Freethought Activism

The Atheism of Bhagat Singh

In a recent email exchange with Meera Nanda, I was reminded by her that India has a modern atheistic tradition that is often ignored in favor of the ancient and now-extinct materialist schools of thought, which are more commonly brought up as examples of atheistic thinking in India. On Meera’s suggestion, I have decided to post a modern translation of Indian freedom-fighter Bhagat Singh‘s essay, ‘Why I am an Atheist’.

First some background on Baghat Singh’s atheism.

Although Bhagat Singh’s anti-colonial activism during his short life has been written about in great detail, there is still some debate about his atheism. Some people bring up the fact that he was involved with the Arya Samaj in his teens to try and argue that he was not really an atheist. Others attempt to revise history in other ways. Singh is held in high regard by many Indian nationalists, for his strong opposition to the British rule and his willingness to sacrifice his life for the benefit of the country. Even after his imprisonment, Singh continued to gain public support by fighting for social justice. This essay on his atheistic beliefs, was written in jail while he was awaiting his execution. He was 24. Some of his fellow prisoners had accused Singh saying that he was vain to not accept God in his dying hour. He replied with this pamphlet, proclaiming his reasons for being an atheist in his usual clear yet characteristically in-your-face style.

Bhagat Singh 1931

Why I am an Atheist

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.

The original article can be found here

In anticipation of accusations of marxist propaganda, let me assure you that the reason this particular translation was used is because of the quality of the editing and not because of the politics of the source. You can check alternate sources for the veracity of the translation here and here.

You can also read Bhagat’s prison journal where, among others, he quotes Robert Ingersoll:

Whoever produces anything by weary labour does not need a revelation from heaven to teach him that he has a right to the thing produced

About the author

Ajita Kamal


  • Let me start off by thanking you for this post. Like most Indians, I know who he was, but I had no idea he was an atheist. Perhaps it may have something to do with how he is portrayed as India’s Malcolm X (in contrast with Gandhi, who was India’s MLK). Or perhaps it may be that most of us can’t imagine outspoken rationalists and skeptics in that time and place.

    I debated myself whether I should comment on his reasoning. In the end, I thought it would at least be interesting. I’m not trying to impugn him, but I find his ideas to be insufficiently thought out, and as such, inconclusive against the existence of God(s). I will keep my analysis to the theological aspect of his writings and not his pro-Marxism. That is for another time and place. Anyway, here’s my breakdown:

    His first argument questions the “why”. Why does this universe exist? To me, the reason, if any, behind the existence of the universe is as meaningless a question for theists as it is for atheists. Even if there were no reason for the universe to exist, it is not a sufficient argument that God does not exist. He could have no reason.

    His second argument, that of evil, is just as meaningless. Theists dismiss evil by claiming that the existence of evil is a consequence of mankind’s deeds. For me, neither the question nor the response make any sense. The existence of evil could merely imply that God is not benevolent, not that he doesn’t exist. Why couldn’t an Almighty being be evil? Why would he necessarily have to be good?

    He goes on to discuss the logical failings of Karma. He ends up portraying this to be a result of a class struggle. His question as to who bears the consequences of a sin committed by someone who was unfairly treated by society. The answer, even for atheists, is simple: he does. We are all responsible for our actions, God or no. Regardless of how unfairly he has been treated, he had all opportunity not to commit the crime. That he did is evidence that he bears the responsibility.

    For me, at one point, the question of evil and the question of life were sufficient arguments against God. But not anymore. For me, I’m an atheist because there is no reason to believe or think God exists. It’s just that simple. The burden of evidence lies on the believer, not me. I wonder if Bhagat Singh evolved his views as well.

  • I am rationalist, atheist, humanist,……I dont need any introduction of myself. I just want to comment on reply written above by Sundeep Peswani.

    Sundeep, you said, “Even if there were no reason for the universe to exist, it is not a sufficient argument that God does not exist. He could have no reason”.
    Singh’s argument is totally based on God as human imagination, it is neither proof of non-existence of God. Even, for sake of argument, if we assume that meaningless existence of Universe is not sufficient argument for non-existence God, it is neither a sufficient notion for existence of God, as u said,”To me, the reason, if any, behind the existence of the universe is as meaningless a question for theists as it is for atheists”.

    Sundeep, your second argument, “His second argument, that of evil, is just as meaningless. Theists dismiss evil by claiming that the existence of evil is a consequence of mankind’s deeds. For me, neither the question nor the response make any sense. The existence of evil could merely imply that God is not benevolent, not that he doesn’t exist. Why couldn’t an Almighty being be evil? Why would he necessarily have to be good?”
    okey,…I dont know what kind of theist you are talking about.But he is certainly talking about most overwhelming majority of people living in this planet. Theist not just dismiss evil by claiming that the existence of evil is a consequence of mankind’s deeds, but attribute to existence of devil, also get rid of evil is a path to salvation, there is where he brings why innocent people are suffered for their no cause ? Not evil is deeds of humankind’s, but God is imagination of mankind. Then, why would god almighty be an evil or be a good ? or why would any god almighty would exist for not be evil or good ? you question neither make any sense.

