issue says,
"A secular state cannot espouse the cause of any religion, faith or belief".
Is it so???
---------------------
Secular does not mean anti-hindu or anti-religion, but
non-interference in the matters of sentiments of people of any
religion.
If so, what is the meaning behind the constitution of HR & CE
departments? Why the states of Tamilnadu, Andhra, Kerala and Karnataka
are wreaking havoc in Hindu religious affairs?
Why did Rajiv Gandhi's government bring an amendment to the
Constitution for the sake of Muslim Clerics in the 'Shah Bano' case?
Why was the Delhi Metro diverted for the sake of the Moghul Monument
Kutthub Minar?
Why was the route in Bangalore Metro diverted to avoid damage to Tippu
Sultan palace?
Why is Haj yatra financed by the Government and why has Communal
budgeting been introduced?
Why were industrial development projects scrapped to save the Taj Mahal?
Why did the Government of India appoint the Sachaar Committee to
promote the Congress political interests of Muslim Minority Vote-Bank
Politics?
Tamil Nadu Government pleaded for Jallikattu (not only secular but
atheist government)
************************************
(Read the full text here)
The affidavit submitted by the Centre to Supreme Court on March 1,
2008 is 1) an insult to the Court; and 2) an insult to the sentiments
of millions of people who reasonably believe in Rama Setu as ancient
heritage monument and sacred temple. It insults the Court calling it
to adjudicate on evidence without submitting evidence; it insults the
justice system and rule of law by simply ignoring the Madras HC
judgement delivered on 19 June and subsequent directions by SC. It
insults millions of Indians using new definitions to define secular
government as being simply opposed to the hindu sentiments and bucks
its fundamental responsibility to respect peoples' views.
It may be recalled that a US superior court quashed a sewerage project
cutting through a mountain, because it hurt the sentiments of Navajo's
who considered the mountain sacred. Are we in a country governed by
rule of law or NOT?
Detailed reading of a Respondent's affidavit shows that it indulges in
suppressio veri and suggestio falsi with a string of
misrepresentations, misleading statements and false averments.
Hopefully, the Hon'ble SC, the warriors of the justice system,
believers in niti, dharma and enforcers of the rule of law will throw
the response out and order scrapping the project disaster of a
mid-ocean channel passage cutting through Rama Setu.
What has been put on stake is not merely Rama Setu but the very
foundations of national integrity and unity governed by clearly
demarcated duties and responsibilities of public functionaries who
have been empowered by the people through the Constitution. The
affidavit is an assault on the basic structure of the Constitution,
indulging in buck-passing and toying with peoples' sentiments. The
Centre should stop playing with fire before it burns up the
power-brokers. What is needed is not adjudication but justice, a
polity governed by the rule of law and compassion for future
generations by ensuring the integrity of the property and peoples
lives along the coastline and national sovereignty.
Hon'ble SC should take serious exception to the tone, tenor and
insulting nature of a Respondent's affidavit which has scant regard
for satyam, truth and issue appropriate injunctions including an
absolute stay on the project disaster.
Kalyanaraman
The affidavit can be downloaded from the following URLs:
Part I http://hinduthought.googlepages.com/setuaffidavit1.pdf (5mb) Mirror:
http://www.livemint.com/2008/03/01002401/58760CF8-C887-4E06-977A-A2A5D8F45C43ArtVPF.pdf
Part II http://hinduthought.googlepages.com/setuaffidavit2.pdf (5mb) Mirror:
http://www.livemint.com/2008/03/01002401/9A3B3B1F-9D61-4939-92E7-22A46D09581AArtVPF.pdf
Part III http://hinduthought.googlepages.com/setuaffidavit3.pdf (5mb) Mirror:
http://www.livemint.com/2008/03/01002401/EF761A86-2492-4DED-B720-3942894D3FA4ArtVPF.pdf
Part IV http://hinduthought.googlepages.com/setuaffidavit4.pdf (5mb) Mirror:
http://www.livemint.com/2008/03/01002401/61B71821-9471-4D52-86B0-501F39C15008ArtVPF.pdf
The affidavit has NOT been submitted by Union of India but only by
Ministry of Shipping which has no competence to talk on issues beyond
shipping. Why haven't ASI and Min. of Culture responded to the
observations of the Madras HC judgement of 19 June 2007 on Ancient
Monument evidence?
