As I pen this Article, my thoughts race back to the accelerated momentum triggered on the Sethu Canal Project in 2004, when India’s then Union Minister of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways, proclaimed that," National development through project implementation is my vision and that is my mission ".His zeal in superfast - tracking the various clearances that were required to launch this controversial Project was unprecedented in India’s otherwise conservative bureaucracy. It’s speed from the baseline in May 2004 when the Project was listed in the Common Minimum Programme of the UPA Government, to it’s actual launching in July 2005,could be described as faster than Japan’s famous ‘ Bullet Train ", in the context of India’s multi-layered institutional and political structures across which it had to be navigated. Nonetheless, this Minister bulldozed through it all; although in the process many feet were trampled, including those of some colleagues in the Union Cabinet. A key confrontation was that with the political opponents in the Tamil Nadu State Government, especially with the high-profile former Chief Minister, Ms. Jeyaram Jeyalalitha. Her absence was noteworthy at the ceremonial launching of the Project on 02 July 2005, by the Prime Minister of India in the presence of high-level dignitaries inclusive of Ms Sonia Gandhi and Mr M Karunanidhi Chief Minister of the Tamil Nadu State Government.

The more serious outcome of "rushing" the procedures involved in a mega project of the nature of the Sethu Canal, was the recourse by the aggrieved parties to seek justice in the Courts. It led to multiple litigations at different hierarchical levels of India’s judicial structure. Nearly all such cases were however ruled in favour of the project proponents. One of them in the Chennai High Court did raise eyebrows, when the Bench observed that, " in the name of environment protection, scientific and technological progress of the country should not be obstructed. No doubt environment has to be protected, but at the same time, we must not overlook the basic aim of our country which is to make India a powerful and modern industrial State ".This prompted an Indian commentator on environmental justice issues to state that, " the Chennai High Court should have maintained a non-partisan view rather than come out as a supporter of the Sethusamudram Canal ".

Apart from tensions in the outcomes of the political divisions on the Project in the Tamil Nadu State, and of the several petitions filed in the Indian Courts, there also were other negative fallouts after it’s launching. An early incident was the replacement of the very vocal first Chief Executive Officer of the Sethusamudram Corporation Ltd., which was the Special Purpose Vehicle ( SPV ),established to implement the Project. He was a live wire during it’s pre-launch and in the immediate post-launch periods. In addition, there was heavy criticism regarding the inadequacies of the Environmental Impact Assessment ( EIA ) that had been undertaken by the otherwise reputed Indian research institute, NEERI of Nagpur. Furthermore, the in-situ breakdowns of the Dredgers deployed to excavate the canal trace in the Palk Strait caused a backwash in it’s implementation programme. It was also reported that there was no favourable response in the global marketplace to mobilise capital for the Project. In addition, international criticism by Scientists, Engineers, Environmentalists and even Experts on International Law, added to the already choking bank of domestic criticism. These were compounded by the slow progress on the efforts by the Indian Authorities in dealing with the bi-lateral fallout of the Project with neighbouring Sri Lanka.

The more serious fallout of " rushing " the procedures involved on the Sethu Canal Project arose from the peaking of the litigations at the Supreme Court of India, when an unforeseen cause enveloped a matter that took it beyond the Palk Strait. It happened when the dredging in progress on the chosen alignment required cutting across the Rama Sethu Bridge or the Adam’s Bridge. It’s shoal of rocky sediments which in Indian mythology were laid by Lord Rama’s army of monkey soldiers to enable him to get across to the island of Ceylon to bring back his beloved wife Sita, became the cynosure of millions of Hindus. Their religious fervour was hurt by this action to damage the sacred relic. Their cause was championed by none other than the nation’s main political opposition, the Bharata Janatha Party ( BJP ),which had a large hindu vote base. The petition filed by them in the apex Court sought relief by the immediate halt of any damage to the Rama Sethu Bridge. The Court ordered the halt of any dredging across the Bridge, and directed the Government to respond to the petition. The latter resulted in the relevant Authorities seeking an expert opinion from the Archeological Survey of India ( ASI ).It reported that the Brigdge had no scientific or archeological evidence to show a link to mythology of Lord Rama. The submission of this Report with an affidavit to the Court raised a hornet’s nest all over India. The petitioner ,the BJP, claimed that the faith of millions of Hindus on the Rama Sethu did not require scientific evidence. It’s fallout triggered massive street protests and public anger. The Government was compelled to withdraw it’s affidavit containing the ASI Report. This was an unprecedented and embarrassing flip-flop by a Government. Unfortunately, two high level bureaucrats at ASI became it’s victims.

