"In an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has insisted that there is no "historical record" to validate the Ramayan and, as such, Ram is a fictional character... .
Ram defines our nation, our ancestry, our civilisation. Denying Ram is denying India. Gandhi stood firmly for Ram Rajya. He died with Ram's name on his lips. His samadhi in Delhi has only one inscription etched on it, He Ram. But Hindus are asked to provide proof of Rama's birthplace ....."
Here are five recent articles on the Govt. assault on Hinduism :
1) Denying Ram is denying India
Tarun Vijay; rediff.com; September 14, 2007
2) The Ram I know
Karan Singh; Indian Express; Sept. 14, 2007
3) Perversity as secularism
KPS Gill; Pioneer, Sep 15, 2007
4) Assault on Hindu psyche
Priyadarsi Dutta; Pioneer, Sep 15, 2007
5) Faith, fact and fiction
Ashok Malik; Pioneer, Sep 15. 2007
============ ========= ========= ========= ====
Attachment A
<b>Denying Ram is denying India</b>
Tarun Vijay
rediff.com; September 14, 2007
Sonia Gandhi again played a masterstroke by taking credit for withdrawing the offending Ram Sethu affidavit. But this has also raised the question whether she did it in deference to Hindu sentiments or was she afraid of its negative impact on her party's election prospects. Since the United Progressive Alliance's ascendancy to power, a number of decisions have been taken by the government which hurt Hindu sentiments but none cared.
If suddenly her conscience took cognisance of Hindu sensitivities, then logically she should have also withdrawn the destruction of the Ram Sethu. One can only hope that political leaders understand that this issue concerns national sentiments and should be dealt beyond party lines.
After all, the affidavit was filed quite confidently by the State apparatus because the entire atmosphere of governance has a distinct 'offend the Hindus, get the Muslim votes' hue. Bureaucrats, being the most durbari species, sensed it, otherwise none would have dared to file such nonsense on a stamp paper during A B Vajpayee's regime.
It is this all-pervading air of 'bruising Hindus to get a pat' that the name that appears first on our lips since birth and lasts till the funeral pyre is lit was challenged so coolly by a government which is not run by aliens.
It has tried to delete all that stood for our identity and cultural traits that define us, our nationhood and soul. It shows utter disregard for the majority sentiment and the threads that weave a fabric called India, while distributing gifts of reservations and loans and opportunities for anyone declaring himself to be a non-Hindu. One Diwali our Shankaracharya was arrested and then Muslims were given reservations in jobs and educational institutions. No one ever, not even once, showed any concern for the Kashmiri Hindu refugees; rather illegal alien Muslim infiltrators were facilitated by enacting the Illegal Migrants Detention Act and when the Supreme Court struck it down, again brought it back through the back door.
This attitude sets the tone of the State machinery. So what happened in this case was nothing surprising. If the affidavit was honestly withdrawn to respect Hindu sentiments, then why was it not accompanied with an announcement to withdraw the destruction of the Ram Sethu also? If the offending affidavit is bad, then the destruction of the bridge connected with the same great icon of Hindus is worse.
Didn't the political masters who cleared the affidavit know that Ram doesn't need any birth certificate from occupants of the paan-stained dirty corridors of State? Faith of any hue and region has to be respected unquestioningly. It is faith that makes people live and die for a cause, and not political jugglery.
Ram defines our nation, our ancestry, our civilisation. Denying Ram is denying India. Gandhi stood firmly for Ram Rajya. He died with Ram's name on his lips. His samadhi in Delhi has only one inscription etched on it, He Ram. But Hindus are asked to provide proof of Rama's birthplace and the data of his bridge's construction plans.
Now they asked for proof of his existence. Next they may ask -- with this kind of Parliament it is quite possible -- to provide proof of who gave Bharat her name. Where are the records? And the ASI's poor director will file an affidavit: We do not have any 'scientifically' ascertainable records, only mythologies say this land's name is Bharat. Hence the name can be changed to any Nehru-Gandhi Clanistan, which will have proof authenticated by the New Delhi Municipal Corporation!
