Talk:Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project

Comment

Needs more information. Some topics of interest would be: 1) Ecological effects of such a project 2) Economic effects 3) Settlement with fisherfolk 4) Effect on Sri Lankan economy.

limestone shoals -- it is not limestone shoals - as per the discovery channel they are rocks 7000 year old sitting on sand which is 4000 year old 

POV

This article focusses more on Issues to be resolved than the project. It tries to project as if Hindutva organizations are opposing this project. They are only opposing current alignment through channel which is considered sacred by them.--Indianstar 13:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If you have a reliable reference for that, we can certainly add it to the article; just make sure that the opinion is ascribed to the correct person(s)/organization. Currently the article is largely unreferenced and can be greatly improved. Abecedare 13:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You can see [here] and [here] which says parties like BJP and ADMK want implementation using alternative alignments.--Indianstar 16:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Please remove all biased statements in this article. To keep up with the standards of Wikipedia, this article must be rewritten to reflect both sides of the issue at stake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.243.50.243 (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is very biased on its view. It is not representing all the views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel pandian (talk • contribs) 20:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Alternative Alignments.jpg

Image:Alternative Alignments.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

transeferring part of the article relying on 1 man's opinion stated to a web site interview

his is what Captain (retired) H Balakrishnan of the Indian Navy has to say about the project in an interview to Shobha Warrier of Rediff:

I have worked on the project from three different perspectives, all concerning the nautical world. I analysed the project in the backdrop of the environmental factors that would impinge the safety of the ship and also the safety of lives at sea. Number two was the security aspects which is maritime terrorism as it stands today. And the third was certain aspects of general navigation.

Safety

We mariners call the coast between Rameswaram and Cuddalore the cyclone coast. The India Meteorological Department has assigned this coastline as a high risk probability. To site one example, in 1964, the Pamban Bridge was washed away by a severe cyclonic storm. A ship is safe when she is moving at the onset of a cyclone. Imagine a ship waiting to pick up its pilot as it approaches the Palk Straits to enter Sethu Samudram. No captain will wait for the pilot; his safety lies in heading south, towards Sri Lanka.

Constant Dredging Required

The wind and waves bring in a large amount of silt and wash it ashore. The same thing is going to happen to the Sethu Samudram Canal. This brings me to another point. Marine scientists have identified five areas on the Indian coastline they call high-sinkage pits, and one of them happens to be the Palk Straits.

What is left unsaid by the Sethu Samudram authorities is that maintaining the 12 metre depth (of the channel) will entail round the year dredging. Once you establish the channel, you have to maintain it. But this cost is not mentioned anywhere. This is the hidden cost which the authorities will have to pay to the dredging company. It is a high siltation and sedimentation area. So, what you pick up today is going to get filled up the next day.

Security Issues

The Sea Tigers of the LTTE have control of that area off the Jaffna coast. What the Sea Tigers may do is difficult to say. Piracy exists even today.

Not suitable for Heavy Ships

Also, It is quite true that the 12 metre depth of the Canal is not enough for big ships to pass through the canal. If you take global shipping trends today, to reduce operating cost, they go in for larger ships of the order of 60,000 deadweight tonnes and above. A 60,000 deadweight tonne carrier will need anything in excess of 17 metres of draft. And as far as tankers go, the days of the super tanker are gone and you see only very large crude carriers of the type of 150,000 and 185,000 tonnes. It makes more sense to have such big tankers as in one voyage, you are bringing in more cargo and reduce your operating cost. None of these big ships will ever be able to use the Sethu Samudram. So, the question is, for whom are you building the canal? 30,000 tonnes was alright when Sethu Samudram was conceived in the early fifties and the sixties. That leaves you with only the coastal bulk carriers that carry coal from Kolkata, Paradeep and Visakhapatanam to Chennai or Tuticorin.

Myth about Time saved

I plotted physically on a chart what we call 'passage planning' for a bulk carrier on passage as it happens today from Kolkata to Tuticorin; one of them circumnavigating Sri Lanka as is happening today and the other one going through the canal. The voyage distance from Kolkata to Tuticorin around Sri Lanka works out to 1227 nautical miles. If you went through the canal, it is 1098 nm. So, you are saving just 120 odd nm.

