COVER STORY

Myth vs Science

R. RAMACHANDRAN
By withdrawing the ASI affidavit before the Supreme Court, the
government has in effect adopted the Sangh Parivar line of scoffing at
science.
CREATIVE COMMONS

RAM SETHU, AS seen from the air. This picture was taken while flying over
Sri Lanka looking west.

SCIENCE and rationality have taken a beating in the unfolding of the recent events
surrounding the controversial mega marine project called the Sethusamudram Ship
Channel Project (SSCP) of the Government of India. The project envisages the
dredging of the shallow ocean region in the south-eastern Bay of Bengal to create
an artificial 167-kilometre-long, 300-metre-wide and 12-metre-deep channel-like
passage for (10,000-12,000 gross tonnage) ships across the island formations
called Adam’s Bridge or Ram Sethu.

The bridge, or sethu, is a discontinuous chain of sandbars dotting a 30-km stretch

in the east-west direction between the southern tip of the Rameswaram island in
India and Talaimannar in northwestern Sri Lanka, creating a geographical divide
between the Palk Bay and the Gulf of Mannar, which form part of the southern
Cauvery basin. The rationale for the project is that such a channel would avoid
circumnavigation of Sri Lanka (of an additional distance of over 400 km) in the
voyage between the east and west coasts of India.

Ram Sethu and Adam’s Bridge are names derived from Hindu and Islamic
mythologies respectively, the former from the epic Ramayana wherein Rama
(venerated as God by Hindus) is supposed to have built this bridge with the help of
his allies (the Vanara Sena) to reach Lanka and rescue his abducted wife Sita, thus
giving rise to the belief among Hindus that the island chain is man-made. The sea
separating India and Sri Lanka is, therefore, referred to as Sethusamudram, from
which the project derives its name. According to the Islamic account, Adam used
the bridge to reach Adam’s Peak in Sri Lanka where he stood in repentance for
1,000 years.

The proposal for a channel linking the Palk Bay and the Gulf of Mannar actually
goes back to the British in 1860 and since then several proposals have been made
and six distinct alignments for the passage to go across Ram Sethu have been put
forward. But only in 1998, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the Prime Minister of the previous
National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government, finally launched the project. It was
only inaugurated during the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) regime in 2005 by
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

The protests by the BJP currently in evidence against cutting Ram Sethu, as the
channel alignment chosen in 2002 would require, on the grounds that any
structural change to Ram Sethu would hurt the religious sentiments of the Hindu
millions of the country, is clearly dictated by political expediency with the agitation
to “preserve Ram’s heritage” being now spearheaded by Hindu fundamentalist
organisations such as the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and the Hindu Munnani.

Political expediency, given the distinct possibility of early general elections, has
dictated the government’s responses to the opposition to the project as well. They
reflect obvious communal vote politics, meant not to lose Hindu votes. Following
the Supreme Court’s judgment restraining the SSCP from carrying out any dredging
that could damage Ram Sethu on the petitions filed by Janata Party leader
Subramanian Swamy, among others, the Centre’s responses have been less than
rational. It has decided not only to withdraw the counter-affidavit filed by the
Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) but also to redefine the project by choosing
another alignment that does not cut through Ram Sethu.

The affidavit’s statement that mythological texts such as the Ramayana “cannot be
said to be historical record to incontrovertibly prove the existence of the characters,
or the occurrence of events depicted therein”, was perhaps unnecessary and
unwarranted for arguing that Ram Sethu is not a man-made structure as contended
by the petitioners, but the statement itself cannot be faulted given the scientific
evidence.

Be that as it may, the decision to withdraw a well-argued affidavit in its entirety has
only resulted in giving primacy to religious beliefs over a whole body of scientific
evidence on which the affidavit was based to show that Ram Sethu is a natural
geological formation.

The move, which was made notwithstanding the fact that two senior civil officers of
the ASI had drafted the affidavit (they have since been inexplicably suspended),
also seriously undermines the autonomy of a scientific agency like the ASI and the
concept of tackling important national issues through a science-based approach.

In fact, by playing the same game of communalised politics as the Sangh Parivar,
the UPA government has left no room or forum for raising real, serious issues
expressed by many people concerning the project, issues such as the techno-
economic viability of the project and its long-term ecological impact on the region.
The irrational religious opposition has unfortunately clouded these.

It all began in 2002 when the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) of the United States released some satellite images taken at various times
of the chain of sandbars or shoals in the Palk Bay area. These were picked up by
various Hindutva-espousing websites, which interpreted them as evidence of the
remains of the mythical bridge built by Rama.
These websites further claimed that NASA had concluded that the bridge was man-
made from the “bridge’s unique curvature and composition by age”. They claimed
that archaeological studies had revealed that first signs of human inhabitants in Sri
Lanka dated back to 1.75 million years ago as did the age of the bridge, and
contended that the age matched the age of events described in the Ramayana.
They protested that the holy site of Rama’s heritage would thus be damaged by the
SSCP.

Fresh ammunition

This was fresh ammunition for fundamentalists and the Sangh Parivar to launch a
nationwide “Ram sethu ke hetu (for the cause of Ram Sethu)” campaign. NASA’s
clarifications and rebuttals to these claims have clearly been of no avail because
even some of the petitions being currently heard in the courts continue to claim
that the NASA pictures are evidence for a man-made Ram Sethu.

NASA official Mark Hess had then stated: “Remote sensing images or photographs
from orbit cannot provide direct information about the origin or age of a chain of
islands, and certainly cannot determine whether humans were involved in
producing any of the patterns seen.” Hess further stated that NASA had been taking
pictures of these sandbars for years. Its images had never resulted in any scientific
discovery in that area. “The images reproduced on websites may well be ours but
their interpretation is certainly not ours.”

