CROSSING THE OCEAN OF LEGAL BATTLE

THE SUPREME COURT RECENTLY ASKED THE GOVERNMENT TO SUBMIT ITS WRITTEN RESPONSE TO A PLEA TO DECLARE THE RAM SETU AS A NATIONAL HERITAGE MONUMENT. THIS ISSUE WAS ALSO RAISED IN PARLIAMENT. IN THIS REGARD, HERE ARE TWO AFFIDAVITS FILED BY CONGRESS LED UPA GOVERNMENT IN 2007 AND THE NDA GOVERNMENT IN 2018 ON RAM SETU

- SIVAKUMAR. K

During the tenure of UPA I, the Congress party demonstrated its anti-Hindu stance through its affidavit to the Supreme Court regarding the Ram Setu case. The UPA government informed the Supreme Court using that affidavit that there was no historical evidence supporting Lord Ram's existence or that of any of the other characters in the Ramayana.

In the affidavit filed by UPA I before the Supreme Court in 2007, it was brazenly stated that the Ram Setu was the outcome of naturally occurring formations "caused by tidal action and sedimentation". Based on the premise of corralling theory which would indicate that the Ram Setu was not a manmade structure, Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) submitted before the Apex Court that Ram Setu could not be considered a historical or archaeological monument and for the same reason unworthy to be declared as a protected monument.

This Freudian slip of the UPA Government had to face public wrath throughout India and the Government had to withdrew the affidavit. Reportedly, there were at least three clauses in the affidavit that the Ministry of Culture suggested be removed; only two of these clauses were removed. In one of the clauses that remained unremoved, it was alleged that the Ramayana was not historically accurate, a claim that soon came under fire.

Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) in its affidavit filed on behalf of the UPA Government has stated as quoted below;