Bridge too far

The political farce over the Sethusamudram shipping canal project could repeat itself, as the Congress worriedly contemplates the expert committee’s godless suggestion that the Ramayana was just a ‘fairy tale without factual basis’. This ‘diverse’ committee was set up to examine all facets of the matter after the Archaeological Survey of India had overreached itself in precisely the same manner, embarrassing the Congress and presenting the BJP with a whole new comeback trail. Back then, through the intra-party accusations and counter-accusations, the Congress stand seesawed between born-again religiosity and practical defence of the project. The drama reflected the eternal bind of the Congress — whether to cleanly eschew religion and face the consequences, or selectively manipulate religious feeling for political profit as in the Shah Bano ruling or the more recent cow slaughter controversy.

Even as coalition partner DMK breathes down the party’s neck about getting on with the project, the BJP is waiting to pounce on any less-than-perfectly-pious pronouncement about the Ram Setu. By allowing the Sethusamudram project to be hijacked by the Ram issue, the Congress is surrendering the discourse to the BJP and its allies, who have proved themselves more adept at communal politics. It is also alienating a key ally.

The committee, comprising environmental experts, academics and historians, has certainly not spared any thought for the Congress’s political dilemma. In addition to the blithe ‘fairy tale’ remark, they insisted that the structure was not man-made without undertaking any archaeological study, which apparently bothers Union Tourism and Culture Minister Ambika Soni, who has not accepted the report. Of course, the ASI’s unfortunate affidavit a few months back has already given scientific approval to the project. If only the Congress could make the basic distinction between the established rationale for the Sethusamudram project and the philosophical wrangle about belief and blasphemy. Or is it the case that it doesn’t credit the people with the capacity to tell the difference?