During the last year or so, one has been watching with growing dismay the debate on the Sethusamudram project getting increasingly focussed on one single aspect, namely the question of the sacredness of the site, to the exclusion of all others. It is a matter for some relief that the sacred-site issue itself, through the question of alternative alignments, has provided an opening for a re-examination of the project. The proposed expert panel headed by no less a person than Dr R.K. Pachauri seems very promising, though it is not clear from the reports whether it includes financial analysts, economists or sociologists. One fervently hopes that the terms of reference of the panel will not be too narrowly set.

It is useful at this point to examine the questions that will have to be gone into, some of which have been raised in the past but have been lost in the furore. Naturally, one can do so without presuming to advise the distinguished panel, or, for that matter, taking a position on the various issues.

First, there is the question of what the project will achieve. It is claimed that by going through the channel instead of around Sri Lanka, ships will save travel time and fuel. What, however, will be the quantum of saving? The critics say that comparisons with the Suez and Panama canals are misleading, because those canals avoid the need for going round large continents (Africa, South America) whereas the proposed channel will only obviate going round the relatively small island of Sri Lanka. The travel time saved will not be months or weeks but perhaps only a day or even less. The critics further argue that the saving in time by a shortening of the route will be offset if ships find it necessary to go slowly through the channel; this may affect even the saving of fuel and therefore of costs.

... contd.