04-19-2007, 02:47 AM
Thank you, viren and mudy. I am indeed most inspired and instructed by the Senior Members of this Forum.
Now the problem I have with this agitation against a long-delayed and very needed project, is that the RATIONALE for the opposition keeps shifting, sort-of like the sandbanks of the Palk Straits, aka the Sethusamudram. Let me summarize:
1. There was opposition to dredging near the Sri Lankan coast, because that would disrupt marine sanctuary on that side.
2. There was opposition to dredging near the Indian coast, because that would disrupt marine sanctuary on that side.
3. After much consideration by the project engineers and others, they picked alternative routes circa 1964, but the suggested route that came across the Pamban was abandoned after the December 1964 cyclone changed the entire topography there, and perhaps the new road-cum-rail bridge cannot be raised to accomodate large ships. I don't see other reasons why this was abandoned.
4. Someone started quoting the tsunami expert, Dr. Tad Murty, after the December 2004 tsunami, distorting what he said, and trying to twist it into opposition to the project. Dr. Murthy had wondered if it might be a good idea to turn the northern entrance towards the WEST. But someone wrote this into an article claiming that he had asked for it to be turned towards the EAST, and offering to explain why. <!--emo&:guitar--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/guitar.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='guitar.gif' /><!--endemo-->
5. Then we heard that the objection was to the destruction of the central portion (deepest under the sea), since there was PROOF from NASA images that this was man-made. However it was not very clear WHICH NASA images were being referred to. A senior spokesperson of the RSS said that the images were from 1966 and then from 1994, but then someone else claimed they were from 2004 (this may have been the PhotoShop edition, I wouldn't know). Now we are told that NASA has not responded to requests to decide which image it was... <!--emo&:clapping--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/clap.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='clap.gif' /><!--endemo-->
6. There was much concern expressed about a Sri Lankan Navy attack on Indian fishermen. This was privately attributed to LTTE propaganda, but then suddenly it was seen as PROOF that if the SSC came up, Sri Lanka would take over the entire Palk Straits, and Indian fishermen would not be allowed to go into the deep sea. This was accompanied by much sorrow about the fate of Indian fisheries and fish sanctuaries, and of the whales that were dying from collisions with ships, due to the project. There was deep concern that the efflux from ships, and their very passage through the ocean, would terribly pollute the whole place. <!--emo&:flush--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/Flush.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='Flush.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I thought this was all very interesting, since the SSC would ALLOW Indian Navy boats with substantial draught to traverse the Palk Strait, thereby making it much more difficult for Sri Lankan Navy or LTTE to run their writ there and terrorize Indian fishermen any more.
6. Then we heard the recommendation that the channel be shifted again to the Pamban. I had to wonder what happened to the Marine Sanctuary, and why the passage of large ships so close to shore would be good for local fishermen and their fish farms.
7. Then we heard that the whole objection was to the destruction of the central Bridge, (deepest under the sea) which, being clearly man-made, was integral to Hindu Tradition. I heard the call for the UN to take it over and declare it a UNESCO World Heritage Center, and I wondered about the advisability of bringing the UN to run something at so strategic and sensitive a place. <!--emo&:grenade--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/grenade.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='grenade.gif' /><!--endemo-->
8. Most recently, we read the objection to the project from an authority on Global Warming. He "proved" that the Rama Sethu was a NATURAL structure, made of fossilized dead fish or micro-organisms and a solid rock formation. In the same article, someone else was claiming that this was a MAN-MADE structure.
Apparently, then those who oppose the project are slightly confused, to put it mildly. They seem to have "got the word" to OPPOSE the project, but not WHY. They also seem to deem it their holdy duty to launch personal attacks and threats against anyone who questions their logic, but that's obviously a verboten topic on which one is verboten to comment.
Above, I see that the only reason needed for some people is "it is important to Hindu tradition". Who decided that? And on what basis?
What is the answer to the question of why the central part is under 6 to 9 meters of water, and thereafter is solid rock, while the western end is very much ABOVE water, but people have dredged the Pamban canal, and scratched it to lay heavy rail and road links already?
Important to Hindu tradition, yes, but so is every inch of India. Should we prohibit all digging? No roads should be built in the Himalayas because they are the holy seat of Shri Shiva and Parvathy? (IOW, leave it to the PLA to have monopoly on road-building, and we have monopoly on belly-aching)?
Should we leave it to the Sri Lankan Navy to dredge the SSC where they please? Or in a joint project with the PLN? Will "Hindu" objections deter those?
Lots of questions, and clearly, some people here are VERY uncomfortable to have these questions discussed in the open. Interesting indeed....
