1. If the affidavit says that there is no historical evidence that Ram existed I don't think Hindus should get offended. Just as if someone says thee is no historical evidence that Adam existed, or that Moses parted the Red Sea, no Christian need get offended. These are maters of faith. But The ASI can say or any international scientific body can say that there is no historical evidence of it, they would be perfectly justified. In fact if they are doing there job right they must assert the truth, ASI is not thee to respect faiths.
2. But there was no need to put the line in the affidavit, because the issue was not whether Ram existed, but whether Ram Setu was manmade. And thee is no scientific evidence to show that it is man made.
1. Just because images of Ram, Sita and Hanuman are thee in the constitution and just because Gandhi talked of Ramrajya does not mean that Ram existed historically. An idealized fictional character or a myth can be very well be a source of inspiration.
3. We Hindus are not as dumb as the Bible belt Christians who believe that the Bible is literally true and the world was created in 7 days and so on. We can believe in Ram, Krishna, Parsuram and the thirty-three crore gods, but are not stupid enough to think that they literally existed in a historical context. WE have more power of imagination than that.
4. People have mentioned Christ and Mohammed. Well, they were historical characters, just like Buddha and Mahavira, but all myths circulating a
