Rama Setu: Next SC hearing April 15, 2008

SC will hear Sethusamudram issue on April 15

The Supreme Court fixed April 15 to hear the petition against the Sethusamudram project on Wednesday, asking the parties opposing it to file their reply to the fresh affidavit filed by the Centre.

Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan said that on April 15 it will further decide the date for further hearing on the matter.

http://www.dailynews365.com/national-news/sc-will-hear-sethusamudram-issue-on-april-15/

Sadhus perform special pooja to protect Ram Setu

Rameswaram, March 04 A group of sadhus from Andhra Pradesh today performed a special pooja to protect Ramar Bridge (Ram Setu) at Dhanushkodi sea shore, here.

The sadhus and other devotees, led by Sri Sampoorna Gnananda Giri Swamiji, congregated at the Dhanushkodi seashore. They performed special pooja to the Rameswaram Jothirlingam, the first and foremost among 12 jothirlingams, seeking blessings to protect the Ramar Sethu, considered to be built by Lord Ram.

Later, speaking to newspersons the Swamiji appealed to the Centre and Tamil Nadu Governments not to hurt the religious sentiments of crores of Hindus by stating that Ramar Birdge was not man-made. The devotees of Ram across the country would stage protest if the Centre attempts to damage the holy bridge, he added.- Bureau Report

Published: Wednesday, March 05, 2008

http://www.chennaionline.com/colnews/newsitem.asp?NEWSID=%7BDC143A96-8C3C-4F79-B283-A5A1A4717CC6%7D&CATEGORYNAME=CHN

RAM SETHU

NRI Hindu group urges SC to not intervene

New York, PTI: (Deccan Herald, 5 March 2008)

An organisation of Hindus living in US and Europe campaigning for the conservation of “Ram Sethu” has urged the Supreme Court not to intervene in what it called a “purely religious” matter.

In a statement released here yesterday, the ‘Save Ram Sethu Campaign’ suggested that in a secular country, judiciary should not get involved in rulings on religious beliefs.

Flaying the government for its “politically-motivated” approach to the issue, the campaign accused it of “attempting to shift the burden of its democratic responsibility” to the courts.

“If this government really believes in human rights, rule of law and true democracy, it would resolve the issue through the well-established democratic norm of ‘dialogue’ with all concerned,” it added.

http://www.deccanherald.com/Content/Mar52008/national2008030555688.asp?section=updatenews

March 4, 2008

Press Release by the “Save Ram Sethu Campaign” in response to the Government of India’s latest affidavit in the Supreme Court to vacate the stay on the demolition of Ram Sethu.

The Save Ram Sethu Campaign, supported by Hindu groups from around the world, expresses profound disappointment with Government of India’s latest affidavit in which the Government has prayed to the Supreme Court to vacate the stay on the demolition of Ram Sethu and allow it to continue with the dredging operations to create the “Sethu Samudram ‘Shipping’ Channel Project” (SSCP). The Supreme Court will hear arguments on the reworded affidavit of the Government of India on 05 March 2008.

In this fresh affidavit filed in the Supreme Court on February 29, 2008, the Government of India contends that available scientific evidence points to the fact that “Ram Sethu” is a natural formation. The latest affidavit is primarily based on a report submitted by the “Committee of Eminent Persons” – a group whose members the Government had hand picked to examine the issue. This group had convened in Chennai from October 29 to November 3, 2007.

Captain Hariharan Balakrishnan, (Indian Navy, & Master Mariner and former Commanding Officer of guided missile frigate INS Trishul) who has provided some invaluable analysis of the viability of the Sethu Samudram Shipping Channel Project (SSCP) from a ‘Mariner’s Perspective’, has identified several gaping holes that expose the inanity of this report from the standpoint of National Security. Similar concerns have been submitted by a team of “three Geologists”, in their analysis from a geological perspective. Despite submitting their analysis, orally as well as in writing to the “Committee of Eminent Persons”, the “three Geologists” are chagrined to find that no reference is made to their analysis in the “Final Report” of this Committee!

The Save Ram Sethu Campaign is concerned that in spite of being the “largest democracy” in the world, the Government of India has failed to call for a referendum or public approval of this perhaps, the most provocative and controversial project in the history of free India involving more than 80% of its population and millions of Hindus worldwide. Under such circumstances it is scandalous that the government continues to ignore the religious sentiments of a billion plus Hindus. Ram Sethu’s fate should not have to be decided in the courts and the latest affidavit by the Government of India is tantamount to trampling upon the feelings, sentiments, emotions and religious values and heritage of the entire Hindu population and it is a sad reflection upon the style of actual functioning of the country’s “democracy”.

The supporters of the Save Ram Sethu Campaign believe that the secular Indian Supreme Court should not involve itself in rulings concerning religious beliefs. The supporters of the campaign express grave concern that the Government of India is evading its responsibilities as its latest affidavit appears to be a politically motivated, deliberate and a willful ploy to shift the burden of its democratic responsibility to the Courts. If this government really believes in human rights, rule of law and true democracy, it would resolve the issue through the well-established democratic norm of ‘dialogue’ with all concerned.

The Save Ram Sethu Campaign expresses indignation and outrage that the fate of Ram Sethu now shifts to India’s Apex Court and asks, “Will the Court ‘vacate’ the ’stay’ or maintain status quo?”

The Save Ram Sethu Campaign requests Mr. Manmohan Singh to stop passing the buck as now is the time for him to show true leadership and declare Ram Sethu a “Historic National Heritage Site”.

Ends

For more information contact:

USA: Dr. Kusum Vyas

Esha Vasyam on 713 876 5400 or kusumvyas@sbcglobal.net

Europe: Nizaad Bissumbhar

Global Human Rights Defence on 31 616 494 311 or nbissumbhar@ghrd.org

Website: http://www.RamSethu.org

For mass circulation to all print and electronic media

http://www.freepressjournal.in/05032008/Edit3.htm

Ram Sethu: Economically not viable!

By J N Raina

The Congress is in a dilemma, whether to go ahead with the

Rs -2600 crore Sethusamdram project or to abandon it for Ram, who they do not revere, just to placate the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), led by an atheist. In fact, the Congress is excessively worried-and in trouble too-about the expert Committee’s report on the project, that Ramayana was just a “Fairy tale, without factual basis”.

The Sethusamudram Ship Canal Project was set-up to look into various concerns raised by the BJP, its allied parties and a number of individuals. The report has quoted two German scholars, calling the Ramayana a `fairy tale’. The latest report came just on the heels of an affidavit the UPA Government had filed in the Supreme Court, which (affidavit) had ascertained that there was no proof that Ram had ever existed, touching off major political storm in the country. But the Government came to senses and withdrew that affidavit immediately. However, scars have remained. The project is neither economically viable nor free from risk.

The committee, comprising environmentalists, academics and historians, has ignominiously believed in the version of the two German scholars, who in their research work had said in 1880s that “The narration of the Indian epic (Ramayana) appears to us nothing more than a pious fairy tale, without factual basis”. It is mind-boggling. This was the time, when India was being described abroad as a land of `snake charmers’. But gone are those days. Should we believe it even now? The world opinion has changed about India but the Indians’ mindset continues to remain so. These committee findings have come at a time when the Lok Sabha elections are almost approaching. The BJP has already launched its campaign. Naturally it will take advantage of the Congress fiasco.

The ASI had earlier stated in the affidavit that the contents of Valmikhi Ramayana, the Ramcharitmanas by Tulsidas and other mythological texts, which admittedly form an important part of ancient Indian literature…cannot be said to be a historical record to `inconvertibly prove the existence of the characters, or the occurrence of events, depicted therein”.

What the committee has said about Ram is simply blasphemous. Had similar observations been made in relation to any other religion, particularly Islam, swords would have been unsheathed. Once bitten, twice shy. The Centre has not accepted the report for obvious reason, finding it risky. But it wants to trivialise the controversial issue further.