Mythology. The whole construct is a British anthropological revenge on us. We had a different tradition of recording events and writing history. The British and their cohorts taught that all that was mythology, a myth, and only the Western Christian world's methods are 'scientific' . Hence we adopted their standards, their calendar, their ways to greet the guests, their worldview became ours, and we discarded everything that we cherished, adopted their attire and weird uniforms (see our learned advocates sweating in black but still not complaining) to look modern and progressive.
Hence questioning Ram and Sita, humiliating ochre-robed sanyasins, converting ancient people and ridiculing their faith becomes part of cleansing the 'heathens and pagans' of their dark practices and emancipating them to the 'higher' levels of 'modernity'.
When Kalidas wrote Raghuvamsam, he described the entire dynasty beginning from Brahma. Lord Brahma created 10 prajapatis -- one of whom was Marichi. Kashyapa is the son of Marichi and Kala. Kashyapa is regarded as the father of humanity. Vivasvan or Surya is the son of Kashyapa and Aditi. Manu or Vaivaswatha Manu is the son of Vivasvan. He is regarded as the first ruler belonging to the Ikshvaku dynasty. Ikshvaku is the son of Manu and established his kingdom in Ayodhya. Kukshi is the son of Ikshavaku. Vikukshi is the son of Kukshi. Bana is the son of Vikukshi. Anaranya is the son of Bana. Prithu is the son of Anaranya. Trisanku is the son of Prithu. Dhundhumara is the son of Trisanku. Yuvanaswa is the son of Dhundhumara. Mandhata is the son of Yuvanaswa. Susandhi is the son of Mandhata. Daivasandhi and Presenjit are the sons of Susandhi. Bharatha is the son of Presenjit. Asita is the son of Bharatha. Sagara is the son of Asitha. Asamanja is the son of Sagara. Amsumantha (Ansuman) is the son of Asamanja. Dileepa is the son of Amsumantha. Bhagiratha is the son of Dileepa. Kakustha is the son of Bhagiratha. Raghu is the son of Kakushta.
The clan of Raghuvamsha started with Raghu. Pravardha is the son of Raghu. Sankhana is the son of Pravardha. Sudarsana is the son of Sankhana. Agnivarna is the son of Sudarsana. Seeghraga is the son of Agnivarna. Maru is the son of Seeghraga. Prasusruka is the son of Maru. Ambarisha is the son of Prasusruka. Nahusha is the son of Ambarisha. Yayathi is the son of Nahusha. Nabhaga is the son of Yayathi. Aja is the son of Nabhaga. Dasaratha is the son of Aja. Rama, Lakshmana, Bharatha and Shatrughana are the sons of Dasaratha. Lava and Kusha are the sons of Rama.
Oh my god, these Sanskrit names! Why couldn't they have Roman ones, to be pronounced better?
The entire East Asia reverberates with the tales of Rama and enactment of the Ramayana including the Muslim-majority Malaysia and Indonesia and countries ruled by the Communists. But a Hindu majority country's government, under a non-Hindu dispensation, destroys the great bridge associated with Rama's legacy and files an affidavit that smacks of an alien mindset.
This was a counter-affidavit filed by C Dorjee, director (monuments), Archaeological Survey of India, on behalf of the respondent Union of India through the ministry of culture in reply to Dr Subramanian Swamy's petition that seeks to put a halt on the Sethu destruction. The language of the affidavit and the way it addressed the Adam's Bridge issue smacked of an utter disregard for Hindus. They hate calling it Ram Sethu and feel quite comfortable with Adam's Bridge, a much later coinage. Same firang mindset!
The way the whole issue is being dealt with by the government of India right from the beginning stinks of dishonesty and an aversion to Hindu sensitivities.
There were five channels available for the Sethusamudram project. Why the government chose this particular one, which required the destruction of the Ram Sethu?
