This is a gem found in Indian Skeptic site. A complete repost. The photo captured on phone from an exhibition. We have never scene such a face of bhagath singh.
*Why I Am An Atheist
By Bhagat Singh [written in jail in Oct. 1930]*
*He would have been 100 years old on 27 September 2007. *
*But, Bhagat Singh died a matyr at just 23 and a half years.
A new
question has cropped up. Is it due to vanity that I do not believe in
the existence of an omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient God? I had
never imagined that I would ever have to confront such a question. But
conversation with some friends has given me, a hint that certain of
my friends, if I am not claiming too much in thinking them to be so
- are inclined to conclude from the brief contact they have had with
me, that it was too much on my part to deny the existence of God and
that there was a certain amount of vanity that actuated my disbelief.
Well, the problem is a serious one. I do not boast to be quite above
these human traits. I am a man and nothing more. None can claim to be
more. I also have this weakness in me. Vanity does form a part of my
nature. Amongst my comrades I was called an autocrat. Even my friend
Mr. B.K. Dutt sometimes called me so. On certain occasions I was decried
as a despot. Some friends do complain and very seriously too that I
involuntarily thrust my opinions upon others and get my proposals accepted.
That this is true up to a certain extent, I do not deny. This may amount
to egotism. There is vanity in me in as much as our cult as opposed
to other popular creeds is concerned. But that is not personal. It may
be, it is only legitimate pride in our cult and does not amount to vanity.
Vanity or to be more precise "Ahankar" is the excess of undue pride
in one's self. Whether it is such an undue pride that has led me to
atheism or whether it is after very careful study of the subject and
after much consideration that I have come to disbelieve in God, is a
question that I, intend to discuss here. Let me first make it clear
that egotism and vanity are two different things.
In the
first place, I have altogether failed to comprehend as to how undue
pride or vaingloriousness could ever stand in the way of a man in believing
in God. I can refuse to recognize the greatness of a really great man
provided I have also achieved a certain amount of popularity without
deserving it or without having possessed the qualities really essential
or indispensible for the same purpose. That much is conceivable. But
in what way can a man believing in God cease believing due to his personal
vanity? There are only two Ways. The man should either begin to think
himself a rival of God or he may begin to believe himself to be God.
In neither case can he become a genuine atheist. In the first case he
does not even deny the existence of his rival. In the second case as
well he admits the existence of a conscious being behind the screen
guiding all the movements of nature.It is of no importance to us whether he
thinks himself to be that supreme being or whether he thinks the supreme
conscious being to be somebody apart from himself. The fundamental is there. His
belief is there. He is by no means an atheist. Well, here I am I neither belong
to the first category nor to the second. I deny the very existence of that
Almighty Supreme being. Why I deny it shall be dealt with later on. Here I want
to clear one thing, that it is not vanity that has actuated me to adopt the
doctrines of atheism. I am neither a rival nor an incarnation nor the Supreme
Being Himself. One point is decided, that it is not vanity that has led me to
this mode of thinking. Let me examine the facts to disprove this allegation.
According to these friends of mine I have grown vainglorious perhaps due to the
undue popularity gained during the trials-both Delhi Bomb and Lahore conspiracy
cases. Well, let us see if their premises are correct. My atheism is
not of so recent origin. I had stopped believing in God when I was an
obscure young man, of whose existence my above mentioned friends were
not even aware. At least a college student cannot cherish any short
of undue pride which may lead him to atheism. Though a favourite with
some professors and disliked by certain others, I was never an industrious
or a studious boy. I could not get any chance of indulging in such feelings
as vanity. I was rather a boy with a very shy nature, who had certain
pessimistic dispositions about the future career' And in those days,
I was not a perfect atheist. My grand-father under whose
influence I was brought up is an orthodox Arya Samajist. An Arya Samajist
is anything but an atheist. After finishing my primary education I joined
the D.A.V. School of Lahore and stayed in its Boarding House for full
one year. There, apart from morning and evening prayers, I used to recite
"Gayatri Mantra" for hours and hours. I was a perfect devotee in
those days. Later on I began to live with my father. He is a liberal
in as much as the orthodoxy of religions is concerned. It was through
his teachings that I aspired to devote my life to the cause of freedom.
