|
|
|
|
|
Author: Editorial
Publication: News Today
Date: July 24, 2008
URL: http://newstodaynet.com/newsindex.php?id=9429%20&%20section=13
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 failed 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 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.
 |
|
|