But, we don't know on what basis he calculated or miscalculated.Nevertheless the official version states: "... ships sailing from the east coast of India to Tuticorin have to go around Sri Lanka. This (sethu samudram canal) canal would reduce the distance between the east and the west coasts: between Tuticorin and Chennai from 769 to 335 nautical miles (nm); Tuticorin to Vishakapatnam from 1,028 to 652 nm; Tuticorin to Kolkata from 1,371 to 1,031 nm; Kanyakumari to Kolkata from 1,377 to 1,098 nm; Kanyakumari to Vishakapatnam from 1,014 to 719 nm; and Kanyakumari to Chennai from 755 to 402 nm[1].

The story doesn't end there. The majority of our bulk carriers go at a speed between 12 and 13 knots. That is the average speed at sea. I have checked with my friends who currently sail. They all said they do 12 knots. However, I worked in a bracket of 12-15 knots. So, if you are going around Sri Lanka at 12 knots at constant speed at sea, the time taken to reach outer anchorage at Tuticorin is 102 hours and 15 minutes.

When you go through Sethu Samudram, the point to be remembered is, you cannot proceed at the speed at which you are sailing at sea. The reason is the shallow water effect or what we call the 'Squat Effect'. So, the moment you enter Sethu Samudram, you have to reduce the sped by 50 per cent or more depending on the conditions prevailing at that particular time. So, I worked on a speed bracket of 6-8 knots. But many of my friends tell me 8 knots is too high for a 30,000 tonne bulk carrier. In all my calculations, I gave the benefit of doubt to the Sethu Samudram project.

The second aspect is, it is not an open seaway; it is like entering a port. A pilot boards the ship, who is a local mariner with greater knowledge of the marine environment. The same thing has to be done at Sethu Samudram also. I have given one hour delay for the ship to reduce speed for the pilot to climb aboard. You repeat the process at the other end too for him to disembark.

With this 6 knots speed and 2 hours pilotage delay, my time to Tuticorin via Sethu Samudram works out to 100 hours 30 minutes. If you went around Sri Lanka, it is 102 hours 15 minutes! So, your net savings in time by going through Sethu Samudram is 1 hour 45 minutes! Is it worth spending Rs 2,400 crore to save 1 hour 45 minutes?

Myth about Cost saved

The Sethu Samudram project from the media reports and the statement given by the finance minister will cost at Rs 2,400 crore, of which Rs 971 crore is through a special purpose vehicle. The debt portion has been pegged at Rs 1,465 crore. Assuming an interest burden of 10 per cent, the interest payment on Rs 1,465 crore is Rs 146 crore per annum. Twenty to 25 years is the time given for repayment.

Assuming 25 years for Rs 1,465 crore, capital repayment works out about 56 crore per annum. So, Rs 146 crore for interest burden and Rs 56 crore as repayment works out to roughly Rs 204 crore per annum which is what the authorities will have to repay to any financial institution. This is only to break-even. But the web site says it is a profitable industry and it is going to make 'mammoth profit'.

As the earning is going to come only from ships, I asked, how many ships are going to transit in a year through the canal? Ships that can use the canal will be coal carrying bulk carriers as long as the Tuticorin thermal power plant exists.

Having made the calculation, I feel they are rather optimistic in their figures. They have given a mean value of about 3,055 ships meant to use the canal in the year 2008 and by the year 2025, they expect it to go to in excess of 7,000 ships. Mind you, for 12 metres of depth! But

I can't see more than 1,000 ships using the Sethu Samudram canal in a year.

If you take Rs 204 crore as annual repayment, and 1,000 ships use it, your per ship cost works out to Rs 22 lakhs pilotage charge to break even. There is an interesting comparison done by K S Ramakrishnan, former deputy chairman, Chennai Port Trust. He pegs around Rs 50 lakh as pilotage rate per ship if you have to make a profit.

