मैं नास्तिक क्यों हूँ?

भगत सिंह

प्रत्येक मनुष्य को, जो विकास के लिए खड़ा है, रूढ़िगत विश्वासों के हर पहलू की आलोचना तथा उन पर अविश्वास करना होगा और उनको चुनौती देनी होगी। प्रत्येक प्रचलित मत की हर बात को हर कोने से तर्क की कसौटी पर कसना होगा। यदि काफ़ी तर्क के बाद भी वह किसी सिद्धांत या दर्शन के प्रति प्रेरित होता है, तो उसके विश्वास का स्वागत है। उसका तर्क असत्य, भ्रमित या छलावा और कभी-कभी मिथ्या हो सकता है। लेकिन उसको सुधारा जा सकता है क्योंकि विवेक उसके जीवन का दिशा-सूचक है। लेकिन निरा विश्वास और अंधविश्वास ख़तरनाक है। यह मस्तिष्क को मूढ़ और मनुष्य को प्रतिक्रियावादी बना देता है। जो मनुष्य यथार्थवादी होने का दावा करता है उसे समस्त प्राचीन विश्वासों को चुनौती देनी होगी। यदि वे तर्क का प्रहार न सह सके तो टुकड़े-टुकड़े होकर गिर पड़ेंगे। तब उस व्यक्ति का पहला काम होगा, तमाम पुराने विश्वासों को धराशायी करके नए दर्शन की स्थापना के लिए जगह साफ करना। यह तो नकारात्मक पक्ष हुआ। इसके बाद सही कार्य शुरू होगा, जिसमें पुनर्निर्माण के लिए पुराने विश्वासों की कुछ बातों का प्रयोग किया जा सकता है।

जहाँ तक मेरा संबंध है, मैं शुरू से ही मानता हूँ कि इस दिशा में मैं अभी कोई विशेष अध्ययन नहीं कर पाया हूँ। एशियाई दर्शन को पढ़ने की मेरी बड़ी लालसा थी पर ऐसा करने का मुझे कोई संयोग या अवसर नहीं मिला। लेकिन जहाँ तक इस विवाद के नकारात्मक पक्ष की बात है, मैं प्राचीन विश्वासों के ठोसपन पर प्रश्न उठाने के संबंध में आश्वस्त हूँ। मुझे पूरा विश्वास है कि एक चेतन, परम-आत्मा का, जो कि प्रकृति की गति का दिग्दर्शन एवं संचालन करती है,कोई अस्तित्व नहीं है। समस्त प्रगति का ध्येय मनुष्य द्वारा, अपनी सेवा के लिए, प्रकृति पर विजय पाना है। इसको दिशा देने के लिए पीछे कोई चेतन शक्ति नहीं है। यही हमारा दर्शन है। जहाँ तक नकारात्मक पहलू की बात है, हम आस्तिकों से कुछ प्रश्न करना चाहते हैं-

(i) यदि, जैसा कि आपका विश्वास है, एक सर्वशक्तिमान, सर्वव्यापक एवं सर्वज्ञानी ईश्वर है जिसने कि पृथ्वी या विश्व की रचना की, तो कृपा करके मुझे यह बताएं कि उसने यह रचना क्यों की? कष्टों और आफतों से भरी इस दुनिया में असंख्य दुखों के शाश्वत और अनंत गठबंधनों से ग्रसित एक भी प्राणी पूरी तरह सुखी नहीं। कृपया, यह न कहें कि यही उसका नियम है। यदि वह किसी नियम में बँधा है तो वह सर्वशक्तिमान नहीं। फिर तो वह भी हमारी ही तरह गुलाम है। कृपा करके यह भी न कहें कि यह उसका शग़ल है। नीरो ने सिर्फ एक रोम जलाकर राख किया था। उसने चंद लोगों की हत्या की थी। उसने तो बहुत थोड़ा दुख पैदा किया, अपने शौक और मनोरंजन के लिए। और उसका इतिहास में क्या स्थान है? उसे इतिहासकार किस नाम से बुलाते हैं? सभी विषैले विशेषण उस पर बरसाए जाते हैं। जालिम,निर्दयी, शैतान-जैसे शब्दों से नीरो की भर्त्सना में पृष्ठ-के पृष्ठ रंगे पड़े हैं। एक चंगेज़ खाँ ने अपने आनंद के लिए कुछ हजार ज़ानें ले लीं और आज हम उसके नाम से घृणा करते हैं। तब फिर तुम उस सर्वशक्तिमान अनंत नीरो को जो हर दिन, हर घंटे और हर मिनट असंख्य दुख देता रहा है और अभी भी दे रहा है, किस तरह न्यायोचित ठहराते हो? फिर तुम उसके उन दुष्कर्मों की हिमायत कैसे करोगे, जो हर पल चंगेज़ के दुष्कर्मों को भी मात दिए जा रहे हैं? मैं पूछता हूँ कि उसने यह दुनिया बनाई ही क्यों थी-ऐसी दुनिया जो सचमुच का नर्क है, अनंत और गहन वेदना का घर है?सर्वशक्तिमान ने मनुष्य का सृजन क्यों किया जबकि उसके पास मनुष्य का सृजन न करने की ताक़त थी? इन सब बातों का तुम्हारे पास क्या जवाब है? तुम यह कहोगे कि यह सब अगले जन्म में, इन निर्दोष कष्ट सहने वालों को पुरस्कार और ग़लती करने वालों को दंड देने के लिए हो रहा है।