On the contrary, people in Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world, venerate Ram; if not as God, but as a great hero, as a `perfect person’ (Purush Uttam). People in Bali (Indonesia) believe in the Hindu God of Trinity Brahma,Vishnu and Shiva in their own method of understanding.

In Bali, there are thousands of statues of Hindu Gods, including that of Ram. It was quite amazing to watch on Zee TV News Channel recently that there are many statues and temples dedicated to Hindu Gods. The Zee TV has done splendid work on the history of Ramayana in Indonesia.

The biggest temple is located in a spacious palace of Sultan in Bali. There is an idol of Ram also. It is unbelievable what one could see on the channel, in contrast to what is happening in India vis-a-vis Ram, who is being regarded there as a `historical person’ and not as God. It is in contrast to the Indian perception about Ram, who is being worshipped as a God.

For Hindus, he is god-incarnate. In Bali, school children are being inculcated lessons about the conduct of Ram. They are being taught at home too. Parents in Bali are eager that their children should have enough of knowledge about Ramayana and Mahabharata, unlike in India, which is being swept away by western culture, day by day. In India, where Ram was born (Ayodhaya), misconceptions are being spread about the existence of Ram and his character, by a section of the Congress leadership, the DMK, headed by Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M Karunanidhi, the Leftists and many pseudo-secularists.

Karunanidhi has indulged in anti-Ram tirade, saying: ” There is no historical evidence to suggest that someone called Ram existed or that he had the engineering knowledge to build a bridge or that he had, in fact, built such a bridge”. He had even made a vitriolic attack on Ram and contemptuously remarked that ‘Ram was a drunkard’. How vulgar it sounds.

People of Indonesia believe in Ram as a `historical character’ and respect him as such. But in India, the existence of Ram is being considered a `myth’. What a pity on this nation, where 80 per cent of a one billion people are Hindus.

In India, the government’s attitude is apathetic. There is no archaeological evidence to support the existence of Ram, and hence Ram Sethu because the government is not interested in finding out the truth, lest it might hurt the feelings of Muslim fundamentalists.

For the over past 600 years, Hindu icons have been plundered and demolished by Muslim invaders. As a result, much of India’s archaeological heritage has completely vanished and disappeared. Many of the important archaeological cites were discovered during the British rule. After independence, the slavish mentality would not disappear.

The people’s psyche remained unchanged, by and large. A well-known geologist Dr Baddrinarayan, a former Director of the Geological Survey of India (GSI) has said: ” The structure (Ram Sethu) is not natural-the shape of the boulders and the type of the material clearly indicates that it is a man-made structure”, but such a version of an Indian scientist is taken as pro-BJP version. These findings are regarded as views of the Hindu extremists.

Setu: rallies and SC hearing on 5 March 2008

• Posted: Tue, Mar 4 2008. 10:39 PM IST

Verdict on Sethu Samudram project unlikely today

A key litigant is expected to ask the Supreme Court for more time to file a counter- affidavit

Priyanka P. Narain

Mumbai: No verdict is likely to emerge on the controversial Sethu Samudram project on Wednesday because a key litigant is expected to ask the Supreme Court for more time to file a counter- affidavit.

The controversial project involves dredging a channel through a walkway between India and Sri Lanka to reduce shipping times. A three-judge Supreme Court bench, headed by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, is to decide whether to lift a stay order, issued in September, on work at the site of Adam’s Bridge, also known as Ram Sethu, as many Hindu groups believe it was built by Hindu god Ram.

As lawyers prepared their arguments on Tuesday, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) launched a nationwide rally that may continue throughout the week “to remind the state that this is a question of Hindu sentiments and you cannot ignore them,” said S. Vedantam, international vice-president of VHP.

Last week, the government filed its affadavit to the court, with only two of its 89 paragraphs addressing religion. The court had asked the affadavit to detail the bridge’s religious and cultural significance but, the government asked the court to take a decision based on the findings of a government-appointed “committee of eminent persons” that has conducted hearings on the matter.

Chief petitioner Subramanian Swamy said he plans to inform the court of his first reactions and ask the bench to dismiss the affidavit because it does not answer the court’s questions.

Before the case was transferred to the Supreme Court, the Madras high court had asked the government two questions about the project: Why was this channel alignment chosen among six alternatives? And has the ministry of culture conducted any research on the bridge’s cultural significance?

The Supreme Court upheld these questions when the case was transferred from the high court. Now, one withdrawn affidavit, four date extensions and seven months later, the government has still not responded, Swamy said. “The department of shipping has filed it when the Union government should have done that. It explains why this route was chosen in the context of the environment. But, when I raised that question (of alignment), I was looking for answers about its economics and national security implications,” he said. “They don’t even address the second question.”

Meanwhile, “we are preparing for a massive andolan (movement) if anyone attacks the Ram Sethu,” said VHP president, Ashok Singhal. “They have declared a war on Hindus and we will not stand by.”

http://www.livemint.com/2008/03/04223913/Verdict-on-Sethu-Samudram-proj.html

VHP launches nationwide rallies to protect Ram Sethu

March 4th, 2008 – 4:50 pm

New Delhi, March 4 (IANS) The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) Tuesday launched rallies all over the country demanding ‘monument of national importance’ status to Ram Sethu, popularly known as the Adam’s Bridge, a chain of limestone shoals the group believes dates back to the Ramayana. “These protest marches, spread over two days, are being organised all over the country on Tuesday and Wednesday. We are protesting the union government’s affidavit in the Supreme Court in which it denied the existence of Lord Ram and the Ram Sethu,” Rajendra Singh Pankaj, national secretary of the VHP, told IANS.

Around 2,000 members of VHP’s Delhi unit took out a procession on two-wheelers and around 80 four-wheelers here Tuesday morning. The procession, which started from Ramlila grounds, culminated at Rajghat.

The gathering was addressed by office-holders of the Rameshwaram Ramsethu Raksha Manch, comprising mainly of VHP members.

“We demand an apology from the union government for giving the affidavit in the Supreme Court denying the existence of Ram. We want Ram Sethu to be declared a monument of national importance,” Pankaj said.

The Adam’s Bridge comes in the way of the controversial Sethusamudram Ship Channel Project, which proposes linking of the Palk Bay and the Gulf of Mannar between India and Sri Lanka through a shipping channel.

The Hindu group opposes the project because the Ram Sethu, which they argue is sacred as it was built by Lord Ram to cross the sea to kill Ravana, would have to be drilled.

The issue is high on the Bharatiya Janata Party agenda for the forthcoming Lok Sabha elections.

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/politics/vhp-launches-nationwide-rallies-to-protect-ram-sethu_10023872.html

BJP, VHP accuse Centre of playing with sentiments of Hindus on Ram Sethu

Express news service

Posted online: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 at 2335 hrs IST

Surat, March 4

Leaders of the BJP and VHP on Tuesday accused the UPA government at the Centre of playing with the religious feelings of crores of Hindus in the country by supporting the Sethusamudram Ship Canal Project.

Scores of leaders, under the banner of Rameshwaram Ramsethu Raksha Manch, took out a motorcycle rally in the morning to mark their protest against the project.

“The Ministry of Shipping with the UPA government will file an affidavit related to the Ram Sethu bridge in the Supreme Court on Wednesday. The Centre is playing with the religious feelings of crores of Hindus. With this rally, we wanted to show the UPA that Hindus in India will not sit silently on the issue, and if needed, we will organise programmes all over the country,” said Durlabh Bhalara, the event organiser.

Utakarsh Patel, VHP general secretary, said, “We will not tolerate such act of the UPA government. The Ram Sethu bridge has religious importance to crores of Hindus in the country. The VHP activists and leaders are ready to give their blood to save the bridge built by Lord Rama. We are awaiting the details of the affidavit and we will decide our future course of action accordingly.”

