Some have suggested that the ‘national interest’ of all should prevail over the religious sentiment of some. There are two questions here. First, avoiding possible trouble by refraining from injuring the feelings of a group of people may also be regarded as being in the national interest, in which case we have to balance one form of national interest against another. Second, we cannot readily assume that building the channel is in the national interest; that proposition has to be established.

On the latter question, it has been argued that the project will have serious impact and consequences. The construction of the channel will involve violent disturbance of the sea-bed; and after construction, the maintenance of the channel will involve continuous dredging for all time to come; and of course, if the channel is successful, ships will be constantly passing through, adding to the disturbance. To put it very mildly, all this can hardly have a benign impact on coral reefs or on aquatic life. Prima facie, the project will have major ecological consequences. It is also likely to have an impact on the livelihoods of fisherfolk in the area; at any rate the people concerned seem to be very worried on this score. It has also been argued that the existing ridge, whether natural or man-made, affords a measure of protection to the coastal area from extreme events such as tsunamis, and that the project will destroy that protection.

Sri Lanka is not very happy about the project, for whatever reason. To cap it all, it has been stated that no big ship will use this channel; that they will continue to go round Sri Lanka; that only small coastal ships can use the channel; and that the channel will be economically non-viable. If that were true, it would be a coup de grace: why incur financial, economic, social and ecological costs to build a project which is not going to be used, and which evidently no one wants? This, if true, would be illogic of a kind that might have been appropriate for a Kafka novel.

... contd.