THE
second-term election victory of George Bush – and India’s own experience
with the BJP rule, off and on, through the last decade – captures a dangerous
moment in world history. We are witnessing the world’s first and the world’s
largest liberal constitutional democracies, officially committed to secularism,
slide toward religious nationalism. By voting out the BJP and its allies
in the last election, the Indian voters have halted this slide, at least
for now – a heartening development, compared to the virtual takeover of
America by Christian evangelicals and fundamentalists.
The question that interests me in this electoral route
to faith-based governance is how this counter-revolution is actually accomplished
or, to put it differently, how the spirit of secularism gets subverted
without any formal abrogation of secular laws. How nothing changes, and
yet everything changes. How do perfectly secular issues which have no
necessary implications for the practice of religion – issues having
to do with national security, social welfare, family law, women’s rights,
science and the environment, for example – begin to get framed in the
jargon of religiosity? How does the secular get re-coded into a sacred
vocabulary, and vice versa, and how the two are used inter-changeably
in the public sphere for electoral gains? Unless we understand the ideological
mechanisms of this sacralization of politics, we will not be able to combat
the ongoing coups against secularism under nominally secular democracies.
As a student of history and philosophy of science, I
have been watching with concern how modern science itself – perhaps the
single most powerful force for secularization – is being re-coded as sacred,
either as affirming the Bible or the Vedas, or as ‘lower knowledge’ of
‘dead matter’ in need of spiritualization. As an old time partisan of
the Enlightenment and scientific temper, I have been watching with concern
as my fellow intellectuals and activists, in the United States and India,
who identify themselves with traditional leftwing causes of social justice,
anti-imperialism, women’s rights and sustainable development, have themselves
paved the way for re-enchantment or re-sacralization of science.
As I will show in this essay, many of the Hindutva arguments
for ‘Vedic science’ find a resonance with the fashionable theories of
alternative sciences and postcolonial epistemologies. Indeed, it is difficult
to avoid the impression that postmodernist and multiculturalist critics
of modern science are rediscovering and restating many of the arguments
Hindu nationalists have long used to assert the superior scientificity
of Hindu sacred traditions.1
I find George
Orwell to be the most helpful guide for understanding how modern science
either gets equated with, or absorbed into, the amorphous, grab-bag of
Hindu myths, mysticism and philosophy, lumped together as ‘the Vedas’.
Indeed, Orwell’s doublethink bears an uncanny resemblance with the well-known
Hindu tendency to eclectically combine contradictory ideas by declaring
them to be simply different paths or names of a shared enterprise.
Recall how
double-think worked in George Orwell’s 1984. Words came to mean
their opposites: war meant peace, freedom was slavery, and ignorance strength.
History was endlessly revised to make the present look like a confirmation
of eternal, unchanging truths. Words, representations, facts ceased to
mean what they appear to be saying. Shorn of any definite and contestable
meanings, words began to be used interchangeably, hybridized endlessly,
without any fear of contradictions.
Under
the BJP rule, superstitions started getting described as science. Murli
Manohar Joshi and his RSS brethren started invoking science in just about
every speech and policy statement. But while they uttered the word ‘science’
– which in today’s world is understood as modern science – they
meant astrology, or vastu, or Vedic creationism, or transcendental
meditation, or ancient humoral theory of disease taught by Ayurveda. This
was not just talk: state universities and colleges got big grants from
the government to offer postgraduate degrees, including PhDs in astrology.
Research in vastu shastra, meditation, faith-healing, cow-urine and priest-craft
was promoted with substantial injections of public money.
Nearly every
important discovery of modern science was read back into Hindu sacred
books: explosion of nuclear energy became the awesome appearance of God
in the Bhagvat Gita, the indeterminacy at quantum level served as confirmation
of Vedanta, atomic charges became equivalent of negative, positive and
neutral gunas, or moral qualities, the reliance on experience and
reason in science became the same thing as reliance on mystical experience
and so on. Contemporary theories of physics, evolution and biology were
wilfully distorted to make it look as if all of modern science was converging
to affirm the New Age, ‘mind over matter’ cosmology that follows from
Vedantic monism. ‘Evidence’ from fringe sciences was used in support of
all kinds of superstitions – from vastu, astrology, ‘quantum healing’
to the latest theory of Vedic creationism. Science and ‘Vedas’ were treated
as homologues, as just different names of the same thing. Orwell’s Big
Brother would’ve felt right at home!
