When the authorities have to crack down so hard for such small violations, it is hard to escape the conclusion that someone in our country is very much afraid. And the opposition knows that we are not the ones who have anything to fear from a protest. --Nadya Tolokonnikova, member of Russian punk rock band Pussy Riot quoted in www.theguardian.com, accessed on 27 June, 2014
In a time when various news dailies herald the current Indian government as the harbinger of a new dawn of economic progress for India and choose to ignore the communal and religious dimensions, it has become difficult to find a platform for reasoned debate on the concept of that much maligned and misunderstood term---secularism. My view is that striving for social progress is as important as, if not more important than, the quest for economic progress and should not be considered merely as a favourable byproduct of the latter. The succeeding paragraphs were inspired by (and in response to) two editorials by Mr. Shiv Visvanathan that appeared in
The Hindu---
"How Modi defeated liberals like me" (22 May, 2014) and
"The songlines of secularism" (26 June, 2014). I would not like to consider this essay as so much a response as an attempt to clarify for myself, and perhaps for anyone who may read this, some of the ideas that were raised in the two articles, particularly the second one. First of all, I would like to thank Mr. Visvanathan for aiding in an introspection of my own ideas about the role of secularism, religion and science in the country today.
I had formerly identified myself as a "liberal", but began to rethink this over the previous year during the furore over a cartoon on Dr. B R Ambedkar, a man who I greatly admire. The furore over the cartoons were surprisingly aided and abetted by a liberal intelligentia that called for the banning of said cartoons. I was surprised that the very same voices that protested (and rightly so) the banning of Satanic Verses were now calling for the suppression of any critical appraisal of Ambedkar. I was lead to believe that healthy engagement and debate was the halmark of a liberal agenda and in this, I seemed to have been proved wrong. It was in the aftermath of this furore that I decided to eschew the label and my identity as a liberal. Aided by such organisations as the James Randi Educational Foundation (www.randi.org), the Centre for Skeptical Inquiry (www.csicop.org) and the Centre for Inquiry (www.cfi.net), and the works of Abraham Kovoor, Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Ben Goldacre among others, and my own research during my professional capacity at a consulting firm coordinating various development projects in South Asia, I opted to don the mantle of a scientific rationalist.
We are all aware of how the secular ideal is ingrained into the guiding principles drawn up by the author(s) of our nation's Constituion---the Preamble. For those who may not be entirely familiar with this succinct document and for other reasons that will be made clear a little further down in this essay, I am quoting it in full:
We the people of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic and secure to all its citizens: Justice---social, economic and political; Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; Equality of status and opportunity; and to propmote among them all Fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation.
If anything should be considered sacred in this nation, it should be this. Let us, however, have no illusions about the fact that these guiding principles have since been significantly diluted by the addenda and ammendments influenced by the demands of vote-bank politics and vested interests resulting in the Constitution as we know it today.
The first thing that one may notice is that there are no commas separating the qualities envisaged for the newly constituted Republic of India. They are therefore not separate autonomous entities but together define the vision for the nation. Any one of these cannot or should not exist without the other, nor should any one of these be marginalised to meet the other requirements. There is no inherent hierarchy for any of these qualities and it is either all or none. Dilute one and you dilute all the others, remove any one and the others are meaningless.
Let us now focus our attention on the concept of "secular", and to aid me (and some of you who may be reading this) in trying to get to grips with this now confusing term, I returned to the basics and that oft forgotten writers' friend---the dictionary. The online Oxford Dictionary (www.oxforddictionaries.com) defines "secular" as "not subject to or bound by religious rule; not belonging to or living in a monastic order." Secular is therefore that which is not religious and not influenced by religion. To get a better grip on this idea, I will turn to the lazy researcher's reference, the Wikipedia---"While drawing its intellectual roots from Greek and Roman philosophers such as Marcus Aurelius and Epicurus," the term itself was first used by the agnostic British writer George Jacob Holyoake in 1851 to "[promote] a social order separate from religion, without dismissing or critcizing religious belief." (Source: en.wikipedia.org on Secularism accessed on 26 June, 2014.)
