Documents

Why I am an atheist

Categories
Published
of 6
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Description
Why I am an atheist
Transcript
  10/20/2014 Why I am an atheisthttp://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl2421/stories/20071102501502500.htm 1/6 COVER STORY Why I am an atheist Excerpts from the article Bhagat Singh wrote in reply to a remark made by Bhai RandhirSingh, a Ghadarite, in Lahore Central Jail in 1930-31. SHAHIDBHAGATSINGH.ORG Bhagat Singh at   the age of 17. [Shiv Verma, Bhagat Singh’s close associate and founder-member of the Hindustan SocialistRepublican Association, provides the following annotation on Baba Randhir Singh’s remark: “BabaRandhir Singh… was a God-fearing religious man. It pained him to learn that Bhagat Singh was a non-believer. He somehow managed to see Bhagat Singh in the condemned cell and tried to convince himabout the existence of God, but failed. Baba lost his temper and said tauntingly: ‘You are giddy withfame and have developed an ego which is standing like a black curtain between you and the God’.”]A NEW question has cropped up.Is it due to vanity that I do not believe in the existence of an omnipotent, omnipresent andomniscient God? I had never imagined that I would ever have to confront such a question. Butconversation with some friends has given me a hint that certain of my friends – if I am not claimingtoo much in thinking them to be so – are inclined to conclude from the brief contact they have hadwith me, that it was too much on my part to deny the existence of God and that there was a certainamount of vanity that actuated my disbelief….I deny the very existence of that Almighty Supreme Being. Why I deny it, shall be dealt with later on.Here I want to clear one thing, that it is not vanity that has actuated me to adopt the doctrines of atheism. I am neither a rival nor an incarnation, nor the Supreme Being Himself. One point is decided,that it is not vanity that has led me to this mode of thinking. Let me examine the facts to disprovethis allegation. According to these friends of mine I have grown vainglorious perhaps due to theundue popularity gained during the trials – both Delhi Bomb and Lahore Conspiracy Cases. Well, let ussee if their premises are correct. My atheism is not of so recent srcin. I had stopped believing in Godwhen I was an obscure young man, of whose existence my above-mentioned friends were not evenaware. At least a college student cannot cherish any sort of undue pride which may lead him toatheism. Though a favourite with some professors and disliked by certain others, I was never anindustrious or a studious boy. I could not get any chance of indulging in such feelings as vanity. Iwas rather a boy with a very shy nature, who had certain pessimistic dispositions about the futurecareer. And in those days, I was not a perfect atheist. My grandfather under whose influence I wasbrought up is an orthodox Arya Samajist. An Arya Samajist is anything but an atheist. After finishingmy primary education I joined the D.A.V. School of Lahore and stayed in its Boarding House for fullone year. There, apart from morning and evening prayers, I used to recite “Gayatri Mantra” for hoursand hours. I was a perfect devotee in those days. Later on I began to live with my father. He is aliberal inasmuch as the orthodoxy of religions is concerned. It was through his teachings that Iaspired to devote my life to the cause of freedom. But he is not an atheist. He is a firm believer. Heused to encourage me for offering prayers daily. So this is how I was brought up. In the Non-Cooperation days I joined the National College. It was there that I began to think liberally anddiscuss and criticise all the religious problems, even about God. But still I was a devout believer. Bythat time I had begun to preserve the unshorn and unclipped long hair but I could never believe in  10/20/2014 Why I am an atheisthttp://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl2421/stories/20071102501502500.htm 2/6 the mythology and doctrines of Sikhism or any other religion. But I had a firm faith in God’s existence.Later on I joined the revolutionary party. The first leader with whom I came in contact, though notconvinced, could not dare to deny the existence of God. On my persistent inquiries about God, heused to say: “Pray whenever you want to.” Now this is atheismless courage required for the adoptionof that creed. The second leader with whom I came in contact was a firm believer. Let me mentionhis name – respected Comrade Shachindra Nath Sanyal, now undergoing life transportation inconnection with the Kakori Conspiracy Case. From the very first page of his famous and onlybook, Bandi Jivan  (or Incarcerated Life), the Glory of God is sung vehemently.... What I wanted topoint out was that the idea of disbelief had not even germinated in the revolutionary party.Up to that period I was only a romantic idealist revolutionary. Up till then we were to follow. Nowcame the time to shoulder the whole responsibility. Due to the inevitable reaction for some time thevery existence of the party seemed impossible. Enthusiastic comrades – nay, leaders – began to jeerat us. For some time I was afraid that some day I also might not be convinced of the futility of ourown programme. That was a turning point in my revolutionary career. “Study” was the cry thatreverberated in the corridors of my mind. Study to enable yourself to face the arguments advancedby opposition. Study to arm yourself with arguments in favour of your cult. I began to study. Myprevious faith and convictions underwent a remarkable modification. The romance of the violentmethods alone, which was so prominent amongst our predecessors, was replaced by serious ideas.No more mysticism, no more blind faith. Realism became our cult. Use of force justifiable whenresorted to as a matter of terrible necessity: non-violence as policy indispensable for all massmovements. So much about methods. The most important thing was the clear conception of