Another
sign of doublespeak was this: On the one hand, BJP and its allies presented
themselves as great champions of science, as long as it could be absorbed
into ‘the Vedas’, of course. But on the other hand, they aggressively
condemned the secular and naturalistic world-view of science – the disenchantment
of nature – as ‘reductionist’, ‘western’ or even ‘Semitic’ and therefore
un-Hindu and un-Indian. Science yes, and technology yes, but a rational-materialist
critique of Vedic idealism no – that became the mantra of Hindutva.2
Why
this over-eagerness to claim the support of science? There is, undoubtedly,
a modernizing impulse in all religions, that is, all religions
display a desire to make the supposedly timeless truths of theology acceptable
to the modern minds raised on a scientific sensibility. ‘Scientific creationism’
among Christian and Islamic fundamentalists is an example of this impulse.
But while Christian fundamentalists in America indulge in creationism
primarily to get past the First Amendment,3
Hinduization of science in India is motivated by ultra-nationalism and
Hindu chauvinism.
As
originally formulated by Swami Vivekananda, followed up by Sri Aurobindo
and repeated endlessly in the far-right tracts of Guru Golwalkar and Savitri
Devi, the urge to claim the support of modern science for the Vedas is
motivated by the nationalist urge to declare Hinduism’s superiority as
the religion of reason and natural law over Christianity and Islam which
are declared to be irrational and faith-based creeds. Contemporary Hindu
nationalists are carrying on with the neo-Hindu tradition of proclaiming
Hinduism as the universal religion of the future because of its superior
‘holistic science’ (as compared to the ‘reductionist science’ of the West.)
Besides, it is easier to sell traditions and rituals, especially to urban,
upwardly mobile men, if they have the blessings of English-speaking ‘scientific’
gurus.
Granted,
that this business of Vedic science has been going on before anyone had
ever heard the word ‘postmodern’. But, and this is central to my thesis,
this Hindu nationalist appropriation of science has found new sources
of intellectual respectability from the postmodernist, anti-Enlightenment
turn taken by intellectuals, most radically in American universities,
but also in India. (Indeed, intellectuals of Indian origin made original
contributions to postcolonial theory). Many of the arguments for ‘decolonizing
knowledge’ and constructing ‘holistic sciences’ in tune with the Indic
civilizational values converge with the arguments used by the Hindu nationalists.
But
that is not even the worst of it. As they condemned modern science and
the Enlightenment rationality (‘scientific temper’ as it used to be called
in India), Indian intellectuals championed the use of unreformed religious
traditions for indigenist versions of science, development, environmentalism,
feminism and other causes dear to progressive social movements. Their
uncritical embrace of traditions from the populist, third-positionist,
mostly neo-Gandhian perspective, left very little space for a principled
opposition to the rapid Hinduization of the public sphere. Indeed, many
of these new social movements (Chipko, patriotic science movement and
elements of anti-globalization movement, for example) have become indistinguishable
from similar initiatives from the right.
What do
I mean by postmodernism and how did it play out in India? Postmodernism
encompasses a wide variety of theoretical discourses, touching on everything
from literature and history to architecture. What unites them is a suspicion
of all forms of universal knowledge which claim to represent the world
objectively and transparently. Modern natural science, being the ideal-type
of such knowledge, naturally became a target of postmodernist critics.
In what follows, I will present a very brief account of the postmodern
turn in ‘science studies’, a new-fangled discipline devoted to deconstructing
modern science, which in turn, became the target of deconstruction by
Alan Sokal, the physicist who revealed its inanities in his well-known
hoax.4
Before it
came became a candidate for deconstruction, modern natural science was
held up as a model of universal discourse. It was widely accepted that
while there could be different styles in art, literature, mythology, culinary
tastes and the like, there is only one science, and that the criteria
of justification of scientific inquiry cut across national and cultural
differences. Following the pioneering work of Joseph Needham, it was accepted
that while all societies have their own ethno-sciences in the past, these
are only tributaries that flow into the ocean of modern natural knowledge.
