From Scientific Temper to
Civilisational Myth: State Power and the Unmaking of Reason in Contemporary
India
Abstract
Science is not
merely a body of knowledge but a method of inquiry that enables societies to
interrogate reality through evidence, skepticism, and reason. This paper
examines the evolution of scientific thought, the constitutional mandate for
scientific temper in India, and the systematic retreat from rational inquiry in
recent decades. It situates scientific temper as central to democratic
citizenship, social equality, and material progress, while critically analysing
the resurgence of mythological nationalism and state-endorsed pseudoscience in
post-1990 India. Drawing upon constitutional texts, budgetary data, science
policy literature, and historical episodes of conflict between religion and
science, the paper argues that the erosion of scientific temper has profound
implications for caste hierarchy, gender inequality, misinformation, and
democratic regression. The study concludes that without a renewed public
commitment to science and rationality, India risks institutional stagnation and
epistemic authoritarianism.
1. Introduction: Science as Method,
Not Belief
Science is best
understood as a methodological orientation toward knowledge, distinguished by
observation, experimentation, falsifiability, and revision. Karl Popper’s
emphasis on falsifiability underscored that scientific claims remain
provisional and open to refutation¹. Thomas Kuhn further demonstrated that
scientific progress occurs through paradigm shifts rather than linear
accumulation².
This epistemological
humility differentiates science from belief systems rooted in revelation or
authority. Where religion seeks certainty, science institutionalizes doubt.
Where dogma sanctifies tradition, science interrogates it. This distinction is
not philosophical abstraction but has concrete consequences for governance,
social organization, and human emancipation.
2. From Myth to Method: Evolution of
Scientific Thought
Early human societies
relied on mythological explanations for natural phenomena—eclipses, disease,
fertility, drought—owing to limited material knowledge. As Bronowski observed,
myth provided coherence but not control³. The scientific revolution shattered
this framework by asserting that nature operates according to discoverable
laws.
The heliocentric model
proposed by Copernicus destabilized theological cosmology⁴. Galileo’s
telescopic observations confirmed empirical truth against ecclesiastical
authority, leading to his persecution⁵. Giordano Bruno’s execution revealed the
violent stakes of epistemic power⁶. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural
selection later dismantled the theological narrative of divine creation,
provoking intense moral backlash⁷.
These conflicts
illustrate a recurring pattern: science threatens entrenched power because it
desacralizes authority.
3. Science, Rationality, and Everyday
Life
Scientific reasoning
permeates modern existence:
Medical
practice relies on germ theory, randomized trials, and epidemiology.
Agriculture
depends on genetics, soil science, and climatology.
Communication
technologies rest on electromagnetism and computation.
At the individual level,
science nurtures critical thinking, enabling people to evaluate claims, resist
manipulation, and make informed decisions. At the societal level,
evidence-based policy reduces arbitrariness and enhances institutional
accountability.
Behavioural sciences have
further demonstrated that human conduct is shaped by social incentives,
education, and material conditions—not divine decree⁸.
4. Scientific Temper: Constitutional
Vision and Democratic Ethos
India remains one of the
few nations to constitutionally mandate scientific rationality. Article 51A(h)
directs citizens “to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit
of inquiry and reform.” This clause, introduced during the 42nd
Constitutional Amendment (1976), reflected Jawaharlal Nehru’s insistence that
science was essential for democracy and social justice⁹.
Scientific temper, as
Nehru articulated, is not hostility toward faith but resistance to unreason and
fatalism¹⁰. It requires citizens to question authority—religious, political, or
cultural—and to treat tradition as subject to scrutiny.
5. Post-Independence India: Science
Under Conditions of Scarcity
Despite acute poverty,
post-colonial India prioritized science and higher education. The establishment
of IITs, AIIMS, CSIR laboratories, ISRO, and atomic energy institutions
reflected a belief that scientific capacity was foundational to sovereignty¹¹.
