The commentator is semi-literate, but has edited out the "cr*p" designation with all due apologies. I have been trying to point out patiently for a very long time that opposing public policy should be done with due care to avoid hype, because otherwise it destroys our credibility. There are SEVERAL issues with the opposition to this SS project that bear careful watching.
What exactly does the NIOT report say, please (I have no idea what NIOT is, honestly), that contradicts the above concerns?
1. How does this channel make a significant effect on the vulnerability of the South Indian coastline to tsunamis?
2. How does the possible delay due to dredging compare with the certain delays and extreme dangers associated with circumnavigating Sri Lanka in cyclone season?
3. If there is an engineering report out on the disposition of dredged sand, is it still true that no study has been made on how best to dispose of it?
My concern about the opposition to the project is precisely that the points made in the oppostion petitions etc. do not make sense, but are ascribed to people with credentials that should be impressive. So I do expect to see explanations whose lucidity makes it clear why these people have impressive credentials. So far that is not happening. Otherwise it tends to validate that recent book by a couple of ppl who claim that India is basically a society where "Social Position" is all that matters, not common sense.
To me the project seems like a straightforward thing, long overdue. The people of South India have been denied basic government support for development for far too many decades, and have had to fend for themselves. When we ask WHY, we are told that "it is in the Report", or "So-and-So who is a Nobel Prize Winner has said so", or something patronizing of that sort.
Sorry, I have to ask for clear answers that make sense, when someone sends me stuff asking me to sign on to it. I will listen.
What exactly does the NIOT report say, please (I have no idea what NIOT is, honestly), that contradicts the above concerns?
1. How does this channel make a significant effect on the vulnerability of the South Indian coastline to tsunamis?
2. How does the possible delay due to dredging compare with the certain delays and extreme dangers associated with circumnavigating Sri Lanka in cyclone season?
3. If there is an engineering report out on the disposition of dredged sand, is it still true that no study has been made on how best to dispose of it?
My concern about the opposition to the project is precisely that the points made in the oppostion petitions etc. do not make sense, but are ascribed to people with credentials that should be impressive. So I do expect to see explanations whose lucidity makes it clear why these people have impressive credentials. So far that is not happening. Otherwise it tends to validate that recent book by a couple of ppl who claim that India is basically a society where "Social Position" is all that matters, not common sense.
To me the project seems like a straightforward thing, long overdue. The people of South India have been denied basic government support for development for far too many decades, and have had to fend for themselves. When we ask WHY, we are told that "it is in the Report", or "So-and-So who is a Nobel Prize Winner has said so", or something patronizing of that sort.
Sorry, I have to ask for clear answers that make sense, when someone sends me stuff asking me to sign on to it. I will listen.