The rally started from Surat Railway Station and culminated at Nanpura near Tapi River banks in the afternoon. It crossed Mahidharpura, Bhagal and Chowk Bazaar areas. Among those who participated in it were Surat city BJP president Praveen Naik, VHP president Kalu Bhimnath and leader Dinesh Navadia.

http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/BJP-VHP-accuse-Centre-of-playing-with-sentiments-of-Hindus-on-Ram-Sethu/280368/

Setu: Sonia’s one point programme — destroy Hindu religion — Vedantam

VHP plans nationwide rallies on Sethu issue
Tuesday March 4 2008 10:27 IST

COIMBATORE: Coming down heavily on the Central Government move to file an affidavit in the Supreme Court on March 5 to vacate the stay to demolish Ramar Bridge, Ashok Singhal, president of Vishva Hindu Parishad, announced that the activists of Sri Rameswaram Ramsethu Raskha Manch (Rameswaram Ramsethu Protection Forum) and other Hindus would conduct massive motorcycle and scooter rallies all over the country from March 4 to 6.

Talking to journalists in the city on Monday, he said that while the agitation would take place in Tamil Nadu on March 5 to suit the state convenience, it has been planned in Coimbatore on March 6 on account of Koniamman Temple festival.

The remaining regions of the country would witness the protest rallies on March 4, he said.
Warning that the destruction of Ramar Bridge in any form would lead to war against the Hindus, he said that Sonia Gandhi’s one point programme is to destroy the Hindu religion.
He pointed out that though there are possibilities of avoiding the demolition of the bridge by choosing any of the six alignments already suggested, the union government and Minister for Shipping T.R.Baalu wanted this particular stretch to be cleared for the shipping channel project.

To a query, he said that the continued pressure from the USA forced the UPA government to implement the project hurting the feelings of Hindus.

Stating that the agitation is only for protecting Hindu feelings, Singhal said that it has nothing to do with the coming elections.

However, if the government fails to reconsider its decision to vacate the stay and destroy Ram Sethu, the agitation would affect the poll prospects of the Congress, he said.

S.Vedantam, General Secretary, Rameswaram Ramsethu Protection Forum, said that the strong movement for protection of Ram Sethu would continue till it is declared ‘a historic national heritage’.

He urged the government to refrain from getting the stay order vacated to respect the feelings of Hindus.

He said that the UPA government, which claims to be secular, brings changes to appease the minority communities, the Muslims and Christians.

http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IET20080304000554&Page=T&Title=Southern+News+-+Tamil+Nadu&Topic=0

Rama Setu: protest the scheming affidavit of Centre

Sri Rameswaram Ramsetu Raksha Manch (Sri Rameswaram Ramsetu Protection Forum), Sankat Mochan Ashram, Ramakrishna Puram-6, New Delhi 110022; Telefax 011-26103495, 26178992).

VHP/764/2008 Dated: March 03, 2008

Media statement of General Secretary of Sri Rameswaram Ramsetu Raksha Manch, Shri S. Vedantam and President of Vishva Hindu Parishad, Shri Ashok Singhal

The UPA government at the centre has decided to file an over smart and scheming affidavit with the Supreme Court of India that downright preempts the historicity of Ram. This insensitive and defeatist government stance is now all over the media. By this offensive and monstrous stand, the government has hurt the cultural sensibilities of crores of people of the country.

The government would remember, and it must not forget it, that a historic grand conference of 10 lakh people was held in Delhi on December 30, 2007 to register the demands for protection of Ram Setu and its declaration as a historic national heritage. Before that on September 10, 2007 when the Central Government in an affidavitto the Supreme Court had denied the existence of Ram and the Ramayana, the whole country responded with widespread and successful ‘Chakka Jam’ protests on September 12, 2007.

The Ram Setu Raksha Manch urges the entire Hindu society to take out motor-cycle and scooter rallies all over the country on March 04-05 (Tuesday and Wednesday), 2008 to express their opposition to the government decision to file affidavit in the Supreme Court on March 05, 2008 whereby it wants to get the stay order regarding Ram Setu vacated. The rallies should culminate in meetings to address the nationalist issue.

By averring these in an affidavit that there is no scientific proof of the existence of Ram Setu and that it is not man-made but a natural formation, the Government of India has again tried to reject the existence of Sri Ram. It has also conspired to trash various other historical evidences of lakhs of years that corroborate the truth of Ram Setu. Therefore, it is about time the people of the country put themselves on high gear to assert the historicity of Ram-Krishna and save their hoary and holistic beliefs, ethos and moorings.

This affidavit maintains a hush on the questions that the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had asked of the Government of India to expressly address in the affidavit pertaining to the Sethusamudram Shipping Channel Project (SSCP) and the Rama Setu.

The Hon’ble Courts had asked –

• Why was the Ramsetu-breaking alignment picked out when the Government had 6 suggested alignments to consider? Why were not the other alternative routes taken into account?
• The Government had been asked and its attention drawn to show cause as to why not the Ramsetu be declared a National Heritage? Has the Government got the matter examined to declare it a National Heritage site?

The Central Government has not at all addressed these questions in the affidavit.

The Central Government had already given a show of its infected mindset and vested interests by forming an Eminent Persons Committee that included only its handpicked ‘Yes Persons’. Their anti-Ram and anti-Ramayan stance is now more pronounced by the report of the so-called Committee. There has been acute humiliation of the country and its scientists of standing by this line up of lies, as there are many so-called scientists/experts on this Committee who are pronouncedly anti-Ram and anti-Bharatiya culture.

Only recently the Government of India recommended many ‘Namghars’ (Places of Worship) situated on the ‘Majuli Island’ of River Brahmaputra to be declared as National Heritage centres. These institutions are about 350 years old. Also, when recently some people opposed and initiated a litigation to stop the ancient ‘Jalli-Kattu’ festival of Madurai region of Tamil Nadu (‘Jalli’ is ‘Bull’ and ‘kattu’ is ‘Catch/contain’ in Tamil. It is, therefore, the ‘Bull Overpowering’ festival by the agrarian society that depends upon ‘Bull Power’ for prosperity), in that matter the Government of Tamil Nadu approached the Supreme Court to save the celebrations from being stopped terming it as a subject of ‘faith’ (aasthaa) and tradition. The Supreme Court gave an order to the effect that aasthaa should be protected. But, in the case of Ram Setu, both these governments, under cover of so-called secularism, are opposed to recognizing it as a matter of ‘faith’ and, thus, being dishonest and playing with the cultural and civilizational sensibilities of the people of the country. Development can always be reconciled with such vital national sensibilities.

Today why is not the Ram Temple being constructed at Sri Ram Janma Bhumi and why is not the Ram Setu being recognized? The main reason is that the Government of India has a dirty mindset not to accept the historicity of Ram. In this way, by denying the existence of Ram, this secular gang is making efforts to diffuse the movement for construction of the Janmabhumi Temple. Its line is that there was no Ram, therefore, where is the question of Sriram Janma Bhumi, Ram Setru and the Ramayana?

They denied our Ram-Krishna, Vedas-Puranas and Sarasvati River and are now denying the Ram Setu – the empirical evidence of the times and exploits of Sri Ram – whereas Sri Ram is in fact a historical personage. After independence, the Government of India should have justifiably glorified the places that Sri Ram sojourned through during His exile days, and even today people celebrate hundreds of these places, but this government by denying the existence of Ram is bent upon destroying the existence of all these historic landmarks bearing the footprints of Ram that dot the North-South corridor. Now the Hindu society must be extremely vigilant.

In fact it would have been proper on the part of the Central Government that in line with the belief of Bharatiya culture it should have accepted the historicity of Ram and declared the Ram Setu as historic national heritage in the affidavit to the Supreme Court. Instead, it has committed a grave crime by doing gymnastics to re-assert its old stand of non-existence of Sri Ram with new jugglery of words.

The Government of India must refrain from getting the stay order vacated so long as the protection of Ram Setu is not ensured, as the impartiality of the Government is now under question in view of its behaviour with Hindus marked by crookedness and polluted mindset.

So long as the Ram Setu is not declared a historic national heritage, the strong movement for protection of Ram Setu would continue unabated. By utilizing their constitutional rights, the people of the country, would continue the movement for protection of Ram Setu and stop not till the goal is reached.

