Reflections On Two Recent Debates

Recently the Lallantop channel on YouTube hosted a debate between Javed Akhtar, an atheist, and a Mufti on the topic of Existence of God.  Some time back a similar debate had taken place between Zakir Naik and Dhruv Rathee.

This post is inspired by some reflections after watching the two debates.

Physics started out with what is now known as Classical Physics which dealt mostly with terrestrial objects in a, more or less, uniform gravitational field, close to each other in space and time and moving at speeds that are negligible compared to speed of light - that great constant in all frames of reference.  This is our immediate world that we experience with our senses directly and incessantly.

In this immediate world, Classical Physics came out with laws that seemed immutable and provided us with a sense of certainty, where given the initial state a later state could be figured out with compoete certainty.  This sense of certainty and absolute knowledge got shaken when Physics was required to accommodate the fact that the speed of light was an absolute constant in all frames of reference even though they may be moving relative to each other.  This gave rise to Special Theory of Relativity which was soon followed by the General Theory of Relativity where space, time and even mass all got mixed up.  

The turbulence got intensified as physics widened its ambit to subatomic particles on one hand and the immense vastness of universe on the other.  Some fairly bizarre phenomenon came to our notice for which the classical physics failed to be the correct model.  The sense of certainty vanished as probability took centre stage prompting Einstein to famously protest that God didn't play dice with us.  As Quantum and Astro Physics progressed, strange things emerged when developing models for the observable world on the very small scale on one hand, and very vast on the other.  Quantum physicists found that time disappeared altogether in their advanced equations!   Further, Quantum phenomenon, mostly probabilistic, seemed to crystallise into certainty in the presence of an "observer" - called collapse of the probabilistic wave function!  And to top it all, entanglement of particles in this strange Quantum world enables information to travel instantaneously, faster than light!

The world at the quantum level is far from mundane, it is mystical.  So mystical that many religious philosophies like Vedanta seek and claim to find a parallel for their tenets here.

While quantum physics concerned itself with very small, another branch, Astrophysics, found itself in an universe where Classical Physics faltered again.  In an attempt to model it,  Astrophysics came up with a Big Bang origin of the universe.  Again, time, which vanishes in the quantum world, is said to be non-existent before the Big Bang:  Space too.  It also had to accept existence of dark matter and dark energy to explain some of the observed phenomenon.  In a debate between the Islamic evangelist Zakir Naik and Dhru Rathee, Naik claimed that a certain aayat in Quran talks about Big Bang and this makes Islam the most scientific religion!  He probably forgot that science treats Big Bang as a theory, a model that is open to peer review and revision, or even abandonment, if alternate models can better predict the observed facts.  In fact, in science everything is open to review and being challenged if any experiments so suggest.

Even as physics was making these strides, and technologists were starting to find ways of putting to use the weird quantum phenomenon,  Information Technology too made rapid strides and achieved the most fascinating neural network and Artificial Intelligence.  The machines have finally passed the Turing Test proposed by Alan Turing in 1950, much earlier than what was thought possible!  This has added fuel to the debate around the hard question of "consciousness."  This has become a free-for-all activity where religion tries to find a turf where it hopes to have an edge over science.

Ultimately what distinguishes science from non-science is what Javed Akhtar said in the recent debate.  It was to the effect that religion asserts definitive answers to every question and those answers must be taken as final, whereas science has the humility to accept what it still doesn't comprehend fully.  And then again, because science is open to being questioned and contradicted if observed phenomenon don't agree with the model in vogue, there is only one science all over the world.  Religions are numerous and the reason is obvious.

The Threat From Within

Hinduism, Internal Reform, and the Challenge of Social Stratification

Recent discussions about the evolution of Hinduism in modern India often center on the relationship between its philosophical heritage and its social structures. A conversation with a relative—himself deeply engaged with Sanatan Dharma and the author of a related work—highlighted key aspects of this debate. My position was that contemporary Hinduism has distanced itself from its philosophical foundations in Vedanta, Sankhya, and Upanishadic inquiry, and become increasingly identified with hierarchical social structures (varna vyavastha), ritual formalism (karmkand), and devotional practices (murtipuja). By contrast, Hinduism’s historical offshoots—Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism—sought to refine or transcend these elements while preserving core ethical and metaphysical concepts.

