Further reason to choose Highbury over Palmyra for monument site

Dear Editor,

I recognize that my continuing efforts to have the Indian Arrival Day monument sited at Highbury where the first batch of Indian immigrants actually arrived instead of Palmyra which is apparently being pushed because of ‘convenience’ and/or ‘conspicuousness’ might now be seen as whipping a dead horse; but in all seriousness, I again beg the relevant authorities to please let good historical reason and common sense prevail. It is still not too late to do so.

And now there is yet another good reason to choose Highbury: the fact that far less foundational work is required at Highbury as opposed to Palmyra, where the soil condition has already been proven to be less hospitable and reducing that inhospitability will definitely require more time and resources without any guarantee against another collapse.

Why risk another collapse and the possibility that the extra foundational works will require more time and money which will militate against the year-end target in order to accommodate the fortuitous visit of the Indian Prime Minister.

In my previous pleadings I did raise the probability of “divine intervention” being responsible for the collapse of the initial foundational works; that possibility (in the form of what Hindus call a “graha”) is still there, and God forbid, the recurrence of another collapse while our esteemed guest in the person of the Prime Minister of India, if we doggedly pursue the baseless Palmyra site.

Yours faithfully,

Nowrang Persaud

Around the Web