WHEN FAITH FREEZES THE EVIDENCE

By Prof Ujjwal K Chowdhury

A freezer, a foot bath, and a warning

In July 2026, an ordinary household refrigerator in Agra became an extraordinary destination. An ice formation inside the freezer took on a shape that some residents read as a Shivling. News spread, people arrived, flowers and belpatra were offered, water was poured in jalabhishek, and devotional chants filled a private home. The reports also recorded the obvious alternative explanation: freezing conditions had produced a naturally formed shape. No religious authority had authenticated it. No laboratory was needed to see the basic fact. Ice can take suggestive forms.

The episode would be comic if it ended as a neighbourhood curiosity. It becomes revealing when a resemblance is promoted into revelation before anyone asks a simple question: what else could explain this?

Around the same time, reports from Pune described videos in which women followers of a self-styled godman, Radhamohan Mishra, washed his feet and drank milk poured over them. The visuals surfaced amid a police investigation into allegations of exploitation and psychological manipulation at an ashram. In late 2024, visitors at the Banke Bihari temple in Vrindavan were filmed drinking water dripping from an elephant-shaped outlet as charan amrit. Reports later identified it as air-conditioning discharge, and said some continued despite warnings.

These are not interchangeable cases. A freezer is not an ashram, reverence is not coercion, and a viral video is not a completed investigation. Together, however, they pose a larger question: why does a society that celebrates scientific achievement suspend ordinary standards of evidence when a claim is wrapped in sanctity, charisma or collective excitement?

The answer cannot be that Indians are irrational, or that religion itself is the enemy. That lazy conclusion would be both unjust and strategically useless. The harder truth is that India has built considerable capacity to communicate science when there is a mission, a benefit, a government programme or a spectacular event. It has been less successful at cultivating the everyday civic habit of asking how we know, what we do not know, who is accountable, and what harm may follow if a claim is wrong.

That gap is no longer a cultural curiosity. In an age of deepfakes, generative AI, miracle cures, climate shocks and mass digital persuasion, it is a public-safety problem.

Faith is not on trial. Unaccountable certainty is.

India's Constitution does not ask citizens to become joyless calculators. Article 51A(h) asks for scientific temper, humanism, and the spirit of inquiry and reform. Scientific temper is not a demand to abandon prayer, ritual or imagination. It is a civic capability: keeping claims about health, safety, nature, public policy and another person's rights open to evidence and correction.

A person may find meaning in a sacred symbol and still know that frost is frost. A family may respect a guru and still refuse an unsafe cure. The line is not between the religious and the secular, but between meaning and manipulation, private devotion and public harm, humility before mystery and obedience to a human being who claims immunity from questions.

The disturbing part of a foot-washing spectacle is the hierarchy it can normalize. When a leader's body is treated as a source of healing or supernatural authority, followers may surrender dignity, bodily autonomy and medical judgment. In Maharashtra in 2025, a self-styled godman was reported to have beaten people, forced shoes into their mouths and made them drink urine in the name of exorcism. In Damoh, an OBC man was allegedly compelled to wash a Brahmin man's feet and drink the water as atonement after an AI-generated image triggered a caste dispute; the Madhya Pradesh High Court took suo motu cognisance.

The stakes can become lethal at scale. The 2024 Hathras stampede killed 121 people at a gathering associated with Bhole Baba, after a crowd vastly exceeded the permitted number. Reuters described the conditions that make godmen attractive: illness, insecurity, deprivation, discrimination, loneliness and the need for hope. Mockery misses the need. A humanist response asks who profits from vulnerability, who provides safe alternatives, and why public institutions are absent when desperation arrives.

India already knows how to make science visible

The irony is that India has a remarkable science-communication inheritance. CSIR popular science and Vigyan Pragati, museums in Kolkata and Bengaluru, radio, mobile exhibitions, NCSTC, university outreach, community radio and people's science movements have all tried to bring knowledge out of laboratories and examination halls.

The country has also shown what communication can do when joined to delivery. Smallpox eradication, polio elimination, HIV/AIDS communication, immunization campaigns and COVID-19 risk messaging each offered lessons in trust, repetition and local adaptation. Polio did not succeed because of one poster. It combined house-to-house work, vaccine booths, surveillance, local leaders, health workers, repeated rounds and responses to rumours. The message travelled because the service was present and people had someone nearby to ask.

Space communication has given India its most visible public language of science. Aryabhata, Chandrayaan-1, the Mars Orbiter Mission, Chandrayaan-2, Chandrayaan-3, Aditya-L1 and XPoSat have made engineering and research part of popular culture. A launch can turn a complex national investment into shared wonder. Chandrayaan-2 offered a rare lesson in failure and iteration; Chandrayaan-3 showed how teams, software, materials, navigation and testing convert a difficult attempt into a successful landing.

Digital India demonstrates a different strength. UPI, DigiLocker, online public services and digital public infrastructure show that technology can be adopted at enormous scale when useful, supported and woven into daily routines. A 2019-20 Pew survey found that 53 percent of Indian adults considered it very important for India to be a world leader in scientific achievements, and 75 percent considered government investment in research worthwhile. The public appetite is real.

