A several months-long protest staged by the Vizhinjam Action Council, backed by the Thiruvananthapuram Archdiocese of the Latin Catholic Church, concluded on December 6 after a discussion with Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan. This phase of the protest began in July this year. Former finance minister and senior CPI(M) leader Thomas Isaac spoke to TNM on why the government can’t step back from the project. Excerpts:
How much does the government stand to lose if the project is stopped now?
I am not aware of the exact figure. The government had guaranteed a loan of Rs 4300 crore for Vizhinjam International Seaport Limited (VISL), primarily during the term of the previous government [the first Pinarayi government]. With this, the company has done many related developmental activities. Rs 1300 crore was given as cash. The work completed so far has been finished using this amount. In total, the government has spent Rs 5000-6000 crore and it is feared that this will be in vain [if the project is stopped].
From the developmental view point, the Vizhinjam port is envisaged solely as a transhipment port. A four-lane ring road, which can later be developed as six-lane, from Vizhijam to the National Highway has been sanctioned. What is the purpose of such a ring road? Logistic parks, industrial estates, townships, and knowledge cities can be developed on both sides of it. A developmental project of this tune would be a blessing for rubber farmers in Thiruvananthapuram because rubber farming won't be much profitable anymore in the future. All these developmental works will be stopped (if the project is abandoned). An investment to the tune of Rs 60,000 crore is expected in connection with this project in the next 10-15 years. This also will be lost if we abandon the project.
You were the finance minister in the first Pinarayi Vijayan government. Why was the project not abandoned during that time?
It has been 30 years since the project became a topic of discussion in Kerala. Alternative governments have examined this, expert committees studied it, and feasibility studies were also done. The idea was to build a port in Vizhinjam which is a deep coastal region close to the international shipping channel. Now the shipping traffic of this channel passes through Colombo and Singapore. Containers from Kochi and Chennai are diverted [to Colombo or Singapore] to sail on mother ships. Hence the idea was to develop a logistic hub. There is an opinion against this, but the majority opinion is for it. There is a consensus that such a port is good for the development of Kerala. But we [the state] do not have the capability to build and run the port. The company that runs the port should be capable of bringing traffic to the port, and hence should be influential in Colombo and Singapore. The bid was hence invited.
A Chinese company applied for the contract during the time of VS [VS Achuthanandan-led Left government] but the then Union government did not give its approval. Later, Adani came as the bidder [in 2015, during the time of the Oommen Chandy-led Congress government]. The contract with Adani was totally one-sided and that is what the Left had then opposed. It is the same contract that is still in place, as per which Adani needs to make very little investment. The port will be completely managed by Adani, the state only has some monitoring rights. The profit will go to Adani for 40 years. This is unjust and unilateral which we [the Left], have been opposing. The Adani group was looking for its own gain and the UDF did not have the strength to bargain with them.
Shashi Tharoor [Congress leader and Thiruvananthapuram MP] had claimed that only Adani came forward for the bid and that he had spoken to him about this when the two met on a flight. Tharoor's claim was that the discussion about this port happened in Delhi because of this [because he talked to Adani about it]. However, the discussion held by officials and ministers without much knowledge about this finally led to the signing of the agreement. This is what the Left criticised as robbery.
The same Latin Catholic Church which is now backing the protest had agitated against delaying the project when the Left was in the opposition. Even while we were criticising the contract, we had made it clear that the project will not be cancelled. Because if we cancel the contract, the Adani group will move for compensation and the project will be stuck, whereas a tender has been invited for a port in the neighbouring Colachel (in Tamil Nadu). If Colachel port is materialised, there will be no significance for Vizhinjam.
The drawbacks (of the project) should be analysed and addressed. Instead of that, what is the logic in protesting now after seven years [after the commencement of the project]. What a huge loss will it cause? Which investors will have the guts to come to Kerala if a contract signed by one government is cancelled by another? What will be the implications of that? What should have been done was to patiently convince the people that the government won’t be able to give up the project.
Watch the interview here
Going by what you said, are the fisher folk and the people of the coastal regions mere pawns in the hands of the Church in some political conspiracy? Why did the government fail to convince them despite getting a second consecutive term?
I clearly remember what all the governments have done for the fishing community, including building sea walls in different parts of the state. A project like Punargeham [to rehabilitate inhabitants of coastal regions] implemented by the government is not there in any other state. A systematic intervention has been done for the educational upliftment and quality of health for the coastal community. Possible interventions at the local level are also being done and [the government] is not being mere spectators.
It is not possible for any government to step back halfway through such a huge infrastructure project. Why was there no opposition in 2019 [when the project commenced]?
Why were no safeguards taken so far against the ecological impact and the predicted coastal erosion?
The Ecological Impact Assessment is done by a Union government body and not the state government. As per that, every six months a report should be submitted on the impact of the project on the nearby coastal regions. This is being done. The scientists who study this opined that coastal erosion is mainly caused by other factors. But it is said [by those who oppose it] that it is not convincing enough. Hence, an expert committee was formed to study this. But until then, the project cannot be stopped. It is admitted that there are certain drawbacks in getting things done, but there are some vested interests that say that the government has done nothing.
In a reply to a Right to Information query in October this year, it was said that only 33% of dredging and construction of breakwaters have been completed. How can it be said that the first ship will come in a few months to the port, as you did in your latest article on the issue?
Yes, breakwater construction and dredging have not been completed. I went to the port site in August to see the progress in construction. I was told then that, by the end of this year, commercial operations will start. Four months have passed since then. Earlier, there was a contract stating that the work should be finished in a stipulated time. However, that contract does not exist now. If anyone benefitted from the protest, it was the Adani group. The company won’t incur any loss because of the delay, but the government will. The Adani group can no longer be held accountable for the project’s delay, the protest secured this for them.