet waves. Now Dredger design has advanced considerably and swell-compensating arrangements are provided in Trailer Suction Dredgers, so that it is possible to dredge in 7 ft. or 8 ft. waves without any difficulty. In this connection, mention may be made of the new estuarian dredger “Mohana” acquired for Calcutta Port to dredge in the estuary in the exposed open sea conditions.  

1.8. S.I Railway Engineers Proposal -1903 

In 1902, the South Indian Railway Company carried out a fresh survey by their Engineers and decided upon an alignment in Rameswaram about which they stated as follows :  

The final alignment of the canal has been determined after a careful survey was made of the seas on each side, and due consideration was given to its protection at both ends during the monsoons. A glance at the maps which accompany the project report will show that the minimum amount of dredging at the approaches will be required to enable a depth of 30 ft. to be dredged. The southern entrance is well under the protection of the Kallaru reef with the Shingle Islets and also of the Kurisadi, Pulli-Vausel and Pulli Islands and their surrounding reefs which form a natural breakwater during the South-West monsoon.  

The line of canal is oblique (and in the direction of the prevailing winds) and has the same advantage as advocated by Sir John Code in his alignment, which has already been referred to.  

No other alignment can be made for a canal which would offer the same advantages having reference to the eligibility of the approaches and shelter which the present one affords. 

1.9. Sir Robert Bristo's (Harbour Engineer to the Govt. of India)

        Proposal - 1922

After another two decades, Sir Robert Bristow, Harbour Engineer to the Government of Madras, made a thorough study of all the previous proposals and carried out detailed investigations and put up his proposal for an alignment somewhat similar to the previous one adopted by the S.I. Railway across the Rameswaram Island, as being the best line for the canal crossing. He, however,. The question was, therefore, raised as to the advisability of cutting a canal through the Island of Rameswaram, in order to remove this disability. A good shifted the southern extremity of the land canal by about 500 yards west in order to get still better protection for the southern approach.  

Sir Robert Bristow in his report has stated that the reason for reopening the matter at this date (1922) was that One of the reasons which was acting adversely to the development of the ports of the South-East India was the fact that there was no deep-sea passage northward of Cape Comorin and that nearly all traffic had to pass round the Island of Ceylon deal of discussion was aroused by this proposal, especially among the people of Tuticorin, who, whilst in entire agreement with the idea of making a canal ‘qual canal’, were apprehensive that, as it would cross the main line of railway from Dhanushkodi to Madras, a port might grow up there, which would attract the trade from Tuticorin to Rameswaram.  

Again to quote from the Report of the Tuticorin Ad hoc Committee which considered the Canal Scheme drawn up by Sir Robert Bristow :  

There has been very little of divergence of opinion during the discussions as to the advantage of the canal in the abstract. Indeed, its obvious usefulness and the desirability in the constructing it, if only on the broad ground of reducing ocean distances, has made anything like serious discussion impossible. For example, it reduces the distance from off Cape Comorin (a common point for all traffic from the West) to Madras, Calcutta and Rangoon by 333, 240 and 109 miles, respectively and from Trincomalee to Cape Comorin by 125 miles. 

Further the actual saving in mileage and money is enhanced by the less tangible, but, perhaps, more important savings consequent upon avoiding the stormy journey round the Island of Ceylon particularly in monsoon weather. The increased wear on all parts of the ship, and the anxiety and risk which are thus eliminated in the case of all vessels render the construction of the canal a very desirable object on the general grounds.  

This proposal, however, was not pursued then, apparently because of dearth of finance.

                                                                                                         Top

2. Post Independence Proposal

The proposals considered after independence are as under :-  

2.1. Sethusamudram Project Committee - 1956

               The committee was headed by Sir A. Ramaswamy Mudaliyar and the committee contemplated a 26 feet draft land canal crossing the main land at Mandapam estimated to cost Rs.1.8 crores.  Capt. H.R. Davis carried out further survey in the year 1959 and suggested certain modifications, regarding alternative alignment across the main land maintaining the same draft.   

            The Government of Madras under the guidance of State Port Officer explored the possibility of increasing the draft from 26 feet to 36 feet in the year 1963 at an estimated cost of Rs.21 crores.  

