The debate over the Sethusamudram project has gone completely off the rails. The debate thus needs to be brought back to good sense and relevance.

Let us start with the Ram Setu aspect as it has been the main subject of discussion. The question is not whether Ram was a historical figure; or whether he built the bridge; or whether he or the monkey army could have built it; or whether indeed the feature in question is natural or man-made. The crucial point is whether the site is sacred in the eyes of many people.

I am not sure of the answer to that question, but if it is ‘yes’, then that is a relevant factor in project-planning. Leaving the sea aside for a moment, let us ask ourselves what a government or other project authority would have done if, in the course of construction of a building or road or bridge, they had encountered a temple or mosque or church or burial ground. The planners or builders in such a case would surely go round that structure or feature rather than cavalierly build over it and damage it, if the option of avoidance were available. Exactly the same logic applies in the present case. If it is feasible to avoid touching the structure or feature in question (whether we call it Adam’s Bridge or Ram Setu or whatever), that would be the wisest course.

However, let us suppose that avoidance is not an available option, and that if the channel is to be built at all it will necessarily involve cutting across or otherwise damaging the ‘sacred’ feature. Then the question will be: how important is the channel?

... contd.