I stopped subscribing to newspapers and magazines over fifteen years ago. Before that, I regularly received several publications, but I discontinued them entirely. Since then, I read only what I feel I should. In that sense, social media platforms—especially Twitter—have become useful. People now share clips and links to videos and articles. Often, if I do not react to something, it is simply because I am unaware of it or have not come across it.
Recently, a video clip was widely circulated and celebrated on social media. It featured a debate titled “Does God Exist,” aired by a channel well known for spreading fake news and hate propaganda aligned with the ruling party. We must understand that corporate media culture in India thrives on managing contradictions.
Owners of what I call the “Manustream media” are smart enough to cultivate an image of impartiality. They own publications in Hindi, English, and various regional languages, in addition to their visual media platforms. While they continue to project themselves as “unbiased” and “neutral,” one or two of their flagship channels openly peddle hatred and misinformation. India Today, Times of India, and The Indian Express all broadly share the same politics. One outlet behaves in a seemingly liberal manner, while another spews venom and communal hostility.
This context is important to understand the so-called debate on the “existence of God,” projected as something unprecedented, or as though only Javed Akhtar has ever spoken on the subject. One must examine the framework of this debate and the choice of participants. A Brahmin liberal anchor invites two Muslims to debate. Javed Akhtar speaks of rationalism, while a Maulana defends the presence of God. Overnight, Javed Akhtar becomes a favourite of Hindutva groups and is widely quoted and praised for his rationalism.
I am not interested in debating whether God exists. It is a futile exercise that serves little purpose. Those who believe should be free to do so, and those who do not should be equally free to reject faith. Faith does not emerge from rationality; in fact, faith begins where rationality ends. My concern lies not with belief itself but with the intent behind such debates and the purposes they serve.
Muslims are not the only believers in God. Hindus believe in thousands of gods, while Christians speak of miracles through the Holy Father and the Holy Spirit. So one must ask: what was the intent behind staging a debate on God’s existence between Javed Akhtar and a Maulana? Why was no Shankaracharya invited? Why were Hindu priests not asked whether they reject the existence of God? Why were other faiths kept out entirely?
Pandit Dwivedi, who now wears the cloak of a “great” interviewer, thrives on a platform that offers celebrities opportunities to multiply their popularity. The debate on God’s existence is centuries old. We all know this. The real question is whether Brahmanical liberals are willing to reject the existence of God altogether. If they do, will they also declare that temples and maths across India are meaningless because there is no God? Many of the arguments Javed Akhtar made by citing Gaza can equally be applied in the Indian context. Then why do we witness relentless conflicts over temples and mosques?
Indian liberals seem to enjoy these manufactured debates. I have no objection to anyone believing in God. A believer can be a good human being, just as a so-called secular or liberal person can be deeply inhuman. Faith or lack of it does not concern me. Values do.
The Brahmanical media cleverly avoids debates on real issues. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar challenged the Shastras and sought to reform them to make society more humane. Yet he was prevented from speaking and asked to remove his text at a conference organised by the Jat-Pat Todak Mandal, even though he was invited as the chief guest.
Challenging God is not merely about dismantling statues or critiquing religious texts. I challenge Javed Akhtar and his admirers to speak out against caste discrimination and untouchability. I have rarely come across his writings or speeches addressing these issues. Are these not irrational practices?
I welcome debates if the intent is honest. But if one is unfamiliar with India’s rich humanist and rationalist traditions, the Brahmanical Manustream experts would do well to read Charvaka, Buddha, Raidas, Kabir, Jyotiba Phule, and Babasaheb Ambedkar to understand the historic struggle against Brahmanical orthodoxy.
And when we speak of rationalism and atheism, how can we forget the towering legacy of Periyar, who made Brahmanical hegemony tremble in Tamil Nadu? Brahmanical liberals may invoke many names to justify their atheism and secularism, but they rarely mention Periyar—because he exposed God as an instrument of power wielded by the Brahmanical elite. His struggle against God and Brahmanical dominance was not a mere intellectual exercise; it was a commitment to backward classes, Dalits, and non-Brahmin communities who had long been pushed to the margins by entrenched power structures.
So the issue is not whether God exists or does not exist. The real issue is who controls power. God today is power; God is political. For millions, faith remains deeply personal. But for a small elite, it is an instrument to control politics and society. Let us not waste time on fake debates. Let people practise religion or reject it, but keep both within the private domain. The real challenges before us are the political use of religion, the spread of superstition, bigotry, and organised hatred.
The task before us is not to prove or disprove God, but to confront religious bigotry and injustice. Let us work together—believers, atheists, and rationalists alike—to make the world more humane and just.
---
*Human rights defender
Comments