But support for science is not the same as scientific temper. A person can admire a rocket, scan a QR code and use an AI assistant while unable to test a health claim, read a graph, identify a manipulated video or challenge an automated decision. The next step is to convert admiration into reasoning.

The SWOT verdict: powerful, partial, precarious

Strength: when the chain is complete, India can move millions

India's greatest strength is not one agency but distributed institutional memory. DST-NCSTC, CSIR-NIScPR, NCSM, ISRO, ICMR, DBT, ICAR, universities, IISERs, museums and civil-society networks possess expertise, channels and public legitimacy. Jathas, street theatre, science clubs, demonstrations and local-language campaigns add a participatory tradition no central publicity office can manufacture.

When the chain is complete, India communicates at scale: a clear problem, credible action, reliable delivery, trusted intermediaries, repetition and feedback. That is a formidable foundation.

Weakness: we celebrate the mission and skip the method

The central weakness is a publicity bias toward what the state or a state-funded institution has announced, launched or achieved. Public institutions must explain their work. The problem begins when achievement crowds out method, uncertainty, failure, independent verification, social cost and affected voices. A rocket launch is visible; calibration, data analysis and the labour behind it are not. A medical study is exciting; its sample size, comparator, adverse effects, cost and limits are harder to narrate.

This is where technology communication is confused with science communication. Technology communication teaches use. Science communication teaches judgment: how to evaluate evidence and deliberate about consequences. The distinction is simple: technology communication enables use; science communication enables judgment.

The weakness is amplified by language inequality, rote schooling, fragmented media beats and weak professional pathways. The 2024 FAST India SciComm ThinkLabs report, based on a small, non-representative practitioner sample, found that 54 percent had no formal training, while about 95 percent used English in their current work. India does not lack enthusiasm. It lacks continuity, translation, evaluation and safety.

The closure of Vigyan Prasar, completed on 21 October 2024 after a Union Cabinet winding-up decision, sharpens the institutional gap. It is not a case for romanticising one organisation or creating another official voice. It is a warning that archives, networks, professional memory and public-interest production disappear unless protected.

Opportunity: build scientific citizenship, not just science fans

The opportunity is to make scientific thinking a design requirement of public life. Every major public technology or research initiative should have two deliverables: the immediate service or achievement, and a lasting increase in public capacity to question, verify, use safely and participate.

This requires a Scientific Citizenship Charter for ministries, regulators, universities, schools, hospitals and publicly funded projects. It should require plain-language evidence, methods where possible, uncertainty, conflicts, risks, consequences, a public question log and a visible correction route. Transparency should be part of scientific excellence, not an insult to institutional prestige.

The opportunity also lies in local scale. A national evidence pack can be translated into Bengali, Marathi, Tamil, Hindi, Assamese or a tribal language, but translation alone is not enough. A community needs an explanation in its idiom, a demonstration, a trusted facilitator and a chance to answer back. Scientific citizenship grows where people observe water, heat, crops, waste, disease, air or biodiversity and see institutions respond.

Threat: the age of AI can industrialise credulity

The threat is not only false claims, but the industrialisation of the conditions that make them believable. Algorithms reward speed, certainty, outrage and identity. Synthetic images and cloned voices make a lie intimate. Climate stress and insecurity make miracle promises attractive. A high-consumption model hides the energy, water, minerals, labour and waste behind devices and data centres.

AI intensifies the old problem because fluency looks like intelligence. An instant, confident answer can acquire authority. A model can invent a citation, reproduce bias, expose private information or give dangerous medical advice while sounding helpful. The newest godman may sit inside a chat window, surrounded by the assumption that computation is neutral and omniscient.

The answer is not to become anti-technology. It is to make limits, provenance, uncertainty, accountability and human choice visible. A society that can identify a fake miracle should also be able to identify a fake AI certainty.

Make the classroom a laboratory for doubt

Scientific temper will not be installed by a slogan, a National Science Day speech or an AI awareness week. It has to be rehearsed until ordinary. The school is the most important site because it can change what children know and how they relate to being wrong.

Inquiry must cross the timetable. History can teach source criticism; civics, evidence in public decisions; geography, local mapping; mathematics, estimation and uncertainty; biology, health, ecology and misinformation; language, argument and revision; computer science, data, models, bias and human oversight. The question is not whether a child remembers the scientific method, but whether the child can design a fair test, explain an anomaly, compare sources and change an answer without shame.

Teachers are the hinge. They need recurring professional learning, low-cost experiment kits, local datasets, libraries, mentors and permission to spend time on questions. Assessment must reward question quality, method, uncertainty and improvement after feedback. A polished AI answer should score less than a modest answer that shows where the learner checked, doubted and decided.

The best projects can begin with local problems: Does shade reduce classroom heat? What is the quality of neighbourhood water? How does a vaccination rumour travel? What happens to a phone after disposal? Students observe, measure, interview, test, analyse, present and revise. They learn that evidence is not a foreign authority. It is a shared practice.