Historical Interactions and Internal Dynamics

My interlocutor attributed Hinduism’s present challenges to external forces, particularly to the medieval Islamic invasions. However, historical and sociological evidence indicates that many of the divisions visible in pre-modern Hindu society predate that period (Thapar, 2002; Sharma, 1958). Indeed, the rigidity of caste-based stratification appears to have been a principal factor that facilitated the appeal and spread of Buddhism and, later, of Islam in the subcontinent (Ambedkar, 1936; Ghurye, 1961). This interpretation reverses the presumed causal link: rather than foreign incursions producing social decline, internal weaknesses rendered society more susceptible to external influences.

Buddhism emerged in the 6th–5th century BCE as a reformist movement within the broader Indic spiritual milieu. It drew on existing metaphysical ideas while explicitly rejecting the authority of the Vedas and the hereditary privilege of the Brahmin class (Bronkhorst, 2007). Its success stemmed in part from ethical universalism and the rejection of birth-based hierarchy, which resonated with marginalized groups seeking spiritual and social space outside ritual orthodoxy. Hinduism’s later attempts to reassert itself—often described as the Brahminical counterreformation—entailed reaffirming ritual authority and caste boundaries (Olivelle, 1997). Over centuries, this process entrenched distinctions that favored savarna groups and contributed to enduring ideological divergences between Brahminism and Buddhism.

Caste and Equality: Persistent Contradictions

While both Hinduism and Buddhism share conceptual frameworks such as karma, dharma, and samsara, they differ significantly in their treatment of equality. Traditional Hindu social organization codified hierarchy through varna and jati, fixing individual status at birth (Bayly, 1999). In contrast, Buddhism and other heterodox schools emphasized moral conduct over lineage. The persistence of caste-based discrimination in post-independence India—manifested in atrocities against Dalits and restrictions in social mobility—illustrates the endurance of this inherited framework (Deshpande, 2010).

Contemporary examples further illuminate these tensions. Publicized incidents involving the mistreatment of individuals from marginalized communities, including senior officials and judges, reveal the latent social bias that persists despite constitutional guarantees. Sociological studies show that even in urban environments, forms of occupational segregation and social avoidance remain prevalent (Gupta, 2000).  Suicides by dalit scholars like Vemula, on account of harassment, underscore this.

A related dimension concerns the occupational legacy of caste. Certain upper-caste organizations express unease over perceived downward mobility, especially in professional domains historically held by lower castes. Yet the long-term neglect of workers in sanitation and similar sectors underscores a persistent inequity in working conditions and social esteem (Venkatesan et al., 2021). Even where policy frameworks mandate mechanization and safety protocols, incomplete implementation perpetuates risk and degradation in these professions.

Internal Versus External Threats

Given these structural patterns, it is reasonable to suggest that Hinduism’s most significant challenges originate internally rather than externally. The demographic reality—where upper-caste populations constitute a minority relative to the combined Dalit, Adivasi, and OBC groups—creates an inherent tension between historical dominance and contemporary egalitarian ideals (Jaffrelot, 2003). Legislative attempts to restrict religious conversion can be interpreted not only as efforts to curb missionary activity but also as mechanisms to preserve caste-based cohesion within Hindu society (Nussbaum, 2007).

This internal contradiction extends to the relationship between religion and the Indian Constitution. The constitutional framework emphasizes equality, liberty, and fraternity as guiding values (Ambedkar, 1948), while traditionalist interpretations of Hinduism continue to endorse a hierarchical division of social function. Consequently, the ideological foundations of Hindutva—which present unity through cultural homogeneity—can come into conflict with the plural and egalitarian ethos enshrined in Indian law (Andersen & Damle, 2019).

Prospects for Reform and Reconciliation

Some political actors have recognized the limits of competing within the terrain of religious identity. The Indian National Congress, for instance, has in recent years reoriented its discourse toward social equity and welfare rather than engaging in overt symbolic religiosity. This shift signals a broader realization across the political spectrum that enduring development requires addressing structural inequalities rather than emphasizing civilizational identity alone.

A sustainable reform within Hinduism would likely involve renewed engagement with its rational and ethical dimensions rather than adherence to social hierarchy. One potential framework for such reform lies in drawing from the egalitarian and humanistic philosophies of Buddhism. Given their shared Indic origin, the adoption of Buddhist principles need not constitute religious conversion but can instead represent an internal reformative synthesis, aligning ethical conduct with constitutional ideals. Such a transformation could help mitigate sectarian divisions and enable greater social cohesion and developmental focus.

