Rama Setu: World Heritage

Indian Ocean History: Link

2011-06-03T17:27:00.001-07:00

http://www.indianoceanhistory.org/?gclid=CIeYvZz-mqkCFUiK4AodmBzwsw

Indian Ocean Community: Video links

2011-05-28T18:58:00.001-07:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHAxota5O5c&feature=related Animated Time Map of the Khmer Empire & Southeast Asia (100-1550 A.D.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gxaj6kqiEY&NR=1 Ancient Kambodja (Cambodia)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ypin-BBjR9o The History of Religions in Indonesia

2011-05-27T04:37:00.000-07:00

Temple Preah Khan at Angkor: a pediment depicting the battle of Lanka.

Scene from Ramayana: Building Setu. Sculpture Angkor Wat, Cambodia.

Hon’ble Union Minister Ambika Soni makes ASI Director a scapegoat to save herself

2008-12-15T06:10:00.000-08:00

Hon’ble Union Minister Ambika Soni makes ASI Director a scapegoat to save herself

Sethu affidavit: ASI officer files case against Soni
Amitav RanjanPosted online: Dec 15, 2008 at 0010 hrs

New Delhi : An Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) officer, suspended last year for not carrying out changes in a counter reply to the Supreme Court on the Ram Sethu project, has filed a case against Culture Minister Ambika Soni and her senior officials for making him a “convenient scapegoat” to save herself from the public furore that ensued.
Seeking to quash the chargesheet against him, Chander Shekhar, Director (Administration) in the ASI, has told the Central Administrative Tribunal that the “purpose and motive of issuance of chargesheet is oblique and aimed solely at providing cover to the respondents in respect to the situation, which are their own creation, resulting in political fallout causing serious consequential repercussion to them”.
Shekhar, along with Assistant Director (Monuments) V Bakshi, was suspended in September 2007 for not incorporating corrections in the counter affidavit that set off a political storm, with the BJP accusing the UPA Government of hurting religious sentiments of Hindus in stating that there was no historical or scientific proof about the existence of Lord Ram.
Soni had then said her officers had made corrections, including deleting paragraph 20, which argued that mythological texts Ramayana and Ramcharitmanas could not be called historical records that “incontrovertibly prove(d) the existence of the characters or the occurrence of the events, depicted therein”.
According to Shekhar, the ministry’s Chief Public Information Officer Roopa Srinivasan, while replying to an RTI appeal for information on who carried out the changes, wrote: “No such information is available”.
“Thus, after one year of carrying out the claimed corrections in paragraph 20 of the draft affidavit, the ministry has now accepted that there is nothing on record to establish as to who carried out these claimed corrections in paragraph 20,” says Shekhar’s petition, which also names former culture secretary Badal K Das and ASI Director General Anshu Vaish as respondents.
Five days after the political outburst, the ministry had informed the Prime Minister’s Office saying that Joint Secretary RC Mishra, Das and Vaish, discussed and approved the changes in paragraphs 20 and 29 on September 6. Shekhar has said that only Mishra critically examined the draft affidavit, noting that “Paras 19 and 20 of the CA categorically state the stand of the ASI. This may please be seen. Source for the phrase ‘army of monkeys’ used in para 29 may also be ascertained”.
“It may not be out of place to mention that in the counter reply filed before the Supreme Court the words ‘army of monkeys’ pointed out by Joint Secretary stood deleted,” Shekhar says.
But, claims Shekhar in his petition, Mishra made no mention of the September 6 meeting on the file while he did so in an identical situation on the same issue less than two months before the controversial event. There was also no mention of the alleged changes by the Additional Solicitor General to the Court while seeking withdrawal of the affidavit, says his petition.
http://www.indianexpress.com/story_print.php?storyid=398460
MONDAY, MARCH 17, 2008

ASI’s reply to my RTI application: Speaking Order & the right to non-comply with directions

V. Venkatesan

My continuing Right to Information battle with the Archaeological Survey of India on why the Government suspended two officials of the ASI following the controversy over the Sethusamudram affidavit has elicited one more reply. This time, the then Appellate Authority who had earlier agreed with me and directed the Central Public Information Officer of the ASI to provide the information I requested, has been overruled by his successor, Mr.D.S.Gehlot, who appears to have recently taken over as the Appellate Authority in the ASI. Mr.Gehlot’s order dated March 14, 2008 is interesting because it says he found the order of his predecessor not a speaking order, not mentioning either the fact, or reasons and silent about how the said information would not qualify for exemption under section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.

The new order further says: “The Ministry of Culture has ordered an investigation in the matter and providing copy of the report submitted by DG,ASI at this stage is likely to affect the course of inquiry, which has been initiated under the CCS (CCA) Rules. Since the inquiry is still on, all the original papers related to the case are with the Ministry of Culture. The Nodal Officer of the Ministry of Culture was requested to take a decision about providing the information and take appropriate action. The CPIO Ministry of Culture concurred that the information related to the matter may be exempted under Section 8(1)(h).”

It adds: “The said exemption does not deny the information completely/forever but only till the matter is under investigation. The information sought by the applicant may be supplied as soon as the process of investigation is over.”

I agree that any order should stand the test of legality, fairness and reason. But I find the new Appellate Authority’s order difficult to comprehend. First, the RTI Act does not provide for amendment of order by one Appellate Authority by his successor Authority. Secondly, the failure of the Appellate Authority to provide a speaking order does not give freedom to the CPIO to non-comply with the AA’s order. If the CPIO is dissatisfied, then he should, one would expect, approach the CIC with a complaint or an appeal. But the Act does not contemplate that option to the CPIO. The Act is silent on this.

The Appellate Authority does not adjudicate between two disputing parties, in terms of hearing them. The AA simply goes through the RTI’s applicant’s appeal against the CPIO’s decision, and examines whether the CPIO’s decision was in conformity with the Act. In case the AA rejected my appeal without a speaking order, then how would I exercise my right of non-compliance with the AA’s Order? I have the option only appealing against the AA’s order, if I am dissatisfied. Therefore, to permit the CPIO to non-comply with the AA’s order, because it is not a speaking order, is likely to defeat the very objectives of the RTI Act, and its appeal mechanism.

Secondly, the new AA agrees with the Government that the matter is still under investigation, whereas one would assume that with the suspension order being issued against the two officials, and the Government having already submitted a revised affidavit in the Supreme Court in the Sethusamudram case, the so-called investigation must be already over. What sort of investigation is currently on? I am sorry to say the new AA’s order suffers from the same absence of “speaking order” which was cited to overrule the previous AA’s order. Once the report is submitted by the DG, ASI, it marks the completion of investigation, and the basis for the disciplinary action against the two officials. If the investigation is incomplete, then the suspension order must have clearly said, they were being suspended pending investigation. That was not the case.

Posted by V.Venkatesan at 6:46 PM

http://lawandotherthings.blogspot.com/2008/03/asis-reply-to-my-rti-application.html

Sethusamudram Project could damage marine eco system: Experts

2008-12-11T05:51:00.001-08:00

Sethusamudram Project could damage marine eco system: Experts

London, Dec 11: Asking India to shelve the controversial Sethusamudram Project as it could damage the productive marine eco-system, an international group of environmentalists has suggested the Gulf of Mannar region should be declared a Cultural and Natural World Heritage Site.

Requesting President of India Pratibha Patil to cancel the Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project, the Ecologists and Environmentalists group claimed that the government's decision to go ahead with the project was based on legal flaws and would have inevitable and disastrous ecological and social impact.

The project could disrupt and damage the productive marine eco-system through a massive increase in the burden of silting and sedimentation, the group said adding, it will also affect coral reefs, sea grass beds, oyster beds and food fisheries.

They further said that the salinisation of the shallow aquifers on both sides of the channel could endanger and even lead to the extinction of the important local species, including dugong, green turtle and at least 25 different species of sea snake, resulting in collapse of the entire ecosystem.

It also asked India and Sri Lanka to write an application to the UNESCO to declare the Gulf of Mannar region a mixed Cultural and Natural World Heritage Site.

Earlier, a resolution in this regard was adopted on the issue at a two-day meeting here attended by an international consortium of ecologists, academics, scientists and religious leaders.

Bureau Report
http://www.zeenews.com/nation/2008-12-11/490117news.html

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

2008-12-08T22:56:00.000-08:00

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

Setusamudram: sacred site. Scrap channel project.

2008-12-05T08:25:00.000-08:00

Setusamudram: sacred site. Scrap channel project.

Sacred Site nomination boosts campaign to save Gulf of Mannar

Friday, 12.05.2008, 07:31am (GMT-7)

NEW YORK: At the first international meeting of the campaign to protect the Gulf of Mannar, held at the Linnean Society in London recently, the Alliance of Religions and Conservation (ARC) made the dramatic announcement that it would be seeking to have the Gulf of Mannar designated as one of the world's first internationally recognized 'Sacred Sites.' Following agreements reached at the IUCN World Conservation Congress in Barcelona last month, 'Sacred Site' is a now an international term of protection for sites that are spiritually, religiously, culturally and ecologically important.
In the fight to save the Gulf of Mannar from destruction by the creation of a deep shipping channel, the move could prove to be a strategically important one. Flowing between South-East India and Sri Lanka, the Gulf of Mannar is home to Ram Sethu, or Adam's Bridge, a site of immense spiritual significance to both Hindus and Muslims worldwide.

Situated in South-Asia's largest biosphere reserve, it is also one of the last remaining biological hotspots on the planet, offering sanctuary to numerous endangered plant and animal species such as the dugong and the green turtle. However, despite the clear cultural, natural and spiritual importance of the area, and in the face of an on-going challenge in the Supreme Court of India, the Indian government is pressing ahead with dredging for the planned Sethusamudram Ship Channel, risking destruction of the sacred bridge and the fragile eco-system of the area.

The announcement of nomination for Sacred Site status was made by Martin Palmer, Secretary General of ARC, and religion and ecology advisor to His Royal Highness the Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. "The Gulf of Mannar has enormous spiritual significance within both Hinduism and Islam," he said during his announcement.

"Narratives in the Hindu Ramayana, which feature Ram Sethu, and the Muslim story of Adam being thrown out of Paradise and falling into what we now know as Sri Lanka, then walking across Adam's Bridge to become the vice-regent of God ruling the world, make the Gulf of Mannar the one place in the world - other than the Garden of Eden - where we could actually say 'this is a sacred site about our relationship with and our responsibility for the rest of creation.'

Cosmologically and ecologically the Gulf of Mannar is about as sacred a site as you could get. Our suggestion is that it should be nominated as one of the very first internationally significant sacred sites, along with places such as the sacred mountains of China and other such hugely holy and ecologically significant places. I have every confidence the nomination will succeed." Organizers of the campaign to protect the Gulf of Mannar have been quick to welcome the news. "Mr Palmer's announcement was dramatic and unexpected," says Kusum Vyas, founder of The Living Planet Foundation, based in Houston, Texas, which organized the London meeting.
"The meeting erupted into applause when he made the announcement - it was so thrilling. To get the Gulf of Mannar recognised on the international conservation stage will be a huge step forward in preserving its sanctity and ecology for future generations. We can't thank ARC enough." Asked to reflect on the current battle to preserve the Gulf of Mannar, Palmer said: "It is a classic struggle - to use Christian terminology - between God and Mammon, between those who see the world as a stage upon which a drama of cosmological significance is played out in which every aspect of creation has significance and meaning because it is created from love, and those who simply see this planet as a rather large supermarket to be raided."

ARC is a secular foundation designed to work both with the major religions, encouraging them to look into their own traditions in order to increase their environmental activities, as well as with major environmental organizations to get them to take the role of religions seriously.

IUCN, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, is world's oldest and largest global environmental network - a democratic membership union with more than 1,000 government and NGO member organizations, and almost 11,000 volunteer scientists in more than 160 countries - it helps find pragmatic solutions to pressing environment and development challenges. The first international meeting of the campaign to protect the Gulf of Mannar was held at the Linnean Society in London last week and was organized by The Living Planet Foundation USA.

India Post News Service
http://indiapost.com/article/usnews/4722/

Demand for 'sacred site' status for Setu

2008-12-02T03:54:00.000-08:00

Demand for 'Sacred Site' status for Sethu
PTI
Tuesday, December 02, 2008 15:02 IST

LONDON: Campaigners protesting against the dredging of the Sethusamudram Ship Channel have demanded that Gulf of Mannar, which is home to the Ram Sethu, be designated as 'Sacred Site'.

The announcement for seeking a 'Sacred Site' status was made by Martin Palmer, Secretary General of Alliance of Religions and Conservation (ARC) and religion and ecology advisor to Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, at a two-day meeting here.
"The Gulf of Mannar has enormous spiritual significance within both Hinduism and Islam," he said during his announcement.

"The meeting erupted into applause when he made the announcement. To get the Gulf of Mannar recognised on the international conservation stage will be a huge step forward in preserving its sanctity and ecology for future generations," Kusum Vyas, founder of The Living Planet Foundation, which organised the London meeting, said.

'Sacred Site' is now an international term of protection for sites that are spiritually, religiously, culturally and ecologically important.

Flowing between South-East India and Sri Lanka, the Gulf of Mannar is home to Ram Sethu or Adam's Bridge, a site of immense spiritual significance for both Hindus and Muslims worldwide.

Situated in South-Asia's largest biosphere reserve, it is also one of the last remaining biological hot-spots on the planet, offering sanctuary to numerous endangered plant and animal species such as the dugong and the green turtle.

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1210895

Scientists converge in London to stop destruction of Setu Samudram

2008-11-24T15:49:00.000-08:00

To stop the destruction of the Sethu Samudram – Scientists, Academics and Religious Leaders Converge in London
Tue, 2008-11-25 05:23
By Walter Jayawardhana
London, 25 November, (Asiantribune.com) Ecologists, academics and scientists and religious leaders around the world organized by the US based living Planet Foundation are meeting today (November 25) at London’s historic Linnean Society, Burlington House in Piccadilly to ask Indian and Sri Lankan governments to persuade UNESCO to designate the Gulf of Mannar a World Heritage site and stop the imminent devastation that could cause to the environment by the controversial Sethu Samudram project. The seminar will last two days continuously.
The organizers said, "The aim is to prevent the destruction of the Gulf of Mannar , one of the last remaining intact eco-systems of the world and home to the famous Ram Sethu or Adam’s Bridge , a site sacred to one billion Hindus worldwide."
"The gathering is set to provide enough multi-disciplinary evidence to persuade" the two countries to ask UNESCO to grant World Heritage designation to the Gulf , the Living Planet Foundation said.
Interviewed in a London Hotel, one of the participating scientists of the seminar Dr. Ranil Senanayake told this correspondent, "Sethu Samudram canal project is a 140 years old idea proposed by the British imperialists not compatible with the thinking of the 21st century. Today, much better things could be thought about for better results. Dredging through this geological formation would cause innumerable damages that cannot be reversed."
Asked to pinpoint one, Dr. Senanayake said that the present waves in the gulf bring the mineral sands from which Thorium could be processed. The sea currents deposit tons of mineral sands on the South Indian and North Sri Lankan beaches .He said Thorium processed from these mineral sands is believed to be the source of energy of the future, from which atomic power could be produced without allowing any chance of producing nuclear weapons. Once, the bridge is destroyed such sand deposits would stop by the gulf basin currents, the scientist warned India and Sri Lanka.
Many scientists have assessed the Gulf of Mannar is a shallow stretch of water separating India and Sri Lanka. Despite its important ecological and cultural significance as one of South Asia’s largest biosphere reserves, the Indian government, under pressure from Tamil Nadu state politicians, is pressing ahead with plans to build a shipping channel called Sethusamudram , right across it, threatening the numerous endangered plant and animal species that live there as well as livelihood of local fishermen.
The proposal has been met with a chorus of international disapproval. It has also become the subject of a case in the Indian Supreme Court, which has temporarily delayed the devastating dredging.
Scientists have said the Gulf , free from oceanic currents , provides the calving grounds for a substantial part of the diverse whale population of the bay of Bengal. It is also identified as the habitat for rare and endangered plant and animal species including the threatened green turtle and dugong. The sea grass meadows of the gulf are the largest remaining feeding grounds for the globally endangered dugong. The centuries old pearl and conch shell fishing still exists there.
"The dredging will destroy this fragile eco-system. What we need is not an industry that will benefit only few shipping companies and dredgers. When, ships starts sailing along the canal even the limestone wells of Jaffna could become salty. What we need there is a sustainable development project," scientist Ranil Senanayake said.
- Asian Tribune -
http://www.asiantribune.com/?q=node/14376

Rama Setu: Tiruvalangadu copper plate inscription of Rajendra Chola

2008-11-23T03:53:00.000-08:00

Rama Setu: Tiruvalangadu copper plate inscription of Rajendra Chola

From the Thiruvalangadu copper plates inscribed in the 6th year of the rule of King Rajendra Chola, son of Raja raja chola discovered in the year 1905:-

In the order of tracing the lineage of the Cholas, verse 80 makes a mention about Rama building a bridge on the ocean.

(V. 80.) The lord of the Raghavas (i.e., Rama) constructing a bridge across the water of the ocean with (the assistance of) able monkeys, killed with great difficulty the king of Lanka (i.e., Ravana) with sharp-edged arrows ; (but) this terrible General of that (king Arunmolivarman) crossed the ocean by ships and burnt the Lord of Lanka (Ceylon). Hence Rama is (surely) surpassed by this (Chola General).

http://www.whatisindia.com/inscriptions/south_indian_inscriptions/volume_3/no_205c_aditya_ii_karikala.html

In defence of the Rama Setu: Dr. Swamy

2008-11-22T17:15:00.001-08:00

IN DEFENCE OF THE RAMA SETU

By Subramanian Swamy (November 2008)

{The writer is a former Union Commerce Minister}

INTRODUCTION

The Rama Setu is a causeway connecting Dhanushkodi from the Rameshwaram island’s eastern tip all the way across the straits to Sri Lanka, and separates the turbulent Psalk Straits in the Bay of Bengal in the north, from the calm and tranquil waters of Gulf of Mannar in the south of the Setu. The 1.5 to 2.5 m thick zone of corals and rock, which is presently partially seen at points in the sea, is a construction atop, as the crustal portion of, the undersea ridge.
US’ NASA and NRSA of the Ministry of Space, Government of India satellite photo images clearly establish such a causeway-like formation between Dhanushkodi and Talaimannar island (Srilanka).
Rama Setu is without doubt an ancient causeway as vividly described in Valmiki’s Ramayana. The architect Nala assigned the task by Sri Rama had had taken advantage of the crustal portion of the ridge to minimize thereby the dumping of rocks and boulders, and also utilized the less dense but compact corals and boulders, so that these could be carried easily to greater distances and at the same time strong enough to withstand pressure from above, both by human as well as sea forces.
According to S. Badrinarayanan, former Director, Geological Survey of India, his investigations while as Consultant to NIOT, GOI, reveal that the Rama Setu is not a natural formation but a constructed causeway of at least 9000 years old. Hence it automatically qualifies to be an ancient monument to be protected under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites & Remains Act, 1958.
The Government had suppressed from public view his Report based on a 2002 investigation under the sea, near and at the Setu, which concluded that Rama Setu had been constructed (at least 9000 years ago). However, without consulting the GSI or the NIOT, the Ministry of Culture representing the Archaeological Survey of India {ASI} hastily filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court to aver that “there is no information or studies in the knowledge of the Government that Rama Setu is man made”. Former ASI DG, Dr. S.R. Rao went on record to ridicule this stand of the government. Following public criticism, the Union Government flip flopped in its stand in the Supreme Court (see Annexure).
The choppy tide and the associated sediments caused by severe cyclones that occur every year in the Bsay of Bengal are moderated in the intensity by the ridge of the Rama Setu and thereby it protects the delicate tranquil waters of the Gulf of Mannar. So too the researches of scientists now conclude that even Tsunami was moderated by the existence of the Rama Setu. Otherwise, there would have been a funneling effect of the Tsunami wages causing enormous damage several times over than what was experienced.
The Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Mr. Karunanidhi and his lieutenant, the Union Shipping Minister Mr. T.R. Baalu have nevertheless been telling the public the Rama Setu is fictitious, that the existing causeway is a natural formation of sand, and that given the economic and environmental viability of the Sethusamudram Shipping Channel Project (SSCP), it should not be blocked because of an imaginary grievance based on such tales.
On environmental issues, it will suffice here to state that the Ministry of Environment & Forests in fact in a letter dated April 8, 1999 to the Ministry of Surface Transport had conveyed it’s opinion that the SSCP should be scrapped altogether as the project would be an environmental disaster. This opinion was based on an analysis of the NEERI Report of 1998. Yet in 2004 the Ministry reversed it’s opinion without any fresh data. There is no explanation given so far for this somersault.
The Government’s decision to implement the SSCP is thus vitiated by arbitrariness, unreasonableness, and obvious anti-Hindu bias of the decision-makers such as Mr. Karunanidhi. Hence it could not stand in court when I challenged it. In truth, the SSCP besides, an environmental disaster, is also economically unviable and a national security risk (because it will help LTTE to move it’s terrorist and narcotic base to Kerala Coast by a more secure and shorter route that is presently unavailable because the Rama Setu stands as a barrier). Details of arguments in all these dimensions are set out in Rama Setu: A Symbol of National Unity {Haranand, 2008}.

THE HERITAGE OF RAMA SETU

The Rama Setu sometimes called Sethubandha, is a symbol of the nation because Sri Rama on whose direction it was built, was the first national king of India who lived in North, West, East and South of India during his life time. The Rama Setu which paved the way for Rama’s army is thus not only sacred but it is regarded by the people as a heritage, a tirthasthana, and a divyakshetra. Rama’s art of governance is known as Ram Rajya, a term used by Mahatma Gandhi to mobilize the masses during the Freedom Struggle.
Rama chose to raise an army in Kishkinda, Karnataka to defeat Ravana, disregarding Lakshmana’s advise to send for the already trained army from Ayodhya, because Rama believed in devolution and in the local concerns of his people. His devotion to motherland was total and unconditional as revealed when he said to Lakshmana, according to Valmiki Ramayana, while in Lanka that: Jananee janmabhoomishcha svargaadapi gariyasi which as translated by Maharishi Aurobindo means: “Mother and motherland is greater by far than even heaven”. Lakshmana had queries why they should not settle down in Lanka, when that country now conquered was more beautiful and prosperous than Ayodhya, and Sita was already there. These immoral patriotic words attributed to Sri Rama will remain in the nation’s memory as long as Hindustan lives as a continuing civilization. Ramayana thus is a narration of Rama’s deeds, and thereby lays down principles of governance, which properly and faithfully re-interpreted is valid even today.
It is this deep background of the spiritual ambience in and of India that made Supreme Court Justice K.T. Thomas say at Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi, on April 5, 2007: “Rama Sethu should not be broken”. After receiving the Padma Bhushan from the President of India at an investiture ceremony, he told the media in answer to a question.
“In projects like this (Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project), decisions are to be based not only on a study of geological implications; the religious sentiments of the people are also to be taken into account. The religious sentiments of the people of Bharat have to be honoured by every government of India. There is a tradition in this land, of honouring religious sentiments. So, it is my definite opinion that Ram Sethu must not be broken”.

For the sheer faith of the masses of India in Lord Rama, Rama Setu must be declared an ‘Ancient Monument’ within the meaning of the law and protected and nurtured as a revered national heritage. Since now Ganga has been declared as a national heritage, there is no reason now to block a similar status for Rama Setu.
In any case, the Rama Setu cannot be damaged or broken because it would then be a criminal offence. The Supreme Court had observed in its judgement in the S.Veerbhadran Chettiar v. E.V.Ramaswami Naicker case (AIR 1958 Supreme Court 1032 page 1035) as follows:
“…….. Any object however trivial or destitute of real value in itself if regarded as sacred by any class of persons would come within the meaning of the penal section (295 of the Indian Penal Code). Nor is it absolutely necessary that the object, in order to be held sacred, should have been actually worshipped. An object may be held sacred by a class of persons without being worshipped by them. It is clear, therefore, that the courts below were rather cynical in so lightly brushing aside the religious susceptibilities of that class of persons to which the complainant claims to belong. The section has been intended to respect the religious susceptibilities of persons of different religious persuasions or creeds. Courts have got to be very circumspect in such matters, and to pay due regard to the feelings and religious emotions of different classes of persons with different beliefs, irrespective of the consideration whether or not they share those beliefs, or whether they are rational or otherwise, in the opinion of the court.”

There is no room left after this judgment not to regard the Rama Setu as an inalienable heritage to be protected. To damage or break the Setu is a criminal cognizable offence under Section 295 of the IPC. To dismiss such sacredness as “imaginary” as the Government had done in court is dangerous. Even if there was no specific proof today of the claim that Rama Setu was built by Sri Rama more than 9000 years ago, later developments in science can establish the reality of the Rama Setu. For example, earlier, Sarasvati river and Dwarka city were considered as imaginary by secular historians. Now modern science based archaeology has established their existence. Even so, what if it is said the claim that the hair in Hazaratbal Mosque as belonging to Prophet Mohammed is imaginary since there is no DNA proof that it belonged to him? Or Jesus birth is to be dismissed as imaginary because immaculate conception is a scientific impossibility? Do they cease to be sacred to the people.
The Ramayana is in fact regarded as Itihasa (history) by the Hindus. Facts in Ramayana are testable. Dr. Ram Avatar spent 25 years in researching if the locations along Rama’s travel to Sri Lanka described in the Ramayana, can be located in modern India He was able to locate and photograph all the spots where Sri Rama had stayed as he went from Ayodhya to Sri Lanka, which Dr. Avatar has documented with photographs in his monograph Jahan Jahan Ram Charan Chali Jayi (wherever Rama went) published 2007.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF RAMA
Why is Rama such an attraction for the Hindu masses, irrespective of claste? After all, being a Kshatriya he had killed a Brahmin scholar that Ravana was. The question may puzzle some people who do not know India, because Sri Rama neither performed any miracle on his own, nor did he ever even allude to be avatara of Lord Maha Vishnu. Nevertheless, the myriad charm of Ramayana is something which is so evergreen and standing the test of times that Rama Lila is celebrated with gusto every year in every part of the nation. Rama and his associates immortalized in Ramayana have endeared themselves to millions of people all over the world, transcending even religious barriers.
Mahatma Gandhi, no communalist by any Anglized liberal standards had declared that to make Ramayana as the goal of state governance was the aim of the Freedom Struggle.
The greatness of Rama is not limited to humans on earth alone. In a dialogue between Lord Shiva and his spouse Parvati in the concluding part of Vishnu Sahasranamam in the epic, Mahabharata (Vishnu Sahasranama which is a recital of one thousand names of Lord Mahavishnu). Goddess Parvathi towards the very end is said to enquire of Lord Shiva, in the following sloka,
Kenopayena Laguna Vishnor Nama Sahasraham
Patyathe Pandithair Nithyam Srothumichamyaham Prabhoh:
{“Does there exist any abridged version of this garland of one thousand nmes, which will have the same efficacy as reciting all the thousand names”}.

Lord Shiva replied to Parvathi as follows;
Rama Rama Ramethi, Rame Rame Mano Rame
Sahasra Nama Thattulyum Rama Nama Varanane:
{recital of just the one word ‘Rama’ could produce an effect equival4nt to reciting all the thousand names of Maha Vishnu:}
Therefore, according to revered scriptures, even gods and goddesses themselves felt the power, the boundless charm of Rama, hence where is the surprise if ordinary mortals worship this Lord as if nothing else mattered?
Valmiki, the author of the original Ramayana text was a contemporary of Sri Rama. This has been explicitly stated in the text itself. This story was not penned a few hundred years after the life of Rama. In fact, Valmiki was the guardian to the wife and sons of Rama.
Ramayana being a popular story of India, many authors down the time line have written their own regional language versions of Ramayana. Kalidasa, the great Sanskrit poet of the 5th century CE wrote his Raghuvamsa, his poetry on Rama. The Tamil poet Kamban wrote his version of Kamba Ramayana over 1000 years back. Goswami Tulsidas wrote Ram Charita Manas in the 17th century.
These three and such other eminent authors across India have penned the story eulogizing the Indian hero and divinity of Rama and there is no inconsistency or contradiction in these texts to throw doubt about the existence of Rama.
The Puranas also mention the details on the story of Rama. The stories mentioned in the Puranic texts which texts all secular historians rely on and the original Ramayana of Valmiki cross-vandate each other in many a place. This adds further credibility to the Valmiki Ramayana text being rightly termed as Itihaasa i.e., it thus happened as a historical text.
Many Indian researchers have made use of computer software to arrive at historic dates for various events described in the literature based on planetary positions.
According to Pushkar Bhatnagar, in Historicity of Rama, based on astronomical data on planetary positions given in the Puranas and the Ramayana, the dates of the events in Rama’s lifetime are as in the Table below:

HISTORICAL DATES OF SRI RAMA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Events of Sri Rama Data

Sri Ram Navami – Birthday January 10, 5114 BCE (i.e. 7122 years ago
Birth of Bharatha January 11, 5114 BCE
Pre-coronation eve January 4, 5089 BCE
Khar, Dushan episode October 7, 5077 BCE
Vali Vadham April 3, 5076 BCE
Hanuman’s Visit to Lanka September 12, 5076 BCE
Hanuman’s Return from Lanka September 14, 5076 BCE
Army march to Lanka September 20, 5076 BCE

The sheer divine beauty of Rama’s personality inspired even the poet, Iqbal, to declare him the ‘Imam-E-Hind’ in his poem paid him this glowing tribute:
Hari Ram key wujood pey Hindostan ko naaz
Ahl-e-nazar samajhte hain usko Imam-e-Hind
Ejaazous chiraagh-e-hidaayet kaa hai yahee
Raushantar azsaher haizamane mai sham-e-Hind.

In short, Ram is the spiritual head of India, even according to Iqbal, who was otherwise a hardline Muslim.
Abroad too, interestingly, Sun Yuxi, the Chinese Ambassador to India, told me that there has been an ongoing scholarly debate in China, about the origins of the Monkey-hero Sun Wukong in the Chinese epic novel Xiyouji viz., does his origin stem from Hanuman, or is Sun Wukong a product of indigenous folklore?
The theory of a possible connection between Sun Wukong and Hanuman was first proposed by Hu Shih, the well known poet and President of the famous Beijing University. In his famous speech in 1936 at the Harvard University Tercentennial Celebrations, titled “Indianisation of China”, Dr. Hu spoke disapprovingly of the Chinese people swallowing and digesting Hinduism in the garb of Mahayana Buddhism, and accepting idol worship.
Ironically while Mr. Karunanidhi in his speeches has debunked the Setu and Rama, the DMK State and the UPA Union Governments have been advertising and affirming the exact opposite: existence of the Setu and the historicity of Rama! For example, the Tourist Department of the TN Government has been advertising in Railway trains, urging the people to visit Rameshwaram and see where Rama set his “lotus feet”, to build a bridge (setu) to Sri Lanka with the help of the Vanar Sena (see enclosed photo), to rescue his wife Sita.
The National Remote Sensing Agency (NRSA), of the Union Ministry of Space has published a book of satellite photographs {ISBN: 8177525 6524} claiming that “archaeological studies show “that the Setu may be ‘man made’” This book has been distributed to all MPs free by the Ministry of Space. Yet Ms. Ambika Soni as Minister of Culture to a question in Rajya Sabha (August 14, 2007) falsely stated that “no archaeological studies has been made in respect of the Rama Setu”. This is a breach of privilege of the House, for which she should be punished.
Thus Rama Setu exists and is sacred. No one can be permitted to damage or break it. Lord Rama is the inspiration of every India, especially the Hindus who constitute 83% of the population of India. Anything he has touched is sacred.

'Rama Set' rocks selling like hot cakes

2008-11-22T01:05:00.001-08:00

'Ram Setu' rocks selling like hot cakes
22 Nov 2008, 1354 hrs IST, PTI

RAMESWARAM: Ram Setu, the mythical bridge which got embroiled in a controversy over the Sethusamudram project, is back in news. This time for the trade of coral rocks, considered to be a part of the holy structure.

Droves of pilgrims here are buying coral rocks being sold by the agents and tourist guides, who claim that the rocks were a part of the bridge built by the 'Vanara Sena' for Lord Ram to crossover to Lanka to rescue Sita.

"Pilgrims visiting this temple town buy these stones thinking that they are from the Ram bridge. But they are actually coral rocks," an official of the Gulf of Mannar Marine National Park said.

As coral rocks tend to float naturally, pilgrims believe that the rocks are the ones used by Rama's army and buy it, he said.

Despite a ban on the trade of coral rocks under the Wild Life and Marine Life Protection Acts, they are being sold at five places -- 'Seetha Theertham,' 'Ram Theertham,' 'Lakshman Theertham,' 'Kandhamadhanaparvam' and at an ashram -- in the island at rates varying between Rs 500 and Rs 1000 per piece, he said.

Gopinathan, a tourist guide, said they get a nominal commission for each stone sold through them. The stones were even presented to VIPs visiting the island, stating that it was auspicious to keep them at home, he said.

According to officials here, many marine species like sea horse, turtles and dugong, whose sale is prohibited under the Marine Life Protection Act, are also being sold openly.

Denying receiving any complaint about sale of coral rocks in the area, Gulf of Mannar Marine National park officials say they are not in a position to monitor such a vast coastal belt but they would look into the matter.

The 'Ram Setu' (Adams Bridge) has been in the limelight after BJP and its allied outfits protested the present alignment of the Sethusamudram project, charging that it would damage the mythical structure.

Following the protest, dredging of the bridge has been stopped and the case is being heard in the Supreme Court which has suggested that the government explore alternative site for the project.

The Sethusamudram project aims to create a navigable channel from the Gulf of Mannar to the Bay of Bengal through the Palk bay and Palk Straits.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Ram_Setu_rocks_selling_like_hot_cakes/articleshow/3744644.cms

Rama Setu: demolition a criminal offence -- Swamy

2008-11-05T05:29:00.000-08:00

Demolition of Ram Setu a criminal offence: Dr. Subramanian Swamy tells SC
Nov. 5, 2008

Former Union minister and Janata party president Dr Subramanian Swami, in his written argument filed in the Supreme Court in Ram Setu case, has contended that demolition of the bridge will amount to a criminal offence under section 295 IPC.

According to this section, defacing, demolition or damaging a place of worship knowing well that it will hurt the religious sentiments of a segment of population, is a criminal offence.

Dr Swamy, who is one of the petitioners seeking declaration from the apex court that Ram Setu, also known as Adam’s Bridge, is a monument of national heritage and therefore, cannot be touched, has also pleaded that Sethusamudram project has already been rejected by the Planning Commission of India as economically not good.

Dr Swami has, however, said if Alignment six was changed and alternative route was taken sparing 35 km Ram Setu, then he has no objection to the completion of the project.

He has also submitted that if the alternative alignment was not chosen for completion of Rs 2240 crore project, then the entire project should be scrapped as it will turn out to be an economic disaster and shall also prove to be a grave threat to national security.

He has also contended that the decision making process adopted to approve the project was illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and also inspired by conflicting commercial interest.

The Supreme Court has already restrained the Government from damaging Ram Setu in any manner while carrying out dredging activity for completion of Sethusamudram Shipping Channel which will link Rameshwaram in Tamil Nadu to Sri Lanka.

The Union Government, in its written arguments, has taken a stand that the bridge was not integral to Hinduism and was destroyed by Lord Rama at the request of Vibhishan, brother of demon king Ravana, who saw the bridge as threat to the security of Sri Lanka under his rule.

http://sks5005.wordpress.com/2008/11/04/demolition-of-ram-setu-a-criminal-offence-dr-subramanian-swamy-tells-sc/

Rama Setu: Centre’s stand contradictory, says Swamy

2008-11-04T18:05:00.000-08:00

Rama Setu: Centre’s stand contradictory, says Swamy

Legal Correspondent (The Hindu, 5 Nov. 2008)

New Delhi: Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy has questioned in the Supreme Court the Centre’s stand that Ramar Sethu is not an integral part of Hindu religion.
In his fresh written submissions in the Sethusamudram case, he said the revised stand of the Centre, in its submissions filed on October 12, “has no basis either in fact or in law.” He refuted the averment that the “petitioners have not proved that Ramar Sethu is an integral or essential part of the Hindu religion to attract Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.”

Dr. Swamy said: “The Union of India has taken contradictory and differing positions in various affidavits filed during the course of the proceedings, attributing each position to various Hindu texts without sourcing it to any credible religious scholar but based on dubious unauthoritative translations.”

These contradictions indicated that the government was not in a position to answer the question whether Ramar Sethu was qualified to be regarded as an integral part of the Hindu religion or to be designated as an ancient monument within the meaning of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act. “A Hindu will consider as an integral part of his or her religion that which would make his spiritual life incomplete if it is not prayed at or to at least once in his or her lifetime.”

On the Centre’s submission that Lord Rama himself had destroyed Sethu, Dr. Swamy said: “It is irrelevant to adduce this argument even if this interpretation of counsel is based on one of the sources quoted by one of the petitioners. What is necessary is that the interpretation or inference must be based on an authorised, scholarly, unimpeachable translation from the original Sanskrit language text.”

The averment by the Sethusamudram Corporation that it was “contemplating provision of a viewing gallery along the [shipping] channel alignment demolishes the stand of counsel, especially the averment that Ramar Sethu is not an integral part of Hindu religion.”

Dr. Swamy said the administrative decision-making process in choosing Alignment 6, if implemented, would be illegal and arbitrary. Hence the decision to pursue Alignment 6, entailing a rupture in Ramar Sethu, should be judicially invalidated. The court has already reserved verdict in this case.

http://www.hindu.com/2008/11/05/stories/2008110561341500.htm

Rama Setu: Who runs Union of India? Nariman? Who approved the false affidavit submitted to SC?

2008-10-21T16:58:00.000-07:00

Rama Setu: Who runs Union of India? Nariman? Who approved the false affidavit submitted to SC?

This is yet another instance of the scandalous state of the union of India led by UPA government. Did Hon’ble PM approve the affidavit? How come the Congresss claims that they were not aware of the claims mad in the affidavit? Who is in charge? Nariman? Given the state of deterioration in ethical values in the government functionaries, this report is not a surprise. The people of the nation will decide when the date of reckoning comes. I think SC should take exception to the way the Court is being treated – in utter contempt -- in responding to cases in the highest court of the land.

Kalyanaraman

Congress in the dark on latest Ram Sethu affidavit in court

The submission filed in the apex court states, among other things, that Ram himself destroyed the Ram Sethu

K.P. Narayana Kumar and Malathi Nayak -- Livemint.com Oct. 21, 2008

New Delhi: The Congress-led United Progressive Alliance, or UPA, has again been blindsided, with the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) representative in the Union cabinet, T.R. Baalu, failing to inform either the Union cabinet or the coordinator for the legal defence of the government in the controversial Sethusamudram project, prior to filing a crucial affidavit in the Supreme Court.

The submission, among other things, states that the Ram Sethu was destroyed by Ram himself, and that it was not proved by the petitioners that the structure was integral to Hinduism.

Controversial topic: A Nasa photo of the Ram Sethu. Many Hindus believe the god-king, Ram, built this bridge to rescue his wife, Sita, from the clutches of demon-king Ravana. Others say it is a coral walkway.

It is a politically explosive argument with elections for six states in the next three months announced, including in four north Indian states where the Bharatiya Janata Party, or BJP, has significant strength. The BJP has consistently opposed the project, using it to score political points.

The filing, while in line with the DMK’s own position on the issue, could quickly emerge as a political problem for the Congress party, which is already being subjected to the charge that it is soft on minorities at the expense of India’s Hindu majority.

The Sethusamudram project began in 2004 and proposed to create a shipping channel by dredging a walkway connecting India and Sri Lanka. Many Hindus believe the god-king, Ram, built this bridge with an army of monkeys to rescue his wife, Sita, from the clutches of demon-king Ravana. Others say it is a coral walkway.

A senior minister in the UPA government, who was tasked with coordinating the legal challenge on the channel project but didn’t want to be named, concedes: “I do not know how or why that submission was filed before the court. I am yet to see the document. This was not discussed during cabinet meetings either.”

When the case proceedings ended on 30 July, the court, while reserving judgment, had asked the parties to submit written arguments, including new contentions.

The written document submitted by the government on 14 October is dubbed a “Brief written Note by Counsel for the Union of India submitted after the close of oral arguments on 30 July 2008”. It has excerpts from religious texts including the Kamba Ramayanam and Padma Purana.

The document states that “it has not been proved (by the petitioners) undoubtedly to the belief of the Hindu community—that Lord did not himself break the bridge”. Quoting the religious texts, it argued that the “petitioners have not alleged much less proved that Rama Sethu forms an integral part of the Hindu religion”.

Moreover, it describes the petitions as “politically motivated” and goes on to say that the pleas of the petitioners smack of “a lack of bona fide”.

An officer in the culture ministry, who is in charge of the department that deals with the channel project, also said they weren’t consulted nor were they informed after the submission by the shipping and road transport ministry.

“I read about the submission in the next day’s papers. We were not informed,” said this officer who, too, didn’t want to be named.

Another senior official, who is in the shipping and road transport ministry and similarly didn’t want his name used, said “the minister has been directly dealing with the matter himself”, indicating that even relevant ministry officials were not briefed about the filing of the submission.

Calls to Baalu’s office weren’t returned. Fali S. Nariman, the government counsel on the case, too, was unavailable for comment. Additional solicitor general R. Mohan, who was handling the shipping ministry’s brief, declined to comment.

Commentator Cho Ramaswamy says Baalu and Tamil Nadu chief minister M. Karunandhi’s family are very keen on the Sethusamudram project proceeding. “However, this (the Sethusamudram controversy) is not an issue that will benefit any political party when it comes to the elections,” he added.

DMK spokesperson Ilangovan, who uses only one name, said: “We will invoke Sethusamudram during the polls to highlight how the BJP has deprived the benefits of such a good project to Tamil Nadu.” He refused to comment further.