ठीक है, ठीक है। तुम कब तक उस व्यक्ति को उचित ठहराते रहोगे जो हमारे शरीर को जख्मी करने का साहस इसलिए करता है कि बाद में इस पर बहुत कोमल तथा आरामदायक मलहम लगाएगा? ग्लैडिएटर संस्था के व्यवस्थापकों तथा सहायकों का यह काम कहाँ तक उचित था कि एक भूखे-खूँख्वार शेर के सामने मनुष्य को फेंक दो कि यदि वह उस जंगली जानवर से बचकर अपनी जान बचा लेता है तो उसकी खूब देख-भाल की जाएगी? इसलिए मैं पूछता हूँ, ‘‘उस परम चेतन और सर्वोच्च सत्ता ने इस विश्व और उसमें मनुष्यों का सृजन क्यों किया? आनंद लुटने के लिए? तब उसमें और नीरो में क्या फर्क है?’’ मुसलमानों और ईसाइयों। हिंदू-दर्शन के पास अभी और भी तर्क हो सकते हैं। मैं पूछता हूँ कि तुम्हारे पास ऊपर पूछे गए प्रश्नों का क्या उत्तर है? तुम तो पूर्व जन्म में विश्वास नहीं करते। तुम तो हिन्दुओं की तरह यह तर्क पेश नहीं कर सकते कि प्रत्यक्षतः निर्दोष व्यक्तियों के कष्ट उनके पूर्व जन्मों के कुकर्मों का फल है। मैं तुमसे पूछता हूँ कि उस सर्वशक्तिशाली ने विश्व की उत्पत्ति के लिए छः दिन मेहनत क्यों की और यह क्यों कहा था कि सब ठीक है। उसे आज ही बुलाओ, उसे पिछला इतिहास दिखाओ। उसे मौजूदा परिस्थितियों का अध्ययन करने दो। फिर हम देखेंगे कि क्या वह आज भी यह कहने का साहस करता है- सब ठीक है।

कारावास की काल-कोठरियों से लेकर, झोपड़ियों और बस्तियों में भूख से तड़पते लाखों-लाख इंसानों के समुदाय से लेकर, उन शोषित मजदूरों से लेकर जो पूँजीवादी पिशाच द्वारा खून चूसने की क्रिया को धैर्यपूर्वक या कहना चाहिए,निरुत्साहित होकर देख रहे हैं। और उस मानव-शक्ति की बर्बादी देख रहे हैं जिसे देखकर कोई भी व्यक्ति, जिसे तनिक भी सहज ज्ञान है, भय से सिहर उठेगा; और अधिक उत्पादन को जरूरतमंद लोगों में बाँटने के बजाय समुद्र में फेंक देने को बेहतर समझने से लेकर राजाओं के उन महलों तक-जिनकी नींव मानव की हड्डियों पर पड़ी है। उसको यह सब देखने दो और फिर कहे-‘‘सबकुछ ठीक है।’’ क्यों और किसलिए? यही मेरा प्रश्न है। तुम चुप हो? ठीक है, तो मैं अपनी बात आगे बढ़ाता हूँ। और तुम हिंदुओ, तुम कहते हो कि आज जो लोग कष्ट भोग रहे हैं, ये पूर्वजन्म के पापी हैं। ठीक है। तुम कहते हो आज के उत्पीड़क पिछले जन्मों में साधु पुरुष थे, अतः वे सत्ता का आनंद लूट रहे हैं।

मुझे यह मानना पड़ता है कि आपके पूर्वज बहुत चालाक व्यक्ति थे। उन्होंने ऐसे सिद्धांत गढ़े जिनमें तर्क और अविश्वास के सभी प्रयासों को विफल करने की काफी ताकत है। लेकिन हमें यह विश्लेषण करना है कि ये बातें कहाँ तक टिकती हैं। न्यायशास्त्र के सर्वाधिक प्रसिद्ध विद्वानों के अनुसार, दंड को अपराधी पर पड़नेवाले असर के आधार पर, केवल तीन-चार कारणों से उचित ठहराया जा सकता है। वे हैं प्रतिकार, भय तथा सुधार। आज सभी प्रगतिशील विचारकों द्वारा प्रतिकार के सिद्धांत की निंदा की जाती है। भयभीत करने के सिद्धांत का भी अंत वही है। केवल सुधार करने का सिद्धांत ही आवश्यक है और मानवता की प्रगति का अटूट अंग है। इसका उद्देश्य अपराधी को एक अत्यंत योग्य तथा शांतिप्रिय नागरिक के रूप में समाज को लौटाना है।

लेकिन यदि हम यह बात मान भी लें कि कुछ मनुष्यों ने (पूर्व जन्म में) पाप किए हैं तो ईश्वर द्वारा उन्हें दिए गए दंड की प्रकृति क्या है? तुम कहते हो कि वह उन्हें गाय, बिल्ली, पेड़, जड़ी-बूटी या जानवर बनाकर पैदा करता है। तुम ऐसे 84 लाख दंडों को गिनाते हो। मैं पूछता हूँ कि मनुष्य पर सुधारक के रूप में इनका क्या असर है? तुम ऐसे कितने व्यक्तियों से मिले हो जो यह कहते हैं कि वे किसी पाप के कारण पूर्वजन्म में गदहा के रूप में पैदा हुए थे? एक भी नहीं?अपने पुराणों से उदाहरण मत दो। मेरे पास तुम्हारी पौराणिक कथाओं के लिए कोई स्थान नहीं है। और फिर, क्या तुम्हें पता है कि दुनिया में सबसे बड़ा पाप गरीब होना है? गरीबी एक अभिशाप है, वह एक दंड है। मैं पूछता हूँ कि अपराध-विज्ञान, न्यायशास्त्र या विधिशास्त्र के एक ऐसे विद्वान की आप कहाँ तक प्रशंसा करेंगे जो किसी ऐसी दंड-प्रक्रिया की व्यवस्था करे जो कि अनिवार्यतः मनुष्य को और अधिक अपराध करने को बाध्य करे?

