Talking to The Indian Express, Advani said he had communicated to the Prime Minister that there is “bound to be a strong reaction” to the affidavit. “Law Minister H R Bharadwaj told me his Ministry had nothing to do with the affidavit as the ASI comes under the Ministry of Culture,” Advani said. He met the PM and Bharadwaj at a dinner hosted for the visiting Bulgarian PM.

“I told the PM that this single statement will have sharp reaction and the affidavit is unimaginable,” said Advani, “I suggested immediate remedial reaction to the government and that was to withdraw this objectionable affidavit.”

The Congress, however, confined itself to a defence of the project and said that it was under the NDA regime that the project had first begun. “The project plan was conceived by Vijay Goel during the NDA regime. Why were the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) or the Bajrang Dal silent then? We are only implementing the decision taken by the previous regime,” said AICC general secretary Digvijay Singh. Adding that since it was a “sensitive” subject, the government should take into consideration all available materials and facts.

DMK leader and Union Minister T R Baalu took a similar stand. “Six alignments were approved by them (NDA). I am only implementing the project,” he said.

RJD leader Devendra Prasad Yadav said the BJP was only trying to exploit religious sentiments. “They did not do anything about Ram when they were in power. Now out of power they are talking about Ram’s setu. Is Krishna not god? In Rajasthan, Krishna’s brajmandal (Kama in Bharatpur district) is being exploded with dynamite for mining but the BJP is not bothered despite our protest. If there was a setu, there should be a scientific investigation, not political drama,” he said.

Earlier, the BJP called the affidavit an “insult to the cultural heritage, civilisational beliefs, and Hindu sentiments.” BJP spokesperson Ravishankar Prasad mounted a spirited assault on the government and wanted to know if the Congress could take a similar stand on any other faith. Prasad said this is a “crude attempt” to insult Hindus, “questioning the very existence of Ram and Sita.”

“Ram and Sita are fictional characters according the Congress. The same people had overturned a judgment of the SC in the Shahbano case to please a particular community,” Prasad said. The BJP spokesperson said the culture ministry, which filed the affidavit, has a Congress minister. “The prime minister is therefore answerable to the country,” he said.

• What’s the Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project (SSCP)?

• Dredging 82 million cubic m of the Palk Strait to build a 167-km long channel which will cut sailing time of ships between east and west coasts by 780 km (nearly 30 hours).

• As of now, ships have to circumnavigate Lanka

• Cost: Rs 2,427 crore

• Deadline: November 30, 2008.

• What’s the “Ram” controversy?

• Sangh Parivar claims the project will destroy the existing Ram Setu (Adam’s Bridge) which, according to the Ramayana, was the bridge that Ram and his army (including Vaanar Sena) built to help him reach Sri Lanka to rescue Sita.

• What’s the science?

• Geological surveys show that Adam’s Bridge is merely compact clay, sandstone and limestone deposited over time. Sedimentation pattern points to sea-level fluctuations

• What’s the current status of the project?

• 5 dredgers at work in the sea off Rameshwaram in the Palk Bay: 23.16 million cubic m dredged so far

• Palk Strait region: 43.2% dredging done

• In the North of Adam’s Bridge area, 24.5% dredged

• “Cutter Section” dredger, required for hard rocky area along Adam’s Bridge broke in January. Work resumed again in April but this dredger can be used only from October to mid-May.

• What’s the trouble over ASI?

• It has told SC that legend or mythological texts can’t be seen as “historical record.” What’s angered the BJP is the next phrase: that this isn’t proof of the “existence of characters or events” (Ram etc) depicted in these texts. This led the BJP to say the ASI is “doubting the faith of millions.”

• ASI says it has to go by tangible evidence — like it did in the Babri Masjid case where it told the court that excavation at the disputed site shows evidence of features “associated with temples.”