Ram Sethu: Where is the conflict?

A closer look at Ram Sethu issue leads to a quagmire. I can’t see any real conflict. An objective analysis does not indicate any need for controversies, unless somebody really wants to create one. Perhaps that is what we are seeing now.

It is the belief of millions of people that Ram Sethu was built by the forces of Lord Rama. There is also a belief that the events in Ramayana refer to a war between Aryans and Dravidians. These are all traditions that originated some time in the distant past and survived through thousands of years. As Henry James (1843-1916) said, “It takes an endless amount of history to make even a little tradition.” In this light, the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) affidavit before the Supreme Court on Ram Sethu, though subsequently withdrawn, was unfortunate.

There is another side to it however. For instance, I am a Syrian Christian who firmly believes that St. Thomas founded our Church. That is the tradition among the people. But if I were asked to submit an affidavit on it in a court of law, I would have to say that there is no historic evidence about the Apostle ever landing in Kerala. Several historians have and still do, say this, but I have not heard of any Syrian Christian getting emotional about such statements.

The objective of building Ram Sethu would have been a limited one – to send armies to Lanka and rescue Sita. Therefore, the requirement was not a solid structure to survive millennia but a functional temporary causeway sufficient for the immediate purpose on hand. Leaving the bridge usable after the target was achieved would not have been wise militarily either. In any case, there was no reason at that time to have a permanent land route to Lanka.

Where would such a bridge have been built? Naturally at the shallowest, easiest and fastest to construct alignment. The location of Ram Sethu confirms this. Logic brings one to the conclusion that a temporary causeway was built using the existing shoals as base. The Adam’s Bridge, according to what I have read, is much older than Ramayna. The causeway which was raised on it had served its purpose and would have been washed away during the centuries that have rolled by with the waves. Perhaps some parts of it still remain. The name Ramaar Paalam or Ram Sethu merely signifies an event in the traditions.

Is there something sacrosanct about Ram Sethu? If there is, would the BJP led government have, according to reports, reactivated the 1860 scheme of Alfred D. Taylor to cut a shipping channel through it to connect Palk Strait and Gulf of Mannar? The obvious answer is no. And, if the project can help mankind, would Lord Rama like it being shelved again? (One website mentioned that a couple of dredgers engaged at the site broke down because Rama is angry. If that is the case, there is nothing to worry. Divine intervention will protect Ram Sethu.)

Now, will the project help the people? One view expressed is that it will only benefit the shipping companies and the politicians. I don’t know about the latter, but reducing the turnaround time of any carrier makes sound economic sense. The benefits are bound to percolate down to the people as well.

Another apprehension is that this project is meant to expedite the growth of Tuticorin Port in Tamil Nadu and sabotage the development of the Vizhinjam Harbor project in Kerala. The question here is whether the BJP which has at least some base in Kerala, would have agreed to an arrangement favorable to Tamil Nadu where it does not seem to have any significant following.

The real concern, I feel, should be the environmental implications of Ram Sethu project. The Techno-Economic Feasibility study for the scheme was reportedly done by the Tuticorin Port Trust. Was it an independent work by competent people, free of political interference? There was one indication that the World Monuments Fund had suggested that divers should be asked to collect samples from the seabed near Ram Sethu for analysis. I can’t trace any further information on this.

Those who are for the shipping canal project repeatedly assert that ecological hazards have been carefully assessed and addressed. One claim is that dredging process has been chosen for the scheme since blasting the seabed would cause damage. According to them five different alignments were considered by two different governments. Some media reports say that the present route was accepted by both the earlier BJP led government and the present UPA one after studying all aspects.

In the name of a project that may or may not be implemented, enough damage has been already done by the politicians and the fanatics. Is this what Rama Rajyam envisages?

Ends.

Also see:

Ram Sethu controversy

Adam's Bridge & Adam's Peak

Cross posted to

Articles By Abraham Tharakan

Ram Sethu comtroversy

The controversy about the Sethu Samudram Canal Project (SSCP) is most unfortunate. The scheme is to create a shipping channel to connect Palk Strait and Gulf of Mannar. Once this is done, the ships going to the Arabian Sea from India’s east coast ports can save about 400kms (say, about 30 hours of sailing) by avoiding the detour around Sri Lanka.