But he is not an atheist. He is a firm believer. He used to encourage
me for offering prayers daily. So, this is how I was brought up. In
the Non-Co-operation days I joined the National College. it was there
that I began to think liberally and discuss and criticise all the religious
problems, even about God. But still I was a devout believer. By that
time I had begun to preserve the unshorn and unclipped long hair but
I could never believe in the mythology and doctrines of Sikhism or,
any other religion. But I had a firm faith in God's existence.
Later
on I joined the revolutionary party. The first leader with whom I came
in contact, though not convinced, could not dare to deny the existence
of God. On my persistent inquiries about God, he used to say, "Pray
whenever you want to". Now this is atheism less courage required for
the adoption of that creed. The second leader with whom I came in contact
was a firm believer. Let me mention his name-respected comrade Sachindra
Nath Sanyal, now undergoing life transportation in connexion with the
Karachi conspiracy case. From the every first page of his famous and
only book, "Bandi Jivan" (or Incarcerated Life), the Glory of God
is sung vehemently. In the last page of the second part of that beautiful
book his mystic-because of vedantism - praises showered upon God form
a very conspicuous part of his thoughts. "The Revolutionary leaflet"
distributed- throughout India on January 28th 1925, was according to
the prosecution story the result of his intellectual labour, Now, as
is inevitable in the secret work the prominent leader expresses his
own views-which are very dear to his person and the rest of the workers
have to acquiesce in them-in spite of differences, which they might
have. In that leaflet one full paragraph was devoted to praise the Almighty
and His rejoicings and doing. That is all mysticism. What I wanted to
point out was that the idea of disbelief had not even germinated in
the revolutionary party. The famous Kakori martyrs-all four of them-passed
their last day in prayers. Ram Prasad Bismil was an orthodox Arya Samajist.
Despite his wide studies in the field of Socialism and Communism, Rajen
Labiri could not suppress his desire, of reciting hymns of the Upanishads
and the Gita. I saw only one man amongst them, who never prayed and
used to say, "Philosophy is the outcome of human weakness or limitation
of knowledge". He is also undergoing a sentence of transportation
for life. But he also never
dared to deny the existence of God.
Up to
that period I was only a romantic idealist revolutionary. Uptil then
we were to follow. Now came the time to shoulder the whole responsibility.
Due to the inevitable reaction for some time the very existence of the
Party seemed impossible. Enthusiastic comrades-nay leaders-began to
jeer at us. For some time I was afraid that some day I also might not
be convinced of the futility of our own programme. That was a turning
point in my revolutionary career. "Study" was the cry that reverberated
in the corridors of my mind. Study to enable yourself to face the arguments
advanced by opposition. Study to arm yourself with arguments in favour
of your cult. I began to study. My previous faith and convictions underwent
a remarkable modification. The Romance of the violent methods alone
which was so prominent amongst our predecessors, was replaced by serious
ideas. No more mysticism, no more blind faith. Realism became our cult.
Use of force justifiable when resorted to as a matter of terrible necessity:
non-violence as policy indispensable for all mass movements. So much
about methods. The most important thing was the clear conception of
the ideal for which we were to fight, As there were no important activities
in the field of action I got ample opportunity to study various ideals
of the world revolution. I studied Bakunin, the Anarchist leader, something
of Marx the father of Communism and much of Lenin, Trotsky and others
the men who had successfully carried out a revolution in their country.
They were all atheists. Bakunin's "God and State", though only
fragmentary, is an interesting study of the subject. Later still I came
across a book entitled 'Common Sense' by Nirlamba Swami. It was
only a sort of mystic atheism. This subject became of utmost interest
to me. By the end of 1926 I had been convinced as to the baselessness
of the theory of existence of an almighty supreme being who created,
guided and controlled the universe. I had given out this disbelief of
mine. I began discussion on the subjects with my friends. I had become
a pronounced atheist. But, what it meant will presently be discussed.
