India’s United Progressive Alliance came to power
in 2004 on a secular platform. But it has now
beaten an ignominious retreat on the Ram Setu
(Adam’s Bridge) issue pertaining to the proposed
Sethusamudram ship-canal project in the Palk
Straits by caving in to the Sangh Parivar.
Having told the Supreme Court through an
affidavit filed by the Archaeological Survey of
India (ASI) that there is no clinching evidence
that the shoal/sandbar structure in the Gulf of
Mannar was built by Lord Rama’s followers, it
executed a U-turn as soon as it sensed that the
Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bharatiya Janata Party
might exploit it by misconstruing it as
“anti-Hindu.”
The Sangh Parivar contends that the affidavit
denies Ram’s existence and constitutes
“blasphemy” and an “insult to the Hindus.” As L K
Advani claimed, "the government has sought to
negate all that the Hindus consider sacred … and
wounded the very idea of India."
Following media spin, some secular liberals too
wrongly described the affidavit as overreaching
or tactless because it callously "denies Ram’s
existence, goes beyond saying that the Setu is a
natural formation, and comments on the
historicity of sacred texts like the Ramayana and
Tulasidas’s Ramacharitamanas.
However, a close look shows that the affidavit
merely rejects the view that such texts are an
incontrovertible historical record which proves
that the Setu is a man-made structure. The ASI
had to say this because the communal petitioners
moving the court relied primarily on the Ramayana
and Ramacharitamanas as clinching evidence that
the Setu was man-made.
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 natural
formations like Adam’s Bridge — and accepting
that the project must be scrapped because of
myths and scriptures, not fact.
Yet, the affidavit is extremely deferential to
the scriptures: "The ASI is aware of and duly
respects the deep religious import bestowed upon
these texts by the Hindu community across the
globe…" Yet, it argues that no material evidence,
such as human remains or other artefacts, has
been discovered at the site, which would
corroborate the mythological account.
It also quotes studies by the Space Applications
Centre, Ahmedabad, which “conclusively” show that
the Setu formation is purely natural, and says
that the imagery collected by the US National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
cannot be interpreted as “proof” of a man-made
structure. NASA itself has clarified that remote
visual images cannot prove or disprove this.
Historians also concur that the Setu cannot be
considered a man-made entity because no material
evidence to authenticate this has been found.
That’s not all. A Geological Survey of India
study around Adam’s Bridge, based on drilling
holes into submerged rocks, also found "no
evidence" of man-made structures. It revealed
three cycles of sedimentation of clay, limestone
and sandstone — a natural phenomenon which
occurred thousands of years before humans settled
in peninsular India.
The ASI succinctly summarised all this. It could
have been more diplomatic in wording its
affidavit. But it’s doubtful if that would have
satisfied those opposing the project on grounds
not amenable to reason or scientific debate.
Yet, the mere threat of an agitation by the Sangh
Parivar against disturbing the Setu through the
canal project so unnerved the government that it
abjectly apologised for the affidavit. Law
Minister H R Bhardwaj said: "Lord Rama is an
integral part of Indian culture and ethos … and
cannot be a matter of debate … His existence
can’t be put to the test… The whole world exists
because of Rama.“Bhardwaj got melodramatically poetic:”Just as
the Himalayas are the Himalayas, the Ganga is the
Ganga, Rama is Rama… It’s a question of faith.
There is no requirement of proof" for such faith.
The same Bhardwaj was minister of state for law
in the mid-1980s, and advised Rajiv Gandhi to
commit two acts of “appeasement” within one
month: first, open the gates of the Babri Masjid
and trigger a communal mobilisation, and second,
amend laws to annul the Shah Bano verdict. These
disastrous moves alienated the Congress from both
communities, and ensured the BJP’s meteoric rise
from a mere two Lok Sabha seats in 1984 to 89 in
1989. The rest is history.
Last week too, the UPA cravenly capitulated to
the VHP-BJP’s bullying, without making even token
criticism of their gross distortion of the ASI
affidavit. Instead, it started looking for
scapegoats within — the ASI’s senior directors
and Culture Minister Ambika Soni. All that made
the UPA change its mind was a few VHP marches in
one day!
The UPA’s disgraceful U-turn buoyed up the Sangh
Parivar, which has been in ideological and
organisational disarray, as evidenced by new
power struggles within the BJP, and growing
tensions between it and the VHP/RSS.
It’s a sign of the relative acceptance that
soft-Hindutva continues to enjoy among the Indian
elite that the UPA’s appeasement of the Parivar
has attracted very little criticism from the
mainstream media. Perhaps many liberals felt
relieved that the UPA quickly defused the 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 conclusions follow. First, this episode
demonstrates the UPA’s weak-kneed response to
majoritarian communalism rather than the strength
of the popular sentiment on the Ram Setu issue,
which is, if anything, diffuse. The UPA simply
didn’t have the stomach to assert the relevant
scientific-historical arguments in self-defence.
By caving in to the Parivar, it legitimised the
communal claim that there’s an overwhelming
“Hindu sentiment” on the Ram Setu.
In reality, the Hindus are an extraordinarily
complex, large and diverse community. Hindu myths
and legends about Rama and Ravana differ widely
not just between the North and the South, but
within the regions too. Any view that
artificially homogenises this diversity distorts
reality.
Indeed, it’s doubtful if many devout Hindus even
know about the Setu — just as most of them
probably hadn’t even heard of Ram Janmabhoomi
until the Sangh Parivar launched its agitation
after the Babri Masjid’s gates had been unlocked.
In any case, one doesn’t have to believe in the
Setu’s historicity to be a good Hindu.
Second, it’s simply false to argue that to be
“authentic,” Indian secularism must be rooted in
the culture of the religious majority, and that
such culture must include myths and scriptures,
while excluding archaeology, history and science.
Secularism involves the basic separation of
religion and politics. In the Indian case,
secularism derives as much from universal
citizenship cutting across religious lines, as
from the imperative of tolerance and
inter-communal harmony.
Finally, by capitulating to the Parivar, the UPA
has violated the Constitutional mandate to uphold
secular values and not to privilege a particular
religion or belief system. This mandate is part
of the Basic Structure of the Indian
Constitution. It dictates that decisions about
development projects should be taken on social,
environmental and economic grounds, not
mythological ones.
Each time the Indian state bends to
fundamentalist pressure, it compromises itself,
and allows public reason to be trumped by
religious belief or private prejudice. This isn’t
the mark of a society that aspires to modernity,
tolerance and pluralism.