Rama Setu is sacred, place of worship: UOI & SC should NOT play with fire

Rama Setu is sacred, place of worship: UOI & SC should NOT play with fire

Union of India (UOI)and justice system should NOT play with fire: Rama Setu is sacred and is worshipped. It is a mandiram. It is because of Rama Setu, there is Rameshwaram, Setupati Raja of Ramnad and Setu yatra is a pilgrimage to one of the four dhaam-s in Hindu tradition for millennia.

Just as US courts protected a mountain held sacred by Navajo, it is the duty of the State and SC to protect and safeguard the civil rights of Hindus. Failure to protect and desecration of a sacred monument, a place of worship, will invoke Section 295 and Section 304 of IPC.

Three facts should be brought to the notice of the Hon’ble SC who seem to be playing with fire.

1. There is a third S’ivalinga and mandiram in the middle of the Rama Setu. People of faith, desirous of children, go their to perform puja, sankalpa and samudrasnaanam. This is also confirmed by Guru Dasa Swamigal (1848-1929).

2. Even the Union of India (represented by Setusamudram Corpn) had stated in their affidavit to Madras HC that a viewing gallery would be built at Dhanushkodi for pilgrims to pay obeisance to Rama Setu.

3. Inauguration of the converted BG line with cantilever bridge at Pamban gap between Manamadurai and Rameshwaram was transferred from Rameshwaram to Manamadurai because people protested against the inconvenience caused to lakhs of pilgrims who visited Rama Setu for worship on that day, Ashadha Amavasya day. About 5 lakh pilgrims visit every year on that day to perform pitru-tarpanam, samudra snaanam and worship Rama Setu. This was the day on August 12, 2007 when the inauguration session of the broad-gauge line to Rameshwaram by some politicians was transferred, after pilgrims protested, to Manamadurai so as not to cause inconvenience to the pilgrims with the super security measures in place. Such actions of the State contradict the unfounded averment made by the Respondent which raises a serious question in Constitutional law: fundamental duty of the State to protect the citizens' right to exercise religion and limits to the exercise of State power burdening such exercise.

4. Today, the Rama Setu is a stretch of tidal-s with continuing ebbs and tides of the Indian Ocean leaving the Setu visible; pilgrims stand on the Setu and walk through for some distance from Dhanushkodi to Talaimannar (Srilanka).

5. Madras HC order which was endorsed by the Hon’ble SC for compliance by respondents noted this statement of the respondent and cited Section 295 of IPC.
Section 295A. Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings or any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs
1[295A. Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings or any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.

Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of 2[citizens of India], 3[by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise], insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 4[three years], or with fine, or with both.]

1. Ins. by Act 25 of 1927, s. 2.

2. Subs. by the A.O. 1950, for "His Majesty's subjects".

3. Subs. by Act 41 of 1961, s. 3, for certain words (w.e.f. 27-9-1961)

4. Subs. by Act 41 of 1961, s. 3, for "two years" (w.e.f. 27-9-1961)
http://setubandha.blogspot.com/2008/04/textual-evidence-19th-cent-for-ramar.html
Textual evidence (19thcentury) for a third s'ivamandiram located in the middle of Rama Setu

Kumara Guru Dasa Swamigal or Pamban Swamigal 1848-1929 had sung 6666 songs. In the compilation realated to tirthasthana dars'ana, (referred to in Tamil as Tiruvalam); in the second kaanda (kat.t.al.aik kavittur-aikal.), there is a song titled: Tiruccetumatti (In the middle of Rama Setu);Translation from Tamil rendering is as follows:

In the middle of Rama Setu enveloped by the ocean and the clouds, is the s'ivalinga worshipped by vibhuti-wearing Rama, the Kaakutsa ; I bow down with love imagining S'iva in the form of Kugesa Muruga who is searching for me and finds me.
This remarkable song emphatically provides literary evidence for the existence of a third s'iva linga on Rama Setu: one is at Rasmes'waram, the other is at Tirukkedees'varam (on the Talaimannar end) and the third is in the middle of Rama Setu.