The Madras high court and later the Supreme Court had specifically addressed the question of putting a halt to the Ram Sethu's destruction till the hearings are on. The Madras high court order of June 19, 2007 said, 'We are not inclined to grant interim relief at this stage, as it would hamper further work in the project. However, we leave it to the Union of India to decide whether the actual cutting of Adam's Bridge/Rama Sethu could be postponed till the issues involved in these petitions are considered by this court.'
And the Supreme Court order of August 30, 2007 said, 'Till September 14, the alleged Rama Sethu/Adam's bridge shall not be damaged in any manner. Dredging activity may be carried out so long as it does not damage Rama Sethu.'
But the government defied it and everyday put up reports of the destruction progress on its Web site
http://sethusamudra m.gov.in/ ProjectStatus. asp under the 'Progress of Dredging Work' head.
The ministers and officers supporting such actions represent the same spineless babudom of the colonial era who would stoop to immeasurable depths only to protect their interests.
Ram set the highest example of righteousness, as an obedient son, caring husband, great citizen king, and a warrior par excellence. He is the embodiment of Dharma, who inspires to eliminate the wicked and establish the rule of noble virtues. Those who worship him are there in every party and organisation, yet, to rise above selfishness and uphold Dharma is a rarity.
To make the State just and fair, representing Bharat, is the unfinished war of Ram.
http://www.rediff. com///news/ 2007/sep/ 14tarun.htm
============ ========= ========= ========= =========
Attachment B
<b>The Ram I know
Karan Singh
Indian Express; Sept. 14, 2007
<i>The ASI affidavit was unfortunate, unfair and downright derogatory â not only to Hindus in India and around the world but to all those who treasure our unique pluralistic cultural heritage, writes Karan Singh </i>
As if we do not have enough controversies on our national plate, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) in its wisdom had added to the general confusion and tension that surrounds us. It is one thing for the ASI to opine that the Ram Setu/Adamâs bridge is âmerely a sand and coral formation which cannot be said to be of historical, archaeological or artistic interest or importance.â This is a bona fide view which can only be countered by equally strong professional counter-arguments. However, they shocked the nation by going far beyond that and making certain sweeping obiter dicta that questioned the very existence of Ram as a historical figure, although they have now withdrawn it. In this connection, several points need to be made.
Firstly, âhistorical evidenceâ for most of the outstanding religious figures in the world would be difficult to find, particularly as many are lost in the mists of antiquity. This is not a question for Ph.D dissertations, but one that affects the beliefs and sentiments of crores of people around the world. Besides, there are numerous places in India and Sri Lanka which are closely linked with the events in Ramâs life including Ayodhya and Janakpuri, Rameshwaram and Dhanushkodi. It is now well accepted by historians that so-called âmythsâ and âlegendsâ very often have a strong basis in actual events and personalities.
Secondly, from the original Ramayana of Maharishi Valmiki down to Kambaâs great work in Tamil and Tulsidasâs immortal Ramcharitamanas, the story of Ram has been told and retold in almost every language of the world. The immensely fascinating story beginning with his birth, his marriage to Sita, his fourteen years of exile, his decisive battle with the then King of Lanka and his triumphant return to Ayodhya is engraved in the minds of the vast majority of Hindus around the world, and he is as real to them as any so-called âhistoricalâ figure. To quote Jawaharlal Nehru in the Discovery of India regarding the Ramayana and Mahabharata,
âI do not know of any books anywhere which have exercised such a continuous and pervasive influence on the mass mind as these two. Dating back to a remote antiquity, they are still a living force in the life of the Indian people. Not in the original Sanskrit, except for a few intellectuals, but in translations and adaptations, and in those innumerable ways in which tradition and legend spread and become a part of the texture of a peopleâs life. They represent the typical Indian method of catering all together for various degrees of cultural development, from the highest intellectual to the simple unread and untaught villager. They make us understand somewhat the secret of the old Indians in holding together a variegated society divided up in many ways and graded in castes, in harmonising their discords, and giving them a common background of heroic tradition and ethical living. Deliberately they tried to build up a unity of outlook among the people, which was to survive and overshadow all diversity.â
Thirdly, it is not only Ram but other great characters in the Ramayana story including the noble Sita, the loyal Lakshman and our own flying superman Hanuman who have caught the imagination of the masses down through the corridors of time. The story is acted and re-enacted every year hundreds of times in the form of the Ramlilas culminating in the Vijaya Dashmi celebrations. These may be more prevalent in north India than in the south, but that does not make them any less significant. There are many deities such as Kartikeyan, Ayappan and Shiva Nataraja which are worshipped more frequently in the south, or the Jagannath and Durga Pujas in the east, but this geographical factor does not in any way detract from the deep significance these images hold for practicing Hindus.