The Sangh Parivar’s claim that the first inhabitants in Sri Lanka dated back to 1.75
million years is clearly bogus and patently unscientific. Human evolution studies
have unequivocally established that modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) came
into existence only about 200,000 years ago. Further, humans arrived in the Indian
subcontinent not before 100,000 years ago. Clearly, the age of Treta Yuga (1.7
million years ago), when Rama is supposed to have reigned, belongs to mythology
and so would be the other characters and events in the Ramayana, including Ram
Sethu.

Geological studies
Two independent scientific agencies, namely the Geological Survey of India (GSI)
and the Space Applications Centre (SAC) of the Indian Space Research Organisation
(ISRO), and individual geologists have conducted detailed studies on the geological
formations associated with Ram Sethu and all have established conclusively that
Ram Sethu is not a man-made structure. Interestingly, soon after the release of the
NASA images and when the related news items began appearing, it was Uma
Bharati, the then Union Minister for Coal and Mines, who initiated a study by the
GSI to establish the palaeogeography of the sethu terrain. Ironically, today she is
actively involved in the “save Ram Sethu” campaign in Tamil Nadu.

The GSI carried out a special programme called “Project Rameswaram” between
December 2002 and March 2003, which, according to the GSI’s newsletter of
September 2003 annexed in the government counter-affidavit, included: (i)
reconnaissance survey; (ii) drilling the Dhanushkodi Foreland (the eastern
projection of the Rameswaram island); (iii) offshore surveys involving depth
measurements; (iv) seabed samples and side scan sonar images of the seabed; (v)
drilling in one of the islands within the Exclusive Economic Zone, or EEZ (which is
about 10 km from the Dhanushkodi tip); and (vi) radiocarbon or C-14 dating and
thermoluminescence (TL) dating of samples.

Four boreholes, roughly 4 km apart, were drilled to collect subsurface

sediment/rock samples to generate geological data towards determining the
geological history of Dhanushkodi Foreland and Adam’s Bridge/Ram Sethu. Samples
from different locations off Mandapam (located on the mainland coast across the
Rameswaram island) were taken for TL dating.

Important among the GSI’s conclusions, based on the geological investigations of

its marine wing, are the following:

There are no indications or evidence of man-made structures in the present-day

seabed or in the sub-surface level between Dhanushkodi tip and Adam’s Bridge
islands within India’s EEZ limits. Age data of corals indicate that the Rameswaram
island has evolved since 125,000 years ago.

A combination of various natural coastal processes such as sea level positions in the
historical past, wind-borne activity, new tectonic movements, wave action, etc.,
have led to the evolution of the coastal areas around Mandapam, Rameswaram and
Adam’s Bridge/Ram Sethu, which has led to the formation of beach rocks, coral
growth, vast stretches of coastal dunes, series of islands (of Ram Sethu) and
subsidence of the erstwhile Dhanushkodi township.

Palaeogeographic studies suggest that the sea level in the region has oscillated
significantly over historical time scales exposing the seabed between India and Sri
Lanka periodically. Around 6,000-7,000 years ago the sea level was 17 m below the
present level, resulting in partial exposure of the seabed. About 10,000 years ago,
sea level may have been even 60 m below. Radiocarbon dating suggests that during
the last glacial maxima (about 20,260 years ago) when sea level is at its minimum,
the level may have been as low as 118 m. The domain between Rameswaram and
Talaimannar may have thus been exposed sometime between 18,000 and 7,000
years ago, the ASI has concluded. Since then sea level has been rising gradually
with minor periodic fluctuations.

Analysis of samples from drilling of boreholes between Dhanushkodi and the third
island of Ram Sethu suggests that there were three sedimentation cycles
dominated by clay, limestone and sandstone. The growth of the Dhanushkodi sand
spit (narrow coastal formation) itself is a feature of coastal processes and shoreline
emergence and its orientation seems to be along the dissipation of wave energy
patterns of the Palk Bay and the Gulf of Mannar.

The Dhanushkodi sand spit and the five islands of Ram Sethu (that lie within India’s
EEZ) change their shape and size owing to monsoon activity. TL dating suggests
that the sand dunes of Dhanushkodi to Ram Sethu began to be deposited only
about 500-600 years ago.

The Marine and Water Resources Group of SAC/ISRO also carried out space-based
investigations, using satellite remote sensing imagery, in 2003 to establish if Ram
Sethu is man-made or coralline in nature, using Indian Remote Sensing Satellite
(IRS) data. Ocean Colour Monitor data of the satellite IRS-P4 of April 18, 2002, and
LISS-III camera data of IRS-1D of May 6 and March 21, 2000, were used. The
recognition of features, say the authors of the investigation, was based on
experience with the Indian coral reefs and well-established methodology.

The authors concluded that Adam’s Bridge is not man-made but comprises 103
small patch reefs lying in a linear pattern with reef crest (flattened, emergent –
especially during low tides – or nearly emergent segment of a reef), sand cays
(accumulations of loose coral sands and beach rock) and intermittent deep
channels.

The linearity of the sethu was interpreted to be due to the old shoreline – implying
that the two landmasses of India and Sri Lanka were once connected – from where
coral reefs evolved. Continuing investigations on the reef system, which they have
identified as Ribbon reef Type, have shown that the orientation and size of the sand
cays have changed during 1990-2000 and again during 2000-2005, thus indicating
their dynamic nature.

According to V. Ram Mohan of the Centre of Natural Hazards and Disaster Studies
of the University of Madras, island chains, including seamounts, are frequent in the
ocean and could be the result of various geological processes. The chains in the
Philippines and Japan have, for example, been formed because of subduction
related volcanism.

