Vaishakh Shuddha Shashthi
By B. R. Haran
When the Rama Sethu cases were heard by the Supreme Court last month, it asked two brilliant questions, "Is Rama Sethu a place of worship?" and "Who goes to the middle of the sea and worship a place, which is under water?" hurting the religious sentiments of Hindu majority, which led to widespread condemnations. After a brief adjournment, when the hearing continued last week, the learned counsels of the petitioners established the importance of Rama Sethu as a place of worship.
On Tuesday, when the case came up for hearing, Soli Sorabjee appearing for S.Kalyanaraman and Parasaran appearing for Ramagopalan presented their arguments based on Article 25, which deals with the Freedom of Religion. In course of the argument the learned judges of the Supreme Court have again hurt the sentiments of the Hindu majority by asking another brilliant question "whether even a small portion of Ramar Sethu (300 meters) can’t be touched for purposes of development? In our country, the Himalayas, Goverdhan and Tirupathi hills, rivers and land (Boo Matha) are all worshipped. Do you mean to say that the land can’t be touched, dams can’t be constructed across rivers and hills can’t be touched for stones?
The cultural and religious tradition of this great country is that, we do not differentiate between God and Nature and we worship Nature, as God. This is also the reason for our lives and habitat mingling well with nature. We plough and cultivate in the lands; we construct Temples using stones and sand; we sculpt our deities using different varieties of stones; we use waters from different rivers; all these things do not mean that we commit sacrilege on them! We use them, we get things out of them for our livelihood and we live because of them and hence we repay our debts by worshipping them and thanking them.
Also, after constructing a temple, we do not demolish it; after sculpting a deity and doing poojas, we do not throw it. We preserve them. We even reconstruct or renovate the dilapidated temples and we don’t leave them to ruins. When we value a ‘human’ construction so much, how much of value would we attach to a magnificent bridge constructed by the God himself? We worship the soil at Rama Janma Bhoomi, because Bhagwan Rama was born there and that is why we want to construct a temple for him there. Our forefathers had constructed a temple in Mathura, because Bhagwan Krishna lived there. So, by constructing bridges across rivers and by touching hillock for stones, we do not disrespect them, but, by removing even a single stone or a slab or a small part from those divine structures, we certainly sacrilege it. Hence, we do not want to damage Rama Sethu and we want to protect it. It is the ‘faith’ that matters here and the Court has no business in questioning it.
The Honourable Judges have also asked, "Even cows are being worshipped by the Hindus all over the country and would that warrant a ban on Cow Slaughter?" Yes, of course! We also worship certain birds and animals, as they happen to be the ‘Vaahanaas’ of our Gods and Goddesses. The Cow has the special significance of having all the ‘Devatas’ within it, in different parts of its body. We worship it for giving us milk for our daily use and dung and urine for making natural medicines. We don’t kill even the aged and tired cows and allow them to die a natural death. As we have been worshipping cows for ages, it certainly warrants a ban on cow slaughter.
Senior Lawyer Soli Sorabjee articulated well on Article 25 and when his successor Advocate Parasaran reminded the Honourable Supreme Court about Sorabjee’s detailed references on Valmiki Ramayana, the learned judges have again asked. "Do you expect judges also to become experts by reading these volumes?" One wonders if any ‘legal’ expert would ask such a question! They hear cases from various fields and there is no necessity for them to become experts in all those fields, but there is indeed a necessity for them to respect and listen to the expert opinions.
The matter of contention here is Rama Sethu and Sage Valmiki’s opinions are certainly important and relevant, as he was an expert and authority on Ramayana. But, it doesn’t mean the Judges have to be well versed with it. Like how the Lawyers have a legal obligation to present their arguments based on merits, the Judges have a judicial responsibility to hear those arguments. The same interest, which was shown to throw a question, must also be shown to listen to the answer! Lawyer Parasaran had asserted, "The present case involves two aspects of the public interest namely ‘Faith’ and ‘Development’ and the Court must attempt to accommodate both aspects of the public interest. But there is complete abdication of responsibility and non-application of mind by the government."
In course of the arguments, the learned counsel had unfortunately, given some fodder to the secular brigade by saying, "The Babri demolition at Ayodhya is a ‘scar’ on Indian secularism that will never be removed. Similarly breaking Ramar Sethu will also leave a permanent scar on the Hindu faith and belief". This statement equating Rama Sethu with Babri structure is sadly a Himalayan blunder, as it might have an impact on the Rama Janma Bhoomi case. Probably the lawyer would have assumed that arguing on a ‘secular’ perspective would impress the Judges. When we have a strong case on the basis of religious freedom, why harp on secularism? This goes to show the sad and sordid fact that, the Hindu majority of this great Hindu nation has to rely on ‘secularism’ to defend its matters of faith at the Courts of Law, while the minorities enjoy full and complete freedom without any hitches.
The observation on Babri structure was an obvious mistake. To err is human and hence it must be forgotten. At the same time, the secular brigade must not be allowed to carry on this line of argument for their advantage in the Rama Janma Bhoomi case, which has been already in the Courts of Law for years. It must be clarified and ascertained again that, Babri-building had never been a worshipping place and it was a structure built by the invaders on the ruins after demolishing a Temple. The ASI’s excavations have proved beyond doubt that, not one but two temples have existed before the Babri-structure was built. Reference must have been made about the Janma bhoomi instead of the disputed structure, because Rama Sethu constructed by Rama is as sacred as the bhoomi where he was born and that both have to be protected as places of worship. This line of argument would have added value to Ayodhya case and helped the cause of Ram Temple too, but equating Babri-structure and Rama Sethu had indeed dented it. When this great land is aggrieved with plenty of unhealed wounds, what is the need for talking about a non-existent scar? Babri-structure is a non-existent scar, where as, Janma Bhoomi is an unhealed wound. Bharat, the Punya Bhoomi, has thousands of such unhealed wounds through out its landscape, for each and every Islamic structure have been built by the invaders on the ruins of Hindu Temples after demolishing them. By hurling hurting questions on the wounded majority, the Supreme Court has added ‘insult’ to ‘injury’! We have already lost thousands of worshipping places and we need to protect the existing ones and try to regain the lost ones. It is all matters of ‘Faith’ and faith has to be ‘built’ and ‘protected’. Ayodhya must be built, Rama Sethu must be protected and both the causes must be fought for simultaneously, for Rama is Bharat and Bharat is Rama!
Source: www.newstodaynet.com