Finally, it is remarkable that the Ramayana story is by no means confined to India. Its fragrance has travelled across the whole of south and south-east Asia. The magnificent temple of Angkor Vat in Cambodia, the worldâs largest place of religious worship, displays on its walls magnificent sculptures telling the whole Ramayana and Mahabharata stories. In Indonesia, the Ramlila is performed with a grace and sensitivity far superior to our somewhat rowdy Ramlilas and, significantly, almost entirely by Muslim artists. The ruling dynasty in Thailand is known as the Ram Dynasty, and there is a shrine named Ayodhya in that country. Such examples can be multiplied.
For the indentured labourers who were sent by the British to the ends of the earth and whose descendents now flourish in Fiji and Mauritius, Guyana and Surinam, their only source of cultural and spiritual sustenance was Tulsidasâs classic Ramcharitamanas, perhaps the most popular retelling of the Ramayana epic in the world. Hindus in those and other countries around the globe look upon Ram as an incarnation of God, as the Maryada Purshotam, the ideal man. When Gandhiji envisaged his ideal society, he went back to invoking Ram Rajya.
Keeping all these factors in mind, the ASI affidavit was distinctly unfortunate, unfair and downright derogatory, not only to Hindus in India and around the world, but to all those who treasure our unique pluralistic cultural heritage. Let us recall that in many parts of India it is Ramâs name that accompanies people on their last journey to the cremation ground â âRam naam satya haiâ. </b>
The writer is a Rajya Sabha MP
http://www.indianex]http://www.indianexpress.com/ story/216702. html
============ ========= ========= ========= =========
Attachment C
<b>Perversity as secularism</b>
KPS Gill
Pioneer, Sep 15, 2007
It is, indeed, amazing how polarising the political discourse has become in this country, and how entirely unnecessary and extraneous controversies are being generated by an intellectually bankrupt national leadership. It is incomprehensible how such perverse nonsense relating to the controversy on Ram Setu could have entered a supposedly secular Government's representation before the Supreme Court of India.
The Government has, of course, recanted and has sought to distance itself from the contents of the affidavit, but this is far from enough. Someone must have drafted this document; someone would have approved and signed it. This is not something that can simply be pinned on to some minion in the Archaeological Survey of India. The Ram Setu issue has been a prominent political and public controversy for several months now, and it is impossible that a critical affidavit in this regard would not have the explicit assent of the political executive at the highest level; and, in the remote possibility that this is actually the case, the dereliction at senior levels of Government is unforgivable.
The individuals concerned at every level of the drafting and approval of this pernicious affidavit need to be clearly and publicly identified and penalised for causing unnecessary offence to Hindus - the majority community in this country, and one that is evidently not regarded as a vote-bank by the so-called 'secular' parties - and, indeed, to many non-Hindus who share in the vibrant collective and cultural consciousness of India's variegated civilisation.
There is a new and escalating insensitivity in Indian secular thought, which not only insistently neglects the sensibilities of the majority community, but, worse, appears eager to cause injury to such sentiments. India's opportunistic political secularists - as distinct from those who are, in fact and practice, actually wedded to the secular ideology - feel that they cannot sufficiently proclaim their secularism without displaying at least a measure of contempt for Hindu beliefs and practices.