What
makes modern science universal is that it has progressively learned how
to learn better, or how to correct itself through socially institutionalized
ways of subjecting existing knowledge to empirical tests. Because of its
cumulative nature, ethno-sciences of other cultures have to test their
theories against what has been learned about nature through the developments
in modern science. Sure, there were many critics of this universal science,
including prominent scientists themselves, but their criticisms were levelled
at the abuses of science, not at its logic.
With postmodernism,
this ecumenical, universalistic view of science comes to an end. Mistrust
of science’s claims to objective, value-free facts began to gather force
around the time of Vietnam war and civil rights struggles in the West
and around the time of Emergency in India. Deep disillusionment with the
military-industrial complex in the West and the top-down model of development
in India were the major engines of a radical critique which decried not
just abuses of science, but its very claims to objectivity and universality.
In India,
modern science came under fire from well-known public intellectuals –
Ashis Nandy, Vandana Shiva, Shiv Visvanathan, Claude Alvares and others
associated with the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies in Delhi
and with the emerging ecology and alternative technology movements around
the country. These critics condemned modern science as being innately
barbaric, violent and even genocidal because of its ‘reductionism’ and
its imposition of western interests and values in collusion with westernized
Indian elite. One can debate the strengths and weaknesses of the Nehruvian
model of modernization.5
But the critique of science and technology that emerged out of the so-called
‘Delhi school of science studies’ was not limited to uses or abuses of
science: it questioned the content and methodology of science as we know
it.
The
Indian critique of science found its theoretical justification in theories
of social constructivism, also called the Strong Program in sociology
of science that claimed to follow Thomas Kuhn’s work (even though Kuhn
repudiated them). The Strong Program, put forward by David Bloor and Barry
Barnes from the University of Edinburgh, claimed that not just the agenda,
but the very content of natural science were socially constructed. In
their view, all knowledge, regardless of whether it is true or
false, rational or irrational, whether it is modern science or traditional
knowledge of non-modern cultures is equally conventional or perspectival.
In all cases, it is the social interests and cultural and religious meanings,
metaphors and metaphysical assumptions that decided how the natural world
will be classified, what kind of observations will be accepted as legitimate
evidence and what kind of logic will be accepted as reasonable.
No one can
deny that there are alternative, culture-dependent descriptions of nature:
the world is full of a vast variety of such descriptions. Given this diversity,
can we not say that modern science provides us a closer, a more approximate
representation of nature which is more adequately supported by evidence
and logic? Not so, according to social constructivists, because the standards
of truth and falsity are also relative to the ‘form of life’ of a culture.
To quote Barry Barnes and David Bloor, ‘the labels "true" and
"false" are simply different names for cultural preferences.’
The grand conclusion of this school of thought is that all ways of knowing
are at par because all are culturally embedded attempts to understand
brute reality. There is only one reality, different cultures approach
it differently, each of which is rational in its own context. (If you
replace culture with caste in this statement, you get the golden rule
of Hinduism that all paths to truth are different only in name. But more
on this later.)
Social
constructivists do not deny that modern science has discovered some
truths about nature that are universally valid – Newton’s law of gravity
for example. But even these universals are seen as products of the Judaeo-Christian
and masculine assumptions of western cultures. To paraphrase Sandra Harding,
one of the best-known proponents of feminist standpoint epistemology,
other cultures are capable of producing alternative universals of their
own. Which culture’s ‘universals’ get universalized and which ones are
consigned to the status of ethno-sciences, is not decided by superior
explanatory power, but by superior political power. Well-known scholars
including Andrew Ross and David Hess wrote books arguing that the line
between accepted science and heterodox sciences of cultural minorities
is an arbitrary construct reflecting cultural and ideological interests
of those in power. Dipesh Chakrabarty, a subaltern historian, expressed
the sentiment well when he wrote that ‘reason (capital R) is but a dialect
backed by an army.’
