Jaya, Swamy oppose At the behest of Lanka!

Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa opened the Hambantota port on Nov.18, 2010. Speaking at the function to mark the berthing of the first vessel at the Magama Ruhunupura Mahinda Rajapaksa Port in Hambantota built with Chinese assistance, Rajapaksa said his government was committed to making Sri Lanka the “Wonder of Asia” by making it a five-fold hub — naval, aviation, commercial, energy and knowledge.

The berthing of the first vessel came on the eve of  Rajapaksa’s swearing-in for a second term as President. Rajapaksa took the oath of office at a grand ceremony on Nov.19, 2010. The government announced week-long celebrations to mark the occasion.

“Today, we have left our mark, not only on the Sri Lankan map but also the world map. Today the Port of Magampura saw the berthing of its first ship. In the maritime maps of the world this will be marked as an important port,” he told the audience. Rajapaksa said that in addition to Hambantota, his government was in the process of constructing five more ports in Sri Lanka.

The Port of Hambantota (also known as the Magampura Port) is a maritime port in Hambantota, Sri Lanka. The first phase of the port was opened on 18 November 2010, with the first ceremonial berthing of the naval ship “Jetliner” to use the port facilities. Hambantota Port is built inland and operated by the Sri Lanka Ports Authority.

Construction of the port began in January 2008. It will be Sri Lanka’s largest port, after the Port of Colombo. The Port of Hambantota will service ships traveling along one of world’s most busiest shipping lines - the east-west shipping route which passes six to ten nautical miles (19 km) south of Hambantota. The first phase of the port project will provide bunkering, ship repair, ship building, and crew changes facilities. Later phases will raise capacity of the port up to 20 million TEUs per year. When completed, the port will be the biggest port constructed on land to date in the 21st century.

Sri Lanka is situated along the key shipping route between the Malacca Straits and the Suez Canal, which links Asia and Europe. An estimated 36,000 ships, including 4,500 oil tankers, use the route annually. However the only major port in Sri Lanka, the Port of Colombo is catered towards container handling and is unable to provide facilities for port related industries and services. Therefore a new port was proposed near the city of Hambantota, which has a natural harbor and is located on the southern tip of Sri Lanka close to international shipping routes.

A new port will help relieve pressure on the Colombo port, and also provide services to ships that normally take three-and-a-half day detours from their shipping lanes to receive these services, including refueling, maintenance, logistics and buying provisions and medical supplies. Proposals to build a port in Hambantota date back over three decades, but plans never got out of conceptual stages. The Port of Hambantota project was finally launched after Mahinda Rajapaksa, who is a native of Hambantota, was elected President of Sri Lanka in 2005. Initially set to open in the first half of 2011, five months ahead of schedule, the first phase of the project was completed by November 2010.

Port of Hambantota is planned to develop as a Services and industrial port. Hambantota is one of the lowest per capita income regions in Sri Lanka. Thus, the construction of a Port in Hambantota will be an important catalyst for a major economic development in Sri Lanka and further it will reduce the prevailing higher unemployment percentage in the Hambantota region.

In view of the deeper berths and location advantages at Hambantota, it may be possible to attract most of the port related industries. Since the maximum draft at Colombo is about 10m for general cargo vessels, manufacturers may invest at Hambantota to get the advantage of “economies of scale.”

However the ambitious project of Rajapaksa was also mired in controversy. The Sri Lankan government has continuously misled people over Hambantota Port, the main opposition United National Party (UNP) said. Concern has been raised by the UNP over the port’s maximum depth of 17m, which it says is not deep enough for unloading larger cargo vessels. The government said that the $1.4bn port, funded by the Chinese, is at the core of its plans to develop the south. It is part of a drive to rebuild areas neglected during the civil war.

The government said at that time that there had been delays in completing it because of a huge rock on the seabed near the harbour entrance, which impeded access to it. But the UNP says that even though that problem is being solved, only shallow vessels can safely berth at Hambantota. UNP MP Harin Fernando told BBC Sinhala’s Emma Wallace that the port had only been constructed to “satisfy President Rajapaksa’s ego”. His concerns about the capacity of the port have been supported by the Port of London Authority which has also said that bigger ships may not be able to use Hambantota. Fernando argues that although it was supposed officially to have opened a year ago, the port is still not functioning properly. “The problem is that it is very difficult for larger vessels to berth at the port because of the fluctuating tide. “Furthermore, the port can become dangerous in heavy monsoon rains.” Fernando also said that local people living near the port were unable to find work there because it employs around 7,000 Chinese workers.