By contrast, the most extraordinary sensitivity - often transgressing not only the limits of good sense, but even considerations of national interest - is prominently displayed towards the Muslim minority vote-bank (though other minorities - with their smaller shares in electoral contests - are ironically treated with the same contempt that is directed against the majority community). These tendencies appear to be getting worse with the passage of time, and a precipitous decline in the quality of political debate and intelligence is manifest.
These tendencies are, nevertheless, deep rooted in Indian - and particularly Congress - politics, and the tallest of our leaders have not escaped susceptibility to this perversity of perspective. When the Khilafat movement collapsed in 1924, the Moplah rebellion, in which Muslim mobs inflicted untold savagery and rapine on Hindus, broke out in Kerala.
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, the Mahatma, who wore his Hindu identity very much on his sleeve, first denied these atrocities. As evidence of Muslim excesses mounted, he described the Moplahs as "god-fearing" people who were "fighting for what they consider as religion, and in a manner they consider as religious". Even during the Khilafat movement, Gandhi chose to ally with the infamous Ali brothers, silently sharing a platform with them, and refusing to criticise or comment when they declared: "If the Afghans invaded India to wage holy war, the Indian Muhammadans are not only bound to join them but also to fight the Hindus if they refuse to cooperate with them."
The problem with the current controversy goes beyond this, to the way in which we view science itself. The Archaeological Survey of India, in its affidavit to the Supreme Court, has asserted that there "was no historical and scientific evidence to establish the existence of Lord Ram or the other characters in Ramayan". But to conclude from this lack of evidence that Lord Ram did not exist, and that the whole of Ramayan is no more than a religious myth, exceeds the scope of the evidence (or lack thereof).
The inability to prove, on scientific criteria, the existence of a particular individual or entity does not amount to a proof of the non-existence of such an individual or entity. Falsification has entirely different criteria - and the dearth of archaeological and historical evidence is not sufficient basis for such falsification. Regrettably, many have jumped into this controversy with sweeping assertions regarding the existence or otherwise of Lord Ram and of Ram Setu, reflecting the poorest possible understanding of scientific methodology or of evidence.
Unfortunately, science, with rare exception, is taught in India much like religion: As an authoritarian, faith-based system, to be internalised by rote on the mandate of a teacher whose assertions are to be accepted without question; and, not as the tentative, continuously expanding enterprise of discovery rooted in human freedom and imagination.
The Ram Setu issue, moreover, goes beyond science, to the very heart of faith and of the collective consciousness of a nation - and these considerations cannot be irrelevant to a legal determination of the issue. If, indeed, they were to be treated as extraneous and immaterial, then there could be no objection to razing every religious structure in the country to the ground, on considerations, purely, of expediency. The greatest caution must be exercised when intervening in these issues, and the clumsiness, the political chicanery and the opportunism - across party lines - that characterised the Ram Janmabhoomi- Babri Masjid issue should be avoided at all costs.
The legend of Ram and Ramayan - archaeological evidence or no archaeological evidence - has primal resonances in the civilisation, culture and multiple identities, not only of India and among Hindus, but among the people of the entire South and South-East Asian region, and occasionally well beyond. I recall watching films and theatrical performances - Ram Lilas - based on Ramayan from earliest childhood, and one of the most exciting scenes was the vaanar sena building the bridge to Lanka with rocks inscribed with the name of their Lord. These are images embedded in the consciousness of millions across India and beyond, and to trivialise this is to misunderstand the very nature of governance.
