Indeed, even if the religious angle is kept aside, though that is also not insignificant because of its enormous religious and political overtones, the doubts expressed about the desirability of the project on geological, ecological and security grounds cannot be brushed aside. While some geologists believe that the project may disturb the geology of the region as it harbours active volcanoes and moving tectonic plates, the environmentalists are unhappy over the perceived ecological damage to the marine bio-diversity which has thrived in this region as the bridge checks the fury of the rough Bay of Bengal from affecting these waters. The existing structure is also believed to have played a role in deflecting the killer tsunami waves in December 2004 back into the open sea to reach the Kerala coast only after going round Sri Lanka and losing much of their ferocity in the process. Besides, the Gulf of Mannar is said to constitute a well-endowed marine biodiversity habitat, nurturing over 3,600 species of flora and fauna (including fisheries). In addition, it has a wealth of corals, comprising some 117 recorded species in the Indian waters and over 156 species in the less exploited Sri Lankan waters. And on top of that, the Indian Navy and Coastal Guards are reportedly wary of the project, fearing higher security risks.
This apart, the economic benefits from the projects, too, are being questioned as the narrow canal sought to be dredged in the sea will allow only small ships (of 30,000 tonnes) to sail through and not bigger ones which are now being increasingly used by the shipping companies. As such, it will be no match to the Panama Canal, which allows vessels of 90,000 tonnes and far less than the Suez, which can carry even 120,000-tonne ships. In view of all this, it seems only logical to opt for an alternative route, if available. Though it would involve additional cost, on the positive side, it would also mollify the irked antagonists of the project, allowing a smooth run for the otherwise useful venture.