Why should we be so much concerned about this pet project of Rajapaksa or Colombo port or Sri Lanka at all?

Because, the Sri Lankan regime of Rajapaksa has a vested interest in Sethusamudram canal project (SSCP) developed in India, which will not only torpedo the prospects of this new port but more sharply cut down the ship traffic through the traditional shipping route linking Asia and Europe via Colombo port, which in turn will spell doom on the economy of the island nation. Hence, the Sri Lankan regime would like the Sethusamudram project not making headway and collapse.

The objections raised by Jayalalitha, Subramanian Swamy, and Sangh Parivar to the project lead people only to suspect whether they were acting in connivance with the Colombo regime.

The suspicion of people whether Jayalalitha was acting in consonance with Lankan interests, was buttressed by a statement laid by the then Foreign Minister of Sri Lanka Late Lakshman Kadirgamar in their Parliament on July 8, 2005.

Lakshman Kadirgamar made the statement in reply to a question by Athuraliya Ratana Thera that the government should take up SSCP to the international court of justice.

Excerpts from the statement follow:

The Government of Sri Lanka has for a long time been inviting the Indian government’s attention to SSCP’s implications for Sri Lanka. Our concerns were conveyed at various levels. The discussions were at the level of the President of Sri Lanka and the Prime Minister of India, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and the senior officials of the two countries, at the Indo-Sri Lanka Joint Commission and at the Foreign Secretary consultations. Since the Government of India has now chosen to implement the Project on the Indian side of the Indo-Sri Lanka maritime boundary, no prior approval was sought or granted for the Project. However on the part of Government of Sri Lanka we have raised our concerns relating to SSCP’s likely trans-frontier impact on Sri Lanka especially in environment and livelihood areas...

I am of course duty bound to assure the House that Sri Lanka will take all the necessary steps to safeguard the well-being and the interests of our people and our country. We would naturally do this in a calibrated and graduated manner opting first for a co-operative and consultative approach. At the moment we are engaged in that exercise. We will consider further action thereafter if and when necessary....

There is quite a constructive understanding between the two countries on a very complex issue, which I would say is a hotly debated Project in both countries. You would have seen that a few days ago Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalitha herself raised a number of concerns with regard to the Project. A study compiled by an Expert Committee appointed by the Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board has reportedly highlighted specific shortcomings in the National Environment Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) Report. So have many other Indian and Sri Lankan people, civil society organizations and independent experts. We must therefore address these in a manner commensurate with excellent bilateral relations we have between India and Sri Lanka on the one hand and the economic and environmental interests of our countries and the peoples on the other hand. I have no reason to doubt that the relevant authorities in our two countries will be able to proceed on this matter with due diligence and care.

The Government of Sri Lanka is committed to continue the process of consultations with the Indian government to ensure that our concerns are addressed and any negative effects mitigated. The Gulf of Mannar and Palk Straits area is a shared biosphere for both India and Sri Lanka. Its development and protection of its sensitive marine life should be carried out jointly and together. Should the canal be determined to pose adverse effects to Sri Lanka, the government will explore appropriate measures and take all necessary steps to safeguard our interests”.

All these statements of Sri Lankan regime have to be seen particularly in the context of Jayalalitha’s objections which were not consistent and coherent. Although ADMK election manifestos for all elections – Parliament and Assembly polls – till 2004 demanded Sethusamudram project. Jayalalitha made a somersault and wanted the project itself to be scrapped in her party’s manifesto for Lok Sabha election in 2009.

When the inaugural function for the project was held on July 2, 2005, when Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh inaugurated the project works in the presence of UPA Chairperson Tmt.Sonia Gandhi and DMK President Kalaignar in Madurai, Jayalalitha, first said she was not properly invited for the function.

To this, the then Union Shipping Minister Thiru T R Baalu said in Madurai on June 22, 2005  that invitation for the inauguration of the SSCP work had been faxed to Chief Minister Jayalalitha.

Later the Deputy Chairman of the Tuticorin Port Trust would go and invite her in person. The Governor would also be invited as a guest, he said when asked whether the Chief Minister would be invited for the July 2 function. Asked whether he himself would invite the Chief Minister, Thiru Baalu said, “If necessary, the port trust chairman would invite her for the function.” Tuticorin Port Trust chairman S Raghupathy said, “If the Chief Minister insists that I should invite her, then I am at her command and I will go and invite her.”