Then I calculated the fuel consumed. These ships consume 1 metric tonne of fuel per hour, which costs Rs 24,000. For the Sethu Samudram canal, you have to add the pilotage cost too. In effect, if a ship goes through the canal, a shipping company loses Rs 19 lakh per voyage. It is more cost effective to circumnavigate Sri Lanka from the point of view of the shipping industry.

Therefore, neither are you saving time nor is it viable economically. These are the two aspects that need to be highlighted. So, there is absolutely no advantage to the ships and the shipping industry. So, what are we gaining by spending Rs 2,400 crore of tax payers' money? It is a white elephant in the making.

Realignment

Any course, any realignment, is going to prove uneconomical to the shipping industry. If it is of no use to the shipping industry, why build it? You can bring about better economic progress to the southern districts of Tamil Nadu by building expressways. That is why I say the Sethu Samudram shipping canal project makes no nautical sense. That is the tragedy of the project.

Those who support the Sethu Samudram Canal compare it to the Suez Canal and the Panama Canal and say the Sethu Samudram is the Suez of the East.

unreferenced section on environment transferred here

• Marine life:

Though there has been a demand from various quarters for the implementation of the project, there is also opposition to it from environmentalists. They point out that the dredging of the Palk Strait and the Gulf of Mannar, by modifying habitats, could affect the ecology of the zone by changing currents. This could:

• cause changes in temperature, salinity, turbidity and flow of nutrients
• cause oilspills from ship and other marine pollution to reach the coastal areas and specifically the sensitive ecosystems of the Gulf of Mannar Marine National Park.
• lead to higher tides and to more energetic waves, and hence to coastal erosion.
• affect the local sea temperature and thereby alter the pattern of sea-breezes and hence affect rainfall patterns.

They also point out that dredging the canal would stir up sediment the dust and toxins that lie beneath the sea bed, smothering corals and affecting marine life. The emptying of bilge water from ships travelling through the hitherto impassable areas could diperse invasive species through the ecosystems of the area.

These effects could endanger precious marine species and biodiversity. The Gulf of Mannar has 3,600 species of plants and animals and is India's biologically richest coastal region., Mammal species which abound in the area are sperm whales, dolphins and dugongs. The Gulf of Mannar is especially known for its corals: the portion in Indian territorial waters has 117 species of corals, belonging to 37 genera. Associated with these ecosystems are many varieties of fish and crustaceans. Marine life on the Sri Lankan side, which is better protected, is even richer. The Bar Reef off the Kalpitiya peninsular alone has 156 species of coral and 283 of fish; there are two other coral reef systems around Mannar and Jaffna. There are extensive banks of oysters, as well as Indian Chank and Sea Cucumbers, especially in the seas adjacent to Mannar. The pearl fisheries south of Mannar, which inspired Georges Bizet's opera Les Pêcheurs de Perles, have not been productive for many years, indicating the fragility of these ecosystems in the face of overfishing and of relatively minor changes in the habitat. Despite these concerns, official environmental clearance has been given for the project. The contention that the Sethusamudram Canal will cut through coral reefs and disturb the ecology has been dismissed as a mistaken fear.

The Indian government has conducted various environmental studies which has concluded that such issues are overblown and not based on science. However, skeptics have noted that environmentalist objections remain, including:

• The Environmental Impact Assessment carried out by the Indian government was done by a body inexperienced in projects of this nature, was insufficiently detailed and did not consult with all the stakeholders, which included the government and people on the southern side of the proposed project,
• No proper survey has been carried out of the sea bed to be dredged, and
• No proper scientific modelling of the effects of the project has been carried out.

After environmental objections were made in Sri Lanka, the Indian government decided to carry out modelling, but this had not been done before clearance had already been given for the project. A modelling exercise carried out by Sri Lanka's National Aquatic Resources Research and Development Agency (NARA) indicated that the project would increase the water flow from the Bay of Bengal to the Gulf of Mannar, disturbing the inland water balance as well as the ecosystems in the Gulf. [2] There have also been judicial observations against this project [3].

