WHILE the ongoing Tamil Nadu Assembly session would go down in history for Governor R N Ravi walking out before the national anthem was sung, and Chief Minister M K Stalin moving a resolution to replace the speech the Governor had just delivered for omitting crucial bits, the House did get down to serious business after that first day. The most interesting debate the Assembly had was over the long-hanging Sethusamudram project. It was interesting that Stalin chose to introduce a resolution in the Assembly touching on the sensitive project just two days after the Ravi episode, given that the BJP has opposed in the past. The resolution demanded the revival of the Sethusamudram ship channel project - that envisages creating a shipping route between Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka – without further delay. What makes the project logistically challenging is the dredging work required as the route goes across limestone shoals between Rameswaram and northern Sri Lanka, also called Adam’s Bridge or Rama Setu, with the devout linking it to the bridge built by Lord Rama to rescue his wife Sita from Ravana in Lanka. The resolution moved by the Stalin government said certain forces were trying to delay the project for their own interests, “against the nation’s growth”. It pointed out that the project was originally conceived as far back as 1860 at a cost of Rs 50 lakh, studied for years, designed by various technical experts like A Ramasamy Mudaliar in 1955, considered by the Union Cabinet in 1963, and looked into by a high-level committee in 1964. After the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government in the 1990s approved the feasibility study and finalised the project alignment, the project was subsequently authorised in 2004 by the UPA government and commissioned in July 2005. But among those who filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court was the then Tamil Nadu Opposition leader J Jayalalithaa, saying the Ram Sethu should not be destroyed for the sake of the project. Later, Jayalalithaa opposed the project as economically and ecologically unviable. The matter is still pending in the Supreme Court. Stalin said the project would uplift the economy of Tamil Nadu, particularly the southern districts, and ensure employment opportunities. The discussion on the resolution resulted in sharp exchanges between members over whether Ramayana was history or “imaginary”. As per a PTI report, the CPI's K Marimuthu said the project was “a dream of icons of the freedom movement” and quoted a poem of Mahakavi Subramania Bharathi seeking a bridge to Sri Lanka. However, he said, when the project was taken up for implementation, “those seeking political mileage in the name of epic hero Ramar (Lord Ram) and those affected by superstition” caused obstruction. CPI(M) MLA V P Nagaimaali called the project “a long-time dream of the people”, especially in south Tamil Nadu. However, he said, the Union government put the project on the backburner “in the name of Ramar Palam (Ram Sethu) and in the name of Ramar (Lord Ram)”. Some are claiming as history what is “fiction, imaginations and beliefs”, Nagaimaali added, the PTI reported. “Fiction, imaginations and beliefs cannot become history. I am not saying this. Mahatma Gandhi said that Ramayana is a great epic of imagination," the CPI(M) leader said, adding that Jawaharlal Nehru and C Rajagopalachari too had said the same. Both the CPI and CPI(M) are allies of the DMK, as is the Congress, whose MLA Selvaperunthagai expressed confidence that “a new regime at the Centre (in 2024, following Lok Sabha election)” would implement the project even if the BJP-led dispensation did not do it. His attempt to refer to the stance of Jayalalithaa led to noisy scenes as the AIADMK objected to it. AIADMK leader and former CM O Panneerselvam said the project could be taken up after addressing ecological concerns. The BJP's Nainar Nagendran said the members may confine themselves to supporting or opposing the government resolution and asked if it was necessary to claim that Ramayana was an epic based on imagination. "How can this be allowed? Please expunge these from the House records," he urged the Speaker. The AIADMK's Pollachi V Jayaraman also demanded the same, saying Lord Ram was an avatar revered by many. However, the Speaker did not agree, telling the Left leaders had only cited others, and that the views of the BJP and AIADMK as well as Left members were on record. Stalin intervened then, saying no one spoke blaming either God or religion, but that using this, the project had been stalled. Nagendran said if the Sethusamudram project could be taken forward without causing damage to the Ram Sethu, his party would welcome it. The AIADMK said apprehensions among fishermen regarding the project should also be taken into account. Eventually, the BJP, to the surprise of those present, supported the resolution, leading to it being passed unanimously in the Assembly. Later, after the BJP was accused of taking a “U-turn” by some Hindu groups, party state chief K Annamalai made a retreat, arguing that the shipping canal project would only benefit a select few shopping companies owned by DMK leaders. Annamalai also alleged that the DMK government's resolution was full of half truths and lies, adding that his party accepting the resolution in the Assembly “should not be misconstrued as acceptance of the alignment”. Meanwhile, outside the House, the tussle with the Governor is set to continue, with Stalin writing to President of India Droupadi Murmu saying Ravi should be told not to go against constitutional norms in his duties. The CM is believed to have instructed his MLAs and leaders to, however, stay away from controversial statements criticising the Governor at their level. On Saturday, the DMK suspended a leader after the Raj Bhavan and BJP approached police with separate complaints against him, for his “abusive and intimidatory” speech targeting Ravi.