On his part, Arun Kumar, a Congress party secretary who is in charge of the Tamil Nadu unit, said he will study the affidavit in detail before reacting to it.

BJP spokesman Prakash Javadekar said: “The government is not only indulging in interpreting religion but is also giving a new twist to Ram katha itself. In the first affidavit, the government said there is no proof of Ram’s existence. Then there was widespread anger and it withdrew the affidavit. In the next one, it said it was a matter of faith and was up to the court to decide. Now they are saying that Ram himself destroyed the Ram Sethu, which means they are admitting that Ram existed.”

The government on 30 July told the court it would set up a committee headed by R.K. Pachauri, director general of The Energy and Resourses Institute, to look at an alternative route for the project, one that possibly doesn’t cut across the Ram Sethu. The committee was meant to examine alternative routes and submit a report before the court. The report is yet to be submitted.

Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy, the chief petitioner in the case related to the Sethusamudram project, moved the Supreme Court on Thursday challenging the submissions made by the Centre. The court has permitted him to file submissions to rebut the Centre’s new arguments.

“The Centre has made some new points almost two and a half months after the court reserved its judgement,” said Swamy. “It is quite clear that the written submissions were filed primarily to intimidate and influence the Pachauri committee which consists of government officials.”

narayana.k@livemint.com
Krisnamurthy Ramasubbu and Liz Mathew contributed to this story.

http://www.livemint.com/Articles/PrintArticle.aspx

Centre has allready admitted Ramar Sethu is sacred: Swamy

2008-10-16T17:51:00.000-07:00

Centre has already admitted Ramar Sethu is sacred: Swamy

Legal Correspondent (The Hindu, 17 Oct. 2008)

“This demolishes counsel’s averment that it is not an integral part of religion”

“Ridge like structure of Ramar Sethu is such that no dredging will be possible”
Damaging any sacred place is a cognisable criminal offence

New Delhi: Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy on Thursday questioned the Centre’s stand in the Supreme Court that Ramar Sethu was not an integral part of Hindu religion and that it was not an article of faith.

In his written submissions, he said the Centre was giving dubious interpretations to the facts admitted earlier. He said the sacredness and worship of Ramar Sethu had already been admitted by the Centre and judicially noticed by the Madras High Court, and that Sethusamudram Shipping Channel Project Ltd was contemplating providing a viewing gallery, along the channel alignment, for pilgrims to visit Adam’s Bridge (Ramar Sethu).

“This admission demolishes the stand of the Centre’s counsel, especially the averment that Ramar Sethu is not integral part of Hindu religion.”

On Thursday morning, Dr. Swamy made a mention before a Bench, headed by Chief Justice K. G. Balakrishnan, that the Centre’s stand was contrary to its submissions made in the court. However, Justice Balakrishnan asked him to file written submissions.

Dr. Swamy maintained that the administrative decision-making process in choosing Alignment 6, if implemented, “is illegal arbitrary, unreasonable, disproportionate, and is also vitiated by bias, conflict of interest, and fraudulent statistical data. The decision to pursue Alignment 6 calling for a rupture in Ramar Sethu be judicially invalidated. An alternative alignment or an alternative project if proposed and which does not call for damaging or destroying Ramar Sethu is, however, acceptable.”

‘No metaphysical jurisdiction’

He said “Ramar Sethu is built on a sharply rising ridge formation and it cannot be dredged through. It can only be exploded. That is, the ridge like structure of Ramar Sethu is such that no dredging is possible.” The sacredness of Ramar Sethu and the relevance in administrative decisions of respecting faith were subjective over which no court could have a metaphysical jurisdiction.

Dr. Swamy asserted: “It is a cognisable criminal offence under Section 295 of the IPC, viz. any damage, defilement, or destruction of any place of worship or of any object held sacred by any class of persons; with the knowledge that such class of persons is likely to consider such damage, defilement, or destruction as an insult to their religion.”

He said: “Thus, implementing the project would be prima facie a cognisable offence, and therefore its commission cannot be permitted or sanctioned.”

He reiterated that Ramar Sethu should be declared a national monument.

http://www.hindu.com/2008/10/17/stories/2008101755581400.htm

Setu row: Centre accused of giving dubious interpretation in SC

2008-10-16T11:21:00.000-07:00

Setu row: Centre accused of giving dubious interpretation in SC

New Delhi, Oct 16 (PTI) Provoked by the government's stand that Rama Setu is not an "essential" and "integral" part of Hindu religion, Janata Party President Subramaniam Swamy today rushed to the Supreme Court accusing it of giving "dubious" interpretations to the facts admitted earlier.

He told the apex court that when the matter had come before the Madras High Court the Centre had admitted the sacredness of Rama Setu or Adams bridge and even contemplated building a viewing gallery along the Sethusamudram channel alignment and thus demolishes its fresh contention.

"Moreover, sacredness and worshipping of the Rama Setu has already been admitted by the respondents (Centre and its concerned department) themselves and judicially noticed by the First Bench of the Madras High Court, that because of the need of Hindu pilgrims to visit Adams bridge (Rama Setu) and offer obeisance, the SCL (Sethusamudram Canal Project Ltd) is contemplating provision of viewing gallery along the channel alignment," Swamy said in his written submission.

"This admission demolishes the stand of the counsel (Centre's advocate), especially the averment that Rama Setu is not integral part of Hindu religion," he said and added that the Centre and those concerned with the project have "no locus standi to pontificate on what is at the core of Hindu religion".

Swamy, who has sought declaration of Rama Setu as an historical monument, accused the Centre of burdening the court with "unsubstantiated" and "dubious" interpretations from the Puranas and the Ramayana to undermine the sacredness of the mythological bridge. PTI

http://www.ptinews.com/pti\ptisite.nsf/0/9A43DDDFF4DB5572652574E40049E438?OpenDocument

Rama Setu: UPA taking contradictory stands -- Malhotra

2008-10-15T04:49:00.000-07:00

UPA taking contradictory stands on Ram Sethu: Malhotra

New Delhi (PTI): BJP's Chief Ministerial candidate for Delhi V K Malhotra on Wednesday hit out at the Congress-led UPA on the Ram Sethu issue, saying the Central government is adopting "contradictory stands" on the matter.

"The government has been taking contradictory stands on the Ram Sethu issue. First they said it exists. Then the culture ministry said in court that Ram did not exist and on Tuesday they said in court that the Sethu did not exist," Malhotra told PTI.

The BJP leader, who is also his party's Deputy Leader in the Lok Sabha, warned that his party will not bear with this attitude of the UPA government.

"They are playing with the feelings of not only Hindus but all Ram devotees, including Sikhs, who also believe in Ram," Malhotra said.

The saffron party leader said Congress President Sonia Gandhi and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had visited Ramlilas and shown respect to Ram probably to get political mileage.

"But now they have shown their true colours by speaking against Lord Ram in court. We won't tolerate this," he said.

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/002200810151431.htm

Latest Rama Setu affidavit of UPA government is an affront to sentiments of millions of people – Ramasetu protection movement

2008-10-14T19:02:00.001-07:00

Latest Rama Setu affidavit of UPA government is an affront to sentiments of millions of people – Ramasetu protection movement

The surreptious manner in which the Government of India has submitted an affidavit to the Supreme Court on 14 October 2008 shows that the Counsel Nariman and the UPA Government are in a state of panic.

As Dr. Subramanian Swamy has noted it is unethical conduct not to have given copies of the affidavit to the petitioners.

What is the UPA Government trying to hide? It appears that the UPA Government has forgotten the fact that they were forced to withdraw their affidavit denying Sri Rama and Ramayana after nation-wide peoples’ protests. The reference to Kamba Ramayan cited in the affidavit as referring to breaches in Rama Setu caused by Sri Rama has already been proved to be false and later-day interpolations.

Is the UPA Government trying to influence the Pachauri Committee in its deliberations by submitting yet another affidavit indulging in suggestio falsi and suppressio veri? The affidavit does not refer to the fact that Rama Setu functioned as a bridge between India and Srilanka right upto the 18th century as recorded in Royal Asiatic Society research archives. People from both sides had been using this as a causeway for centuries; if so, how could there have been a breach in the Setu? Searching for alibis in a desperate bid to continue with a project disaster and hurting sentiments of a billion Hindus seems to be the objective of this unethical, unsubstantiated affidavit.

The Supreme Court directions are a clear indication that the Rama Setu, a place of worship is central to the belief of millions of people and that it cannot be damaged for any channel project. Hence, the direction by the highest court of the land asking UPA Government to seek an alternative channel route without damaging Rama Setu. Earlier, the Madras High Court had also directed the UPA Government to consider declaring Rama Setu as an Ancient Monument under the 1958 Act.

Instead of carrying out the court directions honestly, UPA Government and its counsel continue to politick on this issue of intense concern to millions of people of the nation whose very core identity is linked with Sri Rama and Setubandha Rameshwaram. At this Setu, every year more than 5 lakh pilgrims assemble on Ashadha amavasya day to offer homage to the ancestors through pitru-tarpanam. This sacred pilgrimage, this ecological treasure should be protected as World Heritage and bequeathed to future generations.

The contempt with which UPA Government treats Hindu sentiments is shocking beyond belief. While being ready to succumb to sentiments of some communities by changing Metro route of Delhi or amend the Constitution on Shah Banu SC judgement, it is clear that UPA Government is demonstrating only its anti-Hindu, anti-national stance.

Kalyanaraman, National President,S. Vedantam, National Secretary Rameshwaram Rama Setu Protection Movement 15 October 2008

Rama Setu: not part of Hinduism, not a place of worship; Govt. tells SC

2008-10-14T04:26:00.000-07:00

Rama Setu: not part of Hinduism, not a place of worship; Govt. tells SC

Govt. of India led by UPA chairperson Sonia gandhi and their counsel F. Nariman have lost their credibility, to put it mildly.

What does it take to win fat fees from the exchequer? Any lie goes? Even on sworn affidavits?

kalyanaraman

Ram Setu not part of Hinduism: Govt tells SC
Agencies

Published on Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 16:11 in Nation section

BRIDGE IN TROUBLED WATERS: Tamil Nadu CM is adamant on Sethusamudram project .

New Delhi: The Centre on Tuesday told the Supreme Court the Ram Setu, which many Hindus believe was the bridge Lord Ram built to cross over to Lanka, was not an integral part of the religion.

The Centre’s affidavit also said the Setu, a 48-km long chain of limestone shoals, was destroyed by Lord Ram himself and is not a place of worship as claimed by some Hindu groups.

The groups say the Sethusamudram shipping canal project, which proposes building a shipping canal between India and Sri Lanka, would destroy the Setu.

The Government referred to Kamba Ramayana written by Tamil saint Kambar to support its claim. The affidavit is surprising, as the Government is examining an alternative alignment for the channel project upon a directive from the Supreme Court.

Janata Party president Subramaniam Swamy and several other organisations have filed pleas before the Supreme Court claiming Ram Setu is a place of worship and sacred to Hindus. The petitioners claim Lord Rama and his army built the Setu to reach Sri Lanka to rescue his wife.

The Centre has appointed a six-member committee to examine if an alternative route for the Sethusamudram project can be taken to save the Setu. The court is awaiting the report of the six-member committee.

The Sethusamudram project

The Sethusamudram shipping canal project proposes linking the Palk Bay and the Gulf of Mannar between India and Sri Lanka by creating a shipping canal.

The project involves dredging 82.5 million cubic metres of the Adam's Bridge or the Ram Setu. When completed, the canal will be 167 km long and its estimated cost is approximately Rs 2,427 cores.

This is the country's first effort at dredging a navigation channel that is 30-40 kilometres offshore. The project promises to save travel time and cost drastically.

As of now, ships traversing from India's east coast to the west coast have to circumnavigate Sri Lanka due to this bridge located southeast of Rameswaram.

Once the canal is ready, ships can navigate through the Gulf of Mannar and Palk Bay, and enter the Bay of Bengal directly, thereby reducing the distance for ships by 780 km and sailing time by up to 30 hours.

http://www.ibnlive.com/printpage.php?id=75806§ion_id=3

Tuesday, October 14, 2008 3:47 PM

Ram Sethu not a place of worship: Centre
Zeenews Bureau

New Delhi, Oct 14: The Congress-led UPA government has filed a fresh affidavit in the Supreme Court on the controversial Ram Sethu issue. In the 100-page affidavit, reportedly filed on October 11, the Centre claims that Ram Sethu, or Adam’s Bridge as it is popularly known, is not a place of worship as being claimed by many religious groups and political parties.

The Centre further says that Ram Sethu is not an integral part of Hinduism and repeated its earlier claim that it no longer exists. According to the affidavit, which contains replies to various petitions filed in favour of the Ram Sethu, including by J Jayalalitha’s AIADMK, Lord Ram had himself destroyed the bridge while returning from Ravan’s Lanka (present day Sri Lanka).

Intriguingly, the Centre, which has formed a six-member committee headed by noted environmentalist Rajendra Pachouri to explore the new alignment but chose to file the latest affidavit even before the committee could come out with its findings.

Moreover, the development came days after the Centre set in motion the process of examining an alternative alignment of the Sethusamudram Shipping Channel Project (SSCP) following a directive from the Supreme Court.

In the first week of this month, a team of engineers had commenced a survey of the area to work out an alternative alignment.

A total of six alignments were suggested since the project was conceived. One alignment chosen was stoutly opposed by political parties, including the BJP and Shiv Sena, as it cut through the Ram Sethu.

In July also, the Centre had told the SC that it had concluded Ram Sethu does not fulfil the criteria for being declared a national monument.

(Vide www.zeenews.com dated October 14, 2008)

Ramar Sethu is not an integral part of Hindu religion: Centre

Special Correspondent (The Hindu, 15 Oct. 2008)

Hence, it does not require protection under Articles 25 and 26
Religious texts show that the bridge was built and broken by Lord Rama himself
Petitioner’s counsel Parasaran himself argued that anything broken could not be worshipped

New Delhi: Even as it awaits the R.K. Pachauri committee report on an alternative route for the Sethusamudram Ship Channel Project, the Centre has reiterated in the Supreme Court that Ramar Sethu is not an integral part of Hindu religion requiring protection under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution (dealing with right to freedom of religion).

The court, while reserving verdict on July 30 on the petitions filed by Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy and others challenging the implementation of the Sethusamudram project by demolishing Adam’s Bridge (Ramar Sethu), asked the parties to file written submissions. The court said the judgment would be pronounced after the experts panel submitted its report. Accordingly, the Centre filed its written submissions.

Response to petitioners

The Centre said: “Ramar Sethu does not form an integral or essential part of Hindu religion. A religious belief or practice which is not an essential and integral part of the religion is not protected by Articles 25 and 26.” This was in response to the petitioners’ argument that the destruction of Ramar Sethu would cause irreparable damage to Hindus’ religious sentiments.

Referring to the argument by senior counsel K. Parasaran (for one of the petitioners) that Ramar Sethu could not be touched as it was sacred, the Centre said: “The religious texts relied [upon] by him themselves showed that the bridge had been built and had been broken by Lord Rama himself.” Mr. Parasaran had also argued that anything broken could not be worshipped.

The Centre said the petitioner did not prove that Lord Rama himself did not break the bridge. “Nor has it been established that whatever remains of Ramar Sethu as a place of worship is an essential and integral part of the Hindu religion.”
Quoting Gazetteer of Southern India 1855, the Centre said that after returning from Sri Lanka upon His victory over Ravana, Lord Rama “took his heavy bow and with it made several breaches in the bridge so wide that nobody could pass over it on foot.”
Seeking dismissal of the petitions, the Centre said geological evidence “shows that this gap was once a bridge and it was breached during the violent storms in 1480. Operations for removing the obstacles in the channel and for deepening and widening it were begun in 1838.”

http://www.hindu.com/2008/10/15/stories/2008101556411300.htm

Swamy objects to Centre`s move in SC on Sethu project
Chennai, Oct 14: Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy on Tuesday criticised the Centre's move to submit written submissions in the Supreme Court in the Sethusamudram Shipping Canal project case, without informing principal parties in the case like him.

In a statement here, he said counsel for the Union Government had made a mention in the Supreme Court of the government's intention on the case without informing the parties concerned, which, he said, was an 'unethical behaviour' in the code of law.

These written submission did not add any weight to the argument already made by the government in the court, he said.

"What is clear, though, is that the government continues to maintain that Ramar Sethu is not an essential part of Hindu religion. The law is clear and explicit, namely, that what is to be held sacred is decided by a sizeable section of the people and not by any government or court," he said.

Bureau Report
http://www.zeenews.com/articles.asp?aid=476209&sid=REG

Campaign to declare Gulf of Mannar a World Heritage Site

2008-10-10T07:56:00.001-07:00

Campaign to declare Gulf of Mannar a World Heritage Site
Friday, 10.10.2008, 06:35am (GMT-7)

NEW YORK: An unprecedented international campaign to protect the Gulf of Mannar from destruction by the planned Sethusamudram Ship Channel Project (SSCP) is to be launched in London, UK, next month. The Gulf of Mannar, which separates the south eastern tip of India from the west coast of Sri Lanka, is one of South Asia's largest biosphere reserves and a site of recognized scientific, environmental, religious and cultural importance. In 2006, when dredging commenced for the SSCP, in order to provide a navigation route for large vessels around the whole of the Indian peninsula, there was a chorus of disapproval from environmental, humanitarian and religious and cultural organizations worldwide.

Now, for the first time, many of these organizations are to meet to provide compelling multi-disciplinary evidence encouraging the Governments of India and Sri Lanka to ask UNESCO to designate the Gulf as a World Heritage Site.

This would effectively end plans for the SSCP and ensure the Gulf - home for many endangered plant and animal species as well as being the site of the world-famous Adam's Bridge, or Ram Sethu, a structure sacred for Hindus - is protected. The first international meeting to call for a permanent cancellation of the Sethusamudram Ship Channel Project (SSCP) and for the Gulf to be designated a World Heritage Site will be held at the London headquarters of the world's oldest biological society, The Linnean Society, on November 25 and 26.

It will be attended by scientists, biologists, environmentalists, economists, NGOs, religious leaders and civic authorities worldwide. Chairing the meeting will be Peter Bunyard, a fellow of The Linnean Society, co-founder of The Ecologist magazine, and a respected worldwide authority on climate change; Dr. Ranil Senanayake, a leading systems ecologist who has worked with the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and the World Bank on matters of biodiversity and forest rehabilitation; Maaike Hendriks, of Both ENDS in Amsterdam. Both ENDS strives for a more sustainable and fairer world by supporting organization in developing countries to fight poverty and to work towards sustainable environmental management.

The meeting has been championed by Kusum Vyas of the Living Planet Foundation. She says many leading environmentalists and scientists recognize that the SSCP is a flawed venture which has been inaugurated without any detailed review of devastating impacts to the invaluable biodiversity of the Gulf of Mannar. She also argues the SSCP ignores critical environmental and humanitarian issues - including the impact on the livelihood of thousands of fishermen in the area - and that the project has not taken into sufficient account views expressed by environmentalists, seismologists, oceanographers and those living along the coastline.

"As world leaders contemplate ways to save the earth's environment, all responsible citizens of the global community must recognize that dredging and destroying one of the world's few remaining hotspots in terms of its exceptional biodiversity, to create a ship channel in the region of the Gulf of Mannar translates into an ecological disaster," says Kusum Vyas. "If this project goes ahead, more than 100 species of corals and thousands of sea turtles and endangered sea animals such as dolphins and dugongs will be irrevocably harmed.

We know the shipping lanes will bring pollution into the area and mankind will lose forever a part of its precious and fragile environment. Such action simply can't be justified on the grounds it is convenient for people and helps the economy. "To do so would be a sin not just against nature, but also against our own children and generations to come. On the other hand, if the governments of India and Sri Lanka work to declare the Gulf of Mannar a World Heritage site, they can leave a lasting legacy for their people and the citizens of the world."

India Post News Service
http://indiapost.com/article/usnews/4111/

Jaya dares Karunanidhi on Ram issue. Setu project closed chapter.

2008-10-10T07:04:00.000-07:00

Jaya dares Karunanidhi on Ram issue

Chennai, Oct 11: AIADMK supremo Jayalalithaa today alleged thatTamil Nadu Chief Minister M Karunanidhi’s anti-Ram remarks have caused security risks for Tamils living in north India and dared theDMK patriarch to repeat his comments at a public meeting in Delhi.

“Karunanidhi has not visited Delhi of late as he knows that the people in north India are looking at Tamils with contempt, and also castigate him (for the remarks),” she said in a statement here.

“He is emboldened to insult Lord Ram as his party is in power in the state and he has police protection. Does he have the courage to make such remarks at a public meeting in Delhi? If he is ready (to take up the challenge), the AIADMK is prepared to bear his travel expenses,” she added.

Coming down heavily on Karunanidhi for his statements on the Sethusamudram Shipping Channel Project (SSCP), Jayalalithaa said the project was a “closed chapter” as there was no possibility for its completion.

http://bloglove107.sensualwriter.com/2008/10/09/jaya-dares-karunanidhi-on-ram-issue/

Setu project: Centre engages a private firm to examine alternative alignment

2008-10-05T02:18:00.000-07:00

Centre examines alternative alignment of SSCP project

Rameswaram, Oct 4 (PTI) The Centre has set in motion the process of examining an alternative alignment of the Sethusamudram Shipping Channel project (SSCP) following the Supreme Court directive, even as a team of engineers has commenced a survey of the area.

A 15-member team of a private firm is engaged in the inspection of the site chosen, to work out an alternative alignment. They are expected to take at least a fortnight to complete the preliminary study and submit a report, revenue and SSCP sources said.

The team commenced the work on September 29. Though a similar study had been undertaken in the same alignment earlier, it was not completed, the sources said.

The team is conducting surveys at Dhanushkodi, Old Railway Station, Kambipadu, Nadupadu, Aatruodai and Arichal Munai to know the nature of soil, and drilling operations will be done to a depth of 70 to 90 metres. The survey report in turn would be studied by the experts before taking a decision on the alternative alignment, they added.

The Centre had already constituted a six-member committee headed by noted environmental expert Rajendra Pachouri, to explore the new alignment.

A meeting of the experts with the SSCP and Dredging Corporation of India officials was also held in August last when it was decided to take up a survey on the new alignment.

A total of six alignments were suggested since the project was conceived. One alignment chosen was stoutly opposed by political parties, including BJP and Shiv Sena, as it cut through the Ramar Sethu, popularly known as Adams bridge. PTI

http://www.ptinews.com/pti\ptisite.nsf/0/506279E063E9A61E652574D90026ED94?OpenDocument

Abandon Setu project. Develop Vizhinjam Container port

2008-10-04T15:25:00.000-07:00

Here is a detailed article on Colombo port and the possibility of developing Vizhinjam as a container port on the west coast to provide for a world-class container terminal.

Government of India should just give up the Setusamudram project and focus on Vizhinjam port development.

About Vizhinjam port

Vizhinjam is an all - weather port and the international shipping line is just 10 nautical mile off its coast.

The Vizhinjam Port is clearly positioning itself to become Colombo’s direct competitor.

The Port’s official website says that, “Vizhinjam has more advantages compared to the Colombo port, and if developed can harbour even Panamax class and futuristic vessels. It also satisfies the physical and hydrographical parameters of modern seaports.”

The Port’s unique selling point is a natural depth of 24 meters which the Indian government claims is by far the best compared to other ports in the world - even those of New York, Southampton, Singapore, Dubai, Colombo, Hong Kong whose depth is only 15 meters.

The proposed Vizhinjam port, which is being marketed as a Green-field project, away from urban/city limit was originally just a fishing village and had to be developed completely from scratch.

The only claim to shipping, this village which lies 15 kms from Thiruvananthapuram and two kms South of Kovalam has, is its historic origins as the capital of Ayvel Kings of the 8th and 9th century.

The new Port, according to the available information from different websites has all the ingredients to turn out as an efficient, modern and highly productive one, and India is inviting international players with experience in developing the world’s high capacity modern ports, to submit their proposals.

The Port is also expected to attract a large share of the container transshipment traffic which is now being diverted to Colombo, Singapore and Dubai. It can also ensure the much needed economic development of India as well as open up immense job opportunities.

The proposed deepwater international container transshipment terminal at Vizhinjam is expected to bring down the total costs of movement of containers to and from foreign destinations, according to the Container Shipment Economics Study.
At present, India’s port capacity (12 major Indian ports) is a meagre 4.61 million TEUs/annum compared with China’s capacity of 50 million TEUs, almost 11 times that of India’s.

Vizhinjam Port alone will have the capacity of 4.10 million TEUs/annum.

Kalyanaraman

http://www.nation.lk/2008/10/05/newsfe5.htm Kerala port casts shadow over Colombo harbour’s future

Kerala port casts shadow over Colombo harbour’s future

“Chief Engineer Southern Port Development of the SLPA Janaka Kurukulasuriya did admit that Colombo port could be hit due to the development of ports in India. But added it was not a major worry.
“Capacity at Port of Colombo is nearly 4.5 m TEC and once the completion of the full expansion project it will be 14 m TEU.
“Our growth rate at present is 10%. We are closely monitoring all the development that takes place in India.
“It is true that we are little bit late, but not too late. Our schedule is to commence the operation of first terminal in the first quarter of 2012.”
By Wilson Gnanadass
Fresh questions are being raised as to whether Colombo harbour which has been acclaimed as one of the best transshipment hubs in the world, could continue to stake that claim with the advent of another major port in Kerala, India.
If Sri Lanka’s pride has been the port of Colombo, for its efficient and effective operation as a transshipment hub, doubts have now been cast. Soon the Colombo harbour may lose its splendor due to the emergence of other ports in the region.
It is not known how much and to what extent the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA) has taken this threat seriously. However, the SLPA, it is learnt has opted to face the challenge.

The Colombo harbour, considered to be a well equipped transshipment port, has highly specialised infrastructure facilities for handling different types of freight, and acts as a switching point for cargo carried by deep sea vessels operating on trans-continental trade routes.

The SLPA has been successful in recording significant revenue from the transshipment business and according to the latest information has handled its highest ever monthly throughput of 185,099 Twenty – Foot Equivalent Units (TEUs) last August, against its previous highest monthly throughput of 173, 583 TEUs recorded in last July. According to the SLPA it is a positive change of 11,516 TEUs.

Parallel to these standards, the port of Colombo has also been able to exceed its previous highest ever monthly throughput of 326,124 TEUs recorded in July 2008, up to 340,240 TEUs last August marking the latest highest ever monthly throughput record.

No doubt, these figures are direct indications of growth and stability of a port that has gained international recognition right throughout – an achievement, every Sri Lankan can be proud of.

Saturation point
Be that as it may, every business venture has to end at one point after reaching its saturation point, if no long term plan to expand the same venture is taken up with foresight and vision.
Going by the figures produced by the SLPA the Colombo port has handled 2,455,293 TEUs in 2005 and 3, 079, 086 TEUs in 2006 and 3,381,342 TEUs in 2007.

The capacity of both terminals (Jaya Container Terminal and the South Asian Gateway Terminal) is only 4.1 Million TEUs.
Similarly, India’s growth (which is Sri Lanka’s main catchment area) is around 15 % to 20% per annum. This would mean that by the end of 2008, if an all out effort to attract the Lankan share of the Indian volumes to be transshipped over Colombo is made, then the port of Colombo will be close to its optimum capacity.

Realising this, the SLPA has already put its act together, planning on developing another terminal.
According to SLPA sources the work is functioning smoothly and operations at the new terminal are expected to commence in the first quarter of 2012.

Hidden threat
The SLPA cannot be blind to the hidden threat posed by the fast emerging Vizhinjam port in Kerala, which is set to directly compete with the Colombo port also by the year 2012.
Wide publicity has already been given to the Vizhinjam port in the Indian newspapers and the websites.
Vizhinjam, a sleepy fishing village on the western Kerala coast of India, will soon become an important cog in the country’s transshipment business.

The Vizhinjam port project which failed to obtain approval for nearly two decades, has finally been given sanction by the central government of India, according to Indian State Ports Minister M. Vijayakumar.
The port according to the available information in different websites, will fulfill the need of providing transshipment on the Indian coast, as at present there is no existing Container Transshipment Terminal in India to cater to this need.
Annual container traffic close to four million TEUs is currently originating or destined to India through sea route with CAGR (Compound Annual Growth Rate) of 14% during the last decade.

About Vizhinjam port
Vizhinjam is an all - weather port and the international shipping line is just 10 nautical mile off its coast.
The Vizhinjam Port is clearly positioning itself to become Colombo’s direct competitor.
The Port’s official website says that, “Vizhinjam has more advantages compared to the Colombo port, and if developed can harbour even Panamax class and futuristic vessels. It also satisfies the physical and hydrographical parameters of modern seaports.”

The Port’s unique selling point is a natural depth of 24 meters which the Indian government claims is by far the best compared to other ports in the world - even those of New York, Southampton, Singapore, Dubai, Colombo, Hong Kong whose depth is only 15 meters.
The proposed Vizhinjam port, which is being marketed as a Green-field project, away from urban/city limit was originally just a fishing village and had to be developed completely from scratch.

The only claim to shipping, this village which lies 15 kms from Thiruvananthapuram and two kms South of Kovalam has, is its historic origins as the capital of Ayvel Kings of the 8th and 9th century.
The new Port, according to the available information from different websites has all the ingredients to turn out as an efficient, modern and highly productive one, and India is inviting international players with experience in developing the world’s high capacity modern ports, to submit their proposals.

The Port is also expected to attract a large share of the container transshipment traffic which is now being diverted to Colombo, Singapore and Dubai. It can also ensure the much needed economic development of India as well as open up immense job opportunities.

The proposed deepwater international container transshipment terminal at Vizhinjam is expected to bring down the total costs of movement of containers to and from foreign destinations, according to the Container Shipment Economics Study.
At present, India’s port capacity (12 major Indian ports) is a meagre 4.61 million TEUs/annum compared with China’s capacity of 50 million TEUs, almost 11 times that of India’s.

Vizhinjam Port alone will have the capacity of 4.10 million TEUs/annum. This matter has to be looked at in the light of India not giving up on developing the Sethusamurdram project. The study, carried out by IL&FS Infrastructure Development Corporation and Hauer Associates, has also found that the Sethusamudram project will promote inter-coastal movements of Indian cargo, enhancing the potential of Vizhinjam as a transshipment hub.

Indian gateway ports
On the other hand, the present Indian gateway ports do not attract a sufficient number of mainline vessels due to inadequate facilities and the distance from international shipping routes.
As of now, about 61 per cent of Indian export/import containers are transshipped through the nearby foreign ports of Colombo, Singapore and Salalah (Oman.)

This results in an additional burden of upto $200 per TEU of cargo interests with freight paid by Indian exporters being 11.4 per cent of the c.i.f (cost, insurance, freight) value of goods as against the world average of 6.1 per cent.
With Vizhimjam port draft being 24 ft it will be able to attract the post Panamax container ships.

Plight
With a capacity of four million TEUs per annum, the Vizhinjam port will have the same capacity of the Colombo Port and with a draft far exceeding Colombo’s harbour depth, the chances of Colombo harbour becoming less attractive to mainliners, is a definite possibility.

For the Colombo Port this may well mean the end of an era. The monopoly Colombo now enjoys over sea routes in this part of the world might become a thing of the past, come 2012.
Sri Lanka has held sway over this industry for centuries now, because of her strategic location and ideal conditions of Colombo harbour.

The relatively new transshipment business came easily to Sri Lanka due to Indian ports not having the depth and capacity to handle the big ships.
Therefore it has been convenient for India to ship containers on smaller vessels from her southern ports to Colombo, where it is mixed and matched to various destinations in the world.

This makes sense so long as the Colombo Port has capacity to handle the expanding transshipment business (which was about 15 per cent year on year). But here lies the catch – the Port of Colombo is coming to the end of its capacity quite soon. Sometime next year Colombo harbour might hit a dead end when the port reaches saturation point.

Notwithstanding the location of Vizhinjam in the Deep South, cargo interests in the southern, northern and western regions may find it more viable to use the port as a gateway/transshipment terminal instead of Colombo, Singapore or Salalah. This means the hinterland of the port may extend to the western and northern parts of the country.
Once the new port has been constructed, Indian exporters will not have to travel to Dubai or Singapore for transshipment of cargo. It is expected to save Rs 1000 crores in expenditure.

According to IIM Students in Bangalore, with India’s current capacity for handling cargo is nearing saturation, a new port is a necessity, and Vizhinjam can fill that void extremely well.
The students in an article to the Economic Times, India have said that US $ 150 is levied in Colombo for transshipment and US $ 130 in Dubai and Singapore for the same.
They have therefore said that India can not only garner a substantial portion of this fee, but also save a lot of money if her ships break their bulk at Indian ports.

“A single container transshipped from Colombo port to Cochin incurs an expense of US $ 1,200. If it was directly landed at Cochin it would cost only US $ 400. Eight per cent of Indian containers are transshipped at Colombo, Singapore and Dubai and Indian ships account for 60 to 70 % of Colombo’s traffic,” they have said in their article.
Considering the shipping volume for the Asian region, the total transshipment cargo is expected to increase by 80%, 70% and 200 % for Colombo, Singapore and Port Klang respectively.

The IIM students from Bangalore in their article to the Economic Times India have therefore suggested that with proper planning Vizhinjam can expect to corner a significant chunk of the shipping volumes forecast to go to Colombo, along with a part of the volumes heading for Singapore and Klang.

Fears expressed
The fast development of Vizhinjam which is sure to gobble a major portion of the earnings by the SLPA, has raised concerns among most of the feeder shipping agents.
A senior official attached to a feeder shipping agency told The Nation that if proper steps were not taken to develop the Colombo harbour rapidly, then Sri Lanka was in for trouble.

“At its current status, the Colombo port will not be able to provide berth to some of the big ships in the future. This does not mean that we have to panic when ports in India are coming up. But if there is an undue delay in the development of the Colombo port then there can be a problem,” he said.

He said when the ships planned their services, they planned 18 months ahead of their services. He added that if Colombo was not prepared with a product plan, then these ships can easily look elsewhere.
He said the Colombo port has commenced the breakwater project already and added the development of the terminal can take place only ten months after the commencement of the breakwater project.

The top official said that normally the target time frame to complete a terminal was around three years, and added if the work was not completed in the Colombo port by 2012, then larger ships will be calling elsewhere, and the bulk of the transshipment volume could thus get diverted.
http://www.nation.lk/2008/10/05/newsfe5.htm

Setu channel: Kannagi’s curse anniversary on inaugural day; project misses deadline.

2008-09-12T19:43:00.000-07:00

Setu channel: Kannagi’s curse anniversary on inaugural day; project misses deadline.

Thanks to Commander Unninathan for the brilliant note. It is Kannagi's curse anniversary indeed. Kannagi, the Tamil divinity will NOT allow the desiccation of Sethusamudram with a project which is a nautical folly and a mariner's nightmare. Maa Kannagi will take care of the welfare of the people of Bharatam, of the coastal people through marine economic zones and development of deep-sea container ports at Kochi and Vizhinjam to link up with the mainland through container-rail-coordination.

namaskaram. kalyanaraman

Commander GVK Unnithan September 12th, 2008 9:59 am :
The deadline was unilaterally decided by the Min of Shipping resulting from a wishful thinking. Infact the Shipping Ministry had boasted that the inaguration will take place on 8th of Oct 2008 ! None of the predicton considered the ground realities. The saving of the 424/785/30 syndrome is not at all practical. May be 12-18 hours would be gained at a very heavy cost. Has any one in the maritime industry or a professional shipper ok ed the project? None. It is a poitical canal for swindling the public money and adding one more name in the list of sick PSUs. Even if the courts clear it and the canal is opened, only coastal vessels can use it due to depth restrictions as no ocean going cargo ship/ oil tanker will use it as it is economically unviable. Added to this was the various govt officials concerned were working at cross purpose resulting embarassment to the govt at least more than twice. The inaguration of the Project has taken place on the very same day, when Kannagi cursed the city of Madurai for killing her husband Kovilan ( Shilappathikaram by Elango Adigal). Then how is the project going to materialise?
http://www.sindhtoday.net/south-asia/20000.htm#comment-1500

Sethusamudram channel project likely to miss deadline
Sep 12th, 2008 | By Sindh Today

New Delhi, Sep 12 (IANS) The controversial Sethusamudram ship channel to link India’s eastern and western coasts to avoid a 785-km detour around Sri Lanka is expected to overshoot its October deadline, as petitions against it are still pending in courts and only 25 percent of the work has been completed, officials said here.

The Rs.242.7 billion ($6 billion) project aims to create a 167-km-long navigable channel to link the Gulf of Mannar with the Bay of Bengal via Adam’s Bridge, Palk Bay and Palk Strait between India and neighbouring Sri Lanka.

‘As of now, nearly 25 percent physical progress has been achieved. Efforts are on to expedite the execution. But meeting the October deadline does not seem possible,’ said a senior official in the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (S&PI).

The ministry oversees the implementation of major central sector projects related to several fields like atomic energy, power, railways, shipping, roads and highways.
The Sethusamudram project was sanctioned in June 2005. It was the first major shipping infrastructure project Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s government sanctioned after assuming office in April 2004.

The Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways is implementing the project with the active participation of Tuticorin Port Trust (TPT).

‘The delay was inevitable in view of several litigations in the Madras High Court and even the Supreme Court. Two precious years were lost in riding out all these hurdles,’ the official, who requested anonymity, told IANS.

Said a senior official of Sethusamudram Corporation Ltd (SCL): ‘The dredging is going on at the Palk Bay side. Whether the deadline is met or not depends upon the court’s (Supreme Court) final verdict.’

‘It is a good project, and will help the country in furthering trade interests. We will save a lot of time, energy and money once the channel gets operational,’ the official told IANS on phone from Chennai.

At present ships cannot use the channel, partly because of the sand stone reef called Adam’s bridge at Pamban, near Rameswaram, where the depth of the sea is hardly 11 feet.

When completed, the channel will save nearly 424 nautical miles or 785 km and around 30 hours of sailing time for ships navigating between India’s east and west coasts.
The project ran into controversy soon after the central government decided to start the work with several organisations including the country’s main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) opposing the channel.

They claimed that the channel would destroy the bridge now called Adam’s Bridge. The epic Ramayana says the bridge was built by the army of Lord Ram on its way to Lanka for the battle with Ravan and the rescue of Sita.

The project has also raised the hackles of some environmentalists who say the shoals form a unique ecosystem that will be destroyed by the dredging, while the sand being dredged from the spot and being dumped in the seabed elsewhere will also destroy a lot of marine life.

The centre has, however, in an affidavit to the Supreme Court termed the opposition to the project as ‘misconceived’ and ‘unsubstantiated’ and asked the court to ‘refrain from interdicting’.

http://www.sindhtoday.net/?s=sethusamudram

Setu Project (SSCP) -- an exercise in futility (Pioneer, Sept. 7, 2008)

2008-09-06T16:44:00.000-07:00

Setu Project (SSCP) -- an exercise in futility (Pioneer, Sept. 7, 2008)

This is supposed to be a navigation channel in mid-ocean.

Capt. Balakrishnan with considerable experience in the Indian Navy has established that this channel does not make nautical sense, that this is a nautical folly and a nautical disaster waiting to happen. Thanks to Capt. Balakrishnan for a lucid analysis and incisive presentation; it is clearly seen that the Setusamudram Corpn. will be an ab initio sick unit, be in the red to the tune of Rs. 500 crores per year in perpetuity and will be a burden on the tax-payers of India.

Why not simply scrap the Setu project and look for alternatives such as Marine Economic Zone to benefit the coastal people along 8500 kms. of Indian coastline and improve India's foreign exchange income from marine exports from a vast 200 kms. ocean zone from the Indian coast and look for effective rail-port-container coordination arrangements from Kochi port?
http://setubandha.blogspot.com/2008/09/setu-project-sscp-exercise-in-futility.html

Dr. S. Kalyanaraman

An exercise in futility

Broadsweep: Not only does the Sethusamudram project hurt religious sentiments, it also does not make economic and maritime sense. Swati Das reports on a study that emphasises the pointlessness of this controversial project

Much has been said about the distance and time the Sethusamudram Ship Canal Project (SSCP) would save for mariners once the 148-year-old dream is fulfilled. But Capt (Retd) H Balakrishnan of the Indian Navy, who specialises in underwater warfare, has done a series of studies, purely on the maritime point of view.

"Time is at hand to cease thinking about sending ships in harm's way, the SSCP's way," Capt Balakrishnan said in his analysis.

The Supreme Court instructed the Centre to find an alternative to the SSCP-proposed Alignment 6, to cut through Adam's Bridge or Ramar Sethu -- Alignment 4. An expert committee headed by Dr RK Pachauri, Nobel Prize-winning head of the UN climate change committee and director-general of the New Delhi-based The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), has been formed to study the alternative alignment between Dhanushkodi and Land's End on Rameswaram Island. This is 600 yards to the west of the start of Adam's Bridge.

Assuming that the length and depth of the canal is the same for Alignment 6 and 4, Capt Balakrishnan comes up with the following observations, which may be more or less same for all proposed alignments.

· Kolkata to Tuticorin, circumnavigating Sri Lanka, is 1,380 nautical miles (nm), while via SSCP new alignment is 1005nm. Voyage time circumnavigating Sri Lanka at 12 knots comes to 115 hours (h), while via the SSCP at 12 knots in open sea (75.08h) and 8 knots through SSCP (13h) is 88.08 h. And if the speed is slower through SSCP -- 6 knots -- the total voyage time becomes 92.38h. So the distance saved is 375 nm, and time saved is 26.92h while travelling at 8 knots, and 22.62h while travelling at 6 knots. With one hour each for pilot embarkation/ disembarkation the time saved would reduce by another two hours for each.

