By IANS
New Delhi : The government Friday withdrew its controversial affidavit that expressed doubts whether Hindu god, Lord Ram, ever existed and told the Supreme Court that it would re-examine the feasibility of the Sethusamudram Shipping Canal project.
The government also secured a three-month adjournment on the hearing of the petitions challenging the execution of the project that aims to develop a shorter sea route around the Indian peninsula.
Opponents of the project contend that it would damage Ram Sethu, the Adam’s Bridge between India and Sri Lanka that believers say was constructed by Lord Ram several millennia ago. Scientists say there is no archaeological evidence to support the contention.
The Hindu epic Ramayana tells the story of how warrior-god Ram crossed the Ram Sethu, geographically known as Adam’s Bridge – sandbars created out of deposits of clay, sandstone and limestone – that was built by his monkey army to go to Lanka (now Sri Lanka) to subdue demon king Ravana and rescue his abducted wife Sita.
However, defending the project proposal, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) under the culture ministry in an affidavit before the Supreme Court this week said there was no evidence to prove the existence of characters in the Hindu epic Ramayana.
Following the backlash over the ASI contention, especially from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Additional Solicitor General Gopal Subramanium sought withdrawal of the affidavit and told the court: “The central government has total respect for all religions, and (for) Hinduism in particular, in the context of the present case.
“The central government is alive and conscious of religious sensibilities, including the unique, ancient and holy text of the Ramayana,” Subramanium told a bench headed by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan.
The government also sought three-month adjournment of the hearing to “enable itself to review the matter (the shipping canal project)”.
“Having regard to the public sentiment and also the fact that representations, including additional material, are being brought to the attention of the government since the filing of this affidavit, the central government withdraws the present affidavit to re-examine the entire matter,” Subramanium said.
The government told the bench that “it would re-scrutinise with care and circumspection all the material being brought to it, including those with alternative suggestions” on the issue of execution of the project.
During the arguments, former union minister and Janata Party president Subramanium Swamy, one of the petitioners, contended that the government was in possession of some relevant documents to support his cause of building the shorter navigational sea route without damaging the Ram Sethu.
He pleaded to the bench to direct the government to hand over those document to him.
The government’s law officer readily agreed and told him to write a letter to the government for procuring those documents.
On the question of executing the project, the additional solicitor general said: “The government is keen that its decision bind and bring the society together, rather than causing any disruption in the religious and social psyche of one true India.”
Seeking to undo the damage, the government reiterated that “the affidavit did not at any point of time intend to touch upon the freedom or articles of faith or belief of any section of society.”
Permitting the government to withdraw the affidavit, the bench adjourned the matter without amending its Aug 31 order, which restrained the government from causing any damage to the Ram Sethu during the execution of the shipping canal project.