5.1 Science and Planning
India’s Five-Year Plans
integrated scientific research into economic development. The Green Revolution,
though uneven, demonstrated the transformative potential of applied science.
Education policy emphasized engineering, medicine, and research to generate
skilled manpower.
6. Budgetary Commitment to Science:
Empirical Evidence
6.1 India’s R&D
Expenditure (GERD as % of GDP)
Year GERD
(% of GDP)
1996 0.64
2000 0.76
2005 0.82
2008 0.86
2012 0.74
2018 0.70
2021 0.64
(Source: UNESCO Institute
for Statistics; Government of India)
Despite nominal
increases, India’s R&D spending has stagnated relative to GDP, signaling
declining priority.
6.2 International Comparison (2020)
Country R&D
(% of GDP)
South
Korea 4.8
United
States 3.45
Germany 3.14
China 2.44
India 0.64
India’s scientific
underinvestment contrasts sharply with China, which—despite similar
post-colonial constraints—pursued aggressive state-led science expansion¹².
7. Religion, Caste, and the
Suppression of Reason
In India, religion
historically functioned as an ideological apparatus legitimizing caste
hierarchy, gender subordination, and knowledge monopolies. Ambedkar argued that
caste survives not by coercion alone but by sanctification through religious
belief¹³.
Scientific inquiry
destabilizes caste by exposing biological equality and social construction.
Consequently, resistance to scientific temper often aligns with efforts to
preserve hierarchical privilege.
8.
Retreat from Reason in Post-1990 India: From Neglect to Active Subversion
The post-1990 period in
India marks not merely a phase of uneven scientific investment but a deeper
epistemic shift. While economic liberalisation integrated India into global
technological markets, public commitment to scientific temper as a civic virtue
weakened. This retreat is visible in stagnating R&D expenditure and
declining public investment in higher education and basic research. However,
budgetary neglect alone does not explain the current crisis of reason.
What distinguishes the
contemporary period is the active normalisation of unscientific claims by the
political executive, accompanied by institutional silence. This marks a
transition from passive erosion to state-enabled subversion of scientific
temper.
Jawaharlal Nehru
repeatedly warned that without a scientific outlook, democracy would collapse
into irrationalism and mass sentiment. For Nehru, science was not confined to
laboratories; it was a way of life—“a training of the mind” to question
authority, tradition, and inherited belief. The contemporary departure from
this vision is therefore not incidental but ideological.
8.1
Political Authority and the Legitimation of Pseudoscience
In recent years, holders
of high political office have publicly advanced claims that contradict
well-established scientific principles, often under the banner of cultural
pride or “ancient wisdom.” These claims are not marginal utterances;
they are made in formal settings—public rallies, academic platforms, and even
scientific conferences—thus conferring institutional legitimacy.
Examples widely reported
in the public domain include:
Assertions
that everyday commodities such as tea could be prepared using gas extracted
from natural streams, without empirical demonstration or reproducible
explanation.
Public
misstatements of elementary mathematical identities, such as incorrect
formulations of the expansion of 
, indicating disregard
for foundational mathematical reasoning.
Claims
that cloud cover can shield military installations from radar detection,
contradicting established principles of radar physics.
Statements
at scientific forums suggesting that mythological figures such as Ganesha
exemplify ancient plastic surgery, without archaeological, anatomical, or
medical evidence.
These assertions are
significant not because they are individually erroneous—errors occur in all
societies—but because they are rarely corrected or challenged by scientific
institutions, indicating a climate in which epistemic authority is subordinated
to political power.
8.2
Mythological Nationalism and the Rewriting of Knowledge
Closely connected to this
trend is the systematic projection of mythological narratives as historical or
scientific fact. References to the Mahabharata and Ramayana are increasingly
framed as evidence of advanced ancient technologies—live battlefield narration
likened to modern broadcasting, weapons compared to contemporary firearms, or
aerospace capabilities inferred from allegory.