· For fuel costs as per IOC tariffs at Chennai (on March 1, 2008) taken at an average of 1 metric ton (MT) per hour of motoring, the heavy oil (HO) would be (Rs 27,313 + 4% VAT) Rs 28,405.5 per MT. High speed diesel (HSD) (Rs 27,384 +23.43% VAT) would be 33,800 per MT.

· Fuel consumption circumnavigating Sri Lanka (HO) is 115MT, while through SSCP at 8 knots is 75.08MT of HO and 14 MT of HSD. And at 6 knots the economics is 75.08 for HO and 18.3 for HSD.

· The voyage fuel cost for circumnavigating Sri Lanka (HO) comes to Rs 32,66,632.50. Fuel costs through SSCP at 8 knots come to Rs 26,05,884.94. Navigation at 6 knots will cost Rs 27,51,224. Hence, savings in fuel costs through SSCP while travelling at 8 knots is Rs 6,60,747.56 and at 6 knots is Rs 5,15,407.56.

· The 50 per cent of cost savings for 8 knots is Rs 3,30,373.78, and for 6 knots is Rs 2,57,703.78. The SSCP Committee of Eminent Persons states that a tariff rate at 50 per cent of savings has been proposed, in base case internal rate of return (IRR), such a situation has been avoided. Based on this, the tariff to be levied per ship works out to Rs 3.89 lakhs in the first year of operation of the SSCP.

"If 50% of the fuel costs savings were to be levied as tariff for using the SSCP, then evidently the SSCP will incur a loss in its first year of operation itself and continue through the remaining years of its existence. However, if tariff rates for using the SSCP were to be brought in line with that charged by the major ports in India, then the shipping companies will incur a loss. It is therefore safe to conclude that none of the proposed alignments will prove to be economical if 50 per cent of the savings in fuel costs were to be levied as tariff," noted Capt Balakrishnan.

On navigation safety under various climatic conditions, Capt Balakrishnan found that in the waters around Rameswaram, according to the Bay of Bengal Pilot, the wind is of a swirling nature, and at the same time, on account of the Venturi effect, because of geographical location, the wind velocity tends to be high. Even a depression near the Orissa coast can create wind speeds of 55 kmph, especially at Alignment 4 where land may have to be cut.

If the winds were to blow along the axis of the proposed channel, navigating would not be hampered. But, if the winds blow across the axis of the channel, the ships will drift away from their course. The larger the ships, the more rapid the drift. The only way to check this is with speed. But speed in shallow waters can make ships run aground. Deploying tugs to counter the drift will only increase the overall voyage time, fuel consumption and fuel cost.

All the proposed alignments of the SSCP pass through fishing grounds. The high density of fishing vessels in the Rameswaram-Kachatheevu Island axis is already worrying the Navy and Coast Guard. If nets coil around the propeller shaft of a ship, it warrants emergency procedures.

During wars too, the SSCP would be a sitting duck. The LTTE even specialises in mine warfare, Capt Balakrishnan reminds us.

The SSCP is an open channel unlike the Suez and Panama canals. For a 30,000 DWT bulk carrier, approaching within 10 nautical miles of land is not considered prudent navigation when on passage. Yet, in Alignment 4, the vessel approaches within 3.5 nautical miles of the Kodandaramaswami Temple.

"From the standpoint of navigational safety, the area of location of the SSCP is a cause for disquiet. Viewed against this backdrop, one is left wondering whether this shipping channel is meant to cater to the needs of shipping in its entirety or whether shipping is meant to cater to the needs of the channel," said Capt Balakrishnan.

The six alignments

· The Sir A Ramaswamy Mudaliyar Committee in 1956 contemplated a 26 feet draft land canal across Mandapam at a cost of Rs 1.8 crore, but the idea was not feasible.

· Shipping and Transport Secretary Nagendra Singh's committee in 1964 suggested a 30 feet draft (at a cost of Rs 37.46 crore) though Rameswaram, near Thangachimadam. But dredging and other activities were considered cumbersome.

· In 1981, Development Advisor (Ports) HR Lakshminarayan's committee, considering the concerns of pilgrims, suggested an alignment farther east cutting Dhanushkodi, west of Kodandaramamasamy Temple, across the narrow land strip.

· In 1994, M/s Pallavan Transport Consultancy Services Ltd (PTCS), a State undertaking, modified the Laxminarayan Committee alignment taking it further east into Dhanushkodi.

· In February 1997, Tuticorin Port Trust, as the nodal agency for the project, and the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), Nagpur, in the initial environmental examination (IEE) of the project, recommended an alignment east of Kothandaramasamy temple to cause least damage to the biota and the environment.

· In 2000-06, the Sethusamudram Ship Channel Project -- which was the sixth alignment -- was mooted. The alignment was more than 20 km from Shingle Island in the Gulf of Mannar near Dhanuskodi. It runs parallel to the Indo-Sri Lankan Medial Line. The total length of the channel is 167km. It is 12m deep and 300m wide at the bottom. It has two legs -- one in the north of Adam's Bridge where the average depth is only about 3 meters, and one in the Palk Strait, where the average depth is about 6 to 8m. In the Gulf of Mannar and other stretches in Palk Bay, the channel will utilise the natural depth already available. This project was inaugurated on July 2, 2005. Dredging began on December 11, 2006.

2005. Dredging began on December 11, 2006.

http://www.dailypioneer.com/agenda1.asp?main_variable=sundaypioneer%2Fassignment&file_name=assign1%2Etxt&counter_img=1

Setu channel project: New alignment navigational hazard -- Capt. Balakrishnan

2008-09-01T21:03:00.000-07:00

Setu channel project: New alignment a navigational hazard -- Capt. Balakrishnan

"New alignment unfavourable: Expert"(pp-5) by Kumar Chellappan (28 Aug. 2008, Deccan Chronicle, Chennai)

CHENNAI, AUG. 27: " The new alignment proposed for the Sethusamudram Shipping Channel Project (SSCP) is no better in terms of economy and environmental protection. Even after different permutations and combinations, this project is destined to be doomed because it does not make any sense", veteran navigator Captain Hariharan Balakrishnan has observed reacting to the suggestions made by the Supreme Court to the union government to find out the possibility of a new alignment for the controversial SSCP.

Capt. Balakrishnan said that the Bay of Bengal Pilot, the sailors' information handbook,which is an encyclopaedia on the Bay of Bengal, had exhaustive details about impediments to safe navigation in the area.

" The book gives a detailed account about the climatology, meteorology, wind speed, and list of ports in the region.The book says that high-speed winds keep shifting and blow from all parts of the compass.The wind in this region is of a swirling nature which can make a heavy vessel drift dangerously ", cautioned the former navy officer.

He said the geography of the ' new alignment ' was vulnerable to the infamous Venturi Effect. " High velocity winds blowing through the area which resembles a geographical funnel will make the ships drift away from their steered courses. I myself have experienced the same while commanding a ship in the area. Larger the ship the greater and more rapid will be the drift ", said Captain Balakrishnan. He said no sailor worth his salt would prefer this sea route.

He said though in normal circumstances the drift could be prevented by increasing the speed, it was not feasible in a narrow stretch of channel like SSCP.

" Yet another drawback with the new alignment is its close proximity to shore. The ships will sail at a distance of just 3.5 nautical miles from the shore which is not prudent navigation ", he pointed out.

The captain reiterated his stance that the expenditure incurred by ships sailing through the new alignment would benefit neither the ships not the SSCP.

Lord Rama myth or truth -- Vivek Arya

2008-08-23T07:47:00.000-07:00

Lord Rama myth or truth
By Dr. Vivek Arya
Rama - The Role Model
Recently issue of Ramsetu is in vogue. Government filed an affadavit before supreme court stating that Rama has never existed on this earth. However, on strong opposition by other political parties and Hindu activist they withdrew the affadavit. Hindu organizations like Vishwa Hindu Parishad etc claim that question relating to existence of Rama cannot be simply resolved by scientific or historical findings.
Existence of Rama is basically a question of faith for millions of people. Therefore no Government can deny existence of Rama. But these greatest advocates of Hindusim did not show guts to take on Government/Karunanidhi and prove that Rama is as historical fact and not a myth.
Neverthless , they got support from an unexpected quarter i.e Hurriyat conference from Kashmir. Hurriayat also claimed that scientific or historical evidence are not yardstick to judge various issues related to religion.
Hence, whether Rama existed or not cannot be decided on base of scientific or historical findings. This is basically associated with religious sentiments of millions of people therefore government interference is unwanted.
In the mean time some of the scientists, based on astronomical data, have propounded that Rama existed around 5044 BC. In such a perplexing situation it becomes very difficult for common masses to arrive at any conclusive view regarding the existence of Rama. Hence, before deriving any conlusions we have to first analyse various facts regarding Rama and his epic Ramayana.
This article will put forth various facts which will help in resolving the issue of Rama's existence and will strongly conclude that Rama was an historical Mahanayaka and not any mythological character.
WHO WAS RAMA:-
Maharishi Valmiki wanted to write an historical epic which can act as guiding principle for future generations. He was in dilemma over this issue. When he consulted Narada Muni, Narada Muni then suggested Valmiki to write about Rama, son of Dasratha who was born in the clan of Raghu. Here one should remember that Valmiki wrote Ramayana long after the period of Rama . This facts goes contrary to the prevalent legend that Valmiki wrote Ramayana before Rama was born. This fact has been very well stated in Valmiki's Ramayana.
Similarly Mahakavi Kalidas wrote Raghuvansham. This books throws light on lineage of Raghu and also states various kings who ruled after Rama. So, now the point of argument is that if Rama was a mythological character then how could Valmiki provide history of forefathers of Rama ?

Whereas in Raghuvansham Kalidasa has provided details of forefathers of Rama and his various Santatis(successor) who ruled after him. In present times various books dealing with stories of Rama are prevalent in India and around the world. We will throw light on this issue in the latter part of this article.

WHEN WAS RAMA BORN:-(based on Valmiki's Ramayana)
The burning topic in present times is, when was Rama born ?
Before dwelling on this point, first of all we have to understand that our great Maharishies has systematically divided period of shristi in Manvantars. Each Manvantar is furthur divided into chaturyugis. Each chaturyugis consist of Krita(satyuga), traita, dwapar and kaliyuga. Present Manvantar is Vaivast Manvantar. Already 27 chaturyugies of this Manvantar have passed. This is the 28th chaturyugi and first charan (period) of this chaturyugi is in continuation.

It is well known fact that Rama was born during the latter part of traita. Hence, if we assume that Rama was born in the present chaturyugi then it means he was born at least 10,00,000 years ago. The period of his birth may be more than this.

However, Vayu purana provide us the correct chronological period of Ramayana. If we take Vayu purana period into consideration then period of Rama goes to atleast 1,80,00,000 years back. Hence we can easily conclude that period of Rama is atleast 10,00,000 years to 1,80,00,000 years (this issue will be resolved in another topic "Blunders of Indian History") .

This view is also supported by the fact that when Hanuman went to Lanka in search of Sita, there he saw elephants having four teeth. Hence this is now for archeiologist/biologist to ascertain when did such elephants exist on earth ? (The calculations of chaturyugies will be dealt in another topic "Age of present shristi", whereas difficulties encountered in establishing chronological correctness of historical events for period before Christ will be dealt in "blunders of history").

Another interesting fact that has been mentioned in Valmiki Ramayana is that the paternal home of Bharat and Shatrughan was in a country where mode of transportation was vehicle being carried by dogs or deer. When both the brothers returned to Ayodhya from their maternal home they crossed many places covered by snow and were wearing wollen clothes. Which place does this episode points to has to be ascertained.
By our logic it is Russia, as phonetically Russia sounds like misnomer of Rishi (this has been established in our article blunder of Indian/World history) Above mentioned facts clearly give us an insight into the period when Rama was born. So those who claim that Rama is only a mythological character we are providing them some more proofs which will establish that before the advent of Christinity and Islam Rama was revered throughout out the world as an international cult figure.
LEGENDS OF RAMAYANA IN VARIOUS PARTS OF GLOBE
1) RAMAYANA IN RUSSIA AND MANGOLIA:-

The Deccan Herald, dtd 15 dec 1972, at its front page gave a news which states that in Elista, capital of Kalmyk in Russia, story relating to Ramayana had been published. The news further states that various legends of Ramayana are popular among people of Kalmyk. Various version of Ramayana are already stored in libraries in Kalmyk. The news clearly states that legends of Ramayana are very popular since time immemorial. Domodin Suren, a Russian writer, has compiled various legends popular among Mongolian and Kalmyk peoples. Prof C F Glostunky's manuscript 'Academy of sciences' is stored at Siberian Branch of erstwhile U S S R. That book deals with various legends popular along the coast of Volga river. This manuscript is in Kalmyk language. In Leningrad also various books dealing with stories of Ramayana in Russian and Mongolian languages are preserved.
2) RAMAYANA IN CHINA:-

In china, collection of Jatak stories relating various events of Ramayana, belonging to 251 AD. were compiled by KANG_SENG_HUA . Another book, of 742 AD, relating story of plight of Dasratha after Rama was ordered to go for Vanvasa is still found in China. Similarly in 1600 AD, His-Yii-Chii wrote a novel with title Kapi (monkey) dwelling on the stories of Ramayana, predominantly that of Hanuman.
3) RAMAYANA IN SRILANKA:-

Naresh Kumar Dhatusena alias Kumardasa, who ruled Srilanka in 617 AD wrote 'Janakiharan'. This is the oldest Sanskrit literature available in Srilanka. In Modern times C Don Bostean and Jhon d'silva have written stories based on Ramayana. Till today majority of population adore and revere Rama and Sita.
4) RAMAYANA IN COMBODIA(KAMPUCHIA):-

Various rock inscription belonging to 700 AD are found in Khmer region of Cambodia. These rock inscription are based on stories of Ramayana. Various temples constructed during the reign of Khmer dynasty depicts the story of Ramayana on their walls. The temples of Angkor are very famous for the stories of Ramayana and Mahabharata. These temples belong to the earlier part of 400 AD to 700 AD. One astonishing fact in these engraved pictures is that Hanuman and rest other Vanars are not shown with tail as against the popular belief of masses. (Whether Hanuman etc are monkeys, this issue will be dealt latter)
5) RAMAYANA IN INDONESIA:-

According to De Casperis, there was a temple named 'Chandi loro jongrong' which has stories of Ramayana engraved on its walls. This temple was of 9th century AD. In Indonesia another version of stories of Ramayana named Kakavin is very popular. This story was bit different from that of Prambanan. Besides that various other version of Ramayana stories were very popular in early centuries after christ which itself proves that Ramayana was very popular among Indonesian people before advent of Islam. It is also an astonishing fact that first international convention on Ramayana was organized in Indonesia few years back.
6) RAMAYANA IN LAOS:-

When the local people pronounce Laos in their language it phonetically sounds like the name of one of the sons of Rama. Besides remains of temples of Vat- she-fum and Vat-pa-Kev depict the story of Ramayana on their walls. Whereas temples of Vat-pra-kev and Vat-sisket are having books containing epic of Ramayana. Lafont, French traveler translated story of 'Pa laka-Pa lama' in his book named P'ommachak in french. This book also deals with story of Ramayana popular among masses of Laos.
7) RAMAYANA IN THAILAND:-

Stories of Ramayana are still very popular among masses. In early centuries after Christ many kings who have Rama as either prefix or suffix in their name ruled this country. Just as we organize play of Ramayana in India, similarly various dramatic versions or Ramayana are oraganised in Thailand till today. Similar dramatic versions of Ramayana are still organized in various south-east asian countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, Combodia etc.
8) RAMAYANA IN MALAYSIA:-

In Malaysia till today plays are oraganised based on the stories of 'HIKAYAT SERI RAMA' ,written in 14 century AD,. Dalang society organize nearly 200-300 plays relating to Ramayana. Before commencement of the play people conduct various prayers and ablutions revering RAMA and SITA.
9) RAMAYANA IN BURMA:- King Kayanjhitha who reigned during 1084 –
1112 AD; regarded as descendant of clan of Rama. Various books relating to the stories of Ramayana as early as 15 century AD are still found in Burma. Books like 'Kavyadarsh' , 'Subhasit Ratanidhi' are based on the stories of Ramayana. Zhang-Zhungpa, commentary of Ramayana was written by Taranath, which is not available in modern times. In Burma also various form of plays are conducted based on the stories of Ramayana.
10) RAMAYANA IN NEPAL:-
Oldest version of Ramayana, belonging ot 1075 AD is still found in Nepal.
11) RAMAYANA IN PHILIPINES:-
Effect of stories of Ramayana can easily be felt in the customs, traditions and legends of majority of masses. Prof Juon R Francisco found that among Marineo Muslims, legend based on Ramayana is popular, in which Rama has been depicted as Incarnation of God. Similarly among Magindanao or Sulu folk Muslims also various legends based on the stories of Ramayana are popular.
12) RAMAYANA IN IRAN:
In Hyderabad city, capital of Andhra Pradesh, there is museum named Salarjung. There one portrait is depicting a burly monkey having a very big stone in its hand. This portrait reminds one of Hanuman holding Dronagiri. Similarly Marco Polo in his book (translated by Sir Henry Yule in English) wrote at page no 302, vol II about a peculiar belief among Muslims, spread from Afganistan to Morocco and Algeria. These Muslims believed that members of imperial house of Trebizond were endowed with short tails while mediavel continentals had similar stories about Englishmen as- Mathew Paris relates…. ; We are of the belief that if one seriously starts investigating various legends prevalent, before advent of Islam and Christianity, in Arabic countries and European countries then existence of Ramayana and Mahabharta can be proved. Due to barbaric and dogmatic acts of these peoples a wide range of literature and buildings of historical importance has been wiped out.
13) RAMAYANA IN EUROPE:

In Italy, when excavation were carried out in the remains of Astrocon civilization, then various houses were found having peculiar type of paintings on their wall. These paintings, on closer investigation, seems to be based on the stories of Ramayana. Some of the paintings shows peculiar persons having tails along with two men bearing bows and arrows on their shoulders, while a lady is standing besides them. These paintings are of 7 century BC. It should be remembered that once Astrocon civilization was spread over 75 pct of Italy.

Sir Henry Yule in his translation of works of Marcopolo has referred to the belief prevalent among Medival Europeans that their Ancestors were having small tails. The same fact has been referred by Maharishi Dayanand in his magnum opus 'Satyarth Prakash'. There Swamiji states that people of Europe were called as Vanaras (monkeys) , due to their appearance in our epic like Mahabharta, Valmiki Ramayana etc. If we analyse this statement in present context, then how are we going to define various statements like kangaroos (Australian team) meet men in blue (Indian team) at Calcutta.
Similar sort of epithets were used during World war to describe armies of different countries or else we see that we have helicopters named cheetah etc. As these words (epithets) are just a way to describe different sets of people, arms etc, similarly words like Rakshas, Vanaras etc were used in our legends. These facts clearly indicates that legends of Ramayana are not work of fiction and were very popular around the world.
14) RAMAYANA IN AFRICA (CONTINENT):
People of Ethiopia call themselves as descendents of Cushites. This word Cush is basically phonectic misnomer of Kush, the son of Rama. This fact is verly established by Satpath Brahamans, commentary on Vedas. These Brahamans while explaining various mantras of Vedas uses many histrorical events to elucidate the topic.

Astonishingly in Satpath Brahaman we find reference regarding the rule of King Bharata (predecessor of Kaurav and Pandavs) in Rhodesia .

Besides many inconsistent legends inspired by epic of Ramayana are prevalent in African Communities and they basically refers to various activities of vanars.

Egypt basically derives its name from Ajpati which is one of the names of forefather of Rama. If we analyse various legends prevalent in Egypt there we will found references of Dasratha (father of Rama). These facts can be very well established from various historical references of Brahamans (for the proof of it see our article Blunders of Indian/World history)
15) RAMAYANA IN NORTH AMERICAN AND SOUTH AMERICAN CONTINENTS:

Before Columbus discovered North American continent European people were not knowing about it. However A DE QNATREFAGES in his book, THE HUMAN SPECIES, categorically says that Chinese people were aware about the American continent and they used to have trade relations with them. America was referred as Fad-Sang. Similarly in Japanese people it was known as Fad-See. Similarly, if we refer to various historical reference in Mahabharata, Valmiki Ramayana etc we will find that American continent has been reffered as Patal Desh (Patal means below foot). If we geographically see then we will find that American continent is just below the Indian Subcontinent. We will throw greater light on this issue in our topic, BLUNDERS OF INDIAN HISTORY/WORLD HISTORY.

But for your reference we are providing you some prevalent legends.

a) beautiful girl in Mexican tribal area till today are called as Ulopy. If we see in Mahabharata we find reference of Arjuna marrying a girl named Ulopy who was daughter of King of Patal Desh.
b) W H Prescott in his book , ' History of conquest of Mexico', provides various references which prove that earlier civilization of American subcontinent have major similarities with that of Indian (Aryan) civilization.

However here we are providing you one reference which clearly state that Ramayana is not mythological epic but it bears historical testimony. According to writer of the book there is popular legend in Aztec community which states that a beautiful person named Quevtsal Katal came there from east and taught them various aspects of advanced civilization; as a result his period was treated as golden era. He then went back to his original homeland because of persecution by some divine creature. This legend surprisingly does not throw light on the reasons why he returned.

Another interesting fact that has been stated by Prescott is that this legend is available in documented form. Now, none except Indian tradition can claim that they bear root to this legend. The same story has been narrated in Valmiki Ramayana, in uttarkand where it is mentioned that Salkantak Rakshas who dwelled in Lanka were persecuted by Vishnu. Due to this persecution they left Lanka and went to Patal Desh. The leader of this group was Sumali. According to Ramayana they lived in Patal Desh for long time. When they found condition congenial they returned to their homeland.

It is for readers to decide when such conclusive proof are there to establish that epic of Ramayana is not mythological legend but it is historical evidence which bears testimony to various legends prevalent around the world. Till today play named Ramasitotav is
played in various communities of Mexico. To our amazement Rama has been mentioned in Bible, new testament, Mathew ch 2/18, where it is mentioned " his voices was heard in RAMA". Rama is proper noun there, now it is for biblical society to define who was Rama and why he has been mentioned in Bible.
Even the name of Dasratha and Ayodhya are there in Bible. We will be referring to these facts in Blunders of Indian/world History.

Now we would pose some tickling questions to the historians:

1) Why month of fasting among muslims is called Ramadhan ?
2) Why place in Gazastrip is called Ramallaha ?
3) Why place in London is named as Ramsgate ?
4) Why capital of Italy is known as Rome(misnomer of Rama)

We can provide various examples where word Rama has been used as suffix or prefix with the names of various historical places/persons or misnomer of Rama has been used as name for historical places/persons. None of the historical evidence provides conclusive answer to these facts unless we take Indian historical evidences into account.
In our article ' Blunders of Indian/World history ' we will provide proof for it. We also believe that if barabaric religions like Christinity and Islam had not gained popularity then we would have more data to prove our point conclusively. These two semetic religions have inflicted unparrelled havoc on historical data and buildings. They destroyed all the libraries/monuments of historical importance which did not conform to their beliefs.

Still we have lot with us and we can recreate correct chronological data of world history. It is widely accepted that the King Alexander invaded India. It really sounds ironical that we are accepting this theory without any historical evidence, on the other hand we go on to deny existence of Rama despite various historical evidences are there to prove that he was not mythical but a historical Mahanayak.

These historians in order to defy Rama's existence are ridiculously harping on the same old tone of theory of evolution which does not have any scientific proof. (Why and how theory of evolution gained importance will be dealt in our article How the universe is created. The only thing of significance regarding theory of evolution, we want to state here is that it was a tool which was invented to challenge the anarchaic/draconian supremacy of church. The church use to claim that this world was created by God out of nothing and the age of this Univerese is not more than 10000 years. By the help of evolutionary theory scientific world challenged the supremacy of church and overcame the clergy.)

This is for readers to decide by themselves how they are going to treat Rama. We think that we have provided lot of food for thought. Those who are illogically biased may still refute the existence of Rama while those who are logical and believe that mythological character can never gain such world-wide respect/reverence will start looking upon Rama from wider historical evidences.

Here we want to clarify following points:
1) Rama was not an incarnation of God but he was Mahanayak, a legendary person who lived a pristine life and is an example to be emulated till today.
2) Ramasetu, on which lot of controversy is being created, might not be built by Rama as the period of Rama is at least 10,00,000 years. During this time geographical conditions has changed drastically.
3) Valmiki Ramayana is not fiction but an epic based on historical evidence. We can analyze the issue of Ramasetu only on the basis of environmental/economical viability.

For those who are questioning existence of Rama, let them first justify wether their forefathers ever existed, by using the same yardstick which they are using for existence of Rama.

From: Asavari Date: Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 5:44 AM

Setu project alternative alignment; experts' committee meet on 22 Aug. 2008

2008-08-21T17:38:00.000-07:00

Let us hope that the Pachauri Committee will conduct its deliberations honestly and with transparency fully involving the public and all experts. Surely, the Committee should have the freedom to recommend scrapping the channel project and find alternatives to improve the livelihood of coastal people and use container-rail-road coordination alternatives.

kalyanaraman

Setu project alternative alignment: experts’ committee meet today (Aug. 22, 2008 ) – Dinamalar, Tamil daily

Following upon Supreme Court suggestion to examine the feasibility of an alignment for Setu channel project between Rameshwaram and Dhanushkodi, Pachauri committee is meeting today to examine it. Chief Justice of SC, K. Balakrishnan had advised that the review of the possibility of realigning the channel alignment. Consequently, Govt. of India had appointed the Pachauri Committee.to examine the CJ’s suggestion.
The committee headed by Pachauri was appointed. A review meeting of this Committee will take place today.

Addl. Secretary of Shipping Ministry, Rajesh Shrivatsava, Chennai Port Trust Chairman Suresh met with the Committee Chairman and the three of them discussed the issue.

The Committee is expected to analyse and decide after reviewing the feasibility of an alternative alignment between Rameshwaram and Dhanushkodi. When the Committee was constituted no time limit was set for completing the investigations by and recommendations of the Committee. Reliable sources, however, inform that the Committee is likely to submit its recommendation on the feasibility of the alternative alignment within a month or two.

Our Delhi Correspondent.

சேது சமுத்திர திட்ட மாற்றுப்பாதை : நிபுணர் குழு இன்று ஆலோசனை
ஆகஸ்ட் 22,2008,00:00 IST

சேது சமுத்திர திட்டத்தை நிறைவேற்ற சுப்ரீம் கோர்ட் அளித்த யோசனையை அடுத்து தனுஷ்கோடிக்கும் ராமேஸ்வரத்துக்கும் இடையில் மாற்றுப் பாதை அமைக்க முடியுமா என்பது குறித்து, ராஜேந்திர பச்சவ்ரி தலைமையிலான நிபுணர் குழு இன்று கூடி ஆலோசனை செய்கிறது. சேது சமுத்திர திட்டத்தை மாற்றுப் பாதையில் நிறைவேற்றுவதற்கு சாத்தியங்கள் உள்ளதா என்பது குறித்து ஆராயும்படி சுப்ரீம் கோர்ட் தலைமை நீதிபதி கே.ஜி.பாலகிருஷ்ணன் அறிவுறுத்தியிருந்தார். இதையடுத்து, ஒரு நிபுணர் குழுவை அமைத்து தலைமை நீதிபதி யோசனை குறித்து ஆராய்ந்து, தனது கருத்தை சொல்வதாக மத்திய அரசும் தெரிவித்திருந்தது.

இதற்காக, ராஜேந்திர பச்சவ்ரி தலைமையிலான ஐந்து உறுப்பினர் குழு அமைக்கப்பட்டது. இக்குழுவின் ஆலோசனைக் கூட்டம் இன்று நடைபெறுகிறது. இக்குழுவை, மத்திய துறைமுக இலாகா இணைச் செயலர் ராஜேஷ் ஸ்ரீவஸ்த்தவா மற்றும் ராஜிவ் குப்தா, சென்னை துறைமுக தலைவர் சுரேஷ் ஆகிய மூவரும் நேற்று சந்தித்துப் பேசினர். தற்போது மாற்றுப் பாதையாக தனுஷ்கோடிக்கும் ராமேஸ்வரத்துக்கும் இடையில் பாதை அமைக்க முடியுமா என்பது குறித்து இந்த நிபுணர்கள் குழு ஆராய்ந்து முடிவெடுக்கவுள்ளது. மத்திய அரசால் இக்குழு அமைக்கப்பட்ட போது எத்தனை நாட்களுக் குள் இறுதி அறிக்கையை அளிக்க வேண்டுமென்று கூறப்படவில்லை. இருப்பினும் சேதுசமுத்திர திட்டத் தை மாற்றுப் பாதையில் அமைக்க முடியுமா என்பது பற்றி ஆராய்ந்து, தனது இறுதி அறிக்கையை ஓரிரு மாதங்களில் இக்குழு மத்திய அரசிடம் அளிக்கும் என்று தகவலறிந்த வட்டாரங்கள் தெரிவிக்கின்றன.

நமது டில்லி நிருபர்
http://dinamalar.com/fpnnews.asp?News_id=1589&cls=row4

Scrap Setu Project, Pachauri committee: Signatory states of IOSEA Marine Turtle MOU

2008-08-20T13:16:00.001-07:00

August 20, 2008 Bali, Indonesia

RESOLUTION ON THE SETHUSAMUDRAM SHIP CANAL PROJECT, GULF OF MANNAR & PALK BAY, India and Sri Lanka

http://www.sangam.org/articles/view2/print.php?uid=677 Geopolitical perspective and security in the Indian Ocean: Sethusamuderam Project: Reasons for the Construction of the Canal and its Economic & Environmental Impact on Sri Lanka by Donald Jayantha Gnanakone
Adopted by the Fifth Meeting of the Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation and Management of Marine Turtles and their Habitats of the Indian Ocean and South-East Asia (Bali, 20-23 August 2008)

Recognizing that the waters of the Gulf of Mannar, including Palk Strait, Palk Bay, and Adam’s Bridge, provide critical habitats such as extensive seagrass beds and coral reefs which support regionally important concentrations of endangered and threatened migratory marine wildlife, including four species of marine turtles (Lepidochelys olivacea, Caretta caretta, Eretmochelys imbricata, Chelonia mydas, Marine Mammals such as Dugong (Dugong dugong), Sperm Whale (Physeter macrocephalus), Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus), Fin Whale (Balaenoptera physalus), Sei Whale (Balaenoptera borealis), Bryde's Whale (Balaenoptera edeni), Short-finned Pilot Whale (Globicephala macro), Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphin (Sousa chinensis), Striped Dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba), Spinner Dolphin (Stenella longirostris),Common Dolphin (Delphinus delphis), Bottle-nosed Dolphin (Tursiops truncates), False Killer Whale Pseudorca crassidens,- Whale Shark, (Rhincodon typus) and birds – Spot billed pelican, Oriental darter, Lesser flamingo, White ibis and Painted stork.

(Bird List from Dr. Balachander of the Bombay Natural History Society who is based in the region- these are near threatened IUCN status)

Ceteaceans in Palk Bay and Gulf of Mannar (From “A Catalogue of Indian Marine Mammal Records” by Kumaran Sathasivam 2004)

Acknowledging that this project area has unique historic, cultural and economic importance to the people from India and Sri Lanka, in addition to providing essential living marine resources for more than 500,000 fishersfolk in India and Sri Lanka;

Concerned that the Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project (SSCP), will involve dredging and maintaining a 89 km long channel, which will be 300 meters wide and 12 meters deep in 3 segments across the Gulf of Mannar to allow passage of ships up to 30,000 DWT which will unquestionably cause changes to the sediment flow, oceanographic parameters, nutrient cycles and irreversible damage to critical marine habitats, endangered and migratory species, within the Gulf of Mannar and Palk Bay. The globally significant and endemic species of this biodiverse region stands threatened.

Conscious that the proposed project will be within 6km of India's first and largest Biosphere Reserve, which is internationally recognized within the framework of UNESCO's Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme.

Recalling that Biosphere Reserves are nominated by national governments under the UNESCO's MAB Programme to “reduce biodiversity loss; improve livelihoods and enhance social, economic and cultural conditions for environmental sustainability”.

Aware that various documents fundamental for the justification of the SSCP, such as the EIA report, Detailed Project Report, Technical Feasibility and the Economic Analysis report, have been criticised by several experts in environmental science, earth sciences, oceanography, geology, naval hydrography, marine biology, environmental policy, law, economics, and maritime navigation who have concluded that the environmental and social impacts on the biodiversity of the region, including endangered or threatened migratory species and their habitats as well as the financial viability of the project have not been adequately assessed or predicted.

Further acknowledging that analyses of the project by economic, shipping and marine navigation experts conclude that previous cost-benefit analyses and financial feasibility studies have not adequately or accurately forecast the costs to potential SSCP users, thereby questioning the project’s economic viability;

Concerned that this project will have severe, deleterious impacts on the above mentioned endangered and threatened migratory species and their habitats, local marine and coastal biodiversity, fisheries and marine related livelihoods of communities in the region of Palk Bay and the Gulf of Mannar;

Recognizing the strong public opinion and opposition against this project from local fisher communities as well as civil society due to its implications on the environment, ecology and the local livelihood as articulated in the prayers of the petitions being heard in the Supreme Court of India [Special Leave Petitions (SLP) (Civil) Nos. 19176 of 2005 and SLP (Civil) 20758 of 2005];

The Signatory States to the IOSEA Marine Turtle Memorandum of Understanding

Urge that a comprehensive regional environmental impact assessment study be carried out by an independent agency to determine the likely impacts of the project on the environment within the contiguous marine and terrestrial territories of India and Sri Lanka, including all endangered and threatened migratory species and their habitats, and a report prepared for public consultation in India, Sri Lanka, and other States likely to be affected before any further construction activities related to the SSCP are taken forward;

Urge that a comprehensive and independent economic and financial feasibility analysis be carried out by an independent agency any further construction activities related to the SSCP are taken forward;

Urge that these analyses take into account views and opinions of various relevant inter-governmental bodies and agencies, including, but not limited to, CMS, UNESCO, UNEP, FAO and IMO, and also take into account written statements from various community institutions (such as village committees, traditional panchayats and gram panchayats) of each coastal village in the area of influence on the project;

Urge that the above documents are translated into the local languages and disseminated to communities and civil society for public consultation and for the purpose of conducting fresh public hearings in India and Sri Lanka on the SSCP to assess the full environmental and economic implications of the project.
Dear all,

Please find the above draft resolution on proposed Sethusamudram Canal which will be adopted by the Fifth Meeting of the Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation and Management of Marine Turtles and their Habitats of the Indian Ocean and South-East Asia (Bali, 20-23 August 2008). For Sri Lankan conservationists and politicians, this document may be with great importance.

Kind regards

Thushan Kapurusinghe
Project Leader - Turtle Conservation Project (TCP)
Marine Turtle Specialist - IUCN/SSC-MTSG

http://tamilsforjustice.blogspot.com/2008/08/resolution-on-sethusamudram-ship-canal.html

Setu project: secret meeting and survey by Shipping Ministry and other officials

2008-08-18T03:09:00.000-07:00

Review of alternative channel in Setusamudram
Tamil daily: Dinamalar, 18 Aug. 2008
A group of Delhi officials visited Dhanushkodi and nearby areas to review the alternative channel and alignment 4 for Setusamudram project. Supreme Court had ordered the review of dredging a channel through in Dhanushkodi sea waters without damaging the shoal banks forming the Rama Setu.
Accordingly, the Centre had ordered such a review by a committee. Many organizations had demanded that while selecting the alternative channel path protection of environment, of aquatic fauna, assurance of the livelihood of fisherfolk had to be ensured. In this context, Revenue and Land Survey department officials are already engaged for the last two days. to survey the land allotted by Tamil Nadu Government consisting of 2,500 acres starting from Rameshwaram temple to Arical (erosion point) Munai of Dhanukodi, for the Setusamudram Project,
To indicate that survey has been done, between Dhanushkodi and Arical Munai, flagposts have been erected. In this situation, officials led by the Secretary of Shipping Minister, Govt. of India, AP Sharma visited the areas from Mandapam using the helicopter of Navy Coast Guard. The areas visited were: Kodanda Ramar temple, Dhanushkodi, Arical Munai.
Later, the team reviewed with the officials the alternative channel 4. Subsequently, the team also visited the sandbanks of Rama Setu in Dhanushkodi sea waters. In this secretly conducted visit and review, Senior official of Setusamudram Corporation, Srinivasa Kannan, Ramanathapuram Collector Kirloshkumar and other officials of different departments participated.
சேது சமுத்திர கால்வாய் மாற்றுப்பாதைக்கு ஆய்வு
ஆகஸ்ட் 18,2008,00:00 IST (Dinamalar, 18 Aug. 2008)
http://img.dinamalar.com/data/images_news/tblSambavamnews_27872866393.jpg
ராமேஸ்வரம்: சேது சமுத்திர கால்வாய் மாற்றுப்பாதை மற்றும் நான்காவது வழித்தடம் குறித்து டெல்லி அதிகாரிகள் குழுவினர் நேற்று தனுஷ்கோடி உள்ளிட்ட பகுதிகளைப் பார்வையிட்டு ஆய்வு செய்தனர். சேது சமுத்திரத் திட்ட கால்வாய் தோண்ட தனுஷ்கோடி கடலில் அமைந்துள்ள ராமர் பாலம் மணல் திட்டுகளைச் சேதப்படுத்தாமல் மாற்று வழிகுறித்து ஆய்வு செய்ய சுப்ரீம் கோர்ட் உத்தரவிட்டது.
அதன்படி மாற்றுவழியைத் தேர்வு செய்ய சேது சமுத்திரத் திட்ட கழகத்துக்கு மத்திய அரசு உத்தரவிட்டது. மாற்று வழி தேர்வு செய்யப்படும் போது சுற்றுசூழல், கடல் வாழ் உயிரினங்கள், மீனவர்கள் வாழ்நிலை பாதிக்காத வகையில் வழித்தடம் அமைய பல்வேறு அமைப்புகள் கோரிக்கை விடுத்துள்ளன. இதனிடையே ஏற்கனவே சேது சமுத்திர கால்வாய் திட்டத்துக்காக ராமேஸ்வரம் கோதண்டராமர் கோவில் முதல் தனுஷ்கோடி அரிச்சல்முனை வரை தமிழக அரசு வழங்கிய இரண்டாயிரத்து 500 ஏக்கர் நிலத்தை சர்வே செய்யும் பணியில் வருவாய் மற்றும் நில அளவீட்டுத் துறையினர் கடந்த இரண்டு நாட்களாக ஈடுபட்டு வருகின்றனர்.
சர்வே செய்த அடையாளத்துக்காக தனுஷ்கோடி முதல் அரிச்சல்முனை வரை கொடிகளை நட்டு வைத்துள்ளனர். இந்நிலையில், நேற்று டெல்லியிலிருந்து வந்த மத்திய அரசின் கப்பல் போக்குவரத்துத் துறைச் செயலர் ஏ.பி.சர்மா தலைமையிலான அதிகாரிகள் குழுவினர் மண்டபத்திலிருந்து கடலோரக்காவல் படைக்குச் சொந்தமான ஹோவர்கிராப்ட் கப்பலில் சென்று கோதண்டராமர் கோவில், தனுஷ்கோடி, அரிச்சல்முனை கடற்கரை ஆகிய பகுதிகளைப் பார்வையிட்டனர்.
பின் அதிகாரிகளுடன் சேதுக்கால்வாய் தோண்டுவதற்கு மாற்றுப்பாதையான நான்காவது வழித்தடம் குறித்து ஆய்வு செய்தனர். இதைத் தொடர்ந்து தனுஷ்கோடி கடலில் ராமர் பாலம் மணல்திட்டு பகுதிகளையும் பார்வையிட்டனர். ரகசியமாக நடத்தப்பட்ட இந்த ஆய்வில் சேது சமுத்திர கப்பல் கால்வாய் திட்ட கழக பொது மேலாளர் சீனிவாச கண்ணன், ராமநாதபுரம் கலெக்டர் கிர்லோஷ்குமார் உட்பட பல்துறை அதிகாரிகள் கலந்து கொண்டனர்.
http://dinamalar.com/Sambavamnewsdetail.asp?News_id=4113&cls=&ncat=TN

Scrap SSCP, a white elephant -- Vice Admiral Arun Kumar Singh.

2008-08-08T07:04:00.000-07:00

SETHU PROJECT: A WHITE ELEPHANT IN THE MAKING
http://www.samachar.com/epaper/epaper.php?id=41
Arun Kumar Singh

THE GOVERNMENT'S recent decision to set up a panel of experts, headed by Dr RK Pachauri, to look at alternate routes for the Sethusamudram Shipping Channel Project (SSCP) is indeed welcome.

Given Dr Pachauri's experience and reputation, it can be expected that this six-member panel will take a holistic view of the project, which includes security concerns raised by the Director General Coast Guard recently.
These concerns have added a new dimension to the already complex issues ranging from inflamed religious beliefs to flawed comparisions with the Suez and Panama canals.
About the SSCP: It is an open sea channel that is 167 km long, 300 metre wide, with a 12 metre depth (to permit two-way transit by ships below 32,000 Dead Weight Tonnes). It has three legs — southern, central and northern — and dredging is to be carried out only in southern and northern legs. This will involve dumping 70 million cubic metres of dredged mud in dumping sites located in depths greater than 25 metre.

Let us assume that the SSCP is finally made "operational", as originally envisaged, and that the projected 3,055 ships, of which, 60 per cent ply international routes, use the channel in the first year itself. But what are the security threats these ships are likely to face?

The LTTE has shown enormous ingenuity and fanatical determination when employing its 3,000-strong "Sea Tigers" and the smaller but suicidal "Black Sea Tigers" in seaborne attacks not far from the proposed SSCP site. In addition, the LTTE has frequently used crude seamines to disrupt Sri Lankan shipping on its east coast.
LTTE's "Air Tigers" have modified Czech-made light aircraft to carry out reasonably-accurate night bombing attacks on Sri Lankan airports — SSCP area falls within strike range of these aircraft.

