Between the devil and the deep blue sea

The Ram Setu issue rears its head again, as the government tries to fight faith with faith. As the BJP waits to pounce on any hint of godlessness...

The Ram Setu issue rears its head again, as the government tries to fight faith with faith. As the BJP waits to pounce on any hint of godlessness and the DMK is impatient to get on with the project, the government, in an effort to keep faith and public works separate, quotes the Padma Purana and the Kamba Ramayanam to suggest that Lord Rama himself destroyed the Setu. Tridivesh Singh Maini traces the controversy.

8226;The Sethusamudram Ship Channel Project proposes linking of the Palk Bay and the Gulf of Mannar between India and Sri Lanka by creating a shipping channel through the shallow sea commonly referred to as Sethu Samudram, and through the island chain known as Rama8217;s Bridge/ Adam8217;s Bridge.

8226; The Manmohan Singh Government announced the inauguration of the project on July 2, 2005.

8226; In an affidavit filed in the Supreme Court, the Director-General of the Archaeological Survey of India ASI said on September 11, 2007 that there was no archaeological evidence to establish the existence of Lord Rama or other characters of the Ramayana. Denying that Ram Setu or Adam8217;s Bridge is a man-made structure, the ASI argued that Ramcharitmanas by Tulsidas cannot be taken as a historical record. The Director-General8217;s remarks led to widespread protests by opposition leaders of the BJP. In fact even certain members of the government were livid 8212; saying that such an affidavit was offensive to the religious sensibilities of the Hindu community. The government was quick to withdraw the affidavit.

8226; The remarks of DMK leader and Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, M. Karunanidhi where he asked 8216;whether Lord Rama was an engineer or had obtained an engineering degree from any college8217; added fuel to the fire for the UPA Government.

8226; During the controversy, culture and tourism minister Ambika Soni offered to resign 8212; even though she had ordered ASI to delete one of the objectionable paragraphs in the affidavit the para questioned the existence of Lord Rama. Minister of State for Commerce Jairam Ramesh went to the extent of saying that he would have resigned if he were in Soni8217;s position.

8226; A committee of eminent persons was appointed on October 5, 2007 which re-examined the entire project, including the six possible alignments to conclude that the alignment No-6 8216;Rama Setu8217; was the 8220;best alternative8221; . It also felt that altering the channel alignment at that stage would lead to huge losses for the public exchequer.

Story continues below this ad

8226; In May 2008, the Supreme Court had given two important instructions to the UPA government, firstly whether ASI should examine that Ram Setu be declared national heritage and secondly, it asked the government to seek alternate ways or new alignments to the Sethusamudram Project.

8226; On July 23, 2008 while responding to the petitioners8217; argument that Ram Setu was a place of worship and that if it was breached it would no longer be fit for worship, senior advocate Fali S. Nariman representing the government said: 8220;The scriptures say it was already broken into several pieces by Lord Rama himself after the Rama-Ravana war. If that is so, it is already broken since time immemorial and hence it can no longer be a place of worship.8221;