Released by Sri Rameswaram Ramsetu Raksha Manch

(NB Please circulate this Press statement after 11.30 AM on March 03, 2008 to all print and electronic media).

Rama Setu: Centre’s affidavit, bucking State responsibility

Rama Setu: Centre’s affidavit, bucking the State’s Constitutional responsibility

Mirrored at: http://hinduthought.googlepages.com/baalucommittee1.doc

It is the submission of the Petitioners that matters of sentiment and tradition do not have to submitted to mundane frameworks of historicity. Mythology is essence of history – the very essence of peoples’ perceptions of their identity and world-view –and tradition is evidence. This identity and world-view constitute sentiments of millions of people worldwide in relation to Rama, Ramayana and Rama Setu which is a metaphor for the victory of good over eveil, victory of dharma over a-dharma.

In Paragraph 85 of the Respondent (Min. of Shipping) Affidavit, it is stated: “In Chapter 9, views expressed against and in favour of the project from the historical and cultural perspectives have been enumerated. It has noted that no archaeological studies have been undertaken in the Ramasethu/Adam’s Bridge area by Archaeological Survey of India. Following this comprehensive study, conducted on the basis of several previous studies carried out by individuals and institutions over the years, the Committee has come to certain conclusions, which are enumerated in Chapter 10. The Committee has now submitted its Report and it is placed before the Hon’ble Court for appropriate decision.”

Chapters 9 and 10 mentioned above are reproduced below.

It is extraordinary that the Respondent (Secretary, Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways) who claims that the Counter affidavit is on behalf of the Respondents Union of India, fails to note that the Committee was NOT appointed by the Hon’ble Court but by the Union of India.

Since the Committee was engaged by the Union of India,it is the responsibility of the Union of India, in particular the Respondents Archaeological Survey of India and Ministry of Culture to either own up their own appointee’s that is, the Committee’s Report.

It is strange that the Union of India now disowns its own Committee’s observations. The Respondent’s affidavit notes in Paragraph 87: “Whereas the Committee of Eminent Persons has examined the available evidence and arrived at certain conclusions relating to the nature of the structure called Adam’s Bridge/Ram Setu, issues of faith, except those in which historicity of an event is subject to adjudication, cannot be resolved by taking recourse to science or scientific evidence.” This averment, absurd by itself, directly contracts the views of the Committee contained on Page 111 (Committee’s Report): “The Committee scrutinized the literary, epigraphic, numismatic, sculptural, cartographic and other lines of evidence cited by the petitioners and others in support of the historicity of Rama Sethu. Popular beliefs and traditions about the Ramayana and Rama Sethu have an antiquity covering at least 1500 years in the country. In Tamil Nadu these traditions/beliefs cover 400 to 500 years.”

Why should the Court be called upon to adjudicate or arbitrate between Union of India and a Committee appointed by the Union of India itself – an entity created by the Union of India. The Committee is not a Court-appointed Advocate’s Commission. It has been argued separately that the Committee composition, procedures and biases, atheist foundations and conflicts of interests of some members make the entire Committee deliberations illegal and unacceptable. The Committee’s Report also selectively culls out the submissions/objections and presents with a pre-conceived bias in support of the Project.

The bias and illegal procedures are evidenced by the fact that the Madras HC judgement of 11 pages delivered on 19 June 2007 have not been presented in the Committee’s Report despite the evidences summarized in that judgement. The Committee have also failed to live up to their Terms of Reference and have not submitted the entire sets of over 8000 pages of submissions made to them covering over 160 topics. Petitioners will retain the right to call for these submissions from the Union of India and to submit the available documentation to the Court in support of the principal contention of the Petitioners that the Project should not be complemented cutting through Rama Setu and that Rama Setu should be declared/deemed to be an Ancient Monument of National Importance.

The Committee’s observations bristles with contradictions as may be seen even from a preliminary reading. On Page 113, the Committee notes a submission regarding ancient human settlements dating to 18000 to 8000 years before present and at the same time states that this reported evide3nce has no relevance to events mentioned in the Ramayana. How could the Committee conclude so when they have not found it within their competence to the date the events mentioned in the Ramayana?

It is also shocking that in Paragraph 88 of the Respondent’s Affidavit that the following authoritative statement has been made: “The Union of India is of the belief that it should not be called upon to respond to issues of faith, except in recognizing their existence.” This averment raises a fundamental constitutional issue, impacting the basic feature of the Constitution, the meaning of the word ‘Secular’ used in the Preamble (as amended). The word is translated in the Official Hindi version as ‘pantha nirapekshataa’ that is, neutrality as to different paths of belief systems.

Rama Setu issue as submitted by the Petitioners is based on tradition and sentiments of millions of people world-wide. This is reality, as reality as the sacredness attached to Ganga or Himalayas (Amarnath or Kedarnath or Gangotri) or Mahakumbh held every 12 years. It is an emphatic reality of tradition that lakhs of pilgrims go to Rama Setu to make offerings to the ancestors (pitru tarpanam) on Ashadha Amavasya day, year after year and include this tirthasthaanam as part of the chaar dham (four sacred tirthasthaana) yatras.

It is incumbent upon the Union of India to respect the sentiments based on tradition wich is as emphatic as any evidence which can be produced in the justice system. A civil society cannot be allowed to behave like the Taliban who destroyed the Bamiyan Budedha calling it a mere stone.

Rama Setu is not a mere stone or body or cave of water. It inheres the very essence of the identity of the nation as evidenced by the Survey of India logo: aasetu himachalam (meaning: from Setu to Himalayas), defining this bridge effectively as the southern boundary indicator. It also signifies the unity of the nation recollecting as received socio-cultural memory of the travels of Sri Rama from Ayodhya to Sri Lanka to win over a-dharmic forces. As noted by former Supreme Court Justice Shri VR Krishna Iyer, to create a channel cutting through Rama Setu, will be an unpatriotic act impinging upon national sovereignty if the Historic waters of the IndiraGandhi-Sirimavo Bandaranaike declaration of 1974 is converted into an International Waters boundary by creating this channel exactly, just 3 kms. west of the medial line between India and Sri Lanka.

In Paragraph 10.2 of the Committee’s Report while citing the examples of Suez Canal in Egypt and Panama Canal in Panama, there is a surprising failure to note the fact that the proposed mid-ocean channel passage (as opposed to Suez and Panama which are land-based canals) is unprecended in the history of navigation anywhere in the world. No such mid-ocean channel passage has ever been created and bristles with problems of stability as noted by Sir A. Ramaswamy Mudaliar in their first post-indepence Report on navigation across Gulf of Mannar and Palk Strait. They clearly noted that the idea of cutting a channel passage through Rama Setu/Adam’s Bridge should be ABANDONED. Despite Madras HC directive to answer this observation of Ramaswamy Mudaliar Committee, Union of India remains silent. What is left unstated in the submissions of the Respondent and the attached Committee Report is a tale of shocking misleading statements, indulging in suggestion falsi and suppression veri, thus negating the very foundations of justice.

It is for the Union of India to engage the necessary expertise to determine the nature of Rama Setu and the high-handed submission made by the Respondent should be rejected as unjust and untenable “IT is now for the Hon’ble Court to resolve the contentious issues raised by the Petitions in the context of the evidence available…” Court is not an appendage of the Union of India. It is not for the Hon’ble Court to resolve contentious issues which should be deliberated upon by the Union of India. The Hon’ble Court should take serious exception to such a high-handed plea made shirking the responsibility of the State, negating the very foundations of separation of powers, a basic feature of the Constitution.

The Hon’ble Court can only respond to request for judicial opinion if the request comes from Her Excellency the President of India in case any constitutional issue or issue of law is referred to the Court for such an opinion.

Given the tendentious nature of the Respondents in dealing with the issues raised by the Petitioners, a humble submission is made to the Hon’ble Court to declare an injunction absolutely staying all work on the entire project and direct the Respondents to re-examine alternative transport modes to achieve the same purpose served bya canal to transship and navigate goods from Tuticorin to Nagapattinam and beyond, if necessary using the existing Pamban Gap which operated with a cantilever Railway Bridge.

