Actor and Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) leader Vijay’s recent visit to Parandur to support farmers protesting against the proposed Greenfield airport has sparked controversy, with critics accusing him of making uninformed statements and ignoring critical facts about the project. Vijay’s allegations that the DMK government is “anti-people” and his call to relocate the airport have been met with sharp rebuttals, as experts and official reports suggest that his claims are not backed by proper research or understanding of the project’s complexities.
Vijay’s Claims vs. Reality
Vijay, during his visit to Parandur, alleged that the proposed airport would destroy 90% of farmland and 13 water bodies, calling the project “anti-people.“ He also questioned why the DMK, which had opposed projects like the Salem eight-lane expressway and Kattupalli port, was supporting the Parandur airport. However, a closer look at the Airports Authority of India (AAI) pre-feasibility report and the Tamil Nadu government’s decision-making process reveals that Vijay’s statements are either misleading or based on incomplete information.
Why Parandur Was Chosen
The AAI conducted a detailed pre-feasibility study to identify the most suitable site for Chennai’s second airport. The study evaluated multiple locations, including Padalam, Thiruporur, Pannur, and Parandur. Here’s why Parandur emerged as the best option:
Airspace Restrictions: Sites like Padalam and Thiruporur were ruled out due to their proximity to restricted airspace controlled by the Indian Air Force and the Kalpakkam Nuclear Plant. These restrictions would have severely limited flight operations, reducing the airport’s capacity and efficiency.
Land Availability: Parandur offers 5,369 acres of land, which is sufficient for the airport’s current and future needs. In contrast, the Pannur site, which was also considered, has only 4,284 acres and would require additional land acquisition, which is challenging due to existing industries and habitations.
Connectivity: Parandur is strategically located near the upcoming Chennai-Bengaluru Expressway, ensuring seamless connectivity to major demand centers. This makes it a more cost-effective and practical choice compared to other sites.
Fewer Displacements: The Parandur site would displace 1,005 families, significantly fewer than the 1,546 families that would be affected in Pannur. Additionally, Parandur has fewer man-made obstacles, such as high-tension power lines and industrial structures, which are prevalent in Pannur.
Future Development: Parandur’s large tracts of vacant land allow for better planning and future expansion, unlike Pannur, which is near the Sriperumbudur Industrial Area and already densely developed.
Vijay’s Misplaced Allegations
Vijay’s claim that the project would destroy 90% of farmland and 13 water bodies appears exaggerated and lacks substantiation. The AAI report clearly states that the Parandur site was chosen after careful consideration of environmental and social impacts. While land acquisition is always a sensitive issue, the government has emphasized that the project is essential to address Chennai’s growing air traffic demands and boost regional development.
Moreover, Vijay’s comparison of the Parandur airport project to the Salem expressway and Kattupalli port is flawed. The Salem expressway faced opposition due to its environmental impact and displacement of farmers, while the Kattupalli port expansion raised concerns about coastal ecology. In contrast, the Parandur airport project has been meticulously planned to minimize environmental and social disruptions, as evidenced by the AAI’s detailed study.
Political Opportunism?
Critics have accused Vijay of using the Parandur issue to gain political mileage rather than offering constructive solutions. His dramatic visit to the protest site, where he was prevented from entering the village by police, has been seen as a publicity stunt aimed at positioning himself as a champion of farmers. However, his failure to acknowledge the technical and logistical challenges of relocating the airport raises questions about his understanding of the issue.
Aviation experts and urban planners have emphasized that the Parandur site is the most viable option for Chennai’s second airport. They argue that relocating the project to another site, as Vijay suggested, would not only delay the much-needed infrastructure but also increase costs and complicate land acquisition. The AAI report’s findings are based on rigorous technical analysis, and any decision to change the site would require a fresh feasibility study, which could take years.
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.