Defending the Sethusamudram shipping canal project and maintaining that the Adam’s Bridge/Ram Setu formation cannot be called “a man-made structure”, the Centre today told the Supreme Court that “contents of the Valmiki Ramayana, the Ramcharitamanas by Tulsidas and other mythological texts, which admittedly form an important part of ancient Indian literature... cannot be said to be historical record to incontrovertibly prove the existence of the characters, or the occurrence of the events, depicted therein.”

Responding to writ petitions which sought assurances that there would be no destruction of the Adam’s Bridge/Ram Setu during the Sethusamudram project works, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), in a common counter-affidavit on behalf of the Government, said that “the Adam’s Bridge formation can be classified as a series of shoals or a series of barrier islands, both of which are naturally occurring formations caused by tidal action and sedimentation.”

The ASI said that the Adam’s Bridge is “merely a sand and coral formation which cannot be said to be of historical, archaeological or artistic interest or importance.”

Reminding the court that it had, in a separate case, defined archaeology as “a study of human history and prehistory through excavation of sites and analysis of physical remains”, the ASI said the “Adam’s Bridge site cannot, therefore, be said to be of any archaeological interest”.

“Unless these ingredients are satisfied, the question of construing Adam’s Bridge as an ancient monument and declaring it as a protected monument does not arise”.

... contd.