(Navhind Times
September 27, 2007)
Ram Setu: UPA’s Embarrassing Chapter
by Praful Bidwai
THE retreat beaten by the United Progressive Alliance on the Ram Setu or Adam’s Bridge controversy pertaining to the Setusamudram ship canal project will go down as one of the most embarrassing chapters of its tenure. Having told the Supreme Court through an affidavit filed by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) that there is no clinching evidence to prove that the shoal/sandbar structure in the Palk Strait is man-made, it executed a 180-degree turn as soon as it sensed that the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bharatiya Janata Party might cynically exploit the issue by misconstruing the affidavit’s contents as “an insult to the Hindu community”.
The retreat began just one hour after Mr LK Advani registered a protest with the Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh during a dinner for a visiting dignitary. The thrust of the Sangh Parivar’s criticism of the affidavit is that it denies the existence of Ram and constitutes “blasphemy” and an “insult to the Hindus”. As Mr Advani put it, “The government has sought to negate all that the Hindus consider sacred … and wounded the very idea of India.”
Some secular liberals too described the affidavit as overreaching, excessive or tactless because it goes beyond saying that the Ram Setu is a natural formation, and comments on the historicity of sacred texts like the Ramayana and Tulasidas’s ‘Ramacharitamanas’. The dominant media spin was also that the ASI ignored religious sentiments by “denying Ram’s existence”.
However, a close look at the affidavit shows that it merely rejects the proposition that such texts and scriptures constitute an incontrovertible historical record which proves that the Ram Setu is a man-made structure, or establishes the existence of the “characters” or “events” they refer to. The ASI was compelled to say this because the petitioners (who oppose the Sethusamudram project) relied primarily on the Ramayana and ‘Ramacharitamanas’ as clinching evidence that the Setu was built under Lord Rama’s instructions by an army of monkeys.
Leaving that contention unrefuted would have meant giving in to the idea that faith must always trump history, archaeology, even geology—which explains the existence of special natural formations like Adam’s Bridge—, and accepting that the project must be scrapped for reasons grounded in myths and scriptures, not fact.
Yet, the affidavit is extremely deferential and sensitive to the texts’ religious significance: “The ASI is aware of and duly respects the deep religious import bestowed upon these texts by the Hindu community across the globe…” But it argues that no material evidence, such as human remains, inscriptions, monuments or other artefacts, has been discovered at the site, which would corroborate the mythological account.
A three-year study by the Geological Survey of India around Rameswaram and Adam’s Bridge, based on drilling holes into the submerged rock, also found “no evidence” of man-made structures. Rather, it revealed three distinct cycles of sedimentation of clay, limestone and sandstone. According to geologists at the Centre for Earth Sciences at Thiruvananthapuram, the sedimentation was a natural phenomenon: “a man-made process cannot put clay, limestone and sandstone in sequence.” The phenomenon took place thousands of years before any human settlement in peninsular India.
Historians concur with this. Indeed, they cannot even agree on the likely dates for the events described in the Ramayana. Besides, the Ramayana has multiple versions; new stories and legends were added to it over many centuries. The Setu cannot be considered a historical reality because material or archaeological evidence to authenticate its alleged origins has not been found.
The ASI succinctly summarised all these facts. It could perhaps have been even more diplomatic in wording its affidavit than it was. But it’s extremely doubtful if that would have satisfied those opposing the project on grounds that aren’t amenable to reason, or to historical or scientific debate.
Yet, the mere threat of an agitation by the Sangh Parivar against the “pseudo-secularism” of the UPA so unnerved the government than it abjectly and unthinkingly apologised. The Union Law Minister, Mr H R Bharadwaj said, “Lord Rama is an integral part of Indian culture and ethos … and cannot be a matter of debate or of litigation… His existence can’t be put to the test…The whole world exists because of Rama ..”
It’s worth recalling that it’s the same Mr Bhardwaj who was Minister of State for Law in the mid-1980s, and who advised Rajiv Gandhi to commit two acts of “appeasement” within one month: first, open the gates of the Babri masjid and trigger a viciously communal mobilisation, and second, amend laws effectively to annul the Shah Bano verdict. These disastrous moves alienated the Congress from both communities, strengthened Hindutva as never before, and ensured the BJP’s meteoric rise from a mere 2 Lok Sabha seats in 1984 to 89 in 1989. The rest is history.
Last fortnight too, the UPA cravenly capitulated to the VHP-BJP’s bullying, without as much as making even token criticism of their stance or their gross distortion of the ASI affidavit. Instead, it instantly started looking for scapegoats within—the ASI, its senior directors, ministry of culture, Ms Ambika Soni—without remotely affirming the affidavit’s secular basis. All that had happened for the UPA to change its mind was just a few VHP marches on one day!
The UPA’s disgraceful U-turn buoyed up the Sangh Parivar. Perhaps many secular liberals felt relieved that the UPA had quickly defused the gathering crisis by withdrawing the ASI affidavit, thus preventing another hysterical mobilisation on a religious-political issue. Whatever the reason, such passivity doesn’t bode well for Indian society.
Three broad conclusions should be drawn from this episode. First, it demonstrates the weak-kneed character of the UPA’s response to majoritarian communalism rather than the strength of the popular sentiment on the Ram Setu issue, which is, if anything, diffuse and unfocused. The UPA simply didn’t have the stomach to assert the relevant scientific-historical arguments in self-defence. It just caved in to the Sangh Parivar’s pressure. In the process, it legitimised the communal claim that there is an overwhelming “Hindu sentiment” on the Ram Setu.
In reality, the Hindus are an extraordinarily complex, large and diverse community. The myths and legends which it accepts about Rama and Ravana differ widely not just between the North and the South, but within different regions too. In any case, one doesn’t have to believe in the historicity of the Setu to be a good practising Hindu.
Second, it’s simply false to argue that Indian secularism has to be rooted in the culture of the religious majority to be authentic and acceptable, and that such culture must include myths and legends or particular scriptures, while excluding archaeology, history and science. Secularism involves a basic separation of religion and politics. In the Indian case, secularism derives as much from a universal notion of citizenship cutting across religious lines, as from the imperative of tolerance and inter-communal harmony.
Finally, the UPA through its capitulation has violated the Constitutional mandate to uphold secular values and not to privilege a particular religion or the belief systems of some of its adherents. This mandate is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. It dictates that decisions about development projects should be taken on social, environmental and economic grounds, not on mythological ones.
Each time the Indian state bends to fundamentalist or communal pressure, it compromises itself, and allows public reason to be trumped by religious belief or private prejudice. This is unbecoming of a society that aspires to modernity, tolerance and pluralism.
|
