Ram Setu case-- Varying sets of misleading affidavits by Union of India

Ram Sethu case-- Varying sets of misleading affidavits by Union of India

By Dr S Kalyanaraman December 14, 2008 News Analysis

Written submission of the advocate for Union of India made in October 2008 to the Supreme Court says: The Petitioners have not alleged much less proved that Ram Sethu forms an integral and essential part of the Hindu religion. Union of India also claims that belief of the community has to be proved like any other fact.

It is clear that Union of India holds the justice system in utter contempt. It holds the responsibility of the state under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India in utter contempt. It holds that the millions of people the world over who revere Ram, Ramayana and Ram Sethu which are central to the nation’s traditions to be treated with disdain and hence holds those who venerate Ram and Ram Sethu as a place of worship in utter contempt.
What does Union of India have to say about Ram Sethu?

This is an amazing set of hypocritical, misleading statements of Union of India (Respondents) containing varying shades of misleading statements.

Step 1: The existence of Ram Sethu is denied. Next it is said that Ramayana cannot be linked with the bridge. In another breath, a pledge is made that a viewing gallery will be constructed to enable pilgrims to pay homage to Ram Sethu.

Step 2: In a withdrawn affidavit, Ministry of Culture claims Ram Sethu to be a myth, adding that the Sethu is not man-made.

Step 3: In a withdrawn affidavit, Ministry of Shipping claims that there is no scientific evidence to justify declaration of Sethu as an ancient monument.

Step 4: On September 14, 2008, Union of India claimed total respect for all religions and Hinduism in particular… The Central Government is alive and conscious of religious sensibilities including the unique ancient and holy text of Ramayana…Having regard to public sentiments, the Central Government withdrew the prevailing affidavit to re-examine the entire matter.

Union of India also clarified that the affidavit did not intend to touch upon the freedom/ articles of faith or belief of any section of society.

Step 5: In a final counter affidavit, Union of India defined the role of the state and stated that the state cannot and should not be called upon to determine issues of faith. Union of India also added: “It is now for the Hon’ble Court to resolve the contentious issues raised by the petitioners in the context of evidence available.”

Step 6: Written submission of the advocate for Union of India made in October 2008 to the Supreme Court says: “The Petitioners have not alleged much less proved that Ram Sethu forms an integral and essential part of the Hindu religion. Union of India also claims that belief of the community has to be proved like any other fact. The further submission of Union of India is that it has not been proved undoubtedly to be the belief of the Hindu community that Lord Ram did not himself break the bridge. Nor has it been established that whatever remains of the Ram Sethu as a place of worship is an essential and integral part of the Hindu religion.”

So, what is the stand of Union of India as seen from these six sets of waffling averments?

It is clear that Union of India holds the justice system in utter contempt. It holds the responsibility of the state under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India in utter contempt. It holds that the millions of people the world over who revere Ram, Ramayana and Ram Sethu which are central to the nation’s traditions to be treated with disdain and hence holds those who venerate Ram and Ram Sethu as a place of worship in utter contempt.

This contemptuous behavior of Union of India is reprehensible. UPA has proved its incompetence to hold the reins of the state and to has failed to uphold the rule of law as supreme.

I wish the Supreme Court comes down heavily on the utterly irresponsible behaviour shown by the respondents’ misleading statements and calls them to order. The Court should also direct the Government of India to declare Ram Sethu an ancient monument under the 1958 Act and to direct Union of India to approach UNESCO to declare it a world heritage. The Court should also direct that Sethu project which is an ecological disaster should be declared a project disaster and scrapped forthwith.

I also hope the Pachauri Committee takes note of the waffling stances of the Union of India and does not succumb to any pressures from any functionary of the Union of India.

The arguments for the Ram Sethu being central to Hindu identity and nation’s identity are many and have been stated earlier which the Court will take note of and render justice.

Dr. Subramanian Swamy has filed on November 3, 2008 in the Supreme Court, fresh written submissions on whether Ram Sethu is an integral part of Hindu religion. This includes an annexure to page 31 comparing the six statements demonstrating progressively varying stances of the Union of India, the respondent in the transfer petition pending in the Supreme Court.

Here is an annexure demonstrating six varying stances:

Progressively varying stances of the respondents as reflected in that affidavit

There is nothing called ‘Ramar Palam’ excepting that the petitioners have chosen to name the ‘Adams Bridge’ as Ramar Palam. There is no question of sand sholes- - - being declared monuments of national importance.

Having failed in all their attempts now the forces probably thought easier to play with religious sentiments which they thought the Indians might fall to their prey, started instigating the religious sentiments of the Hindus….

3)70(14)(iv) several Indians experts…. have also declared that there is no evidence linking the mythical Lanka bridge built by Hanuman to the chain of sand banks …….. To link that with Ram or Ramayana is ridiculous.

4)P.76(17) It will also cut off Land’s End in Dhanushkodi island which is visited by hundreds of pilgrims every day.

….It will also cut off Kodandaramasamy Temple visited by thousands of pilgrims every day

5)P.77(17) The creation of the channel will also afford an opportunity to pilgrims to visit Adams Bridge, not possible today, and offer obeissance as the SCL is contemplating provision of a viewing galary along the channel alignment.

Step 2
Withdrawal of centre's affidavit by Ministry of Culture
1) P.3(4) The petitioners have attempted to reply upon mythological material such as the Ramayana.

2) P.9(19) the ASI, has reasonably concluded that the formation known as Ram Sethu/Adams Bridge is not a man made structure.

3) P.11(25) the aforesaid conclusions renders the entire theory proposed by the petitioners (by placing reliance on entirely mythological texts) wholly implausible

4) P.15(32-33) The same is merely a sand and coral formation which cannot be said to be of historical archeological or artistic interest or importance.

5) P.15(33) “The Adams Bridge site cannot therefore be said to be of any archeological interest.”

6) P.9(20)”The contents of the Valmiki Ramayana, the Ramcharitmanas and other mythological texts… which cannot be said to be historical record, incontrovertibly prove the existence of the characters, or the occurrence of the events depicted therein.”

Step 3
Withdrawal of centre's affidavit by Ministry of Shipping
1) P.11(10) “The absence of any cohesive scientific evidence which can support the formation of a legally tenable opinion, - - - of Section 4 of the Ancient Monuments Act, it is submitted that the instant writ petitions must fail.”

Step 4
ASG’s Gopal’s statement dated 14.9.2008
1) P2(2) “The Central Government has total respect for all religions and Hinduism in particular… The Central Government is alive and conscious of religious sensibilities including the unique ancient and holy text of Ramayana… Having regard to public sentiments, the Central Government withdraws the present affidavit to re-examine the entire matter.”

2) 2(3) It is clarified that the affidavit did not intend to touch upon the freedom/ articles of faith or belief of any section of society.

Step 5
Counter affidavit final
PP59-6
1) The state cannot and should not be called upon to determine issues of faith.

2) It is now for the Hon’ble Court to resolve the contentious issues raised by the petitioners in the context of evidence available..”

Step 6
Present written submissions
Submitted October 2008
P73II. The petitioners have not alleged much less proved that Ram Sethu forms an integral and essential part of the Hindu religion.

P.76. Belief of the community has to be proved like any other fact.

P.84 The submission is that it has not been proved undoubtedly to be the belief of the Hindu community that Lord Ram did not himself break the bridge. Nor has it been established that whatever remains of the Ram Sethu as a place of worship is an essential and integral part of the Hindu religion.
http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=267&page=26