In the Hawaiian islands, it is owing to the movement of lithospheric mantle over hot
spots. It can also be owing to the opening of the sea during seafloor spreading
along mid-oceanic ridges, as it is in Iceland, or along transform faults, as in St.
Helena.

Island chains in the Caribbean and on the southern tip of the South American
continent consist of sediments of marine origin formed by coastal processes, which
cover the basaltic stratum and serve as substrate for coral reefs, which are exposed
above sea level. Though the features of these are similar to the Adam’s Bridge
system, the latter has not revealed any evidence for basaltic basement, which
results from volcanic mechanism.

Adam’s Bridge chain

 CHANNI ANAND/AP

A PROTEST IN Jammu on September 12 by activists of the Rameswaram

Ram Sethu Raksha Manch.

The geological information on the Adam’s Bridge chain is scanty as part of the chain
falls in international waters, says Ram Mohan. “Trying to reconstruct the geological
evolution of the island chain is a challenging task and has to be carried out with
circumstantial evidence,” he adds, writing in a paper titled “Geological Evolution of
Adam’s Bridge”.

He argues that the possibility of formation of shoals in the shallow continental shelf
as barrier bars (sandbars that may have formed during the period of high water
level following sand deposition but remain exposed during low mean sea level)
appears to be the most plausible explanation for the evolution of Rameswaram and
Adam’s Bridge.

This formation may have been initiated when the sea level was 125 m below the
present level, around 18,000 years ago, and was building up when the sea level
continued to rise. The continuous sand deposition and the natural process of
sedimentation have led to the formation of a chain of barrier islands, which are very
dynamic, and this is not unique to Adam’s Bridge, notes S. Ramachandran, Vice-
Chancellor of the University of Madras. The formation of barrier islands, which are
common in the Atlantic coast, probably began around 25,000 years ago, he says.

Geological imprints
 K. GANESAN

Dredging work near Adam’s Bridge in Rameswaram. A file picture.

Based on available data, N. Ramanujam, Head of the Department of Geology of

V.O. Chidambaram College, Tuticorin, has attempted to reconstruct the geological
evolution of the region and its significant features. According to him, block faulting,
subsidence and formation of elongated depressions with ridge separation are the
characteristic imprints of the early geological history that are recorded in the Palk
Bay and the Gulf of Mannar.

This, he points out, are characteristic of Precambrian basement rock before the
Indian plate separated from East and West Gondwanaland about 150 million to 70
million years ago. The northward migration of the Indian plate and its collision with
the Eurasian plate and the transfer of stress in the northern converging zone
towards the weaker triangular crustal end and the lateral forces enhanced the
plume activity (mantle upwelling) at the southern peninsular side. The Cauvery
basin, he argues, has thus been formed by the down-warping of the crust and the
block faulting of the basement over millennia, resulting in the formation of several
elongated depressions separated by ridges.

These ridges became centres of coral reef growth, resulting in atoll-like formations,
which in turn acted as “sand trappers” attracting peculiar sandy deposits called
salient formation in the region. What was originally a paleosea between Mandapam
and Rameswaram thus became a sandy deposit (the salient) extending about 40
km in the east-west direction. This altered the shoreline in the Mandapam-
Rameswaram region and acted as an offshore obstruction wall for the littoral
currents which transported sediments from the northeast and southwest directions
and directed them towards the east and southeast (see diagram). The diversion of
ocean currents contributed to the accretion of deposits from both the Dhanushkodi
spit and the Talaimannar spit resulting in the formation of sandy barrier islands,
which forms Adam’s Bridge or Ram Sethu.

All the independent studies discussed above seem to suggest a consistent picture of
the natural processes that led to the formation of Adam’s Bridge or Ram Sethu. It is
this combined scientific evidence that the ASI submitted to the apex court, stating
that “Adam’s Bridge formation can be classified as a series of shoals or a series of
barrier islands, both of which are naturally occurring formations caused by tidal
action and sedimentation.”
It further stated: “In the light of the scientific study conducted, the said formation
cannot, therefore, be said to be a man-made structure. The same is merely a sand
and coral formation, which cannot be said to be of historical, archaeological or
artistic interest or importance…[and] the question of construing Adam’s Bridge as
an ‘ancient monument [as demanded by the petitioners] and declaring it as a
protected monument [under the Ancient Monuments Archaeological Sites and
Remains Act, 1958] does not arise”.

By withdrawing this submission, the government has clearly yielded to the

communal forces at work and thrown science by the wayside.

COVER STORY

Political project

VENKITESH RAMAKRISHNAN
in New Delhi
The Sangh Parivar revives a campaign that it had not so long ago found
hard to sell.
PTI

L.K. Advani and BJP president Rajnath Singh inaugurating the "Ram Path
exhibition" at the party’s National Executive meeting in Bhopal on
September 21.

UNTIL the second week of September, when both the ruling Congress and the
Opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) suddenly discovered that the affidavit filed
by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) in the Supreme Court on the
Sethusamudram Ship Channel Project was controversial and hurt religious
sentiments, the biggest political ripples created by “Rama’s bridge” were within the
Sangh Parivar led by the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh. The RSS leadership was
compelled to act against a “scientific researcher”, a self-proclaimed “Doctor”
Puneesh Taneja, after he was exposed. He was removed as an RSS pracharak.

Taneja was introduced as a “space scientist” working on the Vishwa Hindu

Parishad’s (VHP) investigation into the Sethusamudram project, by none other than
the VHP leader Ashok Singhal, at a press conference in Delhi on May 2. Taneja
claimed that he was a “Senior Research Scientist” and an “Additional Secretary” in
the “Department of Space”. He also claimed that he was attached to the “Prime
Minister’s Office, South Block, New Delhi”, until he took leave from his government
job to investigate the Sethusamudram project and advance the Sangh Parivar’s
“righteous campaign” on the issue. In the process, he had also become an RSS
pracharak.

