New Delhi, Sept. 13: Scientists have dubbed the government’s clarification on Ram a course correction driven by political pragmatism. But rationalists have called it calculated cowardice.

Senior scientists who have long championed the cause of scientific temper said that it was probably unwise on the part of a government department to challenge Ram’s existence through a court affidavit.

“It should have confined itself to the lack of evidence for a man-made bridge, rather than argue that there is no proof (for Ram),” said Professor Yash Pal, a space scientist and former chairman of the University Grants Commission.

“All they had to say was that there is no archaeological evidence for the bridge... archaeologists should not even be asked to get into this (the existence of Ram),” Yash Pal told The Telegraph.

Scientists said the affidavit filed yesterday should have taken into account the sensitivities involved. “This is an emotional issue involving faith... to say that Ram was not a historical figure was not necessary,” said Kasturi Lal Chopra, the former director of the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, and the president of the Society for Scientific Values.

The controversy is about whether Adam’s Bridge is man-made or natural. “They should not have gone beyond science,” Chopra said. “If they’re going to submit a new affidavit, it’ll be a rectification of an error,” he said.

The documents filed by the government also included results of studies by geologists and space scientists that suggest that Adam’s Bridge is a natural chain of islets in a shallow sea created by marine geological processes.

Law minister H.R. Bharadwaj, however, said he would not blame any official.

Usually, the parent ministry (culture in this case) sends the initial draft to the law ministry, which may or may not suggest changes. If changes are recommended, the draft goes back to the parent. Otherwise, the final document is passed on to the law ministry’s central agency for submission in the court.

Some scientists said mythology is valuable. “Mythology involves imagination and important values, and we’re grateful that we have the Ramayan in this country, but it should not be mixed with historicity,” Yash Pal said.

But rationalists slammed the government. “This is like rewriting history to suit public opinion,” said Sanal Edamaruku, the president of the Indian Rationalists Association. “It’s a kind of cowardice — avoiding reality for the sake of political expediency,” he said.