To
‘provincialize Europe’, and to present India as a source of alternative
universals that could heal the logocentrism and reductionism of western
science emerged as the major preoccupation of Indian followers of science
studies. Vandana Shiva wrote glowingly of Indian views of non-dualism
as superior to western reductionism. Ashis Nandy embraced this post-Kuhnian
paradigm and declared astrology to be the science of the poor and the
non-westernized masses in India. Prayers to the smallpox goddess, menstrual
taboos, Hindu nature ethics which derive from orthodox ideas about prakriti
or shakti, and even the varna order were defended as rational
(even superior) solutions to the cultural and ecological crises of modernity.
All this
fitted in very well with western feminist and deep-ecologists’ search
for a kinder and gentler science that could undo the dualisms or ‘logocentrism’
of modern science. Prominent feminist theorists (led by Carolyn Merchant
and Evelyn Keller) condemned the separation of the subject from the object
as a sign of masculine and dualist Judaeo-Christian thinking. History
of modern science was rewritten to decry the progressive secularization
or disenchantment of nature as a source of oppression of nature and of
women.
This naturally
created an opening for Eastern cultures, especially India, where such
secularization of nature is frowned upon by religious doctrines and cultural
mores. In the recent literature on Hindu ecology, the most orthodox philosophies
of Hinduism, including Advaita Vedanta, vitalistic ideas of life-force
(shakti, Brahman) embodied in all species through the mechanism of karma
and rebirth, began to be presented as more conducive to feminist and ecological
politics. The deep investment of these philosophies in perpetuating superstitions
and patriarchy in India was forgotten and forgiven.
The critics
went further: They argued that if, in the final analysis, all representations
of nature are cultural constructions, then different cultures and subcultures
should be permitted to construct their own representation of nature. To
judge other cultures from the vantage point of modern science, as the
Enlightenment tradition demanded, amounted to an act of ‘epistemic violence’
against the other, as Gayatri Spivak called it. This became the foundation
of what is called postcolonial theory, which combined a perspectival epistemology
with Michel Foucault’s notion of power of discourse and Edward Said’s
theory of Orientalism.
Postcolonial
theory led to a flood of discourse analyses showing how the modernist
critics of tradition – especially Nehru, but also the nationalist neo-Hindus
like Bankim Chandra, Ram Mohan Roy and other leading lights of the Indian
Renaissance – were mentally colonized because they were seeing India through
western conceptual categories. Any change that challenged India’s ‘unique
cultural gestalt’, as Nandy liked to call it, was to be resisted.
All told,
preservation of cultural meanings took priority over validity. Objectively
false cosmology of the ‘other’ was not to be challenged because it gave
meaning to people’s lives. Any demand for self-correction of local knowledges
was routinely decried as a rationalist ‘witch-hunt’. The alternative to
Needhamian universalism was that of ‘critical traditionalism’ or ‘borderland
epistemologies’. Like a bricolage, pastiche or a cyborg, cultures should
be encouraged to create an eclectic mix of different and even contradictory
ways of knowing. One need not reject modern science altogether, but rather
selectively absorb it into the Indian gestalt: this was the message of
the so-called ‘critical traditionalism’ that postcolonial thinkers like
Ashis Nandy and Bhiku Parekh derived from Gandhi. Contradictions were
not to be questioned and removed, but rather celebrated as expressions
of difference.
It
is my contention that the picture of science that social constructivism
offers is tailor-made for the double-speak of Vedic science. All the major
conclusions of science studies – culturally different but equally rational
paths to truth, equation of universalism with colonialism and totalitarianism,
penchant for eclecticism and hybridity, and the condemnation of disenchantment
of nature – end up restating the fundamental assumptions which the nationalist
neo-Hindus have always used to assert the superior ‘scientificity’ of
Hindu metaphysics and mysticism. Postmodern prophets who promise us a
kinder, gentler science do indeed face backward to the spirit-soaked metaphysics
of orthodox Hinduism, which has, in fact, inhibited the growth of reason,
equality and freedom in India.
Unlike the
Abrahamic religions which are weary of epistemological relativism out
of the fear of relativizing the Word of God revealed in the Bible or the
Koran, Brahminical Hinduism (and Hindu nationalism) thrives on a hierarchical
relativism to evade all challenges to its idealistic metaphysics and mystical
ways of knowing. Rather than accept the naturalistic and empirical theories
of modern science as contradicting the Vedantic philosophy – which
they actually do – Hindu nationalists simply declare modern science
to be true only within its limited materialistic assumptions. They
do not reject modern science (who can?) but ‘merely’ treat it as
one among the many different paths to the ultimate truth, which is known
only to the Vedic Hinduism.