क्या तुम्हारे ईश्वर ने यह नहीं सोचा था? या उसको भी ये सारी बातें-मानवता द्वारा अकथनीय कष्टों के झेलने की कीमत पर-अनुभव से सीखनी थीं? तुम क्या सोचते हो। किसी गरीब तथा अनपढ़ परिवार, जैसे एक चमार या मेहतर के यहाँ पैदा होने पर इन्सान का भाग्य क्या होगा? चूँकि वह गरीब हैं, इसलिए पढ़ाई नहीं कर सकता। वह अपने उन साथियों से तिरस्कृत और त्यक्त रहता है जो ऊँची जाति में पैदा होने की वजह से अपने को उससे ऊँचा समझते हैं। उसका अज्ञान, उसकी गरीबी तथा उससे किया गया व्यवहार उसके हृदय को समाज के प्रति निष्ठुर बना देते हैं। मान लो यदि वह कोई पाप करता है तो उसका फल कौन भोगेगा? ईश्वर, वह स्वयं या समाज के मनीषी? और उन लोगों के दंड के बारे में तुम क्या कहोगे जिन्हें दंभी और घमंडी ब्राह्मणों ने जान-बूझकर अज्ञानी बनाए रखा तथा जिन्हें तुम्हारी ज्ञान की पवित्र पुस्तकों-वेदों के कुछ वाक्य सुन लेने के कारण कान में पिघले सीसे की धारा को सहने की सज़ा भुगतनी पड़ती थी? यदि वे कोई अपराध करते हैं तो उसके लिए कौन ज़िम्मेदार होगा और उसका प्रहार कौन सहेगा? मेरे प्रिय दोस्तो। ये सारे सिद्धांत विशेषाधिकार युक्त लोगों के आविष्कार हैं। ये अपनी हथियाई हुई शक्ति, पूँजी तथा उच्चता को इन सिद्धान्तों के आधार पर सही ठहराते हैं।

जी हाँ, शायद वह अपटन सिंक्लेयर ही था, जिसने किसी जगह लिखा था कि मनुष्य को बस (आत्मा की) अमरता में विश्वास दिला दो और उसके बाद उसका सारा धन-संपत्ति लूट लो। वह बगैर बड़बड़ाए इस कार्य में तुम्हारी सहायता करेगा। धर्म के उपदेशकों तथा सत्ता के स्वामियों के गठबंधन से ही जेल, फाँसीघर, कोड़े और ये सिद्धांत उपजते हैं। मैं पूछता हूँ कि तुम्हारा सर्वशक्तिशाली ईश्वर हर व्यक्ति को उस समय क्यों नहीं रोकता है जब वह कोई पाप या अपराध कर रहा होता है? ये तो वह बहुत आसानी से कर सकता है। उसने क्यों नहीं लड़ाकू राजाओं को या उनके अंदर लड़ने के उन्माद को समाप्त किया और इस प्रकार विश्वयुद्ध द्वारा मानवता पर पड़ने वाली विपत्तियों से उसे क्यों नहीं बचाया?उसने अंग्रेज़ों के मस्तिष्क में भारत को मुक्त कर देने हेतु भावना क्यों नहीं पैदा की? वह क्यों नहीं पूँजीपतियों के हृदय में यह परोपकारी उत्साह भर देता कि वे उत्पादन के साधनों पर व्यक्तिगत संपत्ति का अपना अधिकार त्याग दें और इस प्रकार न केवल सम्पूर्ण श्रमिक समुदाय, वरन समस्त मानव-समाज को पूँजीवाद की बेड़ियों से मुक्त करें।

आप समाजवाद की व्यावहारिकता पर तर्क करना चाहते हैं। मैं इसे आपके सर्वशक्तिमान पर छोड़ देता हूँ कि वह इसे लागू करे। जहाँ तक जनसामान्य की भलाई की बात है, लोग समाजवाद के गुणों को मानते हैं, पर वह इसके व्यावहारिक न होने का बहाना लेकर इसका विरोध करते हैं। चलो, आपका परमात्मा आए और वह हर चीज़ को सही तरीके से कर दें। अब घुमा-फिराकर तर्क करने का प्रयास न करें, वह बेकार की बातें हैं। मैं आपको यह बता दूँ कि अंग्रेज़ों की हुकूमत यहाँ इसलिए नहीं है कि ईश्वर चाहता है, बल्कि इसलिए कि उनके पास ताक़त है और हम में उनका विरोध करने की हिम्मत नहीं। वे हमें अपने प्रभुत्व में ईश्वर की सहायता से नहीं रखे हुए हैं बल्कि बंदूकों, राइफलों, बम और गोलियों, पुलिस और सेना के सहारे रखे हुए हैं। यह हमारी ही उदासीनता है कि वे समाज के विरुद्ध सबसे निंदनीय अपराध-एक राष्ट्र का दूसरे राष्ट्र द्वारा अत्याचारपूर्ण शोषण-सफलतापूर्वक कर रहे हैं। कहाँ है ईश्वर? वह क्या कर रहा है?क्या वह मनुष्य जाति के इन कष्टों का मज़ा ले रहा है? वह नीरो है, चंगेज़ है, तो उसका नाश हो।

क्या तुम मुझसे पूछते हो कि मैं इस विश्व की उत्पत्ति और मानव की उत्पत्ति की व्याख्या कैसे करता हूँ? ठीक है, मैं तुम्हें बतलाता हूँ। चार्ल्स डारविन ने इस विषय पर कुछ प्रकाश डालने की कोशिश की है। उसको पढ़ो। सोहन स्वामी की ‘सहज ज्ञान’ पढ़ो। तुम्हें इस सवाल का कुछ सीमा तक उत्तर मिल जाएगा। यह (विश्व-सृष्टि) एक प्राकृतिक घटना है। विभिन्न पदार्थों के, निहारिका के आकार में, आकस्मिक मिश्रण से पृथ्वी बनी। कब? इतिहास देखो। इसी प्रकार की घटना का जंतु पैदा हुए और एक लंबे दौर के बाद मानव। डारविन की ‘जीव की उत्पत्ति’ पढ़ो। और तदुपरांत सारा विकास मनुष्य द्वारा प्रकृति से लगातार संघर्ष और उस पर विजय पाने की चेष्टा से हुआ। यह इस घटना की संभवतः सबसे संक्षिप्त व्याख्या है।