    Again, Sundeep, you made irresponsible and irrelevant comment, “He goes on to discuss the logical failings of Karma. He ends up portraying this to be a result of a class struggle. His question as to who bears the consequences of a sin committed by someone who was unfairly treated by society. The answer, even for atheists, is simple: he does. We are all responsible for our actions, God or no. Regardless of how unfairly he has been treated, he had all opportunity not to commit the crime. That he did is evidence that he bears the responsibility”.
    Here we go,…..He is talking about the Puranas, and the karmas, which is one of the integral part of indian hindu philosophy, but you are making totally irrelevant answer that he not talked about. He took the responsibility for the act he did, that why he courageously “stand like a man with the head high and erect to the last; even on the gallows”. But, when he is attacking “ideology about Karma”, if you dont follow or adore it, then say you dont, but why for any sake you blabbering that he doesnt know that who bears the responsibility ? its outrageous. You certainly no need to tell any atheist that sin doer should held responsible.

    May be for you, its simple being an atheist just not think god exist, but for singh he was an atheist not just he thought there is no need for god, but he is also an atheist, who stood against the atrocities practicing by religion and the need for all of us to oppose the same. Thats why he was a rebellious atheist.

  • Some analysis:

    1. The Universe exists so God exists: This is a form of the cosmological argument. Ockham’s razor applies- the fact that the universe exists is known. Introducing an intelligent creator requires an assumption that is orders of magnitude greater than the idea that the universe always existed. Sundeep, the problem with saying god can exist without the universe existing would require even greater assumptions with no new knowledge gained. Thus Ockham’s razor shaves another one.
    2. The argument from evil: This one is, as Sundeep points out, only restricted to certain world religions. However, if we were to try to prove philosophically that an intelligent designer cannot have created the universe, the argument from evil is restrictive. Of course god could have been a tyrant (in fact he often is, even in the major religions).

    The final debate here deals with the question of free-will. This is too complex an issue to debate here. I will simply say that free-will is a necessary illusion. Our moral systems have evolved to work around this illusion and a revised understanding of free-will will require drastic changes to our attitudes and society.

  • Indian_the_patriot,

    Thanks for your response. It’s always good to get another point of view. I’d like to just make clear from the outset that the existence of God as an entity has nothing to do with the beliefs of people of what that God is. That is, the existence of a being is different than the perception of that being. For me, atheism questions the existence, not just the perceptions and beliefs of various folk.

    Followers of different religions, from Christianity to Hinduism have different tenets and doctrines and perceptions of God. They may disagree with each other, but they’re all theists because they believe God exists, although they may not agree on what he is. For an atheist, the existence of God itself, not just what he is, is rejected.

    Your first point is right and that is what I was trying to get across. The existence of the universe has no bearing on the question of the existence of God. They are entirely separate questions, which is why I dismissed Singh’s argument as not atheistic. I hope you follow. Ajita, you’re right. Occam’s razor would not require the existence of God. But in and of itself, it is insufficient evidence against the existence of God. The razor requires the simplest answer is the best, but we cannot be sure, with Occam’s razor alone, that this is the correct answer in this instance. That is why I alluded to the idea that this argument was insufficient, not that it was entirely incorrect.

    Not all theists believe that evil is derived from Satan, Shaitan, the Devil, etc. Karma, for example, attributes evil deeds entirely to humans. This is a Buddhist view as well, I believe. Nevertheless, while I understand that Singh was arguing against religions (perceptions of God), he wasn’t arguing against the existence of God itself. One could believe everything Singh believes and be a Scientologist. But then he wouldn’t be an atheist, a rationalist. God could exist and be evil. Every religion would be wrong, but that doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist. As I said before, I see the existence of God as a different question as to whether religions are right.

    As for my diatribe about karma, it was a reference to this section:
    “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 toward society. Supposing that he commits a sin, who shall bear the consequences? God, or he, or the learned people of that society?”
    It is clear for both atheists and theists that people are responsible for their own decisions. Thus, there is no distinction between theism and atheism and as such, it is not a sufficient argument against theism.

