Hindus say don't mess with Rama's
Bridge By Praful Bidwai
NEW DELHI - India's plans to dredge a
navigable canal between Palk Bay and the Gulf of
Mannar (which separates India from Sri Lanka) in
the face of strong economic and ecological
objections have now run, of all things, into a
religious obstacle.
This has taken the
shape of fierce opposition to the project from
Hindu fundamentalist or communal groups, which
claim that the canal's construction will damage a
sub-sea structure of great religious-historical
importance, popularly called Ram Setu (Lord
Rama's Bridge) or (according
to a Muslim legend) Adam's Bridge.
These
groups, led by the right-wing Bharatiya Janata
Party (BJP) and its more extremist cohorts such
as the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (World Hindu
Organization or VHP) and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak
Sangh (National Self-help Organization), contend
that the shoal/sandbar formation is an artificial
structure - a bridge to Sri Lanka constructed in
ancient times under Rama's instructions by an army
of monkeys.
The Sethusamudram Ship Canal
Project is also creating a rift within India's
ruling United Progressive Alliance (UPA), in
particular between the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagham
(DMK) and the Congress party, which is the UPA's
largest component.
The DMK, which rules
the southern state of Tamil Nadu and also holds
the surface-transport portfolio in the federal
government, is strongly rooting for the project,
which offers contracts worth more than US$600
million. It summarily dismisses all arguments
against the canal, including religious ones.
The VHP has launched a vicious attack on
the DMK. One of its senior leaders has offered a
reward in gold to anyone who beheads DMK leader
and Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M Karunanidhi.
The Congress, under pressure from the BJP,
has turned defensive and apologetic, and ended up
lending respectability to the Hindu communalists'
arguments, which border on rank obscurantism.
The UPA government has withdrawn a
detailed affidavit filed by the official
Archeological Survey of India (ASI) in the Supreme
Court explaining why the Ram Setu is a natural,
not man-made, structure.
Ironically, there
is little debate on rational grounds on the real,
substantive, critical issues involved: namely, the
questionable economic viability of the canal, and
the environmental destruction it would likely
cause.
Nor is there a reference any longer
to the disquiet the project may have caused in Sri
Lanka. Government experts in that country are
known to have apprehensions about the hydrological
impact of the project.
The Indian
government appears to have prevailed over them by
claiming that the Sethusamudram canal would speed
up the movement of naval ships and help intercept
the boats of the militant Liberation Tigers of
Tamil Eelam.
Meanwhile, the Ram Setu issue
is before India's Supreme Court in a petition
arguing that the bridge is a man-made structure of
great importance to the Hindus and must not be
disturbed. In support of this claim, the
petitioner has cited scriptures and mythological
texts such as the Ramayana and an epic poem
eulogizing Ram, written in the Middle Ages.
"All kinds of agendas have got mixed up in
the Sethusamudram issue," said Tanika Sarkar, a
historian who teaches at Jawaharlal Nehru
University and has studied the evolution of the
BJP in depth. "They won't get disentangled until
the BJP's claim about the Ram Setu is sorted out.
That will demand courage from the government and a
commitment to stand by the expert opinions of
archeologists, historians and geologists on the
nature of the structure."
Such opinions
are unanimous. Besides the ASI, historians,
geologists, and earth and marine scientists have
said the Ram Setu cannot be considered a man-made
entity in the absence of material evidence.
Yet the BJP and its cohorts contend that
the ASI affidavit denies Ram's existence and
constitutes "blasphemy" and an "insult to the
Hindus". The government has "sought to negate all
that the Hindus consider sacred ... and wounded
the very idea of India", it railed.
In
fact, the affidavit is extremely deferential to
the scriptures. It reads: "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 artifacts, has been
discovered at the site, which would corroborate
the mythological account.
It also quotes
studies by India's Space Applications Center,
which "conclusively" show that the Setu formation
is purely natural, and says that the imagery
collected by the US National Aeronautics and Space
Administration cannot be interpreted as "proof" of
a man-made structure. NASA itself has clarified
that remote visual images cannot prove or disprove
this.
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 that occurred
millennia before humans settled in peninsular
India.
"The BJP is trying to exploit
superstition and rank ignorance to press its
ridiculous claims," said Sarkar. "It has developed
this into a political tactic. It succeeded in
doing that in Ayodhya, in Uttar Pradesh, in the
1980s by claiming that a temple marking the
birthplace of Rama had been destroyed there by the
first Mughal emperor in the 16th century to build
a mosque."
The BJP mobilized a hysterical
campaign that eventually led to the demolition of
the mosque in December 1992, and a series of
violent riots against Muslims all over the
country.
Economists and environmentalists
argue against the canal project on the ground that
it would result in very little saving in terms of
shipping distance or time, but would cause
enormous ecological destruction.
Jacob
John, an infrastructure economist, argues that the
canal would cut transit time for coastal shipping,
but would have little benefit for international
shipping from Europe and Africa, which accounts
for two-thirds of the maritime traffic. In fact,
transit time from Africa to Kolkata would likely
increase by 3.5 hours because piloting a ship
through the canal, which would have a shallow
draft, would be a slow process.
The
economic rate of return from the project is
estimated to be just 2.5%. But India is acquiring
loans for the project at rates as high as 8%.
"The Sethusamudram canal is an economic
deadweight," said Sudarshan Rodrigues, a
Chennai-based environmental economist and marine
conservationist. "But its ecological impact will
be utterly disastrous. The project area is part of
the Gulf of Mannar marine biological reserve,
which has over 3,600 species and major groups of
biological resources, including precious
mangroves, which protect the coast against storms
and tidal waves. Some of them are endangered
species. The canal's construction will jeopardize
their existence."
Among the endangered
species are sea fans, sponges, pearl oysters,
chanks (conchs), holothuroids and, above all,
coral reefs. Corals, sea fans, sponges and
holothurians (sea cucumbers) are all "protected
species" under the Indian Wildlife (Protection)
Act, 1972. Corals belong to the same "protected
status" schedule of the act as the tiger.
"The project is a recipe for destruction
and ruin, and must be opposed on environmental and
economic grounds. But superstition and blind faith
guide decision-making in a globalizing India that
aspires to become a modern economic superpower,"
said Sudarshan.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