But even as the preparations for the inaugural function were going on at Madurai and the jubilee and enthusiasm of the people of Tamil Nadu and more particularly southern districts in expecting the D-Day when their centuries-old dream come true was discernible everywhere, the function turned fait acccompli for Jayalalitha. Still she did not want to leave the entire credit for the DMK and the UPA government. In a lengthy statement on 25.6.2005, besides pouring her usual scorns for the DMK and Kalaignar, she also claimed credit for the project becoming a reality, saying,

“Everyone knows that I will never relent in my efforts to get major development projects for Tamil Nadu. It may be recalled that it was on the request of the late Puratchi Thalaivar M.G.R., that a Committee was constituted by the Government of India in 1981, to determine the feasibility of this Canal Project. While the Committee did find the project feasible, it was not taken up due to financial reasons. I raised this issue as a Member of the Rajya Sabha in 1984 and again in 1986 and stressed that the project should not be viewed merely in financial terms, but should be taken up keeping in view the national security concerns also.

On 10.5.1986, the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly moved a Resolution demanding the implementation of the SSCP without any further delay. In July, 1991, as Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, I presented a Memorandum to the then Hon’ble Prime Minister of India, insisting that the Sethusamudram Canal Project should be taken up. It was my Government, which entrusted a new study to M/s. Pallavan Transport Consultancy Services Limited in 1994, to prepare an updated feasibility report. This was completed in 1996. It was on my insistence that the Sethusamudram Canal Project was taken up as a priority project in 1998 and an initial Environmental Impact Study was entrusted to the NEERI in March, 1998. This report was also made available in August, 1998.  Thus, I have been instrumental in ensuring that the Sethusamudram Canal Project becomes a reality.”

But then she says, “At the same time, I have always maintained that extreme precaution should be taken before actually undertaking the project, in view of the fact that this is a unique ecologically sensitive zone with rich and rare biodiversity. Further, the zone where the Sethusamudram Canal Project is to be executed is a major fishing zone, which provides livelihood to lakhs of fishermen of Tamil Nadu.  I have always maintained that before taking up the canal project, it has to be ensured by careful studies that their livelihood is not affected in any way.

Any canal project, such as the Sethusamudram Canal Project involves massive dredging of the seafloor. It is elementary that in such an ecologically sensitive project, where disturbance of the seafloor is involved, maximum safeguards have to be provided after detailed evaluation.

The impact on the fishing community has to be carefully evaluated and any damage to their livelihood prevented. Thus, there are very serious environmental issues relating to this project, which need careful study.  The whole point is that while the project is most important, it can only be undertaken after great care and preparation, paying attention to all the environmental concerns.”

Well, what are all her admissions? First, she claims that ‘she had always maintained this and that’. It is a double boiled, double distilled lie. Never in the past, in all her claims made above she had added this caveat. She can be challenged on this score. Only because of her envy for the DMK she was inventing all these to obstruct a benefit to Tamil Nadu.

After claiming that only at her insistence, the NEERI report of Environmental Impact Study was made available in August 1998, what were the attempts she made further for the realization of the project? Why after returning to power in 2001, she did not consider asking the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to go into  all aspects of this project based on the NEERI report and waited for the announcement of the UPA government approving the project and sanctioning funds? She had said that TNPCB appointed an Expert committee to go into all aspects of this project, which had just then (June 2005) submitted its report to TNPCR. The committee found NEERI report ‘having a number of deficiencies’ and suggested many more studies. All these had to be ‘considered in detail and the Board has to forward its recommendations’ to the State government and only thereafter the State government ‘can decide on the question of furnishing the mandatory No Objection Certificate’ to the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Govt of India?

Are not these dilatory tactics and just worthless protractions. Much more she contended that ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the Government of Tamil Nadu was ‘mandatory’ and ‘T.R.Baalu just bulldozed environmental clearance from the Union Ministry for Environment and Forests’. For all these contentions of Jayalalitha, Kalaignar and T.R.Baalu replied and rubbished her allegations.

Responding to Jayalalitha’s statement on June 27, 2005, that the Centre was going ahead with the Sethusamudram Project without the No Objection Certificate from the State Pollution Control Board, Kalaignar said the Board’s clearance was neither mandatory nor was it a statutory requirement under the rules.