This textual evidence matches with the tradition held sacred by people of the nation. Grandmothers recall with fondness that their ancestors had performed setutirtham at this Ramar Palam S'ivamandiram praying for the blessing of child-birth (magarperu).
It is the duty of Archaeological Survey of India to find this third s'ivamandiram.
This and other textual and archaeological evidences are contained in the Second Part of Setubandhanam (Ramar Palam), a book authored by R. Subbarayalu and published in March 2008 by Thanjavur, Mamannan Padippagam, 126 Natcattiranagar, Thanjavur 613005. All citizens of the world who adore the heritage of Sri Rama owe an immense debt of gratitude to Shri R. Subbarayulu for publishing updates of the gem of a work, a veritable garland of literary flowers adoring Sri Rama and Rama Setu or Setubandhanam.
This work adds to the evidence recorded in the Madras High Court's judgement of 19 June 2007 emphatically attesting to the ancient monument, Rama Setu.

It is possible that the cyclone which submerged some portions of Rama Setu in 1480 also submerged this third s'ivamandiram on Ramar Palam (Rama Setu).

Dr. S. Kalyanaraman

U.S. court backs Indian tribe on sacred mountain By Adam Tanner
REUTERS
10:46 a.m. March 12, 2007
SAN FRANCISCO – An Arizona ski resort's plan to use treated sewage to make snow on a mountain sacred to several Native American tribes violates religious freedom laws, a U.S federal appeals court ruled Monday.
"We hold that the Forest Service's approval of the proposed expansion of the Snowbowl, including the use of treated sewage effluent to make artificial snow, violates RFRA," a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals wrote.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, holds that the federal government may not "substantially burden a person's exercise of religion."
The dispute is one of the most prominent in recent years pitting the religious beliefs of American Indians against local economic interests.
According to the Navajo Nation, the San Francisco Peaks are sacred to more than 13 Native American nations.
"They walked all over our dignity," Navajo Nation President Joe Shirley Jr. said in 2005. "You're committing genocide; you're demeaning us." The Arizona Snowbowl ski resort, 150 miles north of Phoenix, wanted to use artificial snow to enable skiing throughout the winter and says the move in the San Francisco Peaks is crucial to its economic survival.
Organized skiing started at Snowbowl in 1938, but has depended on highly variable natural snowfall rather than using artificial snow as at many U.S. resorts. In many years, enthusiasts can ski for more than 100 days a year, although in the especially poor 2001-2 season there were only four days when skiing was possible.
Last year, a U.S. District Court judge backed the plans to allow a $25 million upgrade on the 777-acre facility on federal forest land to include the use of treated sewage water.
The Navajo Nation, which has an estimated 300,000 tribal members in Arizona, New Mexico and Utah, joined several other tribes and environmental groups to fight the decision.
The appeals court decision described the religious significance of the Peaks to the Navajos, Hopi, Hualapai, Havasupai tribes, among others, and how sewage is treated to make reclaimed water.
"The record supports the conclusion that the proposed use of treated sewage effluent on the San Francisco Peaks would impose a burden on the religious exercise of all four tribes discussed above – the Navajo, the Hopi, the Hualapai, and the Havasupai," wrote Judge William Fletcher.
"We are unwilling to hold that authorizing the use of artificial snow at an already functioning commercial ski area in order to expand and improve its facilities, as well as to extend its ski season in dry years, is a governmental interest 'of the highest order."
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20070312-1046-environment-navajos.html
Front Page