Why has the Min. of Shipping not responded to the observations of the
Madras HC judgement of 19 June 2007 on Sir A Ramaswamy Mudaliar
Committee's warnings against choosing a mid-ocean Channel passage (as
opposed to a land-based canal)?
"A secular state cannot espouse the cause of any religion, faith or belief".
Secular does not mean anti-hindu or anti-religion, but
non-interference in the matters of sentiments of people of any
religion.
If so, what is the meaning behind the constitution of HR & CE
departments? Why the states of Tamilnadu, Andhra, Kerala and Karnataka
are wreaking havoc in Hindu religious affairs?
Why did Rajiv Gandhi's government bring an amendment to the
Constitution for the sake of Muslim Clerics in the 'Shah Bano' case?
Why was the Delhi Metro diverted for the sake of the Moghul Monument
Kutthub Minar?
Why was the route in Bangalore Metro diverted to avoid damage to Tippu
Sultan palace?
Why is Haj yatra financed by the Government and why has Communal
budgeting been introduced?
Why were industrial development projects scrapped to save the Taj Mahal?
Why did the Government of India appoint the Sachaar Committee to
promote the Congress political interests of Muslim Minority Vote-Bank
Politics?
Tamil Nadu Government pleaded for Jallikattu (not only secular but
atheist government)
Bonafides of the composition of and rapid-fire procedures (in private
sittings for just one week in Chennai) adopted by Eminent Persons
Committee have been questioned; the Committee did NOT include
naval/marine experts, security experts, geologists, marine
archaeologists and oceanography experts; the Committee's report has
NOT made public over 8000 pages of submissions made by experts from a
number of disciplines: environment, oceanography, geology, naval
security experts, mariners, Trade Unions representing fishermen of the
coastline, tsunami experts, nuclear resources (thorium) experts. We
are submitting about 8000 pages of expert opinions on over 160 topics
including submissions made by experts to the Committee. These have NOT
been taken into account and represent new evidences which should be
evaluated by the Respondents – Union of India, in particular..
The affidavit contains many misrepresentations and misleading/biased statements.
Government agencies (Department of Earth Sciences and National
Institute of Ocean Technology) have made surveys/studies and submitted
a report to the then President of India, Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam. Why have
the submissions of the consultant to NIOT not made public and why has
it not been referred to in the affidavit? Is it because the report
notes that there was ancient human activity on the Rama Setu based on
scientific studies?
Tamil Nadu Ramanathapuram District Gazetteer of 1972 and earlier
Madras Presideny Manual of 1893 refer to Rama Setu? Are these and Arya
chakravarti coins found in Jaffna containing the epigraphs 'Setu,
Setupati', epigraphs of Parantaka Chola, Krishnadeva Raya and Setupati
Raja's not archaeological records? Are not the sculptured published by
ASI of Rama Setu in Parambanan Temple in Indonesia archaeological
evidences? Are not the Royal Asiatic Society records of habitation on
Rama Setu archaeological records? What about place names: Rameshwaram,
Rama Setu, Setupati, Ramapadam? Are they not archaeological
indicators?
Government officers from Geological Survey of India have undertaken
archaeological studies and recommended that Rama Setu was man-made and
there are studies showing the historicity of Rama in India and in
Srilanka. Srilanka is promoting Ramayana tourism in that country.
Tamilnadu Tourism invites people through advertisements to visit Rama
Setu to touch the waters made sacred by Sri Rama and to see the
floating rocks found there.
Why has the Government not referred to the observations of National
Remote Sensing Agency, Hyderbad (of ISRO) in its recent book, 'Images'
about Rama Setu as a man-made formation and of archaeological
importance?