In May
1927 I was arrested at Lahore. The arrest was a surprise. I was quite
unaware of the fact that the police wanted me. All of a sudden while
passing through a garden I found myself surrounded by police. To my
own surprise, I was very calm at that time. I did not feel any sensation,
neither did I experience any excitement. I was taken into police custody.
Next day I was taken to the Railway Police lock-up where I was to pass
full one month. After many day's conversation with the Police officials
I guessed that they had some information regarding my connection with
the Kakori Party and my other activities in connexion with the revolutionary
movement. They told me that I had been to Lucknow while the trial was
going on there, that I had negotiated a certain scheme about their rescue,
that after obtaining their approval, we had procured some bombs, that
by way of test one of the bombs was thrown in the crowd on the occasion
of Dussehra 1926. They further informed me, in my interest, that if
I could give any statement throwing some light on the activities of
the revolutionary party, I was not to be imprisoned but on the contrary
set free and rewarded even without being produced as an approver in
the Court. I laughed at the proposal. It was all humbug. People holding
ideas like ours do not throw bombs on their own innocent people. One
fine morning Mr. New man, the then Senior Superintendent of C.I.D.,
came to me. And after much sympathetic talk with me imparted-to
him-the extremely 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 for brutal murders in
connection with Dussehra Bomb outrage. And he further informed me that they
had evidence enough to get me convicted and hanged. In those days I
believed-though I was quite innocent-the police could do it if they desired.
That very day certain police officials began to persuade me to offer my prayers
to God regularly both the times. Now I-was an atheist. I wanted to settle for
myself whether it was in the days of peace and enjoyment alone that I could
boast of being an atheist or whether during such hard times as well I could
stick to those principles of mine. After great consideration I decided that I
could not lead myself to believe in and pray to God. No, I never did. That was
the real test and I came, out successful. Never for a moment did I desire to
save my neck at the cost of
certain other things. So I was a staunch disbeliever : and have ever
since been. It was not an easy job to stand that test. 'Belief'
softens the hardships, even can make them pleasant. In God man can find
very strong consolation and support. Without Him, I man has to depend
upon himself. To stand upon one's own legs amid storms and hurricanes
is not a child's play. At such testing moments, vanity-if any-evaporates,
and man cannot dare to defy the general beliefs, if he does, then we
must conclude that he has got certain other strength than mere vanity.
This is exactly the situation now. Judgment is already too well known.
Within a week it is to be pronounced. What is the consolation with the
exception of the idea that I am going to sacrifice my life for a cause
? A God-believing Hindu might be expecting to be reborn as a king, a
Muslim or a Christian might dream of the luxuries to be- enjoyed in
paradise and the reward he is to get for his sufferings and sacrifices.
But what am I to expect? I know the moment the rope is fitted round
my neck and rafters removed, from under my feet. that will be the final
moment-that will be the last moment. I, or to be more precise, my soul,
as interpreted in the metaphysical terminology, shall all be finished
there. Nothing further. A short life of struggle with no such magnificent
end, shall in itself be the reward if I have the courage to take it
in that light. That is all. With no selfish motive, or desire to be
awarded here or hereafter, quite disinterestedly have I devoted my life
to the cause of independence, because I could not do otherwise. The
day we find a great number of men and women with this psychology who
cannot devote themselves to anything else than the service of mankind
and emancipation of the suffering humanity; that day shall inaugurate
the era of liberty. Not to become a king, nor to gain any other rewards
here, or in the next birth or after death in paradise, shall they be
inspired to challenge the oppressors, exploiters, and tyrants, but to
cast off the yoke of serfdom from the neck of humanity and to establish
liberty and peace shall they tread this-to their individual selves perilous
and to their noble selves the only glorious imaginable-path. Is the
pride in their noble cause to be - misinterpreted as vanity? Who dares
to utter such an abominable epithet? To him, I say either he is a fool
or a knave. Let us forgive him for he can not realize the depth, the
emotion, the sentiment and the noble feelings that surge in that heart.
