Ram Setu Vs Aurangzebs Tomb: National Heritage Debate Reaches Supreme Court

India.com

6 days ago

A national debate has reignited over the recognition of India's ancient and culturally significant sites, with a critical question now reaching the doors of the Supreme Court: Why is Aurangzeb's tomb a protected national monument, but not the Ram Setu, a symbol of Hindu faith and ancient heritage? In today's DNA, Rahul Sinha, Managing Editor of Zee News, reported that, The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and the Government of India are now under public and judicial scrutiny, as former Rajya Sabha MP Dr. Subramanian Swamy has filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking that Ram Setu (Adam's Bridge) be officially declared a national monument.
#RamSetu | राम धरोहर, रामसेतु राष्ट्रीय धरोहर... इतने प्रमाण, इतने निशान, फिर भी घमासान!
रामसेतु को राष्ट्रीय स्मारक कब बनाएंगे?#DNAWithRahulSinha #DNA @RahulSinhaTV pic.twitter.com/WPlg4uJgWH — Zee News (@ZeeNews) May 27, 2025
Ram Setu: A Symbol Of Faith and History
Located between India and Sri Lanka, Ram Setu holds deep religious significance in Hindu mythology. Referenced in the Ramcharitmanas, it is believed to have been constructed by Lord Rama's army to reach Lanka and rescue Sita. Many historical references — including ancient Persian and Arab texts — mention the existence of a bridge-like structure in the region.
Despite this, Ram Setu has not received national monument status under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. The Act stipulates that any site over 100 years old with historical, cultural, or architectural importance can be declared a monument of national significance.
Dr. Swamy's petition argues that Ram Setu meets all legal criteria and thus should be protected by the state.
Aurangzeb's Tomb: A Protected Monument Since 1951
The controversy intensifies when compared to the status of Mughal ruler Aurangzeb's tomb in Maharashtra, which was declared a protected monument on December 11, 1951, under the same 1958 Act. This decision was made during the tenure of India's first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. Critics now ask why a tyrant's tomb has legal protection while Ram Setu does not, despite its deep spiritual and cultural roots.
Government's Stance And Legal History
The demand for Ram Setu's protection is not new. In fact, it has been central to political and legal debates since the 1950s. In 2007, during the UPA regime, the government submitted an affidavit in the Supreme Court arguing that Ram Setu had no historical or scientific evidence supporting its existence as a man-made structure. Senior advocate Fali S. Nariman even stated that Lord Rama himself destroyed the bridge upon his return from Lanka.
However, in 2021, the Central Government authorized a study by the ASI to determine whether Ram Setu is a natural formation or human-made. The report has yet to be made public.
In 2022, Union Minister Jitendra Singh acknowledged in Parliament that while conclusive proof remains elusive, there is historical and mythological evidence in favor of Ram Setu's existence.
Historical Mentions
• In 850 CE, Persian geographer Ibn Khordadbeh referred to Ram Setu in his book Book of Roads and Kingdoms. • In 1030 CE, Al-Biruni mentioned the bridge in Kitab-ul-Hind, calling it 'Setu Bandh'.
• A Dutch cartographer in 1747 marked the area as 'Raman Kweel' in his maps.
The Political And Cultural Undercurrent
The issue strikes at the heart of India's ongoing cultural identity debate. Supporters argue that Ram Setu deserves preservation not just as a religious symbol but as a testament to India's ancient heritage, one that is even visible via satellite imagery. Critics of the current state policy question why a structure linked to destruction (Aurangzeb's tomb) receives protection, while one associated with construction and faith remains neglected.
As the Supreme Court hears the PIL, public discourse continues to intensify. Social and political commentators assert that the decision will be a litmus test of how India balances its historical truths with modern secular governance.
The Larger Question
Why is a symbol of tyranny protected, but a sacred bridge of faith and legend still awaiting recognition?
The nation, and the highest court, must now decide.