Imagine a dark night. A man searches for something on a table inside his house. There is no light inside. It is completely dark. Outside, however, a street lamp shines brightly. Finding it hard to search in darkness, the man steps outside. He begins searching under the lamp instead.
A passerby notices him and asks what he is looking for. The man replies, “I lost my key ring.” The passerby then asks where exactly he lost it. “Inside the house,” the man answers. Surprised, the passerby asks why he is searching outside then. The man replies simply. “It is dark inside, so searching is hard. There is light here, so I search here.”
This story feels familiar today. Watch a section of people who call themselves “rationalists.” More often than not these rationalists will refuse to search for the ‘rational truth’ in the inconvenient place of darkness (religions that are militant and hostile in nature) and instead flock to the convenient place of rationalising Religions that are already in the firing line most often – such as Christianity or Hinduism. The problem with this approach that a coherent worldview simply cannot be formed with such a biased methodology, true rationality cannot be forged this way.
Problems, superstitions, and dogmas exist in every religion. They exist in every community too. Yet when it comes to criticism, people question only what is easy. They question only where there is no danger. They question only where tolerance shines like that street lamp. Where real darkness or extremism exists, hesitation quickly appears instead.
This pattern raises an important question. Is this modern trend true rationalism? Or is it merely a one-sided, selective agenda?
What Rationalism Actually Means
The word “Rationalism” did not begin on social media. It is instead a deep and systematic philosophical movement. It has centuries of history behind it. Rationalism found firm footing through philosophers like Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz. Their work flourished during Europe’s 17th and 18th century Enlightenment.
Three pillars support rationalism’s core foundation. First, evidence and logical judgment matter most. Every conclusion must rest on evidence and logic. Second, objectivity is essential throughout. The same rules must apply to everyone, regardless of religion, race, or politics. Third, open-mindedness remains crucial as well. A rationalist must be willing to change views when new evidence arrives.
For a true rationalist, ultimate truth is the only goal. There should be no religious exemptions anywhere. At the same time, however, malice toward any culture is equally unacceptable. Genuine rationalism therefore walks a careful, balanced line. It seeks truth without either favoritism or hostility.
Logic and Inquiry Within Indian Tradition
Many people today assume that “questioning” arrived from Western culture. However, Indian philosophy was built on debate since ancient times. Critical analysis was never foreign to this tradition.
Beyond the six orthodox schools, called Saddarsana, other traditions thrived too. Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Samkhya, Yoga, Mimamsa, and Vedanta formed the orthodox core. Alongside them, heterodox and rationalist philosophies were equally respected. Charvaka philosophy stood among these, along with Buddhist and Jain thought.
Charvaka sages accepted only direct perception, or Pratyaksha, as truth. They questioned Vedic principles and rules openly. Even so, society still honored them as Rishis or Maharshis. This fact proves something important about Indian tradition. Questioning was never prohibited within it. Instead, inquiry was considered the very first step toward knowledge.
What the Bhagavad Gita Reveals
Consider the Mahabharata’s Bhishma Parva next. Within it, the Srimad Bhagavad Gita records a remarkable dialogue. Arjuna and Sri Krishna engage in genuine debate and logic. Arjuna never accepted Krishna’s words blindly or passively.
In Chapter 4, Verse 34, Krishna himself describes how knowledge is gained:
Tad viddhi pranipatena pariprasnena sevaya |
Upadeksyanti te jnanam jnaninas tattva-darsinah ||
This translates roughly as follows. Learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master humbly. Inquire from him submissively, and also render him service. Self-realized souls can then impart true knowledge to you.
Notice the word “pariprasnena” here carefully. It signifies questioning the master directly and clearing doubts. Understanding truth through logic aligns fully with Dharma, or righteousness. Even more strikingly, Krishna does not force his views onto Arjuna. In Chapter 18, Verse 63, he says the following instead:
Iti te jnanam akhyatam guhyad guhyataram maya |
Vimrsyaitad asesena yathecchasi tatha kuru ||
This means Krishna has now explained the most confidential knowledge available. He then tells Arjuna to deliberate on it fully. Afterward, Arjuna should act according to his own wish. When scripture grants such freedom, even regarding God’s own words, a question naturally follows. How fair is it, then, to call this same tradition “anti-logic”?
The Trouble With Selective Rationalism
Today, we observe a troubling pattern among self-styled rationalists. A section of them targets mainly Hinduism, its rituals, and its festivals. Several clear contradictions emerge once we look closely.
First, consider Diwali compared to other celebrations. When Diwali arrives, articles and speeches address firecracker pollution immediately. Preventing pollution is, of course, a genuinely logical concern. Yet during other festivals, thousands of firecrackers also get burst. Similarly, animals are slaughtered in large numbers during other festivities. Suddenly, though, these same rationalists fall silent on environmental harm.