[EDITED: You have made your point point so let it stand on it's own. No need to start discussing other forum members.]
Now the problem I have with this agitation against a long-delayed and very needed project, is that the RATIONALE for the opposition keeps shifting, sort-of like the sandbanks of the Palk Straits, aka the Sethusamudram. Let me summarize:
1. There was opposition to dredging near the Sri Lankan coast, because that would disrupt marine sanctuary on that side.
2. There was opposition to dredging near the Indian coast, because that would disrupt marine sanctuary on that side.
3. After much consideration by the project engineers and others, they picked alternative routes circa 1964, but the suggested route that came across the Pamban was abandoned after the December 1964 cyclone changed the entire topography there, and perhaps the new road-cum-rail bridge cannot be raised to accomodate large ships. I don't see other reasons why this was abandoned.
4. Someone started quoting the tsunami expert, Dr. Tad Murty, after the December 2004 tsunami, distorting what he said, and trying to twist it into opposition to the project. Dr. Murthy had wondered if it might be a good idea to turn the northern entrance towards the WEST. But someone wrote this into an article claiming that he had asked for it to be turned towards the EAST, and offering to explain why. <!--emo&:guitar--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/guitar.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='guitar.gif' /><!--endemo-->
5. Then we heard that the objection was to the destruction of the central portion (deepest under the sea), since there was PROOF from NASA images that this was man-made. However it was not very clear WHICH NASA images were being referred to. A senior spokesperson of the RSS said that the images were from 1966 and then from 1994, but then someone else claimed they were from 2004 (this may have been the PhotoShop edition, I wouldn't know). Now we are told that NASA has not responded to requests to decide which image it was... <!--emo&:clapping--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/clap.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='clap.gif' /><!--endemo-->
6. There was much concern expressed about a Sri Lankan Navy attack on Indian fishermen. This was privately attributed to LTTE propaganda, but then suddenly it was seen as PROOF that if the SSC came up, Sri Lanka would take over the entire Palk Straits, and Indian fishermen would not be allowed to go into the deep sea. This was accompanied by much sorrow about the fate of Indian fisheries and fish sanctuaries, and of the whales that were dying from collisions with ships, due to the project. There was deep concern that the efflux from ships, and their very passage through the ocean, would terribly pollute the whole place. <!--emo&:flush--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/Flush.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='Flush.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I thought this was all very interesting, since the SSC would ALLOW Indian Navy boats with substantial draught to traverse the Palk Strait, thereby making it much more difficult for Sri Lankan Navy or LTTE to run their writ there and terrorize Indian fishermen any more.
6. Then we heard the recommendation that the channel be shifted again to the Pamban. I had to wonder what happened to the Marine Sanctuary, and why the passage of large ships so close to shore would be good for local fishermen and their fish farms.
7. Then we heard that the whole objection was to the destruction of the central Bridge, (deepest under the sea) which, being clearly man-made, was integral to Hindu Tradition. I heard the call for the UN to take it over and declare it a UNESCO World Heritage Center, and I wondered about the advisability of bringing the UN to run something at so strategic and sensitive a place. <!--emo&:grenade--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/grenade.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='grenade.gif' /><!--endemo-->
8. Most recently, we read the objection to the project from an authority on Global Warming. He "proved" that the Rama Sethu was a NATURAL structure, made of fossilized dead fish or micro-organisms and a solid rock formation. In the same article, someone else was claiming that this was a MAN-MADE structure.
Apparently, then those who oppose the project are slightly confused, to put it mildly. They seem to have "got the word" to OPPOSE the project, but not WHY. They also seem to deem it their holdy duty to launch personal attacks and threats against anyone who questions their logic, but that's obviously a verboten topic on which one is verboten to comment.
Above, I see that the only reason needed for some people is "it is important to Hindu tradition". Who decided that? And on what basis?
What is the answer to the question of why the central part is under 6 to 9 meters of water, and thereafter is solid rock, while the western end is very much ABOVE water, but people have dredged the Pamban canal, and scratched it to lay heavy rail and road links already?
Important to Hindu tradition, yes, but so is every inch of India. Should we prohibit all digging? No roads should be built in the Himalayas because they are the holy seat of Shri Shiva and Parvathy? (IOW, leave it to the PLA to have monopoly on road-building, and we have monopoly on belly-aching)?
Should we leave it to the Sri Lankan Navy to dredge the SSC where they please? Or in a joint project with the PLN? Will "Hindu" objections deter those?
Lots of questions, and clearly, some people here are VERY uncomfortable to have these questions discussed in the open. Interesting indeed....
[EDITED: You have made your point point so let it stand on it's own. No need to start discussing other forum members.]