Controversy continues to dog the Samudrasetu Ship Canal Project. This time through an affidavit filed by the government stating that Rama was not a historical figure.
I had written about the controversial Samudrasetu Ship Canal Project in my blog Controversy over Rama’s Bridge. A suit was filed in the Supreme Court claiming that Rama’s Bridge was a heritage site and hence needed to be protected under Article 49 of the Constitution as well as the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act 1958. The Court asked the Government to file its response. Accordingly the Archeological Survey of India, the concerned government organization, filed an affidavit that read: “That the petitioners, while seeking relief, have primarily relied upon the contents of Valmiki Ramayana, the Rama Charit Manas by Tulsidas and other mythological texts, which admittedly form an important part of ancient Indian literature, but which cannot be said to be historical record to incontrovertibly prove the existence of the characters, or the occurrences of the events, depicted therein.”
This led to a furor with the right wing parties claiming that the Government was denying the existence of Rama. So intense was the expected political backlash that all political parties, including the ruling party that had issued the affidavit and the communist parties, came out with statements that the existence of Rama way beyond doubt. The Government also withdrew the affidavit and asked for time to review the entire project.
This has raised several questions in the electronic and print media. Is it appropriate to ask for historical proof in the case of issues of deep religious faith? Should issues of religious faith be allowed to come in the way of development? Should the Government be swayed by public emotion in dealing with national interest? There are several questions but few answers and no consensus.