तुम्हारा दूसरा तर्क यह हो सकता है कि क्यों एक बच्चा अंधा या लँगड़ा पैदा होता है, यदि यह उसके पूर्वजन्म में किए कार्यों का फल नहीं है तो? जीवविज्ञान-वेत्ताओं ने इस समस्या का वैज्ञानिक समाधान निकाला है। उनके अनुसार इसका सारा दायित्व माता-पिता के कंधों पर है जो अपने उन कार्यों के प्रति लापरवाह अथवा अनभिज्ञ रहते हैं जो बच्चे के जन्म के पूर्व ही उसे विकलांग बना देते हैं। स्वभावतः तुम एक और प्रश्न पूछ सकते हो-यद्यपि यह निरा बचकाना है। वह सवाल यह कि यदि ईश्वर कहीं नहीं है तो लोग उसमें विश्वास क्यों करने लगे? मेरा उत्तर संक्षिप्त तथा स्पष्ट होगा-जिस प्रकार लोग भूत-प्रेतों तथा दुष्ट-आत्माओं में विश्वास करने लगे, उसी प्रकार ईश्वर को मानने लगे। अंतर केवल इतना है कि ईश्वर में विश्वास विश्वव्यापी है और उसका दर्शन अत्यंत विकसित। विपरीत मैं इसकी उत्पत्ति का श्रेय उन शोषकों की प्रतिभा को नहीं देता जो परमात्मा के अस्तित्व का उपदेश देकर लोगों को अपने प्रभुत्व में रखना चाहते थे और उनसे अपनी विशिष्ट स्थिति का अधिकार एवं अनुमोदन चाहते थे। यद्यपि मूल बिंदु पर मेरा उनसे विरोध नहीं है कि सभी धर्म, सम्प्रदाय, पंथ और ऐसी अन्य संस्थाएँ अन्त में निर्दयी और शोषक संस्थाओं, व्यक्तियों तथा वर्गों की समर्थक हो जाती हैं। राजा के विरुद्ध विद्रोह हर धर्म में सदैव ही पाप रहा है।

ईश्वर की उत्पत्ति के बारे में मेरा अपना विचार यह है कि मनुष्य ने अपनी सीमाओं, दुर्बलताओं व कमियों को समझने के बाद, परीक्षा की घड़ियों का बहादुरी से सामना करने स्वयं को उत्साहित करने, सभी खतरों को मर्दानगी के साथ झेलने तथा संपन्नता एवं ऐश्वर्य में उसके विस्फोट को बाँधने के लिए-ईश्वर के काल्पनिक अस्तित्व की रचना की। अपने व्यक्तिगत नियमों और अविभावकीय उदारता से पूर्ण ईश्वर की बढ़ा-चढ़ाकर कल्पना एवं चित्रण किया गया। जब उसकी उग्रता तथा व्यक्तिगत नियमों की चर्चा होती है तो उसका उपयोग एक डरानेवाले के रूप में किया जाता है, ताकि मनुष्य समाज के लिए एक खतरा न बन जाए। जब उसके अविभावकीय गुणों की व्याख्या होती है तो उसका उपयोग एक पिता, माता, भाई, बहन, दोस्त तथा सहायक की तरह किया जाता है। इस प्रकार जब मनुष्य अपने सभी दोस्तों के विश्वासघात और उनके द्वारा त्याग देने से अत्यंत दुखी हो तो उसे इस विचार से सांत्वना मिल सकती है कि एक सच्चा दोस्त उसकी सहायता करने को है, उसे सहारा देगा, जो कि सर्वशक्तिमान है और कुछ भी कर सकता है। वास्तव में आदिम काल में यह समाज के लिए उपयोगी था। विपदा में पड़े मनुष्य के लिए ईश्वर की कल्पना सहायक होती है। समाज को इस ईश्वरीय विश्वास के विरूद्ध उसी तरह लड़ना होगा जैसे कि मूर्ति-पूजा तथा धर्म-संबंधी क्षुद्र विचारों के विरूद्ध लड़ना पड़ा था। इसी प्रकार मनुष्य जब अपने पैरों पर खड़ा होने का प्रयास करने लगे और यथार्थवादी बन जाए तो उसे ईश्वरीय श्रद्धा को एक ओर फेंक देना चाहिए और उन सभी कष्टों, परेशानियों का पौरुष के साथ सामना करना चाहिए जिसमें परिस्थितियाँ उसे पलट सकती हैं। मेरी स्थिति आज यही है। यह मेरा अहंकार नहीं है।

मेरे दोस्तों, यह मेरे सोचने का ही तरीका है जिसने मुझे नास्तिक बनाया है। मैं नहीं जानता कि ईश्वर में विश्वास और रोज़-बरोज़ की प्रार्थना-जिसे मैं मनुष्य का सबसे अधिक स्वार्थी और गिरा हुआ काम मानता हूँ-मेरे लिए सहायक सिद्घ होगी या मेरी स्थिति को और चौपट कर देगी। मैंने उन नास्तिकों के बारे में पढ़ा है, जिन्होंने सभी विपदाओं का बहादुरी से सामना किया, अतः मैं भी एक मर्द की तरह फाँसी के फंदे की अंतिम घड़ी तक सिर ऊँचा किए खड़ा रहना चाहता हूँ। देखना है कि मैं इस पर कितना खरा उतर पाता हूँ। मेरे एक दोस्त ने मुझे प्रार्थना करने को कहा। जब मैंने उसे अपने नास्तिक होने की बात बतलाई तो उसने कहा, ‘देख लेना, अपने अंतिम दिनों में तुम ईश्वर को मानने लगोगे।’ मैंने कहा, ‘नहीं प्रिय महोदय, ऐसा नहीं होगा। ऐसा करना मेरे लिए अपमानजनक तथा पराजय की बात होगी।

स्वार्थ के लिए मैं प्रार्थना नहीं करूँगा।’ पाठकों और दोस्तो, क्या यह अहंकार है? अगर है, तो मैं इसे स्वीकार करता हूँ।

Bhagat Singh 1931

Why I am an Atheist

---

Written: October 5–6, 1930
Source/Translated: Converted from the original Gurmukhi (Punjabi) to Urdu/Persian script by Maqsood Saqib;
translated from Urdu to English by Hasan for marxists.org, 2006;
HTML/Proofread: Andy Blunden and Mike Bessler;
CopyLeft: Creative Common (Attribute & ShareAlike) marxists.org 2006.