2.2. Nagendra Singh Committee Report - 1967

            Government of India constituted a committee under the Chairmanship of Dr. Nagendra Singh, Secretary Ministry of Shipping and Transport  in the year 1964. Shri C.V. Venkateshwaran, Retd. Development Advisor, (Ports)  was appointed as the Chief Engineer to take up the investigation work.  Shri R. Natarajan was appointed as the Project Officer to collect the statistics of shipping and to determine the economic viability of the project. The committee completed its report in 1967 and the draft contemplated was 30 feet at an estimated cost of Rs.37.46 crores. The committee examined both the alignments suggested earlier and due to the presence of layers of  sand stone in the Madapam alignment, suggested an alternative alignment  in  the  Rameswaram Island Crossing called the DE alignment near Thankachimadam.  The main components of the project involved were  

-        Excavation and dredging of the canal

-        Construction of a lock

-        Construction of a bridge

-        Construction of breakwaters

-        Procurement of a dredger and

-         Land acquisition and procurement of harbour crafts, construction of buildings, model studies etc. 

2.3. Lakshminarayan Committee Report - 1981

            The committee under the Chairmanship of Shri H.R. Lakshminarayan Development Advisor (Ports) was constituted in the year 1981.  The committee collected the opinions and representations of the leading public, industrialists and Government officials of the State.  All of them unanimously urged the Government to take up the scheme immediately.  The prominent citizens of  the Rameswaram island represented that the canal would serve better if located to the east of Rameswaram town as far as possible, as  it would otherwise affect the movement of the pilgrims of the temple town.  After detailed investigations a new alignment was proposed across Dhanushkodi, 1km. west of Kodandaramasamy Temple across the narrow land strip known as the ‘K’ alignment.   The committee also appointed a Navigational Expert Group to finalize the bottom width of the channel and the under keel clearance.  The committee recommended construction of two channels called the south and north channels and also construction of a lock in the land portion connecting both the channels.   

         The salient features of the scheme were as under :-  

Section of the Channel	Length in nautical miles	Bottom width in meters	Dredging depth in meters chart datum
Bay of Bengal channel	33.5	305	12.2
North approach	8.05	244	11.6
Lock in land canal	300m.	45	12.2
South approach	2.4	244	11.6

         A side slope of 1:6 was considered.   

         The estimated cost of the project was Rs. 282 crores with a foreign exchange component of Rs. 3 crores.   

2.4. Pallavan Transport Consultance Services Report - 1996

           During 1994, the State Government of Tamil Nadu felt that Sri. H.R. Laxminarayan Committee Report of 1983 has to be up dated and directed M/s. Pallavan Transport Consultancy Services Ltd.(PTCS), a Govt. Tamil Nadu undertaking, to reappraise and revalidate the 1983 report.  Fresh particulars of cost and traffic were collected and incorporated in the report.  

PTCS Report Considered Following Project Components :  

Apart from the construction of the proposed canal, which constitutes the major component of the project, a number of infrastructural facilities as listed below are envisaged to be created under the project :  

• Construction of a "lock"
• Construction of rubble mound type breakwaters on either side of the land canal
• Navigational aids
• Lighted beacons/buoys
• Racons
• Satellite based differential global system
• Improvements to Pamban light house
• Flotilla
• Harbour tugs
• Pilot, mooring, survey-cum-lighting launches
• Despatch vessels
• Shore facilities
• Two service jetties
• Slipways
• Buoy yard
• Repair workshop
• Staff and administration buildings  

2.5. Tuticorin Port Trust as Nodal Agency

               In February, 1997,  the Ministry of Surface Transport  made Tuticorin Port Trust as Nodal Agency for the Project,  and  subsequently the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute  (NEERI), Nagpur was appointed by Ministry of Surface Transport in July 1997 to prepare the Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) of the Project  The IEE study report indicated that the Project is environmentally safe with negligible effect on the eco system and the Marine National Park of the Gulf of Mannar.  The report also recommended a particular alignment of the canal cutting the   Pamban Island, east of Kothandaramasamy temple, which will cause least damage to the biota  and the environment .  As per instructions of the Ministry in February, 2002, NEERI was entrusted to conduct the following studies:-  

               (i)   Techno-economic viability, and

               (ii)   Environmental Impact Assessment.  

Tuticorin Port Trust later engaged M/s. L & T-Ramboll Consulting Engineers, Chennai  in 2004 for preparation of a Detailed Project Report, which has clearly established the financial viability of the Project and has also prescribed a stringent Environmental Management Plan for preserving and conserving the rich bio-diversity in the project region.