The Palk Bay area has dense fishing boat activity, with some 10,000 boats operating in a small area. This heavy traffic would provide the LTTE an ideal environment should it decide to carry out surprise attacks. A ship sunk in the channel would not only result in loss of life and marine pollution, but also block the channel for a prolonged period. In case of a ship being hit by a sea mine, the Navy would need to clear the channel by mine sweeping which takes days, sometimes weeks.
Another threat to SSCP would be hijacking of ships by the LTTE which could be used in terror attacks to block the SSCP or ports like Tuticorin, Colombo, Chennai by sinking a ship at strategic place. In all, such cases insurance rates will go up and ships will avoid the area, thus affecting the economies.

Can "reasonable" security be provided for the SSCP? The answer is yes, if (and this is a big "if") finances are made available to acquire additional patrol boats, maritime and fighter aircraft, helicopters, hover craft, mine warfare vessels and shore-based radars along with instant communications, data link and real-time intelligence.

And provided we accept the possibilty of collateral damage amongst the over 10,000 Indian fishing boats which operate in the restricted Palk Bay area. The cost of this security cover would exceed the Rs 2,400 crore capital cost of the SSCP. Given the long lead time required to recruit and train additional manpower, along with building security infrastructure, this activity should have started in 2005 so that security is in place when SSCP becomes operational — originally, the SSCP was to be commissioned in 2008. There is no indication that additional security requirements have been factored in the plans.

The security issue becomes relevant only if the SSCP is economically viable and poses no other major problems. Unfortunately, the SSCP is not economically viable for many reasons. It is designed to take ships below 32,000 DWT, while international shipping is heading for larger ships above 60,000 DWT .

Also, adding to the woes is the fact that the rapidly-growing Indian Coastal Shipping is reducing its ship size from 4,000 DWT to 1,900 DWT, and thus will contribute little by way of toll tax to the SSCP. Simple calculations show that international shipping from the Cape of Good Hope, Persian Gulf and the Red Sea areas will actually save time and money if it bypasses the SSCP (where it has to pay toll tax, use up time to embark and disembark a pilot, and proceed at very slow speed in the channel to avoid grounding damage due to "squatting effect") and goes around Sri Lanka. For the same reasons, even Indian coastal shipping will find it more economical to avoid the SSCP and go around Sri Lanka.
The Rs 2,400 crore SSCP may not earn enough profits to pay back its original capital cost.

It must also be noted that the SSCP, which reduces the distance by mere 340 to 434 nautical miles (nm), cannot be compared to "true inland canals" like the Suez and Panama which save thousands of nautical miles, and are not exposed to the vagaries of ocean currents, rough weather or seaborne attacks.

This means that the SSCP is located in one of the five known "high siltation" areas. This means that regular "maintenance dredging" would have to be carried out, perhaps every 1 to 3 years, to keep the channel open and safe for shipping.
Indeed, dredging is the primary reason for the high cost of SSCP. Add to this the fact that the Tamil Nadu coast is cyclone prone and, according to statistics, has been hit by 64 cyclones between 1891 and 2001, with 23 hitting the SSCP site.
To conclude, there are enough reasons to take a good hard look at the SSCP. There really is no point in first creating a target for the LTTE and then spending enormous amounts of time, money and effort to protect a white elephant.

VICE-ADMIRAL ARUN KUMAR SINGH retired as Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Eastern Naval Command, Visakhapatnam

Dancing dervishes of UPA vs. Rama and Rama Setu

2008-08-01T13:29:00.000-07:00

Dancing dervishes of UPA vs Rama and Rama Sethu-I

V SUNDARAM | Fri, 01 Aug, 2008 , 03:18 PM
.
In these columns during the last four years I have been consistent in describing the UPA Government in New Delhi under the stranglehold of a Catholic lady from Italy as ‘Islam-embracing, Christianity-coveting and Hindu-hating’. Her main agenda, owing her allegiance to the Pope in Rome and not to the Indian Constitution, is to destroy Hinduism and Sanatana Dharma, by hook or by crook, in India and the world.
Active Image

Congress – DMK together in Ram Sethu Destruction Dance http://newstodaynet.com/images/stories/columns/sharpshot/2008-images/0108-sun.gif

Anti-Hindu Sonia-Congress Party and the equally anti-Hindu and atheistic DMK Party are working together to destroy the sacred Rama Sethu bridge in Rameshwaram using the political umbrella of Sethu-Samudram Shipping Canal Project (SSCP). Both Sonia Gandhi and Karunanidhi are totally committed to the political marginalisation of Hindus, social debasement of Hindus, cultural devaluation of Hindus, religious decimation of Hindus and above all to the national de-recognition of Hindus as the main pith and core of our nation.

This patent fact has now become very clear because of the hardened criminal fashion in which the anti-national and anti-Hindu Sonia-directed UPA Government, filled with Sonia-chosen nincompoops, have been presenting the Rama-Sethu case of the government of India, not in a District Munsif’s Court, but in the Supreme Court of India. The recent stellar performance of Fali Nariman, the Chief Counsel for the government of India, would make any third grade mofussil lawyer in a District Munsif’s Court laugh with unconcealed contempt! Nariman stated that Lord Rama himself destroyed the Rama-Sethu Bridge and therefore the question of Government of India destroying it cannot arise. As an international authority of Tamil and Sanskrit Literature (apart from law!), he was quoting from Kamba Ramayana and Padma Puranam. He also arrogated to himself the Supreme legal wisdom and authority to question the timeless faith of more than 800 millions of Hindus of India in the timeless sacredness and sanctity of Rama Sethu. When he was reading out certain portions from an affidavit relating to Rama Sethu which was earlier filed in September 2007 by the government of India and which was later withdrawn by Gopal Subramaniam, the counsel for government of India, the Supreme Court Judges asked Fali Nariman as to whether he was stating the same facts from the same affidavit which was withdrawn earlier, Fali Nariman replied ‘Yes’. Government of India has somersaulted as many times as the Rama Sethu case has come up before the Supreme Court so far!

To begin with government of India said that there is no evidence regarding the existence of Ramayana, Lord Rama or the Rama Sethu Bridge. They said that Lord Rama is a fictitious character. Lord Rama is a mythological character. Rama Sethu Bridge is a natural formation and not a man-made Bridge etc. etc. The atheistic and anti-Hindu Karunanidhi went overboard and had the temerity to ask, ‘Where did Lord Rama get his Engineering Degree from?’ In its earlier affidavit government of India had said ‘There is no scientific or historical evidence to prove the existence of Lord Ram. Issues of faith cannot be resolved by taking recourse to science or scientific evidence. India is a secular state and respects all religions and religious faiths and beliefs. A secular state cannot espouse the cause of any religion, faith or belief. In a multi-religious, multi-cultural society, the state cannot and should not be called upon to determine issues of faith’. This callous anti-Hindu attitude led to widespread public protests and agitation throughout the country. Panicked by the political repercussions and the VHP’s move to go to the streets to mobilize public support, the central government in a knee-jerk response decided to withdraw the ‘offending remarks’. Gopal Subramanian, the Counsel for the government of India told the Supreme Court that government of India had withdrawn their earlier affidavit and that they would be filing a fresh affidavit. The Union Minister for Law (-lessness!) H.R.Bhardwaj shamelessly somersaulted from his earlier pseudo-secular, anti-Hindu position and said with calculated and diabolic dissimulation ‘Lord Rama is an integral part of Hindu faith and its existence can never be doubted. As Himalaya is Himalaya, and, Ganga is Ganga, Rama is Rama. It is a question of faith. There is no requirement of any proof to establish the existence of Lord Rama based on faith. The Government of India would be filing a supplementary affidavit on this issue before the Supreme Court and that would be cleansed of offending remarks that were noticed in the earlier affidavit which has been withdrawn’.

Accordingly Gopal Subramanian told the Supreme Court of India in September 2007, ‘The government will form a committee shortly, which will be entrusted with the task of hearing the grievances of the people including the petitioners on this issue. The government has total respect for all religions, and Hinduism in particular, in the context of the present case. The government is alive and conscious of religious sensibilities, including the unique, ancient and holy text of Ramayana. The government is also keen that its decisions bind and bring the society together rather than cause any disruption in the religious and social psyche of one true India. The centre respects each and every individual within the parameters of the Constitution, and acknowledges every citizen’s fundamental right to feel a part of the composite cultural and religious heritage of the country’. Thus acting on behalf of government of India, Gopal Subramanian became a great legal somersault in India’s legal history. This distinguished record was squarely beaten by Fali Nariman through his resplendent performance of ‘secular’ somersault in the Supreme Court last week. Here are the laughable details of his unsurpassed performance.

In his arguments in Supreme Court on 23 July, 2008, (Wednesday), Fali Nariman had stirred a hornet’s nest by quoting from the scriptures like Kamba Ramayana and Padma Puranam. He said that these scriptures show how Lord Ram himself broke Ram Setu. The basis of objection by several petitioners in the Supreme Court (Individuals and NGO’s) stemmed from the fear of possible destruction of Ram Setu as it fell in the way of the projected alignment. With the existence of Rama Setu itself being a matter of doubt (or under cloud) as per the scriptures, Nariman wondered how anything that does not exist could be revered. Great Tamil scholars and Sanskrit scholars whom I have consulted have categorically confirmed that Nariman has misled the Supreme Court in a calculated manner as desired by the Government of India.

Government of India somersaulted shamelessly for the nth time in open Supreme Court last week by saying that Rama Sethu cannot be declared as a national monument and backed its stand by relying on an affidavit, which it had withdrawn earlier in September 2007, in the wake of a country-wide furore over its contents doubting the existence of Ramayana, Lord Rama and their link to Ram Sethu. Its Special Counsel Fali S Nariman read out portions of the withdrawn affidavit to show that the Centre had taken a consistent stand that ‘Rama Sethu does not fulfil the criteria to be declared as a national monument. The stand of the government is crystal clear on this all the time in Parliament and in courts.’

But it soon became a little awkward, especially for a counsel of Nariman’s standing, when a bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justices R V Raveendran and J M Panchal, taking a cue from petitioner Subramanian Swamy, pointed out that the centre could not rely on an affidavit that had already been withdrawn. The Bench asked Nariman: ‘Are the paragraphs from the withdrawn affidavit, which you are reading in support of the centre’s stand, incorporated in the fresh affidavit?’ Mr. Nariman said: ‘we take the entire blame for the withdrawal. The affidavit was withdrawn because people reacted in a certain manner. The assertion of the Union government that it is not a monument does not get diluted by the withdrawal of the affidavit’. This did not impress the bench, which said: ‘Why did you not re-file the affidavit if you are relying on it except for the paragraph which was objected to by public on the issue of faith? You did not say you are withdrawing only the problematic paragraph, but you withdrew the entire affidavit. The problem is that it cannot be relied upon as it had been withdrawn’.

This was a moment of infamy in the chequered history of our Supreme Court after Independence. By reading out in open court from an earlier affidavit already withdrawn by the government of India in September 2007, Nariman indirectly showed that he has contempt for law, rule of law, rule of equality before the law and the overriding majesty of law. He also made it clear through his political somersault that the rule of law can be vetoed by the rule of men, depending upon the exigencies of the moment, from time to time!

The VHP General Secretary Pravin Togadia has rightly said: ‘The Centre’s affidavit in the Supreme Court is the result of a trade-off between Sonia Gandhi and Karunanidhi as part of which the latter agreed to support the confidence vote sought by Manmohan Singh (on 22 July, 2008) on the condition that the UPA government will ensure that the Rama Setu is brought down. The centre’s stand before the apex court is fraught with dangerous consequences for the country... The same people (the centre) who first questioned the very existence of Ramayana, Lord Ram and Ram Setu are now invoking Kamba Ramayana and Padma Purana to say that Lord Rama destroyed the Rama Setu, but are not willing to look at the original Valmiki Ramayana, which has no such mention. It is a clear case of conspiracy to divide the nation, which will go up in flames and Sonia Gandhi will be responsible for it. The VHP would launch a nation-wide protest against the ‘conspiracy’ to destroy the Ram Setu’.

TAILPIECE: Karunanidhi And T R Baalu To Sonia Gandhi:

‘Will you, won’t you, will you, won’t you, will you join, with gusto and enthusiasm, the Dravidian Ram Sethu Destruction dance?’

Sonia Gandhi: ‘Would not, could not, would not, could not, could not join your delightful Dravidian Ram Sethu Destruction dance. Let us secularly plot for broader lands and better days’.
Saturday, 02 August, 2008 , 03:32 PM

When the government of India through their Additional Solicitor General Gopal Subramaniam gave several assurances in writing and filed an application before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 14-9-2007 seeking permission
Active Image

to withdraw their earlier affidavit, a reasonable public expectation was created throughout the country to the effect that the Government of India would not damage or defile the Rama Sethu while implementing the SSCP and that care would be taken to see that the time-honoured religious feelings and sentiments of the Hindus in absolute majority are not hurt in any manner whatsoever. The following assurances were given by Gopal Subramaniam before the Supreme Court;

First that, ‘The government of India is alive and conscious of religious sensibilities including the unique, ancient and holy text of Ramayana’. Second that, ‘The government of India is also keen that its decisions bind and bring the society together, rather than cause any disruption in the religious and social psyche of one true India’. Third that, ‘without any reservation, in a spirit of inclusiveness and high democratic tradition, to consider a different point of view, withdraw the present affidavit to re-examine the entire matter’.

It was based on these explicit assurances, and on trust, that the petitioners like Subramaniam Swamy and others did not object to the withdrawal of the said earlier counter-affidavit that contained some highly objectionable averments on Sri Rama, and Ramayana.

These assurances read together created a right for the petitioners to legitimately expect a different counter affidavit from the government of India at a later stage. Unfortunately when the government of India filed their revised counter-affidavit in the Supreme Court in the last week of February 2008, they stuck to their original position and said that the SSCP can be effectively implemented only by destroying the Rama Sethu Bridge. In other words they made it clear that Alignment No.6 (which involved the destruction of Rama Sethu) will not be given up. Thus the government of India showed indivisible contempt for the popular and widespread public sentiment and religious belief of reverence for the Rama Setu, and it’s age-old sacred status in Hindu society. Government of India in a shameless manner said that we are a secular country and that the government cannot take note of matters of faith. They left it to the Supreme Court of India to adjudicate on this aspect.

When the Rama Sethu case came up again before the Supreme Court last week, Fali Nariman, Special Counsel for the Government of India gave a death blow to the religious feelings, beliefs and sentiments of more than 800 million Hindus in India when he informed the Supreme Court that a decision has been taken not to declare Rama Sethu as a national monument since it does not meet the prescribed criteria. It is indeed a deliberate affront to the due process of law and tantamount to misleading the petitioners and the Honourable Supreme Court, apart from the public at large. After ten months of deliberation or no deliberation, the government of India have somersaulted full circle and completely gone back on the assurances given by the Additional Solicitor General Gopal Subramaniam in open Supreme Court on 14.9.2007.

The UPA is hell bent on hurting Hindu religious feelings. As part of its political deal to win the confidence vote with the help of the DMK Party, the UPA within 24 hours of winning the sham confidence vote, told the Supreme Court through its Special Counsel Nariman that Shri Ram himself destroyed the Sethu and therefore the broken Sethu has no spiritual sanctity and therefore there is no harm in demolishing it to complete the Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project (SSCP).

Fali S.Nariman quoted the scriptures of Padma Puranam and Kambha Ramayanam to show how Shri Rama himself destroyed the Sethu to ensure nobody else would cross over to Sri Lanka. He said, ‘we are not destroying any bridge, as there is no bridge. We believe it was not a man-made structure. It was a super man-made structure, which was broken by Lord Ram himself. If it was something that was destroyed by the same man who built it, we are dealing with only a belief’. In order to counter the arguments of Nariman, the petitioners quoted from another scripture, Skanda Puranam, in point of time anterior to the Padma Puranam and the Kambha Ramayanam. There is no reference to the destruction of Sethu by Sri Rama in Skanda Puranam.

Arguing in the Supreme Court, Subramanian Swamy reiterated that the SSCP should be scrapped altogether if the government could not proceed further without destroying Ram Sethu. It is not economically viable as has been pointed out by the Union Planning Commission. He said the centre is not complying with the Court directions to find out whether Ramar Sethu is an ancient monument or not. Subramaniam Swamy pointed out that the centre wrote to the UNESCO urging that the Majuli Island in Assam be declared an ancient monument. Similarly the Brahma Sarovar in Punjab was declared a national monument, as people believed that Lord Brahma had a bath there. The centre is now seeking to implement SSCP by demolishing Ramar Sethu. Subramaniam Swamy told the Court that Ramar Sethu couldn’t be destroyed, as it is a place of worship for countless centuries. Anyone who tries to damage it should be booked for criminal offence under Section 295 of the Indian Penal Code. Swamy also told the Supreme Court that it should issue notice of contempt of Court to the Union Of India, particularly taking note of the way the courts’ directions and sentiments of millions of people are being toyed with by the government of India. Finally he said, ‘Scrap the SSCP; declare Rama Setu as a national monument and a world heritage centre; finally declare Rameshwaram as a divyakshetram’.

http://newstodaynet.com/images/stories/columns/sharpshot/2008-images/0208-sun2.gif Dr T N Ramachandran A great scholar and savant from Thanjavur

Let me now take up the flippant and casual observations of Nariman relating to Rama Sethu based upon his secondary knowledge of Kamba Ramayanam and Padma Puranam. Nariman has relied upon the following verse to reach his wrong and baseless conclusion that Bhagwan Rama himself destroyed Rama Sethu:

Marakkalam iyanga vendi,Varisilai kudayal keeri th

Tharukkiya idathhu,Pancha pdhagarenum saarin,

Perukkiya ezhu mundru piraviyum, pinikal neengi

Nerukuriya amararkku ellam nin needhi aavar anree (22.2)

I have consulted Dr T N Ramachandran of Thanjavur who is a great Tamil Scholar and savant on the point made by Nariman. I have it on his authority that the above verse upon which Nariman seems to have relied does not refer to the breaking of Rama Sethu by Lord Rama at all. Moreover the above verse is a verse which was later interpolated into the original text of Kambha Ramayana and which cannot be taken as either authentic or correct or reliable. This point relating to the fact of later interpolation has been clearly brought out in Murray Rajam’s edition of Kamba Ramayana published in 1959. The same point was also made by Prof.P.S.Sundaram who was commissioned by government of Tamil Nadu to translate Kamba Ramayana into English in 1992.

Dr.T.N.Ramachandarn says ‘How can Rama making a mark by scratching with his bow (‘keeri’ in Tamil) on the opening (mouth) of the Divine Bridge (causeway) be viewed as his breaking the Bridge?’ The scratching is done where the causeway begins. It is just an identification mark made on the causeway bridge. From there the cause way extends upto Ceylon. Lord Rama ordered that the Causeway Bridge should be guarded by Kappai and Siva. We should thank Fali. S.Nariman for citing the verse, though interpolated, which speaks about the careful safe guarding of the Bridge or Causeway by two divine Powers who were appointed by Bhagwan Rama to safeguard the Bridge. The information furnished to Nariman is by DMK Pundits. It is this DMK party which publicly burnt the Kamba Ramayana, the Periapurana and other puranams.

I fully endorse the assessment of Dr.T.N.Ramachandran: ‘The gubernatorial machinery of India, that is Bharath, pursues consistently a policy aimed at the accomplishment of impoverishment of Sanatana Dharma. India is today a paradise for the so-called Minority Communities. For the Hindus it is an inferno of ‘ever-burning sulphur unconsumed’. Ram Sethu is the greatest symbol of Indian integration. A pilgrimage to Kasi meets with its full fruition only when the pilgrim completes it by his visit to Rameswaram. To the Hindus the beckoning potency of Rameswaram is ineffably great. It is lofty, sacred and sublime. It is ecstatically hailed by the Hindus and it is here discriminations of caste, clan and the like stand subsumed traceless. The very thought of damaging Ram Sethu exceeds the combined and cumulative truculence of the pentad of all great sins (Panchamaha Pathakam ). It is an anathema pronounced on the unity of Bharath, which according to our Constitution shall be a Union of States. The suicidal policy pursued with crass obstinacy by our government is unexampled in the annals of the world. It was initially announced that Ram Sethu was but a natural formation and not one manually wrought. This stultifying proclamation perished the moment it was born. Then Bhagwan Rama stood condemned as one who had not graduated through a College of Engineering. This nefarious declaration received its fatal jolt when citizens, particularly women, debunked its utter untenability. Then was voiced forth the argument that Rama himself destroyed his bridge (the word ‘bridge’ is a misnomer. It is a causeway). The Senior Counsel who made bold to present this argument in the highest forum of India, alas, is only learned enough to misquote. Mahatma Gandhi dreamed of Rama Rajya. Lo! We are cursed to live in Congress Rajya!!’

To conclude with a beautiful and soul-stirring poem of PASUVAI UMA:

http://newstodaynet.com/images/stories/columns/sharpshot/2008-images/0208-sun3.gif

This beautiful poem gives a clarion call to all of us to join together on a pilgrimage to Rameshwaram to have the divine darshan of the sacred Rama Sethu. It motivates us to consider the pilgrimage as our sacred duty, and, the prayer as our penance. It encourages us to take on those who questioned the historicity of Bhagwan Rama and the existence of Rama Sethu and show them the divine reality, which has been existing for ages, protecting us. It advises us to continue our service to humanity by taking the Blessings of Bhagwan Rama at shores of Sethu.

http://newstodaynet.com/col.php?section=20&catid=33

Rama Setu: world heritage

2008-07-30T04:59:00.001-07:00

Rama Setu: UOI appoints 6 member Pachauri committee to reexamine channel project. Sri Rama and Sri Hanuman will protect Setu.

Rameshwaram Rama Setu Raksha Manch has put forward the objective of the protection movement: Save Rama Setu, Declare Rama Setu a national monument and world heritage, Declare Rameshwaram divyakshetram as was done for Tirumala. The movement continues until these objectives are achieved. Our leaders have resolved: we shall save Rama Setu at all costs. This is our resolve.

With the blessings of Sri Rama and Sri Hanuman and the tireless, honest and patriotic efforts of many bandhu, advocacy teams consisting of dedicated aatman like Dr. Subramanian Swamy, Bhupender Yadav, Yogishwaran, Anish Gupta, Bharat Kumar, Parvatha Rao, Soli Sorabjee, Parasaran, KK Venugopal, Krishnan Venugopal, Vaidyanathan, D Kuppuramu and thousands of bharatiya and experts like Dr. CSP Iyer, Dr. Madhav Nalapat, Dr. Gopalakrishnan, Dr. Ramesh Athavale, Dr. Badrinarayanan, late Dr. Subramanian, Shri GP Srinivasan, Smt. Jayashree Saranathan, Sadagopan, Tarun Vijay, Kanchan Gupta, and millions of bharatiyas who demonstrated the sangha s'akti the rashtram shall prevail. We shall not allow the Rama Setu to be demolished the way Taliban destroyed Bamiyan Buddha calling the statue a mere stone. Veda Vyasa has said that it is Sri Rama's command to protect Rama Setu (raamasyaajnaa), he said. This is our guide post. I can't name them all, as tears roll down my cheeks, they are in millions who have shown us the way and guided us, many want to remain unnamed, because they are people who have sacrificed their entie lives for the glory of the rashtram.

Words of s'ubha kaamanaayen are enough to respond to the call of the millions of bandhu. They are our treasure. They have made sure that their collective voice is heard. Dharmo rakshati rakshitah.

The battle is still joined against the asuras. The final victory will be the celebration when the entire bharata varsha goes to Rama Setu to celebrate the world heritage, our privilege to be in the times of churning the ocean, samudra manthanam. This samudra manthanam has to become the moment of renaissance for Bharat mahaan. We shall get there, acknowledging again and again that we are only nimitta maatram. In this quest of the aatman for the paramaatman, Sri Rama, the maryada purushottama, the avatara purusha will show us the way. It is our duty to pray, with the blessings of pujya swamiji's like Dayananda ji, Pejawar ji, Sadhu-sant marga darshan mandali of the Manch, guidance of the people of 6.5 lakh villages of Hindusthana who have yearned for the protection of Rama Setu. The battle has just been joined. We have miles to go to serve this punya bhumi and restore dharma in the polity. The disconnect between the polity and the samajam has to be rectified. Sangha will lead us. We have to ensure the empowerment of every village, every aatman in every village. We have miles to go. Hey, paramaatman, show us the way. We shall tread the path shown by our pitru-s, our ancestors whom we remember on ashadha amavasya day as we dip in the Rama Setu dhanushkodi waters. The collective memory of our ancestors which we cherish is our strength, our beacon of hope, the guide for abhyudayam which is dharma according to Kapila muni's vais'eshika sutra.

dharmo rakshati rakshitah. Dharma protects those who protect dharma.

Namaskaram. Kalyanaraman

TN fishermen prefer fish than Sethu
Sam Daniel
Wednesday, July 30, 2008, (Chennai)

While the Sethusamudram channel is being fought in the Supreme Court, for over a lakh fishermen in Rameswaram it's the settlement of the Katchatheevu issue that matters most.

It's an island that the Indian government had gifted to Sri Lanka in 1974. But over the years their fishing area has shrunk. And over the last twenty years, around two hundred Indian fishermen from Tamil Nadu have fallen prey to bullets fired by the Lankan navy for trespassing into Lankan waters.

The Lankan government is accused of not honouring the agreement that allows Indian fishermen to fish around Katchatheevu and dry their nets in the island.

With a dwindling catch in Indian waters, fishermen want restoration of fishing rights around Katchatheevu. They suggest a long-term lease agreement to fish in Lankan waters.

"Many of us are struggling without proper food. The government could retrieve Katchatheevu in the interest of fishermen but it's focusing only on Sethusamudram channel project. They should stop it first," says one of the fishermen.

"It should be like an exchange. Indian fishermen should be able to fish in Lankan waters and vice versa," says Bose, President, TN fishermen's Association.

Successive state governments have done little to solve this crisis. Following criticism, the ruling DMK is now championing the cause and had even observed a hunger strike recently.

The Centre has promised to take up this issue with Sri Lanka in the forthcoming SAARC summit in the island.

There is anger among fishermen over government's indifference in resolving the Katchatheevu issue. They want the government to stop its undue interest in the Sethusamudram channel project and ensure their livelihood first.

http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20080059350&ch=7/30/2008%201:58:00%20PM

Government to examine shorter sea-route, sparing Ram Setu
July 30th, 2008 - 1:26 pm ICT by IANS

New Delhi, July 30 (IANS) The central government Wednesday informed the Supreme Court that it has decided to appoint an expert committee to examine the feasibility of an alternate alignment for a shorter sea-route around India's southern peninsula, sparing the Ram Setu. Senior government counsel Fali S. Nariman gave this information to a bench of Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan.

The court had earlier suggested the government examine the feasibility of an alternate route for the Sethusamudram shipping channel.

The Adam's Bridge or Ram Setu is a 48-km long chain of limestone shoals that once linked Rameswaram in Tamil Nadu with Mannar in Sri Lanka's northwest. Many Hindus believe that it was the bridge Lord Ram's army built to cross over to Lanka to rescue his wife Sita.

The bridge faces some damage due to the dredging for the Setusamudram canal to create a navigable waterway between India's southern tip and Sri Lanka.

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/government-to-examine-shorter-sea-route-sparing-ram-setu_10077630.html

Alternative alignment on Sethu being considered: Govt
Font size: Decrease font Enlarge font
NEWSX
30 July, 2008 03:51:09
The Centre on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that the possibility of pushing the Sethusamudram project through an alternative alignment to avoid any damage to Ram Sethu is being given serious consideration by the government.

The government's view was conveyed by senior advocate Fali S Nariman to a bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan hearing the issue.

Nariman told the bench that he had received a response from the Prime Minister to a letter written by him on the suggestion put forward by the apex court on the issue of exploring the possibility of an alternative alignment between Dhanushkodi and Rameshwaram island.

"The suggestion of Supreme Court for alternative alignment including a canal cutting through the portion between Dhanushkodi and Land End on Rameshwaram Island has been given serious consideration in the government," the response from PMO to Nariman's letter said.

The Court was informed that PMO has decided to set up an expert committee headed by noted scientist R K Pachauri, Director General of Tata Energy Research Institute, to look into the suggestion.

The Committee has been asked to submit its report as quickly as possible.

"The Committee will quickly examine the feasibility of the alternative alignment suggested by the Supreme Court for the Sethusamudram shipping canal project between Dhanushkodi and Land End on Rameshwaram island keeping in view the technical aspects, cost benefit analysis, social and cultural impact, environmental impact, law and order aspects and any other related matter," the PMO letter said.

The PMO's response placed before the bench said that the Committee may co-opt other experts and institutions to facilitate its work and decide its own procedure for conducting its proceedings.

Nariman had yesterday said that he would soon inform the court about the response of the government on his letter to the Prime Minister.

http://howrah.org/india_news/20581.html

R K Pachauri heads panel on Ram Sethu
(Raja Chaurasia) Publication Date 30/7/2008 12:10:30 PM(IST)

New Delhi: India Government has appointed a six-member committee to consider issue of alternative route to save Ram Sethu.

The Centre told the Supreme Court that the possibility of pushing the Sethusamudram project through an alternative alignment to avoid any damage to ''Ram Sethu' is being given serious consideration by the government.

The government's view was conveyed by senior advocate Fali S Nariman to a bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan hearing the issue.

The expert committee will be headed by noted scientist R K Pachauri, Director General of Tata Energy Research Institute. The Committee has been asked to submit its report as quickly as possible.

The Committee will quickly examine the feasibility of the alternative alignment suggested by the Supreme Court for the project between Dhanushkodi and Land End on Rameshwaram island keeping in view the technical aspects, cost-benefit analysis, social and cultural impact, environmental impact, law and order aspects and any other related matter.

http://mynews.in/fullstory.aspx?storyid=8177

Wednesday, July 30, 2008 (14:40:21)

Govt to examine shorter sea-route, sparing Ram Sethu

New Delhi: The central government today informed the Supreme Court that it has decided to appoint an expert committee to examine the feasibility of an alternate alignment for a shorter sea-route around India's southern peninsula, sparing the Ram Sethu. Senior government counsel Fali S Nariman gave this information to a bench of Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan.

The court had earlier suggested the government to examine the feasibility of an alternate route for the Sethusamudram shipping channel.

The Adam's Bridge or Ram Sethu is a 48-kilometer long chain of limestone shoals that once linked Rameswaram in Tamil Nadu with Mannar in Sri Lanka's northwest. Many Hindus believe that it was the bridge Lord Ram's army built to cross over to Lanka to rescue his wife Sita.

The bridge faces some damage due to the dredging for the Sethusamudram canal to create a navigable waterway between India's southern tip and Sri Lanka. (IANS)

http://www.headlinesindia.com/archive_html/30July2008_79909.html

Ram Sethu controversy IANS
Centre to examine shorter route for Sethu project
Wednesday, 30 July , 2008, 13:14
Last Updated: Wednesday, 30 July , 2008, 15:03

Adam bridgeNew Delhi: The Centre of Wednesday informed the Supreme Court that it has decided to appoint an expert committee to examine the feasibility of an alternate alignment for a shorter sea-route around India's southern peninsula, sparing the Adam's Bridge (Ram Sethu).

Full coverage: Ram Sethu row

Senior government counsel Fali S Nariman gave this information to a bench of Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan.

The court had earlier suggested the government examine the feasibility of an alternate route for the Sethusamudram shipping channel.

The Adam's Bridge or Ram Sethu is a 48-km long chain of limestone shoals that once linked Rameswaram in Tamil Nadu with Mannar in Sri Lanka's northwest. Many Hindus believe that it was the bridge Lord Ram's army built to cross over to Lanka to rescue his wife Sita.

The bridge faces some damage due to the dredging for the Sethusamudram canal to create a navigable waterway between India's southern tip and Sri Lanka.

http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14727183

'Murasoli' accpets Ram-Sethu as a holy place!

http://www.thestatesman.net/page.news.php?clid=2&theme=&usrsess=1&id=216003

Sethu: DMK quotes Ramayana

N Ravikumar

Chennai, July 29: Rushing to the defence of the Centre's stand in the Supreme Court that Lord Ram himself had destroyed Ram Sethu after crossing over to the home territory, the DMK has come out with exact quotes from Kambaramayana which supports the Centre's contention.

Countering a report in an English daily quoting pro-Hindutva journalist Mr Cho Ramasamy who had asserted that no such verses were found in any part of Kambaramayana, an article published in DMK organ `Murasoli' quoted the stanza from Kambaramayana which says "Lord Ram destroyed the bridge using an arrow so that the bridge should not be an obstacle to passage of ships".

The exact Tamil verse given is "Marakkalam Iyakka Vendi Varisilai Pudhaiyal Keeri".

The next three lines of the stanza says "those who travel near the place where the demolished bridge lies will be absolved of their sins and will be equivalent to the Gods".
The article written by a senior advocate Mr M S Venkatachalam asked "If Lord Ram himself has destroyed the Ram Sethu saying that it should not be an obstacle to ships, why some people are opposing it in the name of Ram himself".

"Lord Ram himself had said that those who pass near the demolished bridge would be absolved of their sins. If a canal is dredged, several ships can pass near the demolished bridge and the people travelling in them will be absolved of their sins", the article said quoting Kambaramayana.

The writer also gave the details about the chapter and the stanza's number in Kambaramayana. The article also questioned Mr Cho Ramasamy's knowledge in Tamil literature and asked if he was an expert in Kambaramayana. The article has also used ironical epithets like `great scholar' and `great poet', while referring to Mr Cho Ramasamy since most of the Tamil scholars have ridiculed Mr Cho Ramasamy's knowledge of Tamil as he cannot write a single sentence in proper Tamil without mixing Sanskrit words.

From Jayasree

Evam Ethath puraa vruththam aakhyaanam bhadhram asthu va: |

pravyaaharatha visrabdham balam vishNO: pravardhathaam ||
(6-131-121)

Let this story that happened in an olden time be of good to you.

Let the power of Vishnu grow in all worlds.

So saying Kavi Valimiki concludes his epic.

This verse, being said everyday by thousands of people

at the end of their parayana of Ramayana / Sundara khanda

is supposed to increase the power of presence of Vishnu in this world.

Rama does not come by himself to defend or destroy someone,

every time dharma is challenged.

The recital of his name or his story itself is taking care of the needs of the times.

Now this miracle has happened with the die-hard haters of Rama and his fame.

With all the outbursts and ridicules on Rama and his historicity,

the DMK Chief and his party's mouth-piece,

are in effect giving credence to the existence of Rama.

By saying that Rama broke the Sethu,

they accept that Sethu existed.

By accepting Ram Sethu,

they accept that Ram existed!

But in quoting a verse from Kamba Ramayan

(this is not found in many olden editions

but only an interpolation as shown in this link

http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.com/2008/07/sethu-in-kamba-ramayanam.html)

they have also demonstrated that knowledge and intelligence

do not always go hand in hand.

Mere knowledge of Tamil is not enough,

if one lacks the intellect to interpret the verses in Tamil.

Such intellect is not possible in the absence of knowledge

of the root texts which are in Sanskrit.

Thus their diatribe against Cho also is flawed.

Let us look at how their interpretation is false.

The verse quoted by them is this:

Marakkalam iyanga vendi,Varisilai pudaiyal keeri th

Tharukkiya idathhu,Pancha pdhagarenum saarin,

Perukkiya ezhu mundru piraviyum, pinikal neengi

Nerukuriya amararkku ellam nin needhi aavar anree.

The same verse also has appeared in some quotes

with 'pudhaiyaal' as 'kudhaiyaal'.

'Kudhai' is the bottom part of the arrow.

'Pudhai' is the bunch of arrows.

First let them make it clear whether it is kudhai or pudhai.

I am saying this to show that the verse had been mutated/

with respect to some letters.

The other place where I find such mutation is

the very first word – 'marakkalam' (ship)

which they are relying on to 'blast' Ram sethu.

The 'marakkalam' (ship) seems to be

the mutated form of 'marukkaamal' (means 'without objection').

Look at the 'yedugai'

(the 2nd letter of the first words in each line rhyming with each other)

of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th lines.

The 'ru' in all these 3 lines do not go well with 'ra' of marakkalam in the first line.

It will be appropriate to have 'ru' yedugai in the first line too

and it does not result in 'thaLAi thattudhal' (adheres to the grammar of the words)

It must be

"marukkamal iyanga vEndi".

That is, in order to make the rule of Rama-neeti be adhered to

without any objection or opposition,

the 'kudhai' of Rama made a mark on Ram Sethu to declare

that those who worship there will be relieved of sins of 21 births.

If we analyse the verse deeply,

we see the purpose of 'breaking' (keeri).

This verse gives 2 reasons for this.

One is for making the ships sail (marakkalam iyanga vendi)

and another is for removing the sins accumulated in 21 births.

What Rama really intended to do?

To help people get their sins removed?

Or to make way for ships?

If ships could cross that stretch,

a question comes why Rama didn't think of crossing the sea by ships.

Even catamarans would do to cross this stretch.

When he was able to get his huge army to build a bridge across the ocean in just 5 days,

he could have easily constructed catamarans or

even sailable ships in record numbers in record time

with the help of the vanaras.

But he didn't.

Or it didn't occur to him to cross the ocean in ships or catamarans.

Why?

One reason we can deduce is that

this part of the ocean was not a navigable one in his times.

The sea had been rough,

and this can be made out from the description in Valmiki Ramayana.

The description of the sea after they reached the shore,

is indicative of rough waters and rough weather.

(Yuddha khanda – chapter -4)

Based on this line of reasoning, we can say that

making a way for ships was not in the agenda of Rama.

Now about 'kudhai'.

Kudhai is the bottom portion of the arrow.

(Senthamizh agaraathi by NC Kandaiya pillai, 1950 edition).

It is not the sharp piercing tip.

When will someone do the 'keeral' with the bottom of the arrow?

to mark the area for some purpose.

The purpose is told in the next lines

which is about the sanctity of the place for propitiation.

If the word is 'pudhai', which means a bunch of arrows,

it would mean that a bathing ghat was made

by means of shooting arrows on the ground.

The ensuing lines on propitiation make it known that what was done

was creation of a place for taking holy dip!

The verse seems to be a declaration

that those who take a dip there

would be relieved of the results of 'pancha maha paadhakam,

and the sins accumulated over 21 births

and would be disease free.

By quoting this verse,

the DMK has accepted that Ram sethu is a holy theertham.

The verse also indicates that Ram sethu has been once used by people.

Then what prevents them from declaring it as a monument?

Foot note:-

The verse quoted by Murasoli is the succeeding verse of this:-

ஆவினை, குரவரோடும் அருமறை முனிவர்தம்மை,
பாவையர் குழுவை, இன் சொல் பாலரை, பயந்து தம் இல்
மேவின அவரை, செற்றோர், விரி கடல் சேது வந்து
தோய்வரேல், அவர்கள் கண்டாய், சுரர் தொழும் சுரர்கள் ஆவார்.

From this context it is deduced, that the 'keeral' was done

only for propitiation and not for movement of ships.

The 2 verses read together make this clear.

ஆவினை, குரவரோடும் அருமறை முனிவர்தம்மை,
பாவையர் குழுவை, இன் சொல் பாலரை, பயந்து தம் இல்
மேவின அவரை, செற்றோர், விரி கடல் சேது வந்து
தோய்வரேல், அவர்கள் கண்டாய், சுரர் தொழும் சுரர்கள் ஆவார்.

மரக்கலம் இயங்கவேண்டி, வரி சிலைக் குதையால் கீறித்
தருக்கிய இடத்து, பஞ்ச பாதகரேனும் சாரின்,
பெருக்கிய ஏழு மூன்று பிறவியும் பிணிகள் நீங்கி,
நெருக்கிய அமரர்க்கு எல்லாம் நீள் நிதி ஆவர் அன்றே.

http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.com/2008/07/murasoli-accpets-ram-sethu-as-holy.html

Comment by Dr. K. Gopalakrishnan (30 July 2008, personal communication):

This is in continuation of my earlier comments on the recent Kamba Ramayan controversy, in view of the submissions by counsel Mohan on behalf of Govt.

The verse quoted by Mr.Mohan is the one on Sl.No. 171 in V.M. Gopalakrishnamachariyar's (VMG) version of Kamba Ramayana (given as annexure-VMG2 in my earlier communication).

It can be seen from the explanatory notes to that verse by VMG himself states that " villin nuniyal sethuvai keeri udaithu vazhivitta varalatrai 'vidhi muhatrath kooraathu anuvadhamuhatrath koori' peravaithaar".

In normal Tamil, the words 'vidhi muhatrath kooraathu anuvadhamuhatrath koori' mean 'nermuhamaha kooraamal oru uthesamaha koori'.

The English translation the entire explanatory comment of VMG will be as follows:

"Ram,a while traveling on board of Pushpaka Vimaana, told the incident of making incision with his bow on Rama Sethu for the purposes of easy passage for wooden crafts (wooden ships) not directly but in a circumstantial and circumspect way".

This would otherwise indicate that even VMG had doubts about the authenticity of this verse being an original one by Kamban. That was the reason why VMG stated in the explanatory comments that Rama told about this incident not directly but in a circumstantial and circumspect manner.

The main reason for this will be that this important event of breaking the bridge built with great perfection by the vanara sena was made as only as a passing reference by Rama on board of the aircraft. Even in the first verse describing the greatness and purity of Rama Sethu (No.166), describes only the building of the bridge and not the breaking of it. No mention is made anywhere in Kamba Ramayana or in any other version, about the breaking of bridge in the narration of events between the actual building of Rama Sethu and Rama boarding the pushpaka Vimaana.

Also the more authenticated version of Kamba Ramayanam is the one published by the "Kamban Kazhagam: edited by 15 Tamil Scholars, who had identified the later inserted verses (migaipaadalgal) and removed them, and the quoted verse is not included in the corrected version published by them.

