There’s no evidence to prove that Ram Sethu is a manmade structure. There’s no historical evidence to prove that Rama existed and the events portrayed in Ramayana actually occured – that’s what the ASI said in its affidavit to the Supreme Court.

They were actually supposed to tell the court if the Ram Sethu, in their opinion, is a manmade structure or not. They went too far in questioning the existence of Rama itself. The ASI affidavit was later withdrawn.

Strong reactions followed. The pseudosecular nexus was horrified that the govt. retracted the affidavit. Earlier, in a show of mass anger, sangh parivar groups went berserk stopping traffic and burning vehicles.

Saner minds rightly said the ASI affidavit went a touch too far because the existence of Ram maybe irrelevant to the issue at hand. Besides, the absence of evidence should not be confused with the absence of the occurence of an event or a person.

Anyway, others went too far in stating that the existence/nonexistence of Ram (or any other religious figure for that matter) shouldnt be put to the test of science and “matters of faith should be left alone.”

Should religion be left out of the domain of science? Should science be used to invalidate the existence of Gods? For all the muck that this issue has thrown up, one good outcome is that it got society debating these two questions.

Hindus (maybe not all Hindus) believe that Rama did exist. Which means that they believe Ram is a mortal – a human being – and not necessarily a God. Ramayana itself portrays Rama as a mortal.

In his classic “Ramayana”, C. Rajagopalachari states that

The story of Bharata in the Ramayana portraying a character of unrivalled purity and sublime selflessness is something, more than an episode, and stands out by itself even in that noble epic, as holy shrines do on the banks of the Ganga. It uplifts the heart, and gives one a glimpse of the heights to which human nature can rise when cleansed by love and devotion. Whether Rama and Bharata were incarnations of the Deity or merely supreme creations of a nation’s imagination this episode is among the masterpieces of the world’s literature.

So whether Ram existed or whether Ram is a myth shouldnt be such a cause for worry – both for the pseudosecular nexus and for the Hindu right.

Ram is an eminently reverable character. He was an ordinary human being who rose to great heights by cultivating qualities that were – after all – human. He was prone to mistakes/errors/sins (whatever you choose to call) and he’s even more likeable for that. Here’s a man who was an exceptional human being but who was also prone to shortcomings and errors because of his human nature.

This model of a purshottam is much more acceptable to an ordinary human being than some extraordinarily powerful superman who could do anything at any day at any time, vanquish all enemies at will and never fail. Simply because such men dont exist and will never exist and also because such a character is more identifiable to an ordinary human being.

Try as they might, the pseudosecular nexus will never be able to reduce/diminish the greatness of Ramayana. Its beyond them because Ram will continue to remain in popular consciousness. Outside their scotch-soda parties, where they pontificate on poverty while sipping on expensive scotch, their ideological rants will have no takers. Massmurderes like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot will never make ideal role models.

On the other hand, I do not agree with the view that matters of religion shouldnt be put to the test of science. It is only when religious beliefs evolve with time and new developments in knowledge about the natural world that religions get enriched. Blind beliefs revealed to be as such by findings of science should be avoided.

When they dont evolve and choose to remain “pure” or “authentic”, religions become systems of dogma and superstition. Hinduism is lucky to have a tradition of critical analysis but this tradition has gone through tough times as the existence of superstition and caste prejudices in Hindu society shows.

Buddhism is an excellent example of an evolving religion. Beliefs/theories/hypotheses are constantly put to the test against new developments and are changed accordingly. Its an example of “rational religion,” if there can be one.

The tradition of critical analysis so integral to Indic religions is precious and should be preserved. Science and religion should be married and not divorced. Science should be the head of the family while religion should dutifully obey the findings of science. Religion should be the homemaker while science should be the guide.

Usually, it is religion which tends to be the more problematic partner refusing to obey the findings of science. Religion should make amends for if the two are locked eternally in conflict, they’d make a bad marriage! Science, on the other hand, should be more patient in trying to make religion understand its new findings instead of adopting a contentious posture.

Should they file a divorce instead? Albert Einsten once said: Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. He was stating a fact. The two may fall out temporarily and sometimes for long durations (for ex., the Dark Age) but cannot avoid marriage because:

1. Both exist.

2. More importantly, their marriage is important to society and human progress.

(This article was first published at Desicritics.org)