Paragraph-wise comments:
Para 2: Addl. Solicitor General promised total respect for all
religions and Hinduism in particular and respecting the religious
sensibilities would submit fresh affidavits re-scrutinizing all
aspects including change of alignment without destroying Rama Setu.
But this promise has NOT been kept. The committee appointed to gather
objections and suggestions did NOT perform its functions transparently
and its report is biased and does NOT reveal all the expert opinions
and suggestions made. Why wer the Geological Survey of India and
National Institute of Oceanography not involved in project formulation
studies?
Para 7: There is no mention of the Feasibility Report sanctioned in
2004 at a cost of Rs. 4.8 crores. Where is the Feasibility Report?
Para 10. The NEERI report was submitted in August 2004. Tsunami
occurred on 26 December 2004. How could NEERI have taken into account
studies related to the impact of the tsunami? In fact, when the PMO
raised 16 objections including objections raised by Prof. Tad S Murthy
(who also repeated the same two months ago in the Indian Science
Congress in Vishakapatnam) no study was conducted to evaluate the
tsunami impact on the project area. Only a telegraphic, back-of-the
envelope reply was given by Chairman of Setusamudram Corporation to
the PM. There are reports of another more devastating tsunami in
Nature Magazine of 6 Sept. 2007. What protective measures are
contemplated to be put in place have not been spelt out so far. The
spud which broke 10 months ago is still lying near Rama Setu. No
possibility of salvage operations in case a ship gets grounded in
shallow waters in a mid-ocean channel.
Para 10: Why there is no mention of Madras HC judgement of 19 June 2007?
Para 11. Misleading statement. No work is going on in the project area
as recorded on Setusamudram Corporation website. It is misleading to
state that work in Palk Strait region is going on.
Objections have been raised from the very beginning including the
objections raised by MS Karunanidhi during public hearings not to
touch Rama Setu. 35 lakh signatures were submitted in 2006 to the
President protesting at the move to destroy Rama Setu.
It is the Central Govt. which transferred the Madras HC case to SC
after the judgement was given by the two-judge Bench including CJ of
Madras HC on 19 June 2007.
Para 12. After the tsunami of 26 December 2004 the entire project
should have been reviewed de novo. This was NOT done. No tsunami
protection measures are included.
Para 13. As mentioned on comments of Para 11, objections were raised
as early as in 2004 and were ignored. Repeated requests made under RTI
Act have been ignored.
Para 15. ."…further reinforced by the final report of August 2004 of
NEERI." This report is before the occurrence of tsunami. Hence, no
evaluation has been done on the impact of a tsunami on the chosen
alignment. As noted earlier, it is incorrect to state that assertions
made by the petitioners were not made earlier. Petitions and
submissions made have just been ignored and brushed aside without any
reasons being provided.
Para 18. The project is a white elephant and will result in a sick
unit since the navigational route does not make nautical sense.
Alternative transport modes including transshipment of containers by
rail or being carried through Pamban gap (using cantilever railway
bridge) have not been examined and presented in project reports.
Para 19. Experts' view is that the project is not economically viable
and alternatives of Marine Economic Zone will yield over Rs. 8000
crores of foreign exchange earnings per year as against the estimated
annual revenue of Rs. 200 crores from the Setu channel after
devastating the livelihood of fisherfolk community along the coast.
Both fishing and navigation can NOT co exist in this narrow strait.
Para 20. Misleading. Who has studied about the impact of the tsunami?
Where are the rports?
Para 21. Naval and security implications of the project have been
questioned by experts including Admiral of Indian Navy and Director
General of Coast Guard and Capt. Balakrishnan (Advocate Venugopal's
affidavit).
Para 22. It is INCORRECT to say that petitioners approached the Courts
very belatedly. It is only after exhausting all public avenues that
the petitioners were forced to appear before the Hon'ble SC after the
Centre got the cases transferred to SC from Madras HC.
Madras HC had issued instructions on 19 June 2007 prior to the SC
orders of 31 August 2007. These Madrs HC orders have NOT been answered
SO FAR.