His heart is dead as a mere lump of flesh, his eyes are-weak, the evils
of other interests having been cast over them. Self-reliance is always
liable to be interpreted as vanity. It is sad and miserable but there
is no help.
You go and oppose
the prevailing faith, you go and criticise a hero, a great man, who
is generally believed to be above criticism because he is thought to
be infallible, the strength of your argument shall force the multitude
to decry you as vainglorious. This is due to the mental stagnation,
Criticism and independent thinking are the two indispensable qualities
of a revolutionary. Because Mahatmaji is great, therefore none should
criticise him. Because he has risen above, therefore everything he says-may
be in the field of Politics
or Religion, Economics or Ethics-is right. Whether you are convinced
or not you must say, "Yes, that's true". This mentality does not
lead towards progress. It is rather too obviously, reactionary.
Because our
forefathers had set up a faith in some supreme, being-the Al mighty God-
therefore any man who dares to challenge the validity of that faith, or the very
existence of that supreme being, he shall have to be called an apostate, a
renegade. If his arguments are too sound to be refuted by counter-arguments and
spirit too strong to be cowed down by the threat of misfortunes that may befall
him by the wrath of the Almighty-he shall be decried as vainglorious, his spirit
to be denominated as vanity. Then why to waste time in this vain discussion? Why
try to argue out the whole thing? This question is coming before the public for
the first time, and is being handled in this matter of fact way for the first
time, hence this lengthy discussion.
As for
the first question, I think I have cleared that it is not vanity that
has led me to atheism. My way of argument has proved to be convincing
or not, that is to be judged by my readers, not me. I know in the present,
circumstances my faith in God would have made my life easier, my burden
lighter and my disbelief in Him has turned all the circumstances too
dry and the situation may assume too harsh a shape. A little bit of
mysticism can make it poetical. But I, do not want the help of any intoxication
to meet my fate. I am a realist. I have been trying to overpower the
instinct in me by the help of reason. I have not always been successful
in achieving this end. But man's duty is to try and endeavour, success
depends upon chance and environments.
As for
the second question that if it was not vanity, then there ought to be
some reason to disbelieve the old and still prevailing faith of the
existence of God. Yes; I come to that now Reason there is. According
to. me, any man who has got some reasoning power at his command always
tries to reason out his environments. Where direct proofs are lacking
philosophy occupies the important place. As I have already stated, a
certain revolutionary friend used to say that Philosophy is the outcome
of human weakness. When our ancestors had leisure enough to try to solve
out the mystery of this world, its past, present and the future,
its whys and wherefores, they having been terribly short of direct proofs,
everybody tried to solve the problem in his own way. Hence we find the
wide differences in the fundamentals of various religious creeds, which
some times assume very antagonistic and conflicting shapes. Not only
the Oriental and Occidental philosophies differ, there are differences
even amongst various schools of thoughts in each hemisphere. Amongst
Oriental religions, the Moslem faith is not at all compatible with Hindu
faith. In India alone Buddhism and Jainism are sometimes quite separate
from Brahmanism, in which there are again conflicting faiths as Arya
Samaj and Sanatan Dharma. Charwak is still another independent thinker
of the past ages. He challenged the authority of God in the old times.
All these creeds differ from each other on the fundamental question.,
and everybody considers himself to be on the right. There lies the misfortune.
Instead of using the experiments and expressions of the ancient Savants
and thinkers as a basis for our future struggle against ignorance and
to try to find out a solution to this mysterious problem, we lethargical
as we have proved to be raise the hue and cry of faith, unflinching
and unwavering faith to their versions and thus are guilty of stagnation
in human progress.
Any man
who stands for progress has to criticise, disbelieve and challenge every item of the old faith.
Item by item he has to reason out every nook and corner of the prevailing
faith. If after considerable reasoning one is led to believe in any
theory or philosphy, his faith is welcomed. His reasoning can be mistaken,
wrong, misled and sometimes fallacious. But he is liable to correction
because reason is the guiding star of his life. But mere faith and blind
faith is dangerous: it dulls the brain, and makes a man reactionary.