The apex Court in it’s wisdom, advised the Government to investigate an alternative alignment to the Canal trace that will not cause damage to the Rama Sethu Bridge. The expert group which reported on same has not had it’s findings made public, because during this time the Government’s term of office was ending. In the meantime dredging had halted. The project proponents claimed that 60% of the work had been completed and urged the Government to complete the Canal on an alternative alignment. On the other hand, the subsequent political events altered the equation. The ruling UPA convincingly won the 15th Lok Sabha elections held in May 2009,with it’s lead Party, the Congress, winning an overwhelming majority of electorates. It’s alliance with the Canal promoters in Tamil Nadu State however continued, although with a different political flare. It no longer needed a Common Minimum Programme as was done in 2004,to include the Sethu Project as a priority.

Furthermore, the key proponent who was the then Union Minister of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways, was not included in the new Union Cabinet. Nonetheless, it’s current Union Minister of Shipping who also hailed fro the Tamil Nadu State announced recently that," all efforts were in progress to complete the task as per the wish of the UPA Chairperson Sonia Gandhi, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, and Chief Minister M Karunanidhi ".

However it is pertinent to note that an expert group from India’s National Institute of Oceanography in the Ministry of Science & Technology, had informed the Government that the Sethu Project as had been previously designed was without " any study on the potential impact of tectonic events on the Canal". In this connection it cautioned that," between February 1948 and January 1949,tectonic events had led to the submergence of a part of Dhanushkodi Town ".In addition, the Report of this expert group had stated that," there exists no baseline data to permit a conclusive statement to be made regarding the potential impact of a switch in alignment ( so as not to damage the Rama Sethu ) as asked for by the Hon’ ble Chief Justice of India ". Consequently, it had recommended to the Government that a full-fledged EIA be carried out. The time required for the latter has been estimated to take another five years; which would mean the entire duration of the newly re-relected UPA Government.

In the above situation, the partially dredged Canal, and the other infrastructures already constructed comprising  60% of the Project ( as reportedly attributed to Chief Minister Karunanidhi ),has become a dilemma for the Palk Strait. This waterway has been earmarked for the Indo-Lanka inter connection route of the Asian Highway, for which the two nations are signatories to it’s protocol. Further, the apex leaders of the two Governments have discussed Sri Lanka’s proposal  on the development of Palk Bay. Meanwhile, the feasibility study of the Indo-Lanka submarine cable under the Palk Strait to supply electricity between Madurai and Anuradhapura, is now complete. Above all, the end of the war-like conflict with the LTTE should project further bi-lateral opportunities across the waterway. The latter may however need to factor in the hotspots of illegal smuggling and poaching across the International Boundary Line between the two countries. In these circumstances, the Palk Strait dilemma will rest on what will actually happen therein. The importance of it’s time scale should however not be underestimated during bi-lateral discussions. The opportunity is ripe for conceiving the integration of the multiple benefits that could accrue from the spatial envelope comprised of Sri Lanka and the four Southern Indian States of Tamil Nadu,Kerala, Karnataka & Andhra Pradesh. In same, the Palk Strait is key for pro-active action by Sri Lanka to devise a sustainable bi-lateral " smart partnership ".