Akbar or any king can be. I refer to Tulsidas, who wrote the Ramacharitmanas or the Ramayana in Hindi.”

How amazing. Akbar was the greatest of all the Mughal emperors. His capital, Fatehpur Sikri, was in the United Provinces, now known as Uttar Pradesh. So, why was the badshah less popular than someone who was a mere bard?

The answer to this question lies hidden in the answer to another puzzle: Why does ‘Ram’ figure in the names of so many Indians from diverse social and ideological backgrounds even in modern times? Look at this random sample: Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, Jagjivan Ram, Kanshi Ram, Ramvilas Paswan, Ram Jethmalani, Sitaram Yechury!

At the very least, this means that Ram and the Ramayana are central to both India’s social history and to our civilisational identity. Even Allama Iqbal described Ram as ‘Imam-e-Hind’ in one of his celebrated poems, before he became a votary of Pakistan.

Lahore, Pakistan’s cultural capital, derives its name from ‘Lav’, the son of Ram. Go to Angkor Wat in Cambodia, which is one of the wonders of the world, and you will find the story of the Ramayana scripted in exquisite sculptures along the walls of the Vishnu-Buddha temple. Thailand’s King Bhumibol Adulyadej, who is the world’s longest-serving current head of state (since 1946), is known as Rama IX. In Korean chronicles, it is said that King Suro of the ancient kingdom of Geumgwan Gaya was married to a princess from Ayodhya.

All this could not have been possible without Ram and the epic of which he is the hero having some historical basis. But isn’t there mythology, too, in the story of Ram, Sita, Hanuman and Ravan? Of course, there is. The Ramayana derives its greatness and retains its power of influence over the masses even today precisely because its immortal moral message is conveyed through fantastic mythologisation by Valmiki, Tulsidas and innumerable other poets and artists. However, the mist of myth cannot negate the existence of Ram’s historical reality. Also, which ancient civilisation anywhere in the world — Greek, Egyptian, Persian, Chinese or Mayan — is without its own myths and legends? And is there a single mythologically blessed land on this planet whose people are not proud of their heritage of epics, puranas, heroes and sacred personages?

When something becomes an integral part of the spiritual life of a people — as the Ramayana has for the Hindus — mythological reality becomes inseparable from what is narrowly understood as ‘historical’ reality. In an insightful essay in India Today recently, U.R. Ananthamurthy, the Jnanapeeth laureate Kannada writer, wrote that the only “language” understood throughout the length and breadth of our country is the language of the Ramayana and Mahabharata.

Seen in this light, it is possible to see the enormity of the blunder committed by the UPA government in affirming before the Supreme Court, through an affidavit in the dispute over the Rama Sethu, that Ram did not exist at all. It betrays a mentality that holds that the religious sentiments of Hindus can be hurt, and India’s civilisational identity can be falsified, with impunity. It does not require a BJP leader to make us wonder if the government would have made a similar claim in the event of a dispute regarding the historicity of Hazaratbal in Srinagar, where a ‘holy hair’ belonging to Prophet Mohammed is believed to be preserved in a glass casket.

True, there is a great amount of tolerance and religious latitude in Hinduism. So much so that when in 1968 Periyar E.V. Ramaswami Naiker (see there is ‘Ram’ even in his name!) burnt copies of the Ramayana all over Tamil Nadu as a part of his anti-Aryan, anti-Brahmin and anti-God agitation, there were no riots in any part of the country. Rather, there was introspection. But Hindu society has travelled quite a bit on the road of self-assertion from 1968 to 2007. How much would have been known if the UPA government had not resorted to some quick damage control by withdrawing the objectionable affidavit in the Supreme Court.

The UPA government’s fiasco over the Ram Sethu issue is a salutary lesson in why secularism must not be practiced in irreligious or anti-Hindu terms. The religious sentiments of people belonging to all faiths must be respected — without double standards.