A Rebuttal to Centre’s Claim- ‘Ram himself destroyed Setu’

On Wednesday (23-07-2008), senior counsel Fali S. Nariman, appearing for the Indian secular government, now headed by the UPA, quoted the Kamban Ramayana and told the court: “Ramayana expressly speaks of the destruction of the bridge. The integrity of the bridge cannot be destroyed if it is contrary to our faith. It was super man-made. That is the belief. You cannot worship something that has been destroyed.”

 

He continued to argue: “We have to deal with the issue factually and legally in a court of law. So, do not scare people by stating ‘faith’ time and again.” But what he is telling is based on fact or law?

 

No doubt, the lawyers could give sermon about “the question of fact” and “the question of law”, but here what is that – “the question of fact” and “the question of law” He reportedly quoting from Kamba Ramayana and ending with simply “Ramayana expressly speaks of the destruction of the bridge.…..”. The learned Council must know that “Kamba Ramayana” is different from “Ramayana”.

Senior advocate Fali S Nariman, cited the ninth-century Ramayana of Kamban and also the “Padma Purana” to tell the court that if Lord Rama constructed Ram Setu, he had also destroyed it.

“So where is the Setu? We are not destroying any bridge. There is no bridge. It was not a man-made structure. It may be a superman-made structure, but the same superman had destroyed it. That is why for centuries nobody mentioned anything about it. It (Ram Setu) has become an object of worship only recently,” he said.

Responding to petitioners’ argument that Ram Sethu was a place of worship and that if it was breached it would no longer be fit for worship, senior advocate Fali S Nariman said: “The scriptures say it was already broken into several pieces by Lord Rama himself after the Rama-Ravana war. If that is so, it is already broken since time immemorial and hence it can no longer be a place of worship.”

Presenting the Centre’s stand on the issue before a Bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justices R V Raveendran and J M Panchal, the seasoned constitutional expert did not forget to inject diplomacy into his hard-hitting arguments.

 

He said if what had been said in the scriptures about the bridge was accepted, then the argument of faith would have no leg to stand on. “Do not mention faith then. We do not want to rupture the faith. But, even the Rameswaram temple, which is a very holy place, has not yet been declared an ancient monument,” he said.

“We have to deal with the issue factually and legally in a court of law. So, do not scare people by stating ‘faith’ time and again,” Nariman said and argued that the government had taken into account all possible studies, both in selecting the present alignment and the dredging site, after considering its effect on the marine biosphere in the

Gulf of Mannar

.

 

Whether “the question of fact” and “the question of law” or instance of mixed questions of fact and law?

What the learned Council is talking about – Whether “the question of fact” and “the question of law” or instance of mixed questions of fact and law? The Court has held many times that there have been instances where the questions of fact have been decided but not of law and vice versa. And of course, there have been the instances of both – mixed questions of fact and law.

 

It is ironical that the Council is mixing all – “Ramayana expressly speaks of the destruction of the bridge. The integrity of the bridge cannot be destroyed if it is contrary to our faith. It was super man-made. That is the belief. You cannot worship something that has been destroyed.”

 

1.
   
“Ramayana expressly speaks of the destruction of the bridge.” He is wrong, because Kamba Ramayana has been recast in different time and space according to the Tamil tradition.

 

2.
   
“The integrity of the bridge cannot be destroyed if it is contrary to our faith.” The belief is for man, who makes law also and therefore, the belief is not for the constructor or destroyer of the bridge but for the believers. When you talked but the amendment of Article 105 of the Constitution the day before yesterday, you opined that the man-man law has been erroneous, though, it is attributed to Ambedkar. However, for the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was and still has been correct! Where these “the question of fact” and “the question of law” or instance of mixed questions of fact and law?

 

3.
   
“It was super man-made.” Wonderful for a learned Council to say so right inside the Court that the non-existent or destroyed one was “super man-made” and not of course “S/superman made“! In law or fact, where is the question of man, superman, man-made, super man-made etc?

 

4.
   
“That is the belief.” Yes, ironically the existence or non-existence, the construction or non-construction, but now destruction, man-made, super man-made and all are beliefs only. Why then he argues based on such belief? Perhaps his belief, that too expressing in the court of saw thrusting on others? Can he force his belief of man-made or super man-made could be thrusted on others in the court of law?

 

5.
   
“You cannot worship something that has been destroyed.” Oh learned Council, do not you think that it is ridiculous? Here, you have allowed your belief to imagine or run fast to build one thinking on another and yet another. You believed that according to Kamba Ramayanam, Rama, the man or super man (yet to be decided) destroyed the bridge. Then you continued to argued that “It was super man-made.” -“That is the belief.”  – now you say  conclusively -“You cannot worship something that has been destroyed.”  – here which is fact or law?

 

6.
   
Recall what you said: “We have to deal with the issue factually and legally in a court of law. So, do not scare people by stating ‘faith’ time and again.” Are you dealing with the issue factually or legally or on hypotheses?

 

7.
   
“So, do not scare people by stating ‘faith’ time and again,” Are you not scaring the believing people with your belief time and again or otherwise?

 

Very unfortunate situation in

India

factually and legally for Hindus


:

 

Now it is evident that the issue has been politicized for looting money just like “nuclear deal”. It is also evident that the judiciary has been politicized and biased. Earlier, the Chief Justice himself uttered such things as to whether any worship was conducted and so on. After proving, now the government council argues no, no the constructor himself destpyed the bridge. In other words Rama himself built and destroyed the Rama-sethu or Ramar-palam or Rama-bridge! I do not know whether Karunanidhi would oppose Nariman for opposing or refuting his belief, because, he already declared that that there was no Rama! Now Nariman makes Rama a bridge-builder and bridge-destroyer also right inside the Supreme Court not in Erode!. Coming to that main question: “Rama? Which Rama, yeh! In which engineering college, he studied?” Mr. Nariman, remember! Thus, there is a reason to believe the learned judges, advocates, legal luminaries have been biased or purchased by the politicians. Then, how the Hindus would get justice in

India

? Now Hindus could doubt that these learned and responsible persons have been offered with favors, or benefits f not bundles of notes as shown inside the Parliament, till sone jidge comes with such bundled and throws on the tables of the Supreme Court and declare thatr he has been offered to give judgment favourable to so-and-so or argue in a particular and so on.

 

Where is the law that “destroyed things” cannot be worshipped?

 

In

India

, we still have lakhs or perhaps millions of sculptures, idols and icons in the demolished temples, but they are worshipped by the believers who are known as Hindus. How Nariman could forget that? Is he becoming a new preacher for Hindus to advocate what they should worship or what they should not worship? Why these learned people are forgetting history or misinterpreting facts, when they themselves talk about or preach the question of fact, the question of law and so on? Really, we ha are bewildered.

 

Responses