There is no evidence to suggest that Taneja’s research made any original

contribution to the VHP’s arguments on Ram Sethu. According to Sangh Parivar
insiders, Taneja was mostly repeating the arguments that the VHP has been
advancing for the past decade and a half. These included the contention that the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) space-borne cameras had
discovered the remains of the mythical bridge built by Rama across the Palk Strait.
The other argument was that “the bridge’s unique curvature and composition
conclusively proves that it was man-made”. Some engineering calculations were
presented by Taneja from time to time in an effort to buttress his point. The “space
scientist” had also presented so-called archaeological studies to argue that the first
signs of human habitation in Sri Lanka dated back to pre-historical times, about
1,750,000 years ago, and the bridge was almost as old. The mythical reign of Rama
was supposed to have taken place during the Tretha Yuga, that is, more than
1,700,000 years ago: this calculation would put the bridge during Ram’s time.

None of these arguments is new, but the presence of a “space scientist” associated
with the “Department of Space” was meant to lend some credibility to the VHP’s
contentions. “Everybody has a mission in life, and the Sethusamudram is my
mission,” Taneja went around proclaiming.

However, by June the RSS leadership received a number of complaints, some of

them from the outfits of the Sangh Parivar, pointing out that Taneja’s credentials
were fake. The RSS leadership was impelled to initiate an inquiry. As the
investigation gathered momentum, Taneja became incommunicado. The RSS
leadership decided to remove him as pracharak. These developments caused
considerable embarrassment to the Sangh Parivar and somewhat slowed down the
“Ram Sethu” campaign. Only the leadership of the VHP made some efforts to get
over this “setback” by holding periodic media conferences to warn “the UPA [United
Progressive Alliance] government at the Centre that Hindu rage would be unleashed
globally against it if it proceeded with the Sethusamudram project”. These routine
media conferences, however, had failed to generate popular appeal for the
campaign or even bring it up as a major point of discussion in national politics.

However, the developments after September 12, the day the ASI filed its affidavit in
the Supreme Court, changed this situation. Several RSS activists contacted by
Frontline in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Jharkhand pointed out that the issue had
become a matter of debate in many parts of northern India, though they were not
sure the campaign would evoke a mass response on the same scale as the Ayodhya
Ram temple agitation. A number of these activists thought the UPA, especially the
Congress, was largely responsible for generating the Ram Sethu debate. “The move
by the Congress leadership to withdraw the September 12 ASI affidavit and present
a fresh one has certainly lent authority to our position on the Sethusamudram
project,” said a Lucknow-based activist of the RSS.
 LAKSHMI NARAYANAN

M. Karunanidhi, Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, with Union Minister T.R.

Baalu and State Cabinet colleague Arcot N. Veerasamy in Yercaud, where
he unveiled a statue of DMK founder C.N. Annadurai, on September 16.

According to political analyst Hariraj Singh Tyagi, it is quite in character for the
Congress to lend this kind of credibility to a Hindutva campaign by the Sangh
Parivar. “The Ram Mandir campaign was floundering without mass support until the
Congress leadership of the 1980s, marshalled by Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi,
decided to open the gates of the disputed structure in Ayodhya for Hindu worship in
1987 and followed it up with the shilanyas [foundation stone laying ceremony] for a
proposed Ram Mandir in 1989. Both these moves had the political objective
advancing a soft Hindutva agenda and pandering to the Hindu sections of the
electorate at a juncture close to general elections. But what it ultimately did was to
grant much-needed credibility to the Sangh Parivar agitation. The disastrous
consequences are well recorded in history. The political gaffes being committed
around the Sethusamudram affidavits are also in the context of possible midterm
polls. It may not have as extreme consequences as the measures in Ayodhya did,
but there is little doubt that this has had the effect of bringing alive a Hindutva
agenda that was virtually dead,” Tyagi said.

The developments after September 12 also had the effect of bringing about a
semblance of unity among the warring outfits of the Sangh Parivar. The BJP, the
VHP and the Bajrang Dal have decided to work together on this issue, keeping aside
the animosities that had flared up intermittently between the leaderships of the BJP
and the other Sangh Parivar outfits in the past three years. In the process, L.K.
Advani has once again started projecting himself as a Hindutva leader and has
made spirited attempts to take charge of the campaign on the Sethusamudram
project. Developments in the run-up to the BJP National Executive in Bhopal during
September 21-23, as well as the happenings at the meet, highlighted this attempt.
It remains to be seen whether this will be allowed by Advani’s colleagues in the BJP,
such as party president Rajnath Singh, and leaders of other Sangh Parivar outfits.
There was an indication that Advani might face some internal resistance when
Ashok Singhal asserted that the RSS had authorised the Ram Sethu Raksha Samiti,
led by the VHP, to lead the agitation. Saying that there were clear directives on this
from the RSS, he said that all pro-Hindu organisations should act under the
leadership of the Ram Sethu Raksha Samiti. However, there is little doubt that in
the immediate aftermath of the recent developments the BJP and other
constituents of the Sangh Parivar have been able to put up an appearance of unity.

FLOUNDERING MOVES
R.V. MOORTHY

Union Minister for Culture Ambika Soni. She found herself under attack
within the party.