Second, look at how customs and practices get criticized. Idol worship, temple visits, and applying tilak face constant mockery. Critics call these acts “blind faith” or “wasted resources” repeatedly. Meanwhile, faith healing in other religious spaces goes unchallenged. Collections made in the name of holy water also escape scrutiny. Dress-related religious compulsions elsewhere receive little to no criticism either.
Third, notice the one-sided stance on social reform generally. Reformers like Raja Ram Mohan Roy emerged from within Hindu society itself. Swami Vivekananda and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar did the same important work. They opposed caste discrimination, Sati, and untouchability directly and openly. Society, as a result, gradually transformed for the better. However, when other religious societies restrict women’s rights, rationalists often stay quiet. Polygamy and religious conversions elsewhere get defended as “personal freedom” instead.
Why Hinduism Alone Gets Targeted
Several psychological, social, and political reasons explain this imbalance. Together, they reveal why criticism leans so heavily toward Hinduism.
First, consider Hinduism’s remarkable tolerance as a factor. Hinduism has no single book, prophet, or fixed rulebook. A believer in God remains Hindu, and so does an atheist like Charvaka. Because of this openness, criticizing Hinduism rarely brings personal danger. Many critics, therefore, take advantage of this safe environment easily.
Second, intellectual fear plays a significant role too. Speaking against certain fanatical communities invites serious consequences quickly. Fatwas, social boycotts, or violence can follow such criticism. Out of fear for personal safety, so-called brave rationalists avoid these risks. Instead, they redirect their criticism toward the more tolerant society.
Third, political polarization has reshaped rationalism’s original purpose entirely. Rationalism is no longer purely a philosophical pursuit anymore. It has become, instead, a tool for political advantage. Some use it to appease particular vote banks strategically. Others use it simply to demean opposing political sides.
The Bhagavatam’s Warning About Hypocrisy
Factual evidence shows something important about Hindu scriptures generally. They have never supported dogma or hypocrisy in any form. In fact, the Srimad Bhagavata Mahapurana predicted future religious corruption long ago. It foresaw fake godmen and religious commercialization thousands of years in advance.
The 12th Canto’s second chapter describes the Age of Kali directly:
Lingam evasrama-khyatau karanam cuts-laukike |
Avrttya nyaya-daurbalyam panditye capalam vacah ||
This verse warns of a troubling future era ahead. In Kali-yuga, external symbols like saffron robes will define spirituality falsely. People without wealth will be denied justice entirely. Meanwhile, clever manipulators of words will be praised as scholars.
This verse proves something crucial about authentic religious teaching. True religion never shelters hypocrisy behind sacred appearances. When rationalists criticize religious hypocrisy, they actually echo ancient scriptural warnings. Dismissing all religious philosophy as “evil,” however, reflects the critics’ own ignorance instead.
The Real Cost of Biased Rationalism
Selective rationalism carries serious consequences for society overall. Three major problems emerge once bias enters the picture clearly.
First, genuine reform becomes significantly harder to achieve. When criticism looks agenda-driven rather than objective, people grow defensive quickly. They then reject even logical, constructive suggestions offered in good faith.
Second, extremism tends to rise as a direct result. One-sided attacks create widespread insecurity within targeted communities. People respond by becoming more rigid, protecting their culture defensively.
Third, rationalism itself loses public credibility and dignity over time. Once people notice double standards hiding behind claims of “logic,” trust erodes. The entire rationalist movement then suffers a serious credibility loss.
Toward a Truly Balanced Rationalism
Rationalism remains essential for a healthy, functioning society overall. Developing scientific temperament is even a constitutional duty in India. Article 51A makes this responsibility clear for every citizen. However, this scientific temperament must apply equally to everyone, always.
A genuine rationalist follows several important principles consistently. They speak against superstition in Hinduism with full conviction. Equally, they speak against evils found in Islam or Christianity. They feel distressed by wasted milk poured over temple idols. With the same energy, they oppose senseless animal slaughter during other festivals. They criticize religious dogmatism wherever it appears, without exception. Yet they also respect deep truths found within religious philosophy. The wisdom of the Upanishads deserves respect, not dismissal. Human values, wherever they originate, deserve acknowledgment too.
Truth, after all, never tilts toward one side alone. Truth remains objective, consistent, and fair to everyone equally. Today’s world needs rationalism free from blind allegiance to any group. It also needs rationalism free from deliberate malice toward any group. We need questioning that still carries genuine respect alongside it. We need science that leaves room for humanity and cultural roots. Only then can rationalism fulfill its true, original purpose.
