The bridge being spoken of is the bridge believed to have been constructed thousands of years ago for Rama and his army to cross over from the southern tip of India to Sri Lanka to rescue Rama's wife from the Kingdom of Ravana who had kidnapped her. There is a big controversy in India today over the bridge because the Indian government wants to build a canal across the straits separating India and Sri Lanka to shorten the time required for ships to move from the western coast of India to her eastern coast, but which canal if built many fear would obliterate the remnants of the millenniums old bridge which constitutes the earliest remnants of a man-made object extant in the world today.
Originally Posted by anders
Yes. Not made, but evolving from natural geological processes seems to be the more credible explanation for it.
Could a bridge not have been made upon a natural geological process? That the bridge down the centuries has sunk into the ocean is a fact. But the widespread Hindu belief that there existed a bridge at the same location that has become controversial today is undisputed. And from this belief is born today's consternation among many Hindus that a canal through the Palk Straits would violate the sanctity of the once extant bridge. (Many are opposing the construction of a canal there also for other reasons like environmental, occupation of the fishermen, even destruction of a natural tsunami barrier.) However, what may settle the issue may not be evidence produced that a bridge actually existed, but widespread Hindu belief that it existed. Trampling over beliefs cannot but be a strict no no in so hoary a nation as India - though of late this appears to be happening more and more due to the politics of courting of various 'vote-banks'.
No comments:
Post a Comment