The National Democratic Alliance government did it-undermining the autonomy of a scientific department called the Archaeological Survey of India. The United Progressive Alliance has compounded it by withdrawing a scientific body's opinion on a matter on which it is eminently competent, and statutorily obliged, to give its view.

The issue began with two petitions before the Supreme Court, one filed by Janata Party leader Subramaniam Swamy and the other by one Rama Gopalan. Both pleaded that the Sethusamudram project would destroy the Rama Setu (also called Ramar Sethu and Adam's Bridge), believed to have been built by Lord Rama. Citing mythology, and a few NASA photographs interpreted by Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) as evidence, the petitioners wanted the setu to be declared a protected monument under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act of 1958.

In its counter affidavit, the Archaeological Survey of India said that the Rama Setu is a natural phenomenon, and that all characters and events in mythologies cannot be construed as historically true. The affidavit enraged VHP activists. BJP leader L.K. Advani met Union Law Minister H.R. Bhardwaj and asked him to withdraw the affidavit which was "questioning the faith of millions of Hindus". The next day, Bhardwaj offered to withdraw the affidavit averring that "the Central government has total respect for all religions, and Hinduism in particular". Even the Left parties supported the government's move. The government suspended two ASI officials and ordered an inquiry. Said an archaeologist: "Everybody seems to be reacting on the basis of television headlines and newspaper reports. Nobody appears to have read the affidavit."

THE WEEK tried to get the views of superintending archaeologists from various circles of ASI. Though all of them initially held that there was no need to question the existence of Rama, none of them found anything objectionable in it once they had read the affidavit. Nowhere in the affidavit had the ASI said that Lord Rama did not exist. It had merely said that as a scientific body, the ASI could not accept mythology "as historical record to incontrovertibly prove the existence of the characters, or the occurrence of the events, depicted therein". The science of archaeology, the ASI said, requires "tangible material evidence" before it declares any mythological story as true history. As pointed out by eminent historian D.N. Jha, who was also critical of the affidavit till he read it, "this is what any archaeologist would write. The ASI had taken a very sensible position in this."

The issue before the ASI, archaeologists point out, was whether the Rama Setu was a man-made structure and, if so, whether it should be protected as a national (archaeological) monument, as the petitioners had demanded.

As pointed out in its affidavit, the ASI deals only with man-made structures. However, it had reports prepared by similar scientific organisations like the Geological Survey of India which "confirmed that there were no indications or evidences of man-made structures on the present-day seabed or on the subsurface level...". The ASI was also aware of the study by Space Application Centre, Ahmedabad, to establish whether Rama Setu was man-made. "The study concluded that Adam's Bridge is not a man-made structure, but actually comprised of [sic] 103 small patch reefs lying in a linear pattern with reef crest, sand cays and intermittent deep channels. The linearity of the bridge suggests an old shoreline from where coral reef evolved."

So it did not fall within the purview of the ASI's protection. "It could still be protected as natural biosphere or as a geological phenomenon," said Dr Laxman Thakur, professor of history in Himachal Pradesh University, and editor of Studies in Humanities & Social Sciences at the Indian Institute of Advanced Study. "But not as an archaeological monument."

The petitioners had relied completely on mythology, and a NASA photograph, which had been printed on VHP's booklets and leaflets, to contend that Rama Setu was a man-made structure. The ASI contended that the accuracy of "contents of mythological texts... is largely unascertainable."

Thakur would not dismiss mythology as pure fiction. "Some characters could be historical," he said. "But many of the stories have been added in later years. Even some of the places mentioned in mythologies are there for real. But if the setu is a natural phenomenon, it is not the job of the ASI to protect it."

The NASA photos and their VHP interpretation have been more controversial. NASA had disowned the VHP interpretation of its photograph. The affidavit pointed out that "NASA has publicly clarified that although these images were taken by NASA spacecraft, NASA is not responsible for any interpretations made by third parties of such images. It is submitted that NASA has further clarified that images of the area were being captured for several years and no scientific discovery had been made so far in respect of the origins of the formation known as Adam's Bridge."

NASA had also referred to the formation as a 'tombolo' which "may be described as a sand bar or sand spit, which forms a narrow piece of land between an island or offshore rock and a mainland shore, or between two islands of offshore rocks.... Tombolos are naturally occuring formations and can be found at several places across the globe" like the ones in Dorset in England, Stockton Island in Wisconsin, US, Mont. Saint-Michel in Normandy, France, and Yasawa Islands in Fiji. So the ASI submitted that "in the light of the scientific study conducted, the said formation cannot... be said to be a man-made structure. The same is merely a sand and coral formation which cannot be said to be of historical, archaeological or artistic interest or importance."

