UPA's retreat on Ram Setu

THE United Progressive Alliance, which took power on a secular platform, has capitulated to Hindu communalism and beaten an ignominious retreat on the Ram Setu (Adam's Bridge) issue pertaining to the proposed Sethusamudram ship-canal project in the Palk Straits.
Having told the Supreme Court through an Archaeological Survey of India affidavit that there was no evidence that the shoal/sandbar was built by Rama's followers, it executed a U-turn as soon as it sensed that the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bharatiya Janata Party might misrepresent it as "anti-Hindu." The Sangh Parivar contends that the affidavit "denies Ram's existence." As Mr. LK Advani claimed, "the government has … wounded the very idea of India."
Following media spin, some secular liberals, too, describe the affidavit as overreaching because it goes beyond the Setu issue and comments on the historicity of sacred texts like the Ramayana and Tulasidas's Ramacharitamanas. However, a close look shows that the affidavit merely challenges the view that such texts are incontrovertible historical records, which proves that the Setu was man-made. The ASI had to say this because the communal petitioners moving the Court relied on the Ramayana-Ramacharitamanas as clinching evidence.
Leaving that contention un-refuted would have meant accepting that faith must trump history, archaeology, even geology -- which explains the Setu as a natural formation -- and hence the project must be scrapped.
Yet, the affidavit is extremely deferential to the scriptures: "The ASI …duly respects the deep religious import bestowed upon these texts by the Hindu community across the globe …" But it argues that no material evidence, such as inscriptions, human remains, or other artefacts, has been discovered to corroborate the mythological account.
It also quotes studies by the Space Applications Centre, Ahmedabad, which "conclusively" show that the Setu formation is purely natural, and says that the Setu imagery collected by the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration cannot be interpreted as "proof" of a man-made structure. Nasa itself confirms this.
Historians also say the Setu cannot be considered man-made because no material evidence to authenticate this claim has been found. A geological survey of India study of Adam's Bridge also found no evidence. It revealed three cycles of sedimentation of clay, limestone and sandstone -- a natural phenomenon, which occurred millennia before humans settled in peninsular India.
The ASI ably summarised all this. It could have been more diplomatic in wording its affidavit. But that wouldn't have satisfied those opposing the project on grounds not amenable to reason or scientific debate. Yet, the mere threat of an agitation by the Sangh Parivar against disturbing the Setu so unnerved the government than it abjectly apologised for the affidavit.
Law Minister HR Bharadwaj melodramatically said: "Lord Rama is an integral part of Indian culture … and cannot be a matter of debate … His existence can't be put to the test … The whole world exists because of Rama … Just as the Himalayas are the Himalayas, … Rama is Rama … There is no requirement of proof for faith."
Mr. Bhardwaj was minister of state for law in the mid-1980s, and advised Rajiv Gandhi to commit two acts of "appeasement" within one month: open the gates of the Babri masjid, and amend laws to annul the Shah Bano verdict. These disastrous moves alienated both communities, and ensured the BJP's meteoric rise from a mere 2 Lok Sabha seats in 1984 to 89 in 1989. The rest is history.
Last week, too, the UPA cravenly capitulated to the VHP-BJP's bullying, without making even token criticism of their distortion of the ASI affidavit. Instead, it looked for scapegoats within -- ASI directors and Culture Minister Ambika Soni.
All it took to make the UPA change its mind was a few VHP marches! The UPA's disgraceful U-turn buoyed up the Sangh Parivar, which has been in ideological and organisational disarray.
It's a sign of the acceptance of soft-Hindutva among the Indian elite that the UPA's appeasement of the Parivar has attracted very little criticism from the mainstream media. Perhaps many liberals felt relieved that by withdrawing the ASI affidavit, the UPA prevented another hysterical religious-political mobilisation. Whatever the reason, such passivity doesn't bode well for Indian society.
Three conclusions follow. First, this episode demonstrates the UPA's weak-kneed response to majoritarian communalism rather than the strength of the popular sentiment on the Setu issue, which is, if anything, diffuse. By caving in to the Parivar, the UPA legitimised the communal claim that there's an overwhelming "Hindu sentiment" on the Setu.
In reality, the Hindus are an extraordinarily complex, large and diverse community. Hindu myths and legends about Rama and Ravana differ widely, not just between the north and the South but within every region. Any view that artificially homogenises this diversity distorts reality.
Indeed, it's doubtful that many Hindus even know about the Setu -- just as most of them probably hadn't even heard of Ram Janmabhoomi until the Sangh Parivar launched its agitation in the 1980s. In any case, one doesn't have to believe in the Setu's historicity to be a good Hindu.
Second, it's simply false to argue that to be "authentic," Indian secularism must be rooted in the culture of the majority, which includes myths and scriptures, but excludes history and science.
Secularism involves the basic separation of religion and politics. In the Indian case, secularism derives as much from universal citizenship cutting across religions, as from the imperative of inter-communal tolerance.
Finally, the UPA has violated the constitutional mandate to uphold secular values and not to privilege a particular religion or belief system. This mandate is part of the basic structure of the Indian constitution. It dictates that projects should be decided on social, environmental and economic grounds, not mythological ones.
Every time the Indian state bends to fundamentalist pressure, it compromises itself, and allows public reason to be trumped by religious belief. This isn't the mark of a society that aspires to modernity, tolerance and pluralism.

Praful Bidwai is an eminent Indian columnist.