The Congress, on the other hand, not only helped the Sangh Parivar’s campaign by
its floundering moves, but also faced internal bickering on the issue. Many of its
leaders, including Congress Working Committee (CWC) member R.K. Dhawan and
Union Minister Jairam Ramesh, openly accused Union Culture Minister Ambika Soni
of being responsible for the ASI’s September 12 affidavit. Both leaders maintained
that Soni should take responsibility for filing the controversial affidavit and resign
from the Ministry. Though Ramesh later apologised to Soni, the factional fighting
was out in the open. There were indications that the Congress leaders who came
out against Soni could do so because Congress president Sonia Gandhi had herself
taken her to task over the affidavit.

As the internal squabble blew up, both Sonia Gandhi and Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh initiated damage-control efforts. They sent a message to all leaders of the
party to refrain from making “uncalled for comments”. A party statement on
September 20 asserted that “in the specific context of the Ram Sethu issue, in view
of the prompt withdrawal of the affidavit, reflecting the party’s and the
government’s alacrity and sensitivity on matters of personal belief and faith, the
matter should be treated as closed and uncalled for comments be avoided”.

The statement said: “The Congress is a vast democratic movement with ample
intra-party scope for conveying a wide spectrum of opinions and views which are
listened to, observed and where necessary acted upon… However, airing such views
in public generates unnecessary and avoidable confusion.”

According to highly placed sources in the Congress, the principal motivation for this
rearguard action was the escalating war of words between Dravida Munnetra
Kazhagam president and Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi and the Sangh
Parivar on the Sethusamudram project. Karunanidhi, who leads an important
constituent of the UPA, has completely rejected the “faith dimension” of the
opposition to the project and called the Sangh Parivar agitation “downright foolish”.
The arguments between Karunanidhi and Advani on the issue have been
acrimonious. Sources in the Congress say that the leadership is apprehensive that
the nature of the debate could set aside whatever little “soft Hindutva” gains the
Congress would have made from the act of backtracking on the ASI affidavit.

“The fact that Karunanidhi does not have to worry about a Hindu vote bank, unlike
parties that operate in northern India, makes the situation pregnant with
tremendous damage potential,” a Bihar Congress leader told Frontline.

In the context, the dominant mood in the Congress is one of foreboding. The ASI
affidavit imbroglio has come at an inopportune moment when the party’s
relationship with the Left is at an all-time low. The only consolation for the
Congress is that allies of the BJP in the NDA, such as the Janata Dal (United), do
not favour a Hindutva-oriented, extremist position on the Sethusamudram issue.

COVER STORY

Myth, history and politics

K.N. PANIKKAR
Now that Ayodhya is no more a potent force, Ram Sethu has emerged as a
possible alternative.
THE HINDU PHOTO LIBRARY

DECEMBER 6,1992. Kar sevaks atop the dome of the Babri Masjid at
Ayodhya.

EVER since Ayodhya became a disputed territory, Rama has been at the centre
stage of the political mobilisation by Hindu communal forces. The incidents
associated with the Rama Katha were invoked one after the other to appeal to the
religious sentiments of Hindus. It began with a claim to the birthplace of Rama at
Ayodhya, around which Hindu religious sentiments were so aroused as to lead to
the destruction of the Babri Masjid. In the movement culminating in this vandalism,
several symbols linked with Rama such as Rama Jyoti, Rama Paduka and Rama
Shila were floated.

Yet, over the years, the political appeal of Rama has waned despite his strong
presence in the religious life of believers. The temple issue was indeed kept alive
through occasional religious assemblies and demonstrations. Nevertheless, Rama
ceased to be of much emotional value that would provide political advantage to
Hindu communal forces. In the elections of 2004, the Ram temple did not figure as
an issue at all. This can be taken as an indication that believers were inclined to
abandon the Sangh Parivar’s aggressive Rama and return to worshipping his benign
image, looking upon Rama Katha, as they had for centuries, as an “allegory of the
life of the spirit as it journeyed through the world”.

Rama was almost lost to the political Hindu and was being resurrected to his
rightful place in the religious life of believers. It is in this context that the Ram
Sethu project has come in handy for the Sangh Parivar, to revive the appeal of
Rama in order to breathe some life into its sagging fortunes. Once again the Parivar
is bracing up to claim Rama for the communal cause. In the process it is attempting
to turn myth into history, blurring the distinction between the two, in order to gain
legitimacy for its political project.

The question of whether the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) should have filed
an affidavit in the Supreme Court denying the historical existence of Rama has led
to differences of opinion. The government has hastened to disclaim the affidavit and
withdraw it, obviously fearing a Hindu backlash. Unlike the Ayodhya issue, even the
secular voice has been rather muted. However, implicit in the affidavit is an
important question regarding our approach to the past: Is there a distinction
between myth and history?

Mythic Character

The ASI, it appeared, was conscious of this distinction in projecting the

mythological character of Rama. The distinction does not imply a counterposition of
myth and history as false and true. Myth is a way in which the human mind comes
to grips with reality, and therefore, it can be said that it refers to reality. Yet, myth
in itself is not reality. What the ASI has tried to state is that Rama was not a
historical figure but a mythic character.

Similarly, the Ramayana being a literary piece, which was not originally a religious
text but only sacralised later, contains many events and incidents that are products
of imagination. It would therefore be futile to try to correlate them with historical
fact and establish their authenticity. Such a view is not in any way a denigration of
Rama or a critical reflection on the Ramayana. The Ramayana’s literary quality,
whether in the original Sanskrit or in regional languages, is well known. So are the
ethical and moral values it foregrounds, which exercise considerable influence over
the life of believers.

However, devotion to Rama and the influence of the epic have nothing to do with
the historical veracity of Rama Katha. Devotees consider Rama an incarnation and
do not test his deeds by the yardstick of historical truth. They are moved by their
devotion and hardly approach the epic from a rational viewpoint or try to locate it
historically. Whether the Ramayana is historically true or not is not a factor in their
devotion. The Sangh Parivar has been trying for long to impute to incidents in the
epic a historical quality to legitimise popular belief, under a false notion that belief
would be reinforced by historical truth.

