Understanding Superstition - The Hindu (27.02.18)

(Guidelines for Reader: Latest Op-Ed First; Verbatim Compilation of The Hindu Op-Ed; Best to read in the order of oldest to latest article to get a comprehensive understanding; Consider repetition to be revision)

(We are drowning in information and starving for wisdom. READ and develop a PERSPECTIVE!!)

The power of persuasion 27.02.18

The Indian Constitution is unique in listing, among fundamental duties, the duty of each citizen “to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform” (Article 51A). Jawaharlal Nehru was the first to use the expression “scientific temper”, which he described with his usual lucidity in The Discovery of India (while also quoting Blaise Pascal on the limits of reason). And yet, decades later, superstitious practices abound in India, including among the highly educated.

Superstition exists

India may be unusual in the degree and variety of superstitious practices, even among the educated, but superstition exists everywhere. In his recent Editorial page article, “Science should have the last word” (The Hindu, February 17), Professor Jayant V. Narlikar, cosmologist and a life-long advocate for rationality, cites Czech astronomer Jiří Grygar’s observation that though the Soviets suppressed superstitious ideas in then-Czechoslovakia during the occupation, superstition arose again in the “free-thinking”, post-Soviet days. Superstition never went away: people just hesitated to discuss it in public.

Similarly, China suppressed superstition and occult practices during Mao Zedong’s rule. But after the economic reforms and relative openness that began in the late 1970s, superstition reportedly made a comeback, with even top party officials consulting soothsayers on their fortunes. In India, the rationalist movements of Periyar and others have barely made a dent. No country, no matter its scientific prowess, has conquered superstition.

On the positive side, internationally, increasing numbers of people live happily without need for superstition. The most appalling beliefs and rituals have largely been eradicated the world over — such as blood-letting in medicine to human sacrifice, and in India, practices such as sati. This is due to the efforts put in by social reform campaigners, education and empowerment (of women in particular). Yet, surviving superstitions can be dangerous too, for example when they contradict medical advice.

Explaining it

Why is it so hard to remove superstitions? Fundamentally, a belief may be difficult to shake off simply because of deep-seated habituation. In his memoir Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!, the physicist Richard P. Feynman wrote about being hypnotised voluntarily (hypnosis is always voluntary) on stage, doing what was asked, and thinking to himself that he was just agreeing to everything to not “disturb the situation”. Finally, the hypnotist announced that Feynman would not go straight back to his chair but would walk all around the room first. Feynman decided that this was ridiculous; he would walk straight back to his seat. “But then,” he said, “an annoying feeling came over me: I felt so uncomfortable that I couldn’t continue. I walked all the way around the hall.”

We have all had such “uncomfortable feelings” when trying to do something differently, even if it seems to be logically better: whether it’s a long-standing kitchen practice, or an entrenched approach to classroom teaching, or something else in daily life. Perhaps we are all hypnotised by our previous experiences, and superstition, in particular, is a form of deep-seated hypnosis that is very hard to undo. It is undone only when the harm is clear and evident, as in the medieval practices alluded to earlier. Such beliefs are strengthened by a confirmation bias (giving importance to facts that agree with our preconceptions and ignoring others) and other logical holes. Recent research even shows how seeing the same evidence can simultaneously strengthen oppositely-held beliefs (a phenomenon called Bayesian belief polarisation).

Disagreement in science

Dogmatism about science can be unjustified too. All scientific theories have limitations. Newton’s theories of mechanics and gravitation were superseded by Einstein’s. Einstein’s theory of gravity has no known limitations at the cosmological scale, but is incompatible with quantum mechanics. The evolution of species is an empirical fact: the fossil record attests it, and we can also observe it in action in fast-breeding species. Darwinism is a theory to explain how it occurs. Today’s version is a combination of Darwin’s original ideas, Mendelian genetics and population biology, with much empirical validation and no known failures. But it does have gaps. For example, epigenetic inheritance is not well understood and remains an active area of research. Incidentally, Dr. Narlikar in his article has suggested that Darwinism’s inability to explain the origin of life is a gap. Few evolutionary biologists would agree. Darwin’s book was after all titled The Origin of Species, and the origin of life would seem beyond its scope. But this is an example of how scientists can disagree on details while agreeing on the big picture.

How then does one eradicate superstition? Not, as the evidence suggests, by preaching or legislating against it. Awareness campaigns against dangerous superstitions along with better education and scientific outreach may have some impact but will be a slow process.