Petitioners get time to file rejoinder in Sethu case
Legal Correspondent (The Hindu, April 16, 2008)
It is people’s belief that Ramar Sethu is a sacred place: Subramanian Swamy
________________________________________
Who says it is a place of worship, asks Justice Raveendran
We don’t say Ramar Sethu is not a sacred place: Chief Justice
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted two weeks to petitioners to file their rejoinder to the Centre’s stand that it was not feasible to consider an alignment alternative to the existing one for the Sethusamudram Ship Channel Project.
When the matter was taken up by a two-judge Bench, it was pointed out that except Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy, no petitioner including Rama Gopalan had filed his rejoinder. Dr. Swamy said the Centre had not complied with the court direction to carry out a study whether Ramar Sethu (Adam’s Bridge) could be declared an ancient monument. Nor did it state whether the Archaeological Survey of India had conducted any such study.
Senior counsel K.K. Venugopal, M.N. Krishnamani and Arun Jaitley, appearing for the other petitioners, said the issue raised in the petitions could not be decided without the Centre carrying out the study.
Senior counsel Fali Nariman, appearing for the Shipping Ministry, said the Centre had filed a comprehensive affidavit on the basis of the report of the Committee of Eminent Persons, and the matter could be argued.
Additional Solicitor-General R. Mohan appeared for the Sethusamudram Shipping Corporation.
Dr. Swamy said the Centre was now seeking to implement the project by demolishing Ramar Sethu. It could not be destroyed as it was a place of worship and anyone who tried to damage it should be booked for criminal offence under Section 295 of the Indian Penal Code.
Judge’s poser
Justice R.V. Raveendran retorted: “Who says it is a place of worship? Who goes to the middle of the sea to worship?”
Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan told Dr. Swamy: “Don’t say people go there and worship.” He replied: “It is an admitted place of worship and I go there every year to worship. Lordship, it is not a question of your belief, but it is the belief of the people of this country.”
When the Chief Justice said, “It was a matter of perception,” Dr. Swamy replied: “Hindus unanimously believe that it is a place of worship. It is not [just] my belief. It is the belief of people of this country that it is a sacred place. You [court] cannot sanction the belief of the people.”
When Mr. Krishnamani joined Dr. Swamy and said, “People go to Rameswaram for worshipping Ramar Sethu,” the Chief Justice said, “We don’t say that it [Ramar Sethu] is not a sacred place.”
Acting on Dr. Swamy’s application, the court on August 31, 2007 restrained the Centre and the Sethusamudram Corporation from causing any damage to Ramar Sethu, while permitting dredging to continue.
In response, the Centre, quoting the report of eminent persons, asserted that there was no evidence to prove that Ramar Sethu was man made, and that it was only a natural formation. The existing ‘Alignment No. 6’ was the result of a comprehensive and careful examination of all relevant considerations since 1956, it said and prayed for vacating the interim stay.
The Bench posted further hearing to April 29.
http://www.hindu.com/2008/04/16/stories/2008041655761300.htm

‘Sethu a place of worship’
By OUR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT (Howrah News Service)
New Delhi, April 15: Fresh attempts on religious grounds to oppose the Sethusamudram Project on Tuesday evoked sharp reactions from the Supreme Court, which expressed its displeasure for calling Ram Sethu a place of worship. The Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan said, "Who says it (Ram Sethu) is a place of worship? Who goes to the middle of the sea to worship? Don’t say people go there and worship."
The apex court bench observations came when Janata Party president Subramanium Swamy, submitted that Ram Sethu has to be protected as it was a place of worship for Hindus. The Supreme Court has posted for April 29 the hearing on the Centre’s plea to go ahead with the Sethusamudram Project. The Centre on February 29 filed a fresh 60-page affidavit in the apex court, which was cleared by the Cabinet Committee of Political Affairs (CCPA), chaired by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, and said, opposition to the Sethusamudram Project, which started two years ago was misconceived and unsubstantiated and the court should refrain from interdicting.
Dr Swamy, who was pressing that the Centre was bound by the Madras high court order to consider archaeological probe to declare Ram Sethu as an ancient monument, said that it has been held by Hindus as sacred and anyone who tries to damage it should be booked for criminal offence under Section 295 of the Indian Penal Code. "It is an admitted place of worship and I go every year to worship. Lordship, it is not a question of your belief, but it is the belief of the people of this country."
http://howrah.org/india_news/9449.html