The protests against the project started when NASA released satellite photos showing the Adam’s Bridge which many millions believe was built by Lord Rama’s forces to cross over to Sri Lanka and rescue Sita from Ravana. The fuse was lit when the Archeological Survey of India submitted an affidavit in the Suprme Court making statements to the effect that there is no historic evidence to the events in Ramayana.. The way it was worded apparently offended certain groups and the Government of India promptly withdrew the affidavit. But the damage was already done.

What I can’t understand is, if the BJP and their allies genuinely believed in the sanctity of the bridge, why didn’t they, when they were in power, declare the area as a heritage site and change the name Adam’s Bridge officially to ‘Ramaar Paalam’ or ‘Ram Sethu’? The obvious answer is that at that time they failed to see the color of votes, if at all it is there, in this far away (from Delhi) destination.

Now it would seem that BJP went trigger happy without referring to the back files. A Times of India report that I saw on the Internet yesterday says that the SSCP was revived (the idea had been mooted during British days) by the then BJP government. Different alignments were considered and the BJP government gave the in principle approval to the project in January 2003. Quoting sources the report says that the present alignment which cuts through the Ram Sethu was approved by the NDA government led by BJP. Therefore it appears that the Manmohan Singh government is only carrying on with what the BJP had approved.

If this position is confirmed conclusively, the BJP would have difficulty in explaining the agitation against the project.

Two images of Adam’s Bridge from Wikipedia are reproduced below:

UN map, considered to be in public domain

Released to public domain by the Federal Government of United States.

Ends.

Also see: History of conversions to Christianity in Kerala – an overview

123 Go - BY THE BOOK

Where is the 123 (India-US Nuclear) Agreement, or rather the politicians’ handling of it, taking us? I am a reasonably well-educated citizen, I read a few newspapers daily and watch TV, but still the drama is confusing.

I understand that the present opposition mooted the idea of the nuclear treaty when they were in power. Now the agreement is anathema to them for whatever reason. They wanted a discussion in the Parliament, then a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) and again, a debate in the House followed by voting. The Speaker had already ruled that such procedure would be against precedent.

The Left has its own reasons for opposing the agreement. The old ‘imperialism, colonialism and capitalism’ jargon is still there, but added to it are ‘integrity, sovereignty and security’ of the country. The protest follows a well-trodden path – the Left has a history of campaigns against tractors, computers, mechanization in industry, and so on.

Currently the Left is also busy leading jathas from Chennai and Kolkota to ward off any danger from the foreign warships that are temporarily in the Bay of Bengal for a combined exercise with the Indian Navy. The vessels of Pakistan and China, the only two countries to have attacked India are not involved in the war games.

The scientists seem divided on the deal. Whether they have assessed the agreement in its totality or merely looked at some technical point or the other is not clear. And some wizards have suddenly realized that energy produced under the deal would be costlier than power generated through other methods.

The media too is split on the deal. One saw the sad instance of an esteemed Chennai-based daily doing a flip-flop on the issue and then coming out with an unconvincing explanation for its volte face. That paper also claimed (others too did) that the majority of MPs were against the 123 deal.

The Government appears to be adamant on proceeding with the nuclear agreement. What should be done in the given situation? Repeatedly stating that the Government has been reduced to a minority on this issue is not enough. The Constitution of India was written by wise men. It has the provision for handling such situations.

If the NDA and the Left genuinely believe that the 123 Agreement compromises India’s interests, I feel that they are duty bound to bring a no confidence motion against the Government.

Why is the hesitation to test the strength on the floor of the House? Is it fear of failure or the possibility of losing some seats should there be a fresh General Election?

For now, they are merely messing up the functioning of the Parliament with a lot of sound and fury.

Ends.

The photo: Wikimedia Commons – Public Domain). Shows the Preamble to the Constitution of India.

Click on it for enlarged view.

Also see: Indo-US nuclear agreement