With this in mind, let us engage with the perceived practice of secularism as revealed through the two articles in question and also the responses to them. The Islamic prayer beads that used to hang from the rear vew mirror of our family car placed there by my father, a devout Hindu (I say "used to" because we no longer have the car, but I suppose the beads are now probably somewhere in the family puja room); the
Allah Akbar he muttered under his breath whenever he got behind the wheel (which revealed more about his confidence as a driver than any real piety); the incense sticks he insisted on offering at a particular
dhargah during our frequent trips to our home village; the Buddhist Thankha painting that hangs above my parents' puja room, the copies of the Bible acquired and read over the years and currently gathering dust in my book shelf beside the translation of the
Al Quran that I bought and tried to read and gave up on (much like the copy of
A Brief History of Time and the three impressive looking volumes of
The Capital) does not make us any more secular than our fellow countrymen. What makes us secular is an insistance that religion should be confined to a personal relationship to one's god or gods and be considered a private affair.
As can be garnered from the definition provided earlier, secularism is not an inclusionary concept for religious ideology, but an exclusionary ideal that attempts to encourage humanistic behaviour that transcends religious intolerance and oppression. The current idea of secularism as an inclusionary concept, bastardised by the vote-bank politics that has been and is the malaise of independent India, is quite recent and postdates the original intention of the drafter(s) of our constitution. The term will henceforth be used in its original intended meaning to critique its current general use.
Until the last decade of the previous century, religious icons were rarely seen in state or central government offices in the country. However, over the past few years it is quite common to see them displayed prominently in erstwhile secular spaces. In most cases, the iconography belong to the majority religion in the country and there is no doubt in my mind that the current administration while not actively encouraging it (perhaps for fear of the legalities involved), will definitely prefer to remain blind (the Gujarat model?) to it. The moment religion transcends the private sphere and is used to indulge or participate in, justify or encourage acts of "othering", violence and hatred upon another person or community, the act itself becomes secular and may be treated as a secular offense. Religious justification for such acts should have no place within the secular mechanisms of the State. I am willing to contend that religion has value within the private sphere and is perfectly capable of encouraging personal growth, inspiring great art and humanitarian acts, and providing psychological support in times of stress. However, once it transcends this and and intrudes into the public sphere, it is invariably deployed as a tool for inducing paranoia, indulging in oppression, and quite often violently silencing dissent. The current Indian government has effectively merged the power of the state and complemented it with fundamentalist public zeal so that any critique or dissent voiced against it is purposefully misrepresented and couched as an "offence" to religious sentiments. Secular state apparatuses are now deployed to threaten, suppress or silence any dissenting view or opinion. News reports over the years are replete with examples of this.
I will now digress a little to dwell upon another concept that our first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, felt was essential for the success of the new nation and was critiqued in the editorials mentioned at the begining of this essay---a scientific temper. The concept is self explanatory but let us go back to his own words to see for ourselves what he meant:
[What is needed] is the scientific approach, the adventurous and yet critical temper of science, the search for truth and new knowledge, the refusal to accept anything without testing and trial, the capacity to change previous conclusion in the face of new evidence, the reliance on observed fact and not pre-conceived theory, the hard discipline of the mind---all this is necessary, not merely for the application of science but for life itself and the solution of its many problems. -- Jawaharlal Nehru, The Discovery of India
Though not specifically stated in the constitution, the "scientific temper", as he called it, played a major role in State policies during his time and continued to do so for a brief period over the subsequent decades. For example, the mandate for the establishment of Doordarshan may be drawn from a set of ideas put forth to guide the selection of programming for the UNESCO--NASA Satellite Instructional Television Experiment of the 1970s:
- to educate the populace about issues related to family planning, modern scientific agricultural practices and national integration;
- to impart general school and adult education, train teachers, and improve other occupational skills;
- to impart education on improving general health and hygeine.
Krishi Darshan was the first program to be telecast and the original mandate emphasized the importance of education, instruction and science. However, television programming in India today features astrology and a host of other quasi sciences, some of them even imported for unquestioning consumption by an urban elite, than it does actual science.
In the mid to late 1980s, after a revamping of Doordarshan under the Rajiv Gandhi regime in what was generally called its Glasnost period, a program (I am unable to recollect its name) that attempted to dispel superstition by investigating supposedly supernatural phenomena was featured. The first episode featured a scientist explaining why a small lamp seemed to move of its own accord during a bhajan session. Many of us may have witnessed this phenomenon at our dining table where a small plate seems to move of its own accord on a thin layer of spilled liquid. Needless to say, the Doordarshan office was inundated with letters stating that the program was an offense to religious sentiments and should be withdrawn. Subsequent episodes followed the pattern that one often sees in current History Channel documentaries where the authenticity of supernatural phenomenon is left open for iterpretation or more likely, misinterpretation. The scientific temper was silenced.