Pages 102 to 117 of Vol. I of Report of the Committee of Eminent Persons on Sethusamudram Project, November 2007:

http://hinduthought.googlepages.com/chapter910committee.pdf

Kalyanaraman

Setu: Baalu Committee Report, misleads

Baalu Committee report shockingly indulges in suggestio falsi, suppression veri, is a misleading document and should be dismissed with contempt as a command performance

Cabinet Secretariat Order No. 652/2/1/2007CA –III, dated 5^th October, 2007:

“The terms of reference of the Committee will be to invite objections and suggestions from all concerned including the writ Petitioners having interest in the subject matter and to consider all suggestions/proposals/documents after giving them a personal hearing as per submissions made before Supreme Court contained in its Order dated 14^th September, 2007 in WP © 413/2007, etc. The Committee will decide its own procedure for conducting its proceedings, personal hearings and dealing with the petitions..” (Page 16, Vol. II of Report of Eminent Persons on Sethusamudram Ship Channel Project, November 2007 – hereinafter called Report).

The Committee’s Report includes powerpoint presentation slides on Pages 49 to 69. These are the same presentation slides already included in the Sethusamudram Corporation website and which was made in a seminar held with Mr. Sibal, Min. of Science and Technology on 2 June 2007 (Press onference by Min. of Science and Technology kept at http://sethusamudram.gov.in/English_Index.asp )

According to the Project Status recorded on this website dredged quantity is reported as follows:

As seen from the slide on Page 61 (Report Vol II), canal’s width is 300 m. for 2 way traffic and depth of 12 m, project cost Rs. 2427.40 Crs..

Total length of the canal is 167 km.

Length of dredging required at Adam’s Bridge 35 km

Length of dredging required at Palk Strait 54 km.

North of Adam’s Bridge (B-C Stretch) 13.38 Kms Dredging done 24.76% till 17/9/2007

Palk Bay/ Palk Strait (E-E4 Stretch) 54.25 Kms Dredging done 46.07% till 10/10/2007

As noted on Page 89 (Report Vol II), the Committee had received huge volumes of materials upto 31 October 200 and there were annexures running into almost 2000 pages in one court itself and public hearing continued only for 7 seven days upto 6^th November 2007 only in Chennai. Even though advertisements were issued in all national language dailies, submissions were requested only in English and hearings were not held even in the cities near the Project area. The hearings were closed and not open to the media. This procedure prevented from many members of the public and experts from making their submissions.

The report shockingly indulges in selective dissemination of received submissions, culling out only submissions which support the case of the Respondents and which justify only the 6^th alignment. This is absolute lack of transparency and honesty in dealing with the submissions in a rational and systematic manner. Given the enormity of the documentation submitted, it is surprising that within one month the Committee was able to evaluate all the submission. In fact, the Committee’s Terms of Reference DO NOT include such evaluation and such value-judgements by the Committee, the composition of which itself is biased including atheists and who had worked for the project thus compromising their integrity with conflict of interest.

The Committee did NOT include experts from the areas of marine archaeology, navigation (mariners and merchant navy), national security, geology (GSI), oceanography (NIO), tsunami, trade unions or members of fishermens’ federations. The warnings contained in the Nature magazine of 6 Sept. 2007 have just been ignored. These warnings are so serious related to an impending tsunami more devastating than the 26 Dec. 2007 tsunami, that any project work may put the entire coast line property and lives of people at risk.

Geopolitical experts should also be consulted on the implications of virtually creating an international waters boundary since the 6^th alignment chosen is simply marked as running 3 kms. west of the medial line between India and Srilanka (a line drawn in a declaration called Indira Gandhi-Sirimano Bandaranaike Declaration of June 1974). Srilanka has indicated that it may go the International Court of Justice on their interests adversely impacted by the Project.

We clearly see that eminent scientists and experts have made submissions which have not been deliberated upon by the Committee.

It is necessary that all the submissions made to the Committee to establish that the Committee has indulged in a command performance and taken only references which support the case of the Respondent. Requests for copies of the submissions have NOT been complied with so far.

Even requests made under Right to Information Act made by one of the Petitioners and AK Venkatasubramanian, IAS (Retd.) of Catalyst Trust have not been complied with so far by the Respondent, Union of India.

The list of materials supplied includes “Marine Geo-Physical Surveys carried out for the proposed Sethu Samudram Navigational Channel (Feb. 2005) by NIOT – 132 pages). A copy of the Report has been asked for and not given so far. This Report includes an evaluation by the Consultant of NIOT that there was human activity and that the lithologs of 10 bore wells indicate that rock layers were brought in from outside since they could not have been formed by the sea. Detailed Reportshas also been given for example, by Dr. CSP Iyer, Dr. Parchure and Dr. Gopalakrishnan on geotectonics, geothermal activity, geoencironment, oceanography and environmental impacts – reports which scientifically quesstion the reliability of the information provided powerpoint presentation mentioned earlier; by Capt. Balakrishnan on navigation and naval security aspects, by Dr. S. Kalyanaraman providing to the Committee recommendations of Dr. SR Rao, eminent Marine Archaeologist of the Country, on implications of another tsunami based on studies of Prof. Tad S Murty and other scientists including the report in Nature Magazine of 6 Sept. 2007, the International Law of the Sea and International Obligations under World Heritage and Underwater Cultural Heritage Conventions of UNESCO to which Indis is a signatory.. These expert submissions have a profound relevance in determining the viability of the project itself.

The Report fails to record that in 1999 the Environmental Ministry refused to clear the project on environmental considerations and recommended that the project be scrapped.

The Report fails to note that clearance was not obtained from Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (as confirmed by the then CM Smt. Jayalalithaa in her affidavit to the SC). In Orissa, the Court had ordered the stoppage of a project which was approved without obtaining Pollution Control Board Clearance from the Govt. of Orissa.

The Report also fails to note that 37 Srilankan Experts had submitted a Report after one-year’s study and concluded, inter alia, that water supply to Jaffna and Rameshwaram will be adversely affected if dredging is carried out on Rama Setu.

The Report also fails to note the opinions of scientists like Dr. Kannaiyan who was Chairman of the Environment Monitoring Committee for the Project and Dr. Gopalakrishna, Dr. Badrinarayanan, Dr. Subramanian, who wre Directors in Geological Survey of India who have reiterated that blasting or dredging activity in the project area will devastate the coastal reefs and aquatic wealth, apart from causing coastal erosions, mini-tsunamis triggered by fault-lines and geothermal activity.

Ab initio illegality has been not involving Geological Survey of India and National Institute of Oceanography in this ocean project, an involvement mandated by law.

The Committee was also informed about the public sentiments, expressed through the movement of Rameshwaram Rama Setu Protection Movement (RRPM).

MS Karunanidhi of Rameshwaram had submitted objections during Public Hearings in 2004 that the Project would cut through the sacred Rama Setu. These were ignored.

RRPM had conducted two scientific and security seminars in Chennai and Delhi and a group of scientists had conducted a seminar in Trivandrum. Many conferences and public meetings were held all over the country including the Mahasammelan of 30 Dec. 2007 in Delhi which was attended by nearly 15 lakh people from all parts of the country and resolutions were adopted in these seminars, conferences and meetings and submitted to the Respondents. 35 lakh signatures were submitted to the President of India protesting the proposed destruction of Rama Setu. Seminar papers have also been published and submitted to the Respondents.

The Respondents went to the Supreme Court by having the cases transferred from Madras HC. Instead of responding to the orders issued on 19 June 2007 by Madras HC. this transfer move was made only on the request of the Union of India. So, it is misleading to state that the Petitioners came late to the Hon’ble SC with their petitions.

