Sunil Prabhu - NDTV
Thursday, February 28, 2008 (New Delhi)
The Centre has decided to throw its weight behind the controversial Sethusamudram project. The government will now ask the Supreme Court to lift its stay on the controversial project to dredge a shipping channel between India and Sri Lanka and dismiss petitions challenging the project. The Cabinet Committee on Political Affairs (CCPA) met for the second time this week to arrive at a consensus on a 90-page draft affidavit stating its position on the project. The Centre will submit the affidavit in court on Friday. The petitions had opposed the project saying it will damage the Ram Sethu, a cluster of sand formations that many Hindus believe was the bridge built by Lord RamThe Centre's last affidavit had landed it in trouble as it questioned the existence of Ram. But under pressure from its southern allies, the centre has decided to tell the court that it wants the project to continue on its original route. The CCPA seems to have taken everyone's point of view in the UPA coalition and managed to harmonise them. There have been differences between Tourism and Culture Minister Ambika Soni and Shipping Minister DMK's T R Baalu over the affidavit. The culture minister has written a two-page note raising certain objections, and wanted these incorporated in the draft affidavit.
Like the ASI not having taken a definitive view on whether the Ram Setu can be declared a site of national importance without undertaking a survey, the ASI has not yet conducted any study
These objections have been incorporated in the draft affidavit and the government has sought a vacation of the stay and wants the PILs to be dismissed. The project was approved by the government in May 2005. However, soon after its approval, the project had run into trouble, and dredging work had to be suspended.
Hindus believe Rama built a bridge to Lanka, which came to be called Rama Sethu. Even those who assert that no such bridge was built cannot deny that a reef formation is identified as the site of the legendary bridge. This reef formation may even have been a part or foundation of the bridge. By this very virtue, does not the reef formation become as sacred as the bridge itself? Though the legendary river Saraswati is no more, has its sanctity become any less in the Hindu culture? While the river Saraswati vanished due to natural phenomena, the Ram Sethu is still extant in the form of the reefs. Should we, Hindus of this generation, stand aside and see the reef destroyed through the actions of anti-Hindu forces?
Thursday, February 28, 2008 (New Delhi)
The Centre has decided to throw its weight behind the controversial Sethusamudram project. The government will now ask the Supreme Court to lift its stay on the controversial project to dredge a shipping channel between India and Sri Lanka and dismiss petitions challenging the project. The Cabinet Committee on Political Affairs (CCPA) met for the second time this week to arrive at a consensus on a 90-page draft affidavit stating its position on the project. The Centre will submit the affidavit in court on Friday. The petitions had opposed the project saying it will damage the Ram Sethu, a cluster of sand formations that many Hindus believe was the bridge built by Lord RamThe Centre's last affidavit had landed it in trouble as it questioned the existence of Ram. But under pressure from its southern allies, the centre has decided to tell the court that it wants the project to continue on its original route. The CCPA seems to have taken everyone's point of view in the UPA coalition and managed to harmonise them. There have been differences between Tourism and Culture Minister Ambika Soni and Shipping Minister DMK's T R Baalu over the affidavit. The culture minister has written a two-page note raising certain objections, and wanted these incorporated in the draft affidavit.
Like the ASI not having taken a definitive view on whether the Ram Setu can be declared a site of national importance without undertaking a survey, the ASI has not yet conducted any study
These objections have been incorporated in the draft affidavit and the government has sought a vacation of the stay and wants the PILs to be dismissed. The project was approved by the government in May 2005. However, soon after its approval, the project had run into trouble, and dredging work had to be suspended.
Hindus believe Rama built a bridge to Lanka, which came to be called Rama Sethu. Even those who assert that no such bridge was built cannot deny that a reef formation is identified as the site of the legendary bridge. This reef formation may even have been a part or foundation of the bridge. By this very virtue, does not the reef formation become as sacred as the bridge itself? Though the legendary river Saraswati is no more, has its sanctity become any less in the Hindu culture? While the river Saraswati vanished due to natural phenomena, the Ram Sethu is still extant in the form of the reefs. Should we, Hindus of this generation, stand aside and see the reef destroyed through the actions of anti-Hindu forces?
No comments:
Post a Comment