Parandur airport row erupts: ‘G Square son-in-law’ vs ‘lottery son-in-law’ barbs fly

A sharp exchange took place in the Tamil Nadu Assembly on Tuesday (August 25) as ruling TVK members and Opposition DMK and AIADMK leaders clashed over the decision to drop the proposed second airport at Parandur near Chennai.

Chief Minister Vijay had announced that the greenfield airport project in Kancheepuram district would be dropped to protect farmers and water bodies. The debate during discussion on demands for grants soon turned contentious.

TVK defends Parandur decision

Public Works Minister Aadhav Arjuna told the House: “If it is a choice between the airport and the tears of farmers, our leader will always stand with the farmers. People linked to one party bought large areas of land around the site. This project was created for a real estate scam. It has been cancelled only for the farmers. There is no politics in this.” He added that the government would release a white paper after five years and claimed the economy would grow tenfold without corruption.

Also read | Parandur shelved: Why Vijay govt is betting on expanding Chennai airport instead

Law Minister CTR Nirmal Kumar said the project required 5,846 acres, including 3,774 acres of patta land, of which 2,681 acre was multi-crop farmland. Of the 1,972 acres classified as government land, 1,558 acres were water bodies. He said only 48 per cent of the required land had been acquired, contrary to claims of 90 per cent, and that no environmental clearance had been granted.

“The people raising these issues now are the ones who invested black money for the G Square son-in-law,” the minister said. He later said compensation had been credited to outsiders' bank accounts and that local residents had not been displaced.

Industries Minister Keerthana said alternative industrial projects that do not affect people would be taken up on the acquired land. She also questioned why the previous government had kept the Meenambakkam airport expansion pending despite central approval.

DMK warns of growth setback

She warned that building an airport on multi-crop farmland and water bodies could increase Chennai’s flood risk. “Parandur always has water for farming. Destroying it will bring flood risk to the city. A second airport will be built where farmers and fields are not affected,” she said.

Minister A Rajmohan said the 1,000-year-old Kamban canal runs through the area and that the land acts as a natural sponge that helps protect Chennai from floods.

VCK minister Vanni Arasu said his party had opposed the project even when it was allied with the DMK, calling it a plan to hand over an airport to private parties.

DMK MLA Austin said cancelling the project would affect investment in the state. Former minister Thangam Thennarasu said Parandur had been selected after studying several locations, to minimise displacement and other impacts. He questioned the decision to drop the project while targeting a $1.5 trillion economy, saying major infrastructure projects were essential for such growth.

Responding to the government’s allegations about land purchases around Parandur, he said: “You talk of G Square son-in-law. Which lottery son-in-law are you building a new airport for?” He also said the Centre had approved Parandur after examining several sites and that dropping the project would be a setback for Tamil Nadu’s economy.

Opposition flags economic costs

DMK MLA AV Velu said the project was intended to boost the state’s economy and that 11 of the 13 affected villages had agreed to it after discussions.

DMK Rajya Sabha MP P Wilson said a change of government should not lead to a change in infrastructure policy after substantial public money and time had been spent. He said the cancellation set aside years of technical studies, planning, negotiations, land acquisition and public expenditure without a clear alternative.

Also read | Chennai’s Parandur airport scrapped: Why second airports struggle to take off in India

He said Chennai’s existing airport has only about 1,300 acres, limiting scope for additional runways and aircraft stands. “A fifth terminal can handle more passengers but cannot create extra space for runways or aircraft stands. Finding a new site, obtaining clearances and starting work could take another eight to 10 years,” he said. Wilson added that he would explore legal options in consultation with party chief MK Stalin.

Former chief minister Edappadi K Palaniswami asked: “Ninety per cent of landowners have already received compensation. You cannot take the money back. What will the government do with the land?”

Calls grow for alternative

AIADMK MLA CV Shanmugam said politics was influencing the Parandur decision and warned that it could affect the state’s investment and growth ambitions.

CPI(M) state committee secretary Shanmugam P told The Federal: “Why did the DMK government not release the expert committee report prepared under Machendranathan IAS on the feasibility of an airport at Parandur during its entire term? DMK did not act with transparency. Why was the report not made public? Are you ready to release it now?”

VCK leader Thol Thirumavalavan said there was broad agreement that Tamil Nadu needed a new airport for its growth. “Therefore, a new airport must be built at a new location without affecting ordinary people,” he said. BJP MLA Bhojarajan urged the state to identify alternative projects quickly so industrial growth was not affected.

Parandur farmers thank Vijay

Later in the day, members of the Parandur farmers’ protest group met Chief Minister Vijay at the Secretariat and thanked him. Group leader Subramanian told The Federal that they had protested for more than five years and submitted documents arguing that the site was unsuitable. He said the Kamban canal, water flowing towards Chembarambakkam lake, bird habitats and fertile farmland could have been affected, with implications for Chennai’s flood management.

Also read | Will TN CM Vijay scrap Parandur airport project amid rising environmental concerns?

He said only about 1,700 acres had been acquired out of the nearly 5,740 acres required, rather than 90 per cent as claimed. The group urged that any alternative airport site should protect farmers, water bodies and the environment.