Speaking up for rationalism
by
T. Jayaraman
Rarely do we have the pleasure of seeing a political figure of the stature of the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, M. Karunanidhi, take such a forthright public stand against obscurantism. His remarks on the floor of the Tamil Nadu Assembly in favour of rationalism are a breath of fresh air in a period when public support of obscurantism and superstition by political personalities has become stiflingly frequent.
Karunanidhi's remarks came in response to complaints by Opposition members on the harshness of the stand he had taken earlier, when pulling up a Minister in his cabinet for participating in a fire-walking ceremony. The Minister concerned had claimed that he had done it for the ``welfare'' of his Government. Rejecting the Minister's excuse, Karunanidhi had firmly stated that no member of his cabinet or party should indulge in such acts. Responding to the Opposition MLAs, Karunanidhi re-iterated his party's and government's stand against such backward behaviour, distinguishing them from religious belief. He declared that he was ready to sacrifice his government if necessary to uphold the cause of rationalism.
Karunanidhi's remarks are to be welcomed by all those concerned with the development of a scientific temper in society. Article 51-A(h) of the Indian Constitution states that `` it shall be the duty of every citizen of India... to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform''. Karunanidhi has set an example by his adherence to the letter and spirit of these words, in a manner that has few parallels, apart from the Communists, in political life.
The Chief Minister's attitude is also in welcome contrast to that of the earlier political dispensation in this state. In repeated violation of the ideals of a secular state, leading figures of the ruling party prominently tilted in favour of one religion. Followers of those in power indulged in bizarre acts of `piety', praying for the health of their leaders and the preservation of their government. Karunanidhi has highlighted his distance from this kind of behaviour by choosing to pull up one of his own Ministers for bowing to obscurantism.
Public life in most parts of India, including Tamil Nadu, has witnessed in recent years an enlargement of the space accorded to obscurantism. Proponents of obscurantism and superstition have also taken a more aggressive attitude to those who try to propagate a scientific temper, and even to those who simply wish to popularise science.
Examples of this are available in plenty. Astrologers responded aggressively to appeals to people by scientists to enjoy watching the total solar eclipse of 1995. In the run-up to the event, Prof. M. Ananthkrishnan, then Vice-Chancellor of the Anna University in Chennai, complained publicly that he had received threatening phone calls for his role in encouraging people to use the opportunity to learn science. The spectacle of the `milk miracle' was another revealing example of the hold of obscurantism over society.
The current popularity of `Vastu Shastra' has little to do with learning from indigenous traditions of architecture for contemporary needs. It has far more to do with various superstitions about the influence of various directions and how buildngs are built in relation to these. A lengthy article in a widely circulated Tamil newspaper claimed, a few days ago, that there was a close connection between the orbit of the earth and the `praharas' or temple corridors. Both, according to this article, `proved' that moving in a elliptical orbit was healthier for human beings than moving in a straight line!!
A particularly negative role has been played by a genre of films in Indian cinema. These films portray ``miracles'' taking place not in a mythological setting, but in contemporary life. Elephants representing Ganesha or cobras representing Shakti (the images are frequently exchanged in the course of the film), intervene constantly to rescue children, succour women in distress, cure people of illnesses or punish evil-doers.
Most of these instances of the purveying of rank obscurantism and superstition go unchallenged. Increasingly too, political personalities and persons holding high office in the Government, are seen encouraging such tendencies. T.N. Seshan, then Chief Election Commissioner, attacked scientists for providing a rational explanation for the ``milk miracle''. Union Finance Minister, P. Chidambaram, inaugurated a national conference on astrology, and called for astrology to be made more ``scientific''. The late Rajiv Gandhi, was a well-known frequenter of god-men of various kinds. In one photograph, a god-man was seen blessing the Prime Minister by placing his foot on the Prime Minister's head!
The Hindutva brand of politics makes no secret of its links to religious obscurantism of various kinds. Fundamentalism thrives in the background of obscurantism and superstition and the destruction of Babri Masjid should be viewed as perhaps one of the most destructive example in our history of a political campaign that played on irrational ideas of religion, history and society.
In the midst of all this, it gives some hope to see a Chief Minister declare that he would rather lose power than give up rationalism.
Karunanidhi's statement is also notable for its firm statement of his atheism. While acknowledging the right to religious belief, he was equally assertive of his right to non-belief in religion. Such remarks are rare today, when statements critical of religious belief are often alleged to be an insult to religious believers. The interpretation of secularism as mere religious tolerance has led to the acceptance, in some quarters, of irrational religious practices as acts that are beyond criticism and condemnation. Further, the justification of the right to pluralism in religious belief, becomes in the hands of some the denial of the right to non-belief. Karunanidhi's assertion is a prominent departure from this trend.
It is obvious, of course, that rationalism or scientific temper cannot be promoted only by exhorting the people to follow these principles. People need to be provided the tools whereby they can distinguish by themselves between obscurantism and science, between superstition and religion. The only means to deliver this to them is through education and scientific education in particular.
And in this sphere, there is still a considerable distance that this country has to travel. Praise-worthy as the Chief Minister's commitment to rationalism is, it is difficult to imagine it realised without serious improvement in the sphere of education.
Having said this, it is perhaps necessary to underline that education and science education, while a pre-requisite, do not by themselves guarantee that rationalism and scientific temper will be widely prevalent in society. After all, sections of the educated middle class were taken in as well by the ``milk miracle''. And, as has often been pointed out, scientists in India are themselves often significantly lacking in scientific temper. Karunanidhi's remarks go back to a political tradition that sees rationalism as a principle that needs to be actively propogated in its own right as an essential aspect of a modern, democratic society.
Karunanidhi, in his statement, not only drew support for his position from the examples of Periyar and Annadurai, the historic leaders of the Dravidian movement, but also referred to the rationalist attitudes of political figures like Nehru and Bhagat Singh. In doing so, he has drawn attention to an essential feature of the political and social struggles in the era before Indian independence.
Despite several weaknesses, many sections of these movements initiated a critical examination of social and cultural traditions in India and saw in the freedom struggle an opportunity for thorough-going social reform. The issues ranged from the abolition of sati and later promotion of widow-remarriage to the abolition of caste discrimination and untouchability. There were, no doubt, sharp differences on the relative importance of the political struggle vis-a-vis the social. These were responsible, at least in part, to the estrangement of Periyar from the mainstream of the freedom struggle. But despite the differences there was a common theme in perceiving the spread of rationalism and a scientific temperament as having a major role in combating the oppressive and inegalitarian aspects of Indian social life.
In recent times it has become an intellectual fashion in some circles to sneer at this rationalist tradition. This attitude is particularly strange when the ill-effects of obscurantism and superstition in our society are so easily visible in daily life. Karunanidhi, in his characteristic style of plain-speak, has re-emphasized this obvious and simple point, giving in the process a much-needed boost to the tradition of Indian rationalist thought.