the idealfor which we were to fight. As there were no important activities in the field of action, I got ampleopportunity to study various ideals of the world revolution. I studied Bakunin, the anarchist leader,something of Marx, the father of communism, and much of Lenin, Trotsky and others – the men whohad successfully carried out a revolution in their country. They were all atheists. Bakunin’s God andState though only fragmentary, is an interesting study of the subject. Later still I came across abook entitled Common Sense  by Nirlamba Swami. It was only a sort of mystic atheism. This subjectbecame of utmost interest to me. By the end of 1926 I had been convinced as to the baselessnessof the theory of existence of an almighty supreme being who created, guided and controlled theuniverse. I had given out this disbelief of mine, I began discussion on the subjects with my friends. Ihad become a pronounced atheist. But what it meant will presently be discussed….Judgment is already too well known. Within a week it is to be pronounced. What is the consolationwith the exception of the idea that I am going to sacrifice my life for a cause? A God-believing Hindumight be expecting to be reborn as a king, a Muslim or a Christian might dream of the luxuries to beenjoyed in paradise and the reward he is to get for his suffering and sacrifices. But, what am I toexpect? I know the moment the rope is fitted round my neck and rafters removed from under myfeet, that will be the final moment – that will be the last moment. I, or to be more precise, my soulas interpreted in the metaphysical terminology, shall all be finished there. Nothing further. A short lifeof struggle with no such magnificent end shall in itself be the reward, if I have the courage to take itin that light.... I know in the present circumstances my faith in God would have made my life easier,my burden lighter, and my disbelief in Him has turned all the circumstances too dry, and the situationmay assume too harsh a shape. A little bit of mysticism can make it poetical. But I do not want thehelp of any intoxication to meet my fate. I am a realist. I have been trying to overpower the instinctin me by the help of reason. I have not always been successful in achieving this end. But man’s dutyis to try and endeavour, success depends upon chance and environments. THE TRIBUNE PHOTO ARCHIVES  10/20/2014 Why I am an atheisthttp://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl2421/stories/20071102501502500.htm 3/6  A rare photograph  of students and staff of National College, Lahore, which Lala Lajpat Raistarted for participants of the Non-Cooperation Movement. Bhagat Singh is standing fourthfrom the right. Bhagat Singh: “[I]t was there that I began to think liberally and discuss andcriticise all the religious problems, even about God.” According to me, any man who has got some reasoning power at his command always tries to reasonout his environments. Where direct proofs are lacking philosophy occupies the important place. As Ihave already stated, a certain revolutionary friend used to say that philosophy is the outcome of human weakness. When our ancestors had leisure enough to try to solve out the mystery of thisworld, its past, present and the future, its whys and wherefores, they having been terribly short of direct proofs, everybody tried to solve the problem in his own way. Hence we find the widedifferences in the fundamentals of various religious creeds, which sometimes assume veryantagonistic and conflicting shapes. Not only the Oriental and Occidental philosophies differ, thereare differences even amongst various schools of thought in each hemisphere. Amongst Orientalreligions, the Moslem faith is not at all compatible with Hindu faith. In India alone Buddhism andJainism are sometimes quite separate from Brahmanism, in which there are again conflicting faiths asArya Samaj and Sanatan Dharma. Charwak is still another independent thinker of the past ages. Hechallenged the authority of God in the old times. All these creeds differ from each other on thefundamental question; and everybody considers himself to be on the right. There lies the misfortune.Instead of using the experiments and expressions of the ancient Savants and thinkers as a basis forour future struggle against ignorance and to try to find out a solution to this mysterious problem, we,lethargical as we have proved to be, raise the hue and cry of faith, unflinching and unwavering faithto their versions and thus are guilty of stagnation in human progress....If, as you believe, there is an almighty, omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent God, who createdthe earth or world, please let me know why did he create it? This world of woes and miseries, averitable, eternal combination of numberless tragedies: Not a single soul being perfectly satisfied.Pray, don’t say that it is His Law. If he is bound by any law, he is not omnipotent. He is anotherslave like ourselves. Please don’t say that it is his enjoyment. Nero burnt one Rome. He killed a verylimited number of people. He created very few tragedies, all to his perfect enjoyment. And, what ishis place in History? By what names do the historians mention him? All the venomous epithets areshowered upon him. Pages are blackened with invective diatribes condemning Nero, the tyrant, theheartless, the wicked. One Changezkhan sacrificed a few thousand lives to seek pleasure in it and wehate the very name. Then, how are you going to justify your almighty, eternal Nero, who has been,and is still causing numberless tragedies every day, every hour and every minute? How do you thinkto support his misdoings which surpass those of Changez every single moment? I say why did hecreate this world – a veritable hell, a place of constant and bitter unrest? Why did the Almightycreate man when he had the power not to do it? What is the justification for all this? Do you say, toaward the innocent sufferers hereafter and to punish the wrongdoers as well? Well, well: How farshall you justify