    Again, I understand his arguments were against specific doctrines or ideas of certain religions which which he was familiar. However, my point is that these are insufficient arguments for an atheist. I can conceive of a theist who believes what Singh believes. He could believe that God created the universe for no reason, is evil (or not necessarily benevolent) and people are responsible for their own actions and he would be a theist. Singh took the opposite view. Why? It appears to be related to a distaste for religions and the activities of the religious. That is not enough for a rational atheist. It would be akin to believing that Russell’s teapot doesn’t exist simply because you don’t like teapots in general, or because it was shaped a certain way. It misses the point entirely.

    I do not think one is any less an atheist simply because he doesn’t argue against every single belief held by theists. One does not need to be militant to be an atheist and being militant does not make one more of an atheist. Atheism simply necessitates the disbelief in the existence of God, and I find Singh’s arguments to be insufficient in substantiating this disbelief.

  • Sundeep thanks for your comment.

    ////” Ajita, you’re right. Occam’s razor would not require the existence of God. But in and of itself, it is insufficient evidence against the existence of God. The razor requires the simplest answer is the best, but we cannot be sure, with Occam’s razor alone, that this is the correct answer in this instance. That is why I alluded to the idea that this argument was insufficient, not that it was entirely incorrect.”

    This is a misconception of what it is to be atheist. Of course, there are many nuances to the definition. The one you are alluding to is pre-science and asserts that there is no god, and does not offer any valid reason as to why that belief is tenable (therefore you don’t really have a defense of your type of atheism). Post Newtonian science does not recognize such absolutes. In the modern atheistic tradition, as espoused by Hume, Russell and the new scientific philosophers, there is an evidence based approach to knowledge. Therefore, there is no such thing as “no-god” since you cannot prove a negative. What you can do is talk about the probabilities for the existence of a god. This is less dogmatic and more evidence-based; a major switch in our thinking since the invention of the scientific method.

    This is the atheism of Dawkins, Dennett and almost every credible atheistic philosophers alive today. Now, many philosophers will say that that on a personal level they do not believe in a supernatural god, for practical matters, but the evidence based approach to atheism does not conclude so, it just strongly suggests it.

    Ockham’s razor does not attempt to dis-prove the existence of god, as you have falsely stated. It actually challenges the very presupposition of a god. If the invention of a god is an unnecessary assumption then it decreases the probability of its existence. If this assumption is given the qualities of an intelligent creator, the probability of this creator’s existence becomes negligible. This is atheism in the scientific sense.

    The form of Ockham’s razor you mention, that the simplest answer is the correct one, is actually a simplistic way to state the idea, robbing it of its usefulness. The scientific form of Ockham’s razor has to do with calculating likelihood of the assumptions involved. This makes it a scientific and statistical claim that can actually have useful implications.

    ////”Atheism simply necessitates the disbelief in the existence of God”

    This statement again is referring to pre-scientific atheism. It attempts to dismiss an unfalsifiable claim with another one, while offering no evidence for either claim (for or against god). This is not a useful definition in terms of actually knowing anything about what likelihood there is for and against the existence of god, in an objective reality.

    ////”It is clear for both atheists and theists that people are responsible for their own decisions. ”

    That is not at all clear. The question of free-will if far from settled, and if anything the naturalistic philosophers lean more towards dismissing entirely its existence in the objective sense. We function, both as individuals and as a society, under the illusion of free-will- a necessary illusion, one might say. But for all evidential purposes, we cannot use our intuition as a guide. Be careful when you go from making factual claims to making value judgments. Here you depart from describing reality to wishing for a particular one.

    ////”Again, I understand his arguments were against specific doctrines or ideas of certain religions which which he was familiar. However, my point is that these are insufficient arguments for an atheist. I can conceive of a theist who believes what Singh believes. ”

    Again, this is a narrow definition of atheism. Dawkins and Harris have used the term atheist to refer to a disbelief in an invisible pink unicorn. This is a semantic issue. Of course you can conceive of a theist who believes what Singh believes. That is if you define god as exactly what Singh believes. Therefore, if you define god as 2+2=4 or e=mc2, then I am a theist.

    ////”Every religion would be wrong, but that doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist. As I said before, I see the existence of God as a different question as to whether religions are right.”

    If you keep moving the goalposts, it is impossible to score a goal- If you keep altering your definition of god, the arguments will have to keep changing to the specific claims. You are under the impression that the idea of god is universally uniform. This is far from the truth. We can only address individual manifestations of god. If someone says god is all powerful and intelligent and created the universe, we can test the probability of those claims, given what we know about the universe.

    ////”I do not think one is any less an atheist simply because he doesn’t argue against every single belief held by theists. ”

    Of course not. One must, however, produce a sufficiently rational explanation to dismiss just the specific belief that the theist in question defines as god.

    ////”…I find Singh’s arguments to be insufficient…..”

    Unless you take into account the type of god definition he was addressing.