There is an increasing fraud and dishonesty at the core of the Indian secular establishment. Secularism means, at once, a distancing of the institutions of governance from communal influence, but also sensitivity towards all religious communities and faiths - not just a particular minority vote-bank. The current, contentious and prejudiced orientation of so-called 'secular' forces in national politics reflects a complete collapse of political intellect.
http://www.dailypio neer.com/ indexn12. asp?main_ variable= EDITS&file_name=edit3% 2Etxt&counter_img= 3~
============ ========= ========= ========= ========= =
Attachment D
<b>Assault on Hindu psyche</b>
Priyadarsi Dutta
Pioneer, Sep 15, 2007
The fact that Hindu voters in this country deeply believe in the authenticity of Ramayan should have forewarned the UPA Government against claiming that the epic's characters or Ram Setu have no basis in history. The inconvenient stand that the Government took should provide the BJP - and the rest of the Sangh Parivar - the arsenal to launch a Ram karmabhoomi movement.
The UPA Government, leaning on the Archaeological Survey of India's affidavit submitted in the Supreme Court, is apparently beholden to historicity. However, it was only last year when the Government had echoed the opinion on All-India Muslim Personal Law Board to depose before the Supreme Court that jizyah was a tax Hindus had to pay during Muslim rule for not joining the army. Would it not have been fitter to depend on Quran, Hadith and historic Muslim court chronicles to draw that inference?
I wish Mr Manmohan Singh had just picked up Thomas Patrick Hughes' Dictionary of Islam to locate the historic meaning of jizyah: "The capitation tax, which is levied by Muhammadan rulers upon subjects who are of a different faith, but claim amaan (protection) . It is founded upon a direct injunction of the Quran: 'Make was upon such of those, to whom the Scriptures have been given, as believe not in God or in the last day and forbid not that which God and his Apostles have forbidden and who profess not the profession of truth until they pay tribute (jizyah) out of their hand, and they be humbled'."
Why should historicity be given a selective dry run on Ram Setu, while various temples converted into mosques in India like the Krishna Janmabhoomi (Idgah, Mathura), Gyanvapi mosque, Adhai Din Ka Jhopra, Adina Mosque are kept out of its purview? If Ram Setu is merely a series of reefs, why has the UPA Government named it "Sethusamudram Shipping Channel Project" (SSCP)?
Ramayan is living history for Hindus; it is subsumed in their marrow. By attacking the historicity of the epic, the Government has hit at the most tender point of the collective Hindu psyche. Historicity was hardly the argument of the petitioners. It proves that the Government has no answer to their stronger arguments like the issues of faith and tradition, ecology, engineering and financial non-viability of the project, etc. The Government, which never consulted the Indian Navy on the SSCP, is now cannibalising the ASI's argument.
http://www.dailypio neer.com/ indexn12. asp?main_ variable= EDITS&file_name=edit4% 2Etxt&counter_img= 4
============ ========= ========= ========= =========
Attachment E
<b>Faith, fact and fiction</b>
Ashok Malik
Pioneer, Sep 15. 2007
Ram is make-believe, Dwarka did not exist, the Saraswati is a myth. But how much have the Archaeological Survey of India and its political collaborators done to honestly excavate India's antiquity?
For an entity contemplating an early election, the UPA Government's propensity to create controversies is remarkable. In an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has insisted that there is no "historical record" to validate the Ramayan and, as such, Ram is a fictional character.
The case commenced after a petition filed by Mr Subramanian Swamy, the Janata Party president, seeking curbs on the Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project. It argued that the project would cut and destroy the 'Ram Setu', saying it was an ancient monument revered by Hindus as the bridge Ram built to journey to Lanka.
It is important to note the Government's affidavit represented a shift in the debate. The ASI could have stopped at saying that the Ram Setu was a naturally occurring formation, not man-made. Yet, it crossed its brief and labelled Ram himself as fictional. This upset even those who were not necessarily adherents of the Ram Setu.
There are three issues that flow from the affidavit. First, the familiar bunch of Jawaharlal Nehru University alumni and Delhi editorial writers has defended the ASI's affidavit as a citation of "science". Actually, this unifocal attack on the faith-based aspect of the anti-Sethusamudram protests suits the establishment just fine.