Tiff in apex court over Ram Sethu
Tuesday, April 15, 2008 19:35 [IST] (Indiainfo.com)
New Delhi: A minor tiff took place on Tuesday between Supreme Court judges on one hand and on the other a petitioner opposed to the Sethusamudram project.
The tiff took place as the bench of Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Justice R.V. Raveendran questioned the petitioner and former minister Subramanian Swamy's argument that "millions of Hindus worship Ram Sethu".
Swamy made the statement while arguing that the apex court must not suspend its order which had banned last year the dredging of the Adam Bridge or the Ram Sethu to build a sea route between India and Sri Lanka.
"It is an admitted fact that millions of Hindus worship Ram Sethu," Swamy said. This led Justice Raveendran to ask: "Who has gone there to worship?"
And Chief Justice Balakrishnan added: "You cannot say that the people go there to worship as this is under the sea." These remarks by the bench appeared to upset Swamy and counsel for various other petitioners, who raised their voice and said: "It's an admitted fact that Ram Sethu is regarded as a religious place and millions of Hindus go to Rameshwaram to worship it".
"It's the belief of the people of the country and the court cannot say that it's not a place of worship," Swamy said.
The chief justice replied: "We do not say that it's not a sacred place. It's one's perception." But Swamy said: "It's not a perception. It's an admitted fact that Hindus regard it as a place of worship."
The Sethusamudram project envisages dredging of a ship channel across the Palk straits between India and Sri Lanka. The project will allow ships sailing between the east and west coasts of India to have a shorter passage instead of having to go around Sri Lanka. This will lead to a saving of up to 424 nautical miles (780 km) and up to 30 hours in sailing time.
A number of organisations have opposed the project, saying it would destroy the bridge used by Lord Ram and his army, going by the Indian epic Ramayana.
Earlier, Swamy recalled that the Madras High Court had asked the central government to file an affidavit stating whether any study has been conducted to ascertain whether Ram Sethu could be declared a national monument.
But last year, when the Supreme Court transferred from the Madras High Court all the lawsuits opposed to Sethusamudram project to itself, it had not stayed the high court's order, said Swamy.
He sought the apex court's direction to the government to comply with the high court order.
Senior counsel K.K. Venugopal, appearing for one of the petitioners, pointed out to the court that the Archaeological Survey of India has clearly mentioned in its affidavit that they have never undertaken any study to determine if the Ram Sethu could be declared a national monument.
But owing to the minor tiff, the bench adjourned the hearing of the matter to April 29, directing various parties to file their affidavits and counter-affidavits on the issue before then.
http://news.indiainfo.com/2008/04/15/0804151936_ram_sethu.html


Sethu not a place of worship: SC
16 Apr, 2008, 0035 hrs IST, TNN
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that Ram Sethu, cannot be called a place of worship, though it may be a sacred structure. “Who says it (Ram Sethu) is a place of worship? Who goes to the middle of the sea to worship,” a bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justice R V Raveendran asked.

“Don’t say people go there and worship,” observed the apex court when Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy submitted that Ram Sethu has to be protected as it was a place of worship for devout Hindus. The court, however, said that it may be a sacred structure making a differentiation between the two concepts.

Swamy said that the Centre was bound by the Madras high court order directing to consider an archaeological probe to declare Ram Sethu as an ancient monument. He said that Ram Sethu has been held by Hindus as sacred and anyone who tries to damage it should be booked for criminal offence under Section 295 of the Indian Penal Code. “Its an admitted place of worship and I go every year to worship,” he said adding, “lordship, it is not a question of your belief, but it is the belief of the people of this country.”

When the bench said it was a matter of perception, Swamy said, “Hindus unanimously believe that its a place of worship. It is not my belief. It is the belief of people of this country that it is a sacred place,” he further said, adding that “you (court) cannot sanction the belief of the people”.