The panic reaction of the government in withdrawing the affidavit in effect endorses
the Sangh Parivar’s attempt to equate myth with history. Like the Sangh Parivar,
the government seems to subscribe to the view that ascribing mythic character to
Rama and the Ramayana is to undermine their importance and to injure the
sentiments of believers. It overlooks the fact that believers consider Rama an
incarnation. Traditional religious sources represent him so. The Matsya Purana, for
instance, gives the following account: “There is also the account of the pastimes of
Lord Rama, spoken by Valmiki – an account originally related by Brahma in one
billion verses. That Ramayana was later summarised by Narada and related by
Valmiki, who then presented it to mankind.” What accounts for the devotion to
Rama and the veneration of the Ramayana are not their historical veracity but their
divinity.

Many Ramayanas
K. MURALI KUMAR

BHARATIYA JANATA PARTY workers at a rally in Bangalore on July 6, 2005,

condemning the terrorist attack on the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi site at
Ayodhya the previous day and the UPA government's security lapse.

In an attempt to attribute historical authenticity to the epic and its protagonist, the
Sangh Parivar has been striving to privilege one single version of the Ramayana.
But the Ramayana has several versions. It is difficult to ascertain the exact number
as all of them are not written but are orally transmitted, both in India as well as in
other Asian countries. A.K. Ramanujan has argued that these different “tellings” – a
term he prefers to versions or variants as these imply an invariant or original text –
differ from one another. They are not mere divergences from Valmiki’s rendering
but entirely different tellings.
Highlighting the multivocal existence of Rama Katha, Paula Richman has drawn
attention to the many Ramayanas, of which Valmiki’s composition is one, Tulsi’s
another, Kamban’s another, the Buddhist Jataka yet another and the Jaina tradition
yet another. Along with them, there are also innumerable folk narratives, extant not
only in India but also in almost all the countries of Asia. They were not Valmiki’s
Ramayana adapted to local conditions but substantially different from one another,
both in form and content. In the Buddhist version, Rama and Sita are originally
brother and sister, a fact that once aroused the ire of the Sangh Parivar.

Women’s folksongs from Andhra Pradesh challenge the accepted values of a male-
dominated society by questioning the integrity of Rama and foregrounding the
theme of the suffering that husbandly neglect causes a wife. Thus, the Rama Katha
prevalent in different communities is vastly different and defies any attempt to
identify a universally applicable text. All of them draw upon locally specific cultural
traits, which impart to them a distinct character. Recent studies on different Rama
Katha traditions demonstrate the different tellings of Rama’s story that vary with
regional literary tradition, social location, gender, religious affiliation, colonial
context, intended audience, and so on.

K.R. Srinivasa Iyengar’s edited work highlights the Asian variations of the
Ramayana, and the essays in the volume edited by Avadesh Kumar Singh focus on
the way the epic has found expression in regional languages. The many Ramayanas
connote that the events and incidents in the different versions of the epic are not
historical facts but mythical representations or literary imaginations. The debate on
whether the Ramayana is a true story or whether Rama is a historical figure is,
therefore, off the mark.

The issue of Ram Sethu requires to be situated in the general context of the
mythological character of the Ramayana. The Sethu Bandhan encapsulates within it
several qualities of Rama and the character of the epic. Sethu Bandhan was a
humanly impossible task that was made possible only by the divine powers of
Rama. The description of Sethu Bandhan in one version of the Ramayana is as
follows: “During the first day of construction, monkeys laid a hundred and twenty
miles of rocks, which floated upon the ocean. They worked very swiftly, and were
happy to see the bridge take shape. The second day, they set down a hundred and
sixty miles of rocks; the third day, a hundred and sixty-eight miles; and the fourth
day, their strength increasing, they completed a hundred and seventy-six miles. On
the fifth and final day, the monkeys constructed a hundred and eighty-four miles of
bridge, up to Mount Suvala on the northern shore of Lanka. Thus when the bridge
was finished, it was eighty miles wide and eight hundred miles long.”

Obviously, a vanar sena would not have achieved this feat. The question, however,
is not its possibility or impossibility but how it enriches the mythical and divine
quality of Rama. Obviously Sethu Bandhan is a myth.

But then, when myths become part of the belief system, they can be put to use for
different purposes. Nobody in India has understood this better than the Sangh
Parivar as is evident from the manner in which they have manipulated the myth
and history of Ayodhya. Ram Sethu is an opportunity they are unlikely to let go of
easily.

The distinction between history and myth is well recognised. Myths are in a way the
opposite of historical facts, in the sense that, unlike historical facts, what
constitutes a myth is not verifiable. Despite this, myths and history cannot be
counterpoised as true and false.

THE HINDU PHOTO LIBRARY

L.K. ADVANI ON the Somnath-Ayodhya rath yatra of 1991. Sixteen years

later, the BJP apparently hopes Ram Sethu will yield the same political
mileage as Ram temple.

In fact, myths also represent reality but represent it symbolically and

metaphorically. Yet, myth masks reality. Therefore, myths are illusory
representations of man and his world. Given their illusory nature, myths may not
help to unravel the historicity of an event. Most myths are in a way timeless.
Nevertheless, myths being a reflection of reality constitute a source of historical
reconstruction and a means to understanding reality. Given this overlap, myths are
used for a variety of purposes. They often serve as an agency of legitimisation, as
in the case of Parasurama reclaiming land from the sea. They may also be
employed for explaining a natural phenomenon, as in the case of Helios’ chariot in
Greek mythology.