References

• Ambedkar, B. R. (1936). Annihilation of Caste.

• Ambedkar, B. R. (1948). Constituent Assembly Debates, Vols. VII–IX.

• Andersen, W., & Damle, S. (2019). Messengers of Hindu Nationalism. Princeton University Press.

• Bayly, S. (1999). Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the Modern Age. Cambridge University Press.

• Bronkhorst, J. (2007). Greater Magadha: Studies in the Culture of Early India. Brill.

• Deshpande, S. (2010). Contemporary India: A Sociological View. Penguin.

• Ghurye, G. S. (1961). Caste, Class and Occupation. Popular Prakashan.

• Gupta, D. (2000). Interrogating Caste: Understanding Hierarchy and Difference in Indian Society. Penguin.

• Jaffrelot, C. (2003). India’s Silent Revolution: The Rise of the Lower Castes in North India. Hurst & Co.

• Nussbaum, M. (2007). The Clash Within: Democracy, Religious Violence, and India’s Future. Harvard University Press.

• Olivelle, P. (1997). The Dharmasutras: The Law Codes of Ancient India. Oxford University Press.

• Sharma, R. S. (1958). Sudras in Ancient India: A Social History of the Lower Order Down to Circa A.D. 600. Motilal Banarsidass.

• Thapar, R. (2002). Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300. University of California Press.

• Venkatesan, S., Anand, G., & Chandra, S. (2021). “Manual Scavenging and Caste: Structural Violence in Contemporary India.” Economic and Political Weekly, 56(35).

Need To Rethink Our Administrative Services

For a nation that emerges from the trauma of colonisation, cultivating a sense of self-respect in the oppressed citizens becomes a prerequisite for overcoming the trauma that the citizens have sufffered, and moving forward on a path of rapid growth.  It is so because colonial powers trample upon the sense of self-worth and self-respect of the local population with a view to subjugate them, and these must be revived for people to emerge from that oppression.

In our case, the British did this by creating civil and police services that looked upon the general population as subjects and not brethren to be served.  They did it partly by employing people from upper castes, who already had a sense of entitlement, as officers, and perhaps, also through training.  These 'public servants' then ill treated their compatriots and kept their morale down to make things easy for the rulers.  Unfortunately this attitude continues unabated and the public has gotten so used to it that any ill and insulting treatment at the hands of public servants and police has become the subject of jokes rather than indignation.  Recall the joke about "suji" and "suji" during the COVID era.

The logical thing would have been to dismantle these services, gradually if so required, soon after independence and create new cadres without a sense of entitlement and with a sense of purpose and service.  This was never done and the maai-baap mentality amongst government employees continues unabated till date.  This is also the root cause of deep seated corruption in our society because public, as subjects to these rulers, must be subservient and must appease them with gifts and presents.  The fact that wherever we have been able to bring down corruption, it has been possible only by reducing or eliminating human interfaces with the the help of technology and not because of any change in the mai-baap attitude, bears it out.

The concept of swaraj, where more and more power is brought closer to people and then people given a chance to audit and provide actionable feed back on the outcomes achieved by the exercise of that power is one way to achieve the said goal.  This is opposed to a highly centralized model where the power holders get insulated by intervening tiers.

Please leave your thoughts on the topic in comments below.  Thanks for reading this. 

Constitution vs Theocracy, and Proportional Representation

Democracy and theocracy cannot be compatible.  While democracy relies upon equality before law and equal say in political decisions, theocracy doesn't.  As we know a theocracy is a state that is governed by a government that derives its authority directly from a religion, usually invoking the authority of a religious deity and basing their laws on religious texts.  And no religion accepts a non-believer or a person with a different faith as an equal to be given the same rights as its followers.  And then again, almost all religions discriminate against women and also people with differing sexual orientation, that is, LGBTQ.  And thus a democracy by definition has to be secular.  Needless to say that this is a proposition that will be enthusiastically accepted by people of religious groups that form minorities but is likely to be resisted / resented by the religious denomination to which the majority belongs.

But then, since democracies decide things like elections or referendums by numbers, the majority gains an upper hand in these decisions.  And this is the fundamental irony of democracy which may enable a politician, who is so inclined, to use democracy to finish off democracy!