---

It is a matter of debate whether my lack of belief in the existence of an Omnipresent, Omniscient God is due to my arrogant pride and vanity. It never occurred to me that sometime in the future I would be involved in polemics of this kind. As a result of some discussions with my friends, (if my claim to friendship is not uncalled for) I have realised that after having known me for a little time only, some of them have reached a kind of hasty conclusion about me that my atheism is my foolishness and that it is the outcome of my vanity. Even then it is a serious problem. I do not boast of being above these human follies. I am, after all, a human being and nothing more. And no one can claim to be more than that. I have a weakness in my personality, for pride is one of the human traits that I do possess. I am known as a dictator among my friends. Sometimes I am called a boaster. Some have always been complaining that I am bossy and I force others to accept my opinion. Yes, it is true to some extent. I do not deny this charge. We can use the word ‘vainglory’ for it. As far as the contemptible, obsolete, rotten values of our society are concerned, I am an extreme sceptic. But this question does not concern my person alone. It is being proud of my ideas, my thoughts. It cannot be called empty pride. Pride, or you may use the word, vanity, both mean an exaggerated assessment of one’s personality. Is my atheism because of unnecessary pride, or have I ceased believing in God after thinking long and deep on the matter? I wish to put my ideas before you. First of all, let us differentiate between pride and vanity as these are two different things.

I have never been able to understand how unfounded, baseless pride or empty vanity can hinder a person from believing in God. I may refuse to acknowledge the greatness of a really great person only when I have got fame without doing any serious efforts or when I lack the superior mental powers necessary to become great. It is easy to understand but how is it possible that a believer can turn into a non-believer because of his vanity? Only two things are possible: either a man deems himself to be in possession of Godly qualities, or he goes a step further and declares himself to be a god. In both these states of mind he cannot be an atheist in the true sense of the word. In the first case, it is not an outright rejection of God’s existence; in the other, he is affirming the existence of some kind of supernatural power responsible for the working of universe. It does not harm our argument whether he claims to be a god or considers God to be a reality in existence above his own being. The real point, however, is that in both cases he is a theist, a believer. He is not an atheist. I want to bring home this point to you. I am not one of these two creeds. I totally reject the existence of an Omnipresent, all powerful, all knowing God. Why so? I will discuss it later in the essay. Here I wish to emphasise that I am not an atheist for the reason that I am arrogant or proud or vain; nor am I a demi-god, nor a prophet; no, nor am I God myself. At least one thing is true that I have not evolved this thought because of vanity or pride. In order to answer this question I relate the truth. My friends say that after Delhi bombing and Lahore Conspiracy Case, I rocketed to fame and that this fact has turned my head. Let us discuss why this allegation is incorrect. I did not give up my belief in God after these incidents. I was an atheist even when I was an unknown figure. At least a college student cannot cherish any sort of exaggerated notion of himself that may lead him to atheism. It is true that I was a favourite with some college teachers, but others did not like me. I was never a hardworking or studious boy. I never got an opportunity to be proud. I was very careful in my behaviour and somewhat pessimistic about my future career. I was not completely atheistic in my beliefs. I was brought up under the care and protection of my father. He was a staunch Arya Samaji. An Arya Samaji can be anything but never an atheist. After my elementary education, I was sent to D. A. V College, Lahore. I lived in the boarding house for one year. Besides prayers early in the morning and at dusk time, I sat for hours and chanted religious Mantras. At that time, I was a staunch believer. Then I lived with my father. He was a tolerant man in his religious views. It is due to his teachings that I devoted my life for the cause of liberating my country. But he was not an atheist. His God was an all-pervading Entity. He advised me to offer my prayers every day. In this way I was brought up. In the Non-cooperation days, I got admission to the National College. During my stay in this college, I began thinking over all the religious polemics such that I grew sceptical about the existence of God. In spite of this fact I can say that my belief in God was firm and strong. I grew a beard and ‘Kais’ (long head of hair as a Sikh religious custom). In spite of this I could not convince myself of the efficacy of Sikh religion or any religion at all, for that matter. But I had an unswerving, unwavering belief in God.

Then I joined the Revolutionary Party. The first leader I met had not the courage to openly declare himself an atheist. He was unable to reach any conclusion on this point. Whenever I asked him about the existence of God, he gave me this reply: “You may believe in him when you feel like it.” The second leader with whom I came in contact was a firm believer. I should mention his name. It was our respected Comrade Sachindara Nath Sanyal. He was sentenced to life imprisonment in connection with Karachi conspiracy case. Right from the first page of his only book, ‘Bandi Jivan’ (Incarnated Life) he sings praises to the Glory of God. See the last page of the second part of this book and you find praises showered upon God in the way of a mystic. It is a clear reflection of his thoughts.

According to the prosecution, the ‘Revolutionary Leaflet’ which was distributed throughout India was the outcome of Sachindara Nath Sanyal’s intellectual labour. So often it happens that in revolutionary activities a leader expresses his own ideas which may be very dear to him, but in spite of having differences, the other workers have to acquiesce in them.

In that leaflet, one full paragraph was devoted to the praises of God and His doings which we, human beings, cannot understand. This is sheer mysticism. What I want to point out is that the idea of denying the existence of God did not even occur to the Revolutionary Party. The famous Kakory martyrs, all four of them, passed their last day in prayers. Ram Parshad Bismal was a staunch Arya Samaji. In spite of his vast studies in Socialism and Communism, Rajan Lahiri could not suppress his desire to recite hymns from Upanishads and Gita. There was but only one person among them who did not indulge in such activities. He used to say, “Religion is the outcome of human weakness or the limitation of human knowledge.” He is also in prison for life. But he also never dared to deny the existence of God.

Till that time I was only a romantic revolutionary, just a follower of our leaders. Then came the time to shoulder the whole responsibility. For some time, a strong opposition put the very existence of the party into danger. Many leaders as well as many enthusiastic comrades began to uphold the party to ridicule. They jeered at us. I had an apprehension that some day I will also consider it a futile and hopeless task. It was a turning point in my revolutionary career. An incessant desire to study filled my heart. ‘Study more and more’, said I to myself so that I might be able to face the arguments of my opponents. ‘Study’ to support your point of view with convincing arguments. And I began to study in a serious manner. My previous beliefs and convictions underwent a radical change. The romance of militancy dominated our predecessors; now serious ideas ousted this way of thinking. No more mysticism! No more blind faith! Now realism was our mode of thinking. At times of terrible necessity, we can resort to extreme methods, but violence produces opposite results in mass movements. I have talked much about our methods. The most important thing was a clear conception of our ideology for which we were waging a long struggle. As there was no election activity going on, I got ample opportunity to study various ideas propounded by various writers. I studied Bakunin, the anarchist leader. I read a few books of Marx, the father of Communism. I also read Lenin and Trotsky and many other writers who successfully carried out revolutions in their countries. All of them were atheists. The ideas contained in Bakunin’s ‘God and State’ seem inconclusive, but it is an interesting book. After that I came across a book ‘Common Sense’ by Nirlamba Swami. His point of view was a sort of mystical atheism. I developed more interest in this subject. By the end of 1926, I was convinced that the belief in an Almighty, Supreme Being who created, guided and controlled the universe had no sound foundations. I began discussions on this subject with my friends. I had openly declared myself an atheist. What it meant will be discussed in the following lines.