“The NOC (No Objection Certificate) from the State Government or TNPCB is not a statutory requirement for consideration of environmental clearance for a project for which such clearance is to be accorded by the Central Government as per the Environmental Impact Assessment,” Kalaignar said in a statement quoting from a Union Government Notification of January 1994.

Speaking at the inauguration of the 50-km stretch of Golden Quadrilateral at Krishnagiri, Thiru T.R.Baalu said that the TNPCB’s NOC was “not a statutory obligation”. The Shipping Ministry and the Tuticorin Port Trust, the nodal agency entrusted with the task of implementation of the project have furnished detailed and satisfactory explanation on the concerns conveyed by the commom man, he said.  In spite of the obstacles put up by the State Government, the Ministry was able to elicit responses from the public and the fishermen community in six southern districts, Thiru Baalu said.

Thiru T.R.Baalu, denied Jayalalitha’s charge that the Centre had “subverted” the environmental clearance process in the implementation of the Sethusamudram Ship Canal Project (SSCP). “I am neither a novice nor foolhardy to do that,” Baalu said. He said that he had been President of the United Nations framework convention on climate change during 2002, and knew the world would be looking at him when a prestigious project like the SSCP was being implemented. He added that experts from the Alagappa Engineering College, Central Electrochemical Research Institute, and Centre for Advanced Studies, would closely monitor if any changes were taking place in the sea or in the atmosphere while dredging takes place. “The marine water quality, noise pollution..air pollution, everything would be monitored closely and report would be sent to the Tuticorin Port Trust then and there,” he said. “The project was drawing global attention; and would bring honour and prestige to Tamil Nadu and India, besides helping in the economic development of the nation and the State,” he said. “I want to concentrate on such a project rather than joining the issue (controversy over environment) with the Chief Minister or officials and create further controversy,” he said.

Meanwhile the dredging works in the Palk straits for constructing the canal was going ahead in a fast phase. It is noteworthy that Jayalalitha, who raised a hue and cry over the project in 2005 was conspicuously silent on it in 2006 prior to and during the Assembly elections in May that year. For the first time ADMK election manifesto for 2006 Assembly elections did not contain any reference to Sethusamudram project and Jayalalitha also did not raise the issue in her election campaign, fearing it will create a backlash. In fact Kalaignar in his election campaign launched attack on those opposing the Sethu project but Jayalalitha did not respond.

In fact until mid-2007, there were no other opposition to the project other than on environmental, ecological grounds and on livelihood of fishermen, which were all convincingly addressed and settled. As regards the findings of Experts Committee appointed by TNPCB, it is a universal fact that no two different experts concur on their findings and getting a unanimous approval from different experts and experts’ committees, is akin to chasing a mirage. Moreover, the purpose for which a committee is appointed by a person/ institution with a purpose sets a preconceived or a pre-determined objective for the study to be undertaken and their findings will definitely reflect that position. Given Jayalalitha’s opposition to the project, the experts committee appointed during her tenure did reflect her stand and found discrepancies in the report of NEERI, which is a national institution engaged in the study of environmental issues unlike adhoc committees appointed for a purpose now and then.

On June 29, 2005, the environmental impact assessment (EIA) prepared by NEERI for the project had been cleared at all public fora. The Shipping Ministry termed it as an unfortunate development that at the time of its implementation, its validity is being questioned.

Shipping ministry sources said that the NOC from the state government or TNPCB is not a statutory requirement for seeking environmental clearance for the project. They added that in fact the ministry had voluntarily sought to place the draft of NEERI report before the public of Ramanathapuram and Tuticorin. These were the places which fell under the impact area of the project. Apart from this, a presentation was also made to the environment and forest department of the state government in 2003.

Sources said that all these consultations were held much before the government started the process of formally applying for the project’s environmental clearance to TNPCB in June 2004. NEERI’s report covers all aspects addressed by TNPCB’s expert committee. These pertain to environmental settings in the project areas, assessment of environmental impacts, impact of dredging, and the overall environmental management plan of the project.

The ministry said that it had undertaken risk analysis for the proposed channel. Keeping in mind Sri Lanka’s environmental concerns, it also conducted coastline studies. It concluded that the channel would have no impact on the coastlines of both the nations and on the offshore coral islands present around the region.