Swamy and others who have opposed the project, which allegedly involved breaking of the Ram Sethu, a 30-km long reef connecting Talaimannar coast of Sri Lanka and situated south-east off Rameshwaram, wanted that the Centre should clarify its stand according to the high court order.

Senior advocates K K Venugopal and Arun Jaitley, appearing for other petitioners, submitted that though the Centre last year had withdrew its controversial affidavit, the order of the high court on archaeological investigations before the petitions were transferred, was still in existence. However, the court said, “You (petitioners) cannot insist on high court order when order has been passed by this court.”

The Centre, which on February 29 filed the fresh affidavit after the flip-flop over Ram Sethu, has now decided to engage noted jurist Fali S Nariman to seek clearance for going ahead with the Rs 2,087-crore project.

Meanwhile, after complaints that some of the petitioners had not got the entire documents filed along with the fresh affidavit, the bench posted the matter for hearing on April 29. The Centre in its fresh affidavit has sought clearance for going ahead with the Sethusamudram project on the same alignment, saying issues of faith cannot be resolved through scientific evidence.

The affidavit cleared by the Cabinet Committee of Political Affairs, which was chaired by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, has said the opposition to the project which started two years back was “misconceived” and “unsubstantiated” and the court should “refrain from interdicting”.

The Centre has said that a committee of eminent persons appointed on October 5, 2007, re-examined the entire project, including the six possible alignments, to conclude that the alignment No-6 (Ram Sethu) was the “best alternative” and to alter channel alignment at this stage would be “infeasible” as it would lead to huge losses to the public exchequer.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/PoliticsNation/Sethu_not_a_place_of_worship_SC/articleshow/2954542.cms

SC: Is Sethu a place of worship?
16 Apr 2008, 0128 hrs IST , Dhananjay Mahapatra , TNN (Times of India)

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court's remark — "How is Ram Sethu a place of worship" — triggered vociferous protests on Tuesday from petitioners who have challenged the Centre's decision to dredge Adam's Bridge partially for opening a shipping channel designed to reduce the shipping distance between the western and eastern coast of India.

The poser came in response to the assertion of Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy that Ram Sethu was a religious place of worship and anyone dredging it would be liable to be punished under the existing law.

This led to sharp questions from the Bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justice R V Raveendran who seemed to be sceptical of the claim about Sethu. "How is Ram Sethu a place of worship? Who does puja in the middle of the sea? Do not argue that people go there and worship Ram Sethu. It is not Rameshwaram, but far from it," the Bench said.

Swamy, however, stood his ground, suggesting that the agnosticism of judges cannot trump the faith of "millions".

"It is not a question of the individual perception and belief of Lordships. It is a question of the belief of millions of people. This court cannot sanction breaking of Ram Sethu." The Bench seemed reluctant to get into emotive waters and swiftly clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

Appearing for the Centre, senior advocate Fali S Nariman was quick to diffuse the charged situation by pointing out that the court had asked for a comprehensive response from the Centre after the withdrawal of the earlier affidavit.

Opening the argument, Swamy said the Centre was dithering on the matter. He said that the culture ministry was not keen to conduct an archaeological study on Ram Sethu even though it withdrew its earlier controversial affidavit doubting the existence of Ramayan, Lord Ram and their link to Ram Sethu.

Senior advocate Arun Jaitley and K K Venugopal, appearing for some of the petitioners, said even the Madras HC order, which has not been stayed by the SC, directed a study by the ASI to determine its historic character and whether it qualified to be a historical or ancient monument.

The affidavit filed by the shipping ministry was the comprehensive response of the Centre to the petitions and was based on the report of an experts' committee which went threadbare into all the contentious issues, Nariman said and demanded an early hearing on the petitions as the project is hanging fire for a long time.