A man who claims to be a realist has to challenge the whole of the ancient
faith. If it does not stand the onslaught of reason it crumbles down.
Then the first thing for him is to shatter the whole down and clear
a space for the erection of a new philosophy. This is the negative side.
After it begins the positive work in which sometimes some material of
the old faith may be used for the purpose of reconstruction. As far
as I am concerned, let me admit at the very outset that I have not been
able to study much on this point. I had a great desire to study the
Oriental Philosophy but I could not get any chance or opportunity to
do the same. But so far as the negative study is under discussion, I
think I am convinced to the extent of questioning the soundness of the
old faith. I have been convinced as to non-existence of a conscious
supreme being who is guiding and directing the movements of nature.
We believe in nature and the whole progressive movement aims at the
domination of man over nature for his service. There is no conscious
power behind it to direct. This is what our philosophy is.
As for the
negative side. we ask a few questions from the 'believers'.
(1) If,
as you believe, there is an almighty, omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent
God-who created the earth or world, please let me know why did he creat
it ? This world of woes and miseries, a veritable, eternal combination
of number less tragedies: Not a single soul being perfectly satisfied.
Pray,
don't say that it is His Law: If he is bound by any law, he is not
omnipotent. He is another slave like ourselves. Please don't say that
it is his enjoyment. Nero burnt one Rome. He killed a very limited number
of people. He created very few tragedies, all to his perfect enjoyment.
And what is his place in History ? By what names do the historians mention
him? All the venomous epithets are showered upon him. Pages are blackened
with invective diatribes condemning Nero, the tyrant, the heartless,
the wicked. One Changezkhan sacrificed a few thousand lives to seek
pleasure in it and we hate the very name. Then how are you going to
justify your almighty, eternal Nero, who has been, and is still causing
numberless tragedies every day, every hour and every minute ? How do
you think to support his misdoings which surpass those of Changez every
single moment? I say why did he create this world-a veritable hell,
a place of constant and bitter unrest ? Why did the Almighty create
man when he had the power not to do it ? What is the justification for
all this ? Do you say to award the innocent sufferers hereafter and
to punish the wrong-doers as well? Well, well: How far shall you justify
a man who may dare to inflict wounds upon your body to apply a very
soft and soothing liniment upon it afterwards? How far the supporters
and organisers of the Gladiator Institution were justified in throwing
men before the half starved furious lions to be cared for and well looked
after if they could survive and could manage to escape death by the
wild beasts? That is why I ask, 'Why did the conscious supreme being
created this world and man in it? To seek pleasure? Where then is the
difference between him and Nero'?
You Mohammadens
and Christians : Hindu Philosophy shall still linger on to offer another argument.
I ask you what is your answer to the above-mentioned question ? You
don't believe in previous birth. Like Hindus you cannot advance the
argument of previous misdoings of the apparently quite innocent suferers?
I ask you why did the omnipotent labour for six days to create the world
through word and each day to say that all was well. Call him today.
Show him the past history. Make him study the present situation. Let
us see if he dares to say, "All is well",
From
the dungeons of prisons, from the stores of starvation consuming
millions upon millions of human beings in slums and huts, from the
exploited labourers, patiently or say apathetically watching the
procedure of their blood being sucked by the Capitalist vampires, and
the wastage of human energy that will make a man with the least common
sense shiver with horror, and from the preference of throwing the
surplus of production in oceans rather than to distribute amongst the
needy producers-to the palaces of kings built upon the foundation
laid with human bones…. let him see all this and let him say "All is
well". Why and wherefore ? That is my question.You are silent. All
right then, I proceed. Well, you Hindus, you say all the present
sufferers belong to the class of sinners of the previous births.Good.
You say the present oppressors were saintly people in their
previous births, hence they enjoy power. Let me admit that your
ancestors were very shrewed people, they tried to find out theories
strong enough to hammer down all the efforts of reason and disbelief.
But let us analyse how far this argument can really stand.