Note from GP Srinivasan dated 30 July 2008:

Clarification offered after Consulting Dr.T.N.Ramachandran on Kamba Ramayana

* The virgin named Kappai and the father of Skanda (Lord Siva) are entrusted with the safeguarding of the Divine Bridge by Rama. These two are posted there for the purpose. With his ineffably great bow Rama makes a mark on the opening (mouth) of the divine bridge. Then he moves away with the incomparable Sita and his ocean like Army.

* Note: The above is an interpolated one included at page 59 of the section related to the interpolated verses in Murray edition, 1959.Preceding this verses there are also many other interpolated verses celebrating the glory of the Divine Bridge or Cause way.

* Why should Rama appoint these two divine powers?

* The scratching is done where the causeway begins. It is just an identification mark made on the bridge. From there the cause way extends upto Ceylon. From the marked place the Bridge should be guarded by Kappai and Siva.

* We should thank Fali. S.Nariman for citing the verse, though interpolated, which speaks to the careful safe guarding of the Bridge or Cause way by two divine Powers who were appointed by Lord Rama to safeguard the Bridge.

* The information furnished to Nariman is by DMK Pundits. It is this DMK party which publicly burnt the Kamba Ramayana, the Periapurana and other puranams.

How to understand Puranic interpretations?

Yes, we have seen the available Padma , Skanda puranas etc. indeed Padma Purana does have the statments, and hence we have to approach it in the following manner.

Details relating to Geography at the time when the Sethu was constructed must be remembered. There were not in existence then Rameswaram, Danushkodi etc. The great Sea divided India from Ceylon. Rama chose then a place from where the cause was to be constructed. This causeway connected the southern end of India with Ceylon. Completing his mission when Rama returned some places came into existences which were known as Rameswaram, Danushkodi, etc. These places were ushered into existence by Rama for the benefit of mankind. The puranas say that for carving out these places a small portion marking the beginning of Sethu was utilized by Rama. The word "Keeri", speaks to the slicing as well as identifying by Scratching or Marking. These are ideas developed by the puranas not found in Valmiki Ramayana or the Kamba Ramayana, which came into existence thousands of years after Valmiki's Ramayana. Adopting the view of the puranas a few verses stand interpolated in the Kamba Ramayana.

Rama Setu: Centre says not a monument; agitations, demonstrations -- VHP

2008-07-29T04:48:00.001-07:00

In an extraordinary travesty of justice and utter delinquency of executive responsibility under the Constitution, UOI Counsel tells the SC that UOI has decided that Rama Setu does not meet the criteria for declaring the Setu as a national monument under 1958 Act. I hope SC will go into the arbitrariness involved and double-standards used by UOI in coming to such conclusions without adherance to due process.

Every monument connected with the memory of Sri Rama is a national monument because Sri Rama is the very embodiment of national unity and identity. He is vigrahavaan dharmah. Setu is the living monument reminding everyone about the role it played in protecting dharma in one of the momentous events in human civilizational history.

If Majuli island, the larger river island of the world in Brahmaputra river can be deemed to be a World Heritage monument and proposal sent to UNESCO, why not a similar treatment to Rama Setu?

Madras HC judgement of 19 June 2007 in 11 pages elaborates on the string of evidences which led it to ask if ASI has conducted any studies on declaring Rama Setu as a monument. In the affidavit submitted earlier by UOI it was clearly stated that ASI has NOT conducted any such studies. Now, the learned counsel says that a determination has been made. It is remarkable that within a short period of time, without any transparency and consultation with the experts, such a determination has been made. This smacks of utter hypocrisy, utter disdain for due process under the rule of law and high-handedness on the part of the administrative machinery of the state. SC will hopefully call the UOI for contempt for court disregarding both Madras HC and SC directions.

UOI seems to think that sentiments of millions of people can be toyed with. VHP and Rameshwaram Rama Setu Raksha Manch have repeatedly declared that the protection movement will continue until the Rama Setu is declared an ancient monument and Rameshwaram a divyakshetram.

Hopefully, SC will take the same stand it took in jallikattu case and ensure that the state does not indulge in activities which hurt the sentiments of the community and result in an avoidable social upheaval. Hopefully, SC will appoint an advocate commission while declaring that the Rama Setu should be deemed a national monument analogous to the declaration made by Punjab High Court for Brahmasarovar.

Contempt with which UOI treats the Court directions and hindu sentiments is shocking, beyond belief. UPA may think that it can stay in satta by hook or crook. Not for long, UPA whose days are numbered as the citizens will awaken to render justice in this land of dharma.

Dharmo rakshati rakshitah.

Kalyanaraman

Ramar Sethu doesn't fulfil criteria of national monument: Centre
New Delhi (PTI): The Centre on Tuesday told the Supreme Court that it had already come to a conclusion that Ramar Sethu does not fulfil the criteria for being declared a national monument.
"As far as we are concerned, the stand of the Government is very clear that Rama Setu could not fulfil the criteria of national monument," senior advocate Fali S Nariman, appearing for the Centre, told a Bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan.
Further, on the issue of alternative alignment to avoid destruction of Ramar Sethu for the Sethusamudram project, he said, so far, he has not received any instruction from the Government.
Nariman said that would, most probably by evening or tomorrow, receive some instructions.
A day after making a strident argument that Ramar Sethu was destroyed by Lord Rama himself, the Centre had on July 24 changed tack and said that the viability of going ahead with the Sethusamudram project through an alternative alignment has been taken up at the "highest level".
"The suggestion for alternative alignment to avoid Ramar Sethu route has been taken as a special case. I have personally taken it at the highest level. It is being scientifically examined. I will come back to you by Tuesday or Wednesday," Nariman had told the Bench.
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/holnus/000200807291441.htm

Centre’s bid to appease MK, says VHP
Tuesday July 29 2008 09:29 IST
Express News Service
COIMBATORE: The Centre’s assertion before the Supreme Court on July 22 that Lord Ram himself had destroyed the Ramar Sethu was to appease DMK leader M Karunanidhi whose party is a partner in the UPA coalition, said VHP international president Ashok Singhal, while talking to reporters here on Monday.

“Nowhere in the Kamba Ramayanam it is mentioned that Lord Rama himself destroyed the bridge,” Ashok Singhal said while replying to questions on the Union Government’s stand on the Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project (SSCP).

“Ramar Sethu will be protected at any cost,” VHP general secretary Pravin Togadia asserted.He informed that saints and Hindu leaders met at Hardwar recently to demand that the Sethu be declared a historical monument.

Singhal warned that if the Centre failed to declare Ramar Sethu as a national monument, VHP would launch a series of agitations and demonstrations.

On Ram temple

Singhal said construction of Ram temple in Ayodhya, the birthplace of Ram, was not possible through negotiations or the court of law.

Passing a legislation alone would be a solution to this issue, Singal said, and added, “In the event of BJP coming to power, the VHP would stress this matter.”

On this issue Togadia’s take was: “The temple will come up and we will see to it that such an Act is brought in the next Lok Sabha,” he said. (with inputs from PTI)
http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IET20080728230820&Page=T&Title=Southern+News+-+Tamil+Nadu&Topic=0

Government to clarify its stand on Ram Setu today
7/29/2008
The Union Government will clarify its stand today before the Supreme Court on the fate of Ram Setu.

Senior Counsel F S Nariman had last week informed the three judge bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan, Justices R V Raveendran and J M Panchal that the Union Government was actively considering the suggestion of the Supreme Court to explore the possibility of taking some other route/alignment to save Ram Setu, also known as Adam's Bridge from being demolished.

The apex court had told the government that in-all eight alignments are there, which can be used to complete Rs 2500 crore Sethusamudram Canal Project without touching the 35 km long Ram Setu.

Justice Raveendran had also told the Government that little deviation from alignment six and a small damage to biosphere was desirable if it was necessary to protect the faith of millions of people.

Earlier the government had contended that according to Padma Purana and Kamban Ramayana, the Tamil version of Ramayana, have mentioned that Ram Setu was destroyed by Lord Ram himself while returning from Sri Lanka.

The claim of the government has been hotly contested and denied by religious scholars that there is no such mention in any of the holy scriptures.

Petitioners, which include former Union Minister Subramanium Swamy and former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa, are however, seeking declaration from the apex court that Ram Setu is a monument of national heritage and therefore cannot be destroyed.

The apex court has already restrained the authorities from damaging Ram Setu in any manner while carrying out the dredging activity.

Union Shipping and Road Transport Minister T R Baalu and Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M Karunanidhi are facing contempt of court proceedings for backing Tamil Nadu bandh on October 1 last year, in violation of the Supreme Court order.

UNI http://www.indlawnews.com/Newsdisplay.aspx?56e3c65c-adf0-49af-b27d-6956accd75ec

Ram Sethu: Centre walks on tightrope
Sam Daniel
Tuesday, July 29, 2008, (Chennai)
The Union government is now considering the Supreme Court's advice to choose a different route for Sethusamudram project in a bid to save the Ram Sethu. And the environmentalists say that this may spell disaster.

The Ram the bridge is believed to have been built by Lord Ram's vanar sena on the Bay of Bengal. If the centre has its way, the stretch behind will be cut across to allow ships to sail through.

Devotees call it an outrage on their faith. They want the government to choose another route that will leave the bridge of faith intact. In fact, five of the six original proposals have left this bridge intact.

The devotees visiting Danushkodi are hopeful that Ram Sethu would be saved. The Supreme Court has asked the Centre to consider a new route, between the fourth and fifth alignments for the Sethusamudram channel.

According to the plan, the channel will be cut across the land near the famous Kodandaramar temple, leaving Ram Sethu intact. The Centre is expected to give its reply in a few days.

"Destroying Ram Sethu is like piercing the hearts of Ram devotees. Even if the project is economically profitable, the right thing is to take the other route," said a devotee.

It was the Ram Sethu that saved us from the tsunami.

Devotees believe that the chain of limestone shoals was built by Ram's army of monkeys to rescue his wife Sita from Ravana in Sri Lanka.

The Sethusamudram channel is worth Rs 2400 crore. It aims to connect the east and west coast of India for ships that go around Sri Lanka.

But environmentalists are up in arms. They say the route will be an ecological disaster due to its proximity to the Gulf of Mannar Marine National Park.

This national biosphere is home to over 3000 marine species including corals and is just 10 km away from the new alignment. Activists say this would threaten the very survival of this reserve.

"Corals are schedule one. It means that they have the same status as that of a tiger," said Sudarshan Rodriguez, an environmentalist.

With the ruling DMK determined to see the project through, if accepted the proposed change in alignment, may almost double the cost and delay it by a few years. For the Centre, it is a tightrope walk.

http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20080059201&ch=7/29/2008%2010:15:00%20AM

Replies to comments of UOI Counsel Nariman on destruction of Setu by Rama himself

2008-07-28T12:47:00.000-07:00

Comments on the remarks of Mr. Nariman regarding destruction of Rama Setu by Lord Rama himself

By K.Gopalakrishnan (28 July 2008)

Mr.Nariman submitted on behalf of the Govt. of India to the Supreme Court on 24th July, 2008 that “As per Kamba Ramayana, the Superman Rama himself destroyed the bridge Rama Sethu that was earlier constructed by him and anything that was broken is not a bridge, and we can not worship something that has been destroyed”.

Mr. Nariman also said”Kamba Ramayana also expressly says the bridge was destroyed by Lord Ram so that no one can cross over to Sri Lanka and ships can sail through”.

Kamba Ramayana is one of the many vernacular versions of the original Ramayana by Valmiki in sanskrit language. Kamba Ramayana itself has got many versions in its publications.

The verse in question being quoted by Mr. Narman is verse No. 171 in yudda kanda published in a version edited and published by one Sri, V.M.Gopalakrishnamachariyar.

Rama, after killing Ravana and other rakshasas in the battle and after rescuing his wife Sita, was returning from Lanka to Ayodhya by Pushpaka vimaana (an aero-plane) with Sita. It is described that from the plane, Rama was showing Sita and giving details about various places en-route. The above verse in Gopalakrishnamachariyar’s version forms one of the seven verses (166 to 172) describing the greatness and purity of Rama Sethu.

It is obvious that Rama could not have broken the bridge from the aero-plane. That means that Rama should have destroyed the bridge after winning the war and before boarding his vimaana/plane. There was no mention of such activity during this specific period anywhere in Kamba Ramayana. When Rama describes the greatness and purity of Rama Sethu in so many verses, it is not rational that he himself would have destroyed it. Besides, Goplakrishnamachariyar himself says in the explanatory notes for this verse that the break-up of this bridge was done from the western side and because of that reason, that place is known as Dhanushkodi. If that was the case, then Rama would have had to swim back to Lanka crossing the ship-sailable channel. Gopalakrishnamachariyar’s text does not talk about breakage in three places (see the annexured text); but Mr. Nariman says that as per Kamba Ramayana, the bridge was broken in three places. Then Rama would have to swim not one channel but three to get back to Sri Lanka to board the plane with Sita and all others.

Another aspect of many versions of Kamba Ramayana is that at many places, many later insertions have been made to the original text of Kamban. Even in his version of Kamba Ramayana, Gopalakrishnamachariyar himself had cited 43 such insertions between the above verses 166 and 172 (see enclosed annexures). Also, between verses 173 and 174, two more insertions are cited.

In another version of Kamba Ramayana edited by Poovannan, Srichandran and Manikkam, and published by Varthamanan publishers, there are only five verses describing the greatness and purity of Rama Sethu instead of the seven given in Gopalakrishnamachariyar’s version (see annexures). The verses 170, and 171 quoted by Mr. Nariman are not found in the latter’s version. It is therefore more likely that the verse under question regarding the destruction of Sethu by Rama himself as well as the one preceding it (no.170) in the former’s version may also be insertions.

The other contention of Mr.Nariman that we can not worship some thing that has been broken is also incorrect. This type of argument may hold good for idols, but not for kshetrams and thirthasthanams. It is to be noted that even in the quoted verse, in the later part, Rama talks about the virtue of Rama Sethu stating that one who takes bath in the Sethu thirtham will be absolved of all his sins and will live like Devas for the next 21 births. Thus, even if one accepts the above verse as original for arguments’ sake, the Sethu will still be a place of worship, contrary to the assertion of Mr. Nariman.

ANNEXURES (Tamil texts with translations into English of relevant Tamil verses/comments)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/4202841/VMG1 Annexure 1: From VMG’s version – 1

Translation of Verse 167: Rama tells Sita: Lady wearing golden bangles! To talk of the purity of the Setu is an impossibility for even Brahma, what can I say? Yet, listen to what I have to say: even those who have harmed parents, guru, and relatives will attain purity and become deva-s by the mere sight of the Setu.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4202896/VMG2 Annexure 2: From VMG’s version – 2

Translation of Verse 168: There are some who say that the purity of Setu is because of the association with Gandhamadana mountain. The legend is that when Indra broke the mountain slopes, some mountains feared Indra and hid under the ocean.

Comment of Verse 171: When Rama traveled on the Pushpaka Vimana, to move amidst wooden trawlers smoothly, it is incorrect to state that he tore the Setu. It is an incorrect translation. Here criminals who have committed panchamahapatakas (five grievous misdeeds) took a dip. Even in 21 births, they will be healthy without illnesses and will attain the appreciation of deva-s. (Thus, it is explained that the tearing of the Setu was to facilitate the samudra snaanam).

http://www.scribd.com/doc/4202953/VMG3 Annexure 3: From VMG’s version - 3
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4203003/VMG4 Annexure 4: From VMG’s version - 4
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4203153/VMG5 Annexure 5 From VMG’s version – 5
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4203689/VMG6 Annexure 6: From VMG’s version – 6
The three annexes – VMG3 to VMG6 explain Poojai padalam, that is, chapter of Setu worship. (Note: The accent on the entire chapter on the sacredness of Setu and the procedures of worship).
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4203247/Poovannan1Annexure 7: From Poovannan et al –1
Trans. Verse 4058 is titled: Showing Setu, explaining its greatness (cirappu) Translation of the verse: Rama said: ‘Lady with an exquisite countenance! After many days lapsed after I got separated from you, after I gained the friendship of Sugriva, the monarch of vaanara, after Hanuman met you in Lanka in the Ashokavana where you were held captive and relieved your anguish, after he informed us of your presence, to join battle with Ravana, to get you released from captivity, vaanarasena constructed this Setu to cross over the ocean. See this Setu.’
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4203379/Poovannan2 Annexure 8: From Poovannan et al – 2
Trans. of verse 4059 (same as verse 167 in VMG1): Rama tells Sita: Lady wearing golden bangles! To talk of the purity of the Setu is an impossibility for even Brahma, what can I say? Yet, listen to what I have to say: even those who have harmed parents, guru, and relatives will attain purity and become deva-s by the mere sight of the Setu.

Trans. of verse 4061: If one immerses in sacred snaanam in Ganga river, Yamuna river, Godavari river, Narmada river, Kaveri river, evils will not be eliminated. By merely seeing the sacred waters of the Setu which takes on the incessant waves which throw the s’ankha onto the shore, all sins will be removed.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4203435/Poovannan3 Annexure 9: From Poovannan et al – 3
Trans of verse 4063. Rama carrying the powerful kodanda bow which vanquishes evil people explained to Sita while traveling on the Pushpaka Vimana, showed the specific spot where Varuna had s’aranaagati (adaikkalam or surrender).

NOTE: At the following blogspot post, verses from another Kamba Ramayanam edition have been analysed, again pointing out the comments made by the editors about interpolations. This edition is: Setu in Kamba Ramayana (First edition, 1976, published by Kamban Kazhagam, Chennai).
http://setubandha.blogspot.com/2008/07/rama-setu-hindu-cosmolog-sea-level.html

The interpolated verse for example iss 170-23.

kappai enum kanniyaiyum, kandanaar taataiyaiyum
appozhude tiruvanaikku kaavalaraay angu irutti
ceppa ariya cilaiyaale tiruvanaiyai vaay keeri
oppu ariyaal tannudane uyar cenai kkadaludane

Appointing a lady-warrior called Kappai and a warrior named Kandanaar to guard the Setu, using an arrow (cilai) marking a line (vaay keeri -- line on the end of the Setu). This verse does NOT indicate that Rama destroyed the Setu. (Note: The word keeri has many meanings. In this context of engaging guards to guard the Setu, the line is drawn only as a demarcation of their zone of responsibility).

In the original verses of Kamban, and in Valimki Ramayana, Setu's beauty is described which makes Sita devi wonderstruck. The verses also extol the fact that pilgrms who see the Setu become blessed. It is clear that even during the periods when the interpolations were made, Setu continued to be a place of pilgrimage and worship. (Sriram continues to cite verses which are interpolations pointing to the use of later-day Tamil words and poetry-styles not in tune with the original version of Kamban, citing verses from 162-6 to 162-8, 169-1 to 169-2, 170-1 to 170-12.)

Setu project: replies to arguments of Counsel Nariman on geotechnical, oceanographic, environmental studies

2008-07-28T07:07:00.000-07:00

Setu project: replies to arguments of Counsel Nariman on geotechnical, oceanographic, environmental studies

Geological Survey of India, the premier earthsciences organisation together with National Institute of Oceanography, Goa, the premier oceanography organisation should be involved in any study as was done in Tehri dam case by appointing an advocates' commission.

It is surprising that for the Setu channel, these organisations were not involved as consultants for geo-scientific studies including oceanographic investigations before approving the channel project.

Some arguments were made by UOI counsel Nariman on 24 and 25 July about geo-scientific studides related to SSCP. Replies to these arguments are submitted. Former Directors of Geological Survey of India Dr. K. Gopalakrishnan, Dr. S. Badrinarayanan and Dr. K Subramanian had made the following submissions which are also made available to the SC:

1. Geological and Geo-tectonic Setting of the Palk Bay – Gulf of mannar area – Their relevance to SSCP
2. Rama Sethu – Geographical, Geological, Historical and Geo-Archaeological Perspectives (These two reports are submitted personally to CEP)
3. Ocean Current Movements in Palk Bay – Gulf of Mannar region and their significance in relation to SSCP
4. Comments on the report of the committee of Eminent Persons on SSCP(Presented as a separate volume entitled "Geological Aspects of SSCP".

References to these documents are made in the following point-wise comments made by Dr. K.S. Gopalakrishnan
.
Mr. Nariman has stated that 'a geological survwey in the area had not thrown up any evidence to suggest that Rama Sethu was a man-made structure'
Mr.Nariman has cleverly not mentioned what geological evidences were searched for to suggest a man-made structure at Rama Sethu, which were not found.
On the other hand our report under reference-2 above clearly brings about evidences for the occurrence of a Boulder-Conglomerate bed having different rock types such as calcareous sandstone, fossiliferous limestone and corals, between a loose beach sand horizon at the top and another loose sand formation below the boulder bed. Such boulder beds are nowhere reported along the southern Tamil Nadu coast. Also this boulder bed occurs perpendicular to the coast. This type of boulder beds can not be formed by any marine sedimentary process. It is significant that Valmiki Ramayana describes that the Rama Sethi was built by using huge rocks and trees available on the coast. As such occurrence of this type of boulder bed at Rama Sethu proves it to be not by normal sedimentary process by only by a human hand.
Elsewhere Mr. Nariman is reported to have said that "we believe that the bridge is not man-made structure but a super-man made structure".
Does this mean that the Govt. accepts that there is a bridge structure on Rama Sethu that is not by sedimentary process and that it was built by the super-man Rama who is an avatar of God?
Nariman has also stated that the project was not rushed through and that each and every aspect was considered in depth at various levels by expert committees and only after all requirements were required (acquired?), was clearance given.
In the reports submitted to CEP, we had clearly brought out that the three geo-scientific aspects, viz., Geotechnical Evaluation Studies, Geo-Environmental Assessment Studies and the Nature of Current Movements in the entire Project area and its environs, have not been studied at all in depth, covering all aspects in each of the above three spheres, by any competent agencies.
The geo-technical studies restricted only to the canals and channels of SSCP were done by NIOT, but not for the whole project area. Also these studies did not take into account the important aspects such as recent fault movements, earth- tremors, higher heat flow in the area and possible volcanic activity etc. Neo-tectonic activities (recent earth movements) associated with faulting during 1948-49 had caused submergence and subsidence of southern parts of Dhanushkodi town ship was brought out by GSI's studies. Recurrence of such activities will affect the Rama Sethu canal's stability. Similarly, the neo-tectonic activity with subsidence in the Palk Bay along the extensions of the Vellar river fault as brought out by GSI may affect the ENE trending section of channel/canal. This aspect has also not been studied by NIOT or any other agency. These aspects have been cited in our report under Reference-1 above.
No detailed Geo-environmental studies for the entire project area and its environ was carried out by NEERI. Whatever geo-scientific studies carried out by NEERI, and that too only in Palk Bay relates to rates of sedimentation. Actually, NEERI does not possess the expertise to carry out any GEO-Environmental Studies. Only GSI has got the core competence for study of six geological parameters, viz., geology, geo-morphology, soil, land-use, surface water and ground water, out of the specified 12 parameters earmarked by the Dept. of Environment, Govt. of India, for the purpose of environmental clearance (See p.44 of GSI pamphlet entitled 'Annals and Antiquity of GSI,2002, included in Refence-4 above).
No studies on current movements for the project area as a whole were carried out by competent agency like, NIO, NIOT or the Marine Wing of GSI. Our paper under reference 3, derived from Google Earth photos, clearly brings out the fact that in the western sector, the currents from Palk Bay converge on the Pamban channel (about 2.5 km wide and about 5m deep) and move with force to Gulf of Mannar side, where they are deflected by the coralline islands to west and SW towards the southern Tamil Nadu coast. On the other hand, in the central sector, the currents stopped somewhat by the Rama Sethu , overflow into Gulf of Mannar and produce a swirling structure with sediments. If the proposed narrow and deep SSCP canal (300m x 12m) across Rama Sethu is cut, it will bring in erosion and destabilization of the canal itself, besides further heavy devastations in the Gulf destroying the marine life in those parts. Also, due this activity, the orientation and force of current movements will change drastically in the gulf, which will prevent deposition of future heavy mineral placer sands with monazite, rutile, ilmenite etc along our southern coast. They may even destroy and remove the already existing deposits of such minerals from our shores to the deep ocean back.
Mr.Nariman is reported to have said that 'each and every aspect was considered in depth at various levels by expert committees and only after all requirements were acquired, was clearance given'.
It is not known whether any geo-scientific and marine experts were included in these expert committees.
It can be seen that the Final Detailed Project Report by L&T Ramboll Consulting Engineers have submitted their report in Feb. 2005 itself, before the receipt of or data from such important reports such as (i) Marine geophysical surveys carried out for the Proposed Sethusamudram Navigational Channel by NIOT (Feb.2005), (ii) Geological and Geo-technical Assessment of the sub-sea strata for the proposed Sethusamudram Navigational Channel by NIOT (April, 2005), and (iii) Final report on conducting Bore-hole investigations along SSC alignment at Adam's Bridge by Fugro Geo-tech Ltd, April, 2007).
Environmental clearance letter from MoE&F has been issued on 31.03. 2005 itself without the Geotechnical report from NIOT (April, 2005) and the report form Fugro Geo-tech Ltd (April, 2007).
Similarly many other important reports such as (a) Report on Geological Studies and Sub-surface strata conditions at the site of Sethusamudram canal in the vicinity of Rameswaram and Dhanushkodi by Dr. S.P.Subramaiam, Dept. of Ocean Engineering, IIT, Madras (no date), (b) A Report on the feasibility of underwater drilling and controlled blasting of SSCP by Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad (No date), and (c) Study of Rock Mechanics Properties of sandstone samples collected from SSCP (Name of author or organization not mentioned; letter dated 30 August, 2007) are received very recently after the commissioning of the project.
(The details regarding the dates of receipt s of various reports stated above are taken from the report of ECP. Please also see the reference -4 above; part-1, letter to Dr. Kalyana Raman).
The major doubts and apprehensions raised by Dr. Tad. S. Murthy, the international "Tsunami Expert" regarding the orientations of SSCP canals vis-à-vis the future tsunami waves, which were forwarded by PM's Office to SSCP authorities were brushes aside by the Tuticorin Port Trust that has no expertise in the field of tsunamis without any technical explanations.
Contrary to the submission of Mr. Nariman to the court, it can be seen from the above facts that the project was rushed through without even waiting for many of the reports commissioned by SSCP authorities themselves. No renowned geo-scientific, oceanographic or tsunami experts were included in the various expert committees. Many scientific aspects were not considered and tackled by SSCP authorities before starting the project.
The contention of Mr. Nariman that the proposal of Alignment No.6 was the result of a comprehensive and careful examination of all relevant considerations, backed by sound environmental, navigational, engineering and trans-boundary considerations etc., does not also stand to reason, without proper geo-technical, geo-environmental and ocean current studies supported by mathematical, scle and computer generated modeling studies by competent agencies.

Rama Setu: hindu cosmology, sea level curves, hominid dating -- Malcolm PR Light

2008-07-25T14:58:00.000-07:00

Rama didn’t destroy bridge: Jaya

The sum and substance of the many opinions and facts mentioned in this blog entry is this: scrap the channel project. Save Rama Setu. Declare it as a monument of National Importance under 1958 Act and as a world heritage site under UNESCO guidelines. SC should pass strictures against Union of India for wasting the time of the courts and showing utter contempt for the courts, the way UOI has failed to respond to Madras HC directions of 19 June 2007, reiterated again and again by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

It is tme to affirm that there is rule of law in the country and the state should not barter sentiments of millions of people to benefit a few politico-s and dredging contractors.

Kalyanarama 26 July 2008

Will go to SC if Sethu is damaged, says Jaya
Press Trust Of India / Express News Service

Source: http://www.indianexpress.com/story/340730.html
Chennai, July 25, 2008: AIADMK leader Jayalalithaa on Friday said nowhere was it stated in the Ramayana that Lord Ram himself destroyed the bridge.

Opposing any move to demolish the Ram Sethu for implementation of the Sethusamudram project, she said: "The Centre had said Ram used his magical bow to break the bridge into three parts. The UPA Government now allows the Hindus in the country to have faith in every aspect of the Ram legend except the bridge as this has to be demolished to make way for the Sethusamudram Ship Canal Project (SSCP)."

"It is important to note that various experts on the Ramayana state emphatically that nowhere in the epic it is mentioned that Lord Ram destroyed the bridge," she said in a statement here reacting to the Centre's latest affidavit in the apex court on petitions challenging the project.

Claiming that any damage to the bridge would lead to a communal strife in the country, she said if any such move was sought to be implemented, the AIADMK would "fight it in the Supreme Court to uphold the true spirit of secularism". "The Centre was trying to precipitate communal strife to divert public attention from more pressing problems like rise in the prices of essential commodities, petrol, diesel, LPG and milk and 'disintegration' of farm sector and other issues," she said.

"What does the Central Government, egged on by the DMK leaders, who have their own economic agenda in dredging the Sethusamudram canal, stand to gain by antagonising virtually every denomination of society? After having backtracked once, why has the Centre once again cobbled together arguments to justify the demolition of the Ram Sethu at the cost of sentiments and faith," she asked.

Jayalalithaa asked whether the Centre's averment in court that Lord Ram himself had destroyed the bridge was due to "the pyrrhic" victory obtained in the recent vote of confidence in the Lok Sabha through "crass money power." She said the Centre, which earlier denied the existence of Ram, had now acknowledged the fact that he had built the bridge.

If the UPA, at the behest of the DMK, continued to ignore pressing issues and persisted with its "patently anti-people actions, people will throw them out in the next elections," she said.

Demolishing Ram Sethu amounted to destroying a valuable piece of the cultural heritage of south India. "It is a pity that Dravidian parties like the DMK and Viduthalai Chirthaigal Katchi, for narrow political gains, are becoming party to this desecration of their own heritage," she said.

She said according to Ramayana, the Ram Sethu was built by the Vanara Sena over a pre-existing oceanic ridge and the Vanaras were people, who lived in the forests of south India. "In verity, they were the original south Indians. Ram Sethu was a marvel of ancient south Indian engineering skills," she said, adding that "true Dravidian parties have every reason to be proud of it."

Alleging that the Centre was adopting different yardsticks for different religions, Jayalalithaa said when it came to Hindu sentiments or faith, the UPA Government became "insensitive and does not hesitate to ride roughshod over their feelings. What sort of secularism is this," she asked.

"I am an Indian. I am a secular Indian. I was born a Hindu and educated in a Christian institution. To me, secularism implies that all religions should be equally respected... It is not for the governments or politicians to tamper with matters of faith," she said, adding "Perhaps, the Government is taking the monumental tolerance of the Hindu community for granted."

Tamil experts doubt Centre's Setu destruction theory
26 Jul 2008, 0127 hrs IST, K Venkataramanan,TNN

CHENNAI: Did Lord Ram himself destroy the 'Ram Sethu', the causeway built for his passage to Lanka by his army, after the war was won against Ravana?

The Union government has made such a submission based on the Kamba Ramayana, but Tamil scholars are doubtful whether the verse that seems to have been the basis for it is authentic and whether it actually says the 'bridge' was destroyed. In any case, the Kamba Ramayana is one among several thousand works or versions of a story that has been subject to innumerable interpretations.

The stanza in the second part of Yuddha Kanda in the 13th century Tamil rendering of the Ramayana by Kamban is in a section that describes Rama showing the 'Ram Sethu' to Sita as they return by Pushpak Vimana and explaining its creation.

Numbered 171 in an edition published by V M Gopala Krishnamachariar, the verse translates as, ''The path cut out of the bridge by (Ram's) arrow, to help ships to sail through it, is capable of cleansing the sins of even grave sinners for 21 births and bringing them close to the immortals.''

''These lines can be interpreted to mean Ram himself cut a path in the bridge to help ships to pass through it, but it does not speak of the Sethu being destroyed,'' says T Gnanasundaram, a scholar in Tamil religious texts.

This seems to go in favour of the Centre's submission. However, Gnanasundaram points out that this verse does not figure in the original text, but is one of the migaippaadalga l (additional verses). ''When I went through the verse today, I was struck by how much it suits the present context concerning movement of ships,'' he said.

The migaippaadalgal are not considered authentic, argues Tiruppur Krishnan, scholar and editor of Tamil literary magazine Amudha Surabhi. Kamban scholars like T K Chidambaranatha Mudaliar had rejected several such verses as unauthentic. ''And even if it is taken as part of the original, the verse still does not speak of any destruction of the Ram Sethu, but of the creation of a pathway,'' Krishnan said.

The Ramayana has hundreds of versions and regional variations, as the story is part of the oral lore of India. Even Kamban's Tamil epic has a few versions, as some overzealous scholars sought to leave their mark by embellishing the original palm leaf manuscripts with what they thought were appropriate verses to suit the context.

Kamban had composed his Tamil epic based largely on Valmiki Ramayana, the 24,000-verse epic deemed to be the most authentic version of the story. However, he made a few modifications to suit Tamil culture and values. In the epilogue to his narration of the Ramayana, C Rajagopalachari notes that both Tulsidas and Kamban made changes to Valmiki's work for apparent cultural reasons.

For instance, Valmiki says Ravana seized Sita while abducting her, but Kamban does not want to portray the episode as if the demon-king touched her. He describes Ravana as lifting the earth on which she stands without touching her.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Tamil_experts_doubt_Centres_Setu_destruction_theory/articleshow/3281475.cms

Sethu: Jaya disputes Centre’s stand

Statesman News Service
CHENNAI, July 25: Even while arguments over the Sethusamudram project are still continuing in the Supreme Court, the AIADMK chief Ms Jayalalitha, today issued a public statement opposing the Centre's contention that Lord Ram himself had demolished the Ram Sethu after crossing over to the home territory.
“It is important to note that various experts on the Ramayana state emphatically that nowhere in the Ramayana is it mentioned that Lord Ram destroyed the bridge”, Ms Jayalalitha contended.
The government which earlier denied the very existence of Ram, now acknowledged the legend of Ram as a fact, she said and added that it also did not contest the fact that Ram had a bridge built to link the southern coast of India to Lanka. Charging the Centre with being insensitive to Hindu sentiments, the AIADMK chief said that this appeared to be the brand of secularism that appealed to several constituents of the UPA.
Coming out with a definition of secularism, Ms Jayalalitha said: “To me, secularism implies that all religions should be equally respected. My secularism tells me that I should respect the faith behind Ram's bridge, as much as I respect Prophet Mohammad's holy relic or any Christian belief.”
Demolishing the Ram Sethu amounted to hitting at the faith of millions of Hindus in the country, she said. “Would any government in the world think of levelling the Himalayas, claiming it is a natural phenomenon and not a man-made structure, and build amusement parks and tourist resorts there”, she asked.
In a bid to bridge Hindu sentiments with Dravidian ideology, which totally denounces Ramayana and Lord Ram, the AIADMK chief claimed that the Vaanaras, who built the bridge, were the original South Indians and Ram Sethu was a marvel of ancient South Indian engineering skills, something which true Dravidian parties had every reason to be proud of.
“Demolishing the structure amounts to destroying the a valuable piece of the cultural heritage of South India. It is a pity that Dravidian parties like the DMK were becoming party to this desecration of their own heritage”, she lamented.
Expanding the significance of Ram Sethu to other religions too, she said the bridge was considered as a legacy by Christians and Muslims as well. “In northern Sri Lanka, close to Ratnapura, there is a mountain called Adam's peak. Atop there is a footprint that is worshipped by Buddhists as Buddha's footprint. Hindus call it Shiva Paadham or the footprints of Lord Shiva. Christians in Sri Lanka ascribe it to where Adam, the first ancestor set foot when he was exiled from the Garden of Eden,” she said.
The legends of Adam were connected to the idea that Sri Lanka was the original Eden, Ms Jayalalitha said and added that this was the reason why Sri Lanka was still referred to as Paradise Island. Adam's bridge was revered by them as the oceanic ridge along which the first man on earth, according to the Old Testament walked, she said.
“The AIADMK for its part, will not tolerate any move to demolish Ram Sethu and fuel a communal flare-up. If any such move is sought to be implemented, we will fight it in the highest court of the land to uphold the true spirit of secularism,” she added.

http://thestatesman.org/page.news.php?clid=2&theme=&usrsess=1&id=215486

Fri, 25 Jul, 2008 , 03:41 PM (Chennai, Newstoday)

AIADMK general secretary J Jayalalithaa today said various experts on the Ramayana state emphatically that nowhere in the epics it was mentioned that Lord Rama destroyed the ‘Sethu’.

Refuting the claims made by the Centre in the Supreme Court that Lord Rama destroyed the ‘Sethu’, the former Chief Minister, in a statement here, said, some months ago, the UPA government was of the view that Lord Rama was nothing but the figment of fertile imagination.

‘Filing an affidavit before the Supreme Court in the Sethusamudram Shipping Channel Project (SSCP) case, the Centre claimed that there was no evidence to prove that Rama had existed at all.

But now, the same governement has yet again stirred a hornet’s nest, claiming that Lord Rama had Himself destroyed the bridge that was built by his army to cross over to Lanka.’

Stating that the government which earlier denied the very existence of Rama acknowledged the legend as a fact, Jayalalithaa said the UPA now allows the Hindus in the country to have faith in every aspect of the Rama legend, except the bridge, as it has to be demolished to make way for the Sethusamudram Project.

‘When it comes to Hindu sentiments. the UPA government becomes insensitive. It does not hesitate to ride rough-shod over their feelings. What sort of secularism is this?,’ she said.

Quoting a research paper of Malcolm P R Light of the University of London, Jayalalithaa said, ‘The bridge has resisted the relentless erosion of the sea for almost two million years and it attests to the great engineering skills of the ancient Indian people.

It is the earliest and largest carbon-fibre reinforced civil engineering structure known to man and should be protected as a world heritage site.’

Stating that demolishing this structure amounts to destroying a valuable piece of the cultural heritage of South India, Jayalalithaa said, ‘it is a pity that Dravidian parties like the DMK and the Viduthalai Chiruthaikal Katchi, for narrow pecuniary and political gains, are becoming party to this desecration of their own heritage.’

She also said: ‘After having backtracked once, why has the Centre again cobbled together arguments to justify the demolition of the Ramar Sethu at the cost of sentiments and faith? Is it because the pyrrhic victory obtained in the recent vote of confidence in the Lok Sabha through crass money power has invested it with a fake aura of invincibility and arrogance?’

http://newstodaynet.com/printer.php?id=9475

See: http://www.hinduwisdom.info/Glimpses_IV.htm

Jaya slams Centre on Ram Setu

Swati Das | Chennai (Pioneer, 26 July 2008)

'When it comes to Hindu sentiments, the UPA Govt becomes insensitive'

Experts on Ramayana denying the claim of the Centre that Lord Ram had destroyed the Setu, have stated that nowhere in Ramayana is such a thing mentioned, said AIADMK general secretary J Jayalalithaa

The former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, in a statement, noted: "Filing an affidavit before the Supreme Court in the Sethusamudram Shipping Channel Project (SSCP) case, the Centre claimed that there was no evidence to prove that Ram had existed at all. But now, the same Government has yet again stirred a hornet's nest, claiming that Lord Ram himself destroyed the bridge that was built by his army to cross over to Lanka."

Jayalalithaa wondered how the Centre could claim that Lord Ram was a figment of fertile imagination and in two months' time the same UPA Government was now allowing the Hindus in the country to have faith in every aspect of the Ram legend, except the bridge, as it has to be demolished to make way for the Sethusamudram Project.

She also said: "After having backtracked once, why has the Centre again cobbled together arguments to justify the demolition of the Ram Setu at the cost of sentiments and faith? Is it because the pyrrhic victory obtained in the recent vote of confidence in the Lok Sabha through crass money power has invested it with a fake aura of invincibility and arrogance?"

"When it comes to Hindu sentiments, the UPA Government becomes insensitive. It does not hesitate to ride rough-shod over their feelings. What sort of secularism is this?" she further said.

Quoting a research paper of Malcolm PR Light of the University of London, Jayalalithaa said, "The bridge has resisted the relentless erosion of the sea for almost two million years and it attests to the great engineering skills of the ancient Indian people. It is the earliest and largest carbon-fibre reinforced civil engineering structure known to man and should be protected as a world heritage site."

Stating that demolishing this structure amounts to destroying a valuable piece of the cultural heritage of South India, Jayalalithaa said, "It is a pity that Dravidian parties like the DMK and the Viduthalai Chiruthaikal Katchi, for narrow pecuniary and political gains, are becoming party to this desecration of their own heritage."

http://dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=front%5Fpage&file_name=story4%2Etxt&counter_img=4

Centre's stand testing Hindu tolerance: Jaya
26 Jul 2008, 0151 hrs IST,TNN

CHENNAI: Asserting that nowhere in Ramayana is it mentioned that Lord Ram destroyed Ram Sethu as submitted by the Centre in Supreme Court, AIADMK general secretary J Jayalalithaa on Friday warned the UPA government against taking the ''monumental tolerance'' of the Hindu community for granted.

In a statement she said the government, which had earlier denied Ram's existence, was now acknowledging ''the legend Ram as a fact''.

It also did not contest the fact that Ram built a bridge to link the southern coast of India to Sri Lanka. Now the whole argument has narrowed down to the claim that Ram destroyed the bridge on his return to home territory, she added.

While citing instances to claim that the government did not want to incur the wrath of members of other religions, it became "insensitive" when it came to Hindu sentiments or faith.

"It does not hesitate to ride roughshod over their (Hindus') feelings," she said. "To me, secularism implies that I should respect the faith behind Ram's bridge, as much as I respect Prophet Mohammed's holy relic and any Christian belief."

Jayalalithaa contended that Ram Sethu was not renamed Adam's Bridge by accident but because of its links to an aspect of local Christian faith.

