Author: Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari
Publication:
Date:
The Setusamudram Channel Project has triggered a nationwide debate and people are evaluating its beneficial aspects in one hand and disadvantageous features like causing damage to the so called Ramsetu on the other. However, one is irked to notice that arguments are being diverted in wrong directions or being led to irrelevant quarters like Lord Rama was mythical, the content of the Ramayana is not history but poet's fancy, Valmiki has described Rama as a drunkerd in Ramayana and so on.
But the pivotal point of such arguments should be, whether the structure that connects Dhanushkodi in India with Talaimannar in Sri Lanka is man-made or not. If it is man-made, then it is a historical relic, (even if Rama had been a mythical drunkard or Ramayana, a poet's fancy) and hence should be protected. Let us take the case of the Chinese Wall, or the Red Fort of Delhi, or the Tajmahal of Agra and soon. All these structures are man-made and hence should be preserved as historical relics. No one asks whether the Chinese Wall was built by a drunkard, or the Red Fort was built by an Incarnation of Vishnu, or whether the Red Fort was built by mythical man and so on.
There is infallible evidence that the structure known as Ramsetu is man-made. NASA has provided two proofs; firstly, the large chunks of stones, with which the base of the structure is made, could not have been placed in position by a natural process. Secondly, the special type of stone, known as calcareous sand-stone, with which the bridge is built, is not locally available; and hence one have to conclude that those chunks of stone had been brought from elsewhere. The third evidence has been provided by the team of Indian scientists.
The reader may recall that early this year, the Central Government sent a team of scientist to examine the Bridge and to verify NASA's conclusions. On July 28, the team submitted its report that echoed exactly what the scientists of NASA had said. In addition to that our scientists examined the coral formation on the Bridge and found that it is quite different from naturally formed coral, which suggests that the Bridge is the result of human activity (The Telegraph-29.7.07).
The above mentioned three comments are enough to establish the so called Ramsetu as a man-made structure and hence to be protected. And if anyone cause any damage to it, he would be liable for criminally prosecuted in the court of law under Article 295 of IPC. So there remains only one step to be taken by the government- to form a high-level scientific team to re-examine the structure and decide whether it is man-made or not.