The use of myths has been integral to the politics of the Sangh Parivar. Beginning
with the movement for the construction of the temple at Ayodhya, the Sangh
Parivar has been engaged in providing authenticity to various myths surrounding
the life of Rama. The central issue of the Ayodhya movement was the identification
of the exact birthplace of Rama, which was difficult to ascertain owing to the lack of
evidence. Local tradition identifies Ayodhya through a popular myth, which runs as
follows: “After Treta Yuga when Ram was supposed to have been born Ayodhya
could not be located. While Vikramaditya was looking for Ayodhya, a saint told him
to leave a calf loose and the place at which the calf secreted milk would be the
place where Ayodhya was located. Vikramaditya did as he was told, and where the
calf secreted milk he located Ayodhya.” This mythical story became the basis for the
identification of Ayodhya as well as the birthplace of Rama.

In the accounts given by leaders of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), the place of
birth becomes an indisputable fact of history. Following this identification, the VHP
accorded historical status to a series of myths. These include the existence of the
Ram temple at the site of the Babri Masjid and the attempts by Hindus to reclaim
the temple through 77 battles against the Muslims in which 300,000 sacrificed their
lives. These myths have now become authentic histories; not only are they paraded
as historical facts, they have found place in textbooks as authentic history. Over a
period of time, many of these facts could become part of popular history also.

The politics of the Sangh Parivar is essentially irrational. The attempt to turn myth
into history and to use it for political advantage is rooted in irrationality. Now that
Ayodhya is no more a potent force, Ram Sethu has emerged as a possible
alternative. The Sangh Parivar is gearing up to exploit it. Would the ruling
establishment take a rational and scientific stand and not succumb to the fear of
the irrational?

K.N. Panikkar, a former professor of history at Jawaharlal Nehru University and a

former vice-chancellor of Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, is currently
the chairman of the Kerala Council for Historical Research.

COVER STORY

A bridge too far

T.S. SUBRAMANIAN
The Sethusamudram controversy may well reshape political alignments in
Tamil Nadu.
S.R. RAGHUNATHAN

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh presses the button to unveil the plaque
announcing the commencement of the Sethusamudram project in Madurai
on July 2, 2005, in the presence of Congress president Sonia Gandhi, DMK
chief M. Karunanidhi and Union Minister for Shipping T.R. Baalu.

THE Sethusamudram Ship Channel Project (SSCP) has seen several twists and
turns in its 147-year history, but the latest twist has a touch of irony as well. In
September 1998, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, heading the Bharatiya Janata
Party-led National Democratic Alliance government, announced at a rally organised
by the Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (MDMK) in Chennai that the
project would be implemented, but seven years later, the BJP is in the vanguard of
an agitation against the alignment of the channel.
The party is demanding that the channel should not cut through Ram Sethu or
Adam’s Bridge, which is a sandstone reef running from Rameswaram island in Tamil
Nadu to Talaimannar in Sri Lanka. For several kilometres on either side of the
submerged reef the sea is shallow, with a depth of only a little more than three
metres in many places. This prevents the movement of ships and even mechanised
trawlers.

It is a matter of faith for the BJP, which associates the bridge with the one
described in the Ramayana, but the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), the ruling
party in Tamil Nadu and an ally of the Congress at the Centre, will have none of it
and is determined to see the project through.

If the Congress ducked for cover after the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI)
submitted an affidavit in the Supreme Court that there was no proof that the
structure was man-made and that there was “no historical record to prove the
existence of the characters or the occurrence of events depicted” in the Ramayana,
the DMK went into attack mode.

At a rally on September 15 in Erode, the home-town of E.V. Ramasami, the

iconoclastic mentor of the DMK, Chief Minister and DMK president M. Karunanidhi
alleged that “some foxes are conspiring to bury the project” and equated it with the
attempt “to vanquish the Dravidian movement” itself.

Karunanidhi, who is an atheist, asked, “Who is that Rama? In which engineering

college did he graduate to become an engineer? When did he build that bridge? Is
there any evidence [to show that he built Ram Sethu]? No.” He moved a resolution
at the rally demanding that the Centre should not yield to threats from “some
communal forces which want to ruin the project and block the people in the South
from prospering”. The Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the Communist Party
of India (CPI) have pledged their strong support to the DMK in the implementation
of the project.

The All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), the principal Opposition
party in Tamil Nadu, has found common ground with the BJP on the issue and there
are incipient indications of the two parties coming together again to fight the Lok
Sabha elections due in 2009. The BJP and the AIADMK had fallen out after
contesting the 2004 Lok Sabha elections as partners.

AIADMK chief Jayalalithaa had filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking that
Ram Sethu be declared a national monument and that the Centre and other
agencies be restrained from destroying it while executing the project. Damage to or
destruction of Ram Sethu would lead to serious ecological, environmental and
security concerns, she contended in the petition.

For the MDMK, an ally of the AIADMK, it was a tightrope walk. The implementation
of the SSCP was a dream come true for the party, for it was at party general
secretary Vaiko’s instance that Vajpayee made the announcement in 1998. But with
both the BJP and the AIADMK opposing any damage to Adam’s Bridge, Vaiko said
that while it was not the MDMK’s intention to hurt any religious feelings, the Centre
should be firm in implementing the project.
The SSCP was launched on July 2, 2005, by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in
Madurai. Thousands of people who had gathered at the venue applauded as they
saw on closed-circuit television a dredger of the Dredging Corporation of India
throw out mud from the seabed at a point 45 km from Point Calimere in
Nagapattinam district. Congress president Sonia Gandhi and Karunanidhi, who was
not the Chief Minister then, were present on the occasion. Jayalalithaa, who was
the Chief Minister, boycotted the function although she was invited to be “the guest
of honour”.