To understand the scientific temper better, we can to turn to a shining light of 20th century science, the Nobel laureate and particle physicist Richard Feynman, who broke down the scientific method to an audience in the 1960s as follows:
- First, we guess it;
- Then we compute the consequence of the guess;
- Then we compare the computation results to nature, or...compare to experiment or experience;
- If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong.
It is here that I take major issue with Mr. Visvanath's contention that considering religion as "superstitious and contaminating" is a fallacy. Seventeenth century Vatican clerics in Italy refused to look through Galileo's telescope not because they thought it to be Satan's tool, but because they knew that looking through it would confirm the Copernican model of the solar system that went against the Aristotelean model, which the Papacy "knew" to be the "absolute truth". The then Pope was quite willing to follow the thesis of his own advisor on scientific matters, or what passed for such in those days, that the observed protruberances on either side of Saturn (Galileo thought they were ears) was actually Christ's foreskin, that he left there when he ascended to Paradise.
Indian science tradition too is not free from what rationalist forums call woo, a term that can be roughly defined as any unsubstantiated supernatural claim lacking empirical evidence. Look up the average star chart and one will be amazed by the profusion of names with Arabic roots. Astronomy came to India as a by product of the thriving ancient spice trade, and yet once this remarkable science that strived to make sense of the universe arrived here, it was immediately hijacked for relgious woo to exploit the gullible in the form of Astrology. How many young women in India endure psychological torment because their astrological charts "reveal" that they are adversely influenced by shani? How many gynecologists in India are forced to delay or advance deliveries so that children are born under favourable skies? There are currently forces in the country that would like to see astrology included in the science curriculum in universities. There was a move in my own alma mater, an erstwhile deemed university with a narrow mandate that was converted into a full central university, to include Jothish in the curriculum. I am happy to say that saner minds prevailed but considering recent trends at the Centre the relief may be shortlived.
Whether science and religion can coexist is a debate that is currently raging across the globe. In America, the scientific community is fighting an intense battle with religious hardliners on the question of including Biblical Creationism in the science curriculum in schools. In some states, it is a losing battle as teachers are instructed not to teach Evolution unless they also teach Biblical Creationism. The logic among the Bible literalists is that since Evolution is a theory, there should be nothing wrong in positing that the Earth was created 10,000 years ago by an omni-everything god. The root of this argument is a purposeful misunderstanding of the term theory. Let us briefly return to the costituents of scientific method put forth by Feynman and focus on the last point---"If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong." Herein lies the crux, science is constantly introspective and self correcting, and the scientific community has always been willing to discard old theories if new knowledge and observation no longer validates them. Galileo would have been the first to concede his error in believing the protruberances of Saturn to be its ears if he had access to a more powerful modern telescope that would have clearly revealed them to be what they are.
In the very issue in which Mr. Visvanathan's second editorial appeared was an article on how observations at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN suggested that the quantum mathematics predicting the existence and nature of the Higgs particle may be true. While science journalists may leap and clap their hands in glee, scientists remain cautious and rightly so. For absolute proof, the experiment and observations should be independently replicable or atleast confirmed by other related experiments. This is the reason that the much hyped Cold Fusion theories of the last century have now been relegated to the back burner. Scientists who claimed that initial experiments proved the concept had to discard them when they were unable to replicate the results. We now know that the Einsteinian mathematical predictions about time/space dilation due to gravity and motion are true because we use it in our daily life in the GPS systems embedded in our smart phones and cars. Science is not absolute and no right thinking scientist would make this statement. The history of science is a history of constant change and evolution.
On the other hand, it is religion that thrives on absolutes. Despite the religiocentric creationist "theory" being effectively invalidated by empirical evidence, there are those who insist that it is still valid because their god said so. While there have been some instances of religious progressiveness invariably accompanied by hate, torture and bloodshed, the alarming trend of late has been predominantly regressive, still accompanied by hate, torture and bloodshed. Mr. Visvanathan chose as examples, two icons of modern Indian science---Jagdish Chandra Bose and A K Ramanujan. He posits them as proof of, not merely the coexistence of science and religion, but also that religion serves as inspiration for science. I believe this argument is flawed by his choice of examples. Considering the social milieu in which they existed, it would be natural to assume that they were either extremely religious or were heavily influenced by religion. There is no denying the significance of Dr. Bose's pioneering contributions to the understanding of radio waves and experiments with plants, which revealed that the conduction of stimuli in plants had an electrical nature contrary to the earlier supposition that it was predominantly chemical. His observations coupled with the influence of his religious background lead him to hypothesize that plants can feel pain and understand affection. He was honest enough to admit that this was only hypothesis, but it does not prevent the religious from jumping to the conclusion that this proved the existence of a divine life force that permeates all living things. This leap is based on a flawed quasi-scientific process in which the conclusion comes first and empirical observations are either skewed or cherry-picked to conform to a predecided conclusion.