(dhananjay.mahapatra@timesgroup.com)
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/SC_Is_Sethu_a_place_of_worship/articleshow/2954678.cms

Opposition to Sethu irks SC
Press Trust of India
NEW DELHI, April 15: Fresh attempts on religious grounds to oppose the Sethusamudram project today evoked sharp reactions from the Supreme Court, which expressed its displeasure for calling ‘'Ram Sethu’ or Adam’s Bridge a place of worship.
“Who says it (Ram Sethu) is a place of worship. Who goes to the middle of the sea to worship,” a Bench headed by Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan said.
“Don't say people go there and worship,” the Bench, also comprising Justice RV Raveendran, observed when Janata Party president Mr Subramanium Swamy, submitted that Ram Sethu has to be protected as it is a place of worship for Hindus.
Mr Swamy, who was pressing that the Centre was bound by the Madras High Court order to consider an archaeological probe to declare Ram Sethu as an ancient monument, said it has been held by Hindus as sacred and anyone who tries to damage it should be booked for criminal offence under section 295 of the Indian Penal Code.
“It's an admitted place of worship and I go every year to worship,” he said adding that “Lordship, it is not a question of your belief, but it is the belief of the people of this country.” When the Bench said it was a matter of perception, Mr Swamy said: “Hindus unanimously believe that it's a place of worship.”
“It is not my belief. It is the belief of people of this country that it is a sacred place,” he further said, adding that “you (court) cannot sanction the belief of the people”.
Mr Swamy and others who have opposed the project, which allegedly involved breaking of the Ram Sethu, a 30-km long mythical bridge connecting the Talaimanar coast of Sri Lanka and situated south-east off Rameshwaram, sought the Centre’s clarification on the matter.
Senior advocates Mr KK Venugopal and Mr Arun Jaitley submitted before the Supreme Court that though the Centre last year withdrew its controversial affidavit, the order of the High Court on archaeological investigations before the petitions were transferred was still in existence. However, the Bench said: “You (petitioners) cannot insist on High Court order when an order has been passed by this court”.
http://www.thestatesman.net/page.news.php?clid=1&theme=&usrsess=1&id=199520

Indo-Asian News Service
New Delhi, April 15, 2008
First Published: 19:35 IST(15/4/2008)
Last Updated: 19:39 IST(15/4/2008)
Tiff in apex court over Ram Sethu (Hindustan Times, April 16, 2008)
A minor tiff took place on Tuesday between Supreme Court judges on one hand and on the other a petitioner opposed to the Sethusamudram project.
The tiff took place as the bench of Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan and Justice RV Raveendran questioned the petitioner and former minister Subramanian Swamy's argument that "millions of Hindus worship Ram Sethu".
Swamy made the statement while arguing that the apex court must not suspend its order which had banned last year the dredging of the Adam Bridge or the Ram Sethu to build a sea route between India and Sri Lanka.
"It is an admitted fact that millions of Hindus worship Ram Sethu," Swamy said.
This led Justice Raveendran to ask: "Who has gone there to worship?"
And Chief Justice Balakrishnan added: "You cannot say that the people go there to worship as this is under the sea."
These remarks by the bench appeared to upset Swamy and counsel for various other petitioners, who raised their voice and said: "It's an admitted fact that Ram Sethu is regarded as a religious place and millions of Hindus go to Rameshwaram to worship it".
"It's the belief of the people of the country and the court cannot say that it's not a place of worship," Swamy said.
The chief justice replied: "We do not say that it's not a sacred place. It's one's perception."
But Swamy said: "It's not a perception. It's an admitted fact that Hindus regard it as a place of worship."
The Sethusamudram project envisages dredging of a ship channel across the Palk straits between India and Sri Lanka. The project will allow ships sailing between the east and west coasts of India to have a shorter passage instead of having to go around Sri Lanka. This will lead to a saving of up to 424 nautical miles (780 km) and up to 30 hours in sailing time.
A number of organisations have opposed the project, saying it would destroy the bridge used by Lord Ram and his army, going by the Indian epic Ramayana.
Earlier, Swamy recalled that the Madras High Court had asked the central government to file an affidavit stating whether any study has been conducted to ascertain whether Ram Sethu could be declared a national monument.
But last year, when the Supreme Court transferred from the Madras High Court all the lawsuits opposed to Sethusamudram project to itself, it had not stayed the high court's order, said Swamy.
He sought the apex court's direction to the government to comply with the high court order.
Senior counsel KK Venugopal, appearing for one of the petitioners, pointed out to the court that the Archaeological Survey of India has clearly mentioned in its affidavit that they have never undertaken any study to determine if the Ram Sethu could be declared a national monument.
But owing to the minor tiff, the bench adjourned the hearing of the matter to April 29, directing various parties to file their affidavits and counter-affidavits on the issue before then.
http://tinyurl.com/5a45w8