In theory,
of course, social constructivists deny the very possibility of truth and
that does differentiate them from religious zealots of all faiths
who want to hold on to the literal truth of their creeds. But since in
practice, it is not easy to live without some notion of truth – not even
social constructivists live without accepting some statements as true
– it is the relativist aspects of postmodernist social theory that actually
percolate down into the cultural space.
By
treating truth in proportion to the evidence for it, modern science in
fact provides the only sensible alternative to religious notion of ‘ultimate
truth’. But by venting their fury on science and insisting on the ideological
nature of scientific objectivity, postmodernists have left no middle ground
between the ultimate truths of religions and the relativist truths of
cultures. Hindu nationalist genius has been to use the relativist view
of truth to protect the Hindu conception of ultimate truth from any challenge.
By enshrining relativism as a source of empowerment of the weak, social
constructivist theory has unintentionally provided intellectual respectability
to the strategy of hierarchical inclusivism which is the time-tested method
of Hindu apologetics.
Let me,
very briefly, give some examples of this convergence between supposedly
‘emancipatory’ postmodernist deconstruction of science and the clearly
reactionary, chauvinistic doublespeak of Vedic science. For starters,
take the issue of ‘decolonizing’ modern science. As noted above, developing
ethno-sciences which comprehend nature through local conceptual categories
of women, non-western people and other cultural minorities has been a
cornerstone of social constructivism and postcolonial theory.
Well,
Hindu nationalists see themselves as a part and parcel of this postcolonial
enterprise. They justify developing a science in accord with the Vedic
cosmology as an attempt to decolonize the ‘Hindu mind’ of western, Semitic-monotheistic
influences introduced by Macaulay and Marx. Indeed, scholars-activists
sympathetic to the Hindu worldview, including Rajiv Malhotra and Koenard
Elst, routinely cite the writings of Ashis Nandy, Ronald Inden and even
Gayatri Spivak as allies in a shared project of understanding India through
Hindu categories.
Like the
postmodernist supporters of ethno-sciences, they do not deny that modern
science has discovered some truths about nature. But they declare them
to be lower-level truths, because they ‘merely’ deal with dead matter,
shorn of consciousness. Notwithstanding all pious declarations of the
‘death’ of the Newtonian worldview of matter obeying mechanical laws,
the fact is that any number of rigorous, double-blind tests have failed
to show any signs of disembodied consciousness or mind-stuff in nature:
matter obeying mindless laws of physics is all there is. But in the Vedic
science discourse, the overwhelming evidence for adequacy of matter to
explain the higher functions of mind and life are set aside as a result
of ‘knowledge filtration’ by western-trained scientists.
Take the
example of the emerging theory of ‘Vedic creationism’ (which updates the
spiritual evolutionary theories of Sri Aurobindo and Swami Vivekananda).
Its chief architects, Michael Cremo and Richard Thompson, actually cite
social constructivist theories to claim that Darwinian evolutionary biologists
and mainstream biologists, being products of the western ontological assumptions,
have been systematically ignoring and hiding evidence that supports the
theory of ‘devolution of species’ from the Brahman through the mechanism
of karma and rebirth. All knowledge, they claim, parroting social constructivism,
is a product of interests and biases. On this account, Vedic creationism,
explicitly grounded in Vedic cosmology is as plausible and defensible
as Darwinism is on the naturalistic and capitalist assumptions of the
western scientists.
