The debate over the Sethusamudram project brought Lord Ram’s existence into question. The ASI’s answer (‘no historical or scientific evidence’) hurt the BJP and some sections of the public. No surprises here. Where belief is doubtless and widespread, any doubt becomes blasphemy. Martin Luther called reason ‘the greatest whore that the Devil has’, because it seduces people away from trust in God. Realising its faux pas, the UPA quickly withdrew its affidavits and even nervously sacked two ASI officials responsible for referring to Ram Sethu as a natural formation of sand bars. No surprises here again. The interplay of faith and politics is often a rather explosive subject. However, in all this hullabaloo, Hinduism’s explicit heterodoxical tradition of agnosticism has been totally neglected. Agnostics were an integral part of ancient India. And it is the Ramayana that carries proof of such voices.Raising the flag of agnosticism is not to evade the divisive issue of bridge or no bridge. The question of whether an event without evidence should be allowed to suspend progress has to be addressed. Yet, before any such attempt is made, it is important that the promoters of a narrow view of Hinduism recognise the prevalence of agnosticism. Secular intellectuals may also do with a more tolerant understanding of myths and myth-making.If structures from Ram’s life and times are India’s collective heritage, so is its rich tradition of atheism and agnosticism. There is strong evidence to suggest that among the intellectuals of ancient India, atheism and agnosticism were powerful currents. According to some scholars, the period between 1000 BC and 4th century AD is described as India’s age of science and reason. The Lokayata is one of the most ancient of India’s rationalist schools of thought. Very avant garde, the Lokayatas were total atheists with a scientific world view. Their intellectual clashes with mainstream Brahminical Hinduism were legendary. Later, in 900 AD, Medhatithi, a commentator on the writings of Manu, acknowledges that Lokayatas were atheists.Many scholars from various philosophical schools felt it imperative to prove their metaphysical theories through rationalist tools of induction and deduction. Verses in the Rigveda express radical doubts: “Is there a God who knows what really happened? Who really knows? The one who looks down on it, in the highest heaven, only he knows — or perhaps he does not know. Did someone make it?” These doubts from the second millennium BC feature again and again in India’s long history. The memoirs of Hieun Tsang, the Chinese chronicler who travelled extensively in India during the 7th century AD, described a group of ‘unbelievers’ he came across in Benaras. Of all the ‘argumentative Indians’ that Amartya Sen has written about, he specifically refers to Javali, the great sage and sceptic, who was among Lord Rama’s most trusted advisors. Clearly, Hinduism was expansive with several heterodox currents.Rationalists need to understand the overwhelming nature of myths and their deep roots in society. In many cultures, especially ours, myth-making has almost always been a cottage industry. Through the events that have unfolded in the last few days, the power of myth — a cultural element that is both mass-produced and mass-consumed — was on the display. Myths come to be an almost innate part of our consciousness (or false consciousness) and substantially guide our attitudes. Writing on myths, Mary Midgley clarifies that “.they are not lies. Nor are they detached stories. They are imaginative patterns, networks of powerful symbols that suggest particular ways of interpreting the world”. In his analysis of mass culture in Mythologies, Roland Barthes writes that it is under a mythical form that the group-imperative is indoctrinated into each individual conscience. It seems clear that myths hold more sway among people than history. For many, Ram is history. Others state that he is ‘imagined history’ (not ‘myth’ since the word connotes profanity to the believer) for a large part of India’s collective unconscious, or a living myth, and hence alive in many ways. Denouncing a myth as humbug can therefore only boomerang. The present stand-off deserves nuanced thought outside the realm of politics. The appreciation of an agnostic standpoint may help. To see doubt as irreverence is an insult to the rich traditions of Hindu belief. At the same time, it will help to not look at myths through the condescending western lens that privileges fact over fiction and history over myth. Myths carry huge potential for affirmative use, not misuse, by politicians. Rationality and mythology go afar in Hinduism, the only major religion with a clear tradition of agnosticism. How about faith in the God of Reason? How about reason creating space for faith?The writer works for the UN and writes on social issues