"In Sri Lanka, close to Ratnapura, there is a mountain called Adam's Peak. Atop this, there is a footprint in stone that is worshipped by Buddhists as left by the Buddha. Hindus call it Shiva Paadham or the footprint of Lord Shiva. Christians in Sri Lanka ascribe it to where Adam, the first ancestor, set foot when he was exiled from the Garden of Eden," she said.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Centres_stand_testing_Hindu_tolerance_Jaya/articleshow/3281540.cms

'Setu doesn't exist': Govt relied on scholars
26 Jul 2008, 0148 hrs IST, Akshaya Mukul,TNN

NEW DELHI: The government's view that Ram Sethu did not exist is largely based on extracts from works of renowned archaeologists and geographers, including pro-RSS historian B B Lal, who had studied material evidence to dismiss the claim of a bridge built by Ram's army.

The culture ministry had asked HRD ministry to seek the views of Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR) to form its opinion. Culture ministry sources said ICHR cited works of archaeologists like H D Sankalia, B B Lal, H Parker, geographer O H K Spate and Imperial Gazetteer of India, 1909, to prove that talk of a bridge was fictional with no historical evidence.

Sankalia's seminal work 'The Ramayana in Historical Perspective' quotes Ramayana stating how Ram first used burning arrows to subdue the sea, resulting in the sea coming up in human form and promising to build the bridge.

Later, Sankalia quotes Ramayana, "Vanaras began to fill up the ocean with all sorts of trees without roots — sal, asvaparna, kutaju, arjuna, tada, tiloaka, timita, bilvaka, sataparna, karnikara, chuta ashoka. Later, huge slabs of stone were thrown. Thus a long bridge (mahasetu), ten yojanas broad (vistarna), and a hundred yojanas long (ayata) was built by Nala..."

With this as evidence, when Sankalia looked for them on the ground, he said, "At Rameshwaram, there is nothing but sand dunes known as teris. These are again of three types — copper-red, brown and grey or white — the first being the oldest and indicate in no uncertain terms what the nature of the country, say 5,000 to 10,000 years ago, was."

He also said except a few palm trees and one or two others, nothing else grows there even today. Also, "no stone is available there, unless one goes several miles inland, and brings slabs after breaking the rocky hills".

Sankalia also pointed out, "Whatever the exact connotation of the length (100 yojanas) and breadth (10 yojanas) of the bridge given in the epic, anyone who has actually visited the spot or knows the present distance between the two points, will have to say that this bridge was the longest ever to have been built anywhere in the world, just with tree trunks and stone slabs. Indeed, the whole thing is one of the grandest feats of imagination, and so is the description of Lanka which follows."

Lal was clinical in his view. In his 'The Earliest Civilization of South Asia', Lal wrote, "The northern end — the Jaffna peninsula — is hardly 30 km from the mainland. The intervening sea is shallow and it is not unlikely that even during a mild Ice Age when some of the sea-water got locked up as ice in the Himalayas, a few land-strips may have surfaced, hoppingly connecting the mainland with Sri Lanka."

Parker, while denouncing the theory of bridge as "poetic fiction", said, "Such a slight foundation for it as the spread of the Hindu religion, or Aryan civilisation, among the tribes of the south must be swept away so far as Ceylon is concerned, since the descendants of the original inhabitants of the island, the Vaeddas of the interior, have never adopted the worship of the Hindu gods, nor, until historic times, the civilisation of the Aryans."

Spate said, "Adam's bridge itself is basically a coral reef killed by an uplift and consolidated into coral rock."

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Setu_doesnt_exist_Govt_relied_on_scholars/articleshow/3281530.cms

The Ram Sethu (Adam's bridge) causeway must have been a major engineering feat for its thin trace is still so clearly visible on the present day satellite images (Joseph 2004). It has resisted the relentless erosion of the sea for almost 2 million years and it attests to the great engineering skills of the ancient Indian people. It is the earliest and largest carbon-fibre reinforced civil engineering structure known to man and should be protected as a world heritage site.

Ram Sethu - A great engineering skill of ancient Indian people.

Construction of such a long bridge is a marvel in itself. Even the longest bridges of today, dwarf against the Rama’s bridge which is 30Kms. It should be regarded as an eight wonder, much significant than the Pyramids and all others, due to the bridge’s age as well as it’s longevity which stays to this day.

(image source: http://www.madhoo.com/archives/2004/11/more_about_adam.php ).

***

A shallow seismic survey could be used to detect the strong reflection acoustic signal of lignite formed from decayed wood in the framework of the causeway and this will guide later drilling programs where the actual structure of the causeway could be investigated.

(source: Correlations between Hindu Cosmology, Sea Level Curves and African -Asian Hominid Dating - By Malcolm P. R. Light). http://www.hinduwisdom.info/Glimpses_IV.htm

Correlations between Hindu Cosmology, Sea Level Curves and African -Asian Hominid Dating
By Malcolm P.R. Light

A sea level variation curve from about 8 million years ago to the present day (Late Miocene to Recent - Eberli, 2000) is compared in Figure 1 to the time of construction of Adam s Bridge between southern India and Sri Lanka, Hindu cosmological dates and African Asian chronological data. There are a number of clear correlations between the Hindu cosmology, the sea level curve and the geochronological data.

# Each of the Yuga cycles (Das 2004) appears to correspond to a major cycle in sea level change. The Satya/Kriti Yuga is preceded by a long period of rising sea level in the Late Miocene but sea level began to fall sharply during this Yuga reaching a minimum of -80 metres below mean sea level around 2.7 million years ago (Figure 1 Eberli, 2000). During the Late Miocene, early arboreal apemen, Sahelanthropus tchadensis (Toumai), Orrorin tugenesis and Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba lived in the extensive thick forests in Africa (Brunet et al. 2002; Wood, 2002; Pickford 2001; Aiello and Collard, 2001; Haile Selassie 2001; Senut et al 2001; White et al. 1994; Wood; 1994). The following Treta Yuga represents a period of rising sea levels during which Hindu cosmology said there was increased rainfall and the formation of new rivers (Das 2004). The Dvapura Yuga is a period of falling sea level, followed by a rise at the beginning of the Kali Yuga (Das 2004, Eberli 2000).

# At the start of the Satya/Kriti Yuga, 4.3 million years ago (Das 2004) there was a general period of falling sea level (Eberli 2000) and major climate change in Africa during which the vegetation began to alter from thick forest inhabited by 4.4 million year old arboreal Ardipithecus ramidus ramidus to dry woodland and gallery forest inhabited by the 4.2 million year old Austrolopithecus anamensis (Leakey et al. 1995; White et al, 1994). By the end of the Satya/Kriti Yuga some 2.7 million years ago (Das 2004), sea level had reached its lowest level some 80 metres below the present sea level and the woodlands were still in habited by Austrolpithecines (Figure 1 Eberli 2000; Leakey and Lewin 1979; Gowlett 1984).

# The start of the Treta Yuga (2.6 million years ago) when man began to pursue knowledge (Das 2004) corresponds exactly with the time the first tools appeared in Africa. These tools were made by the newly evolved upright hominids, Homo habilis and later Homo erectus (Foley 2003; Leakey and Lewin, 1979) who now inhabited the harsher savanna consistent with the description of the conditions in the Treta Yuga (Das 2004). Homo erectus began to migrate out of Africa because of increasing aridity in the rift savanna between 2 and 1.8 million years ago into Asia (Leakey, 1994; Leakey and Lewin 1979; Templeton, 2002) and India (Joseph 2004).

# Hanuman, the monkey God in the Ramanyana (Joseph 2004), must have been Homo erectus and this hominid species would certainly have seemed ape-like to modern day man. They were the ancestors of Pekin man in China (Wolpoff and Caspari 1977), the 1.6 million year old Homo erectus in Java and probably the 18 thousand year old hobbits recently found on Flores island (Stringer, 2004; Dalton, 2004). Adam s bridge appears to have been constructed between southern India and Sri Lanka 1.8 and 1.6 million years ago in the Treta Yuga during a period of sharp sea level fall to some 60 metres below the present sea level (Figure 2; Eberli 2000).

# A strip of land must have been exposed between India and Sri Lanka as the sea level approached its lowest level, between 1.8 and 1.6 million years ago. Because Homo erectus had already reached southern India before that time he must have tried to get across to Sri Lanka when the land began to be exposed at low tide during this period of sea level fall, around 1.75 million years ago (Joseph 2004). The driving force for his migration was probably population pressure within the southern Indian forest which caused food shortage. The exposed region between southern India and Sri Lanka must have been a treacherous path with many quicksands and shallow lakes. It seems logical that after several of his company were lost during periods of rising tide, Homo erectus could have started to construct a causeway by throwing trees and other vegetation onto the loose sand and and covering them with rocks. Homo erectus must have built the floating bridge on the quicksands that is so elegantly described in Sage Valkimi s account of the Ramanyana (Joseph 2004). Nala son of Vishvakarma (architect of the demigods) constructed a causeway - magnificent with its wonderful paved floor - like unto a line traced on the waves (Joseph 2004).

# The Adam s Bridge causeway must have been a major engineering feat for its thin trace is still so clearly visible on the present day satellite images (Joseph 2004). It has resisted the relentless erosion of the sea for almost 2 million years and it attests to the great engineering skills of the ancient Indian people. It is the earliest and largest carbon-fibre reinforced civil engineering structure known to man and should be protected as a world heritage site. A shallow seismic survey could be used to detect the strong reflection acoustic signal of lignite formed from decayed wood in the framework of the causeway and this will guide later drilling programs where the actual structure of the causeway could be investigated.

# In addition to the above correlations, one Brahma day (4.32 billion years)(Das 2004) is close to the value for the age of the Earth (4.6 billion years)(Lide 1994). One cycle of our Universe from Big Bang to Big Crunch assuming a Universe age around 15 billion years is 30 billion years almost identical to 1/100 of a Brahma year (31.1 billion years)(Das 2004). One Brahma year is 3.11 trillion years (Das 2004). Note the length of a Yuga cycle (and the start of the Satya/Kriti Yuga) at 4.3 million years is 1/1000 of a Brahma day (Das 2004).

References
Aiello L., and Collard M. 2001. Our newest oldest ancestor? Nature, 410: 526-7

Brunet M., Guy F., Pilbeam D., Mackay H.T., Likius A., Djimboumalbaye A. 2002. A new hominid from the upper Miocene of Chad, central Africa. Nature, 418; 145-51.

Dalton R. 2004. A little lady of Flores forces rethink of human evolution. News@nature.com

Das. S. 2004. The cycle of the ages - The cyclic time concept of the Vedas by Raja Vidya das. 3pp.
http://www.salagram.net/cyclesOages.html

Eberli G. 2000. The record of Neogene sea-level changes in prograding carbonates along the Bahamas Transect-Leg 166 Synthesis. In Swart P.K., Eberli G.P., Malone M.J. and Sarg J. F. (Eds). Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Program. Scientific Results, Vol. 166, Chapter 16, 167-177

Foley J. 2003. Hominid species
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html
Prominent Hominid Fossils
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

Gowlett J.A.J. 1984. Ascent to civilisation. The archaeology of early man. Knopf. New York. 208pp.

Haile-Selassie Y. 2001, Late Miocene hominids from the Middle Awash, Ethiopia. Nature, 412, 178-81

Joseph H., 2004. Nasa images find 1,750,000 year old man - made bridge between India and Sri-Lanka. 4pp. http://www.lankalibrary.com/geo/ancient/nasa.htm

Lide D. R., 1994. Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. 75th Edition. CRC Press. Boca Raton, 1-1 - I-33.

Leakey M.G., Feibel C.S., McDougall I. and Walker A.C., 1995. New four-million year old hominid species from Kanapoi and Allia bay, Kenya, Nature, 376:565-571.
Leakey R. E., and Lewin R. 1979. Origins. E.P. Dutton, New York, 264 pp.

Leakey R., 1994. The origin of Humankind. Science Masters, Basic Books. Harper Collins, New York, 171 pp.

Pickford M. 2001.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/sci/Tech/newsid_1055000/1055105.stm

Senut B., Pickford M., Gommery D., Mein P., Cheboi C., and Coppens Y. 2001. First hominid from the Miocene (Lukeino Formation, Kenya. Comptes Rendus des Seances de l Academie des Sciences, 332. 137-144.

Stringer C. 2004. A stranger from Flores. News@nature.com

Templeton, A.R. 2002. Out of Africa again and again. Nature, 416, 45-51.

White T.D., Suwa G., and Asfaw B. 1994. Austalopithecus ramidus, a new species of early hominid from Aramis, Ethiopia. Nature, 371: 306-312.

Wolpoff M. and Caspari R. 1977. Race and Human Evolution. Simon and Schuster, New York, 462 pp.

Wood B. 2002. Hominid revelations from Chad, Nature, 418, 133-135.

Wood B.A. 1994. The oldest hominid yet. Nature, 371, 280-281.
Posted by shanti at November 8, 2004 8:24 AM

http://www.madhoo.com/archives/2004/11/more_about_adam.php

Mixed response to the fourth alignment
Saturday July 26 2008 01:55 IST

S Raja

RAMANATHAPURAM: The fourth alignment suggestion for the Sethusamudram Ship Canal Project (SSCP) evoked mixed response from leaders of fishermen as well as environmentalists here. They fear that it would affect the topography of Rameswaram, if implemented between 'Muhundarayarchattiram and Kothandaramar temple coast.'

Chief Justice Balakrishnan of the Supreme Court had suggested to senior counsel for the Centre Fali S Nariman to consider the fourth alignment of the project to avert the controversy over Adam s Bridge. However, scientists and environmentalists say that this alignment would damage the eco-system and coral reef beds in the Gulf of Mannar.

As per the draft map, the fourth alignment will be between 'Muhundarayarchattiram and Kothandaramar temple coast.' This will bifurcate Rameswaram island. Moreover, the 12 metre depth and 300 metre wide channel will lead to sea erosion in the coastal areas in Rameswaram island and the residents of coastal areas near Dhanuskodi and Kothandaramar temple will have to be on eternal alert.

Some people had suggested that the Pamban water passage might be considered for navigation. It will be cost effective with more options than other proposals. In that case a new alignment will be needed for the Pamban railway bridge for the project.

Environmentalists feel that migratory birds, including flamingoes, will not come to the lagoon located near Kothandaramar temple if fourth alignment is implemented. Marine scientists say that coral reef, sea grass beds and national marine park will be damaged in the region between Mandapam and Thoothukudi. Kuppuram, national secretary of the Rameswaram Rama Sethu Protection Movement, said from New Delhi that the fourth alignment would not benefit the fishermen. On the other hand, it would affect marine wealth between Kothandaramar temple and Muhundarayarchattiram, he added. N J Bose, general secretary of the Tamil Nadu and Puducherry Fishermen s Federation, said that large quantities of fish, prawns and crabs were available at the point where dredging had been suspended temporarily near Adam s Bridge. Therefore, the fourth alignment would not affect fishermen, he added. Arulanantham, State coordinator of Alliance for Release of Innocent Fishermen (ARIF), said that fisherfolk would be adversely affected if sea erosion occurred in Rameswaram island. Another marine scientist told Express that the fourth alignment would be more destructive to the marine fauna than that of the sixth alignment. The course of marine current would change leading to sea erosion in various parts of Rameswaram island, he added.

http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IET20080725153357&Page=T&Title=Southern+News+-+Tamil+Nadu&Topic=0

Any move to demolish Ramar Sethu will not be tolerated: Jayalalithaa

Special Correspondent (The Hindu, 26 July 2008)

CHENNAI: AIADMK general secretary Jayalalithaa on Friday said her party would not tolerate any move to demolish the Ramar Sethu.

“If any such move is sought to be implemented, we will fight it in the highest court of the land to uphold the true spirit of secularism,” she said in a statement.

Accusing the government of being insensitive when it came to Hindu sentiments, she said the Centre was taking the monumental tolerance of the Hindu community for granted.

“Would any government in the world think of levelling the Himalayas, claiming it is a natural phenomenon, and not a man-made structure, and build amusement parks and tourist resorts there? Demolishing Ramar Sethu and allowing ships to ply that way is tantamount to that,” Ms. Jayalalithaa said.

Questioning the reason behind the Centre’s decision “to cobble together arguments to justify the demolition of the Ramar Sethu at the cost of sentiments and faith,” she asked whether the government was trying to precipitate communal strife to divert public attention from more pressing problems like price rise and hike in prices of petroleum products.

“If the UPA, at the behest of the DMK, continues to ignore these problems and persists with its patently anti-people actions, the people will throw them out in the next elections,” she said.

http://www.hindu.com/2008/07/26/stories/2008072654690400.htm

AIADMK questions Centre`s stand in SC over Ram Sethu

Chennai, July 25: Opposing any move to demolish the Ram Sethu for implementation of the Sethusamudram project, AIADMK leader Jayalalithaa on Friday said nowhere was it stated in Ramayan that Lord Ram himself destroyed the bridge, as stated by the Centre in the Supreme Court.

"The Centre had said Ram used his magical bow to break the bridge into three parts. The UPA government now allows the Hindus in the country to have faith in every aspect of the Ram legend except the bridge as this has to be demolished to make way for the SSSP," she said.

"It is important to note that various experts on the Ramayana state emphatically that nowhere in Ramayan is it mentioned that Lord Ram destroyed the bridge," she said in a statement here reacting to the Centre's latest affidavit in the apex court on petitions challenging the project.

Claiming that any damage to the bridge would lead to a communal strife in the country, she said if any such move was sought to be implemented, the AIADMK would "fight it in the Supreme Court to uphold the true spirit of secularism."

She alleged that the Centre was trying to precipitate communal strife to divert public attention from more pressing problems like rise in the prices of essential commodities, petrol, diesel, LPG and milk and 'disintegration' of farm sector and other issues.

"What does the Central Government, egged on by the DMK leaders, who have their own economic agenda in dredging the Sethusamudram canal, stand to gain by antagonising virtually every denomination of society? After having backtracked once, why has the Centre once again cobbled together arguements to justify the demolition of the Ram Sethu at the cost of sentiments and faith?" she asked.

Jayalallithaa asked whether the Centre's averment in the court that Lord Ram himself had destroyed the bridge was due to "the pyrrhic" victory obtained in the recent vote of confidence in the Lok Sabha through "crass money power?".

She said the Centre which earlier denied the existence of Ram, now acknowledged the fact that he had built the bridge.

If UPA, at the behest of DMK, continued to ignore pressing issues and persisted with its "patently anti-people actions, people will throw them out in next elections," she said.

Demolishing Ram Sethu amounted to destroying a valuable piece of the cultural heritage of South India. "It is a pity that Dravidian parties like the DMK and Viduthalai Chirthaigal Katchi for narrow political gains, are becoming party to this desecration of their own heritage," she said.

She said according to Ramayan, the Ram Sethu was built by the Vanara Sena (monkey brigade) over a pre-existing oceanic ridge and the vanaras were people, who lived in the forests of south India. "In verity, they were the original south Indians.

Ram sethu was a marvel of ancient South Indian engineering skills," she said adding "True Dravidian parties have every reason to be proud of it."

Alleging that the Centre was adopting different yard sticks for different religions, Jayalalithaa said when it came to Hindu sentiments or faith, the UPA Government became "insensitive and does not hesitate to ride rought-shod over their feelings. What sort of secularism is this," she asked.

"I am an Indian. I am a secular Indian. I was born a Hindu and educated in a Christian institution. To me, secularism implies that all religions should be equally respected... It is not for the governments or politicians to tamper with matters of faith," she said adding "Perhaps, the government is taking the monumnetal tolerance of the Hindu community for granted."

Bureau Report

http://www.zeenews.com/articles.asp?aid=457916&sid=NAT

Alter stand on Sethusamudram project or face stir: VHP to Govt

Hyderabad, July 25: Taking objection to the Centre's argument in Supreme Court that Lord Ram himself demolished the Ram Setu, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad on Friday threatened to launch a nationwide agitation if the government did not alter its stand on the issue.

Hyderabad, July 25: Taking objection to the Centre's argument in Supreme Court that Lord Ram himself demolished the Ram Setu, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad on Friday threatened to launch a nationwide agitation if the government did not alter its stand on the issue.

http://www.zeenews.com/articles.asp?aid=457986&sid=NAT

Jayalalitha warns Mu.Ka.: Don’t test Hindu’s patience

Ms. jayalalitha, former CM and leader of the AIDMK party, which is also a drividian party) has issued a detailed statement that her party will fight the government’s move to destroy Ramsethu. It will thwart the efforts of the minority DMK government and its anti hindu moves. She quoted the accommodation shown by the previous governments for issues related to muslim and christian faiths, and how the government is trying the patience of 80% hindus because they are silent. She will not allow
Ramasethu to be broken.

It is good a major political party, that too, founded on dravidian ideology, is taking a firm stand on the Ramsethu issue. If the AIDMK party can organise a rally and a bhand, it will get the support of a large number of silent hindus who want a courageous political leader. She will garner a huge support at operational ground level, and strengthen the hands of Subramanyan swamy and Kalyanaraman.

http://janamejayan.wordpress.com/2008/07/25/jayalalitha-warns-muka-dont-test-hindus-patience/

Respect Faith!

Thu, 24 Jul, 2008, 01:22 PM (Editorial, Newstoday)

The government of India has again bungled in the Rama Sethu case. Government's counsel Fali Nariman while arguing the case has claimed that Bhagwan Rama himself, after defeating Ravana and rescuing Seetha, had destroyed the bridge constructed by the Vanara Sena, so that, no one could come from Lanka.While arguing so, he termed Rama as a 'Superman' when he said, 'it was not a manmade bridge, but a superman made bridge and the same superman had destroyed it'.

Though he has cited the famous Tamil epic 'Kamba Ramayana' as reference, he did not substantiate his argument by quoting the verse concerned. This gives rise to a sense of dubiousness. littérateurs and other experts suggest that in all the various versions of Ramayans there is no mention that Rama had destroyed the bridge Himself.

There may be other 'Ramayanas' written by the adversaries of Sanatana Dharma with an intention of maligning Hinduism and the great epic. It will not be a surprise, if the GOI quotes some portions from them too in future, like how the Tamilnadu Chief Minister blatantly lied a few months ago that Seetha was a sister of Rama as per Thulasi Das!

In this context, it can be said that the Union Government has just stopped short of quoting from the Dravidian rationalist cum racist Periyar's 'Keemayana'!

It can be recalled that the Central government filed an insensitive affidavit in September 2007 denying the very 'existence' of Rama, truth of Ramayana hurting the religious sentiments of millions of Hindus. While withdrawing the affidavit in the face of protests, it even went to the extent of saying that 'Bhagwan Rama is as real as the Himalayas and the Ganges'!

Now, the government's counsel has also argued that the AIADMK's election manifesto of 2001 has favoured the Sethusamudram project. But the counsel failed to note that it has not favoured the destruction of Rama Sethu. AIADMK's election manifesto and BJP's clearance of the Sethusamudram project have got nothing to do with the destruction of Rama Sethu. It is only the UPA and DMK governments, which are adamant on destroying the bridge. Taking note of the petitioners' assertion during the previous hearing that the Rama Sethu was a place of worship, the government had said that a destroyed place could not be worshipped!

The three-judge bench, which directed the government for an ASI study last May, has again asked the government to accommodate faith and environment concerns and balance them for a scientifically and politically viable solution. The government's refusal to conduct an archeological survey seems unreasonable. If it is wary of conducting a survey due to obvious political reasons, it is understandable. The Bench has also advised the government to keep the environmental and economic viability in mind while considering the faith aspects.

There are plenty of evidences based on history, literature, archeology, geology, and numismatics for the existence of Rama Sethu and many environmental, navigational and economic experts have opined that the project is unviable and hence deserves to be shelved. But, the government, which constituted a committee of 'eminent' persons without these experts for the project, is needlessly adamant, repeatedly hurting the sentiments of Hindu majority. The government, which waxes eloquent on matters of 'faith', is conspicuously silent on matters of environment, security and importantly economics.

The government could not substantiate the worthiness of the project even on one aspect so far, but has spent crores of public money simply on dredging, which is going to be a perennial affair filling the coffers of dredging companies and those who contract them, while emptying the state's coffers. While the Dravidian racist government in the state is bent upon thrusting a wasteful project in the name of development and demolishing the Rama Sethu in the process, the centre is abetting the state in doing so just for the sake of survival and power.

Both the governments treat the majority community as secondary citizens and there is substance in the Hindus questioning whether both the governments would conduct in the same way in matters involving the faith of minorities! If the September affidavit was arrogant, yesterday's argument was stupid and stupidity results from arrogance

http://newstodaynet.com/newsindex.php?id=9429%20&%20section=13

Cong-DMK say not divided over Sethu (Daily news, Srilanka, July 26, 2008)

Rejecting media reports that the Congress and DMK were divided over the implementation of the Rs 2,400 crore Sethusamudram Project, the state unit of Congress today said all the allies were firm on implementing it.

“Such reports are speculative. All the allies of the UPA are united in this matter and want the implementation of the dream project of Tamils,” TNCC president K V Thangkabalu told reporters.

Media reports had earlier suggested that Union Shipping Minister T R Baalu had been at loggerheads with Union Culture Minister Ambika Soni over the feasibility of the project.

“There is a very clear understanding of the project among the allies of the UPA and all of them have been supporting it. The government will abide by whatever verdict the Supreme Court pronounces,” he said referring to the case against the dredging of the Ram Sethu as part of the project.

Meanwhile, opposing any move to demolish the Ram Sethu for implementation of the Sethusamudram project, AIADMK leader Jayalalithaa on Friday said nowhere was it stated in Ramayan that Lord Ram himself destroyed the bridge, as stated by the Centre in the Supreme Court.

“The Centre had said Ram used his magical bow to break the bridge into three parts. The UPA government now allows the Hindus in the country to have faith in every aspect of the Ram legend except the bridge as this has to be demolished to make way for the SSSP,” she said.

“It is important to note that various experts on the Ramayana state emphatically that nowhere in Ramayan is it mentioned that Lord Ram destroyed the bridge,” she said in a statement here reacting to the Centre’s latest affidavit in the apex court on petitions challenging the project.

Claiming that any damage to the bridge would lead to a communal strife in the country, she said if any such move was sought to be implemented, the AIADMK would “fight it in the Supreme Court to uphold the true spirit of secularism.” Zee News

http://www.dailynews.lk/2008/07/26/news22.asp

Raamah shastrabhritaam aham (I am Rama among warriors)

Dear Dr. Swamy and bandhu,

What a privilege it has been to have you guiding the mighty movement to save our heritage. Our nation becomes the punyabhumi because of patriotic aatman like you. Tears of joy roll down my eyes as I recall the valiant fights won so far thanks to the sheer power of the samajam which expressed itself unambiguously that Hindusthanam is Shri Rama's country.

You and all the counsels who have been working with such diligence, commitment and patriotic fervor to defend the rule of law on behalf of the petitioners, have to succeed, we have to succeed and we will. I am sure the justice system will also not let us down despite their wrongly perceived jurisdictional limitations. If the justice system cannot protect a national cause, who else will in a regime of utter lawlessness? All citizens of Hindusthanam are beholden to all of you for the sage counsel and guidance you have brought to bear upon this historic case.

I want to know the specific reference cited by Fali Narimaan from Padma Purana. I have shown that his quote from Kamba Ramayana is simply not correct. I will be able to offer my comments on Padma Purana reference relied upon by Fali Narmaan. As of now, it appears that there is no mention whatsoever in this Purana text. I don't know what verse he is specifically referring. Though the Court said that they are not taking evidence on Setu, it is important to point out the minefield of ancient texts and dangers of misinterpretations of words out of context of space and time. Many words had different meanings at different points in time. The tradition is the guide. You have shown that the tradition is so intense that the Setu is a monument, a heritage monument, a place of worship beyond any reasonable doubt.

The Court cannot wish away the enormously weighty arguments on over 160 topics presented including your brilliant advocacy on the fraudulent economics, illegalities and national security implications. Environmental concerns are so enormous that a flippant decision should not be taken without detaled evaluation by experts from National Inst. of Oceanography of Goa and Geological Survey of India, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (Atomic Minerals Divsion) and Navy Coast Guard, national defence experts. The entire gamut of project alternatives should be subjected to study afresh.

It is shocking that Fali Narimaan advised GOI not to undertake ASI study assuming that issues of faith will in any case be part of any such study. It is shocking that there is an attempt to shy away from facts and ground realities, denigrating the very essence of safeguarding the professional integrity of experts working in many fields including archaeology. ASI cannot do this task by itself, it will be necessary that a multidisciplinary advocate commission is put in place to arrive at the issues related to monument declaration under 1958 Act and World Heritage monument under international covenants (e.g., Underwater Cultural Heritage Convention of UNESCO of which India is a party) apart from UN Law of the Sea 1958 on historic waters.

For the sake of this punyabhumi, for re-establishing the memory of vigrahavaan dharmah, Shri Rama, we shall prevail. Again, again, my namaskarams to you. S'ubha kaamanaayen. This is a moment of truth and satyam is so effulgent that the darkness enveloping the nation temporarily will get removed. We owe it to ourselves to fight, to fight to win. With the warrior Shri Rama's blessings, everything is possible. Gitacharya refers to Shri Rama in the Bhagavad Gita as a warrior. That word is enough. Rama is our ideal, you are warriors, like Shri Rama.

raamah shastrabhritaam aham
{Amongst Warriors, I Am Lord Ram!}
Srimad Bhagvad Gita 10.31

Full selected texts related to the manifestations of paramaatman including the manifestation as Rama:

yo mam ajam anadim ca
vetti loka-maheshvaram
asammudhah sa martyesu
sarva-papaih pramucyate 10.3

"He who knows Me as the unborn, as the beginningless, as the Supreme Lord of all the worlds—he only, undeluded among men, is freed from all sins."

buddhir jnanam asammohah
ksama satyam damah samah
sukham duhkham bhavo ’bhavo
bhayam cabhayam eva ca

ahimsa samata tustis
tapo danam yaso ’yasah
bhavanti bhava bhutanam
matta eva prithag-vidhah (10.4 and 5)

"Intelligence, knowledge, freedom from doubt and delusion, forgiveness, truthfulness, control of the senses, control of the mind, happiness and distress, birth, death, fear, fearlessness, nonviolence, equanimity, satisfaction, austerity, charity, fame and infamy—all these various qualities of living beings are created by Me alone."

pavanah pavatam asmi
ramah shastra-bhrtam aham
jhasanam makaras casmi
srotasam asmi jahnavi 10.31

Translation

Of purifiers I am the wind, of the wielders of weapons I am Rama, of fishes I am the shark, and of flowing rivers I am the Ganga.

dhanyosmi. namaskaram. kalyanaraman

Clearly, Fali Narimaan is engaging in grand-standing when he exclaims that Rama destroyed the Setu. Is he trying to justify this spurious reference from an interpolation in Kamba Ramayana to justify the destruction of Setu to facilitate a project disaster of a mid-ocean channel passage for the benefit of a few shipping companies plying between Tuticorin to Chennai or to benefit LTTE?

We expect a greater level of integrity and concern for truth from senior counsels.

"Do not misguide courts to obtain favourable orders"

MADURAI: The Chief Justice of Madras High Court A.K. Ganguly on Thursday urged lawyers not to misguide the courts or present incorrect facts in an attempt to obtain favourable orders.

"You (lawyers) are an officer of the court. You carry a brief of truth and honesty. While presenting your client's case, don't try to compromise with the virtues. You owe an obligation to the other side too and you have to be fair," he said.

The Chief Justice was addressing a gathering after inaugurating a few library sections and a conference hall named after philanthropists who donated for the cause at the Women Advocates' Association in the Madurai Bench...

Date:25/07/2008 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2008/07/25/stories/2008072550330200.htm

The sage words of CJ of Madras HC should resonate with Fali Narimaan and the advocates pleading for Union of India.

It is time to make Hon'ble TR Baalu a respondent. He has to answer a number of questions, before the SC can render justice to the petitioners.

namaskaram. kalyanaraman

கம்பராமாயணத்தில் சேது:
சென்னை கம்பன் கழகம் வெளியிட்ட கம்பராமாயணம் (முதல் பதிப்பு 1976)

யுத்த காண்டத்தில் 37வது படலம்
மீட்சிப் படலம்

இதில் பாடல் எண் 166 முதல் 180 வரையில் 'சேதுவைக் காட்டி அதன் தூய்மையைப் புகழ்தல்" என்ற தலைப்பில் சேதுவின் மகிமைகள் ராமனால் பேசப்படுகின்றன.

ஆனால் முதல் ஆறு பாடல்களே சேது (166-171) பற்றிய புகழைப் பேசுகின்றன. (பக்கம் 1565)

அதாவது புஷ்பக விமானத்தில் ஏறி, இலங்கையிலிருந்து ராமன் அயோத்திக்கு திரும்பச் செல்லும்போது, நிலத்தில் இலங்கை அழகையும், போர் நடந்த இடங்களையும், யார் யாரை வதம் செய்த இடம் என்றெல்லாம் காட்டிக் கொண்டு வரும்போது, சேது அமைக்கப்பட்ட இடத்தையும் சேதுவையும் காட்டி, இது இல்லை என்றால் இம்மாபெரும் வெற்றி கிடைத்திருக்காது, இது நளன் அமைத்த பாலம் என்று கூறுகிறார் ராமன்.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
இவை கம்பன் பாடல்கள் ( 164-165 ) இந்தப் பாடல்கள், சேதுவைக் காட்டி அதன் தூய்மையைப் புகழ்தல் என்ற பகுதிக்கு முன்னால் வரும். இந்தப் பாடல்களில் இலங்கைக் காட்சிகளை ராமன் சீதைக்குச் சொல்கிறார். பிறகு வருபவை சேதுக் காட்சிகள்....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'இலங்கையை வலஞ் செய்து ஏக' என நினைந்திடுமுன், மானம்
வலம் கிளர் கீழை வாயில் வர, 'பிரகத்தன், நீலன்
நலம் கிளர் கையின் மாண்டது இவண்' என, நமன் தன் வாயில்
கலந்திட, 'ஈங்குக் கண்டாய், சுபாரிசற் சுட்டது' என்றான். 20-10

குட திசை வாயில் ஏக, 'குன்று அரிந்தவனை வென்ற
விட நிகர் மேகநாதன் இளவலால் வீழ்ந்தது' என் முன்,
வட திசை வாயில் மேவ, 'இராவணன் மவுலி பத்தும்,
உடலமும் இழந்தது இங்கு' என்று உணர்த்தி, வேறு உரைக்கலுற்றான்: 20-11

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
இதைத் தொடர்ந்து வரும் ஆறு பாடல்கள் சேது மகிமையைப் போற்றுகின்றன.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'நன்னுதல்! நின்னை நீங்கி, நாள் பல கழிந்த பின்றை,
மன்னவன் இரவி மைந்தன், வான் துணையாக நட்ட
பின்னை, மாருதி வந்து, உன்னைப் பேதறுத்து, உனது பெற்றி
சொன்னபின், வானரேசர் தொகுத்தது, இச் சேது கண்டாய். 166

'மற்று இதன் தூய்மை எண்ணின், மலர் அயன் தனக்கும் எட்டா;
பொன் தொடித் தெரிவை! யான் என் புகழுகேன்! கேட்டி, அன்பால்
பெற்ற தாய் தந்தையோடு தேசிகற் பிழைத்து, சூழ்ந்த
சுற்றமும் கெடுத்துளோரும் எதிர்ந்திடின் சுரர்கள் ஆவார். 167
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

இதற்குப் பிறகு இடைச் செருகல் பாடல்கள்.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

கம்ப ராமாயணத்தில் பல்வேறு காலகட்டங்களில் அதனைப் படித்த புலவர்கள் தங்கள் மேதைமையை கம்பனில் சேர்த்து, தங்கள் பாடல்களையும் கம்பராமாயணப் பாடல்கள் என்று நுழைத்து விட்டார்கள். அப்படி, கம்பராமாயணத்தில் இடைச்செருகல்கள் நிறைய உண்டு என்று வருத்தப்பட்டார் ரசிகமணி டி.கே.சி. அவர் கம்பனில் கரை கண்டவர். கம்பராமாயணத்தில் உள்ள இடைச்செருகல்களை சரியாக அறிந்து, அவற்றை நீக்கி, அந்தப் பாடல்களை எல்லாம் தனியாக ஒரு பக்கத்தில் தொகுத்து பிற்சேர்க்கை என்று அறிவித்தார். அவர் தள்ளிய பாடல்களில் கம்பனின் கவிப் புலமையும் இல்லை; சொற்களில் பிற்காலத்திய கட்டுமானம் இருக்கும்; நவீன தமிழ்ச் சொற்கள் கையாளப்பட்டிருக்கும். பேச்சு நடை அமைந்திருக்கும்.

அப்படி அவர் முதலாக, அமரர் அ.ச.ஞானசம்பந்தன் போன்ற தமிழ் சான்றோர்கள் பலரும் நீக்கிய இடைச் செருகல் பாடல் ஒன்றில்தான், சேதுவின் முகப்பை ராமன் அம்பு கொண்டு கீறியதாக ஒரு வரி வருகிறது. அது கம்பன் பாடல் இல்லை என்று அறிஞர்கள் சொல்லியிருக்கிறார்கள்.

அந்தப் பாடல்...

கப்பை எனும் கன்னியையும், கந்தனார் தாதையையும்
அப்பொழுதே திருவணைக்குக் காவலராய் அங்கு இருத்தி,
செப்ப அரிய சிலையாலே திருவணையை வாய் கீறி,
ஒப்பு அரியாள் தன்னுடனே உயர் சேனைக் கடலுடனே.. (170-23)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

- மேற்சொன்ன இந்தப் பாடலில் இரண்டு பேரை காவலுக்கு வைத்துவிட்டு, அதன் முனையை அதாவது (செப்ப அரிய சிலையாலே திருவணையை வாய் கீறி,) சிலை - அம்பு; வாய் - முனை என்றால், இருவரைக் காவலுக்கு வைத்துவிட்டு, அதன் முனையை மட்டும் அகழி போல் சிதைத்ததாகச் சொல்லியிருக்கிறாரே தவிர, அந்த அணையை முழுவதுமாக சிதைத்ததாகச் சொல்லவில்லை. இந்தப் பாடலும் இடைச்செருகல் பாடல் என தள்ளப்பட்டுள்ளது.

காரணம், ஒரிஜினல் கம்பன் பாடலிலோ, வால்மீகியிலோ, அணையின் அழகைக் காட்டி அதைப் பார்த்து சீதை பிரமிப்பது போல் வருகிறது. மேலும் இந்தப் பாலத்தை வந்து தரிசிப்பவர்களுக்கு சகல பாவங்களும் விலகும் என்று சொல்லப்பட்டிருக்கிறது.

பின்னாளில் இந்தப் பாலத்தினைப் பற்றிய ஆன்மிக நம்பிக்கை அதிகரித்ததால், பின்னாளில் கம்பனில் இடைச்செருகலாகப் பாடல்களைச் சேர்த்தவர்கள், உலகத்தில் என்னென்ன பாவங்கள் உண்டு என்று சொல்லி, அது இந்த சேது தரிசனத்தால் நீங்கும் என்று எழுதிவைத்திருக்கிறார்கள் என்பதால், சேது, சில நூற்றாண்டுகள் வரை அப்படியே தரிசனத்துக்கு இருந்திருக்கிறது என்பது தெரியவருகிறது.
அதனால்தான் அவர்களும் இப்படி எழுதி வைத்தார்கள். அந்தப் பாடல்கள் சில உங்களுக்கு உதாரணத்துக்காக, \
இந்தப் பாடல்களில் நவீன தமிழ் வருவதை கவனிக்கலாம். மேலும் பாவங்கள் என்ன என்ற லிஸ்ட் வருவதையும் கவனியுங்கள்.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
கீழ்வரும் பாடல்கள் இடைச்செருகல் ( 162-6 முதல் 162-8 வரை)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'கருங் கடல் நிகர்ப்ப ஆன அகழி ஓர் மூன்றும் காணாய்;
மருங்கு அடர் களபக் கொங்கை மதி நுதல் மிதிலை வல்லி!
இருங் கட முகத்த யானை இவுளி, தேர், காலாள், துஞ்சி,
பொரும் சுடர் நிறத்தர் வீய்ந்த போர்க்களம் தன்னைப் பாராய்.

'கொடி மதில் இலங்கை வேந்தன் கோபுரத்து உம்பர்த் தோன்ற,
அடு திறல் பரிதி மைந்தன் அவன் நிலை குலையத் தாக்கி,
சுடர் முடி பறித்த அந் நாள், அன்னவன் தொல்லை வெம் போர்ப்
படியினை நோக்கி நின்ற சுவேல மால் வரையைப் பாராய்.

'பூக் கமழ் குழலினாய்! நின் பொருட்டு யான் புகலா நின்றேன்;
மேக்கு உயர் தச்சன் மைந்தன் நளன் இவன் விலங்கலால் அன்று
ஆக்கிய இதனை, வெய்ய பாதகம் அனைத்தும், வந்து
நோக்கிய பொழுதே, நூறும் சேதுவை, நீயும் நோக்காய்.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
169-1 மற்றும் 169-2 இப்படி பல பாடல்கள் இடைச்செருகலாக உண்டு. இவை உதாரணத்துக்கு
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ஆவினை, குரவரோடும் அருமறை முனிவர்தம்மை,
பாவையர் குழுவை, இன் சொல் பாலரை, பயந்து தம் இல்
மேவின அவரை, செற்றோர், விரி கடல் சேது வந்து
தோய்வரேல், அவர்கள் கண்டாய், சுரர் தொழும் சுரர்கள் ஆவார்.