Petitions are NOT misconceived, they are in public and national
interest. It is the respondent who is misleading the Hon'ble Court as
detailed paragraph by paragraph.
Para 24. Bonafides of Eminent Persons Committee, their
biases/prejudices and the unfair procedures adopted have been
mentioned earlier. We need to get copies of ALL the submissions made
before the Committee which was only authorized to collect objections
and suggestions and did NOT have the competence nor were authorized by
the Hon'ble Court to make any substantive recommendations. IT was a
Govt. Committee and not a commission appointed by the Hon'ble SC.
Para 28. The fact that Gulf of Mannar is a Notified Marine National
Park makes it a natural property as defined for World Heritage Sites
under an international convention to which India is a signatory. This
is the ground on which Majuli island of Jorhat Dist. in Assam – the
largest river island in the world -- is recommended by Govt. to be
declared as a World Heritage site. The Rama Setu is the largest bridge
in the ocean which has been used as a bridge linking India and Sri
lanka unlike the Great Barrier Reef of Australia which is called only
a Reef. Why has this aspect NOT been taken into account by
Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). Why has NOT ASI submitted its
response to the Hon'ble Court?
Part 29. Misleading statement. If ASI had NOT done any archaeological
study, how could the project report declare that there was NO
archaeological site in the project area?
Para 41. If Environment Ministry considered the project to be
environmentally unacceptable in March 1999, what changed the situation
in subsequent years? The project is ab initio illegal because Tamil
Nadu Pollution Control clearance was NOT obtained as averred in the
petition by J. Jayalalithaa's petition (Advocate Shri Venugopal).
When the sixth alignment was chosen, Environmental Impact Analysis
laws stipulated that archaeology studies were mandatory. Why were no
archaeological studies undertaken?
Para 43. Arun Jaitley has stated that he told the then PM Atal Behari
Vajpayee NOT to go for inaugurating the project since the project was
not viable and had many questionable aspects. Arun Jaitly should
repeat this statement before the Hon'ble Court.
Para 63. As already noted objections were raised by MS Karunanidhi of
Ramanathapuram during public hearings in 2004. These public hearings
DID NOT include hearing public views about religious aspects or
aspects of peoples' sentiments.
Para 70. Where are the technical reports answereing the issues raised
by Prof. Tad S Murty and others on post-tsunami environment situation
and likelihood of another tsunami and protection measures proposed to
save the coastal properties and peoples' lives?
Para 72. The situation of marine products reported has been
contradicted by a marine expert Mr. Kannaiyan who was also Chairman of
the Environmental Monitoring Committee in a speech delivered in
Chennai on 28 Feb. 2008.
Para 73. Why si there no reference to 16 questions raised by PMO and
the incoherent answers provided by Chairman of Setu project? Was there
enough time and enough exercise of due diligence before the project
was inaugurated on 2 July 2005?. How about the US Navy Operational
Directive that intervened on 23 June 2005 refusing to recognize the
Historic Waters status (declared since June 1974 by Indira Gandhi and
Bandaranaike), treating these as International Waters? Why was an
International Waters Boudary sought to be created by the channel when
no such boundary existed before?
Para 74. 'Trans-boundaries' considerations are an issue related to
national sovereignty and should be evaluated with refernce to Law of
the Sea recognizing Historic Waters and the age-old rights jointly
shared by people of India and Srilanka coasts. Srilanka's concerns
have been recorded and have not been answered resulting in likelihood
of litigation in International Court of Justice.
Para 77. Badrinarayanan's answers should be sought in the context of
the proposed channel acting as a funnel absorbing the future impacts
of future tsunamis devasting the coastline of Tamilnadu and Kerala.
The alignment of channel has again been questioned as a disaster by
Prof. Tad S Murthy two months ago in Vishakapatnam.