Today, the topic of “persuasion” is popular in the psychology, social science and marketing communities. Perhaps scientists have something to learn here too. Pascal, whom Nehru cited on reason, wrote on persuasion too. He observed that the first step is to see the matter from the other person’s point of view and acknowledge the validity of their perception, and then bring in its limitations. “People are generally better persuaded by the reasons which they have themselves discovered than by those which have come into the mind of others.”

Such a strategy may be more successful than the aggressive campaigns of rationalists such as Richard Dawkins. Nevertheless, “harmless” superstitions are likely to remain with humanity forever.

Rahul Siddharthan is with the Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Chennai

XXX

Do we need an anti-superstition law? YES | MUKTA DABHOLKAR

India needs legislation on superstition, though what should go into it requires debate. Every superstition cannot be removed by the force of law. For that, a mental change is necessary. However, superstitious practices that are utterly dehumanising, brutal and exploitative need to be dealt with by a law that specifically addresses them.

Brutal exploitation

Maharashtra has implemented the Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and Other Inhuman, Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act, 2013. The rest of the country could learn from it. In Maharashtra, the Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti and my father, Narendra Dabholkar, fought for 18 years for such a law to be put in place. There were several groups which tilted the conversation by projecting it as a law against religion. Narendra Dabholkar had to fight a relentless battle against them.

We need to understand that this is a law that addresses exploitation in the name of religion. Opponents to the legislation in Maharashtra had claimed that the law would affect the religious practices of Hindus; that it was anti-Hindu. But after examining more than 350 FIRs lodged across Maharashtra in the last four years, we found that these claims were unfounded. Data show that the accused persons belong to various religions.

I want to highlight inhuman practices in the name of religion. For example, in Maharashtra, there were several cases where people murdered or brutally injured others and held them responsible for some deaths in their families, merely on suspicion. We masked these practices by calling ourselves developed. Maharashtra, too, boasts of being a developed State. Around seven instances of human sacrifice have been reported since the passing of this law in 2013. Two such instances could have been prevented through timely intervention. Before this law, acts involving human sacrifice could not be stopped as they were preceded by some puja and offerings — not banned under any law. Now they are. The cognisance of human sacrifice is in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) only after the murder is committed. Thus, legislation has a capacity to act as a deterrent. The Maharashtra legislation has stopped the act of human sacrifice.

The present IPC is not equipped to take care of crimes committed on account of black magic and other superstitious practices. A separate law is necessary because the relationship between a devotee and so-called godman is of a peculiar nature, often marked by violence. Consider the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, 2005. There are provisions in the IPC to punish violence, but the peculiar nature of the violence faced by women within the family needed a separate law.

Check on conmen

The anti-superstition law also makes it possible to curtail activities of so-called godmen before they become too powerful. Recently, the Maharashtra police arrested one who called himself Patil Baba and an avatar of god. He abused disciples by calling it his blessing; he prevented them from going to doctors. He had a huge following and if this law wasn’t in place, nothing could have been done to stop him. There is a section in the Maharashtra legislation which specifically addresses and checks claims made by ‘godmen’ who say they have supernatural powers. Once something is made illegal in the eye of the law, it will not be possible for anyone to openly support fraudulent godmen.

As told to Anuradha Raman

Mukta Dabholkar is an activist and assistant editor of the ‘Maharashtra Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti’ magazine

Do we need an anti-superstition law? NO | RAGHAV PANDEY

An anti-superstition law may seem necessary, but it cannot take cognisance of all realities.

The domain of such a law is to curb superstition, associated primarily with religious and occult practices. It has to be impressed here that almost everything associated with any religion can be considered superstitious for the simple fact that there is no scientific rationale behind the same. For instance, going to a temple, a mosque, or a church can be termed superstitious because there is no scientific data to support the fact that such a practice yields any good. Such practices can’t be curbed because they don’t harm anyone. The fundamental tenets of a liberal democracy give us the freedoms of conscience and to believe in things even when science and rationality don’t support them.

Existing laws enough

But certain other practices, like throwing children on thorns, parading women naked, etc., obviously harm others and can’t be allowed in the name of religion. However, the question of whether we need a separate law to curb such practices has to be answered in the negative. This is because the substantive legal framework of our country is sufficiently adequate to address such crimes. For instance, throwing a child on thorns is an offence under Sections 307 and 323 of the IPC. Similarly, parading a woman naked can also be addressed specifically by Section 354B of the IPC.

