She (if she is a she) is absolutely right, especially in the conclusion that
she draws.
Dilip
Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Web| Oct 03, 2007
http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20071003&fname=ramsetu&sid=1
Beyond Belief
There's little evidence to suppose that the Sethusamduram project is going to
bring untold prosperity to the region. It is being built, supported and opposed
for all the wrong reasons.
VAISHNA ROY
Let's first establish that I am not religious. I am far more comfortable with
Darwinian concepts of creation than theories that emanate from the navel lotus
or the apple. So I feel no emotional outrage about the anti-Ram comments that
have been spewing forth. The angst of the good Hindu is not mine. In fact, I
should ideally be terribly thrilled that so many prominent people are taking up
the cause of reason with so much vigour.
But I am not thrilled. I am irritated. It riles me that people like M.
Karunanidhi, the chief minister of Tamil Nadu, should spout rationalism when
it's clear that he is clueless about it. It riles me that historians should
suddenly discover the absence of historical proof of Ram's existence when there
has never been any from day dot. It maddens me when feminists now tell me that
Ram is anti-women. All these people are suddenly crawling out of the woodwork
and trying to jostle for a place on the sunlit stage of reason, convinced that
their credentials to common sense need no examination simply because their
arguments are pitted against the passion and fury of religion. The fact is,
their arguments are vapid, and their position an ineffectual response to the
situation.
There is little doubt about the vested interests of almost everyone who is
egging on the Sethusamudram Project. Let's take that as a given - there's
little evidence to suppose that the project is going to bring untold prosperity
to the region. But to cover up naked greed with the fig-leaf of rationalism is
to assume that you can fool all of the people all of the time, a chancy call at
any time.
The first fact that any person of common sense has to acknowledge is that the
staunchest rationalist cannot wish away religion. Ram is a god to millions in
this country, and the Ramayana is considered not myth but gospel truth. And
this is not going to change in a hurry. When eminent scholars now point out
that the Ramayana is not a historical fact, they must realise that neither are
Eden, burning bushes or Jibril's voice proven historical facts. They are
underpinnings of faith, grand props in the fabulous game of make-believe that
religion is all about. Therefore, to argue history to the faithful and expect
them to accept it is ridiculously futile. Why, if we extend this debate to its
logical conclusion, then the very basis of Israel is questionable. And that's a
can of worms no one cares to open. As Marx said, to ask people to give up the
illusory happiness of their condition is to ask them to give up a condition
that requires illusions.
We also have the grand Dravidian position, one that can't quite make up its
mind about whether it's rationalist or religious. On the one hand, the men of
science ask for Ram's engineering degree as proof of his existence, and in the
same breath they tell you that their Tamilian brethren actually worship other,
local gods, who no doubt have produced ration cards to convince this sceptical
lot.
Then, of course, we have the wacky arguments about Ram's personality. As much
as any Dravidian, I admire Ravan whole-heartedly. He has all the scent of
romance, the fine halo of hubris like Milton's Satan that the vacuous Ram
lacks. But this is the realm of pure and legitimate literary criticism - how
does Ram's chicanery in the epic ipso facto make the Ram Setu site the best
place for a shipping channel? Or does his being anti-feminist somehow become
reparation for the environmental damage?
And that's what is so infuriating about all this absurd posturing. Where is the
thread of logic? The vital issues at stake here are in another sphere
altogether, and worth a far closer look.
Why is this channel being built? Ostensibly, to shorten sailing times between
the western and eastern coasts of India and thus create an economic boom. We
have been told that it will chop off about 30 hours in the voyage from the Gulf
of Mannar to the Bay of Bengal because ships won't have to go around Sri Lanka.
In the first place, this is not a great reduction. Second, navigation experts
point out that even this saving applies only to certain voyages, mostly local
ones like that between Chennai and Tuticorin. Time saved by other ships, those
originating in European or African ports, will be considerably lower - more
like eight or four hours respectively.
This is a significant point because the Draft Project Report for Sethusamudram
envisages the bulk of the revenue (about 60 per cent) as accruing from vessels
that embark from foreign ports and not Indian ports. However, if the time
savings for such ships is not significant enough, why would they use the canal
at all? All the more so when the proposed canal has severe draft restrictions
and pilotage delays.
The canal when finished will have an average depth of about 12 metres, which
means it can be used by vessels of up to 30,000 tons only. Globally, the
shipping industry has long moved towards vessels of 60,000 and higher tonnage
and super-heavy tankers of 150,000 tons, none of which can use Sethusamudram.
The Draft Report bases its revenue calculations on more than 3,000 ships using
the canal by the end of 2008, but given the draft availability, marine experts
peg the number at about 1,000 ships per annum at best.
Worse, to maintain even the 12 metre depth, the dredging along the canal will
have to be continuous. That is because Palk Bay is one of the five major
sediment sinks of India, which basically means that large quantities of
sediment and silt are deposited in the seabed here annually from coastal rivers
of both India and Sri Lanka as well as from tidal currents. Continuous dredging
means heavy maintenance costs plus the heavy costs and problems of disposing of
the dredged material. These costs are not factored into revenue calculations,
neither the effects of it on ecological calculations.
The most gains that the canal can bring about is to regional trade - to compare
the gains to global shipping to be of the magnitude of that attained by the
Suez is silly beyond belief. And that is just the economics. What about the
environmental damage? The basic EIA (environmental impact study) that was
conducted here is suspect - it ignores fairly obvious ecological issues. It
does not take into account the effects of future pollution, sea-bed
disturbances due to continuous dredging, and the entire issue of cyclones and
tsunamis. The area is a rich and unique biosphere that need not be sacrificed
for a development project of minor and dubious economic merit. Several experts
have pointed out the loopholes in the Sethusamudram project but despite the
persistent doubts about the wisdom of large-scale manipulation of natural
formations, there are few signs of those in power slowing down and thinking
this through.
The irony is this: that the Sethusamduram project is being built for all the
wrong reasons; and that now, it is being supported and opposed for all the
wrong reasons.
_______________________________________________
assam mailing list
[email protected]
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
_______________________________________________
assam mailing list
[email protected]
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