In May 1927, I was arrested in Lahore. This arrest came as a big surprise for me. I had not the least idea that I was wanted by the police. I was passing through a garden and all of a sudden the police surrounded me. To my own surprise, I was very calm at that time. I was in full control of myself. I was taken into police custody. The next day I was taken to the Railway Police lockup where I spent a whole month. After many days’ conversation with police personnel, I guessed that they had some information about my connection with the Kakori Party. I felt they had some intelligence of my other activities in the revolutionary movement. They told me that I was in Lucknow during the Kakori Party Trial so that I might devise a scheme to rescue the culprits. They also said that after the plan had been approved, we procured some bombs and by way of test, one of those bombs was thrown into a crowd on the occasion of Dussehra in 1926. They offered to release me on condition that I gave a statement on the activities of the Revolutionary Party. In this way I would be set free and even rewarded and I would not be produced as an approver in the court. I could not help laughing at their proposals. It was all humbug. People who have ideas like ours do not throw bombs at their own innocent people. One day, Mr. Newman, the then senior Superintendent of CID, came to me. After a long talk which was full of sympathetic words, he imparted to me what he considered to be sad news, that if I did not give any statement as demanded by them, they would be forced to send me up for trial for conspiracy to wage war in connection with Kakori Case and also for brutal killings in Dussehra gathering. After that he said that he had sufficient evidence to get me convicted and hanged.

I was completely innocent, but I believed that the police had sufficient power to do it if they desired it to be so. The same day some police officers persuaded me to offer my prayers to God two times regularly. I was an atheist. I thought that I would settle it to myself whether I could brag only in days of peace and happiness that I was an atheist, or in those hard times I could be steadfast in my convictions. After a long debate with myself, I reached the conclusion that I could not even pretend to be a believer nor could I offer my prayers to God. No, I never did it. It was time of trial and I would come out of it successful. These were my thoughts. Never for a moment did I desire to save my life. So I was a true atheist then and I am an atheist now. It was not an easy task to face that ordeal. Beliefs make it easier to go through hardships, even make them pleasant. Man can find a strong support in God and an encouraging consolation in His Name. If you have no belief in Him, then there is no alternative but to depend upon yourself. It is not child’s play to stand firm on your feet amid storms and strong winds. In difficult times, vanity, if it remains, evaporates and man cannot find the courage to defy beliefs held in common esteem by the people. If he really revolts against such beliefs, we must conclude that it is not sheer vanity; he has some kind of extraordinary strength. This is exactly the situation now. First of all we all know what the judgement will be. It is to be pronounced in a week or so. I am going to sacrifice my life for a cause. What more consolation can there be! A God-believing Hindu may expect to be reborn a king; a Muslim or a Christian might dream of the luxuries he hopes to enjoy in paradise as a reward for his sufferings and sacrifices. What hope should I entertain? I know that will be the end when the rope is tightened round my neck and the rafters move from under my feet. To use more precise religious terminology, that will be the moment of utter annihilation. My soul will come to nothing. If I take the courage to take the matter in the light of ‘Reward’, I see that a short life of struggle with no such magnificent end shall itself be my ‘Reward.’ That is all. Without any selfish motive of getting any reward here or in the hereafter, quite disinterestedly have I devoted my life to the cause of freedom. I could not act otherwise. The day shall usher in a new era of liberty when a large number of men and women, taking courage from the idea of serving humanity and liberating them from sufferings and distress, decide that there is no alternative before them except devoting their lives for this cause. They will wage a war against their oppressors, tyrants or exploiters, not to become kings, or to gain any reward here or in the next birth or after death in paradise; but to cast off the yoke of slavery, to establish liberty and peace they will tread this perilous, but glorious path. Can the pride they take in their noble cause be called vanity? Who is there rash enough to call it so? To him I say either he is foolish or wicked. Leave such a fellow alone for he cannot realise the depth, the emotions, the sentiment and the noble feelings that surge in that heart. His heart is dead, a mere lump of flesh, devoid of feelings. His convictions are infirm, his emotions feeble. His selfish interests have made him incapable of seeing the truth. The epithet ‘vanity’ is always hurled at the strength we get from our convictions.

You go against popular feelings; you criticise a hero, a great man who is generally believed to be above criticism. What happens? No one will answer your arguments in a rational way; rather you will be considered vainglorious. Its reason is mental insipidity. Merciless criticism and independent thinking are the two necessary traits of revolutionary thinking. As Mahatmaji is great, he is above criticism; as he has risen above, all that he says in the field of politics, religion, Ethics is right. You agree or not, it is binding upon you to take it as truth. This is not constructive thinking. We do not take a leap forward; we go many steps back.

Our forefathers evolved faith in some kind of Supreme Being, therefore, one who ventures to challenge the validity of that faith or denies the existence of God, shall be called a Kafir (infidel), or a renegade. Even if his arguments are so strong that it is impossible to refute them, if his spirit is so strong that he cannot be bowed down by the threats of misfortune that may befall him through the wrath of the Almighty, he shall be decried as vainglorious. Then why should we waste our time in such discussions? This question has come before the people for the first time, hence the necessity and usefulness of such long discussions.

As far as the first question is concerned, I think I have made it clear that I did not turn atheist because of vanity. Only my readers, not I, can decide whether my arguments carry weight. If I were a believer, I know in the present circumstances my life would have been easier; the burden lighter. My disbelief in God has turned all the circumstances too harsh and this situation can deteriorate further. Being a little mystical can give the circumstances a poetic turn. But I need no opiate to meet my end. I am a realistic man. I want to overpower this tendency in me with the help of Reason. I am not always successful in such attempts. But it is man’s duty to try and make efforts. Success depends on chance and circumstances.

