History can become dangerous when it comes to be laced with politics. The inane legal wrangle over whether Ram is a historical figure or not is an example of history becoming political and potentially threatening. The situation took such a turn that the government, after a quick intervention by the Congress president, Sonia Gandhi, announced that it would rework the affidavit it had filed in the Sethusamudram project. In the original affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court, it was affirmed that there is no definite proof that Ram actually lived. This was immediately seized by the Hindutva brigade as a direct affront to those who worship Ram and believe that the events narrated in the Ramayana actually occurred in history, and that Ram Setu was actually built by Ram and his army of monkeys. Ms Gandhi realized that the government of India, and transitively the Congress, had grasped a Tartar. The affidavit has merely stirred up an unnecessary controversy. An affidavit, as any good lawyer knows, says only as much as is absolutely necessary. The affidavit placed before the apex court fails on this count. There was no necessity at all for the affidavit to go into the historicity of Ram. By doing so, the government has brought trouble upon itself and will now have to wipe the egg off its face.

The tactical gaffe of the government cannot hide the more important issue underlying the incident. There has been a growing tendency in India to take matters best decided by experts to the courts. The existence or otherwise of Ram can actually be argued and established by historians and archaeologists. It is not a matter that can be decided by a judge, despite all his erudition and sagacity. Similarly, what historians and archaeologists say cannot, in any way, affect the beliefs of people. In the West, there is a corpus of writing that denies the “historical Jesus”, but this has not affected the beliefs and worship of millions of Christians. In India, when a historian or an archaeologist denies, on the basis of the available evidence and its interpretation, the existence of Ram, it is taken as an offence to believers and an immediate attempt is made to make political capital out of such a statement. History is no longer left to those who are trained in the subject, but it becomes the playing field of various political forces. It is easy to take history out of politics.