A 50-tonne, 15 metre long spud is still lying unsalvaged for over 10 months now. If this is the state of salvaging a Rs. 8 crore tool used by dredgers, one shudders at the prospectof navigating through the narrow channel in the mid-ocean with the clear and present danger of grounding with no possibility of mounting salvage operations of the type in place for example in Suez Canal.

Rama Setu: Centre’s affidavit a string of insults to Courts and to Hindus

http://kalyan98.wordpress.com/2008/03/02/rama-setu-centres-affidavit-a-string-of-insults-to-courts-and-to-hindus/
 
The affidavit submitted by the Centre to Supreme Court on March 1, 2008 is 1) an insult to the Court; and 2) an insult to the sentiments of millions of people who reasonably believe in Rama Setu as ancient heritage monument and sacred temple.

It insults the Court calling it to adjudicate on evidence without submitting evidence; it insults the justice system and rule of law by simply ignoring the Madras HC judgement delivered on 19 June and subsequent directions by SC. It insults millions of Indians using new definitions to define secular government as being simply opposed to the hindu sentiments and bucks its fundamental responsibility to respect peoples’ views.
 
It may be recalled that a US superior court quashed a sewerage project cutting through a mountain, because it hurt the sentiments of Navajo’s who considered the mountain sacred. Are we in a country governed by rule of law or NOT?
 
Detailed reading of a Respondent’s affidavit shows that it indulges in suppressio veri and suggestio falsi with a string of misrepresentations, misleading statements and false averments. Hopefully, the Hon’ble SC, the warriors of the justice system, believers in niti, dharma and enforcers of the rule of law will throw the response out and order scrapping the project disaster of a mid-ocean channel passage cutting through Rama Setu.
 
What has been put on stake is not merely Rama Setu but the very foundations of national integrity and unity governed by clearly demarcated duties and responsibilities of public functionaries who have been empowered by the people through the Constitution. The affidavit is an assault on the basic structure of the Constitution, indulging in buck-passing and toying with peoples’ sentiments. The Centre should stop playing with fire before it burns up the power-brokers. What is needed is not adjudication but justice, a polity governed by the rule of law and compassion for future generations by ensuring the integrity of the property and peoples lives along the coastline and national sovereignty.
 
Hon’ble SC should take serious exception to the tone, tenor and insulting nature of a Respondent’s affidavit which has scant regard for satyam, truth and issue appropriate injunctions including an absolute stay on the project disaster.
 
Kalyanaraman

The affidavit can be downloaded from the following URLs:

Part I http://hinduthought.googlepages.com/setuaffidavit1.pdf (5mb) Mirror: http://www.livemint.com/2008/03/01002401/58760CF8-C887-4E06-977A-A2A5D8F45C43ArtVPF.pdf

Part II http://hinduthought.googlepages.com/setuaffidavit2.pdf (5mb) Mirror: http://www.livemint.com/2008/03/01002401/9A3B3B1F-9D61-4939-92E7-22A46D09581AArtVPF.pdf

Part III http://hinduthought.googlepages.com/setuaffidavit3.pdf (5mb) Mirror: http://www.livemint.com/2008/03/01002401/EF761A86-2492-4DED-B720-3942894D3FA4ArtVPF.pdf

Part IV http://hinduthought.googlepages.com/setuaffidavit4.pdf (5mb) Mirror: http://www.livemint.com/2008/03/01002401/61B71821-9471-4D52-86B0-501F39C15008ArtVPF.pdf

The affidavit has NOT been submitted by Union of India but only by Ministry of Shipping which has no competence to talk on issues beyond shipping. Why haven’t ASI and Min. of Culture responded to the observations of the Madras HC judgement of 19 June 2007 on Ancient Monument evidence? Why has the Min. of Shipping not responded to the observations of the Madras HC judgement of 19 June 2007 on Sir A Ramaswamy Mudaliar Committee’s warnings against choosing a mid-ocean Channel passage (as opposed to a land-based canal)? “A secular state cannot espouse the cause of any religion, faith or belief”. Secular does not mean anti-hindu or anti-religion, but non-interference in the matters of sentiments of people of any religion. If so, what is the meaning behind the constitution of HR & CE departments? Why the states of Tamilnadu, Andhra, Kerala and Karnataka are wreaking havoc in Hindu religious affairs? Why did Rajiv Gandhi’s government bring an amendment to the Constitution for the sake of Muslim Clerics in the ‘Shah Bano’ case? Why was the Delhi Metro diverted for the sake of the Moghul Monument Kutthub Minar? Why was the route in Bangalore Metro diverted to avoid damage to Tippu Sultan palace? Why is Haj yatra financed by the Government and why has Communal budgeting been introduced? Why were industrial development projects scrapped to save the Taj Mahal? Why did the Government of India appoint the Sachaar Committee to promote the Congress political interests of Muslim Minority Vote-Bank Politics?

Tamil Nadu Government pleaded for Jallikattu (not only secular but atheist government)

Bonafides of the composition of and rapid-fire procedures (in private sittings for just one week in Chennai) adopted by Eminent Persons Committee have been questioned; the Committee did NOT include naval/marine experts, security experts, geologists, marine archaeologists and oceanography experts; the Committee’s report has NOT made public over 8000 pages of submissions made by experts from a number of disciplines: environment, oceanography, geology, naval security experts, mariners, Trade Unions representing fishermen of the coastline, tsunami experts, nuclear resources (thorium) experts.

We are submitting about 8000 pages of expert opinions on over 160 topics including submissions made by experts to the Committee. These have NOT been taken into account and represent new evidences which should be evaluated by the Respondents – Union of India, in particular.

The affidavit contains many misrepresentations and misleading/biased statements. Government agencies (Department of Earth Sciences and National Institute of Ocean Technology) have made surveys/studies and submitted a report to the then President of India, Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam. Why have the submissions of the consultant to NIOT been not made public and why has it not been referred to in the affidavit? Is it because the report notes that there was ancient human activity on the Rama Setu based on scientific studies?

Tamil Nadu Ramanathapuram District Gazetteer of 1972 and earlier Madras Presideny Manual of 1893 refer to Rama Setu? Are these and Arya chakravarti coins found in Jaffna containing the epigraphs ‘Setu, Setupati’, epigraphs of Parantaka Chola, Krishnadeva Raya and Setupati Raja’s not archaeological records? Are not the sculptured published by ASI of Rama Setu in Parambanan Temple in Indonesia archaeological evidences? Are not the Royal Asiatic Society records of habitation on Rama Setu archaeological records? What about place names: Rameshwaram, Rama Setu, Setupati, Ramapadam? Are they not archaeological indicators? Government officers from Geological Survey of India have undertaken archaeological studies and recommended that Rama Setu was man-made and there are studies showing the historicity of Rama in India and in Srilanka. Srilanka is promoting Ramayana tourism in that country.

Tamilnadu Tourism invites people through advertisements to visit Rama Setu to touch the waters made sacred by Sri Rama and to see the floating rocks found there.

Why has the Government not referred to the observations of National Remote Sensing Agency, Hyderbad (of ISRO) in its recent book, ‘Images’ about Rama Setu as a man-made formation and of archaeological importance?

Paragraph-wise comments:

Para 2: Addl. Solicitor General promised total respect for all religions and Hinduism in particular and respecting the religious sensibilities would submit fresh affidavits re-scrutinizing all aspects including change of alignment without destroying Rama Setu. But this promise has NOT been kept. The committee appointed to gather objections and suggestions did NOT perform its functions transparently and its report is biased and does NOT reveal all the expert opinions and suggestions made. Why wer the Geological Survey of India and National Institute of Oceanography not involved in project formulation studies?