Now we come to the second question: if it is not vanity, there ought to be some sound reason for rejection of age-old belief in God. Yes, I come to this question. I think that any man who has some reasoning power always tries to understand the life and people around him with the help of this faculty. Where concrete proofs are lacking, [mystical] philosophy creeps in. As I have indicated, one of my revolutionary friends used to say that “philosophy is the outcome of human weakness.” Our ancestors had the leisure to solve the mysteries of the world, its past, its present and its future, its whys and its wherefores, but having been terribly short of direct proofs, every one of them tried to solve the problem in his own way. Hence we find wide differences in the fundamentals of various religious creeds. Sometimes they take very antagonistic and conflicting forms. We find differences in Oriental and Occidental philosophies. There are differences even amongst various schools of thoughts in each hemisphere. In Asian religions, the Muslim religion is completely incompatible with the Hindu faith. In India itself, Buddhism and Jainism are sometimes quite separate from Brahmanism. Then in Brahmanism itself, we find two conflicting sects: Aarya Samaj and Snatan Dheram. Charwak is yet another independent thinker of the past ages. He challenged the Authority of God. All these faiths differ on many fundamental questions, but each of them claims to be the only true religion. This is the root of the evil. Instead of developing the ideas and experiments of ancient thinkers, thus providing ourselves with the ideological weapon for the future struggle, – lethargic, idle, fanatical as we are – we cling to orthodox religion and in this way reduce human awakening to a stagnant pool.

It is necessary for every person who stands for progress to criticise every tenet of old beliefs. Item by item he has to challenge the efficacy of old faith. He has to analyse and understand all the details. If after rigorous reasoning, one is led to believe in any theory of philosophy, his faith is appreciated. His reasoning may be mistaken and even fallacious. But there is chance that he will be corrected because Reason is the guiding principle of his life. But belief, I should say blind belief is disastrous. It deprives a man of his understanding power and makes him reactionary.

Any person who claims to be a realist has to challenge the truth of old beliefs. If faith cannot withstand the onslaught of reason, it collapses. After that his task should be to do the groundwork for new philosophy. This is the negative side. After that comes in the positive work in which some material of the olden times can be used to construct the pillars of new philosophy. As far as I am concerned, I admit that I lack sufficient study in this field. I had a great desire to study the Oriental Philosophy, but I could get ample opportunity or sufficient time to do so. But so far as I reject the old time beliefs, it is not a matter of countering belief with belief, rather I can challenge the efficacy of old beliefs with sound arguments. We believe in nature and that human progress depends on the domination of man over nature. There is no conscious power behind it. This is our philosophy.

Being atheist, I ask a few questions from theists:

1. If, as you believe there is an Almighty, Omnipresent, Omniscient God, who created the earth or universe, please let me know, first of all, as to why he created this world. This world which is full of woe and grief, and countless miseries, where not even one person lives in peace.

2. Pray, don’t say it is His law. If He is bound by any law, He is not Omnipotent. Don’t say it is His pleasure. Nero burnt one Rome. He killed a very limited number of people. He caused only a few tragedies, all for his morbid enjoyment. But what is his place in history? By what names do we remember him? All the disparaging epithets are hurled at him. Pages are blackened with invective diatribes condemning Nero: the tyrant, the heartless, the wicked.

One Genghis Khan killed a few thousand people to seek pleasure in it and we hate the very name. Now, how will you justify your all powerful, eternal Nero, who every day, every moment continues his pastime of killing people? How can you support his doings which surpass those of Genghis Khan in cruelty and in misery inflicted upon people? I ask why the Almighty created this world which is nothing but a living hell, a place of constant and bitter unrest. Why did he create man when he had the power not to do so? Have you any answer to these questions? You will say that it is to reward the sufferer and punish the evildoer in the hereafter. Well, well, how far will you justify a man who first of all inflicts injuries on your body and then applies soft and soothing ointment on them? How far the supporters and organizers of Gladiator bouts were justified in throwing men before half starved lions, later to be cared for and looked after well if they escaped this horrible death. That is why I ask: Was the creation of man intended to derive this kind of pleasure?

Open your eyes and see millions of people dying of hunger in slums and huts dirtier than the grim dungeons of prisons; just see the labourers patiently or say apathetically while the rich vampires suck their blood; bring to mind the wastage of human energy that will make a man with a little common sense shiver in horror. Just observe rich nations throwing their surplus produce into the sea instead of distributing it among the needy and deprived. There are palaces of kings built upon the foundations laid with human bones. Let them see all this and say “All is well in God’s Kingdom.” Why so? This is my question. You are silent. All right. I proceed to my next point.

You, the Hindus, would say: Whosoever undergoes sufferings in this life, must have been a sinner in his previous birth. It is tantamount to saying that those who are oppressors now were Godly people then, in their previous births. For this reason alone they hold power in their hands. Let me say it plainly that your ancestors were shrewd people. They were always in search of petty hoaxes to play upon people and snatch from them the power of Reason. Let us analyse how much this argument carries weight!