Para 79. Alignment 6 destroys Rama Setu which should be deemed a
national monument (see Madras HC judgement of 19 June 2007 for
detailed evidences). As noted in a US Superior Court judgement, the
sentiments of Navajo people were respected regarding the sacredness of
a mountain which was sought to be desiccated by building sewerage
facilities. The proposed sewerage project was stopped under the US
court orders. Punjab and Haryana HC had deemed Brahmasarovar to be a
national monument as regards a real estate project in the area. See
also the proposal for Majuli island to be declared a World Heritage or
Amarnath caves as a national monument. Even a cave, or stone or body
of water can be deemed a national monument.
Para 81. Huge losses to the public exchequer is a red herring. There
will be much heavier losses by the project which will required
perpetual maintenance dredging for a paltry annual return while
devastating the livelihood of 20 lakh coastal people. Alternatives
such as Marine Economic Zone have NOT been evaluated at all. For whose
benefit of the project? Cut the losses before further damage is caused
to the security of the coastline and coastal properties in this
nuclear resource zone of the world which accounts for 32% of thorium
reserves and are critical for the nation's nuclear energy program.
Para 84. Respondent admits that NO archaeology study was conducted. So
when the Alignment 6 was approved in 2004, a blatant illegality had
occurred by a wrong and baseless statement that no archaeological site
existed in the project area. The project is rendered ab initio
illegal. As an eminent jurist Cardozo observed: "What is ab initio
illegal cannot be deemed legal by subsequent discovery." So the
project should be re-studied. The stay on not damaging Rama Setu
should be made absolute and the stay should extend to the entire
project until all alternatives are evaluated for nation's development
including alternatives such as promotion of heritage and eco-tourism,
building east coast railway to link Tuticorin with Kolkata, Colombo
with Madurai, Jaffna with Nagapattinam and transshipment of containers
from Tuticorin using small vessels navigating through Pamban Gap
(using railway cantilever bridge) and of course, setting up Marine
Economic Zones with the potential to generate Rs. 10,000 crores in
foreign exchange annually through export of marine products from
Tamilnadu alone since fish landings in the Indian Ocean have increased
five-fold during the last 40 years.
Para 88. See comments made upfront about the meaning of secular.
Government cannot pass the buck to the Courts. Government's job is to
govern and take the peoples' sentiments into account.
Para 89. An absurd and extraordinary, shocking request by the
Respondent. Hon'ble Supreme Court is not an adjudicator nor an
arbitrator to which matters can be dumped for evaluating evidence. It
is for the Government to evaluate the issues raised by the Petitions
and govern which includes the responsibility to take into account the
sentiments of the people as was done in the Jallikattu case in
Tamilnadu. Even a government ruled by some atheists should respect the
cultural traditions of the people as in the case of Rama Setu which is
considered sacred by millions of people world-over. Aasetu Himachalam
is Survey of India's logo representing Rama Setu as the southern
boundary of the nation. A civil government should not be destroying
monuments as the Taliban did destroying Bamian Buddha calling it mere
stone. The request is shocking because the Courts are being treated as
extension offices of the State. Courts are NOT extension counters of
bureaucracies or the Executive. What is needed is NOT adjudication but
rending of justice which in this case means that Union of India should
be asked to read the petitioners averments and respond including the
request for declaring Rama Setu as a World Heritage Monument and
Rameshwaram as a Divyakshetram (Sacred Town), a teerthasthaanam.
Rule of Law is put to test by the Respondent's affidavit with
misleading averments.
In England even today, the great ruling of Lord Erskine, proclaimed
for all time in 1794, holds good even today: "The rules of evidence
are founded in the Charities of Religion—in the philosophy of nature –
in the truths of history, and in the experienceof common life.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes (1841-1935) said: "The first requirement
of a sound body of Law is, that it should correspond with the actual
feelings and demands of the community, whether right or wrong. …..
Law is a Statement of the Circumstances in which the public force will
be brought to bear upon men through the Courts."
Chief Justice Felix Frankfurter in his famous judgement in Alleghany
vs Breswick & Co in 1957: "While it is not always profitable to
analogize 'fact' to 'fiction', La Fountaine's Fable of the Crow, the
Cheese, and the Fox demonstrates that there is a substantial
difference between holding a piece of cheese in the beak and putting
it in the stomach."