மரக்கலம் இயங்கவேண்டி, வரி சிலைக் குதையால் கீறித்
தருக்கிய இடத்து, பஞ்ச பாதகரேனும் சாரின்,
பெருக்கிய ஏழு மூன்று பிறவியும் பிணிகள் நீங்கி,
நெருக்கிய அமரர்க்கு எல்லாம் நீள் நிதி ஆவர் அன்றே.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
170-1 முதல் 170-12 வரை... இப்படி பல பாடல்கள் இடைச்செருகலாக உண்டு. இவை உதாரணத்துக்கு
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ஆங்கு அது காட்டக் கண்ட ஆயிழை, 'கமலம் அன்ன
பூங் கழற் புயல்போல் மேனிப் புனித! என் பொருட்டால் செய்த
ஈங்கிதற்கு ஏற்றம் நீயே இயம்பு' என, இரதம் ஆங்கே
பாங்குற நிறுவி நின்று, இங்கு இவை இவை பகரலுற்றான்:

'அந்தணர்தம்மைக் கொன்றோர், அருந் தவர்க்கு இடுக்கண் செய்தோர்,
செந் தழல் வேள்வி செற்றோர், தீ மனை இடுவோர், தம்பால்
வந்து இரந்தவர்க்கு ஒன்று ஈயா வைக்கும் வன் நெஞ்சர், பெற்ற
தந்தையைத் தாயைப் பேணாத் தறுகணர், பசுவைச் செற்றோர்,

'குருக்களை இகழ்வோர், கொண்ட குலமகள் ஒழியத் தங்கள்
செருக்கினால் கணிகைமாரைச் சேர்பவர், உயிர் கொல் தீம்பர்,
இருக்குடன் அமரும் தெய்வம் இகழ்பவர், ஊன்கள் தின்று
பெருக்கிய உடலர், பொய்ம்மை பிதற்றுவோர், பீடை செய்வோர்.

'வெய்யவன் உச்சி சேர மிக வழி நடந்து போவோர்,
மை அறும் முன்னோன் தன்னை வலிசெயும் தம்பிமார்கள்,
கை உள முதல்கள் தம்மைக் கரந்து தம்பிக்கு ஒன்று ஈயார்,
துய் அன சொற்கள் சொல்வோர், சோம்பரைச் சுளித்துக் கொல்வோர்,

'ஊரது முனிய வாழ்வோர், உண்ணும்போது உண்ண வந்தோர்க்கு
ஆர்வமோடு அளியாது இல்லம் அடைப்பவர், அமணே சென்று
நீரினுள் இழிவோர், பாவ நெறிகளில் முயல்வோர், சான்றோர்
தாரமது அணைவோர், மூத்தோர் தமை இகழ் அறிவிலாதோர்.

'கண்டிலாது "ஒன்று கண்டோம்" என்று கைக்கூலி கொள்வோர்,
மண்டலாதிபர் முன் சென்று வாழ் குடிக்கு அழிவு செய்வோர்,
மிண்டுகள் சபையில் சொல்வோர், மென்மையால் ஒருவன் சோற்றை
உண்டிருந்து, அவர்கள் தம்பால் இகழ்ச்சியை உரைக்கும் தீயோர்,

'பின்னை வா, தருவென்' என்று பேசித் தட்டுவிக்கும் பேதை,
கன்னியைக் கலக்கும் புல்லோர், காதலால் கள்ளுண் மாந்தர்,
துன்னிய கலை வல்லோரைக் களிந்து உரைத்து இகழ்வோர், சுற்றம்
இன்னலுற்றிடத் தாம் வாழ்வோர், எளியரை இன்னல் செய்வோர்.

'ஆண்டவன் படவும் தங்கள் ஆர் உயிர் கொண்டு மீண்டோர்,
நாண் துறந்து உழல்வோர், நட்பானவரை வஞ்சிப்போர், நன்மை
வேண்டிடாது, இகழ்ந்து, தீமை செய்பவர், விருந்தை நீப்போர்,
பூண்டு மேல் வந்த பேதை அடைக்கலம் போக்கி வாழ்வோர்.

'கயிற்றிலாக் கண்டத்தாரைக் காதலித்து அணைவோர், தங்கள்
வயிற்றிடக் கருவைத் தாமே வதைப்பவர், மாற்றார்தம்மைச்
செயிர்க்குவது அன்றிச் சேர்ந்த மாந்தரின் உயிரைச் செற்றோர்,
மயிர்க் குருள் ஒழியப் பெற்றம் வெளவு வோர், வாய்மை இல்லோர்,

'கொண்டவன் தன்னைப் பேணாக் குலமகள், கோயிலுள்ளே
பெண்டிரைச் சேர்வோர், தங்கள் பிதிர்க்களை இகழும் பேதை,
உண்டலே தருமம் என்போர், உடைப்பொருள் உலோபர், ஊரைத்
தண்டமே இடுவோர், மன்று பறித்து உண்ணும் தறுகண்ணாளர்,

'தேவதானங்கள் மாற்றி, தேவர்கள் தனங்கள் வௌவும்
பாவ காரியர்கள், நெஞ்சில் பரிவிலாதவர்கள், வந்து
'கா' எனா, 'அபயம்' என்று, கழல் அடைந்தோரை விட்டோர்,
பூவைமார் தம்மைக் கொல்லும் புல்லர், பொய்ச் சான்று போவோர்.

'முறையது மயக்கி வாழ்வோர், மூங்கை அந்தகர்க்குத் தீயோர்,
மறையவர் நிலங்கள் தன்னை வன்மையால் வாங்கும் மாந்தர்,
கறை படு மகளிர் கொங்கை கலப்பவர், காட்டில் வாழும்
பறவைகள், மிருகம், பற்றிப் பஞ்சரத்து அடைக்கும் பாவர்.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
இப்படி மேலே கண்ட பாடல்கள் பலவும் நவீன கால சொற்களைத் தாங்கி, கதையின் போக்கில் பாடலாசிரியரின் கருத்தை உட்புகுத்தி இருக்கின்றன. இவற்றை எப்படி சரியான கம்பன் பாடல்கள் என்று சொல்லி, கம்பராமாயணத்தில் பாடப்பட்டதாக ஏற்க முடியும்?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

வால்மீகி ரெபரன்ஸ்

யுத்த காண்டம், ஸர்க்கம் 126 - ராமன் சீதைக்கு வழியிலுள்ள தலங்களைக் காட்டியது... என்ற தலைப்பில்

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
இதில் எங்குமே ராமன் சேதுவை சேதப்படுத்தியதாக தகவல் இல்லை. நாம்தான் ராமசேது என்கிறோமே தவிர, ராமன் சீதைக்குச் சொல்லும் இடங்களில் எல்லாம், இது நளன் கட்டிய பாலம் என்று சீதைக்கு தெரிவித்து, தன்னுடைய இஞ்சினியர் பேரையே பயன்படுத்தியிருக்கிறார். இவ்வளவு கஷ்டப்பட்டு இந்தப் பாலத்தைக் கட்டியது உன் கண்களின் அழகுக்காக என்று சொல்கிறார்....

Sengottai Sriram (July 24, 2008)

Setu in Kamba Ramayana (First edition, 1976, published by Kamban Kazhagam, Chennai).

Yuddha kaandam 37 padalam, meetci padalam (rescue section)

Rama mentions about the mahima of Setu and praise of the monument in verses 166 to 180.

Verses 166 to 171 refer to the monument.

Returning from Srilanka in Pushpaka Vimaana, Rama shows the beautiful Setu, the beauty of the land of Srilanka, battlefields, places where the asuras were killed. Showing the place where Setu was built, he praises Nala's bridge and claims that the victory was made possible only because of the bridge. (Verses 164 to 165 precede the description of Setu and refer to events in Srilanka. The next 6 verses sing of the mahimaa of Setu).

After Verse 167 there are some interpolations. Scholars have noted that some interpolations have been made in the original, critical edition of Kamba Ramayana. There is consisten opinion that there are many such interpolations, according to Rasikamani TKC. This conclusion was reached based on the tenor and language of the verses using later-day Tamil (far removed from the Tamil of the days of Kamban).

The interpolated verse for example iss 170-23.

kappai enum kanniyaiyum, kandanaar taataiyaiyum
appozhude tiruvanaikku kaavalaraay angu irutti
ceppa ariya cilaiyaale tiruvanaiyai vaay keeri
oppu ariyaal tannudane uyar cenai kkadaludane

Appointing a lady-warrior called Kappai and a warrior named Kandanaar to guard the Setu, using an arrow (cilai) marking a line (vaay keeri -- line on the end of the Setu). This verse does NOT indicate that Rama destroyed the Setu. (Note: The word keeri has many meanings. In this context of engaging guards to guard the Setu, the line is drawn only as a demarcation of their zone of responsibility).

In the original verses of Kamban, and in Valimki Ramayana, Setu's beauty is described which makes Sita devi wonderstruck. The verses also extol the fact that pilgrms who see the Setu become blessed. It is clear that even during the periods when the interpolations were made, Setu continued to be a place of pilgrimage and worship. (Sriram continues to cite verses which are interpolations pointing to the use of later-day Tamil words and poetry-styles not in tune with the original version of Kamban, citing verses from 162-6 to 162-8, 169-1 to 169-2, 170-1 to 170-12.)

Sriram goes on to refer to Valmiki's yuddha kaanda 126 which describes Rama showing to Sita the places of pilgrimage en route. In all these verses, nowhere is a mention of any damage to Setu. Rama always refers to the name of the architect, Nala while extolling the engineering marvel. He adds that his showing the Setu to Sita was to enhance the beauty of her eyes.

Sengottai Sriram (July 24, 2008).

A note on the word KeeRi in Tamil:

[T. gīyu, K. gīru.] To draw lines; வரிகீறுதல். 2. To scribble, make marks, write, engrave; எழுது தல். (பிங்.) 3. To score out; கிறுக்கியடித்தல். 4. [T. gīṟu, K. kīṟu.] To slit, tear, rend; கிழித் தல். (திவா.) 5. To scratch, as a cat, a fowl to work over, as one's toes; பறண்டுதல். 6. To cut, gash, lance, dissect; ஆயுதத்தால் அறுத் தல். புண்கீறிய
(Tamil lexicon, page 952) http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/contextualize.pl?p.3.tamillex.666497

It is a later-day interpretation by scholiasts that keeRi means 'breach' or 'cut' recognizing the reality of breaches which occurred during a cyclone in 1480 which resulted in three breaches on Setu. But, Royal Asiatic Researches emphasise that even as late as in 1799, the Setu was used as a causeway for people to walk across from Dhanushkodi to Talaimannar on the Setu.

Not in Ram's name

The Pioneer Edit Desk

Congress back to Hindu-bashing

Soon after winning the trust vote the UPA Government seems to be in a hurry to reward those who voted in its favour. Nothing else can explain the remarkable absurdity of the latest stand of the Government in the case of the Sethusamudram Ship Channel Project, at present before the Supreme Court, other than an attempt to please ally DMK. This time the Government's counsel has taken the plea that the Government was not destroying the bridge as there was no bridge. The argument is that there was no man-made structure but a superman-made structure that was broken by Sri Rama himself. The convulsions the Government's arguments have taken in this case and the corner it has painted itself into would be exceedingly funny were it not that the faith of millions, as well as the highest court in the land, was involved. In its keenness to pander to crass commercial interests the Government seems quite willing to take everybody for a ride. Several months ago the Government had shocked the country by denying the very existence of Lord Ram in its petition before the Supreme Court. Now it has come up with another loose interpretation of Indian scriptures, derived from a lesser known work, to justify the demolition of the Ram Setu. It seems to escape the Government that the historicity or otherwise of the events that have the Ram Setu as their centre has little to do with the issue. The Ram Setu is associated in the minds of millions of people in the country with Lord Ram. They believe the site to be sacred and their feelings would be hurt were it to be damaged.

It is not that people who have been vocal about this issue have been inflexible. An alternative alignment of Sethusamudram Shipping Canal will preserve the Ram Setu while allowing the project to go through. This is in spite of the fact that many experts have deep reservations about the project. Over many months it has emerged that the project may not be commercially viable in the long run as larger modern ships will in any case have to continue to stick to the longer old routes. Serious doubts have been expressed over the ecological impact of the canal that will stress not just life in the sea but also human populations in coastal regions by altering climate patterns and opening the way for tropical storms and tsunamis. The issue requires more debate before the project is cleared. Yet the Government is bent upon railroading it, ramming it down the throats of an unwilling population just to please vested interests. It continues to completely ignore the sensitivities involved. Now that it has won the confidence vote, it feels it can go ahead. Yet there will be a price to pay. The Government's unholy agenda will be undone, as indeed, shall this Government.
http://dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=EDITS&file_name=edit2%2Etxt&counter_img=2

Centre waters down stand on Setu

Pioneer News Service | New Delhi

A day after it quoted scriptures to deny the existence of Ram Setu, the Centre on Thursday went on the back foot and suggested that work was on to consider the feasibility of having alternative routes for the Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project.

Speaking for its ally, the DMK, which has gone the whole hog for the implementation of the project, senior advocate and Centre's special counsel Fali S Nariman assured the Bench headed by Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan that while the current project plan was to cut through the Adams Bridge (Ram Setu), he had personally taken up the matter at a higher level to ensure that work on alternative routes was not abandoned.

Nariman told the Bench, also comprising Justices RV Raveendran and JM Panchal, "As a special counsel, I have taken up the matter at the highest level. It is being scientifically examined." The arguments of the Centre, which continued on Thursday, would resume next Tuesday. Nariman assured to come back with a response.

By stating so, the Centre has sidestepped the controversy it kicked off by stating there was no Ram Setu. In his arguments on Wednesday, Nariman had stirred a hornet's nest by quoting scriptures, Kambh Ramayana and Padma Puran, which record how Ram Setu was broken by Lord Ram himself. The basis of objection in the Supreme Court by several petitioners (individuals and NGOs) stemmed from the possible destruction of Ram Setu as it fell in the way of the projected alignment. With the existence of Setu itself under cloud as per the scriptures, Nariman wondered how anything which does not exist could be revered.

Despite the mellowed stand of the Centre, Nariman continued to insist on Friday the validity of the current route passing through Ram Setu. The project serving as a corridor for ships to pass between the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal, the Bench wanted to know from the Centre whether a balance could be achieved between faith and marine biosphere in considering the alignment of the project. Nariman pointed out that the current alignment, under challenge before the court, had received environmental impact assessment clearance.

Quoting the expert committee's report, which studied the feasibility of the alignment passing through Ram Setu, Nariman emphasised that at the public meetings held with about 892 persons spread across six districts in Tamil Nadu, there was no objection. Even the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board did not raise any objection on the environmental front. "If the project is not in conflict with an existing law, this is all the court is required to examine," he said.

Even the Bench agreed that the grievances aired in the public meetings came largely from fishermen who saw the project as a threat to their livelihood.

http://dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=front%5Fpage&file_name=story3%2Etxt&counter_img=3

Sethu project threatens Mannar bioreserve (Pioneer, July 23, 2008)

Swati Das | Chennai

For 148 years, the plan to build a channel cutting across the barrier reef called Adam's Bridge, now politicised with Tamil or religious sentiments, have been stalled for three reasons: Engineering, economic and environmental.

The dream has always been to reduce the distance and time, connecting the east coast to the west without having to go around the island country of Sri Lanka. Top priorities since the British rule were safety of the canal and the ships, ecology, engineering and people's convenience. The prime objective was to connect the Palk Bay in the north of the barrier reef to Gulf of Mannar (GoM) in the south.

Politics today has thrown practical and logical issues to the winds, resorting to evoking ethnic and religious sentiments that threaten to destroy the unique feature of two distinct water bodies that lie side by side, thanks to Adam's Bridge or Ram Sethu, as believed by some. Result: Sethusamudram Ship Canal Project (SSCP).

"Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Dredging of the channel will definitely affect the ecosystem of the National Marine Park. The silting will eventually form a layer over the coral reef and destroy the shoaling, physio-chemical conditions and biological parameters. The flora and fauna in the seabed would decrease and affect the life supporting system of the region. The ebb and flow of the waves will bring the sands to the clear water from the frequent dredging. Would the dredging be economical? We have to first think of the legal aspects, then livelihood and finally scientific," said P Nammalwar Rajan, former principal scientist, Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute and former Principal Investigator, Agriculture Authority, Government of India. He is now the project leader in the Department of Ocean Management, Institute for Ocean Management.

The Palk Bay in the north of Adam's Bridge is one of India's five permanent sediment sinks like the Sundarbans where the rivers drain into. There is a constant flow of silt into the Palk Bay and the Palk Straits. It has a shallow seabed and has its own natural reserve. The shallow nature of this area actually makes dredging difficult and expensive, as silting is continuous. The bay extends from north of Dhanushkodi in Rameswaram Island to Kodiakarai (Point Calimere) in Nagapattinam district.

The deep clear waters of GoM, south of Dhanushkodi to Kanyakumari, houses the rich coral reefs, where lies India's National Marine Park along the coast. This forms India's largest biosphere reserve called the Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve stretching to 10,500 sqkm - a notified area. Of this, the National Park comprises 550 sq km. The coral reefs can survive only in clear water and some unique sea creatures here help in keeping the water clean. Endangering these sea animals is prohibited under the Wildlife Protection Act, Amendment, 2002, that came into force under the then Union Environment and Forests Minister and now Union Shipping Minister TR Baalu, who is now bent on affecting the biosphere. These creatures include sea fans, sea cucumbers, sponges, some species of sharks, shells and turtles, sea cow, reef building corals etc that come under the Schedule I of the Act - the same that protect tigers.

"The Adam's Bridge is a natural barrier reef. It helps maintain distinct nature of the two water bodies. If this barrier is cut, the constant silting of the Palk Bay would flow into the Gulf of Mannar, making the clear water murky and endanger coral reefs. Though the Tamil Nadu Government is claiming that the current alignment is 20 km away from the National Park, sampling of the canal area shows the presence of coral reefs, sea cucumbers, sea fans and sponges. The SSCP records admit that these will be endangered. But that would attract punishment under the Wildlife Act. There is so much noise about killing tigers. Why not protect these endangered creatures too? Is it because these are not as charismatic as tigers?" asks Sudarshan Rodriguez, Senior Research Associate, Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE), which has been doing research in the area. In fact, ATREE has done a study on the adverse effect of dredging in the Palk Bay area.

However, there are also those who feel that the alignment currently chosen, being 20 km away from the National Park, would cause only minimal damage to the marine park. "Current alignment would cause minimal damage. Damage is imminent when you want development. It would connect east to west and save time and distance," said DB James, retired principal scientist of Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Tuticorin.

Fifteen alignments were suggested in the last 148 years to run a channel. Initially, viability of the alignment was the key reason for shelving the proposals. Then huge costs involved became the major roadblock. Post-Independence, preservation of marine reserve was the key consideration.

There were nine proposals between 1860 and 1922 and six proposals between 1956 and now, listed by the Sethusamudram Corporation Limited. The alignments under consideration in the recent past are the last three. The current alignment is just three km inside the India-Sri Lanka Medial Line and 20 km away from Shingle Island - the closest point of the National Marine Park from the proposed canal. It cuts through two shallows - Adam's Bridge (3m depth) that separates Palk Bay and GoM and Palk Strait (6-8m). It uses the natural depth in GoM south of Adam's Bridge and other areas of Palk Bay. Those opposing the "damage" to Adam's Bridge or "Ram Sethu" want the implementation of the fourth alignment that would cut through Dhanushkodi and exit close to Shingle Island.

But the moot point is if the canal is really worth sacrificing the bio-reserve? The 300-metre wide channel cannot allow the big ships of today to pass through and certainly not the international ships, which was the original need of the State to improve trade.

"Unlike what the DMK is projecting, it is not true that all the fishermen are for the canal. Their livelihood would certainly be endangered. I was at the meetings between TR Baalu and fishermen. The environmental issues were discussed. But all that has been hushed up. I have also told the BJP about the dangers. It was during the NDA regime that sixth alignment was finalised. Even they have turned it into a political issue. A general impression has been created that it is a Tamil pride," said Rodriguez.

For any comments, queries or feedback, kindly mail us at pioneerletters@yahoo.co.in

Double standards by Cong: Puri Seer
Friday July 25 2008 12:10 IST

Express News Service

PURI: Sankaracharya of Puri Swamy Neeschalananda Saraswati on Thursday alleged that the Congress is adopting double standards over Ram Setu. Briefing the media on mutt premises here, the seer said first the party said there was no Ram. Now they are saying that Ram destroyed the setu. They have forgotten that Mahatma Gandhi professed to establish Ramrajya in the country and at the time of death he uttered Hey Ram . It seems that the present-day Congress politicians were acting contrary to the ideology of Mahatma, he charged.

Reiterating his stand over the Ram Setu issue, the seer said almost all the political parties have shown little interest in protecting the setu while millions of Hindus adore it as a sacred place of pilgrimage. He asked Hindus of the country to get united and fight to protect the Ram Setu founded by Lord Ram.

He also alleged that the Centre is presenting distorted facts in the court. He declined to comment on the facts saying the case is sub-judice. He said there are wise, intelligent and honourable persons in the apex court and they would find out the truth.

http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IEQ20080725014855&Page=Q&Title=Orissa&Topic=0

Centre's stand on Setu trade-off between Sonia & Karuna: VHP

MUZAFFARPUR (BIHAR), JUL 24 (PTI)

Taking strong exception to the Centre's affidavit on Sethusamudram project, the VHP today alleged it was a result of a 'trade-off' between Congress president Sonia Gandhi and Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M Karunanidhi to win the trust vote.

The affidavit objects to religious grounds being raked up for blocking the venture, citing a Tamil version of Ramayana, according to which Lord Rama had himself destroyed the 'Ram Setu'.

"The Centre's affidavit in the Supreme Court is the result of a trade-off between Sonia Gandhi and Karunanidhi as part of which the latter agreed to support the confidence vote sought by Manmohan Singh on the condition that the UPA government will ensure that the Setu is brought down," VHP General Secretary Pravin Togadia told reporters.

Declaring that VHP would launch a nation-wide protest against the 'conspiracy' to destroy the Ram Setu, Togadia warned "the Centre's stand before the apex court is fraud with dangerous consequences for the country ..... It is a conspiracy to divide the nation, which will go up in flames and Sonia Gandhi will be responsible for it."

The VHP leader claimed that on page 729 of the Hindi translation of 'Kamb Ramayana', the Tamil version of the epic, published by Nand Kumar Avasthi of Bhuvan Vani Trust, Sitapur, Lucknow, it was said that while returning from Lanka on the 'Pushpak Viman' the Lord pointed at the Setu and said those who would see it would be blessed.

"How could the same Lord have destroyed the bridge?" he asked.

Togadia said be it 'Tulsi Ramayana' or 'Kamb Ramayana', all versions came after the 'Valmiki Ramayana'.

"The same people (the Centre) who first questioned the very existence of Lord Ram and Ram Setu are now invoking Kamba Ramayana and Padma Purana to say that he destroyed the Setu, but are not relying on the original Valmiki Ramayana, which has no such mention," he said.

While informing the Supreme Court that the Centre wanted to go ahead with the Setusamudram Shipping Canal Project, its counsel Fali S Nariman had yesterday referred to the two religious scriptures to claim that Lord Ram had destroyed the structure so that nobody could cross over from Lanka in future.

"Lord Ram destroyed the bridge and details are there in the scriptures. You cannot worship something which has been destroyed," Nariman had said.

http://www.outlookindia.com/pti_news.asp?id=592044

Renuka Narayanan, Hindustan Times
Email Author
New Delhi, July 25, 2008
First Published: 01:36 IST(25/7/2008)
Last Updated: 01:53 IST(25/7/2008)
Scholars slam government claim on Ram Setu
Did Lord Rama destroy Ram Setu, the bridge over which his monkey army invaded Ravana’s Lanka – as the government told the Supreme Court on Wednesday? India’s leading authorities on the Ramayana want to throw that claim into the sea.
With anger growing in India’s right-wing parties over plans for a controversial multi-million dollar canal through the Palk Straits, research by Hindustan Times shows that the two most prominent versions of the Ramayana — by Valmiki and Kamban — make no mention of the destruction cited by lawyer Fali S Nariman, who represented the government before the court.
The debate is centred on an undersea bridge-like structure between the coasts of southern India and Sri Lanka that the government says is not man-made, and is to be destroyed to build a multi-million dollar shipping canal, the Sethusamundram Project. But many Hindus believe this bridge is a relic of the one built by Lord Ram.
The issue is so wrapped up in hostile politics that several experts HT spoke to, including eminent Tamil experts, declined to be named. But others spoke up. Former professor Veerbhadra Mishra, mahant of the renowned Sankat Mochan Hanuman Temple in Varanasi is outraged, “Nariman’s scriptural interpretation of Hindu tradition that ‘something that is broken cannot be worshipped’ may hold for an idol … but it does not hold for tirthas and kshetras. These are geographical sites or ‘living monuments’ associated with faith,” says Mishra, who dissociates himself from the BJP.
An eminent Tamil scholar requested anonymity, fearing reprisals, but said: “It is a shame to misquote Kamban.” The 9th century Tamil epic, contains no reference to Sri Ram destroying the Setu.
In Kamba Ramayana's Yuddha Kandam in the section 'Meekshi Padalam', verses 166 to 169 describe Rama's return from Lanka in the Pushpaka Vimana, where he points out the bridge to Sita and underlines its sanctity. Verse 169 has Sri Rama actually saying: "The spiritual merit you gain by bathing in the holy rivers, is nothing compared to that you gain by bathing at this Setu."
Nariman did not quote from the Valmiki Ramayana, indisputably the first text of the epic, but it has nothing to say either on Sri Rama breaking the bridge, according to the eminent Ramayana scholar Pandit Satkari Mukhopadhyaya, an internationally respected authority on the text and on the Ramayana traditions of South-east Asia.
"Later regional variations may contain such interpolations perhaps … but not Valmiki," he said. "I uphold the sanctity of Ramsetu in the Hindu mind, sitting right here in this 400-year-old building in which Goswami Tuslidas wrote the Hanuman Chalisa and the last four chapters of the Ramcharitmanas," Mishra said.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/storypage/Print.aspx?Id=f666584e-db74-44e7-88b2-2ad0ac1df4c1

Bhadra Sinha, Hindustan Times
Email Author
New Delhi, July 25, 2008
First Published: 01:22 IST(25/7/2008)
Last Updated: 01:25 IST(25/7/2008)
Centre softens stand on Ram Setu
Contrary to its aggressive stance on the Sethusamudram shipping canal project, the Centre on Thursday appeared mellowed down before the Supreme Court.
A day after putting a question mark over the existence of Ram Setu, the United Progressive Alliance (UPA)-led Government’s counsel, senior advocate Fali S. Nariman told the three-judge bench that he had communicated the court’s suggestion to consider another alignment for the project.
Even as Nariman later argued that court was not within its jurisdiction to entertain public interest litigations against the project, the eminent jurist said: “As a special officer in this case I have taken up the matter with the senior officials of the ministry. I hope to get back to the court on its suggestion.”
In his latest submission Nariman claimed the court was not empowered to examine a policy decision, which was the executive’s role. Taking his arguments in the case ahead Nariman cited apex court judgment on Sardar Sarovar and Narmada projects. “Courts cannot entertain PIL against such projects.” According to him courts could not substitute their decision on the assessment made by experts and could not sit over scientific alliances.
Nariman further added that policy decision could not under court’s scrutiny if they were faulty such as there was a diversion from the guidelines prescribed in the notification. “Courts cannot adjudicate on a policy decision,” he said. In case of a challenge it has to be before the execution of the project, the senior advocate told the court.
Nariman said the government was so careful before giving a nod to the project that it got its environmental clearance even though it wasn’t mandatory. To the court’s query on why a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) wasn’t done, Nariman claimed it was not compulsory. Yet, he said, the government had got a rapid EIA done.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/Print.aspx?Id=2976b590-ee28-413e-b7d7-9ed708fdabaa
Nandini R Iyer, Hindustan Times
New Delhi, July 24, 2008
First Published: 23:56 IST(24/7/2008)
Last Updated: 00:01 IST(25/7/2008)
The Setu story
While MPs made their interventions on the confidence motion, the government was — even as late as 11 pm on Monday — working out the finer nuances of its new stance on the Ram Setu.
A senior government official said the “government’s latest position” was finalised in “a series of hasty meetings” late on Monday, when the DMK, which had been pressing for the speedy implementation of the Sethusamudram Canal Project, decided to cash in on the Congress’ position on the first day of the trust vote.
Earlier, it was the Congress, through culture minister Ambika Soni, which spelt out the government’s stance on the issue. But last year, Soni was in the eye of a political storm when the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court saying there was no historical or scientific evidence about the existence of Lord Ram or the Ram Setu.
The ASI subsequently withdrew the affidavit and officials made clear they would not be opposing the Ram Setu’s existence, as it was a “matter of faith”. Subsequently, a fresh combined “application” was filed — this time on behalf of the government (read not the ASI alone).
With the Congress having back-tracked after the controversy, the DMK managed to wrest control of the issue.
The new applications are now piloted through the ministry of shipping, a portfolio held by DMK heavyweight T. R. Baalu. Other ministries related to the government's dealings on the issue are environment (where the DMK’s S Reghupathy is minister of state) and the culture ministry.
Senior officials who knew the matter was being heard in the Supreme Court said they learnt late on Monday that a meeting was taking place at the residence of the government's senior counsel Fali S Nariman. “Even the citations from the Kambha Purana were provided by the DMK side,” an official associated with the process said. Nariman could not be reached for a comment.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/Print.aspx?Id=15287f78-e217-4e1a-98b8-6df98b212d18

Worship of Rama Setu

Narimaan is way out of line when saying that no one can worship something that is destroyed. He is wrong.

Pilgrims go to Rama Setu to worship the monument. They remember their ancestors starting with Sri Rama. I think it is a waste of time to try to explain to Narimaan or Union of India that the worship is a tarpanam, a way of remembering that their identity is due to their ancestors, a way of worship to those aatman who have given such an identity to the pilgrim.

Pilgrimage is worship. Do you know, Narimaan that Skanda Purana says that the worshipper goes barefoo and chants ashtakshari and panchakshari --- Om namo narayana and Om namah s'ivaaya while walking on the Setu? Setu ain't destroyed, Narimaan. It exists and any pilgrim stand and walk on it in stretches. People crossed over to Talaimannar in Srilanka from Rameshwaram-Dhanushkodi walking on it as did Ashoka's son, according to Mahavams'a. Why don't you quote this, Narimaan, when you quote Kamba Ramayana? Do you know that in Kamba Ramayana, reasons are given for the breach caused by Sri Rama? Do you also know, Narimaan, that later, in Mahabharata Veda Vyasa says it is the responsibility of the people of those times to protect Rama Setu as was the responsibility of Setupati rajas of Ramanathapuram (then, Ramnad)? Or, is it a waste of time providing evidence to the learned counsel, Narimaan?

Let me tell you something, Narimaan. Pilgrims have tears in their eyes as they utter the sankalpam starting with Sri Rama Rameti, vyapohati nasams'ayah. Go find the meaning of this, Narimaan; you may get some glimpse into Hindu traditions of yore, instead of being counsel for atheists supporting a bogus government engaging in horsetrading of MPs. I don't know about juristic ethic. It makes me sick that there are counsels indulging in suggestio falsi, suppressio veri. No pangs of conscience? What ignominy.

You are a lawyer, right? Then read the judgement on London Nataraja case. A Hindu temple is a temple for ever, Narimaan. It is a pity that UK lawyers are more compassionate than those who claimed and got aatithya in Hindusthanam. What a shame.

Kalyanaraman

RAM SETU AFFIDAVIT- UNCONSTITUTIONAL UPA GOVERNMENT PUSHING VATICAN AGENDA

Posted By Dr. Avnish Jolly On July 24, 2008 @ 4:53 pm In BJP, Chandigarh, North

Chandigarh, July 24:- Senior BJP leader and Punjab’s Medical Education Minister Mr. Tikshan Sud today questioned the legal sanctity of affidavit on a sensitive issue like Ram Setu submitted by UPA Government, standing on the crutches of illegally cast votes in Parliament

In a statement issued here today Mr. Sud said that UPA headed by Italian born Catholic lady was out to push Vatican Agenda by degrading Lord Sri Rama and His religious and mythological symbols, hurting the feelings of billions of Hindus having faith in Hindu religion. He said that UPA government was already on ventilator in ICU, surviving on oxygen provided by illegally cast votes by illegally defected MPs, has no legal and constitutional right, to take any major policy decision, especially those hurting the feelings of majority of Indian population.

Issuing a stern warning to the UPA Government against playing with the religious sentiments of Hindus, the BJP leader said that any action by the Government affecting the holy structure of Ram Setu would be resisted by crores of Hindus and they would intensify nationwide agitation to scuttle this Christian conspiracy. He said that by issuing contradictory affidavit on this historic and mythological fact, the UPA Government was trying to create confusion in the minds of Hindus, under a well planned strategy and we would not allow it.

Demanding the immediate dismissal of unconstitutional Government of UPA, Mr. Sud said that President of India Mrs. Pratibha Patil should immediately dismiss this Government and order General Elections in the country before UPA could inflict more damage to the social and religious fabric of this multi-religious and multi-cultural country. He said that the President should also summon the tape of sting operation by IBN-7 showing Samajwadi Party offering money to BJP MPs, for voting in favour of UPA Government and order the registration of criminal case against the guilty.

Mr. Sud reiterated that BJP under the leadership of Sarv/Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Lal Krishan Advani, and Rajnath Singh was committed to fight for reconstruction of Ram Mandir and protection of Ram Setu and any provocation by the Government would be rebutted by the all strongly.

http://www.theindiapost.com/?p=3520

Our position on Ram Setu has not changed: Congress (The Hindu, July 24, 2008)

New Delhi (PTI): The Congress on Thursday said its position on the Ram Setu has not changed and is guided by the two affidavits filed in the Supreme Court earlier.

"The Congress party believes in respecting all religions..our philosophy is guided by this," party spokesman Manish Tewari told Reporters.

Referring to the arguments of Fali S Nariman in the Supreme Court on the Sethusamundram project that Lord Rama himself destroyed the Ram Setu after emerging victorious in Lanka, Tewari said during course of argument in courts, lawyers put forward different positions.

Asked if the party also felt the same about the Setu, Tewari said the government had made its position clear in the affidavit and then the counter affidavit.

"As it is a sub judice matter, it would be unfair on our part to speak on this," he said.

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/001200807242105.htm

Sethu's other alignment option will be examined
Press Trust of India / New Delhi July 24, 2008, 19:17 IST

A day after making a strident argument that Rama Sethu was destroyed by Lord Rama himself, the Centre today changed tact in the Supreme Court saying that the viability of going ahead with the Sethusamudram project through an alternative alignment has been taken up at the "highest level".

"The suggestion for alternative alignment to avoid Rama Sethu route has been taken as a special case. I have personally taken it at the highest level. It is being scientifically examined. I will come back to you by Tuesday or Wednesday," senior advocate Fali S Nariman told a Bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan.

At the outset, Nariman, who continued the arguments for the Centre on the contentious issue, said the suggestion of the Bench to examine the possibility of project through alignment 4 (Rameshwaram to Dhanushkodi) will be examined.

The Court yesterday was of the view that the alignment 4 could possibly address the issue of religious faith as well as environment concern to the extent that it may be relatively away from the biosphere boundary and marine park.

The Centre had yesterday had referred to Kamba Ramayana and Padma Purana to assert that Lord Rama himself had destroyed the Rama Sethu and one cannot worship something which has been destroyed.

The senior advocate commenced touched upon the issue of religious and personal faith by taking the example of temple town of Rameswaram, which he said was the holiest place but has not yet been declared as ancient monument.

However, the Bench, also comprising Justices R V Raveendran and J M Panchal, made it clear that it was not going into the issue of Rameswaram.

http://www.business-standard.com/common/storypage_c_online.php?leftnm=10&bKeyFlag=IN&autono=43151

Government to respond to apex court call on Ram setu next week
July 24th, 2008 - 8:00 pm ICT by IANS -

New Delhi, July 24 (IANS) The government would respond to the Supreme Court’s suggestion for an alternative alignment off the Ram Setu for the Setusamudram shipping channel, the court was informed Thursday. “I have conveyed to the highest quarters in the government the bench suggestion for an alternative alignment for the channel to balance the issues of faith and logic,” Government counsel Fali S. Nariman told the bench of Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, which also included Justices R.V. Raveendran and J.M. Panchal.

On Thursday, Nariman resumed his arguments opposing various lawsuits against the Setusamudram shipping channel, a shorter navigational route around India’s southern tip, cutting through the Ram Setu or Adam’s bridge.

He added the government was expected to formally respond to the suggestion by Tuesday or Wednesday next week after duly considering the same.

The Ram setu is a 48-km long chain of limestone shoals that once linked Rameswaram in Tamil Nadu with Mannar in Sri Lanka’s northwest. Many Hindus believe it was the bridge Lord Ram’s army built to cross over to Lanka to rescue his wife Sita.

The apex court more than once mooted the idea of an alternative alignment for the shipping channel to spare the Ram Setu, as several Hindu groups have opposed the plan considering its religious importance.

The bench Wednesday suggested: “If the government approach is that avoiding the Ram Setu or Adam’s bridge is not possible, then it’s a different issue. But, if an alternative is available, there is no issue.”

“It’s easy to create an issue. Why create a mammoth issue, if you have an alternative?” it remarked, suggesting the government to opt an alternative alignment for the channel, other than the present ‘alignment 6′, which traverses across the Ram Setu.

After examining various project reports, spanning a period of 150 years, the bench said, “There were nine study report (for the shipping channel project) before the independence and six afterwards. All of them avoided Ram Setu. This is the first proposal of ‘alignment 6′ that touches the Ram Setu,” the bench observed.

It suggested the government “to consider ‘alignment 4′ with some curve as it would be away from the bridge as well as the marine biosphere”.

On May 8 too, the bench had made the same suggestion, besides asking the government to have the Archaeological Survey of India conduct a study to examine if Ram Setu could be declared a national monument.

“We don’t say anything on the merit, but you can also explore the possibility of any alternative alignment for the channel,” the bench had suggested, while hearing the issue before the summer vacation.

“By this, the government may like to avoid the controversy,” the bench had remarked.

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/government-to-respond-to-apex-court-call-on-ram-setu-next-week_10075534.html

UPA government pursuing Vatican agenda on Ram Setu
Jul 24th, 2008 | By Sindh Today | Category: South Asia

Chandigarh, July 24 (IANS) The United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government was out to push the Vatican agenda on the Ram Setu issue, Punjab Medical Education Minister Tikshan Sud said here Thursday.

The UPA government had no sanctity in submitting the affidavit on a sensitive issue like Ram Setu as it was standing on the crutches of illegally cast votes in the parliament, Sud said in a statement here.

Sud, a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader, said the UPA, headed by an Italian-born Catholic lady was out to push the Vatican agenda by degrading Lord Rama and his religious and mythological symbols, hurting the feelings of billions of people having faith in Hindu religion.

He said the UPA government was already on a political ventilator, surviving on oxygen provided by illegally cast votes by defected MPs.

“The UPA government has no legal and constitutional right to take any major policy decision, especially those hurting the feelings of majority of Indian population,” Sud said.

Warning the government against playing with the religious sentiments of Hindus on the Ram Setu issue, the BJP leader said any action by the government affecting the holy structure of Ram Setu would be resisted by Hindus and they would intensify nationwide agitation to scuttle this Christian conspiracy.

He said that by issuing contradictory affidavit on this historic and mythological fact, the UPA government was trying to create confusion in the minds of Hindus, under a well-planned strategy and this would not be allowed.

Sud urged President Pratibha Patil to intervene and dismiss the “unconstitutional” UPA government and order fresh general elections. He said the UPA was inflicting damage to the countrys social and religious fabric.

The Sethusamudram Shipping Channel Corporation was constructing a shorter shipping channel cutting across Ram Setu or Adams Bridge in the Palk Strait, separating India and Sri Lanka.

http://www.sindhtoday.net/south-asia/6757.htm

Ram Setu affidavit is price for DMK’s support: BJP
July 24th, 2008 - 8:04 pm ICT by IANS -

New Delhi, July 24 (IANS) The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Thursday criticised the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government for a controversial affidavit on the Ram Setu in the Supreme Court, terming it the price the ruling coalition paid for the DMK’s support. The BJP added sarcastically that, with the affidavit filed Wednesday, the UPA had at least accepted the existence of Hindu god Ram and Ram Setu, also known as the Adam’s Bridge.

“Earlier, the DMK questioned the ‘engineering credentials’ of Lord Ram, asking which engineering college he graduated from, and contended that it (Ram Setu) was a natural formation. Now the government has at least admitted the bridge was built by a superman just to insult Lord Rama and his followers,” spokesman Rajiv Pratap Rudy said.

Opposing several lawsuits that seek the shipping canal project stopped as it involved dredging through the Ram Setu, government counsel Fali S. Nariman Wednesday told a bench headed by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan that the Ram Setu “cannot be worshipped” since it was broken by Lord Ram himself.

“The UPA was paying the price for DMK’s support it to remain in power,” Rudy said referring to the trust vote the government won in the Lok Sabha Tuesday.

The Ram Setu is a 48-km long chain of limestone shoals that once linked Rameswaram in Tamil Nadu with Mannar in Sri Lanka’s northwest. Many Hindus believe it was the bridge Lord Ram’s army built to cross over to Lanka to rescue his wife Sita.

The ambitious Setusamudram project, to create a navigable waterway between India’s southern tip and Sri Lanka, would involve dredging a part of the Ram Setu.

The Manmohan Singh government, forced to seek the confidence of parliament after the Left parties withdrew its support, won the trust vote by a comfortable margin due to cross voting and abstentions of the sitting MPs.

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/ram-setu-affidavit-is-price-for-dmks-support-bjp_10075539.html

Ram Setu row: Centre softens stand, to answer SC on July 29
Zeenews Bureau

New Delhi, July 24: Softening its stand, the Centre on Thursday, in a reply to the Supreme Court said that it will make its stand clear regarding the Ram Setu on July 29th and will also come up with a solution regarding an alternative route. Earlier the Centre on Wednesday had told the apex court that it was not destroying the ‘Ram Sethu’ as no such bridge existed. Lord Ram himself had destroyed the bridge with a magical bow, the Centre said, quoting from the Tamil ‘Kamban Ramayan’.

