New Delhi, Sep 01: Sri Lanka believes the proposed land bridge connecting the Rameswaram coast in India and Talaimannar in Sri Lanka is a much misunderstood project. While the project has been sought to be shot down on various grounds by Tamil Nadu politicians from Chief Minister Jayalalithaa downwards, Colombo maintains both countries would stand to benefit if the land bridge comes through. Sri Lankan Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe is proposing “a win-win development (for the sub-regional economic hub — South India and Sri Lanka) that could change the economic map of our region”. At a lecture in Chennai recently, he said, ‘‘I recognise that the eco-system in this area is delicate and we must ensure that the land bridge and subsequent development does not cause any environmental damage... But the potential benefits of the land bridge are enormous. It would greatly reduce the cost of moving goods in both directions and encourage trade in a wide range of goods and services that are currently unviable. There will also be an opportunity for Tamil Nadu to export electricity to Sri Lanka and for business to gain more cost effective access to international shipping.’’ While Sri Lanka would stand to gain in the service sector, Wickremesinghe foresees such a bridge leading to special economic zones and manufacturing centres coming up in South India and the sub-regional centre becoming a ‘‘global manufacturing base, on a par with anything... in China.’’ Taking advantage of the lull in its ethnic strife, Sri Lanka is looking at avenues for economic growth. It is estimated that its economy had grown at the rate of 5.5 per cent during the past four months as a dividend of the peace initiative. Wickremesinghe had first proposed the bridge during his interaction with Indian politicians and executives in 1994. Since then he has made repeated pleas to the Indian authorities.
It gained momentum after Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee showed interest in it last year and sought the Tamil Nadu government’s concurrence for a joint feasibility study conducted by India and Sri Lanka. Vajpayee’s interest also stemmed from the mythical resonance of the region — it was along the same 22 km stretch that Hanuman and his Vanarasena were said to have constructed a land bridge, enabling Ram to reach Sita.
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa timed her government’s opposition to the bridge to coincide with the foreign office consultation meeting of the two nations. Against the backdrop of increased LTTE activity, she let it be known that the bridge would ‘‘jeopardise the national security.’’
Wickremesinghe, the astute diplomat, has chosen to assuage the concerns raised by Jayalalithaa saying that sustainability of the bridge is linked to peace. He believes that ‘‘the implementation of a land bridge and the substantial economic benefits that it would bring depends entirely on a durable settlement of the ethnic conflict.’’
Clearly, he is only thinking aloud at this stage. It is for India to decide whether, and how, it should respond.