The situation was tense in Rameswaram and fishermen across the State were out
on the streets, protesting against the project. Black flags flew from every
fisherman’s home at Thracepuram, the fishing centre in the heart of Tuticorin town.
Fishermen on the Ramanathapuram coast (where Rameswaram is located) set out
to sea in about 100 boats flying black flags.

Supporters of the project, a section of fishermen among them, advance the

following arguments. Not only will the channel cut down steaming time and fuel
costs, it will galvanise traffic for 15 small, neglected ports in Tamil Nadu, Andhra
Pradesh, Orissa and West Bengal. The channel will help in transmigration of fish
from the Gulf of Mannar to the Palk Bay and vice versa. Today, fishing is a seasonal
activity in the Gulf of Mannar and the Palk Bay, but the channel would make fishing
possible throughout the year in both areas. The fortunes of Tuticorin port and town
will improve dramatically from the transhipment of containers that originate from or
are destined for ports on the east coast of India. More than anything else, the
Indian Navy needs a channel in India’s own territorial waters.

Opponents of the project, including a section of fishermen, say it will not benefit
fishermen in any way because they would need big, powerful boats to go down to
the “south sea” to net the catch there. They point to environmentalists’ assertions
that dredging, which is a continuous activity, will kill prawns and fish and other
forms of marine life.

There has been opposition on ecological grounds as well. Non-governmental

organisations (NGOs) and informed environmentalists argue that dredging of the
channel on the shallow east coast will disturb the fragile marine ecology of the Palk
Strait and the Gulf of Mannar Marine Biosphere Reserve. They say the mud being
dredged up from the seabed will destroy the coral reefs and lead to the extinction
of seacows, sea cucumber, prawns and a variety of marine life.

HANDOUT

A Dredging Corporation of India vessel at work in the Palk Strait soon after
the official inauguration.
All for the channel
Nine proposals were made from 1860 to 1922 for cutting a channel through
Rameswaram island or by dredging the Palk Strait for ships to pass, cutting travel
time and distance between the east and west coasts of India.

Commander A.D. Taylor of the British Navy first proposed in 1860 the excavation of
a channel through “Thonithurai peninsula”. The next year Townshend of Plymouth in
the United Kingdom suggested the deepening of the Pamban channel near
Rameswaram to allow large vessels to sail. A committee of the British Parliament,
appointed in 1862 upon a request from a British official, J.D. Elphinstone,
suggested that the channel could be excavated one mile west of Pamban. In 1863,
Sir William Dennison, Governor of Madras and an engineer by profession, visited
Pamban and made yet another proposal (Frontline, May 12, 2000).

More proposals followed, including one from John Code in 1884 for digging a
channel for the South Indian Ship Canal Port and Coaling Station. In 1902, a
proposal from the South Indian Railway Company endorsed Code’s plan. In 1922,
Robert Bristow, Harbour Engineer for the Government of India, came up with an
alternative route. All these proposals never got off the ground.

After Independence there was no let up in the vigorous demand of political parties
in Tamil Nadu for the implementation of the SSCP. Traders and industrialists in
Tuticorin, too, lobbied hard for it. In December 1955, the Government of India set
up the Sethusamudram Project Committee with Dr. A. Ramaswami Mudaliar as its
chairman and it pronounced the project viable. Although it recommended that “the
Sethusamudram Ship Canal Project and Tuticorin Harbour Project are closely inter-
related and that they should be executed as part of one and the same project and
should be completed during the Second Five-Year Plan”, the recommendation fell on
deaf ears.

Nothing happened in the Third Five-Year Plan either. It looked as if the project
might see the light of the day in the Fourth Plan. After the Tuticorin Harbour Project
was sanctioned in 1963, the Union Cabinet recommended on September 12, 1963,
that the SSCP be included among the projects for “advance action” under the
Fourth Plan.

A committee was set up in 1964 with Union Transport Secretary Nagendra Singh as
chairman and its project report recommended the execution of the SSCP in tandem
with the Tuticorin Harbour Project. It proposed the cutting of a channel through
Rameswaram town. Let alone in the Fourth Plan, the SSCP did not find a mention
even in the Fifth Five-Year Plan (Frontline, May 12, 2000).

There were more reports, including one from J.I. Coilpillai, retired Chief Engineer of
the Tamil Nadu Public Works Department and Administrator, Tuticorin Harbour
Project, and another from H.R. Lakshmi Narayanan. The project remained a non-
starter but all political parties in Tamil Nadu kept up the pressure for its
implementation. In 1986, the Tamil Nadu Assembly unanimously passed a
resolution demanding the execution of the SSCP.

The execution became a reality when Manmohan Singh inaugurated the project in
July 2005. Sethusamudram Corporation Limited, a special purpose vehicle, is in
charge of dredging the channel, which will be 167 km long, 300 metres wide and 12
metres deep and is estimated to cost Rs.2,427 crore. The Tuticorin Port Trust is the
nodal agency for executing the project (Frontline, July 29, 2005).
After Independence, six alignments were proposed for the channel. The sixth is the
one that is being executed. It will cut through Adam’s Bridge and will be 35 km long
in the Adam’s Bridge area, 54 km in the Palk Strait and 78 km in the Palk Bay.
There will be no dredging in the Palk Bay because of its natural depth (Frontline,
July 29, 2005).

Incidentally, one of the proposed alignments was dropped because it would have
meant dismantling the Kothandaramaswamy temple situated off Rameswaram
town. Legend has it that Rama crowned Vibhishana, Ravana’s brother, the king of
Sri Lanka at the spot where the Kothandaramaswamy temple stands.