  • Ajita,

    I’m not entirely sure how far along the evolution of atheistic philosophy I lie, but I put it this way: I don’t believe in God because there is no evidence for any such being. The evidence has to provided by those who claim He exists. I don’t think this is a question of absolutes. Rather, the burden of proof hasn’t been met. That’s all.

    Now, the reason I say Occam’s razor alone is insufficient is that the razor claims that God is unnecessary and improbable, as you’ve stated. Even so, God could still exist. There would be no reason for this existence and it’s quite improbable but God could very likely exist for no reason at all. This is why I stated Occam’s (alone) was insufficient. I hope you follow.

    “Atheism simply necessitates the disbelief in the existence of God”

    I’m not sure what is the unfalsifiable claim in this. It merely covers the range of atheistic thought, from the belief that there is no God to the idea that there is no need to beleive in the existence of God. If you do not have a non-belief in the existence of God, I’m not sure how you could be an atheist. I’m not sure why the definition of an atheist has to be epistemologically or scientifically useful; it’s a label for people who have certain ideas.

    You are right that the question of free will is unsettled. My response, however, was contextual. Singh’s hypothetical question concerned causal responsibility and, consequently, moral responsibility. This was a reason for him not to believe in Karma. I did not suggest that all atheists and all theists believe the same thing. For me, there can be atheists who see moral responsibility as falling on people and those who see it as falling on society. Theists can do the same. As such, there is no real fundamental difference between the two on this question. That is, one’s theistic beliefs do not have a bearing on one’s answer to this question, which is why this argument was insufficient.

    I’m not altering my definition of God at all nor do I believe that the idea of god is universally uniform. That’s precisely my point. Singh chose to take on, in this essay, the religious view(s) of God. While this is fine, it does not cover all interpretations of God. You seem to agree with this. As such, religions could be wrong, while God could nevertheless still exist.

    I do not have a definition for God. I leave that to theists. There are specific criteria which apply to God such as omnipotence or moral supremacy. However, these do not apply equally across all religions.

  • Sundeep,

    It is the default position to say that there is no evidence for god, because you don’t consider what the religious people throw at you as “evidence”. Singh was addressing the forms of “evidence” that people presented to support their belief in a god, and dismissing them using reason. That is a different point altogether. See below for why your position is absolutist.

    I have already made it clear that Ockham’s razor does not attempt to disprove the existence of a god. It is the best way of establishing an EPISTEMOLOGY OF GOD. This is the method of science. Science does not determine that there is no god because there is no evidence, it can only provide probabilities. Consider the question of whether the sun will rise tomorrow: According to Hume, we don’t really know if it will, but an analysis of the evidence suggests that there is an infinitely large probability that it will rise again. Similarly, we dont really know if there is a god, but an analysis of the evidence suggests that the likelihood of one existing are very small.

    Of course there is a small probability that a god could exist but so is there a small probability that the sun will not rise tomorrow. We humans did not evolve to appreciate such probabilities because we needed to make absolutist decisions in order to survive. It is a good strategy, but absolutist nevertheless.

    Do you see now why your views are absolutist and how science differs in its approach?

    About “Atheism simply necessitates the disbelief in the existence of God”

    The hypothesis of a god is by definition an unfalsifiable claim. This is actually a scientific criticism of the existence of god (see Karl Popper). If you define atheism as necessitating the disbelief in the existence of god, that is unfalsifiable as well. Thats why I was trying to impress on the modern definition of atheism (there are countless sources on this). It is more popularly known as scientific atheism (as opposed to philosophical or dogmatic atheism). A falsifiable definition of atheism would say that atheism is the belief that god is highly unlikely, given the evidence. That way, there is room to falsify the claim.

    To the rest of your comment, I’ll remind you again that Singh was talking about a specific form of god belief that he was surrounded by. He was a 24 year old lad, not a philosopher writing a treatise on reason.

    I will mention, again, that we can only address those forms of god that are brought in front of us. If you define god as nature (as Spinoza did), I am a theist. Singh was addressing a particular set of god beliefs that contained a particular set of supernatural claims. He wasn’t making any claims about god beliefs that did not have the concept of karma built into them.

    About the definition of god, you have been making that assumption all along, only it is so deep in your thinking that you are not separating it from the idea of logic itself. Look at your statement “As such, religions could be wrong, while God could nevertheless still exist.” Which god are you talking about? You cannot claim that there could be many types of god depending on the definition and then claim that god could exist, without defining this god. WE CAN ONLY ADDRESS SPECIFIC GOD CLAIMS.

    The fact that the specific criteria such as omnipotence do not appear across the spectrum is precisely why we can only address specific claims. If you dont hone in on one specific definition, how do you even make the default absolutist claim that there is no evidence for a god. You DO use a definition for that purpose but are not aware of the fact that it is so built into your argument.