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.”
Since he
became the President, Rajapaksa has been concentrating in the economic
development of his native province which is industrially most backward in Sri
Lanka. He has constructed a huge cricket stadium, where Indian team played
against Sri Lanka during the last tour, and brought many star hotels for developing
tourism.
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 any headway and want it
to 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 of Rajapasa
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 follows:
“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 and later during 2011 Assembly
elections. For the first time ADMK election manifestoes for 2006 and 2011
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 in 2006
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 and 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, 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 early this year 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 President
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 that 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 and his views and visions are
outdated. 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.
Jayalalitha wrote
to the Prime Minister in March this year demanding announcement of so-called
‘Ramar bridge’ as national monument. Now Jayalalitha regime has filed a petition
in the Supreme Court for giving up the project as it was unlikely to be in
public interest and for declaration of Ram Sethu as national monument, thus
trying to get the project scrapped for ever. Jayalalitha has no mandate of the
people of Tamil Nadu to take this policy decision subverting their century-old dream
project. Circumstantial evidence lead people to believe that Jayalalitha, in
collaboration with Subramanian Swamy, is promoting the cause of Rajapaksa’s pet
project of Hambantota port.