Naturally, the question arises as to how to prevent this from happening.  And one answer that immediately suggests itself is that instead of relying on a first past the post system, a democracy must necessarily have a system of proportional representation where each party gets seats in a legislative body in the same proportion as its percentage share in total votes cast and counted.  This also implies that elections have to be fought by parties and not individuals as individuals can shift their loyalty if they so choose.

In this context, I would like to draw your attention to an earlier post by me where I have advocated a reform of the current electoral process.  You will find it here - https://anil-upadhyaya.blogspot.com/2014/04/people-or-chunks-of-map.html.  Please read this post before moving on to the next para.

Once it is accepted that elections are to be fought by parties and not individuals, and then individuals are to be appointed by parties, a few more much debated issues get resolved.

The foremost is the ability of the parties to keep criminal and ill-qualified people at bay as in this system it is parties and not people that win elections.  Because of this, professionals qualified to do justice to the tasks that will be handled by them in the legislative bodies can be identified and appointed by the parties.  It may be noted that all this is not meant to preclude people with lower or little qualifications from politics itself.  They are welcome to form and run political parties if they so wish, but legislative and ministerial positions must be occupied by people who can do justice to them.  These people need not have affiliations with political parties but must possess the requisite qualifications that may be laid down by law.  This will take care of the complaint that while we prescribe requisite qualifications for even such inconsequential posts as peons, those at the very helm are not required to have any.

In fact in this system one may make it mandatory for people desirous of working in legislatures, to acquire prescribed qualifications carefully designed for such tasks.  New courses can be introduced in universities for this purpose.

This reform alone is not capable of solving the fundamental problem of political funding which is said to be the mother of all corruption.  This problem can ba partly alleviated by making rallies illegal.  These are a huge sink of funds for political parties.  Simultaneously we should create a broadcasting corporation that gives equal / equitable access to all parties to reach out to the masses.  Of course, this will be only a small beginning and this topic of political funding deserves separate and serious attention.

The Great Storytellers

Professor Yuval Noah Harari says that stories provide the foundation of human beings' capacity to cooperate in much larger numbers compared to other life forms.  This capacity to cooperate arises from use of fiat money for trade and wealth accumulation, organizations as legal persons for bringing together large number of persons in a venture, a belief system like religion / constitution that ensures uniform social conduct.  And these are all based on stories / narratives - legal, social and religious - that we collectively subscribe to. 

While mulling this over, it occurs to me that the Brahmins in Hindu society perhaps constitute one of the finest and most prolific storytellers.  I may use the term we because I belong to this group. We excel not only in creating stories but also in telling those story in a most captivating way.  This is borne out by the humungous collection of mythological stories in Hinduism, and our mastery of classical music, dance, and dramatics (sangeet, nritya and naatya shastras).  Also, the language ascribed to us, Sanskrit, itself is exquisitely suited to singing hymns, telling stories and conduct of Karmkand.

Collaboration implies cohesive groups, and groups necessarily need a leader as their face and the glue.  Since it is stories that validate the ideas cherished by a group, and by implication its leader, it is only natural that leaders need the storytellers and the storytellers need their patronage to practice and sharpen their mastery of the said crafts.  The storytellers also need to be very versatile as successive leaders may have very different traits and each prevalent trait has to be justified and even celebrated to ensure that the group remains cohesive.  And thus a society tends to accumulate stories that may have conflicting morals encapsulated in them even as they maintain a semblance of continuity.  Some stories may support a very moralistic leader while others may extoll the pragmatist even as some others may find complete justification for suppression with a firm hand.  As the repertoire grows, one can pull out a story for endorsing any action or style of leadership.

In today's society this role, that traditionally belonged to Brahmins, has moved from a social group to the elites in bureaucracy, media, academia, judiciary etc.  They are the new age Brahmins.

While a symbiotic relationship between rulers and storytellers serves a very important function as long as the going is good, it drains the capacity of the elite storyteller group to be a watchdog and to alert the society against a less than ideal leader or to be a mechanism to correct an errant leader.  And if someone in the group does set out to do so, we hear calls for a "committed" bureaucracy / media / judiciary etc.  And such self serving groups may end up accelerating the decline in a society instead of correcting it and bringing it back to the right path. 

And so a society must choose its storytellers with care and also critically examine the stories told to them.  This is one reason why democracy is indispensable despite it not being the best possible system.