• Fishing

On July 2, 2005, the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh unveiled the Sethusamudram Ship Canal Project amidst protests from fishermen and environmentalists. Nearly 600 were arrested.

the whole section appears bogus with unreliable references..nevertheless, i have retained valid references in the article..no sane person will believe that any govt. will carry out a project detrimental to its own environment and its own people!! note that BJP , Congress, DMK and ADMK have all supported this project by being part of the approval process from 1997 till now. susequent opportunistic change of stand is not reason to deride what they approved after obtaining environmental clearances!! Cityvalyu (talk) 22:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Returned to article for copy-editing. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

ramar paalam section transferred

Several claims and estimates have been made regarding the age of Rama's bridge and its relation to the Indian epic Ramayana.

• Rama’s bridge is only 3,500 years old: CRS {Source: Indian Express}: "Ramasamy explains that the land/beaches were formed between Ramanathapuram and Pamban because of the long shore drifting currents which moved in an anti-clockwise direction in the north and clockwise direction in the south of Rameswaram and Talaimannar about 3,500 years ago. ... But as the carbon dating of the beaches roughly matches the dates of Ramayana, its link to the epic needs to be explored, he adds."[4]

• Rama Setu is not a natural formation: Dr. Badrinarayanan, former director of Geological Survey of India and a member of the National Institute of Ocean Technology (NIOT) says the Rama's Bridge was not a natural formation."Such a natural formation is impossible. Unless somebody has transported them and dumped them there, those reefs could not have come there. Some boulders were so light that they could float on water."[5]

• A premier institute had made 91 boreholes in and around the site to ascertain the truth and the soil samples kept at the Sethu Project Office could be verified." [6]

• Photographs taken from space by NASA: Both sides in the debate have claimed that their respective points of view are supported by photographs taken from space and released by the American space agency NASA. However a spokesman for the space agency, Michael Braukus, as quoted in the Indian press ., categorically denied that the photographs support either claim and stated "Some people have taken pictures by our astronauts to make their claim. No position can be taken on the basis of these photographs in any way," He further stated "The age, substratum, geological structure or anthropological status of the ocean bed in Palk strait cannot be determined by the astronauts' photographs. So there is no basis for these claims,". This directly contradicts the reported claim by N K Raghupathy, CEO, Sethusamudram Corp Ltd that NASA had declared the Rama Sethu a natural structure.

SUMMARY ADDED TO ARTICLE Cityvalyu (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible duplicate article

As far as I can tell, the articles Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project and Sethu Canal seem to be about the same project. Am I missing something, or should they be merged? (Since I'm not familiar with the subject, I'll refrain from trying to do it myself.) -- Vardion (talk) 02:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It is the same project. The two articles should be merged. Psurajit (talk) 10:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Support - You are correct, the smaller wiki on Sethu Canal should be merged with Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project as both refer to the same project. --Neelkamala (talk) 12:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Support. Sethu Canal should be merged with Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project. I also suggest merging of small Sethusamudram into this article which also covers the same. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 12:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Done—that page is undoubtedly about the same project; it had no references and no useful ELs so I've redirected it here. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Removed text

I removed the following referenced subsection because it repeats text dealt with in detail in other sections; it probably isn't very useful unless you are specifically quoting this person:

Safety, the requirement of constant dredging, its questionable suitability for heavy ships, the time spent because of the slow speed required for traversing the canal and cost aspects were some of the arguments put forth by Captain (retired) H Balakrishnan of the Indian Navy in an interview with Shobha Warrier of Rediff:

Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Rename/move

I suggest renaming this article to Sethusamudram Ship Channel Project as official government website names it that way. See website.

I would like to hear from community and to reach consensus on that before doing it. Regards, -Nizil (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

References

References

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I find personally find this article distasteful. It reeks of anti-Sethu authors. I don't mind an article being written but please, write a wiki article without a bias, instead of pushing your views on other people. This article definitely needs to be changed.