a man who may dare to inflict wounds upon your body to apply a very soft andsoothing ointment upon it afterwards? How far the supporters and organisers of the Gladiatorinstitution were justified in throwing men before the half-starved furious lions to be cared for and welllooked after if they could survive and could manage to escape death by the wild beasts? That is whyI ask: Why did the conscious supreme being create this world and man in it? To seek pleasure?Where, then, is the difference between him and Nero?  10/20/2014 Why I am an atheisthttp://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl2421/stories/20071102501502500.htm 4/6 You Mohammadans and Christians: Hindu philosophy shall still linger on to offer another argument. Iask you, what is your answer to the above-mentioned question? You don’t believe in previous birth.Like Hindus, you cannot advance the argument of previous misdoings of the apparently quiteinnocent sufferers. I ask you, why did the omnipotent labour for six days to create the world throughword and each day to say that all was well? Call him today. Show him the past history. Make himstudy the present situation. Let us see if he dares to say: “All is well.” From the dungeons of prisons, from the stores of starvation consuming millions upon millions of humanbeings in slums and huts, from the exploited labourers, patiently or say apathetically watching theprocedure of their blood being sucked by the capitalist vampires, and the wastage of human energythat will make a man with the least common sense shiver with horror, and from the preference of throwing the surplus of production in oceans rather than to distribute amongst the needy producers– to the palaces of kings built upon the foundation laid with human bones.... let him see all this andlet him say: “All is well.” Why and wherefore? That is my question. You are silent. Alright then, Iproceed.Well, you Hindus, you say all the present sufferers belong to the class of sinners of the previousbirths. Good. You say the present oppressors were saintly people in their previous births, hence theyenjoy power. Let me admit that your ancestors were very shrewd people, they tried to find outtheories strong enough to hammer down all the efforts of reason and disbelief. But let us analysehow far this argument can really stand.From the point of view of the most famous jurists, punishment can be justified only from three or fourends, to meet which it is inflicted upon the wrongdoer. They are retributive, reformative anddeterrent. The retributive theory is now being condemned by all the advanced thinkers. Deterrenttheory is also following the same fate. Reformative theory is the only one which is essential andindispensable for human progress. It aims at returning the offender as a most competent and apeace-loving citizen to the society. But, what is the nature of punishment inflicted by God upon men,even if we suppose them to be offenders? You say he sends them to be born as a cow, a cat, atree, a herb or a beast. You enumerate these punishments to be 84 lakhs. I ask you: what is itsreformative effect upon man? How many men have met you who say that they were born as adonkey in previous birth for having committed any sin? None. Don’t quote your Puranas. I have noscope to touch your mythologies. Moreover, do you know that the greatest sin in this world is to bepoor? Poverty is a sin, it is a punishment. I ask you how far would you appreciate a criminologist, a jurist or a legislator who proposes such measures of punishment which shall inevitably force men tocommit more offences? Had not your God thought of this, or he also had to learn these things byexperience, but at the cost of untold sufferings to be borne by humanity? What do you think shall bethe fate of a man who has been born in a poor and illiterate family of, say, a chamar   or a sweeper?He is poor, hence he cannot study. He is hated and shunned by his fellow human beings who thinkthemselves to be his superiors having been born in, say, a higher caste. His ignorance, his povertyand the treatment meted out to him shall harden his heart towards society. Suppose he commits asin, who shall bear the consequences? God, he or the learned ones of the society? What about thepunishment of those people who were deliberately kept ignorant by the haughty and egotistBrahmans, and who had to pay the penalty by bearing the stream of being led (not lead) in their earsfor having heard a few sentences of your Sacred Books of learning – the Vedas? If they committedany offence, who was to be responsible for them and who was to bear the brunt? My dear friends,these theories are the inventions of the privileged ones; they justify their usurped power, riches andsuperiority by the help of these theories. Yes, it was perhaps Upton Sinclair that wrote at someplace that just make a man a believer in immortality and then rob him of all his riches andpossessions. He shall help you even in that ungrudgingly. The coalition among the religious preachersand possessors of power brought forth jails, gallows, knouts and these theories.I ask why your omnipotent God does not stop every man when he is committing any sin or offence?He can do it quite easily. Why did he not kill warlords or kill the fury of war in them and thus avoidthe catastrophe hurled down on the head of humanity by the Great War? Why does he not justproduce a certain sentiment in the mind of the British people to liberate India? Why does he notinfuse the altruistic enthusiasm in the hearts of all capitalists to forego their rights of personalpossessions of means of production and thus redeem the whole labouring community, nay, the wholehuman society, from the bondage of capitalism? You want to reason out the practicability of socialisttheory, I leave it for your almighty to enforce it. People recognise the merits of socialism inasmuch asthe general welfare is concerned. They oppose it under the pretext of its being impracticable. Let the
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks