(Deccan Herald
19 September 2007)
The Ramar Sethu controversy
By Kancha Ilaiah
If Rama was a king like many other kings building temples in his name is a blasphemous act in itself.
There is a new debate about Rama, the hero of Ramayana, an epic written by Valmiki. With the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) submitting an affidavit that “There was no historical or scientific evidence to establish the existence of Lord Rama and also that he constructed the Ram Sethu”, the BJP has made it an issue to say that how can the central government deny the existence of Lord Rama who is being seen as god himself?
Karunanidhi, the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, also took the same stand that ASI took. The Gandhian nationalist campaign for its own legitimacy projected Rama as god. The BJP has been using that divine image of Rama as a source of political mobilisation. In the interest of the nation this question needs to be settled.
When the Supreme Court asked from an Archeological organisation naturally it has to look for scientific and historical evidence. When it came to a conclusion that there was no evidence that a historical person called Rama ever existed, how can that affidavit be forced to be withdrawn?
Does the BJP and its allied organisations claim that Rama was not a historical person but god? The discourse around the notion of god indicates that god has no particular place of birth and he does not build just one Sethu here or another there but every place is seen as his place and every construction is seen as his construction. If the name Rama is like the name of Yahova or Messiah or Allah or God, neither Yahova nor Messiah nor Allah is said to be born at a particular place nor such a god is said to have built this or that structure.
All places are said to be his birth places and all constructions are said to be his constructions. Thus, no place or construction could become a social or governmental dispute. God cannot be drawn into such controversies of places and constructions. In religious terms such an attempt is seen as blasphemous.
All the claims of the Hindutva forces about Rama point to a direction that he was a king and he lived at a particular period of time. He was said to have been born at a particular place, Ayodhya. He was said to have conducted wars against what they consider unjust people like Tataka, Bali, Ravana and Shambhuka and he built certain cities, bridges on rivers and seas and so on. If that is so then his period of existence, his contribution to constructions needs archeological, historical and scientific evidence.
Whether the ASI’s affidavit is withdrawn or it stands as evidence before the court, the affidavit has raised a fundamental point about Rama around whom so much politicking is taking place. Was he god or was he one of the kings who ruled at a particular point of time? Or was he a prophetic religious builder like Buddha, Jesus and Mohammed? For both kings and prophets historical evidence is an essential condition. Even the Archeological institutions of the world must make a survey of such historical personnel and evidence must be produced when disputes emerge around their actions.
If Rama was like Buddha or Jesus or Mohammed he should have historical evidence of his birth, growth and activities. Why should not Rama be put to such a scrutiny? Not many court litigations have come around the life and activities of Buddha, Jesus and Mohammed. But Rama’s life is coming up before the modern judiciary and research institutions time and again. If such litigations arise about the life of Buddha or Jesus or Mohammed it is not difficult to establish their time frame and evidences of their activities. Why are the Hindutva forces against such evidence centred discourses even in the case of Rama? Why do they keep on saying that Rama’s birth, living and his actions are faith based issues and neither courts nor research institutions should investigate into such evidences? If a Buddhist, or a Christian or a Muslim talks about the prophetic builders of their religions in that language those very prophets suffer major historical setbacks in terms of their existential credibility itself.
If Rama is a king like many other kings building temples in his name is a blasphemous act in itself. Since such temples have come up in the course of history the modern state should respect them and leave it at that. No political party should be allowed to create problems for the nation around those temples.
Even the issue of the so called Rama Sethu is similar to that of Ayodhya. If so far the Indian State has not declared that structure as a historical monument and when a national useful project is under construction in that area what is wrong if that structure is dismantled. No modern judiciary can keep on wasting its time around such disputes. Some of these things are neither provable nor disprovable.
The best course before the judiciary is to leave such matters to the national executive and civil societal debates. The Indian Supreme Court in this case should have dismissed it as unresolvable in the court of law. Quite interestingly the Supreme Court has not only admitted this case, but asked for an affidavit from the State.
Whose assistance should the State take in such a matter? Naturally that of ASI. What methodology should ASI adopt to state its position? Naturally it has to come to a conclusion based on archeological and scientific basis. The onus now lies on the BJP and its allied organisations to prove what Rama was.
|