Vedic
creationism is only one example of ‘decolonized science’. More generally,
Hindu nationalists from Swami Vivekananda, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya to Murli
Manohar Joshi and his brethren in RSS routinely insist on the need to
develop a science that is organically related to the innate nature, svabhava
or chitti of India. India’s chitti, they insist, lies in holistic
thought, in keeping matter and spirit, nature and god together (as compared
to the ‘Semitic mind’ which separates the two). Like proponents of critical
traditionalism and hybridity, Hindu nationalists have been using this
purported holism of Hinduism as the touchstone of a uniquely Hindu gestalt:
any interpretation of modern science that fits in with this spirit-centred
holism is declared to be valid Vedic science while naturalistic, mainstream
interpretations are discarded as ‘western’. The overwhelming enthusiasm
for Rupert Sheldrake’s occult biology (which builds upon the failed vitalistic
theories of Jagdish Chandra Bose) and the near unanimous interpolation
of quantum mechanics in mystical terms are examples of the kind of meaning
sustaining critical traditionalism and hybridity sanctioned by postmodernists.
But
it gets worse. As is well known, Hindu nationalists have been keen on
proving that the landmass of India was the original homeland of the ‘Aryans’
and, therefore, the cradle of all civilization. ‘Vedic Aryans’, on this
account, were the authors of all natural sciences which then spread to
Greece, Sumeria, China and other major civilizations in antiquity. To
substantiate these claims, all kinds of modern scientific discoveries
are read back into the Rg Veda, the most ancient of all Vedas. But such
boastful claims raise the question of methodology. How did our Vedic forebears
figure out the speed of light, the distance between the sun and the earth
and why did they code it into the shape and size of fire altars?
Similar
questions arise for the more general ontological claims that are basic
to Hindu metaphysics, namely, there is a higher realm of ultimate reality
(Brahman) that cannot be assessed through sensory means. How did our Vedic
forbears know it exists and that it actually determines the course of
evolution of species, and makes up the gunas of the matter that we all
are made of? How can you experience what is beyond all sensory knowledge?
But even more important for the claims of scientificity of the Vedas,
how do you test the empirical claims based upon that experience?
Here one
finds an incredibly brazen claim for relativism and culture-boundedness
of rationality. Because in Hinduism there are no ontological distinctions
between the spirit and matter, one can understand laws that regulate matter
by studying the laws of the spirit. And the laws of spirit can be understood
by turning inward, through yoga and meditation leading to mystical experiences.
Since all science, supporters of this mysticism-as-science argue, gains
coherence from within its own culturally sanctioned, taken for granted
assumptions, modern science puts an artificial limit on knowledge as only
that knowledge which can be accessible to senses.
Within
the taken-for-granted assumptions of Hinduism, it is as rational and scientific
to take the non-sensory ‘seeing’ – that is mystical and other meditative
practices – as empirical evidence of the spiritual and natural realm.
This purported scientificity of the non-mechanistic, spiritual realm,
in turn paves the way for declaring occult new age practices like astrology,
vastu and quantum healing and even yagnas as scientific within
the Vedic-Hindu universe. This defence of parity (i.e. equal rationality)
of the Vedic method of non-sensory, mystical knowing is fundamentally
a social constructivist argument: it assumes that all sciences are valid
for a given community that shares a fundamental metaphysics.
Long ago,
Julien Benda wrote in his la Trahison de clercs, that when intellectuals
betray their calling – that is, when intellectuals begin to exalt the
particular over the universal, the passions of the multitude over the
moral good – then there is nothing left to prevent a society’s slide into
tribalism and violence. Postmodernism represents a treason of the clerks
which has given intellectual respectability to reactionary religiosity.
Footnotes:
1.
For a more complete treatment of this issue, see my book, Prophets
Facing Backward: Postmodernism, Science and Hindu Nationalism. Permanent
Black, New Delhi, 2004. For complete references to scholars whose ideas
are mentioned in this essay, please consult the book.
2.
In the Prophets, I have described Hindutva’s zeal to adopt the
vocabulary of science and the instrumental reason of technology while
rejecting the Enlightenment rationality as ‘reactionary modernism’.
3.
The First Amendment of the US Constitution bars the Congress from making
any law that ‘respects an establishment of religion…’ By claiming the
support of science, ‘creation scientists’ are trying to sneak in the Genesis
story of the Bible as a legitimate scientific theory into public schools.
The US courts have consistently denied the scientific credential of creation
science.
4.
The hoax and some of its aftermath is included in Alan Sokal and Jean
Bricmont’s Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals Abuse of
Science. Picador, 1998.
5.
I question the dismal picture of development painted by the critics in
my book.
|