Mr. Visvanath is certain that A K Ramanujan's famous dream of the goddess of Namakkal who revealed to him a complex equation he was attempting to derive, proves how religion inspires science. From my reading it proves no such thing but provides a good subject for psychologists to understand how the human subconscious works. German scientist Friedrich August Kekulé is supposed to have come up with the structure of the Benzene ring after a dream in which he saw a snake swallowing its own tail and I assume there are more such stories about breakthrough scientific discoveries. Ramanujan's vision was not so much a religious experience as it was his subconscious working through the conservative religious social milieu that influenced his mindset. Having said this, allow me to posit examples of my own on why religion and science do not coexist.
An unabashed advocate for biotechnology interventions in agriculture, I was accosted by an IKSCON acolyte at an agricultural exhibition in 2013. He took issue with my promoting genetically modified crops as an alternative to conventional crops that require excessive pesticide use. After debating the science and counter arguments on either side, he played his trump---a Vedic sloka that was supposed to counter everything that I had said until then. When I replied that the verse was meaningless unless he could provide empirical evidence to substantiate the claim made in it, it was merely a nice verse that sang the praises of a supposed all powerful being. At this point he decided to desist and perhaps gave up on me as a lost cause. To be honest, he was respectful and our debate was one that involved listening to each other and responding. However there were many others at the very same exhibition who preferred to curse me than indulge in an informed debate. Science generally cannot function in the face of religious absolutism.
In 2012, Sanal Edamarku, President of the Indian Rationalist Association, investigated a report of a "miracle" at a church in Mumbai. A crucifix was dripping water from its feet and devotees thronged to the church to touch, kiss and even sip the water. Edamarku's investigations revealed that the dripping water resulted from capillary action that drew water from a clogged drain pipe behind the crucifix. The church, perhaps fearing a dent in its daily collection decided to charge Edamarku under a 1927 law. The fact that the "miracle" could prove harmful to the devotees did not seem to concern them. He had to flee abroad to escape arrest or even worse, which seemed sensible considering the fact that in 2013, his fellow campaigner Narendra Dabholkar was murdered. Founder-president of the Maharashtra Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti, Dhabolkar and various activisits tried in vain to get an Anti-Superstition and Black Magic Ordinance enacted in the state of Maharashtra. The current ruling party and the Shiv Sena vehemently opposed the enactment stating that it would adversely affect Hindu culture, customs, traditions and sentiments. In the conflict between science and religion it is invariably science that is expected to compromise, back down or be crushed.
I will not list the various violent atrocities targetting gender, communities, castes and individuals meted out in the name of almost every god or religion, with little or no legal action taken because such action will snowball into further violence. Many belonging to my generation will remember the Roop Kanwar sati incident. A widow was drugged and induced into the burning pyre of her dead husband by her relatives and other villagers. In the aftermath of the incident, politicians thronged to the region to sing praises of how this woman's actions would stand as a shining example of Indian womanhood. A cursory perusal of news reports over the decades will provide further similar examples and I will reiterate that no religion can claim exemption from this. The common apologia for this is that these are isolated incidents and most religious people are good. I am enough of an optimist to want to believe atleast the latter part of the statement, and though one can argue with the first part, let us grant this idea with the benefit of the doubt. The incidents, though isolated (as claimed, although the various riots, bomb attacks, targetted attacks on entire communities over the years contradicts this claim), have a cumulative effect. The general trend is that those who indulge in these atrocities find it easy to fall back on religious ideology, as is done by the khaap panchayats to justify these acts and the legal apparatus invariably backs away for fear of instigating further unrest and violence.
Returning to the subject of secularism, I disagree with Mr Visvanathan's contention that it is the onus of the secularist (here I am using the concept of secular in its original meaning as it should be) to create a more imaginative framework for dialogue. The problem with the "secularism" practiced in India today is that it has been contaminated by the demands of the religions and is expected to uncritically accept these demands. In conclusion, this essay does not call for a Soviet style ban on religions, but for a more rational engagement concerning the role of religion in society and an objective reappraisal of its increasing intrusion into the secular State framework.
