Retributions  

Debate Sethusamudram. Not Religion.

ASI’s controversial affidavit in the Supreme Court questioning the historicity of Ramayana and its characters has stirred the proverbial hornet’s nest. B.J.P and its assorted partners have threatened an agitation; an apology is being demanded from the Prime Minister; and in the latest twist the minister for culture has offered to resign–her leader permitting.

While it is indeed true that empirical evidence cannot be offered for religious beliefs and hence ordinarily, the secular state shouldn’t interfere in religious debates, the opposition to the Sethusamudram project–at least in the ongoing case filed by Dr Subramaniam Swamy in the Supreme Court which necessitated the ASI affidavit–is based on religious beliefs. The argument that the Adams bridge (Ram Setu) shouldn’t be damaged inter alia rests on the historical presence of Rama. Hence, one fails to see what exactly may be wrong with ASI doubting the historicity of Ramayana. Indeed, if the ASI is wrong and the Adams Bridge is indeed Ram setu, then the counter evidence should be offered to the Court. It is important is note that while ASI is a government institution, it is a scientific body and hence empiricism is essential to its function. Such evidence cannot be subject to religious beliefs which by their nature go beyond what would be scientifically considered rational.

What is particularly galling is that a debate that should be settled by science is being influenced by religion. The debate on sethusamudram is by no means settled. As Reality Check points out in this informative post, there are serious concerns–both about its economic viability as well as its effect on the fragile marine environment. The Indian government’s record on environment is hardly exemplary especially in projects which have political backing. Experts have also argued that sethusamudram can amplify tsunamis. Hence, it would make immense sense to evaluate the project along these lines and ensure it is aligned so that it causes the least damage to the environment while still retaining its commercial viability.

Instead, we have the sorry spectacle of political parties falling over each other to assuage hurt religious sensibilities. As the Indian Express editorial correctly notes, the government seems to be re-evaluating the entire project in the light of ASI controversy. When rhetoric replaces reason as the foundation for public policy, the larger public interest is put on the backburner. Let there be a vigorous debate on the entire project–informed by reason and not religion.