Ram Setu 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 Step 2: In a withdrawn affidavit, Ministry of Culture claims Ram Sethu to be a myth, adding that the Sethu is not man-made. Step 3: In a withdrawn affidavit, Ministry of Shipping claims that there is no scientific evidence to justify declaration of Sethu as an ancient monument.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

Rama Setu: Who runs Union of India?

Nariman? Who approved the falseaffidavit submitted to SC?

This is yet another instance of the scandalous state of the union ofIndia led by UPA government. Did Hon'ble PM approve the affidavit? Howcome the Congresss claims that they were not aware of the claims madin the affidavit? Who is in charge? Nariman? Given the state ofdeterioration in ethical values in the government functionaries, thisreport is not a surprise. The people of the nation will decide whenthe date of reckoning comes. I think SC should take exception to theway the Court is being treated – in utter contempt -- in responding tocases 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 SethuK.P. Narayana Kumar and Malathi Nayak -- Livemint.com Oct. 21, 2008New Delhi: The Congress-led United Progressive Alliance, or UPA, hasagain been blindsided, with the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK)representative in the Union cabinet, T.R. Baalu, failing to informeither the Union cabinet or the coordinator for the legal defence ofthe government in the controversial Sethusamudram project, prior tofiling a crucial affidavit in the Supreme Court.The submission, among other things, states that the Ram Sethu wasdestroyed by Ram himself, and that it was not proved by thepetitioners that the structure was integral to Hinduism.Controversial topic: A Nasa photo of the Ram Sethu. Many Hindusbelieve the god-king, Ram, built this bridge to rescue his wife, Sita,from the clutches of demon-king Ravana. Others say it is a coralwalkway.It is a politically explosive argument with elections for six statesin the next three months announced, including in four north Indianstates where the Bharatiya Janata Party, or BJP, has significantstrength. The BJP has consistently opposed the project, using it toscore 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 onminorities at the expense of India's Hindu majority.The Sethusamudram project began in 2004 and proposed to create ashipping channel by dredging a walkway connecting India and Sri Lanka.Many Hindus believe the god-king, Ram, built this bridge with an armyof monkeys to rescue his wife, Sita, from the clutches of demon-kingRavana. Others say it is a coral walkway.A senior minister in the UPA government, who was tasked withcoordinating the legal challenge on the channel project but didn'twant to be named, concedes: "I do not know how or why that submissionwas filed before the court. I am yet to see the document. This was notdiscussed during cabinet meetings either."When the case proceedings ended on 30 July, the court, while reservingjudgment, had asked the parties to submit written arguments, includingnew contentions.The written document submitted by the government on 14 October isdubbed a "Brief written Note by Counsel for the Union of Indiasubmitted after the close of oral arguments on 30 July 2008". It hasexcerpts from religious texts including the Kamba Ramayanam and PadmaPurana.The document states that "it has not been proved (by the petitioners)undoubtedly to the belief of the Hindu community—that Lord did nothimself break the bridge". Quoting the religious texts, it argued thatthe "petitioners have not alleged much less proved that Rama Sethuforms an integral part of the Hindu religion".Moreover, it describes the petitions as "politically motivated" andgoes on to say that the pleas of the petitioners smack of "a lack ofbona fide".An officer in the culture ministry, who is in charge of the departmentthat deals with the channel project, also said they weren't consultednor were they informed after the submission by the shipping and roadtransport ministry."I read about the submission in the next day's papers. We were notinformed," said this officer who, too, didn't want to be named.Another senior official, who is in the shipping and road transportministry and similarly didn't want his name used, said "the ministerhas been directly dealing with the matter himself", indicating thateven relevant ministry officials were not briefed about the filing ofthe submission.Calls to Baalu's office weren't returned. Fali S. Nariman, thegovernment counsel on the case, too, was unavailable for comment.Additional solicitor general R. Mohan, who was handling the shippingministry'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 projectproceeding. "However, this (the Sethusamudram controversy) is not anissue that will benefit any political party when it comes to theelections," he added.DMK spokesperson Ilangovan, who uses only one name, said: "We willinvoke Sethusamudram during the polls to highlight how the BJP hasdeprived the benefits of such a good project to Tamil Nadu." Herefused to comment further.On his part, Arun Kumar, a Congress party secretary who is in chargeof the Tamil Nadu unit, said he will study the affidavit in detailbefore reacting to it.BJP spokesman Prakash Javadekar said: "The government is not onlyindulging in interpreting religion but is also giving a new twist toRam katha itself. In the first affidavit, the government said there isno proof of Ram's existence. Then there was widespread anger and itwithdrew the affidavit. In the next one, it said it was a matter offaith and was up to the court to decide. Now they are saying that Ramhimself destroyed the Ram Sethu, which means they are admitting thatRam existed."The government on 30 July told the court it would set up a committeeheaded by R.K. Pachauri, director general of The Energy and ResoursesInstitute, to look at an alternative route for the project, one thatpossibly doesn't cut across the Ram Sethu. The committee was meant toexamine alternative routes and submit a report before the court. Thereport is yet to be submitted.Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy, the chief petitioner in thecase related to the Sethusamudram project, moved the Supreme Court onThursday challenging the submissions made by the Centre. The court haspermitted him to file submissions to rebut the Centre's new arguments."The Centre has made some new points almost two and a half monthsafter the court reserved its judgement," said Swamy. "It is quiteclear that the written submissions were filed primarily to intimidateand influence the Pachauri committee which consists of governmentofficials."

narayana.k@livemint.com

Krisnamurthy Ramasubbu and Liz Mathew contributed to this story

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

Congress in the dark on latest Ram Sethu affidavit in court

October 20, 2008

K.P. Narayana Kumar and Malathi Nayak

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.comKrisnamurthy Ramasubbu and Liz Mathew contributed to this story.



http://www.livemint.com/2008/10/19225340/Congress-in-the-dark-on-latest.html?h=B