It was only after the Archeological Survey of India’s affidavit filed before the Supreme Court in mid-2007 in which some unnecessary paragraphs on ‘Ramar Bridge’ were included that the Sangh Parivar led by the BJP started their venomous communal campaign against the project. They planned to consolidate Hindu vote bank by whipping up a frenzy like their earlier campaign on Ram temple in Ayodya, in the run up for Lok Sabha election in 2009. Neither the Sangh Parivar nor Jayalalitha thought of the so-called ‘Ramar Bridge’ all along the over a hundred and fifty years when the idea of Sethusamudram canal was mooted and discussed by many and a movement for the launch of project was conducted in Tamil Nadu. Even Poet Bharathiyar envisaged infringing and elevating the Adams bridge and laying a road across Palk straits in his poem, “nrJit nkLW¤Â Å rik¥ngh«.”

Jayalalitha too joined this chorus on ‘Ramar bridge’ suddenly. ‘The Indian Express’ on September 13, 2007, reported under the headline ‘Jaya toes BJP lines’:

“ADMK supremo Jayalalitha on Thursday tailored her stand on the Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project (SSCP) to suit that of the BJP, insisting that the project be implemented without demolishing the Ram Sethu. Until now, Jayalalitha had stoutly opposed the project on the grounds that it would affect the livelihood of fishermen as well as destroy the rich marine biodiversity in the Palk Bay area.

Jayalalitha’s sudden volte face and the obvious strains within the United National Progressive Alliance of which she is one of the chief architects, has political circles abuzz that she might be moving closer to the BJP. While the ADMK and BJP struck up an alliance for the 2004 Lok Sabha election, the two parties faced a total rout with the DMK-led combine winning all the 39 seats in Tamil Nadu and the lone Pondicherry seat.

In a statement, Jayalalitha said the Sethusamudram Project be implemented without demolishing the Ram Sethu. She pointed out that in the past, several committees and experts had given four or five alternative schemes to implement the project without demolishing the bridge. “The Centre should explore the possibility of one of the alternative schemes and implement the project without damaging the Ram Sethu,” she said.

Relations have been somewhat strained between the ADMK and the BJP, with Jayalalitha ignoring overtures from the latter during the May 2006 Assembly election. The ADMK-led alliance included the MDMK and some smaller parties. But, the BJP contested on its own and failed to win even a single Assembly seat. While the BJP’s prospects in Tamil Nadu are rather poor, Jayalalitha might be forced to align with the party for the next Lok Sabha election if only to end her political isolation.

While Jayalalitha played a key role in forming the Third Front in June, disagreements with major constituent partners saw her issuing a stinging statement on Sunday in which she wondered whether the ADMK was still part of the UNPA and whether it continued to exist as one entity.

People all over the country were opposed to the demolition of the bridge, she said. “What is the need to demolish the Ram Sethu when the project can be implemented without destroying it?” she asked.”

Reacting to this, the Dravidar Kazhagam condemned her on Oct 18, 2007 as PTI reported as: “Dravidar Kazhagam accused ADMK supremo Jayalalitha of helping the cause of Sri Lanka in the Sethusamudram Ship Canal Project (SSCP) and termed her reported comments as ‘anti-Tamil’.

Referring to Jayalalitha’s reported remarks that there was no need for the project and the ships could go around Sri Lanka as is the case now, DK president K Veeramani said that she was only helping the cause of Sri Lanka, “which did not want the project to come up,”

“The Sri Lankan government has been resorting to many direct and indirect means to stall the project, and her statement echoing the Sri Lankan view is condemnable,” Veeramani said. He also termed her remarks as “anti-Tamil” and alleged that she was against the state’s development.

Charging the ADMK with contradicting its stand on the issue, he read out portions of the party’s various poll manifestos, including the one for 2006 Assembly elections, in which the party had argued for the project, stating that it will result in the economic development of the state. “She has malafide intentions of stalling a good project,” Veeramani alleged. He also said that “a powerful lobby was trying to unnecessarily stall a development project,”

Reacting to her contention that the project was a “threat to national security”, Veeramani wondered whether former Prime Minister A B Vajpayee, whose NDA regime cleared the project, and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh were not aware of it.”

The shady person in Indian public life Subramanian Swamy, whose sources and resources are mysterious and suspicious, took up this issue and filed a petition in the Supreme Court. (The Jain Commission of Inquiry into the conspiracy angle of Rajiv Gandhi assassination case was told by one-time lieutenant of Swamy, Velusamy about Subramanian Swamy’s secret visit to Sriperumpudur two days prior to the tragedy and meeting some persons there, the role of the self styled godman Chandraswamy, Subrmanian Swamy nexus etc., However the then Central government led by P.V.Narasimha Rao, who was perceived close to the godman, did not pursue the matter seriously). Since then the project works were halted twice in2007 and 2009. Unfortunately the UPA government also buckled and undertook to work on alternative alignment and appointed Pachauri Committee which has since submitted its report.

