Save Ram Setu
History, ecology are at stake
From The Pioneer Edit Desk on June 12th
When the Taliban destroyed the Bamiyan statues, the world reacted with shocked horror at this act of barbarism. What the UPA Government in India proposes to do to Ram Setu, also known as Adam’s Bridge, is no less horrifying. As may be recalled, the Setusamudram Ship Channel Project aims to create a navigable sea route, between the Gulf of Mannar and Palk Bay, by slicing the Ram Setu in order to reduce the sailing distance between India’s coasts. Consequently, the Ram Setu, of known spiritual significance to Hindus, will be destroyed through extensive dredging. In fact, there are sound reasons for rejecting the project, as conceived at present, other than the important one of protecting the site for its cultural and religious worth. Among them, what are weighty are the objections that pertain to its wide-ranging environmental impact. For instance, experts have claimed shifts in the flows of currents would adversely affect sensitive ecosystems, as would the increasing possibility of damaging oil spills. It is estimated that fragile marine life, such as delicate corals, would be destroyed through the various processes unleashed. Life on the mainland would not remain unaffected as changes in seawater flows and temperature would impact climate and affect rainfall in coastal areas even as erosion could increase. Most importantly, experts inform us, the Ram Setu forms a barrier that blocks tsunamis, in the absence of which the entire coasts of Kerala and Tamil Nadu could be endangered. Were this not reason enough, Thorium deposits in Kerala and Tamil Nadu may be affected, upsetting India’s indigenous nuclear programme. It is significant that the Sir Mudaliar Committee Report of 1956 had recommended the abandonment of the idea of such a project, finding the channel alignment unsuitable.
The argument about the spiritual significance of the site is no less compelling. It is neither here nor there to argue that there is little scientific evidence to prove that Adam’s Bridge is manmade. For, within each spiritual tradition are matters purely of belief for which no rational explanations or scientific proofs are available. Thus Christians believe in the immaculate conception, the Jews that the Red Sea parted for Moses, and Muslims that Islam was revealed to the Prophet through the divine agency of Angel Gabriel. The Hindu belief that Hanuman’s vanar sena built a bridge to Lanka that allowed Ram to cross over, fell Ravana and rescue Sita is in a similar vein and should hardly be scoffed at. The historicity of the event has little relevance to the debate, though it is possible that, as Indians were prone to oral narratives rather than written records, facts are likely to be the basis of the Ramayan. As the sentiments of hundreds of millions of people are involved, these cannot be trumped by the views of an individual Minister in a democracy. Nothing explains the unholy hurry in going ahead with the project except the need to pander to the crassest financial interests.
Editor’s addendum: S Badrinarayanan, former director of Geological Survey of India and a member of the National Institute of Ocean Technology (NIOT) says the Adam’s Bridge was not a natural formation. “Such a natural formation is impossible. Unless somebody has transported them and dumped them there, those reefs could not have come there. Some boulders were so light that they could float on water. Apparently, whoever has done it, has identified light (but strong) boulders to make it easy for transportation. Since they are strong, they can withstand a lot of weight. It should be preserved as a national monument,” he opined.
Email This Post
Loading ...