The Government has never quite explained the environmental imbalance that can be caused by smashing an ancient (natural) structure. Christian fishermen off the coast of Tamil Nadu -- who have no reason to venerate Ram's bridge -- already fear for their livelihood.
That aside, projections have been made about the economic non-viability of Sethusamudram. It is possible that all of these are wrong, but the Government has not bothered to politically sell the issue. Instead, the overriding reasons for pushing ahead seem to be granting lucrative dredging contracts to flunkies of the DMK and its Ministers.
Second, while the Prince of Ayodhya did not live 1.7 million years ago -- as some have claimed -- is the Ram story all myth? Granted, an oral story-telling tradition has ample scope for exaggeration; Ram probably did not fly back from Lanka on an airplane called the Pushpak Viman. Yet, is there no kernel of truth or historicity to his legend?
Consider a Greek analogy. For centuries, the Illiad and the saga of the Trojan War were dismissed as Homer's imagination. The Greeks, under foreign rule, were told the cherished epics they raised their children on were nonsense; to borrow from the ASI's affidavit, they "cannot be said to be historical record to incontrovertibly prove the existence of the characters or the occurrence of the events depicted therein".
It took Heinrich Schliemann, a classical history buff and amateur archaeologist, 20 years of excavation in the 1870s and 1880s to establish that Achilles and Hector did actually fight to the death outside the gates of Troy. Where are India's Schliemanns? Not in the ASI.
Professional integrity demands archaeologists and historians attempt to authenticate popular legends. From the life of Jesus to the times of David and Moses, the Bible has lent itself to such endeavour in the Christian and Judaic worlds. In Britain, identifying the real King Arthur and mapping his kingdom has been an honest intellectual pursuit. What is the ASI's record?
A serious, rigorous archaeological expedition that attempts to cross-verify the story as told in the Ramayan will take years, perhaps decades. The ASI has not even begun the task. Nevertheless it is happy to announce Ram is a fabrication. The case of India's other great folk hero, Krishna, is illuminating. Even after evidence is available of a city submerged off the coast of Gujarat -- roughly corresponding to scriptural accounts of the destruction of Dwarka by a tsunami-like wave -- attempts are made to undermine the findings. There is cussed insistence that the "underwater city" is not, in fact, Krishna's capital. It may not be; but how do the Culture Ministry's bureaucrats know?
Third, is it correct to see the past only as a backward extension of present prejudices? Over the centuries, rivers have changed course and deserts have shifted sands. In the process, they have rendered cities derelict, effaced whole civilisations. From north Africa to western China, the exploration of these 'lost histories' is a subject of intense national pride.
In contrast, what has India done with the quest for the Saraswati civilisation? In December 2004, the UPA Government told Parliament it was abandoning the Saraswati River Heritage Project. The project was meant to carry out excavations and trace the route the Saraswati took before it dried up. Its budget was a mere Rs 4.98 crore. Yet, the Culture Minister announced it was being shut down; the search for the Saraswati was not worth it.
In the Rajya Sabha, a CPI(M) MP, Mr Nilotpal Basu, demanded to know who had formulated the Saraswati Heritage Project. Obviously, he was seeking to target individuals in the previous NDA Government.
Many Hindus remember the Saraswati in their daily prayers. Even so, the search for the river is as much a secular imperative as a faith-based one. The Saraswati and the societies and cultures that grew and fell by its side are a part of our legacy; a forensic examination of these, if possible, would tell us how our ancestors lived and worked, ate and entertained. This should be a national enterprise, with ample resources and time dedicated to it; it should not be a political football.
In the end, whether it is the historicity of Ram, of Dwarka or of the Saraswati age, it is not so much a matter of what we know -- but of what we care to find out. Is this religious mumbo jumbo or is it racial memory? That compelling question determines any view of the ASI's affidavit.
http://www.dailypio neer.com/ columnist1. asp?main_ variable= Columnist&file_name=ashok% 2Fashok88% 2Etxt&writer=ashok
