Hailing from a family that emphasizes and embraces both rational left leaning and social justice politics, I have very less defence against what has been put forth in “Will the Real ‘rationalist’, please stand up?” written by Nisshanth.
He begins by calling for patience and tolerance from the rationalists, though sarcastically. However, the substance makes me strongly reflect on how much intellectual arrogance and intolerance, rationality has bread over the recent decades in India. It is true that the real rationalists, in their search for truth, must have facilitated a safe sphere for the coexistence of knowledgeable opinions. That is, enquiring into what knowledge is thereby facilitating an intellectual synthesis. They have failed miserably in this mission.
Having managed to become the hegemonic intellectual discourse, Rationality has stopped reimagining itself. It has resulted in stagnation and hyper stratification. What was once invoking sense and sensitivity to people, has become insensitive to new knowledgeable opinions by ignoring it’s original purpose. It has suffered the same ‘Us vs Them syndrome’ as other ideological movements. It has resulted in silencing anything traditional. It has dismissed anything traditional, thereby throwing the baby out with bathwater. Thus Rationalists have become ‘irrational’ in believing that they would never be replaced or subject to spatio-temporal change.
This has attracted further criticism, that Nisshanth also points out in the article. It is about ‘Falsifiabilty’ as famously advanced by Popper. Any theory and hypothesis in science must be falsifiable to distinguish it from pseudo-science. Rationality, must have taken ‘Science’ very seriously but has ended up trivializing it. Serious scientific investigations would have paved the way to understand our world through a careful formulation of theories via experimental proof (observation, verification and validation). This would have brought the realization that there is no timeless theory or hypothesis but only an increasingly perceptive gradations in deepening our understanding of the world.
How ? Scientific truth is ever-evolving. If we notice, when we have different axioms/frames of reference/hypothesis we arrive at the different points/results in our journey. By this I don’t mean there is ‘no single truth’ and we live in a post truth world. Definitely not. Saying that would be an easy way to escape the intellectual rigour demanded to further our understanding of ‘the truth in a particular time and space’.
What I intend to say is, the multiple results we acquire, should be a part of the larger meta theory. Science and only science can facilitate the coexistence of multiple truths and allow the creative tension within for better and harmonious understanding of the world. This clearly hasn’t happened in the case of rationalists, despite of their ‘faith’ in science. Why?
The modern western intelligentsia has dichotomized the world while the post-colonial intelligentsia have fractured world views. For instance the west sees only good and bad, moral and immoral. And our rationalists have started believing this message that one is either completely rational or completely irrational.
If one observes rationalists around ( my experience is majorly from Tamil nadu but also observing pop culture), they will have glimpses of at least one of these traits — self-defeating behaviours such as addiction; strong prejudice in sex, religion, race, dogma, etc..; short-sightedness; overcautiousness; puritanism; kakistocracy; strong belief in power and hierarchy. If one examines all of the above, they stem from unscientific ways of looking at the world. So one cannot be completely rational and definitely not in all spaces and all times.
One who is aware that irrationality stems from our psychology thoughts, actions, emotions, behaviours which in turn can be looped with neurochemical reactions that constitutes our biological makeup, should be able to recognize that we all have done irrational things at times.
This is because we have traits distinctly genetic and innate as well as distinctly acquired or social (nature and nurture). These traits are thus susceptible to prejudiced predispositions. They are flawed because, interactions in our brain, don’t always generate same results (except in certain routine behavioural decisions). Thus, a spatial and timely conclusive rationality is neither reproducible (100%) nor infallible.
Rationalists who have turned out to be the social justice warriors in India, pose as if there is no scope for an alternative discourse that can conceive of a better nation state. Can rationalists believe in an unchanging hierarchy? Anyone who reads socio-biology, understands that what commands respect in a species and how it is ever dynamic. Any belief in a purely static and unchanging structure is unscientific . It helps dismiss any potential rival as unworthy. It makes one ignorant thereby blinding them to a the fiery fury of a dragon since they want to unwisely dismiss it off as a firefly.
Why were rationalists indifferent to a right-wing takeover? What kind of amnesia blinds one to a highly hostile political undercurrent ? Were they lackadaisical? Or did these visionaries see it and still not venture forward to offset it? I leave it to for you to mull upon .
Coming now, to the political part. Nisshanth frames the Aryan hate that political parties spew as being grounded in the silly logic of the Aryan Dravidian hypothesis. I guess a ‘silly rewrite’ where rationalists accept the scientific explanation and the incapacity of A-D hypothesis to explain Brahminism must suffice to settle this issue.
It may have been easy for Periyar to accept and revisit the ideology. It is not so easy for Periyarists. Why? Because Periyar had a social vision for a serious emancipation (whether it is flawed or correct is a discussion that requires a separate piece by itself). What Periyarists have managed, is to create a political ideology for electoral mileage. It definitely served the process of social justice in a society, laden inherently with inequalities and discrimination.
However, reimagination of anti-brahminism, would result in a psychological/consciousness game as opposed to the current political game. It would be less glamorous in politics and would require immense effort and time. In fact, this turn may make Dravidian politics take the Ambedkar path. But what is wrong with Ambedkar way? He is a real ‘intelligent’ symbol for the emancipation of the oppressed.
Here is the catch. There are two main things.
1. Ambedkar’s path may look like it is purely political. This is the general understanding that people have. But no! reservation and political representation were tools in Ambedkar’s armoury, not ends. He looks at a necessity for a change in consciousness and therefore resorts to Buddhism. This is problematic in two ways. A. It is irrational to be religious and thus difficult to accept. B. It is a longer journey, unsuitable for a political mileage.
2. Redefining Anti-Brahmanism is necessary. Brahminism is a result of holding power and literacy for centuries without sharing with anyone. It is a result of collusion with powers and rulers who invaded for maintenance of their hierarchy. Sometimes, this may have been done for survival and sustenance.
It is nothing but a perfect form of conservatism and puritanism that naturalises and substantiates existence of power, privilege and status to certain sections of its own tribe. It is incompatible with liberty, equality and fraternity (for lack of better Indian words I know of) and relies on exorbitant power concentration. This results in social immobility, stratification and ultimately destabilizes society. As a result, hierarchy is preserved but at the cost of societal collapse.
Thus, if we use Ambedkar’s sense of Anti-Brahminism it is possible to have a dalit Brahmin, an OBC brahmin, a Marxist brahmin and above all… A Dravidian Rationalist Brahmin (if he believes in superiority bestowed by his ideology, impossibility of social mobility or improbability of changes in hierarchy)
From,
The one who aspires to see a stronger societal vision and reimagined rationalist politics.
Reference: Rajeev Bhargava on Ambedkar.