Those who are well versed in the philosophy of Jurisprudence relate three of four justifications for the punishment that is to be inflicted upon a wrong-doer. These are: revenge, reform, and deterrence. The Retribution Theory is now condemned by all the thinkers. Deterrent theory is on the anvil for its flaws. Reformative theory is now widely accepted and considered to be necessary for human progress. It aims at reforming the culprit and converting him into a peace-loving citizen. But what in essence is God’s Punishment even if it is inflicted on a person who has really done some harm? For the sake of argument we agree for a moment that a person committed some crime in his previous birth and God punished him by changing his shape into a cow, cat, tree, or any other animal. You may enumerate the number of these variations in Godly Punishment to be at least eighty-four lack. Tell me, has this tomfoolery, perpetrated in the name of punishment, any reformative effect on human man? How many of them have you met who were donkeys in their previous births for having committed any sin? Absolutely no one of this sort! The so called theory of ‘Puranas’ (transmigration) is nothing but a fairy-tale. I do not have any intention to bring this unutterable trash under discussion. Do you really know the most cursed sin in this world is to be poor? Yes, poverty is a sin; it is a punishment! Cursed be the theoretician, jurist or legislator who proposes such measures as push man into the quagmire of more heinous sins. Did it not occur to your All Knowing God or he could learn the truth only after millions had undergone untold sufferings and hardships? What, according to your theory, is the fate of a person who, by no sin of his own, has been born into a family of low caste people? He is poor so he cannot go to a school. It is his fate to be shunned and hated by those who are born into a high caste. His ignorance, his poverty, and the contempt he receives from others will harden his heart towards society. Supposing that he commits a sin, who shall bear the consequences? God, or he, or the learned people of that society? What is your view about those punishments inflicted on the people who were deliberately kept ignorant by selfish and proud Brahmans? If by chance these poor creatures heard a few words of your sacred books, Vedas, these Brahmans poured melted lead into their ears. If they committed any sin, who was to be held responsible? Who was to bear the brunt? My dear friends, these theories have been coined by the privileged classes. They try to justify the power they have usurped and the riches they have robbed with the help of such theories. Perhaps it was the writer Upton Sinclair who wrote(Bhagat Singh is referring to Sinclair’s pamphlet ‘Profits of Religion’ – MIA transcriber) somewhere “only make a man firm believer in the immortality of soul, then rob him of all that he possesses. He will willingly help you in the process.” The dirty alliance between religious preachers and possessors of power brought the boon of prisons, gallows, knouts and above all such theories for the mankind.

I ask why your Omnipotent God does not hold a man back when he is about to commit a sin or offence. It is child’s play for God. Why did He not kill war lords? Why did He not obliterate the fury of war from their minds? In this way He could have saved humanity of many a great calamity and horror. Why does He not infuse humanistic sentiments into the minds of the Britishers so that they may willingly leave India? I ask why He does not fill the hearts of all capitalist classes with altruistic humanism that prompts them to give up personal possession of the means of production and this will free the whole labouring humanity from the shackles of money. You want to argue the practicability of Socialist theory, I leave it to your Almighty God to enforce it. Common people understand the merits of Socialist theory as far as general welfare is concerned but they oppose it under the pretext that it cannot be implemented. Let the Almighty step in and arrange things in a proper way. No more logic chopping! I tell you that the British rule is not there because God willed it but for the reason that we lack the will and courage to oppose it. Not that they are keeping us under subjugation with the consent of God, but it is with the force of guns and rifles, bombs and bullets, police and militia, and above all because of our apathy that they are successfully committing the most deplorable sin, that is, the exploitation of one nation by another. Where is God? What is He doing? Is He getting a diseased pleasure out of it? A Nero! A Genghis Khan! Down with Him!

Now another piece of manufactured logic! You ask me how I will explain the origin of this world and origin of man. Charles Darwin has tried to throw some light on this subject. Study his book. Also, have a look at Sohan Swami’s “Commonsense.” You will get a satisfactory answer. This topic is concerned with Biology and Natural History. This is a phenomenon of nature. The accidental mixture of different substances in the form of Nebulae gave birth to this earth. When? Study history to know this. The same process caused the evolution of animals and in the long run that of man. Read Darwin’s ‘Origin of Species.’ All the later progress is due to man’s constant conflict with nature and his efforts to utilise nature for his own benefit. This is the briefest sketch of this phenomenon.

Your next question will be why a child is born blind or lame even if he was not a sinner in his previous birth. This problem has been explained in a satisfactory manner by biologists as a mere biological phenomenon. According to them the whole burden rests upon the shoulders of parents whose conscious or unconscious deeds caused mutilation of the child prior to his birth.

You may thrust yet another question at me, though it is merely childish. The question is: If God does not really exist, why do people come to believe in Him? Brief and concise my answer will be. As they come to believe in ghosts, and evil spirits, so they also evolve a kind of belief in God: the only difference being that God is almost a universal phenomenon and well developed theological philosophy. However, I do disagree with radical philosophy. It attributes His origin to the ingenuity of exploiters who wanted to keep the people under their subjugation by preaching the existence of a Supreme Being; thus claimed an authority and sanction from Him for their privileged position. I do not differ on the essential point that all religions, faiths, theological philosophies, and religious creeds and all other such institutions in the long run become supporters of the tyrannical and exploiting institutions, men and classes. Rebellion against any king has always been a sin in every religion.

As regard the origin of God, my thought is that man created God in his imagination when he realized his weaknesses, limitations and shortcomings. In this way he got the courage to face all the trying circumstances and to meet all dangers that might occur in his life and also to restrain his outbursts in prosperity and affluence. God, with his whimsical laws and parental generosity was painted with variegated colours of imagination. He was used as a deterrent factor when his fury and his laws were repeatedly propagated so that man might not become a danger to society. He was the cry of the distressed soul for he was believed to stand as father and mother, sister and brother, brother and friend when in time of distress a man was left alone and helpless. He was Almighty and could do anything. The idea of God is helpful to a man in distress.

Society must fight against this belief in God as it fought against idol worship and other narrow conceptions of religion. In this way man will try to stand on his feet. Being realistic, he will have to throw his faith aside and face all adversaries with courage and valour. That is exactly my state of mind. My friends, it is not my vanity; it is my mode of thinking that has made me an atheist. I don’t think that by strengthening my belief in God and by offering prayers to Him every day, (this I consider to be the most degraded act on the part of man) I can bring improvement in my situation, nor can I further deteriorate it. I have read of many atheists facing all troubles boldly, so I am trying to stand like a man with the head high and erect to the last; even on the gallows.

Let us see how steadfast I am. One of my friends asked me to pray. When informed of my atheism, he said, “When your last days come, you will begin to believe.” I said, “No, dear sir, Never shall it happen. I consider it to be an act of degradation and demoralisation. For such petty selfish motives, I shall never pray.” Reader and friends, is it vanity? If it is, I stand for it.
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Some impotent links of discussions..

http://www.marxists.org/archive/bhagat-singh/1930/10/05.htm

http://anvarat.blogspot.com/2011/06/blog-post_19.html

http://dpagrawal.blogspot.com/2007_08_26_archive.html

http://hindibhojpuri.blogspot.com/2011/06/blog-post_27.html