Defence of Ram Sethu project by referring to religious scriptures goes against secular principles

Mail Today
25 July 2008

Comment

Citing the scripture is not a good idea

JUST as we thought that the United Progressive Alliance government had emerged from a serious crisis and could focus on the more serious task of governance, it has put its foot in its mouth and created a needless controversy. Perhaps, as is being alleged by the Opposition, it is paying the price for the support during the trust vote of a vital constituent of the UPA — whose advocacy of the Sethusamudram Shipping Project is well known. Yet, the government has committed the very mistake it did earlier when it told the Supreme Court that Lord Rama had never existed. That time, the government had to beat a hasty retreat for needlessly sitting in judgment on a religious belief. This time, strangely enough, it has cited religious texts, the Padma Purana and Kamba Ramayan , to claim that the Ram Sethu had been destroyed by Lord Rama himself and hence could not be an object of worship. Those who formulate the government’s legal position seem to have forgotten that they represent the government of a secular party which governs a secular country. It would have been perfectly valid for the government to argue for the continuance of the project on the basis of economic considerations. The canal across the natural formation, known as the Adam’s Bridge or Sethusamudram, does drastically reduce the distance for ships traveling between the eastern and western seaboards of the country. The use of a religious text to argue the case also obfuscates the more tangible objections that have been raised against the project on economic, geological, ecological and strategic grounds. Besides responding to these objections with the help of considered opinion, the government needs to explain why the project cannot pursue an alternate path which delivers the same results, as the Supreme Court reiterated on Wednesday. The latter course will ensure the economic gains, even while meeting the objections of those who argue that it was indeed a bridge built by Lord Rama.