At the same time, the ASI affidavit was not exactly dismissive of myths. "... In a country as rich in cultural and historical diversity as India which has an established history ranging over nearly 9,000 years, the line between myth and reality is often obliterated. However, the Answering Respondents [the ASI] are bound to adopt a completely neutral and objective approach in the performance of their duties. It is only with due exercise of such detachment and objectivity that matters such as the instant case can be dealt with, particularly in the light of the various ramifications of a decision either to declare or deny the existence of a structure of historical/cultural/artistic/archaeological relevance."

Jha believes that at the centre of the issue is ASI's autonomy. "The ASI had been spineless for some time," he said. "It had just got its spine back, when the government has taken it back." Its archaeologists agree that their autonomy is limited ever since the ASI was declared a science and technology department in 1989 and IAS officers came to head the body, once headed by some of the world's most renowned archaeologists. "However, we should be allowed to have the autonomy in formulating the scientific views on issues," said an archaeologist.

ASI officials also point out that they had tried to balance between the discipline of science and the demands of political expediency even during the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance government. For instance, when Murli Manohar Joshi, then human resource development minister, declared that "temple-like structures" had been recovered from what was believed to be Krishna's Dwaraka, the archaeologists had discreetly distanced themselves from Joshi's interpretation. "The governments, be it the BJP's or the Congress's, think of ASI only as a government department," said Jha. "They forget that the ASI is also a body of trained professionals who have to give scientific opinion. That is why, as a historian, I don't find anything wrong in the affidavit. By giving such an opinion, the ASI had redeemed its bad reputation. Unfortunately, it has now been prevented from that."

Bridge and the toll

 Prabhakaran Paleri

When a strategic decision gives way to politics and sceptical appreciations, the public finds it difficult to understand. The Sethusamudram project is one such decision. On one side the idea epitomises the chak de will of India by breathing life for a century and half. On the other it auto runs the drag down menu to delete in a 'chuck de' jinx.

In 1860, when Commander Taylor of India marines conceived the idea of making a navigable channel by linking the Gulf of Mannar with the Palk Bay, he had a reason that is still valid-to join peninsular India in the southeast in a subliminal feeling of closeness and reach. Was Taylor influenced by the just-started Suez Canal Project (April 28, 1859)?

With this historical underpinning, the project is officially on after the Prime Minister inaugurated it in Madurai on July 2, 2005. In spite of continuing opposition-diplomatic assertions from Sri Lanka, apprehensive admonitions from environmentalists and fishers, intellectual discourses, and vociferous arguments from the political genre of differing fronts and faiths-the project moved on. The government incorporated deviations to accommodate people's will and sentiments. Changing the alignment to prevent breaching of the Adam's Bridge (the shallows at the interface of the gulf and the bay) that the believers think is Rama Setu was one such submission. Taking cognisance of human sentiments is vital to governance. A prudent government understands it.

The project is a maritime magnum opus that any government had attempted so far in India, the British included. While it is not part of a defence strategy, it could offer considerable support in handling security issues and projecting the nation's capability to the outside world. Today, India has sufficient reasons to be cautious in its strategic assessment on a minute-to-minute basis rather than the usual annual approach before budgeting. Of course, Sethusamudram is not a panacea for all the evils India face. It could offer tremendous support in the nation's pursuit to contain them.

The channel will connect the bay and the gulf as a single entity for movement. That will positively impact on commercial, fisheries, energy, environmental and security-related activities. Considering these are designated historic waters between India and Sri Lanka under the UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982), the share is exclusive to both the countries along the median line. Historically, countries contiguous to commercial shipping channels have benefited substantially. There could be apprehensions on security, safety, environment, resource-exploitation and even the economic viability of the project. The channel should be able to limit the unlawful activities in the Palk Bay and the Gulf of Mannar since the existing maritime MCSR regime (monitoring, control, surveillance and response) will naturally get upgraded once the channel is commissioned. There will be more effective control over unlawful activities, fisheries issues, energy exploration and environment in the area that will be better administered in the wake of the shipping channel. Both Tuticorin and Colombo ports and the secondary ports between Chennai and Nagapattinam stand to benefit.

Safety of shipping and the channel itself could be a major issue. An accident can block the channel for a long time in the absence of quick clearing response machinery. India is notoriously incompetent in the field of maritime salvage and support. It has been noted by the inquiry committee in the incident related to the platform explosion in the Mumbai High North (MHN) in July 2005. Sethusamudram shipping channel may increase demand for setting up professional maritime salvage industry in India.

The economics of the channel will depend entirely on the vacillating shipping demand and marketing by the government. But there is a possibility that it may boost long-range coastal shipping by traditional vessels.

All these, if the project survives; but, as said, Project Sethusamudram has an uncanny knack of deceiving time. That is good news.

The writer is former Coast Guard chief.
http://week.manoramaonline.com/cgi-bin/MMOnline.dll/portal/ep/theWeekContent.do?BV_ID=@@@&contentType=EDITORIAL&sectionName=TheWeek%20Current%20Events&programId=1073754900&contentId=2963718

All copyrights reserved with Malayala Manorama Group