The missing sense of rationalism

To what extent do the rationalists in India engage with rationalism in a deeper sense? What prompts me to raise this question – much to the chagrin of some who claim to be rationalists --are recent events that highlight how shallow the discourse often is.

On one side are statements made by Bharatiya Janata Party leaders Anurag Thakur and Shivraj Singh Chouhan. Thakur claimed Lord Hanuman was the first to travel in space, while Chouhan claimed that Pushpak Viman predated the Wright brothers.

Chouhan made this remark at a science institute of national importance, seemingly oblivious to the incongruity between science and mythology, reason and faith. Such claims typify traditional revivalism-- the attempt to legitimise aspects of the past by linking them to modern science. 

On the other side stands the CPI(M) government of Kerala, which, along with the Travancore Devaswom Board, plans to host a Global Ayyappa Conclave. The DMK government in Tamil Nadu has accepted the invitation to participate in this state-sponsored religious event. Political observers see the move as a strategy to stem the drift of the Hindu voters towards the BJP. 

Here, the Communist and DMK governments expose their own hypocrisy. Rationality, which they claim as a core belief, is in divergence with the practice of promoting religious conclaves. This makes them pseudo-rationalists, eroding the very significance of rationalism.

However, political parties are not alone in trivialising rationalism. Another group—self-styled, card-carrying rationalists—narrows it down to little more than miracle-busting. Their activities are mostly limited to:

a) Public shows where they debunk "godmen" like Sai Baba, explaining that the ash, rings, or necklaces produced in rituals are simple sleights of hand. These are indeed cheap tricks, but exposing them hardly exhausts the scope of rationalism. 

b) Sermonising on Article 51A(h) of the Constitution, which urges citizens to cultivate scientific temper, humanism and a spirit of enquiry and reform. While this Article is vital, invoking it without deeper engagement reduces rationalism to a ritualistic citation.

What they fail to address is the philosophical dimension of rationalism. A serious discussion, for example, must begin with questions like, 'What is rationalism?' 'Who were the rationalists in classical Indian philosophical literature?' Schools such as the Sankhyas, the Mimamsakas and the Lokayatas openly questioned the existence of god and the very idea of godhood, offering rational arguments. Yet neither the revivalists nor the rationalists bring these traditions into conversation.

Equally absent are attempts to clarify concepts like magic, miracle, supernatural, god, or causation. Without addressing these concepts, the public's understanding of rationality remains unclear and incomplete.

Consider the notion of scientific temper. Rationalists could trace its origins and meaning. Bertrand Russell, in his 1922 Conway Memorial Lecture, described science as requiring a "critical undogmatic receptiveness"—an openness to revision in light of new evidence. That essentially is critical thinking. Jawaharlal Nehru later popularised the expression and gave his explanation in The Discovery of India, emphasising the role of evidence in the pursuit of truth. A discussion along these lines can bring out the difference between science and superstition. Their miracle-exposing activities can then be related to such discussions.

Lacking this depth, most rationalists in India end up, at best, as activists against blind belief in the supernatural and miracle mongering. Their work in combating superstition rooted in ignorance cannot be dismissed. But when they label believers of the irrational as un-thinkers lacking discrimination and thus portray them as objects of ridicule, their discourse collapses into empty showmanship. With no substance to back their views, they end up being sassy in the forums they have created. This sort of superficial engagement makes the Indian rationalist intellectually worn out. 

Even when substantive discussions do occur, they are few and far between. It is mostly the card-carrying rationalists who seem to represent rationalism, often for visibility rather than to enrich public understanding. It is this lack of substance that makes it easy for forging a convergence of science and mythology and enabling the divergence of principle and practice. 

(The writer formerly taught philosophy in the Department of Humanities and Social Science, IISER, Mohali)