It’s learnt that the two-volume report of the 10-member committee has included a quote from the work of two German scholars from the 1880s which states: “The narration of the Indian epic (Ramayana) appears to us nothing more than a pious fairy tale without factual basis.”

This has put the government in a spot not only forcing it to seek more time from the Supreme Court but also delaying decision on accepting the report despite pressure from Shipping Minister T R Baalu.

Sources, however, said Culture Minister Ambika Soni is unwilling to accept the report and this sense is shared among senior Congress ministers as the contents will only ignite another controversy.

Further, the committee, while concluding that the structure in question was a natural formation and not man-made, concedes that “no archaeological study” has been conducted to verify the same. This has only complicated matters with the Culture Ministry being extra cautious now and pointing out that a sensitive issue of this nature cannot be brushed aside without a proper study.

Moreover, the committee leaves the question of the structure being a cultural corridor between India and Sri Lanka an open-ended one which many feel contradicts the final conclusion. “The possibility of it being used as a cultural corridor between India and Sri Lanka cannot be precluded,” states the report.

The consensus, therefore, in the Congress leadership is to first carry out a detailed archaeological and geological study of the structure before arriving at any conclusion. The committee, sources said, focuses largely on rebutting the petitions from various quarters that argue in favour of the structure being the Ram Sethu as described in Ramayana.

What has annoyed the Congress leadership is the committee’s needless qualification about the epic. It was the same mistake that started this controversy. In an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court in September last year (withdrawn later following a major uproar), the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) had stated: “...contents of the Valmiki Ramayana, the Ramcharitmanas by Tulsidas and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 events, depicted therein.”

The BJP and Hindutva organizations came out strongly against this, holding protests across the country. The Supreme Court then asked the government to examine the diverse views filed by way of different petitions and come up with a report on the nature of the structure, its historical relevance and other related aspects.

But with the expert committee report running into trouble, the DMK, a key ally of the Congress, is bound to increase pressure on the government as it wants work to start project at the earliest. While forming a Group of Ministers could help buy time, sources said, it is clear that this report cannot be accepted in totality and a separate study may have to be conducted before work can start again on the project.

When contacted, Baalu refused to comment. “I don’t have to say anything on it. The matter is being dealt by the Cabinet Secretariat,” he told The Sunday Express. The project involves dredging of about a 90 km-long channel across the Palk Straits between India and Sri Lanka that will allow a straight passage to ships sailing between the east and west coasts of India. This will cut an estimated 780 km and up to 30 hours in sailing distance and time as ships will not need to go around Sri Lanka.

The members of the expert committee included S Ramachandran, Vice Chancellor of the Madras University; S R Wate, Deputy Director of the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute in Nagpur; R K Jain, Managing Director of the Indian Ports Association; Prof R S Sharma, a former professor of History in Delhi University among others.