From Rationalism To Ritualism: Siddaramaiah’s Contradictions Hurt The Cause Of Scientific Temper

In 2017, Karnataka created history by enacting the first anti-superstition law in the country — a bold and progressive move aimed at eliminating inhuman and exploitative practices rooted in blind belief. The law was introduced under the leadership of Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, who had often declared himself an atheist and a rationalist. At the time, it was widely hailed by civil society and those committed to constitutional values in favour of scientific temperament as a model for the rest of the country.

Today, that very legacy lies in tatters — not because the law has failed, but because its chief architect appears to have abandoned the spirit behind it.

Siddaramaiah, now in his second stint as Chief Minister, regularly visits temples, offers ritualistic baginas to rivers in the Old Mysore region, and has recently earmarked a staggering ₹100 crore for a Cauvery Aarthi project modelled after the Ganga Aarthi. These are not private acts of devotion. They are televised events, organised with government backing and framed as cultural initiatives. The message they send is unmistakable: the state is not only comfortable with ritualism, it is willing to fund and promote it.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with personal belief. Every citizen — including a Chief Minister — has the right to religious practice. But Siddaramaiah’s case is not just about belief; it is about political inconsistency and public hypocrisy. One cannot claim to be an atheist championing scientific temper, while simultaneously orchestrating grand religious events with taxpayers’ money. That contradiction is not only embarrassing, it is dangerous — for it confuses the public, dilutes the law, and undermines rational discourse.

Scientific temper is not a personal quirk or a philosophical option. It is a constitutional duty under Article 51A(h). It calls for evidence-based thinking, critical inquiry, and a rejection of unreason — especially in public life. When the state itself is seen endorsing practices it once condemned, it loses the moral authority to enforce laws like the anti-superstition act.

The political class, across the spectrum, is guilty of exploiting faith for popularity. But Siddaramaiah had carved out a different identity — that of a moderniser with the courage to take on blind belief. That identity now appears to be a matter of convenience. Worse, his actions hand ammunition to his critics and leave the rationalist movement in the state confused and directionless.

Public leaders have a duty not just to make laws, but to embody their intent. When a leader fails to walk the talk — especially on matters of reason and belief — the public trust suffers lasting damage.

If rationalism is to survive as more than a slogan, its foremost advocates must lead by example. The public deserves clarity, not contradiction. And Karnataka, which once showed the way to the nation in legislating against superstition, deserves a Chief Minister who can uphold — not undermine — that legacy.