Before anyone can point fingers, let me say that that Im very much a believing Hindu. You can call the formation a bridge, or you can call it an undersea formation. Even if it was a man-made bridge, is there proof that it was the very same one constructed by the vanaras? The question than is the same, Krishnadevaraya of Vijaynagar could be holding the same beliefs and the British in their 1767 survey must have just gone along with the nomenclature. Bear in mind that if the Ramar Setu is history for us, it was also history in the 16th and 18th centuries. We have no way of verifying if they had any concrete proof for their belief in the Ramar Setu too. So citing these elements as evidence is grossly inadequate. Secondly also look at the loss that India suffers because we lack our own port. Sri Lanka pockets a huge sum as a deep sea harbour. China wants to build a base in the Maldives and even otherwise our ships take a whole day more to cross over from the Indian ocean to the Bay of Bengal since they take the Sri Lanka route. Lets not fall prey to blind belief and halt development.
RE:Why all the fuss?
by Neutral on Jul 04, 2007 06:05 PM Permalink
Lets see what court says
%u201C%u2026. Any object however trivial or destitute of real value in itself if regarded as sacred by any class of persons would come within the meaning of the penal section (295 of Indian Penal Code). Nor is it absolutely necessary that the object, in order to be held sacred, should have been actually worshipped. An object may be held sacred by a class of persons without being worshipped by them. It is clear, therefore, that the courts below were rather cynical in so lightly brushing aside the religious susceptibilities of that class of persons to which the complainant claims to belong. The section has been intended to respect the religious susceptibilities of persons of different religious persuasions or creeds. Courts have got to be very circumspect in such matters, and to pay due regard to the feelings and religious emotions of different classes of persons with different beliefs, irrespective of the consideration whether or not they share those beliefs, or whether they are rational or otherwise, in the opinion of the court.%u201D
RE:Why all the fuss?
by sridhar chari on Jul 04, 2007 06:10 PM Permalink
It still does not make sense to me. Are you trying to say that anything held as sacred by a band of people is untouchable? What if some people called the land on which your home is built sacred and prevented it from being sold even if you wanted to. In that case, would you still cite this legal gibberish? Sridhar
RE:Why all the fuss?
by Neutral on Jul 04, 2007 06:22 PM Permalink
This has indeed happened. There was a beautiful house constructed by a North Indian (Sait) in TP Koil Street, Triplicane, Chennai. The name of the building was SANCHETI BHAVAN. Later it was identified as the house of late Poet BHARATHIYAAR. The govt took the house from Sait, demolished it and consturcted a house similar to what it was during the time of Bharathiyaar. Even now you can visit that place. Sait was compensated for taking over the building and land by the govt.
RE:Why all the fuss?
by puravoor krishnakumar on Jul 04, 2007 06:07 PM Permalink
when you have a ready made solution available in terms of vizhinjam which has got natural depth perfectly suited for a port... why the hell we need to go to dredge and destroy
