While both the Suez and Panama Canals have gigantic volumes of shipping, which makes them economically viable, in India, the Sethusamudram Canal project is almost dead
The shipping industry and the global economy have benefitted enormously from engineering innovations like the Suez Canal which was opened in 1869 connecting the Mediterranean Sea with the Red Sea. This canal took more than 15 years in planning and construction, and progress was not without major hurdles and impediments. This 101-mile-long canal has made a substantial difference to international shipping and commerce with ships being able to go directly between originating points in Europe and America to Asia and other destinations without navigating around the southern part of Africa. The Suez Canal has a long history which goes back to the days of the Egyptian pharaohs, when a canal connecting the Red Sea and the Nile River was constructed around 1850 BC, according to some sources. The Persian conqueror Darius also tried to create something similar but abandoned it subsequently.
Another major project of this nature is the Panama Canal which was constructed in 1914 across the Isthmus of Panama, connecting the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. This canal is 50 miles long and provides a vital shortcut for ships, for instance, travelling between New York and California, not having to go around the tip of South America, thus saving about 8,000 miles from the journey. The Panama Canal was first conceptualised as far back as the 16th century based on the Spanish explorer Balboa’s discovery that North and South America were joined by a very slim area of land.
However, the project of connecting the Pacific and Atlantic oceans was not found feasible till the French company led by Ferdinand de lesseps, who was a former diplomat responsible for developing Egypt’s Suez Canal, started digging a canal across Panama. The project did not take off for a variety of reasons till finally the Americans went ahead with it.
The canal is now owned by the Republic of Panama, and is used by 13,000 to 14,000 ships each year. Both the Suez Canal and Panama Canal have gigantic volumes of shipping going through them which makes them economically viable and with generally acceptable ecological implications. Tolls for the largest ships passing through Panama Canal can be as high as almost half a million US dollars. The lowest toll, it is reported, was 36 US cents paid in 1928 by an adventurer who decided to cross the Canal by swimming its length.
Against this background, the British in India considered the construction of a channel in south India cutting across what they labelled as Adam’s Bridge, so that ships between the western and eastern parts of India could cut down their travel distance by not having to go around the island of Sri lanka.
One set of estimates suggests that between Kolkata and Tuticorin, the distance saved in this manner would be 340 nautical miles, and between Chennai and Tuticorin 434 nautical miles. Even under the most optimistic scenario, the volume of shipping through any such canal would be an overwhelmingly small fraction of the volume moved currently through the Suez and Panama canals respectively.
The Government of India has been considering this project without considering fully the economic and ecological implications of constructing such a canal. A half-baked environmental impact assessment was carried out by a research institution under the Government of India, and its report submitted in 2004, essentially claiming the project as having no adverse ecological implications. Significantly, the project’s proponents have shown complete insensitivity to the religious beliefs and sentiments which are associated with what is popularly referred to as the Ram Sethu structure joining the southern tip of India with Sri lanka.
The Supreme Court had specified a route for examining the feasibility of construction of the Sethusamudram canal, and for this purpose, a committee was set up, chaired by this writer, to examine all aspects of the proposed project. The major findings of the committee, highlighting the serious economic and ecological shortcomings of the project were discussed in this column of The Pioneer of November 17, 2017. Despite solid and rigorous data collection, analysis and interpretation carried out by the highly qualified members of the committee and the technical excellence of the report which was completed in 2012, the Government of India decided to reject its contents and findings.
A decision was taken to go ahead with the project, essentially because a component party of the coalition in power at that time saw benefits for itself from pursuing the project, the annual cost of dredging of which would have cost the Central Government a tidy sum.
It is only due to the indefatigable efforts and persistence of Subramaniam Swamy that finally the Government of India has now taken a decision not to pursue the project as designed. In its affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, the Government of India has stated, “That the Government of India intends to explore an alternative to the earlier alignment of Sethusamudram Ship Channel project without affecting/damaging the Adam’s Bridge/Ram Sethu in the interest of the nation”, a position accepted by the Supreme Court and, thus, disposing of Swamy’s public interest litigation.
Much can be said about decision-making on this particular project on which perhaps a thousand crores would have been spent already if a proper accounting of resources expended were to be carried out. But what is perhaps far more significant is the general practice of wasteful public spending in this country solely to appease or grant favours to particular groups or individuals to the detriment of the nation and people at large.
We have all witnessed several cases of the Indian Railways extending its lines and infrastructure to provide political benefits essentially for the area that the Minister of Railways comes from. At the level of the States, several State electricity boards have often recruited thousands of persons as employees from the constituency of the State’s power Minister. The lamentable state of the power sector in the country can largely be ascribed to this type of “pork barrel politics”. And the decline of our Railways, which were significantly ahead of rail systems in many countries, can be seen in the fact that they are far ahead of us today. Can we eliminate investments purely for “pork barrel politics”, and genuinely ensure serving the interests of the peopleIJ Government’s respect for religious sentiments and beliefs of all sections of society also serves the interests of the people.
(The writer is former chairman, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2002-15)