This is not to discount the fact that certain changes in the law pertaining to the procedural rules and the law of evidence may be necessary to establish the commission of such crimes. These can be addressed by amendments in the Criminal Procedure Code and Indian Evidence Act. If a further nuanced approach is desirable, then a separate law may also be enacted for framing a separate set of rules of procedure. However, a substantive law of such a nature is not required; it works to the detriment of the larger objective it seeks to work for.

The Karnataka Prevention and Eradication of Inhuman Evil Practices and Black Magic Act, 2017 prohibits the two above mentioned practices and several others. It can be stressed with authority that most of such acts, which have been made punishable by the Karnataka legislation, are already punishable by the IPC and other existing laws. Therefore, having a new law to re-criminalise such acts doesn’t make much juridical sense.

Bad implementation

Law and order is a State subject, so States are free to enact specific criminal laws. In the same way, States are also free to make amendments to Union laws. Therefore, ideally, Karnataka or any other State is free to amend the IPC, to accommodate specific requirements.

If the executive is serious about curbing such practices, active implementation and enforcement of existing laws need to be made more effective. Studies in criminology have already established that certainty of punishment curbs the rate of crime and not the type or the quantum of punishment.

We already have a reputation of having good laws but bad implementation. In legal parlance, it is known as ‘over-criminalisation’ — more laws but less ‘rule of law’. Therefore, the enforcement machinery needs a major overhaul to make criminal justice more accessible. Enacting special laws for each set of crimes is no solution and makes the problem worse.

Raghav Pandey is a Research Fellow with the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, IIT Bombay

Do we need an anti-superstition law? IT'S COMPLICATED | CHANDAN GOWDA

Religions are aware that faith is vulnerable to improper use. And stories of fake sadhus and deceitful sanyasis have long been around.

Other challenges

Bigger challenges to religion have come from mutually reinforcing, external sources. In their own distinct ways, modern science, secular statecraft and liberal legal principles question the validity of theological views and seek to limit their operation in social and political life. Religions in India came under the scrutiny of all three with colonial rule. In asking for a ban on Sati in the early 19th century, Raja Ram Mohan Roy argued that it did not have approval from within Hindu religious texts. This was a commonly heard refrain in later decades too — that vested social interests and not Hindu dharma were responsible for these practices.

Rationalists offered another response on the place of religion in modern society. Included among them are figures like Periyar, who debunked religion as superstition, and the communists, who felt religion distorted reality. Driven by more modest aims, many rationalists laboured tirelessly to denounce miracles and astrology as cheap tricks.

The superstitions of modern societies haven’t invited the same activist zeal. The slightest show of body temperature makes many reach for a paracetamol. The techno-smug moderns hold other superstitions too: if petrol runs out, we will switch to hybrid cars, okay?

In any case, whether integral to religion or a later accretion, practices like human sacrifice are hard to defend. And if it takes state legislation to prevent them, so be it.

Over recent decades, around 800 women in Bihar, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Odisha have been killed for practising witchcraft. Laws that aim to prevent this practice exist. Faith healers, on occasion, inflict physical injury to exorcise spirits or cure ailments. The supporters of the recent law in Karnataka that aims to prevent “inhuman evil practices and black magic” across religions cite other practices like branding children with heated objects and using spurious surgical methods to change the sex of a foetus. Lacking access to proper health care, it is the poor, it is argued, who fall victim to such methods. The new legislation also forbids made-snana, a ritual where devotees from across castes roll over the leftover food of Brahmins in certain temples to cure themselves of skin diseases.

The best way forward

Is law the best means of addressing such practices? Wouldn’t a discussion initiated between the temple authorities and devotees throw up alternative rituals more satisfying to devotees? Put differently, can the moral resources for replacing unacceptable practices be explored within tradition? While activists rightly point to the continued silence of temple authorities, who host these practices, to show the need for legal remedies, one still wonders whether working through the belief systems is preferable to resorting to punitive law. This is the moral reform stance often seen among, for instance, Bhakti and Sufi saints, and, later, Gandhi.

Secular temptations and anxieties of money and power in the modern world explain better perhaps the growing popularity of astrology TV shows and the rise in need-based rituals for placating deities than inner tendencies within religion. The greater difficulty lies in how legal discussions view religions as essentially the same phenomenon that goes by different names. Monotheistic religions like Christianity, Judaism and Islam and polytheistic ones like Hinduism are so different that the rationalities needed for a proper engagement with them cannot not be as various.

Chandan Gowda is professor of sociology at Azim Premji University, Bengaluru

(All of the above articles have been taken straight from The Hindu. We owe it all to them. This is just an effort to consolidate opinions expressed in The Hindu in a subject-wise manner.)