The government is only trying to build a channel through the Palk Bay to allow the direct passage of ships from the West Coast to the East Coast without going around Sri Lanka, the Centre added.

Attacking the opponents of the project for raising matters of religion and faith to oppose it, senior advocate Fali S Nariman, appearing for the Centre, said those who have relied on scriptures of faith in their attempt to block the venture should also consider other aspects of faith.

He referred to Kamba Ramayana and Padma Purana to draw a point that Lord Rama himself had destroyed the Rama Sethu so that nobody should come from Lanka.

"Lord Rama destroyed the bridge and details are there in the scriptures. You cannot worship something which has been destroyed," Nariman asserted before a Bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan.

The Sethusamudram Ship Channel Project, once complete, will translate into a saving of upto 424 nautical miles and upto 30 hours in ships’ sailing time. The project, which started in July 2004, ran into troubled waters when Hindu groups began protesting against the dredging across the Sethusamudram Canal, saying it would destroy the Ram Sethu, or Adam’s Bridge, believed to be the passage created by Lord Rama to rescue his wife from the hands of demon King Ravana in Sri Lanka.

Environmentalists also opposed the project saying it would destroy the biosphere reserve in the area laden with coral reefs.

BJP objects to Centre`s affidavit

BJP took strong exception to the Centre`s affidavit on Sethusamudram project which objects to religious grounds being raked up for blocking the venture, claiming the UPA was "paying a price" for the support it received from the DMK during the trust vote.

"The UPA is paying for the support it got from the DMK during the trust vote. The affidavit is another blow on the sentiments of millions of Hindus in the country," senior BJP leader V K Malhotra told agencies.

The saffron party also decided to launch a countrywide agitation against the UPA Government on the issue, the details of which would be worked out soon.

The party would launch a nationwide agitation soon to protest the new move by the Government to go ahead with the controversial project, he said.

Meanwhile the Vishwa Hindu Parishad has threatened to launch a nation wide strike if the government takes any stand against the Ram Sethu.

http://www.zeenews.com/articles.asp?aid=457633&sid=NAT

BJP objects to Centre's affidavit on Sethusamudram project

New Delhi (PTI): BJP on Wednesday took strong exception to the Centre's affidavit on Sethusamudram project which objects to religious grounds being raked up for blocking the venture, claiming the UPA was "paying a price" for the support it received from the DMK during the trust vote.

"The UPA is paying for the support it got from the DMK during the trust vote. The affidavit is another blow on the sentiments of millions of Hindus in the country," senior BJP leader V K Malhotra said.

The saffron party also decided to launch a countrywide agitation against the UPA Government on the issue, the details of which would be worked out soon.

The party would launch a nationwide agitation soon to protest the new move by the Government to go ahead with the controversial project, he said.

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/holnus/000200807240342.htm

Ram destroyed his own Setu, asserts Govt

Abraham Thomas | New Delhi

After saying Ram doesn't exist, Centre finds new way to appease DMK

Swearing by Lord Ram to save the Ram Setu is futile, for it was he who destroyed it. This statement by a resurgent UPA Government, back after winning the trust vote, shocked the critics of the Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project who opposed the continuation of the corridor-through-sea project on the ground that it cuts through the Ram Setu, a symbol of Hindu religion.

In the Supreme Court, where the fate of the 35-km channel project is hanging fire, Centre's counsel Fali S Nariman quoted the scriptures of Padma Puran and Kambh Ramayan, which describe how Lord Ram destroyed the Setu to ensure nobody else would cross over to Sri Lanka.

"We are not destroying any bridge, as there is no bridge," Nariman said. "We believe it was not a man-made structure. It was a super man-made structure which was broken by Lord Ram himself," he said, adding, "If it was something that was destroyed by the same man who built it, we are dealing with only a belief."

Quite surprised at the startling revelation by the Centre, the petitioners dispelled the doubts by taking refuge under another scripture, Skand Puran, recorded earlier in time to the Padma Puran which does not record the destruction of the bridge by Lord Ram.

The Bench, headed by Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan, realising the issue to be sensitive, asked the Centre to argue the viability of the project by striking a balance between faith and environment since these were the aspects under consideration of the court.

The petitioners, comprising individuals and NGOs, had challenged the alignment of the project meant to serve as an east-west corridor, facilitating movement of ships between the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal. Technical expert teams have proposed several alignments from time to time, most of which do not pass through the Ram Setu area.

The Bench, also comprising Justices RV Raveendran and JM Panchal, said, "If there is no alternative route except cutting across the Adams Bridge (Ram Setu), our approach would have been different. But it is a different picture where options are available."

It said, "Somewhere down the line, you have to balance faith and biosphere." Refusing to be drawn into the argument made by Nariman, it observed, "We don't want to question the logic of faith, whether this is to be worshiped or that is to be worshiped."

Despite petitioners objecting to such an argument by the Centre, the court accepted it as part of the Centre's submissions since it came in response to the petitioner's claim supporting the existence of the Setu.

Nariman, who is to continue with the arguments on Thursday, said work continued on the project for two years and not once during this period anybody challenged it as being opposed to faith.

Even the political opposition to the project was intriguing, said Nariman, suggesting how the AIADMK, the main opposition party in Tamil Nadu, made it the political plank in 2002 and won with a thumping majority.

"You cannot worship anything that was destroyed," added Nariman, citing this as the reason why over the decades, nobody wanted it to be declared an Ancient Monument. The petitioners have sought the court to consider declaring the Sethu an ancient monument, besides demanding that the project alignment be changed to save the Sethu and the rich biosphere cover in the Gulf of Mannar.

http://dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=front%5Fpage&file_name=story1%2Etxt&counter_img=1

I do not know if it is the cleverness of Narimaan or the political obduracy of Sonia Gandhi determined to destroy Rama Setu, it is ridiculous to read about the arguments being advanced.

Narimaan might have just contributed to the repeat of a situation which led to the Union of India withdrawing its sworn affidavit. Narimaan, CJ of Madras HC asked the first question: what is the meaning of 'setu'? Abhidaana kos'am, a Tamil encyclopaedia defined setu as 'man-made bund.' Do you know that the word, bandha as in setubandha, setubandha rameshwaram is the root for the English word 'bund' which means a man-made embankment? It is unfortunate that learned counsels quibble without attempting to read the orignal texts.

If Sri Rama has broken the Setu, so be it. It is just an admission that the setu existed, it exists. No human power has any authority to meddle with this divine Setu. Citizens of India rightly denied the rights to the Courts or Governments under Art. 25 and 26 to meddle with issues divine or with matters of faith -- as argued earlier by Soli Sorabjee, Parasaran, KK Venugopal, Vaidyanathan and Dr. Subramanian Swamy.

Suggestio falsi, suppressio veri seems to be Narimaan's game plan. He cites Kamba Ramayana out of context and fails to refer to the evidences provided by Skanda Purana, Kalidasa's Raghuvams'a, Mahabharata, apart from Valmiki Ramayana, Sangam literature texts like Akananooru, and even the 19th century verse of Pamban Swamigal. He also fails to acknowledge the references cited in Madras HC judgemennt of 19 June 2007, citing cartographic (maps), Marco Polo, Al Beruni, Royal Asiatic Researc papers, epigraphs of Rameshwaram temple, epigraphs on Velanjeri copper plate of Parantaka Chola referring to the Setu and the fact that it functioned as a causeway for people to cross between Talaimannar of Srilanka to Rameshwaram of India. Narimaan also ignores the puja vidhanam mentioned in Skanda Purana; he does not have to teach the faithful on modes of prayer at Dhanushkodi. That the Rama Setu is supported by an enormous body of living tradition (as evidenced by the affidavits from Rameshwaram temple, Rameshwaram fisherfolk, apart from volumes of documentation submitted to the Court), cannot be wished away by anecdotal references taken out of context. What Kamban reports is a continual phenomenon of breaches to the Rama Setu as was the epigraph in Rameshwaram temple reporting breaches at three places during the 1480 cyclone (clearly demonstrating that until that year, the Rama Setu served as a bridge used by pilgrims to go across from Rameshwaram Shiva temple to Tirukkedeeswaram Shiva Temple. Skanda Purana notes and confirmed by Pamban Swamigal that there is a third shivalingam installed on the Rama Setu itself. It is the responsibility of marine archaeology win of Archaeological Survey of India to find tis shivalingam and associated mandiram on the Setu. Affidavits have also been filed showing that earlier generation pilgrims used to go this Setu Shivamandiram praying for children and fulfilling their sankalpa venerating their ancestors. This together with Gangasagar are the places where during the month of Ashadha amavasya offerings are made to the pitru-s, ancestors by offering sankalpam and tarpanam. Every year about 5 lakh pilgrims go on ashadha amavasya day to Rama Setu. This living tradition cannot be wished away by hypocritical, twisted references by the learned counsel of the Union of India. This Setu is a matter of fait not only for Hindus but also for Christians, Buddhists and Muslims. A Muslim family has given an affidavit that they celebrate marriages in their families singing the glory of Sri Rama remembering that their ancestors came from Ayodhya.

A rejection of this tradition and faith is a clear violation of Section 295 of IPC, a note which was also underscored in the Madras High Court judgement.

Vinaas'akaale vipareeta buddhih. Evil minds in times of destruction. These are the swan songs of an atheist supported government and learned counsels who indulge in casuistry in a pathetic show of juristic gimmickry.

Shame on some counsels who cannot see their responsibility to sustain the identity of the nation, the integrity and security of the nation's coastline and act like pied-pipers to a governance governed by evil.

We are continuing to use dharmic means through the justice system with the full confidence that the courts will not be parties to illegalities-- illegalities of national laws, illegalities violating international covenants, illegalities dismissng the concerns of neighbouring states and illegalities violating the Law of the Sea and international laws and norms of behaviour. Protection of Rama Setu is not a one issue concern of Hindus' faith. Protection of Rama Setu is protection of nation's identity, integrity and unity. A court is expected to uphold dharma and these national imperatives, transcending narrow interpretations of jurisdictions and boundaries between state responsibilities and responsibilities of the justice system. If the fence eats away the field, who will protect the crop?

Madras HC judgement has clearly recognized that Rama Setu is an undeniable fact in tradition and faith. The faith concerns millions of Hindus who venerate Sri Rama under whose command the Setu was constructed to protect dharma and to win over a-dharma. Veda Vyasa states this categorically. ramas'yaajnaam puraskritya dhaaryate girisannibhaah (Trans. It is Rama's command to protect this Setu, famed as Nala Setu...) Rama's command is divine order and is inviolate. Denying Rama and Rama Setu is blasphemy and denial of the very rashtram, the nation.

Narimaan should do well to read the 8000 pages of evidence in 160 volumes made available during court deliberations instead of relying upon suppressio veri, suggestio falsi tactics, thinking that points can be scored on points of law. Sure, law is an ass but don't allow the case to hurt the sentiments of millions of believers just to benefit a few, however high and might.

It is a sad day when counsels forget their larger responsibilities to the nation. The call of duty cannot become a wrestling bout on technical points of law but grounded on national interest. The national interest does not lie in creating a white elephant with the prospect of incurring Rs. 1000 crore loss per annum in perpetuity just to benefit a few dredging contractors and mariners owning small ships. It is the responsibility of jurists to explore the real development opportunities to enssure abhyudayam of coastal people and not an unmaintainable mid-ocean channel passage -- a unique experiment, untested experiment in human history -- without answering the question: for whose benefit is the benefit contemplated?

Evidence is there. It is for the justice system to render justice, with fairness, equity and compassion. There is enough expertise in the country of archaeologists, geologists and oceanographers (as in National Institute of Oceanography, Geological Survey of India) who can be commissioned to objectively find scientifically viable solution to the project disaster including options suc as Marine Economic Zone, rail-road-container-port coordination. If there is a political will, there is a way. If the political will is skewed and motivated, the citizens will have to reconsider the covenant they established when they gave themselves a Constitution, constraining the powers of the executive and the judiciary and setting up checks and balances to ensure that the development projects do not violate the rule of law.

Namaskaram. Kalyanaraman

Ram Setu cannot be worshipped, government tells apex court
Jul 23rd, 2008 | By Sindh Today | Category: South Asia

New Delhi, July 23 (IANS) The government Wednesday told the Supreme Court that the Ram Setu cannot be worshipped since it was broken by Lord Ram himself.

Central government counsel Fali S. Nariman also told a bench headed by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan that the government has withdrawn from the court its earlier affidavit that doubted the existence of Lord Ram in extraneous circumstances.

Nariman, counsel for the Setusamudram Shipping Channel Corporation, made these assertions during his argument on a bunch of lawsuits challenging the construction of a shorter shipping channel cutting across Ram Setu or Adams Bridge in the Palk Strait, separating India and sdri Lanka. The court began hearing the issue Tuesday.

The Adams Bridge or Ram setu is a 48 km long chain of limestone shoals that once linked Rameswaram in Tamil Nadu with Mannar in Sri Lankas northwest. Many Hindus hold belief that it was the bridge Lord Rams army built to cross over to Lanka to rescue his wife Sita.

The bridge faces some damage due to the dredging for the ambitious Setusamudram canal project to create a navigable waterway between Indias southern tip and Sri Lanka.

If you want to go strictly by religious scriptures, the Padma Purana has stated that Lord Ram had broken the bridge while returning from Sri Lanka after killing Ravana and rescuing Sita, Nariman told the bench, which also included Justice R.V. Raveendran and Justice J.M. Panchal.

And (according to Hindu faith) something which is broken cannot be worshipped. Its also quoted extensively in the Kamban Ramayana (a version of the Hindu epic Ramayana) that Lord Rama had destroyed it, said Nariman.

Seeking to counter arguments of various petitioners based on faith and religion and challenging the construction of the shipping channel, Nariman said, The best approach to follow is to (ask) whether you are following legal steps.

The affidavit (that doubted the existence of Lord Ram) was withdrawn in extraneous circumstances, Nariman added.

Maintaining that legal issues cannot be decided on the basis of faith, Nariman asserted: We are not destroying any bridge. There is no bridge. We are only building a shipping channel.

The government resorted to an assertive stance Wednesday, despite the fact that it had on May 8 acceded to a suggestion by the court to explore the possibility of adopting an alternative alignment sparing the Ram Setu for building the shipping channel.

In fact, even during Wednesdays arguments, the bench earlier counselled the government to consider an alternative alignment for the shipping channel to avoid all the acrimony, entailing the project.

If the government approach is that avoiding access to Ram Setu or Adams Bridge is not possible, then its a different issue. But, if an alternative is available, there is no issue, observed the bench.

Its easy to create an issue. Why create a mammoth issue, if you have an alternative? the bench remarked, suggesting the government to opt an alternative alignment for the channel, other than the alignment 6, which goes across the Ram Setu.

After examining various project reports, spanning a period of 150 years, the bench said: There were nine study reports (for the shipping channel project) before the Independence and six afterwards. All of them avoided Ram Setu. This is the first proposal of the alignment 6 that touches Ram Setu.

It suggested the government consider alignment 4 added with some curve as it will be away from the bridge as well as the marine biosphere.

But Nariman told the bench: The experts want to avoid curve. They want a straight channel.

He also informed the court that till the apex court suspended the work on the project last year, the one fourth dredging of the bridge had been completed.

The arguments over the lawsuits will continue Thursday.

http://www.sindhtoday.net/south-asia/6589.htm

Find 'politically viable solution' to Sethu: SC (The Hind, 23 July 2008)

New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Wednesday favoured exploring the possibility of scientifically and "politically" viable solution to the controversial Sethusamudram project but the Centre questioned the religious grounds being raked up to block the venture.

Attacking the opponents of the project for raising matters of religion and faith to oppose it, senior advocate Fali S Nariman, appearing for the Centre, said those who have relied on scriptures of faith in their attempt to block the venture should also consider other aspects of faith.

He referred to Kamba Ramayana and Padma Purana to draw a point that Lord Rama himself had destroyed the Rama Sethu so that nobody should come from Lanka.

"Lord Rama destroyed the bridge and details are there in the scriptures. You cannot worship something which has been destroyed," Nariman asserted before a Bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan.

The senior advocate, who was countering the arguments of anti-project petitioners, said that destruction of Rama Sethu would affect the faith of people, said "we are not destroying any bridge. Everything on the project is being done with great circumspection."

"If we have gone wrong we will correct it. The idea is to go ahead with the project. We have to see there is no violation of law," the noted jurist said.

Though the Bench clarified that at the moment it was averse to entering into any debate whether Rama Sethu or Adams Bridge was man-made or not, Nariman said "if you are going to rely on faith, go into other aspects of the faith also."

Nariman said that those who for centuries and years never bothered to declare Rama Sethu as monument of archaeological importance should know that according to Kamba Ramayana Lord Rama took a bow and broke the bridge and divided it into three parts.

"We are concerned that it was not a man-made structure but it was a superman-made strcuture which was destroyed by Lord Rama," he said before the Bench, also comprising Justices R V Raveendran and J M Panchal.

The senior advocate said the controversial affidavits questioning the existence of Ramayana and Ram Sethu as man-made structure was withdrawn under extraneous circumstances.

Before Nariman had entered into the issue of destruction of the bridge by Lord Rama, the Bench wanted that the Centre should explore the possibility of accommodating faith with environment concern to arrive at a balanced solution.

"A scientifically, technically and politically feasible alternate alignment can be considered", the Bench said adding that the economic aspects should also be kept in mind as dredging activity was a continuous process.

Nariman, who replied in positive to the Bench's remarks that issue of faith has to be accommodated in going ahead with the project, however, was not in agreement with the opponents that alignment number 4 (from Rameswaram to Dhanushkodi) was a viable alternative.

"The suggestion to go for alignment 4 is a self-defeating argument. Alignment number 4 has been suggested as an alternative. If it will be so, there will be no way to go to worship near alignment number 6 (Rama Sethu)," he said.

The Centre brushed aside the allegation that it was a deliberate attempt to opt for alignment number 6, out of the other alignment options for the project.

Nariman said former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa, who has opposed the project and has been seeking to declare Rama Sethu as a monument of historical importance, herself had favoured the project through the alignment 6.

He said the AIADMK in its election manifesto in 2001 had favoured the project by cutting Rama Sethu and was elected to form the government with a thumping majority.

"Why is she now opposing it is not understandable," he said. The argument was opposed by one of Jayalalithaa's counsel.

However, during the hearing, the Centre found itself on the sticky ground when some searching questions were put by the court on environment clearance given for the project.

The Bench was curious on the environment aspect as it did not find documents to suggest that the project was cleared after comprehensive environment impact assessment.

Perusing the documents placed by the Centre, the Bench said the inference which can be drawn was that only rapid environment impact assessment was considered. It appears that there was a view that a comprehensive environment impact assessment would come later, the Bench said.

However, Nariman said that each and every aspect of environment was taken care of as the Prime Minister's office was concerned about it.

Earlier, anti-project petitioners had raised the issue of biosphere concern saying that provisions of the Wild Life Protection Act have been violated and this needed registration of criminal case.

Advocate Krishna Venugopal said that dredging activity in the biosphere reserve of Gulf of Mannar will result in the killing of species which are protected under the Wild Life Act.

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/holnus/000200807232241.htm

Centre to SC: Ram himself destroyed Setu
23 Jul 2008, 2135 hrs IST,PTI

NEW DELHI: In comments that triggered a fresh controversy over the Sethusamudram project, the Centre on Wednesday invoked in the Supreme Court a Tamil version of Ramayana to make a point that Lord Rama himself had destroyed the mythical Rama Setu.

Asserting that the government wants to go ahead with the project, senior advocate Fali S Nariman attacked the opponents of the project for raising matters of religion and faith to oppose it.

Appearing for the Centre, he said those who have relied on scriptures of faith in their attempt to block the venture should also consider other aspects of faith.

He referred to Kamba Ramayana and Padma Purana to make a point that Lord Rama himself had destroyed the Rama Setu so that nobody should come from Lanka.

"Lord Rama destroyed the bridge and details are there in the scriptures. You cannot worship something which has been destroyed," Nariman asserted before a Bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan.

The senior advocate, who was countering the arguments of anti-project petitioners that destruction of Rama Setu would affect the faith of people, said "we are not destroying any bridge. Everything on the project is being done with great circumspection."

"If we have gone wrong we will correct it. The idea is to go ahead with the project. We have to see there is no violation of law," the noted jurist said.

Though the Bench clarified that at the moment it was averse to entering into any debate whether Rama Setu or Adams Bridge was man-made or not, Nariman said "if you are going to rely on faith, go into other aspects of the faith also."

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Centre_to_SC_Ram_himself_destroyed_Setu/articleshow/3271270.cms

Centre’s stand likely today on alternative alignment for Sethu

Legal Correspondent

It has not complied with court directions, says Subramanian Swamy

It’s contempt of court: Jayalalithaa counsel

NEERI clearance came before tsunami: Dandi Swami

New Delhi: The Centre is likely to spell out on Wednesday its stand on the Supreme Court’s suggestion that it explore the possibility of finding an alternative alignment or any other route for the Sethusamudram Shipping Channel Project without damaging Ramar Sethu and that it consider whether an archaeological study could be conducted to declare Ramar Sethu a national monument.

Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, heading a three-judge Bench, on May 8 asked senior counsel Fali Nariman, appearing for the Centre, to consider an alternative alignment. The suggestion came at the fag end of arguments on behalf of the petitioners. The Bench included Justices R. V. Raveendran and J. M. Panchal. When arguments resumed On Tuesday, Roxna Swamy, wife of Janata Party president and petitioner Subramanian Swamy, said the Centre had not complied with the direction to consider an alternative alignment. Nor was the direction, given by the Madras High Court (before the petitions were shifted to the Supreme Court), that an archaeological study be conducted implemented.

Senior counsel K.K. Venugopal, appearing for AIADMK general secretary Jayalalithaa, said the Centre, not implementing the directions, committed contempt of court. The hearing should not proceed without its complying with the directions. Pointing out that the trust motion was being taken up in Parliament on Tuesday, he wanted the matter adjourned by three weeks. “I am surprised at the Centre’s action in a matter which affects millions of people and the whole nation. The Centre cannot ask for vacating the stay [on demolition of Ramar Sethu] without complying with the directions.”

Justice Balakrishnan told counsel: “I am aware of the oral directions. But how are we concerned with the trust motion? This court is concerned only with a judicial review of an administrative action. We are not concerned with what is happening outside. So many things are happening in this country but we are concerned only with this case.”

Senior counsel M. N. Krishnamani and C.S. Vaidyanathan joined Mr. Venugopal in urging the Centre to give its stand. Justice Raveendran said, “It is an oral direction. If it had been possible, they [Centre] would have said it. They are not positive about it.” After the Bench refused to adjourn the hearing, Krishnan Venugopal, counsel for another petitioner, Dandi Swami, continued his submissions. He said the clearance for the project had been obtained through the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute, a Central government agency before the tsunami struck in December 2004. He said that according to experts on tsunami, geomorphologists and mineralogists, implementation of the project would have a disastrous effect on ecology and the environment.

Further arguments will continue on Wednesday.

http://www.hindu.com/2008/07/23/stories/2008072360261700.htm

Lord Rama destroyed the bridge, Centre tells SC

Agencies

Posted online: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 at 1909 hrs IST

New Delhi, July 23:
The Supreme Court favoured exploring the possibility of scientifically and ‘politically’ viable solution to the controversial Sethusamudram project but the Centre questioned the religious grounds being raked up to block the venture.

Attacking the opponents of the project for raising matters of religion and faith to opapose it, senior advocate Fali S Nariman, appearing for the Centre, said those who have relied on scriptures of faith in their attempt to block the venture should also consider other aspects of faith.

He referred to Kamba Ramayana and Padma Purana to draw a point that Lord Rama himself had destroyed the Rama Sethu so that nobody should come from Lanka.

"Lord Rama destroyed the bridge and details are there in the scriptures. You cannot worship something which has been destroyed," Nariman asserted before a Bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan.

The senior advocate, who was countering the arguments of anti-project petitioners, said that destruction of Rama Sethu would affect the faith of people, said, "we are not destroying any bridge. Everything on the project is being done with great circumspection."

"If we have gone wrong we will correct it. The idea is to go ahead with the project. We have to see there is no violation of law," the noted jurist said.

Though the Bench clarified that at the moment it was averse to entering into any debate whether Rama Sethu or Adams Bridge was man-made or not, Nariman said, "if you are going to rely on faith, go into other aspects of the faith also."

Nariman said that those who for centuries and years never bothered to declare Rama Sethu as monument of archaeological importance should know that according to Kamba Ramayana Lord Rama took a bow and broke the bridge and divided it into three parts.

"We are concerned that it was not a man-made structure but it was a superman-made structure which was destroyed by Lord Rama," he said before the Bench, also comprising Justices R V Raveendran and J M Panchal.

The senior advocate said the controversial affidavits questioning the existence of Ramayana and Ram Sethu as man-made structure was withdrawn under extraneous circumstances.

Before Nariman had entered into the issue of destruction of the bridge by Lord Rama, the Bench wanted that the Centre should explore the possibility of accommodating faith with environment concern to arrive at a balanced solution.

"A scientifically, technically and politically feasible alternate alignment can be considered", the Bench said adding that the economic aspects should also be kept in mind as dredging activity was a continuous process.

Nariman, who replied in positive to the Bench's remarks that issue of faith has to be accommodated in going ahead with the project, however, was not in agreement with the opponents that alignment number 4 (from Rameswaram to Dhanushkodi) was a viable alternative.

"The suggestion to go for alignment 4 is a self-defeating argument. Alignment number 4 has been suggested as an alternative. If it will be so, there will be no way to go to worship near alignment number 6 (Rama Sethu)," he said.

http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Lord-Rama-destroyed-the-bridge--Centre-tells-SC/339489/

Rama Setu: Intl. orgs ask Manmohan to get world heritage status

2008-07-09T10:54:00.000-07:00

Rama Setu: Intl. orgs ask Manmohan to get world heritage status

Informal Hindu alliance starts fussing over Sethusamudram

The controversial dredging project halted by apex court attracts motley mix of Hindus, others outside India

Priyanka P. Narain Posted: Wed, Jul 9 2008. 9:55 PM IST (Livemint.com)

Mumbai: The controversial Sethu-samudram channel project that planned to dredge a navigable shipping channel around India is forging a global alliance of environmentalists, scientists, economists and millions of believing Hindus in countries from Austria to Kenya, and Mauritius to the US.

They are adding more voices to questions that have already been asked in India: Does the project make ecological, economic and environmental sense? Does it offend the faith of Hindus?

“I was born in Africa. I live in the United States. But, I am a Hindu too. I see the Indian government as a custodian of my heritage. As an environmentalist, I see it as a custodian of the biosphere where rare marine species are thriving. This project cannot be done unilaterally. We are talking about the intangible heritage of this world here,” said Kusum Vyas, member of the US-based Living Planet Foundation, which is collaborating with environmental and cultural groups in several continents on this project.

The project began in 2004 when the government approved a Rs3,500 crore effort that planned to create a shipping channel by dredging a walkway connecting India and Sri Lanka. Many Hindus believe the god-king, Ram, built this bridge with an army of monkeys to rescue his wife, Sita, from the clutches of demon-king Ravan. Others say it is a coral walkway.

So, when dredging began in July 2006, Hindu groups across the country began protesting and the project derailed. Last August, when politician Subramanian Swamy alleged that there was a plan to use explosives to blast the bridge, the Supreme Court intervened and issued a stay order asking the government to stop dredging the bridge. Since then, the government has not been able to get the stay lifted.
However, even though the fate of the project is unclear, six dredgers—Dredger XVI owned by Dredging Corp. of India Ltd; Pacifique owned by Belgium-based Dredging International; Banwari Prem and Triloki Prem owned by Mumbai-based Vector Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd; Darya Manthan owned by Hong Kong-based Chellaram Shipping Ltd; and Prof Gurjanov owned by the Russia-based Baltdraga Ltd—are still dredging the ocean at the mouth of the channel in Palk Straits.

It is not clear exactly how much work has been completed in the Straits so far.
The project website that used to track dredging status on almost daily basis has not been updated since October. Meanwhile, unofficial figures on work status from shipping minister T.R. Baalu have varied between 50-75%.

Like everything else in this project that has acquired a hazy status, there is no data available about how much money has actually been spent on the project so far.
Meanwhile, as lawyers prepare for the eighth Supreme Court hearing of the case, heritage groups are planning strategy meetings in London and environment lobbies of Indonesia are gearing up to stage protests at the United Nations Environment Programme convention in Bali in August. India is a signatory and will be present at this convention.

“We will also be organizing a two-day conference in Europe next month on this project to raise awareness and draft a strategy to ensure these are recognized as world heritage,” said Vyas.

In 2005, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (Unesco) declared the Ramlila, or the traditional performance of the Ramayan, as the world’s intangible cultural heritage. The declaration has raised hopes that it will recognize the Ram Sethu, or Adam’s Bridge, as a world heritage site as well.
However, only the Indian government can approach Unesco for such a declaration.
has received petitions from nine organizations: Living Planet Foundation, the Agni Foundation of Netherlands, Bali Foundation of Indonesia, Caribbean Sanatan Dharma Mahasabha of Trinidad and Tobago, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research of India, Energy and Environmental Management Research Institute of Kenya, Global Human Rights Defence of Netherlands, US-based Hindi, the Hindu Institute of Learning of Canada, International Maritime Centre of Sri Lanka, the Mauritius Heritage Foundation, and Yoga in Daily Life of Austria, asking Manmohan Singh to approach Unesco to designate the Gulf of Mannar biosphere reserve and Adam’s Bridge as world heritage sites.

Their strategy is to evolve a common voice against the project. But, it may not be working because even as these groups gear up for battle, litigants from India, Janata Party leader Swamy, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP, seem to believe that the project is on its deathbed. “It’s almost over now. It will be very hard for the government to do this project now,” said VHP general secretary Vyankatesh Abdeo. PMO didn’t respond to calls or emails.

And, it isn’t that most Hindus outside India are involved with the project, notes Vijay Prashad, professor of International studies at Trinity College in the US. He studies the south Asian community there and says only a small section of hardcore “Hindutvawadis” are on to this project.

http://www.livemint.com/2008/07/09215533/Informal-Hindu-alliance-starts.html

Setubandhanam, 2 vols. by R. Subbarayalu

2008-07-01T08:01:00.000-07:00

Thanks to R. Subbarayalu and the Publisher 'Meera' Thanjavur for this pdf version in two volumes of the book, Setubandhanam. The book provides 2300 years of literary evidence in Tamil language books apart from bhakti literature. Also included are evidences taken from some accounts in English on Rama Setu.

Congratulations to R. Subbarayalu for the exquisite contribution supporting the movement to protect the world heritage -- Rama Setu. The word 'bandhanam' in Setubandhanam' is what led to the English word 'bund' meaning a man-made embankment of a lake or a causeway.

Kalyanaraman

setubandhanam1 - Upload a Document to Scribd

setubandhanam2 - Upload a Document to Scribd

Rama Setu: what the apex court said -- by Sri Ram

2008-06-22T11:07:00.000-07:00

Ram Sethu: What the apex court said

By Sri Ram (Organiser, June 22, 2008)

Even in the latest affidavit they have said: “No archaeological studies have been conducted. It is not possible to say or indicate the outcome in the event such investigations are carried out.” Thereby they tried to remove archaeological work at the site because of the humiliation they underwent due to their own anti-Hindu stance, but the court order has shown that it is a preliminary requisite to the issue.
The recent verdict of Supreme Court in Ram Sethu case is a landmark directive to the Government of India to have the site surveyed by Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and to declare the site as a national monument. The Congress-led government and the communists have been trying to project their report as scientific and the claim of the majority Hindus as unscientific and deserves to be rejected. The Congress-communist DMK combine in their own affidavit submitted that no archaeological exploration has been conducted in the site. What is science and where is science when the Congress Government did not carry out even a preliminary survey of the site through its own archaeological survey, not to speak of an underwhat archaeological survey for which it has a special wings under ASI.

The Supreme Court has rightly but firmly told the pseudo scientists first to conduct a survey of the site before coming to the court. According to their own submission in the affidavit, the pseudo scientists have shown that as early as 2002 the then Prime Minister of India Shri Atal Behari Vajpayee directed the Sethusamudram Project authorities to include an archaeologist in the Committee to oversee the progress. This sagacious noting was never implemented and at no point of time it was thought necessary. But when the court directed them to submit an affidavit, the ASI was hurriedly brought into the picture and an affidavit insulting the millions of Hindus was filed which was withdrawn the very next day. Even in the latest affidavit they have said: “No archaeological studies have been conducted. It is not possible to say or indicate the outcome in the event such investigations are carried out.” Thereby they tried to remove archaeological work at the site because of the humiliation they underwent due to their own anti-Hindu stance, but the court order has shown that it is a preliminary requisite to the issue.

The Committee of eminent persons constituted by the Congress government to receive objections and opinions from the public for and against the project, which it was expected to scrutinise and submit their report, also did not include any archaeologist but only had substandard yes men who also did not care to look into the public opinion and examine them but simply went ahead with what the Minister for Shipping wanted. We give below an extract of a petition given to the Committee, pointing out the ASI report was unscientific as it has done no work on the site. The Supreme Court has rightly shown the eminent persons have failed to take note of the basic scientific need. One may ask whether the so-called Committee or any in that Committee supposed to be an expert in archaeology or religious history whether they even had a cursory look at the petitions received by them and noted their views. One would also like to know whether there was any system of classification among the petitions received into various subjects and each subject given to the expert concerned for due consideration in such a sensitive matter? If this has not been done what was the purpose in constituting the Committee?

Unscientific nature of ASI’s approach
“The affidavit submitted by the Archaeological Survey of India in the Supreme Court suffers for want of even basic requirement of scientific study as no “on shore or under water archaeological exploration” seems to have been undertaken at the site in dispute. No report has ever been published by the ASI and no one from the ASI has visited this site and conducted any preliminary archaeological exploration. Therefore, any affidavit filed by this department has no scientific value, cannot stand scrutiny and deserves to be rejected. In the absence of any archaeological exploration, the presence or the absence of any human activity cannot be determined by the ASI. The conclusion that there was no human activity at the site is not valid. As the whole stand taken by the ASI is unscientific no proper pre-attention has been given to the historicity of the site when the project was floated and what has been now presented is a shabby, haphazard, patch work the whole deserves to be faulted.”

Human activity nearby archaeological position
It may be mentioned that a nearest archaeological site on the east coast that has been excavated has yielded human activity right from 3rd century BC and continued to be active till about 5th 6th century. The Pandyan Port of Korkai has yielded pottery said to be of the age of the Mauryas-3rd century BC. Archaeological evidences point to the fact that the coastal region around the site of Ram Sethu was very active and the suggestion that there was no human activity is not correct.

The reference to the historicity or otherwise of Ram is irrelevant, for the existence of no God can be proved by any religion in the world. The Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu M. Karunanidhi has observed that “Ram is as much a historic person as Jesus or Prophet Muhammad”. (published in all the newspapers). Even communist countries like Russia which declared “religion is the opium of man” have started welcoming the Pope and renovating their churches. Consider the percentage of people in the world who believe in God as against the pseudo non believers.

The colonial policy-Slavish mentality
The Colonial rulers of India in the 18th and 19th century applied two different sets of norms for evaluating historicity; one for their own white race and the other for the enslaved Indians in which case they denigrated all that was Indian as done by Vincent Smith. For them norm for “historicity” of Jesus was totally different from the historicity of Ram. This is clearly reflected in not awarding the Nobel Prize to Mahatma Gandhi which they admit now as a mistake. The slavish history thrusted on enslaved Indians for obvious reason by the colonialists continues to remain as a slavish legacy with the Congress and the communists to this day, as has been mentioned by Romila Thapar.

A proven history-International evidence
Sri Ram was not only a real historic person for all the people of India but also to all the South East Asian countries like Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Indonesia and Sri Lanka for over two thousand years in every sphere of their life in literature, music, dance, sculpture, religious belief, etc. Such a continued belief for over two thousand years is a living history then the view of one or two trying to refute it on subjective and questionable grounds.

Royal orders of 7th century-Epigraphical evidence
In a historic copper plate Royal record recently found it is mentioned by a 7th century Pandya speaking about his ancestors rebuilding the Sethu. (sethu bandham pala ceydu). The existence of the bridge is further corroborated by another copper plate charter of the Chola ruler Parantaka in the 10th century in which there is a pointed reference to the bridge constructed by the monkeys at the Ram thirtha (Ramye Sri Rama tirtte kavivara nikaraih baddha sethu prabandhe). Parantaka Chola specifically mentions that he performed tulabhara rite at the Ramatirtha where the monkeys built the bridge. And that is the reason for performing tulabhara rite at the site of the bridge. If any indisputable proof regarding the existence of Ram Sethu is required, this 10th century record is the factual indisputable historic evidence in which the Chola king refers to it.

On the other side of the ocean in Sri Lankan coast where Sri Ram is said to have landed there is a temple called Rameswaram even to this day which is under worship.

Further we have the reference to Adam’s bridge in later records attesting to “a bridge”. Thus there are continuous records that attest to the existence of Ram Sethu and the question of any doubt has no basis.

The Rulers of Sethuapti-Historic evidence
The bridge that Sri Ram built was Ram Sethu and the place was called “Sethu-pati” For five hundred years or more, from 15th century, the Ramanathapuram Marava rulers were the guardians of this tract and were called “the protectors of Sethu-pati”-(Sethupati-kaattha-devar). They were called so in all the records. The present name Sethupati Rulers is an abbreviated form. To say there was no Sethu is to wipe our history and the gallant sacrifice the Maravas rulers did for nearly 500 years. This presupposes the existence of Sethu.

Sethu coins as Sethupati coins
The Sethu has played such an important role in the region that several coins bearing the name Sethupati issued by the local rulers have been found both on the Indian side and on the Sri Lankan sides.

National monument of excellence
It is also not correct to say that Sri Ram is not a historic person. The very opening of the Ramayana by Valmiki starts with the statement “Who among the living person is most virtuous?” Thus it is a history of a living man Itihasa. Throughout it is Ram’s human nature and existence that remain the overwhelming factor appreciated by all the intellectuals of India, not the miracles. One who reads the original will know the very first opening verse of the epic begins with a historic person.

Literary
For over two thousand years Sri Ram building the Sethu has been consistently mentioned in the poems of all the great thinkers and poets of India. Century after century the poems mention the construction of the Ram Sethu. There is a separate early kavya name Sethu Bandha which has the construction of the bridge as its main theme.

The definition of “historical monument” is said to be “any relic, or place, that recall to the mind of the Indian people their associate acts of bygone ages”. For over two thousand years millions and millions of Indian people have believed and paid their respects to the bridge built by Sri Ram and that itself gives the claim to be preeminently suited to be the national monument. Declaration is only a formal action but it has remained a monument of unsurpassed beauty and remembrance for thousands of years. It is well known monumentality is not restricted only to “built up structures”, but “essentially to the place” that is associated with the memory of it as in the case of heritage towns. In the very capital of India, Delhi, there are many mosques of unknown personalities declared and preserved as national monument. The ASI should not be coerced to twist historic facts in the case of Ram Sethu to suit political gimmicks but allow the facts to speak for themselves.

Truly world heritage monument
In fact Ram Sethu goes beyond the concept of National Monument for it is virtually a monument of international faith. The whole of South East Asia like Thailand, Cambodia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Laos, Sri Lanka and neighbouring regions have literature that tell Ram’s exploit and there are several hundred versions of Ramayana in all these countries. There are references to building Ram’s bridge in all these works, and all these regions believed in the existence of the bridge for hundreds of centuries. Hanuman building the bridge is the subject matter of paintings, sculptures etc. Hanuman building the bridge is the fascinating theme in these countries in dance and their music. It therefore is truly an international monument par excellence and deserves to be declared as “World Heritage Monument”.

The UNESCO is now spending considerable money in preserving valuable oral traditions in the world as contribution to world thought. For example the Buddhist mode of reciting their texts is now in the world list.

Overwhelming evidences
There exist overwhelming evidences of historical, epigraphical, archaeological, numismatic, literary and international evidences for the existence of the bridge that is remembered throughout South East. No civilised nation in the world can think of wiping out such a monument by actually cutting it to pieces just to benefit self-seeking politicians who neither place nation’s ethos above their selfish interest nor trustworthy. Almost every country boasts of its heritage and cannot destroy it.

There are hundreds of monuments throughout India which have been declared as National Monuments by the ASI, which are not even known to the villagers nearby. There are hundreds of burial sites that have been protected. One may even challenge the protagonists to say how many monuments declared by the ASI as monuments of national importance have really played any historical, ethical, economical or religious role as Ram Sethu? The regional superintending archaeologist continues to submit proposal to protect such insignificant places as national monuments which are under active consideration. That being the situation the ASI cannot but immediately declare this site as a monument of national importance and take immediate simultaneous action to get this declared as world heritage site. Is there any other suitable site to be declared as world heritage site than Ram Sethu?

Last but not the least is the permanent irreparable damage this project is trying to impose is an irreversible destruction by cutting the beauty of Ram Sethu which is against the civilised opinion of the world as reflected in the World Charter of Nature adopted and proclaimed by the General Assembly of United Nations and adopted on October 28, 1982. The Preamble of the Charter reads: “Civilisation is rooted in Nature which has shaped human culture and influenced all artistic and scientific achievements and bring in harmony with nature gives man the best opportunities for the development of his creativity and for rest and recreation. Every form of life is unique warranting respect regardless of its worth to man.” The Charter of Nature by the United Nations enjoys the status of Human Rights charter.

There is no doubt cutting the nature at the Sethusamudram bridge that has inspired millions of people for thousands of years is going to be a permanent damage to the nature.

The Indian nation is beholden to the judges of the Supreme Court for gently reminding the Government of its primary duty.
http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=242&page=27