Subramanian Swamy’s foreign jaunts and purposes are never disclosed nor the investigative media show any interest in them. Even a month back he visited Sri Lanka purportedly on a pilgrimage to Kataragama - the Muruga’s temple to participate in the rituals connected with Thai Poosam. It was only a ruse because he never participated in Thai Poosam in Palani, such pilgrim place in Tamil Nadu even when he was MP of Madurai. Sri Lankan media reported this:

“Subramanian Swamy arrived in Sri Lanka and he left for Kataragama to spend the day in worshipping and performing the religious rituals connected with Thai Poosam. He was interviewed by Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation and his interview was broadcasted live in English as well as in Tamil.

Answering a question Subramanian Swamy cautioned that third party should not be allowed to interfere in the Devolution talks.

Hudson Smarasinghe, Chairman of the SLBC told Asian Tribune that in the interview he had with Subramanian Swamy, he has expressed great confidence in the leadership of Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa and described the Sri Lanka President - an experienced political leader and a person who freed the Tamils from the iron clutches of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.”

At the height of debate over India’s voting in UNHRC against Sri Lanka, in a debate on Times Now, Subramanian Swamy was the only participant who opposed India voting for the resolution. Much more, he said Jayalalitha’s position was also the same as his but on political considerations of the State, she was speaking differently. After all Jayalalitha is on record saying Sri Lanka was a souvereign nation and India could not interfere in its internal affairs, and defending Lankan armed forces’ killing of innocent Tamils.

Thus by taking up one reason after the other for stalling Sethusamudram project, the duo Jayalalitha and Subramanian Swamy are serving the cause of Sri Lankan regime of Rajapaksa, in the background of opening of Hambantota port in Sri Lanka.

DMK President Kalaignar saw the design as far back in 2009 and openly charged that Jayalalitha opposed the project due to her deal with Lanka. On April 18, 2009,  Kick-starting the DPA’s poll campaign at a public meeting at Purasawalkam, Kalaignar referred to the ADMK’s promise to scrap the Sethusamudram ship channel project and wondered whether voters would provide Jayalalitha with the authority. It would be suicidal. The project, when completed, would transform the economy of the State.

Recalling that the ADMK, in its manifestos for the 2001 Assembly elections and 2004 Lok Sabha polls, assured voters that the project would be implemented within a time frame, Kalaignar said what was sweetening to the Opposition party earlier had now turned bitter.

On her mad pursuit for getting the project, realised by the DMK and UPA government, thereby fulfilling the 150-year old dream of Tamils, scrapped permanently, Jayalalitha went to the extent of disowning not only MGR, whom she calls her political mentor, but also criticizing Arignar Anna and said in party’s election manifesto for 2009 Parliamentary elections,

 “The Sethusamudram Shipping Channel Project was a dream project of the people of Tamil Nadu for over 150 years. The British first conceived the project but dropped it. Later, eminent personalities like Perarignar Anna and Puratchi Thalaivar MGR also felt that this scheme would meet a long-standing need of Tamil Nadu. It is this that the DMK and the UPA keep quoting to show that by implementing the project they are only fulfilling what Anna and Puratchi Thalaivar MGR had dreamt of. What is conveniently sidelined is the fact that the scheme is outdated in today’s era of high-speed, high-capacity ocean liners and cargo vessels.”

She dares to mean that Anna is a leader without farsightedness. Can it be forgiven?

The reason for the ADMK to reject this project was due to a deal they (the ADMK) had entered into with the Lankan government to help that country as otherwise the income through shipping transport to the ports there would get reduced drastically if the distance of taking the circuitous route around Lanka was shortened (due to the opening of the Sethusamudram canal), Kalaignar said. He accused the ADMK of adopting a position that would benefit Lanka economically.

Now with Jayalalitha writing to the Prime Minister demanding announcement of so-called ‘Ramar bridge’ as national monument and thus trying to get the project scrapped for ever at the behest of Lankan regime, that the deal of shady Jaya- Swamy duo to promote the cause of the Rajapaksa’s pet project of Hambantota port, is coming to light!