At whose behest?

As if challenging the ethos of Tamils and the land of Thanthai Periyar and Arignar Anna, the Jayalalitha regime in Tamil Nadu dared to file an affidavit in the Supreme Court pleading for the scrapping of the dream project of Tamils, the Sethusamudram project that too using the name of mythical Ram and so-called Ram Sethu.
But Jayalalitha’s objections to the project 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, with Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh inaugurating 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 Sethusamudram Canal Project 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 in full swing 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 accompli 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 Sethusamudram Canal Project 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 National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (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  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 report 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 No Objection Certificate’ to the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government 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 MEF. For all these contention 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 here, 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 common 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.
ThiruT.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 was 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 it 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 an national institution engaged in the study of environmental issues unlike ad hoc committees appointed for a purpose now and then.
On June 29, 2005, the environmental impact assessment (EIA) prepared by National Environmental Engineering and Research Institute (NEERI) for the project had been cleared at all public fora. The Ministry termed it as an unfortunate development that at the time of its implementation, its validity was 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 are the places which fall 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 Ram 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 so-called Ram 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 J 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 UNPA 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, and the PTI reported:
“Dravidar Kazhagam accused ADMK supremo J 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 told reporters here. 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 mala fide 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 self styled godman Chandraswamy, Subrmanian Swamy nexus etc., However the then Central government led by P.V.NarasimhaRao, who was perceived close to the godman, did not pursue the matter seriously). Since then the project works were halted twice in 2007 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 to meet Rajapaksa and reportedly lobbied in US for the nation to tone down its resolution in the UNHRC against human rights violations of Sri Lanka.
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.
DMK President Kalaignar saw the design as much 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.
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.
Because, the Sri Lankan regime of Rajapaksa has a vested interest in Sethusamudram canal project developed in India, will not only torpedo the prospects of his new Hambandota port but also 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 Lanka’s interest, 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 RatanaThera that the government should take up SSCP to the international court of justice.
Excerpts from the statement are as follows:
“The GOSL 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 GOSL 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.
This 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 complied by an Expert Committee appointed by the Tamil Nadu 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 GOSL 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 our 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”.
Now Jayalalitha regime has filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court pleading that the project be scrapped forever. Why the project she wanted in May 2004 in the run-up for Lok Sabha polls turned bitter in June 2005, just a year later? The only reason is that the DMK, more particularly her bete noire Kalaignar brought it for Tamil Nadu. This personal animosity has propelled her even to madly pursue the interests of Sri Lanka, more particularly, of Rajapaksa regime. Where are Vaikos, Nedumarans and Pandians?  r