Author: Editorial
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: April 17, 2008
Let's not question popular faith
The contentious Ram Setu issue has once again
attracted controversy, this time in the Supreme Court. The questions raised
by the Bench comprising Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan and Justice RV Raveendran,
while hearing a bunch of petitions challenging the Sethusamudram Ship Channel
Project, are gratuitous and in poor taste. The court has queried as to how
the Ram Setu could be called a place of worship, adding, "Who does puja
in the middle of the sea?" Nobody. But for millions of Indians Ram Setu
is integral to their veneration of Ram and an indivisible part of their civilisational
identity. To be fair to the bench, it has clarified that it was not expressing
any opinion on the merits of the case. Those familiar with the working of
the Supreme Court, or indeed other courts, are aware that they often pose
uncomfortable questions that sound inimical to a party but are not necessarily
reflective of bias on their part. Such questions do not necessarily make their
way into court orders but are posed with the intention of seeking clarity
on the issues before it. Yet, perhaps the bench could have rephrased these
questions in a manner that would reflect greater sensitivity - popular sentiments
cannot be entirely ignored by the executive, legislature or the judiciary,
so long as it does not militate against the basic principles of the Constitution.
It would also be pertinent to underscore the fact that the issue of Ram Setu
is not at all about a place of worship in the middle of the sea where puja
is performed. It is about a particular spot that people believe is the bridge
Hanuman built for Ram to cross the sea to Lanka. There are many such sacred
places - trees, groves, lakes, river banks and even mountains. Not all are
worshipped but that does not diminish their sanctity. Also, those opposed
to the destruction of Ram Setu - or call it Adam's Bridge if you must - have
raised issues related to environmental and ecological concerns which belong
to the secular domain. To raise frivolous questions would be tantamount to
minimising these concerns. In any event, there are aspects of religiosity
that are not defined by either rites or rituals associated with worship: Faith
need not have a visible manifestation.
The point about Ram Setu which people often
miss is that the question whether it is a crafted structure or a natural rock
formation is totally irrelevant to the discourse. What is important is that
the site is held sacred by a vast majority of Indians as it was held sacred
by their ancestors. Such belief - which is not unique to either this country
or Hinduism - cannot be held to strict tests of rationality. If the faith
of others is inviolable, so is the faith associated with Ram Setu.
