1. What is Rationalism?

In epistemology—the branch of philosophy studying the nature, sources, and limits of knowledge—“rationalism” is the theory that reason rather than experience is the foundation of certainty. Proponents of epistemological rationalism assert that knowledge is acquired a priori (prior to experience), in contrast to empiricism, which holds that all knowledge is derived from sensory experience.

Regardless of its validity in formal epistemology, this is not how the term is used within the rationalist movement. In public discourse, rationalism refers to an active effort to eradicate religious prejudice, fundamentalism, casteism, superstition, and blind belief—debunking unsubstantiated claims, fostering critical thinking, and promoting skepticism and secular humanism.

In this broader sense, rationalism is “the practice or principle of basing opinions and actions on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response” (Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 11th Edition). The reasoning invoked here is scientific reasoning—which, as Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont write, entails “a respect for the clarity and logical coherence of theories, and for the confrontation of theories with empirical knowledge” (Intellectual Impostures, 2004). This practical definition must be kept in mind when evaluating the relevance of rationalism in contemporary India.

2. Is Atheism Our Exclusive Concern?

Rationalists in India are frequently criticized by certain progressive allies—criticism from religious quarters requires no addressing here—for an alleged exclusive preoccupation with promoting atheism and exposing godmen.

This criticism is unfounded for two primary reasons. First, while most rationalists adopt an atheist metaphysics, promoting atheism has never been their sole objective. The early pioneers of rationalism in South India—such as E. V. Ramasamy in Tamil Nadu, Gora in Andhra Pradesh, and Sahodaran Ayyappan in Kerala—were at the forefront of anti-caste movements. Indeed, much of the credit for reshaping the socio-political landscape of modern Tamil Nadu belongs to E. V. R.

Sahodaran Ayyappan, a foundational figure in Kerala’s rationalist movement, worked closely alongside the social reform movement led by Narayana Guru. Similarly, the Atheist Centre founded by Gora—an uncompromising Gandhian atheist—played a pivotal role in combating untouchability across parts of Andhra Pradesh. Likewise, H. Narasimhaiah, a nuclear physicist and the prominent face of rationalism in Karnataka, was a distinguished educationist.

3. Defending Debunking

Second, the close association between the rationalist movement and miracle exposure stems largely from the extensive media coverage given to the highly successful campaigns of Abraham Kovoor in the 1960s and 70s. However, far from being a trivial enterprise to be dismissed or frowned upon, debunking is a vital necessity. As the evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould noted, skepticism and debunking are “like garbage disposal that absolutely must be done for a safe and sane life” (Foreword to Why People Believe Weird Things, 2002). If this holds true for the United States, it is all the more vital in a society steeped in religious ritual, dogma, and institutionalized superstition.

Furthermore, prominent figures such as Swami Chinmayananda, Asaram Bapu, and Mata Amritanandamayi—along with a host of ascetics involved in the Ram Janmabhoomi movement—aligned themselves with sectarian political forces at critical junctures. Rationalists need not offer apologies for exposing these figures. It remains essential to challenge self-styled spiritual leaders who defraud the public through demagoguery and intervene in politics to the detriment of India’s secular fabric.

Debunking also serves as an indispensable tool for teaching critical thinking. To those who ask whether comforting illusions are preferable to harsh realities, philosopher Perry Weddle offers a compelling answer:

“If we need soothing, then it is reasonable, if they are not harmful, to seek such dreams and deliriums, and to do so efficiently. Logic, reason, and straight thinking are tools, our most important tools, for attaining what we want, and for evaluating what we think we want.” (Argument: A Guide to Critical Thinking, 1978)

Nevertheless, the movement must take a valid lesson from its critics: rationalism cannot allow itself to be defined solely by the figures it exposes. Exposing godmen cloaked as corporate wellness gurus, such as Jaggi Vasudev, Ramdev, or Ravi Shankar, Christian televangelists like Paul Dhinakaran, Islamist polemicists like Zakir Naik, or local shrine-based miracle peddlers is merely a preliminary step. The objective is not the individual exposure itself, but the cultivation of a scientific temper that renders such exploitation obsolete across all communities.

4. Defending Secularism

Above all else, what rationalists in India value most is secularism; exposing miracle workers, pseudoscientists, and quacks is strictly secondary to this core civilizational imperative. Secularism is enshrined in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution. Although the term was formally added by the Forty-second Amendment Act in 1976, the spirit of secularism has informed the Constitution since its adoption. As the Supreme Court of India affirmed in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), secularism is a basic, unalterable feature of the Constitution. The Court reiterated in S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) that a secular state is essential to the functioning of Indian democracy. Historically, this aligns with the foundational vision of the Indian National Congress under Jawaharlal Nehru, which campaigned during India’s first general election (1951–1952) on the pledge of building a “stable, secular, progressive state.”

In practice, however, secularism in India has suffered from deep structural compromises. While true secularism requires a clear separation between state and religion, Indian governance has routinely deviated from this standard through majoritarian assertiveness and minoritarian concessions alike.

These compromises manifest in state expenditures for religious pilgrimages and mega-gatherings, state administration of religious trusts, executive hesitation to enact uniform, gender-just civil reforms against clerical resistance, and controversial judicial rulings—such as the Supreme Court’s decision holding that appeals to “Hindutva” do not inherently constitute a corrupt electoral practice, or the dismissal of petitions seeking environmental regulations on religious festival immersions despite documented ecological damage (The Hindu, November 21, 2009).

These compromises reveal the absence of a deeply rooted secular ethos among the electorate. Authentic secular politics cannot survive without a secular citizenry; a secular state governing a deeply sectarian populace remains an unsustainable contradiction. Preserving democratic and civil liberties requires the rationalist movement to prioritize the persistent, widespread propagation of universal secular values—critiquing religious privilege, dogma, and political overreach wherever they arise.

Ultimately, the goal of the rationalist movement aligns with the vision outlined by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont:

“…the emergence of an intellectual culture that would be rationalist but not dogmatic, scientifically minded but not scientistic, open-minded but not frivolous, and politically progressive but not sectarian.”