On Sunday, October 1, hundreds gathered at the Nishagandhi auditorium in Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, to attend what was touted as the ‘world’s largest atheist conference’. Litmus ’23, an annual conference organised by the free-thinkers’ and rationalists’ collective esSENSE Global, included more than 30 speakers and several events lined up one after the other. The message of this year’s conference was ‘Set you free’ and the debates and discussions touched upon a wide range of topics like Hindutva politics, neoliberalism, Abrahamic religions, and the Uniform Civil Code (UCC).
However, in its earnestness to criticise Christianity, Islam, and Communism, which they consider as a religion with its share of faithfuls, the conference exhibited a soft stance towards Hindutva. Many of the speakers in the conference, which lasted close to 12 hours, failed to criticise Hinduism the way they criticised the anti-scientific temperament of Christianity and Islam. One of the invited speakers in the conference attempted to rationalise Sanatana Dharma, while some participants proudly called themselves ‘Sanghis’, a term denoting followers of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) ideology. One was left wondering why the event, intended to further rationalist discourse, shied away from explicitly criticising the Right Wing agenda of alienating Muslims and Christians though there was a session dedicated to Hindutva politics.
Read: Satirical skit at atheist conference in Kerala peddles stereotypes about the state
The debate between esSENSE Global founder C Ravichandran and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) spokesperson Sandeep Vachaspathi titled ‘Is Hindutva politics a danger to the country?’ centred on how Hindutva politics functions. Ravichandran, who had earlier courted controversy for stating the political Islam is more dangerous than RSS, put forth three reasons why Hindutva politics is dangerous to the country — it endangers India's secularism; it uses the repression and subjugation of minorities as a political strategy; and it upholds Sanatana Dharma and the religious side of Hindutva. He also called Hindutva an “exploitative, hegemonic, regressive, political ideology” and termed it dangerous to the country.
Ravichandran called Sanatana Dharma the latest political tool of the BJP and the Hindutva forces. “The BJP did not come to power only by promising development, but by playing the communal card and attempting communal polarisation. Currently, they are fighting for Sanatana Dharma. They say varna (classification of people into four classes) is different from jati (caste), but a mixing between two varnas or jaathis is not accepted. It is a shallow statement that varna is different from jati,” he said. The debate, which had until then focussed on secularism, Hindu nationalism, and politics, deviated to Sanatana Dharma and its ‘flexibility’ at this point.
Through the course of the session, Vachaspati rationalised hardline Hindutva concepts, including that of Sanatana Dharma and Varnashrama Dharma.
Responding to Ravichandran, Vachaspathi argued that jati and varna are different from each other. He claimed that any well-educated person is a Brahmin and rulers are kshatriyas. “The jati Brahmin is different from the varna Brahmin. Whatever caste you are born into, your action decides which varna you belong to,” he said, adding that Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and Prime Minister Narendra Modi are Kshatriyas by this standard. Even though he said that it is not birth but action that decides varna, Vachaspathi did not elaborate on what action deems one a Shudra. Instead, he asked, “Do you know anyone who became a mahatma because of their birth?”
The debate lacked the understanding that caste is a structural issue that affects crores of people on a daily basis. The exchange between the two seemed like a not-so-subtle attempt to rationalise the brahmanical patriarchy professed in scriptural texts.
Groups like Yuktivadi Sangham had been critical of C Ravichandran, whom they accuse of championing the cause of 'Savarkarite atheism'. VD Savarkar, an ideological patron of Hindutva, was an atheist. The statements made by Ravichandran critical of Hindutva could be seen as an attempt to deflect at least some of this criticism. Several statements made by Ravichandran on caste were considered problematic and his support to controversial legislations like Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC) made to target minorities, were seen as attempts to pander to Right Wing agendas. He once went to the extent of equating Savarkar's religious bigotry with anti-caste social reformer Sahodran Ayyappan.
Even though the speakers called themselves rationalists and free-thinkers, the speeches reflected the idea that having anti-Islamic, anti-Christian, and anti-Communist sentiments alone is what makes a person a free-thinker or a rationalist. While thinking beyond the constraints of religion is a major part of being a rationalist, most of the conference’s critique was limited to the Semitic religions. In fact, Hinduism and Hindu godmen faced little criticism in the event.
It is a fact that former believers of Islam and Christianity face severe backlash when they distance themselves from religion, sometimes even resulting in attacks, imprisonment, and murder. While such instances of religious fundamentalism cannot be ignored, a rationalist group that stops short of criticising Hindutva, an ideology that is considered as a threat to ethos of secularism and the Indian Constitution, cannot be said to be serving the right end.
Speaking in the debate on Uniform Civil Code (UCC), advocate C Shukkur said, “We live in a country where Muslims are attacked and alienated. In such a society, we should be compassionate towards them. We can be critical of the religion Islam, but Muslims should be left alone,” he said. Shukkur made this observation while speaking about the government’s ‘unspoken agenda’ behind promoting the UCC.
He said that the recent discussions about the UCC were started with Prime Minister Modi’s statement in June that we do not need two laws for one family in the country. Calling it an attempt to cause divisions between Hindus and Muslims, Shukkoor said, “It is a trap laid out by the Prime Minister, in which even representatives of esSENSE have fallen.” Ravichandran responded to this by saying, “Our stance has always been that Islam is toxic, but Muslims are lovely.”
In a later conversation with TNM, Shukkur said that esSENSE’s stance towards Hindutva is a soft one. “We cannot negate their role in developing scientific temper. In a society heavily influenced by religion, we need people who talk against it. Such critical discussions open our eyes and prevent our perception from being limited. In that way, it is welcome. They can criticise Islam and its ideology, Muslims should be left alone. What we see here is that when Muslims make a mistake, their (organisations like esSENSE) speeches and statements create an impression that all Muslims are like that. This cannot be ignored and should be called out,” he said. He added that rationalism and atheism should be discussed and we should strive to build a healthy society where people can follow their faith or move away from it if they wish to.
Speaking about esSENSE’s take on Hindutva, Shukkur said, “We cannot deny that they have failed in taking a strong stance against Hindutva forces. Their soft approach is dangerous to society as we have intellectuals and people occupying high positions entrenched in the ideology of Hindutva and practising casteism. We have to regularly reevaluate our stance and be careful about what we are talking about. Otherwise, the harmony in society will be endangered. This is not something we can ignore.”
During the UCC debate, CPI(M) state committee member Anil Kumar pointed out the apparent anti-Communist stand of esSENSE. He was speaking after Ravichandran criticised the CPI(M)’s stand against the UCC. Ravichandran said, “Women can be seen holding posters against the UCC. They are being controlled by the religious priesthood. The [CPI(M)] stand that the UCC will be implemented only if men and women come forward equally is absurd. Their aim is to support the top leadership of religions.” In response, Anil Kumar said, “The Communist party does not consider a religion-free society, where poverty is the norm, to be an ideal one … If Muslim women aren’t starving in Kerala today, the credit goes not to esSENSE but to the Communist party .”
Read: After Anil Kumar’s headscarves comment triggers row, CPI(M) rejects statement