EVOLUTION & DESIGN; PHYSICS AND FREE WILL

Evolution versus Design debate has been going on for quite long.  The scientists' community firmly believes that evolution it is.  Evolution, which essentially means coming into existence, through the mechanism of laws of nature, of random permutations and combinations of elements in nature that are able to persist and replicate themselves.  It denies any intervention by a conscious power that shapes things in accordance with its will.

Evolution seems to be the correct theory on two counts -  1) The long, long time taken for life forms to emerge and evolve, and 2) Consciousness seen as arising from life and not the other way round.  Thus, if  a Consciousness existed before the emergence of life forms and it was this consciousness that designed the life forms, the time taken would have been much shorter, which is not the case.

Also, classical physics maintains that given an initial configuration, all future states will evolve strictly according to the inviolable laws of physics and no miracles or interventions by something non-material like consciousness can take place.  This absolutely rules out anything like a free will.  

Of course, given the vastness of our universe and unimaginably large number of entities (fundamental particles), it is not possible to exactly specify an initial configuration and apply the laws to each participating particle to compute future states.  This is why even classical physics leans on statistical methods and probabilities.  The second law of thermodynamics is an outstanding example of this.  But this reliance on statistics and probabilities is not because of any non-determinism in the laws of physics but merely because of the extremely large numbers involved.  It may not be out of place to mention here that Quantum Physics poses challenge to this determinism and asserts that probability is a fundamental thing that applies to each individual particle in existence and not merely to large aggregates.

Setting quantum physics aside for the moment,  the play of probability in the classical sense because of extremely large numbers involved, lends credence to the long time taken for complex molecules to develop and life to arise.  If some kind of consciousness or intelligence was involved, probably the time will be much shorter.  This argument is supported by remarkably short time taken in discovering not naturally occurring new drug molecules first with human intelligence and now with help from more powerful AI.  Please note the emphasis on 'not naturally occurring.'

And thus arises the logical dilemma.  The extremely low probability of certain things happening merely through natural laws somehow gets powerfully boosted once consciousness and intelligence arrive at the scene.  Thus while the probability of a structure like the Bhakhra Nangal dam arising on its own within a time frame of a couple of decades will be very close to zero, though technically non-zero, presence of intelligent human consciousness makes it almost certain within the same time frame.

And thus the intriguing question arises - Does presence of conscious human intelligence and the associated free will, somehow affect the operation of natural laws, thought to be inviolable in the classical realm?  And if so, are consciousness and the quantum realm somehow related.  And the bigger question is this - has consciousness arisen only now after evolution of advanced life forms?  And if it was there all along why has evolution taken so long?

What I can say with certainty is that I look forward to your thoughts in the matter.

Cooperation or Competition?

Professor Yuval Noah Harari propounds that we, the Homo Sapiens, have dominated this world because of our capability to cooperate in large numbers running into millions and billions.  While this is undeniably true, it makes one wonder whether it is this cooperation alone that has brought us all that we have today, or is there more to it.  When we look around us, we cannot miss noticing that but for competition, our achievements will be nowhere close to what these are today.  This is the reason that capitalist societies have laws against monopoly and restrictive practices.  This is also the reason that in communist or socialist societies you have products of poor quality, scarcities, and lack of innovation too.

Viewed from another angle, it is often noted that most of our breakthrough innovations have taken place during wartime.  The reason is obvious.  The competition is at its height during wartime.  Also so is the cooperation, because nothing unites people like war.

It is this fabric woven from the warp and woof of cooperation and competition that has given rise to the portmanteau "coopetition."

Interestingly the very same stories, namely religion, organisations, fiat money etc, that provide the basis for coperation are also the cause of competition, at times destructive like wars, at times productive leading to better ideas and products.  Globalisation also has a bearing on coopetition.  Globalisation has amplified the scope of human cooperation by bringing together societies that were insulated form each other.  At the same time it has brought about conflict between competing stories from different regions of the world.

Why did diverse societies need similar stories in the first place?  I would like to think that the multifarious needs of human beings are difficult to satisfy by an individual himself and even by a small group or tribe.  Hence the need for organizations, money etc and underlying stories.  Each society had a container organization for which the basis was provided by religion and the concomitant culture.  Within this container came up organizations specialising in meeting a specific need of the individual members of the society.  Again for each need there will be multiple organizations competing with each other leading to continued improvement.

I will be very happy if Prof Harari or some other scholar could throw more light on this fascinating tapestry of coopetition.