It is regrettable that the Ramar Sethu issue has taken a curious turn and has ended up in questions about the Ramayana and its characters. To make matters worse, Mr. Karunanidhi, a very senior politician, has made remarks that were avoidable. Let us focus on the effects of destroying the bridge and leave the rest to specialists.
The Ramar Sethu project has got into a web of controversy with all parties adding to it. Mr. Karunanidhi’s remarks have added fuel to the fire. As for his observation on Rama’s engineering skills, the builders of many temples and monuments which have stood the test of time had no formal education. Taj Mahal is a case in point.
The Chief Minister’s anguish over the stalling of the Sethusamudram project is understandable. But as a seasoned politician, he could have refrained from hurting the religious sentiments of Hindus. He has given the communal forces, which have never missed an opportunity to whip up passions, another issue to exploit the sentiments of the people.
C.P. Prasanth Gopal,
Was Chola king Karikalan, the builder of the Kallanai (Grand Anicut), which serves Tamil Nadu even today, an engineer?
When one is not able to determine the age of the Veda, or by corollary the age of Vedic mathematics, how can one answer the question whether Rama was an engineer. But princes were usually taught all arts and sciences by enlightened teachers right from their childhood.
It is unfortunate that the Sethusamudram project is being debated without much emphasis on its economic and technical feasibility. Religion and politics are taking centre stage throwing the other aspects to the winds. As for Mr. Karunanidhi’s remark, one wonders whether all those who built archaeological marvels in the country possessed a degree in engineering. The faith of a large section of Hindus is beyond such mundane reasoning.
Instead of saying there is no historical evidence about Rama or his engineering skills, Mr. Karunanidhi could have made efforts to make people understand the good effects of the Sethusamudram project. Ramar Sethu is not a place of worship. It is only a bridge formed to cross the sea. It is worth preserving.
Why create a controversy by questioning the belief of those who believe in the Ramayana and Rama? The nation is already confronted with problems. Instead of fighting over how the bridge came into existence, let us have a debate on the dangers of demolishing the structure. The study should be based on science and not on the existence or truthfulness of the Ramayana.
Notwithstanding the controversies raging over the Ramar Sethu, it is a fact that the bridge is millions of years old and should be preserved for posterity. We know the entire world reacted with revulsion when the Bamiyan Buddha was destroyed.
Whatever the far reaching benefits of the Sethusamudram project, the government should desist from destroying the bridge, which Hindus believe was built by Lord Rama to rescue his wife Sita from Lanka.
R. Ramachandra Rao,
Modern-day scientists have no clear explanations for feats achieved by civilisations thousands of years ago. The great Pyramids and the Stonehenge are only a couple of examples.
Scientists say one thing today and contradict the same the next day. The ASI’s declaration that the Ramar Sethu is not manmade may not be the last word on the issue. When we have no means of knowing about things lost only decades ago, how can we dismiss something that has been mentioned from time immemorial?