DO NOT PLAY WITH FIRE:
AN EARNEST APPEAL TO THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA By Colonel Rajan

1. It is indeed distressing to learn that the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India and other learned Judges of the Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, hearing the Ram Sethu case, had expressed their displeasure, for calling Ram Sethu or Adams Bridge a place of worship; and it is reported that the Hon'ble Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan went on to ask, "Who says it (Ram Sethu) is a place of worship? Who goes to the middle of the sea to worship?" I, Colonel SS Rajan, a committed Hindu and a proud citizen of Bharathvarsh, can only say that, the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India and other learned judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on the Bench hearing the case pertaining to Ram Sethu, need to be lauded for their 'temerity & audacity' in questioning the faith of a billion Hindus in India and abroad. The attitude of the CJI and other learned Judges hearing the case has only strengthened my view that, in matters of faith, no Court, I repeat no Court should ever be asked to adjudicate; for in matters of faith, no Court; not even the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India or for that matter the International Court of Justice at Hague, has neither the knowledge, competence or jurisdiction to hear such cases; leave alone delivering judgment on such cases. It appears that the CJI of India and the other learned Judges of the Bench hearing the case, have no clue what so ever, regarding the rich cultural & spiritual heritage of Bharathvarsh and in their questioning the historicity & sacredness of Ram Sethu as a place of worship & pilgrimage, they have forfeited their moral right to hear the case any further.
2. And how sad, that when Dr Subramanian Swamy, who was pressing that the Centre was bound by the Madras High Court order to consider an archaeological probe to declare Ram Sethu as an ancient monument; and that the Madras High Court had also said that, "Ram Sethu has been held by Hindus as sacred and anyone who tries to damage it should be booked for criminal offence under Section 295 of the Indian Penal Code", the Hon'ble bench of the Supreme Court said, "You (petitioners) cannot insist on High Court order when order has been passed by this court". To say the least, such an observation by the bench headed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India and other learned judges, smacks of arrogance, not realizing that this case is not a two penny case; but one that impinges on the religious faith & belief of a billion Hindus in India and all over the World. It has become a fashion for Hindus, especially the so called 'educated' Hindus, suited & booted ones, immaterial whether they are Engineers, Doctors, Lawyers or for that matter Judges, to deride Hinduism and to insult and hurt the sentiments of Hindus with the belief that their esteem would go up in the eyes of the 'secular' Indians.
3. I, Colonel SS Rajan, commissioned in the Indian Army on 30 June 1963 and a Veteran of the 1971 War, hereby ask the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India and other learned Judges of the Bench hearing the case pertaining to Ram Sethu; that in case, someone files a case questioning the historicity & sacredness of the Holy relic of Prophet Muhammed, kept at Hazratbal Shrine in Kashmir, which is venerated by millions of Muslims; would they ever dare to ask, "As to where from the Holy Relic had come and whether a DNA test carried was carried out?" Let me assure the Hon'ble CJI and other learned Judges of the Bench that they would NEVER DARE such a thing; for they are quite aware of the disastrous consequences that would follow. But when it comes to matters of faith of the Hindus, the Hon'ble CJI and other Judges of the Bench glibly believe that they can take liberties by hurting & disparaging Hindu sentiments.