Put the human being back in the AI loop

AI literacy should be compulsory, but not as prompt training. It should teach when a system should be used, when it should not, and who remains responsible after it answers.

A practical Human-in-the-Loop routine can be taught from school to the workplace: frame the question; check data, permissions and privacy; use AI for a bounded task; record the prompt and output; verify against trusted sources; explain what the system could not establish; accept, revise, reject or escalate the result; disclose assistance; and record a bias, an uncertainty and a condition under which AI must not be used.

This applies to an essay, translation, health answer, recruitment ranking, classroom tool or synthetic image. In a newsroom, AI can transcribe while a journalist verifies. In a public office, a model can draft while a human preserves the record and answers an appeal. In medicine, education, law and welfare, anyone affected by automation must be able to know the basis, correct an error and seek review.

Human-in-the-loop is not a ceremonial click after the machine has decided. It is responsibility before, during and after the system acts: use the tool, interrogate the output, own the consequence.

Build a public-reasoning grid, not a propaganda machine

India needs a ten-year National Mission for Scientific Temper and Public Reasoning, supported by an independent observatory. Its work should be coordination and capacity building, not narrative control. It should map assets, track language and access gaps, fund independent evaluations, monitor misinformation, preserve the Vigyan Prasar archive and publish an annual report on reasoning, trust, safety and equity.

The architecture should be federated. NCSTC can provide a backbone; NIScPR, research communication; NCSM, hands-on learning. Universities, IISERs, state councils, community radio, civil-society organisations, journalists and creators can supply local capacity. District nodes can connect science centres, colleges, hospitals, libraries, Krishi Vigyan Kendras, teacher-resource centres and NGOs.

The news media need their own investment. A public-interest fund with editorial firewalls can support science, health, climate and technology reporting in regional languages. Newsrooms need primary papers and data, specialist training, expert networks, visible corrections and time for follow-up. A high-quality science story should state the claim, evidence, uncertainty, limits, affected people and a route to the source or help.

Climate and nature should be the permanent spine. A heatwave story needs exposure, work, housing, cooling and health services; a river story, ecology, livelihoods, pollution, infrastructure and governance; an AI story, data, labour, energy, water, privacy and recourse. Sustainable prosperity means more well-being with less waste. The public must ask not only, "Does this technology work?" but also, "For whom, for how long, at what cost, and what happens after disposal?"

Protect the people who ask inconvenient questions

Scientific temper cannot be a public duty if its practitioners are disposable. Narendra Dabholkar was murdered in Pune in 2013 after campaigning against exploitative superstition and black magic. A 2024 special-court conviction brought some accountability, but the lesson is institutional: rationality work needs protection, not applause after tragedy.

Anti-superstition work should connect rationalist groups, teachers, doctors, journalists, fact-checkers, psychologists, lawyers, police, public-health officials and community leaders. A response should identify harm, explain evidence, offer a safer alternative, connect people to services and protect the person speaking up. Respect for dignity must not become surrender to deception.

The state must also guard against a different danger: a national mission becoming a censorship machine, or AI monitoring becoming surveillance. Pluralism, dissent, privacy, due process and independent evaluation are conditions of scientific temper.

Stop counting applause. Measure agency.

India's communication system often counts events, impressions, clicks, downloads and views. Those numbers matter, but do not show whether anyone became more capable. A campaign with a million views and no change in understanding should not outrank a local programme with 5,000 participants who can identify a rumour, demonstrate a method or demand a correction.

A National Scientific Temper and Public Reasoning Index should measure comprehension of evidence and uncertainty, source checking, willingness to revise a belief, trust calibrated to evidence rather than status, safe AI use and civic agency. It should ask whether institutions answer questions, publish corrections and include affected communities. Results should be disaggregated by language, geography, gender, caste, disability, age, education and income; a national average can hide a thousand exclusions.

Progress is not louder applause for science. It is the ability to disagree without violence, refuse a fraudulent cure, recognize a deepfake, ask a public office for evidence, appeal an automated decision, protect dignity and choose within ecological limits.

The next mission is ordinary

The Agra freezer did not reveal a divine crisis. It revealed a civic one: how quickly resemblance becomes certainty when a crowd, a camera and sacred vocabulary meet. The Pune videos did not prove every allegation about a godman, but showed how devotion can be staged as submission. Vrindavan showed how a pipe, an architectural design and a story can turn contaminated water into a sacrament when no one checks.

India should not respond with ridicule. It needs better institutions, journalism, classrooms, public-health systems, local networks and a more honest relationship with uncertainty. It has shown that it can communicate a polio campaign, a digital service and a lunar landing to millions. Now it must communicate the method and the limits.

A rocket landing can give a nation a shared moment of wonder. Scientific citizenship gives it a shared capacity to decide. The next mission is to make that capacity ordinary: in the classroom, clinic, newsroom, village meeting, public office, family WhatsApp group and AI tab open at midnight.

The future of science communication in India will be decided not only by how brilliantly the country explains what it can build, but by whether citizens can ask what is true, what is uncertain, who bears the risk and what must change. In the era of blind faith and intelligent machines, that is the infrastructure of freedom.

000