Ram Setu or Hanuman Setu?

I have always wondered why I can't think straight. Believe me I have tried for many years to think straight but failed. Now I guess I am too old to even try.
There is a great debate going on in country at least it was on sometime back, between the secularists and religious fellows; between rationalists and those who believed in the power of the myths, between the north and the south, between those who belived in the power of cement and those in power of scriptures. These debates are nothing new in our vast country. In fact they are very common. This is what inspired Amartya Sen to write a tome called the The Argumentative Indian to much acclaim and which also I guess signalled the end of his career as an economist [nothing much is left in that discipline post Nobel prize and one needs to move on in life]
Be that as it may, what is important in India is the topic of the debate not the two sides [the two sides remain the same whatever the topic] And what is more important that the topic is the fact that there is a humongous effort the reduce any debate to two sides only by simplyfying, recalssifying the many other sides.
The current debate was on the benefits of dredging a piece of sea which was either built by Lord Rama [the pious kind who always doubted his wife] or by a stroke of nature; depending on which side of the debate you are on. Obviously, by common agreement, it was accepted that for the country it was more important to debate how the bridge [Google can help you locate the bridge or the sea depending on whether you are an optimist or a pessimist] came to be, rather than whether it was economically, socially and politically beneficial to dredge the piece of sea and make it navigable.
Was the bridge built by Lord Rama while on his way to Sri Lanka to kill the demon king Ravana? Or was it built at some geological time when the continent of India separated from the Island of Sri Lakna? The debate continues.
However, in spite of having an opinion on things I know and also things I do not know, I am unable to offer an opinion on this. Not because I want to sit onthe fence, nor because my head is somewhere and my heart somewhere else, not even because I am scared of being beaten up by either side. None of these.
But for the fact that the debators have got it all wrong once again. The debate should ideally have been on whether the bridge was built by nature or by hanumana [the monkey god much revered or as much revered as Lord Rama in certain parts of India]. If you go throught the Ramayana, it is clear that Rama caused the bridge to be built, he did not build the bridge. The bridge was built by Hanumana and his cousins. having reached the sea in hot pursuits, Rama simply took the decision to build the bridge [as anyone else in his place would have]. The full credit of building the Bridge must go to hanuman and his "associates". if you realign the debate thus, it would be interesting to see how many of the Ram supporters are ready to take up the cause of his trusted lieutenant Hanumana. My guess would be not many. Is that a better way to take the winds out of a good debate? Shall we wait for some hanuman fans [we would have all the kids on our side] to raise a hue and cry against Rama for getting all the credit?
While of course, the nature continues to do its work quietly on the far margins of this debate. One more tsunami, well targetted, we may have a six lane sand highway to Sri Lanka or a Palk Strait which can take the largest Oil Taker.