Para 7: There is no mention of the Feasibility Report sanctioned in 2004 at a cost of Rs. 4.8 crores. Where is the Feasibility Report? Para 10. The NEERI report was submitted in August 2004. Tsunami occurred on 26 December 2004. How could NEERI have taken into account studies related to the impact of the tsunami? In fact, when the PMO raised 16 objections including objections raised by Prof. Tad S Murthy (who also repeated the same two months ago in the Indian Science Congress in Vishakapatnam) no study was conducted to evaluate the tsunami impact on the project area. Only a telegraphic, back-of-the envelope reply was given by Chairman of Setusamudram Corporation to the PM. There are reports of another more devastating tsunami in Nature Magazine of 6 Sept. 2007. What protective measures are contemplated to be put in place have not been spelt out so far. The spud which broke 10 months ago is still lying near Rama Setu. No possibility of salvage operations in case a ship gets grounded in shallow waters in a mid-ocean channel.

Para 10: Why there is no mention of Madras HC judgement of 19 June 2007?

Para 11. Misleading statement. No work is going on in the project area as recorded on Setusamudram Corporation website. It is misleading to state that work in Palk Strait region is going on. Objections have been raised from the very beginning including the objections raised by MS Karunanidhi during public hearings not to touch Rama Setu. 35 lakh signatures were submitted in 2006 to the President protesting at the move to destroy Rama Setu. It is the Central Govt. which transferred the Madras HC case to SC after the judgement was given by the two-judge Bench including CJ of Madras HC on 19 June 2007.

Para 12. After the tsunami of 26 December 2004 the entire project should have been reviewed de novo. This was NOT done. No tsunami protection measures are included.

Para 13. As mentioned on comments of Para 11, objections were raised as early as in 2004 and were ignored. Repeated requests made under RTI Act have been ignored.

Para 15. .”…further reinforced by the final report of August 2004 of NEERI.” This report is before the occurrence of tsunami. Hence, no evaluation has been done on the impact of a tsunami on the chosen alignment. As noted earlier, it is incorrect to state that assertions made by the petitioners were not made earlier. Petitions and submissions made have just been ignored and brushed aside without any reasons being provided. Para 18. The project is a white elephant and will result in a sick unit since the navigational route does not make nautical sense. Alternative transport modes including transshipment of containers by rail or being carried through Pamban gap (using cantilever railway bridge) have not been examined and presented in project reports.

Para 19. Experts’ view is that the project is not economically viable and alternatives of Marine Economic Zone will yield over Rs. 8000 crores of foreign exchange earnings per year as against the estimated annual revenue of Rs. 200 crores from the Setu channel after devastating the livelihood of fisherfolk community along the coast. Both fishing and navigation can NOT co exist in this narrow strait.

Para 20. Misleading. Who has studied about the impact of the tsunami? Where are the rports?

Para 21. Naval and security implications of the project have been questioned by experts including Admiral of Indian Navy and Director General of Coast Guard and Capt. Balakrishnan (Advocate Venugopal’s affidavit).

Para 22. It is INCORRECT to say that petitioners approached the Courts very belatedly. It is only after exhausting all public avenues that the petitioners were forced to appear before the Hon’ble SC after the Centre got the cases transferred to SC from Madras HC. Madras HC had issued instructions on 19 June 2007 prior to the SC orders of 31 August 2007. These Madrs HC orders have NOT been answered SO FAR. Petitions are NOT misconceived, they are in public and national interest. It is the respondent who is misleading the Hon’ble Court as detailed paragraph by paragraph.

Para 24. Bonafides of Eminent Persons Committee, their biases/prejudices and the unfair procedures adopted have been mentioned earlier. We need to get copies of ALL the submissions made before the Committee which was only authorized to collect objections and suggestions and did NOT have the competence nor were authorized by the Hon’ble Court to make any substantive recommendations. IT was a Govt. Committee and not a commission appointed by the Hon’ble SC.

Para 28. The fact that Gulf of Mannar is a Notified Marine National Park makes it a natural property as defined for World Heritage Sites under an international convention to which India is a signatory. This is the ground on which Majuli island of Jorhat Dist. in Assam – the largest river island in the world — is recommended by Govt. to be declared as a World Heritage site. The Rama Setu is the largest bridge in the ocean which has been used as a bridge linking India and Sri lanka unlike the Great Barrier Reef of Australia which is called only a Reef. Why has this aspect NOT been taken into account by Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). Why has NOT ASI submitted its response to the Hon’ble Court?

Part 29. Misleading statement. If ASI had NOT done any archaeological study, how could the project report declare that there was NO archaeological site in the project area? Para 41. If Environment Ministry considered the project to be environmentally unacceptable in March 1999, what changed the situation in subsequent years? The project is ab initio illegal because Tamil Nadu Pollution Control clearance was NOT obtained as averred in the petition by J. Jayalalithaa’s petition (Advocate Shri Venugopal). When the sixth alignment was chosen, Environmental Impact Analysis laws stipulated that archaeology studies were mandatory. Why were no archaeological studies undertaken?

Para 43. Arun Jaitley has stated that he told the then PM Atal Behari Vajpayee NOT to go for inaugurating the project since the project was not viable and had many questionable aspects. Arun Jaitly should repeat this statement before the Hon’ble Court.

Para 63. As already noted objections were raised by MS Karunanidhi of Ramanathapuram during public hearings in 2004. These public hearings DID NOT include hearing public views about religious aspects or aspects of peoples’ sentiments.

Para 70. Where are the technical reports answereing the issues raised by Prof. Tad S Murty and others on post-tsunami environment situation and likelihood of another tsunami and protection measures proposed to save the coastal properties and peoples’ lives?

Para 72. The situation of marine products reported has been contradicted by a marine expert Mr. Kannaiyan who was also Chairman of the Environmental Monitoring Committee in a speech delivered in Chennai on 28 Feb. 2008.

Para 73. Why si there no reference to 16 questions raised by PMO and the incoherent answers provided by Chairman of Setu project? Was there enough time and enough exercise of due diligence before the project was inaugurated on 2 July 2005?. How about the US Navy Operational Directive that intervened on 23 June 2005 refusing to recognize the Historic Waters status (declared since June 1974 by Indira Gandhi and Bandaranaike), treating these as International Waters? Why was an International Waters Boudary sought to be created by the channel when no such boundary existed before?

Para 74. ‘Trans-boundaries’ considerations are an issue related to national sovereignty and should be evaluated with refernce to Law of the Sea recognizing Historic Waters and the age-old rights jointly shared by people of India and Srilanka coasts. Srilanka’s concerns have been recorded and have not been answered resulting in likelihood of litigation in International Court of Justice.

Para 77. Badrinarayanan’s answers should be sought in the context of the proposed channel acting as a funnel absorbing the future impacts of future tsunamis devasting the coastline of Tamilnadu and Kerala. The alignment of channel has again been questioned as a disaster by Prof. Tad S Murthy two months ago in Vishakapatnam.

Para 79. Alignment 6 destroys Rama Setu which should be deemed a national monument (see Madras HC judgement of 19 June 2007 for detailed evidences). As noted in a US Superior Court judgement, the sentiments of Navajo people were respected regarding the sacredness of a mountain which was sought to be desiccated by building sewerage facilities. The proposed sewerage project was stopped under the US court orders. Punjab and Haryana HC had deemed Brahmasarovar to be a national monument as regards a real estate project in the area. See also the proposal for Majuli island to be declared a World Heritage or Amarnath caves as a national monument. Even a cave, or stone or body of water can be deemed a national monument.

Para 81. Huge losses to the public exchequer is a red herring. There will be much heavier losses by the project which will required perpetual maintenance dredging for a paltry annual return while devastating the livelihood of 20 lakh coastal people. Alternatives such as Marine Economic Zone have NOT been evaluated at all. For whose benefit of the project? Cut the losses before further damage is caused to the security of the coastline and coastal properties in this nuclear resource zone of the world which accounts for 32% of thorium reserves and are critical for the nation’s nuclear energy program.

