There is a lot of heat in India on the Sethu Samudram Project, because of the public outcry on the demolition of a revered structure by the project's alignment. This structure (off the coast of Rameswaram) is called 'Rama Sethu' by the believers and Adam's Bridge by the archaeological documents (most of which were written during the British occupation of India). The traditional Indian belief is that this structure is a bridge that was built by Shri Rama to cross over to Sri Lanka where his wife Devi Sita was held captive by the demon King Raavana. This belief has its roots in the Ramayana.
(This post was written a few months back in response to the fanatic anti-Hindu arguments which are put forth by the supporters of the project)
NASA clearly says that this structure is in existence for centuries. It also says that the origin of these structures can not be ascertained by its photography.
Which means that there is no verdict on whether this is a natural formation or a man-made structure. So each side is entitled to its claim.
The dating of the structure across various sources says that this may be a structure around 4000 years old. Anything above 200-400 years is a heritage structure in the US. Do we still want to destroy this ?
People say that these mounds have Thorium deposits on them. If you destroy this structure, then the sea water would wash away these deposits. When we are ready to accept an agreement suited more to US interests just for the sake of nuclear power, can we afford to let our Thorium reserves washed away ?
This location is one of the most renowned Marine Biology parks of the world. This construction would make the marine life at the Rameswaram sea to dislocate. What is going to be achieved by this ?
It has been said by many geologists and tsunami experts that this structure was the one which protected the southern tip of Tamilnadu (and the Indian peninsula) from the tsunami, which affected all its surroundings - the east coast, the Sri Lankan coast below and the coastline of Kerala. Be it natural, be it manmade - does it make sense to destroy this natural barricade which safeguards us ?
There are also doubts over the economical viability of plying ships through this canal. Of what use is draining thousands of crores of rupees into the sea if we are not going to achieve economic results out of that ?
We all know the situation in northern Sri Lanka which can affect us any time. If we have a shipping canal running between northern Sri Lanka and Tamil Nadu, think of the consequences :Our marine boundary with Sri Lanka at this place is right now smooth - this part is not an international thoroughfare. But once we allow international marine traffic there, we have to have a no-man's land (sea!) in between. This may lead to some complications on India - Sri Lanka diplomacy. When ships start crossing through this route, we have to be mindful of the security threats from the situation in northern Sri Lanka. Can this route be safely used by our navy to transit from the western to eastern coast or vice versa ? What if a foreign ship meant for India is captured and held as hostage by the Sri Lankan militants ? We may also have any foreign power coming near our sensitive southern shores through this. Any marine tussle near the Lankan coast on this canal will hit us, creating a diplomatic tangle.
Does it make any military or diplomatic sense in jeopardising our security by wilfully landing into a potential minefield ?
If despite all these, the people in power are going ahead with this project, then the motive can not be national welfare. There must be more to it than what meets the eye.
But the people who oppose the anti-SSP group, attack only the Hindu claim only.
My request to people who blindly rebut the protests :
For a moment, forget the origins of the structure. Forget the emotional importance of the bridge. Just think of the other concerns and then rationally decide whether you still want to go ahead with the project.
Please, do not divert an issue of national & global importance (in terms of security, ecology, diplomacy, economy and culture) into a communal issue. Do not use this as another weapon for bashing Hindus and Indian Cultural heritage.
P.S. :
Some of the arguments say that there is no evidence to prove that there was a bridge there. Apart from the umpteen evidence given in various articles and write-ups, some more is here :
The biggest evidence is on the name of the project undertaken by the Govt. - "SETHUSAMUDRAM" Project.
All of us know - Samudram means sea. Sethu means ??? Bridge - right ? That place was always linked to Sethu. The kings of Ramanathapuram, whose reign Rameswaram was under, were called with the suffix "Sethupathi" with their name - meaning the people who ruled over the location of the Sethu.
(Written in Aug 2007)
(This post was written a few months back in response to the fanatic anti-Hindu arguments which are put forth by the supporters of the project)
NASA clearly says that this structure is in existence for centuries. It also says that the origin of these structures can not be ascertained by its photography.
Which means that there is no verdict on whether this is a natural formation or a man-made structure. So each side is entitled to its claim.
The dating of the structure across various sources says that this may be a structure around 4000 years old. Anything above 200-400 years is a heritage structure in the US. Do we still want to destroy this ?
People say that these mounds have Thorium deposits on them. If you destroy this structure, then the sea water would wash away these deposits. When we are ready to accept an agreement suited more to US interests just for the sake of nuclear power, can we afford to let our Thorium reserves washed away ?
This location is one of the most renowned Marine Biology parks of the world. This construction would make the marine life at the Rameswaram sea to dislocate. What is going to be achieved by this ?
It has been said by many geologists and tsunami experts that this structure was the one which protected the southern tip of Tamilnadu (and the Indian peninsula) from the tsunami, which affected all its surroundings - the east coast, the Sri Lankan coast below and the coastline of Kerala. Be it natural, be it manmade - does it make sense to destroy this natural barricade which safeguards us ?
There are also doubts over the economical viability of plying ships through this canal. Of what use is draining thousands of crores of rupees into the sea if we are not going to achieve economic results out of that ?
We all know the situation in northern Sri Lanka which can affect us any time. If we have a shipping canal running between northern Sri Lanka and Tamil Nadu, think of the consequences :Our marine boundary with Sri Lanka at this place is right now smooth - this part is not an international thoroughfare. But once we allow international marine traffic there, we have to have a no-man's land (sea!) in between. This may lead to some complications on India - Sri Lanka diplomacy. When ships start crossing through this route, we have to be mindful of the security threats from the situation in northern Sri Lanka. Can this route be safely used by our navy to transit from the western to eastern coast or vice versa ? What if a foreign ship meant for India is captured and held as hostage by the Sri Lankan militants ? We may also have any foreign power coming near our sensitive southern shores through this. Any marine tussle near the Lankan coast on this canal will hit us, creating a diplomatic tangle.
Does it make any military or diplomatic sense in jeopardising our security by wilfully landing into a potential minefield ?
If despite all these, the people in power are going ahead with this project, then the motive can not be national welfare. There must be more to it than what meets the eye.
But the people who oppose the anti-SSP group, attack only the Hindu claim only.
My request to people who blindly rebut the protests :
For a moment, forget the origins of the structure. Forget the emotional importance of the bridge. Just think of the other concerns and then rationally decide whether you still want to go ahead with the project.
Please, do not divert an issue of national & global importance (in terms of security, ecology, diplomacy, economy and culture) into a communal issue. Do not use this as another weapon for bashing Hindus and Indian Cultural heritage.
P.S. :
Some of the arguments say that there is no evidence to prove that there was a bridge there. Apart from the umpteen evidence given in various articles and write-ups, some more is here :
The biggest evidence is on the name of the project undertaken by the Govt. - "SETHUSAMUDRAM" Project.
All of us know - Samudram means sea. Sethu means ??? Bridge - right ? That place was always linked to Sethu. The kings of Ramanathapuram, whose reign Rameswaram was under, were called with the suffix "Sethupathi" with their name - meaning the people who ruled over the location of the Sethu.
(Written in Aug 2007)
Comments