4. I, Colonel SS Rajan, a committed Hindu and a proud citizen of Bharathvarsh, consider it my sacred duty to submit in all humility to the CJI and other learned Judges of the Bench, NOT TO PLAY WITH FIRE; for once the dam of Hindu tolerance bursts, the ensuing Tsunami will wreak havoc of catastrophic proportions. I would also in all humility, urge the CJI and other learned Judges of the Bench, to look around and see as to the happenings in Nepal, where a Maoist Tsunami has overtaken the arrogant King & his coterie.
JAI HIND. VANDE MATARAM.
Postscript
http://www.newstodaynet.com/2007sud/may07/290507ss2.htm
I would also humbly submit to the CJI and other learned Judges of the Bench, as to what I had said in this regard, when my colleagues & I were on a 'padayatra' from Chennai to Rameshwaram, during the period: 20 May -14 June 2007, covering 650 kilometres in 25 days in the hot summer sun, undertaken as a Tapasya & a prayer to the Lord to save Ram Sethu.
''It is unfortunate that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has refused to entertain the PIL requesting for stay of the ongoing Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project. It is absolutely pointless to approach the Supreme Court in matters of faith. The moment the Supreme Court refused to entertain the PIL for grant of stay on the execution of the Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project, fully aware that it is a very sensitive and explosive issue and that no less than the four Shankaracharyas together, have expressed their grave concern that the destruction of the Sacred Rama Sethu would hurt the religious sentiments of the Hindus, the Supreme Court has willy nilly lost its moral right to adjudicate further in the matter or has willy nilly abdicated its authority and thus allowed things to drift to the detriment of public interest, which it is supposed to protect. Neither the Supreme Court nor the International Court of Justice in Hague, can adjudicate in matters of 'faith & belief' of 800 millions of Hindus in India and millions of Hindus living out side India. It is time that the Hindu masses decided that it is their sovereign right to stand up and fight against tyranny and not allow their religious sentiments to be trampled upon. The Supreme Court ought to know that for more than 800 millions of Hindus in India and millions of Hindus outside India throughout the world that Rameshwaram and the RAMA SETHU BRIDGE is as holy and as sacred as the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem to the Jews, the Vatican in Rome to the Roman Catholics, the Bodhgaya in Bihar to the Buddhists and Mecca in Saudi Arabia to the Muslims. Centuries ago it was proclaimed that, 'Be Yee Men of Valour and Be in Readiness for War! For it is better to perish in battle, than to see the outrage of your Altar!' And the time for battle for DHARMA has come. It is time the HINDUS came together as ONE and deal firmly & decisively with one & all who are bent on destroying the Sacred Rama Sethu. I wish to remind all authorities- both high & low, that the day when a HINDU wave or Tsunami strikes, it shall not spare any oppressor and shall leave behind colossal amount of destruction in its wake. And it is only a matter of time that it will happen. And I also wish to assure all authorities - high & low, that the HINDUS shall NOT allow the Sacred Rama Sethu to be destroyed, come what may. The HINDUS shall shed their blood and sacrifice their lives rather than see the destruction of their alter. DHARMO RAKSHATI RAKSHITAHA. Those who abide by Dharma, are protected by Dharma.''
Mr V Sundaram, IAS (Retd) wrote:
As a political Hindu, spiritual Hindu, cultural Hindu, social Hindu and economic Hindu, and above all as an insignificant free lance journalist I would invite the kind attention of the Supreme Court of India not to forget or overlook the following words of timeless wisdom of Oliver Wendell Holmes (1841-1935), one of the greatest names in the history of Law and Jurisprudence in dealing with the explosive and cataclysmic issue of saving the Rama Sethu Bridge from planned destruction by the UPA government in collusion with the anti-Hindu DMK government of Tamilnadu: 'The first requirement of a sound body of law is, that it should correspond with the actual feelings of the community, whether right or wrong. Law is a settlement of the circumstances in which the public force will be brought to bear upon men through the Courts of Law.'