Para 84. Respondent admits that NO archaeology study was conducted. So when the Alignment 6 was approved in 2004, a blatant illegality had occurred by a wrong and baseless statement that no archaeological site existed in the project area. The project is rendered ab initio illegal. As an eminent jurist Cardozo observed: “What is ab initio illegal cannot be deemed legal by subsequent discovery.” So the project should be re-studied. The stay on not damaging Rama Setu should be made absolute and the stay should extend to the entire project until all alternatives are evaluated for nation’s development including alternatives such as promotion of heritage and eco-tourism, building east coast railway to link Tuticorin with Kolkata, Colombo with Madurai, Jaffna with Nagapattinam and transshipment of containers from Tuticorin using small vessels navigating through Pamban Gap (using railway cantilever bridge) and of course, setting up Marine Economic Zones with the potential to generate Rs. 10,000 crores in foreign exchange annually through export of marine products from Tamilnadu alone since fish landings in the Indian Ocean have increased five-fold during the last 40 years. Para 88. See comments made upfront about the meaning of secular. Government cannot pass the buck to the Courts. Government’s job is to govern and take the peoples’ sentiments into account.

Para 89. An absurd and extraordinary, shocking request by the Respondent. Hon’ble Supreme Court is not an adjudicator nor an arbitrator to which matters can be dumped for evaluating evidence. It is for the Government to evaluate the issues raised by the Petitions and govern which includes the responsibility to take into account the sentiments of the people as was done in the Jallikattu case in Tamilnadu. Even a government ruled by some atheists should respect the cultural traditions of the people as in the case of Rama Setu which is considered sacred by millions of people world-over. Aasetu Himachalam is Survey of India’s logo representing Rama Setu as the southern boundary of the nation. A civil government should not be destroying monuments as the Taliban did destroying Bamian Buddha calling it mere stone. The request is shocking because the Courts are being treated as extension offices of the State. Courts are NOT extension counters of bureaucracies or the Executive.

What is needed is NOT adjudication but rending of justice which in this case means that Union of India should be asked to read the petitioners averments and respond including the request for declaring Rama Setu as a World Heritage Monument and Rameshwaram as a Divyakshetram (Sacred Town), a teerthasthaanam.

Rule of Law is put to test by the Respondent’s affidavit with misleading averments.

In England even today, the great ruling of Lord Erskine, proclaimed for all time in 1794, holds good even today: “The rules of evidence are founded in the Charities of Religion—in the philosophy of nature – in the truths of history, and in the experienceof common life.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes (1841-1935) said: “The first requirement of a sound body of Law is, that it should correspond with the actual feelings and demands of the community, whether right or wrong. ….. Law is a Statement of the Circumstances in which the public force will be brought to bear upon men through the Courts.”

Chief Justice Felix Frankfurter in his famous judgement in Alleghany vs Breswick & Co in 1957: “While it is not always profitable to analogize ‘fact’ to ‘fiction’, La Fountaine’s Fable of the Crow, the Cheese, and the Fox demonstrates that there is a substantial difference between holding a piece of cheese in the beak and putting it in the stomach.”

VHP threatens to launch movement on Sethusamudram issue

Kolkata (PTI), March 1, 2008:

Criticising the Congress-led UPA government for seeking court clearance to go ahead with Sethusamudram project, Viswa Hindu Parishad on Saturday threatened to launch a Ramjanmabhoomi-like movement across the country. “The UPA government in its affidavit in the apex court yesterday had sought clearance to go ahead with Sethusamudram project. The Hindus will not keep silent. No one will be able to rule in the country by insulting Hindus”, VHP general secretary Praveen Togadia told reporters here.

Congress which has “challenged the faith of Hindus” should not dream of returning to power after the next Lok sabha poll.

“The UPA government wants to respect the faith of the Muslims and Christians but hurt the sentiments of the Hindus”, he said.

He said ’sadhus’ would lead the movement but “we will seek the support of all political parties.” The details of the movement would be chalked out within a day or two, he said. To a question, Togadia said that he did not hold any talk with BJP leaders L K Advani or Rajnath Singh on this issue. Criticising the government for alleged communalisation of union budget, Togadia said the UPA government had allocated seperate fund for minority development and decided to open over 280 bank branches in minority-dominated discticts.

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/holnus/004200803011921.htm

Full text of Govt affidavit; Govt. to ignore Hindu sentiments

· Posted: Sat, Mar 1 2008. 12:28 AM IST (Livemint.com)

Govt offers scant religious link for Sethu

The Union government filed its affidavit in the Supreme Court without addressing a key question: is the Adam’s Bridge, or Ram Sethu, man-made or natural?

Malathi Nayak and Krishnamurthy Ramasubbu

New Delhi, March 1, 2008: After weeks of dithering, seeking extensions and withdrawing previously filed affidavits, the Union government filed its affidavit in the Supreme Court without addressing a key question: is the Adam’s Bridge, or Ram Sethu, man-made or natural?

Only two of 89 paragraphs of the affidavit discuss religion, largely leaving the court to decide the fate of a project that has been held up primarily because of opposition to it on religious grounds.

“The state respects all religions and faiths, but cannot make them a basis and instrument of State policy,” the affidavit says.

Read the affidavit filed by the government

Part I http://hinduthought.googlepages.com/setuaffidavit1.pdf (5mb) Mirror:

http://www.livemint.com/2008/03/01002401/58760CF8-C887-4E06-977A-A2A5D8F45C43ArtVPF.pdf

Part II http://hinduthought.googlepages.com/setuaffidavit2.pdf (5mb) Mirror:

http://www.livemint.com/2008/03/01002401/9A3B3B1F-9D61-4939-92E7-22A46D09581AArtVPF.pdf

Part III http://hinduthought.googlepages.com/setuaffidavit3.pdf (5mb) Mirror:

http://www.livemint.com/2008/03/01002401/EF761A86-2492-4DED-B720-3942894D3FA4ArtVPF.pdf

Part IV http://hinduthought.googlepages.com/setuaffidavit4.pdf (5mb) Mirror:

http://www.livemint.com/2008/03/01002401/61B71821-9471-4D52-86B0-501F39C15008ArtVPF.pdf

Countless Hindus believe the walkway between India and Sri Lanka was made by Hindu god Ram and that belief has sparked massive protests against a government plan to dredge the Sethu to shorten shipping routes. The issue united disparate groups, such as the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and environmentalists, and the Bharatiya Janata Party, which is seeking to find a cause, especially in south India, and local fisherman who said their livelihoods were at stake.

Concerns also were raised over the fiscal soundness of the Rs2,600 crore project, as costs skyrocketed and loan terms expired.

In its affidavit, though, the government provided no evidence of the creation of the bridge. In addition, the Union government questioned why petitioners only approached the court in May 2007, some five years after the project had been approved. The rest of the affidavit details the history and background of the project—indeed, one proposal to dredge a canal dates back to 1860.

The government says the present dredging route was chosen after weighing ecological and environmental considerations.

Noting the report of the Committee of Eminent Persons, a group the government had convened to examine the issue, the Union government asked the court to resolve the sticky situation based on the committee’s conclusions.

In some ways, petitioners fear that if the issue stays with the court, it will remain dormant, similar to the case brought against politicians alleging involvement in the Babri Masjid demolition. Alluding to this, Janata party leader and petitioner Subramanian Swa-my said, “Once the case gets stuck, the Ram Sethu is safe.”

He expressed concern over the government not paying heed to the Madras high court’s direction, later upheld by the Supreme Court, that the ministry of culture conduct an investigation into the ancient archaeological site and explain its religious and cultural importance.

“The government has not taken a clear cut stand and they have already destroyed their own case,” claimed Swamy. “They are also looking to the courts to fish them out of this predicament.”

A senior counsel of the Supreme Court, who did not wish to be identified, said: “It is right that scientific evidence cannot be used to decide upon a matter of faith. How can one prove without doubt that Jesus was put on the cross? The court will say that the government is not addressing the matter presented by the petitioners and will refuse to vacate the stay” on the Ram Sethu project, he predicted.

On 31 January, the court gave the government a four-week extension to file its affidavit, after it withdrew its earlier two affidavits in September last year that included a controversial affidavit that stated there was no evidence to prove the existence of Ram.

(malathi.n@livemint.com)

http://www.livemint.com/2008/03/01002401/Govt-offers-scant-religious-li.html