Sethusamudram Project: Reason should reign over religion

The proposed Sethusamudram project is back in the eye of the storm after its opponents have gone ballistic in their objection, with the issue rocking the Parliament.

The BJP is leading the charge on behalf of various Hindu groups who claim that the submerged land formation is what’s left of the bridge built under the supervision of Lord Ram to facilitate his invasion of Lanka. The saffron brigade is stubborn in its stand that damage to the ‘holy’ bridge is unacceptable, and their credo has backers in legal luminaries like Subramanian Swami — who are capable of keeping the project tangled in judicial knots forever.

The project faces stiff opposition from local fishing community, who say the present alignment would destroy marine life and corals. There are also concerns raised by some experts about creating an artificial breach in a natural barrier capable of buffering tsunami waves, thereby preventing extensive damage to the entire southern coast.

A government-appointed committee headed by Rajendra K Pachauri recently released its report terming the proposed project unviable from ecological and economic aspects — but the Centre has decided to reject it and go ahead.

Some say Sethusamudram Canal will provide India with the benefits akin to those provided by Panama Canal or Suez Canal — though the reality is that neither the distance reduced, amount of traffic, nor time saved is anywhere in that scale. It must also be noted that the 12 metre-deep channel cannot be used by ships above 30,000 tonnes. This would rule out most big container ships, let alone massive crude carriers. And when one considers the massive dredging costs, part of which will be recurring, things look less promising.

However, some are of the opinion that the advantage of reduced distance is dwarfed by strategic concerns. It would ensure better security for cargo and more effective monitoring by security agencies. The added benefit would be that smaller ports in Kerala and Tamil Nadu will see more business, and in turn, revenues.

In 2007, after filing an affidavit in the Supreme Court, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) came under heavy criticism for questioning the authenticity of Ram-built-it-theory. The officials, rather candidly, pointed out that mythology cannot be the basis of government policy. All hell broke loose in the land of the holy cow: the officials were suspended, ‘objectionable’ passages removed and the then law minister HR Bharadwaj smoothened ruffled feathers by accepting the historical and cultural relevance of Ram.

We have the dubious distinction of the highest level of judiciary entertaining cases where God is made a party... such periods in Europe are now known as Dark Ages.

Since we are a nation where people take offence at the drop of the hat, the mythological angle should be left out in the case of Sethusamudram project. Hardly any opinion can be made on any topic under the sun without offending someone or the other. And soon cases will follow for “offending the sentiments” of X community, Y caste, Z interest group and XYZ people who want their 15 minutes of fame by getting their names published in news reports for filing cases.

Allowing development issues to be hijacked by political and communal elements with vested interests would not only create divisions, but also open floodgates of questionable methods to stall anything and everything.

Reason, and not religion, alone should decide public policy.

(This article was published as the editorial column in Postnoon on February 27, 2013.)