Last edited at 20:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 05:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014012322/http://sethusamudram.gov.in/History.asp to http://sethusamudram.gov.in/History.asp
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/FullcoverageStoryPage.aspx?id=f9c8dce4-77cc-42a9-86b3-b66fcdf0efedTheRamSetuRow_Special&&Headline=Ram+Setu+project+faces+cash+crunch
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091010170414/http://sethucanal.com:80/ to http://www.sethucanal.com
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091010170414/http://sethucanal.com:80/ to http://www.sethucanal.com
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160110004059/http://sethusamudram.info/ to http://www.sethusamudram.info/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.manitham.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=92:sethusamudram-ship-canal-project-interim-report-&catid=35:artrep&Itemid=54
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050526090540/http://www.deccanherald.com:80/deccanherald/sep262004/sl2.asp to http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/sep262004/sl2.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828042426/http://www.epw.org.in/epw/uploads/articles/10823.pdf to http://www.epw.org.in/epw/uploads/articles/10823.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20091010170414/http%3A//sethucanal.com%3A80/
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20120323031012/http%3A//www.manitham.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=92%3Asethusamudram-ship-canal-project-interim-report-&catid=35%3Aartrep&Itemid=54
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20050526090540/http%3A//www.deccanherald.com%3A80/deccanherald/sep262004/sl2.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828042426/http://www.epw.org.in/epw/uploads/articles/10823.pdf to http://www.epw.org.in/epw/uploads/articles/10823.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051217153055/http://sethusamudram.gov.in/English_Index.asp to http://sethusamudram.gov.in/English_Index.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928003604/http://www.downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20070615&filename=croc&sec_id=10&sid=1 to http://www.downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20070615&filename=croc&sec_id=10&sid=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

contradicting and outdated

" The most recent plan is to dig the channel roughly in the middle of the straits to provide the shortest course and the course requiring least maintenance. This plan avoids the demolition of Ram Setu." - from 2015. But the other parts of the article seem to be older and state something different! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.70.3.91 (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge

I am reviewing an draft at AfC that relates to this article. It includes a section Draft:Ram_Setu_Controversy#Sethu_Samudran_Project on the religious opposition to the project. I think this would be useful material to expand the existing short section on the religious opposition from. Comments please. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

• Disagree Hi

Being the author of the article Ram Setu Controversy wanted to point out a few things here for your consideration before giving an opinion.

Regarding the suggestions to merge the Ram Setu Dispute article with two others

Thanks a lot for your suggestion to merge the article 'Ram Setu Dispute' with the existing two pages on the topic. Subsequent to your suggestions and having gone through the proposed articles I would like to bring to your notice that my page traces the time lines of a "Media Controversy" and different aspects of various disputes that have been raised with respect to the Ram Setu at different points of time. My page is not about the academic angle as much as it is about the controversies and at that, the page covers not just academic controversies but legal as well. That's why it's been named Ram Setu 'Controversy'.

To give an example we have several TV shows that for example have episodes that update viewers about the controversy and the history of the entire dispute over the Berlin Wall or an episode that would cover the entire political history of tension between any two nations.

If you check the wiki search history the term "Ram Setu" is searched hundreds of thousands of times and Wikipedia does not have a single page that covers the entire controversy from every angle.

The page is unique because the entire dispute pertaining to the Ram Setu from all the various angles, academic as well as legal and chronological has not been brought together by any other single page on Wikipedia. Bhumi2tandon (talk) 06:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Also might I add that the 'religious opposition to the project' is not exactly a sentimental topic so to say or anything that might hurt anyone's sentiments. The matter of religious opposition was properly dealt with by Supreme Court of India in a court case that lasted more than five years and was settled back in 2018. So there isn't much worry about there. Bhumi2tandon (talk) 09:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Updates

Hello folks,

I've updated the article by removing a few dead links, as well as adding further information to the history section regarding more recent events involving the project. I've cited a source for this information and added it to the list of references. If you have any concerns or remarks, feel free to let me know here. WhiteRhino (talk) 12:55, 24 December 2020 (UTC)