Such interpretations
collapse the distinction between literary symbolism and empirical history. They
bypass historiography, archaeology, and scientific method, substituting
faith-based assertion for evidence-based inquiry. This move does not merely
glorify the past; it delegitimises modern science by implying that contemporary
knowledge is derivative or inferior.
As discussed earlier, science
advances through cumulative verification, not retrospective myth-making. Claims
of ancient technological superiority without material evidence undermine the
logic of scientific progress itself.
8.3
Delegitimising Evolution and the Distortion of Biology
Perhaps the most damaging
dimension of this epistemic regression is the systematic misrepresentation of
evolutionary theory. Evolution is frequently caricatured in public discourse as
claiming that “humans evolved from monkeys,” a distortion that
misrepresents Darwin’s theory of common ancestry and natural selection.
This caricature is
mobilised to ridicule modern biology and to reinstate creationist or
mythological explanations as equally valid alternatives. Assertions such as
peacocks reproducing through tears rather than sexual reproduction—despite
overwhelming biological evidence—are symptomatic of a broader trend in which
symbolic belief displaces empirical verification.
8.4
Institutional Silence and the Erosion of Scientific Autonomy
Equally consequential is
the response—or lack thereof—of scientific institutions. National academies,
universities, and research councils have seldom issued public rebuttals or
clarifications in response to high-profile unscientific claims. This silence contrasts
sharply with the early post-independence period, when scientific institutions
actively defended epistemic standards.
The retreat of
institutional autonomy suggests the emergence of what may be termed epistemic
authoritarianism: a condition in which the state shapes not only policy
outcomes but also the boundaries of legitimate knowledge. In such a climate,
scientific dissent risks being labelled elitist, anti-cultural, or
anti-national.
8.5
From Scientific Citizenship to Mythological Subjecthood
The cumulative effect of
these developments is a transformation in the nature of citizenship itself.
Nehruvian scientific citizenship—premised on inquiry, skepticism, and rational
participation—is gradually replaced by mythological subjecthood, where loyalty
is expressed through belief rather than critical engagement.
9.
Scientific Temper, Power, and Authoritarianism
Authoritarian politics
thrives on emotion, myth, and fear. Rational inquiry disrupts these tools by
demanding evidence and accountability. Hence, regimes hostile to dissent often
undermine science, delegitimize expertise, and promote alternative “truths.”
Scientific temper,
therefore, is not culturally neutral—it is politically subversive of
authoritarian control.
10. Conclusion: Science as Democratic
Necessity
A democratic, equitable society cannot survive without scientific
temper. India’s constitutional promise remains largely unfulfilled as budgetary
neglect, curricular dilution, and ideological hostility weaken rational
discourse.
Reviving scientific temper requires:
Substantial increases in R&D
investment
Protection of academic autonomy
Curriculum reform grounded in evidence
Public accountability for misinformation
Science is not an elite pursuit; it is the epistemic foundation of
freedom. Where science retreats, hierarchy advances. Where reason is silenced,
domination speaks.
References
1.
Karl
Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery (London: Routledge, 1959).
2.
Thomas
S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1962).
3.
Jacob
Bronowski, The Ascent of Man (London: BBC, 1973).
4.
Nicolaus
Copernicus, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (1543).
5.
Galileo
Galilei, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (1632).
6.
Ingrid
D. Rowland, Giordano Bruno: Philosopher/Heretic (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 2008).
7.
Charles
Darwin, On the Origin of Species (London: John Murray, 1859).
8.
Daniel
Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011).
9.
Constitution
of India, Article 51A(h).
10.
Jawaharlal
Nehru, The Discovery of India (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1946).
11.
Meghnad
Desai, “Nehru’s Economic Legacy,” Economic and Political Weekly 30, no. 35
(1995).
12.
Barry
Naughton, The Chinese Economy: Transitions and Growth (MIT Press, 2007).
13.
B.R.
Ambedkar, Annihilation of Caste (1936).
No comments:
Post a Comment