From the
point of view of the most famous jurists punishment can be justified
only from three or four ends to meet which it is inflicted upon the
wrongdoer. They are retributive, reformative and deterrent. The retributive
theory is now being condemned by all the advanced thinkers. Deterrent
theory is also following the same fate. Reformative theory is the only
one which is essential, and indispensable for human progress. It aims
at returning the offender as a most competent and a peace-loving citizen
to the society. But what is the nature of punishment inflicted by God
upon men even if we suppose them to be offenders. You say he sends them
to be born as a cow, a cat, a tree, a herb or a beast. You enumerate
these punishments to be 84 lakhs. I ask you what is its reformative
effect upon man ? How many men have met you who say that they were born
as a donkey in previous birth for having committed any sin ? None. Don't
quote your Puranas. I have no scope to touch your mythologies. Moreover
do you know that the greatest sin in this world is to be poor. Poverty
is a sin, it is a punishment. I ask you how far would you appreciate
a criminologist, a jurist or a legislator who proposes such measures
of punishment which shall inevitably force man to commit more offences
? Had not your God thought of this or he also had to learn these things
by experience, but at the cost of untold sufferings to be borne by.
humanity ? What do you think shall be the fate of a man who has been
born in a poor and illiterate family of say a chamar or a sweeper. He
is poor, hence he cannot study. He is hated and shunned by his fellow
human beings who think themselves to be his superiors having been born
in say a higher caste. His ignorance, his poverty and the treatment
meted out to him shall harden his heart towards society. Suppose he
commits a sin, who shall bear the consequences? God, he or the learned
ones of, the society ? What about the punishment of those people who
were deliberately kept ignorant by the haughty and egotist Brahmans
and who had to pay the penalty by bearing the stream of being led (not
lead) in their ears for having heard a few sentences of your Sacred
Books of learning-the Vedas ? If they committed any offence- who was to be responsible
for them and who was to bear the brunt? My dear friends: These theories
are the inventions of the privileged ones: They justify their usurped
power, riches and superiority by the help of these theories. Yes: It
was perhaps Upton Sinclair, that wrote at some place, that just make
a man a believer in immortality and then rob him of all his riches,
and possessions. He shall help you even in that ungrudgingly. The coalition
amongst the religious preachers and possessors of power brought forth
jails, gallows, knouts and these theories.
I ask
why your omnipotent God, does not stop every man when he is committing
any sin or offence ? He can do it quite easily. Why did he not kill
war lords or kill the fury of war in them and thus avoid the catastrophe
hurled down on the head of humanity by the Great War? Why does he not
just produce a certain sentiment in the mind of the British people to
liberate India? Why does he not infuse the althuistic enthusiasm in
the hearts of all capitalists to forgo their rights of personal possessions
of means of production and thus redeem the whole labouring community-nay
the whole human society from the bondage of Capitalism. You want to
reason out the practicability of socialist theory, I leave it for your
almighty to enforce it. People recognize the merits of socialism in
as much as the general welfare is concerned. They oppose it under the
pretext of its being impracticable. Let the Almighty step in and arrange
everything in an orderly fashion. Now don't try to advance round about
arguments, they are out of order. Let me tell you, British rule is here
not because God wills it but because they possess power and we do not
dare to oppose them. Not that it is with the help of God that they are
keeping us under their subjection but it is with the help of guns and
rifles, bomb and bullets, police and millitia and our apathy that they
are successfully committing the most deplorable sin against society-
the outrageous exploitation of one nation by another. Where is God ?
What is he doing ? Is he enjoying all these woes of human race
? A Nero; A change (changez): Down with him :
Do you
ask me how I explain the origin of this world and origion of man ? Alright
I tell you. Charles Darwin has tried to throw some light on the subject.
Study him. Read Soham Swami's "Commonsense". It shall answer your
question to some extent. This is a phenomenon of nature. The accidental
mixture of different substances in the shape of nebulace produced this
earth. When ? Consult history. The same process produced animals and
in the long run man. Read Darwin's 'Origin of Species'. And all
the later progress is due to man's constant conflict with nature and
his efforts to override it. This is the briefest possible explanation
of this phenomenon.
Your other
argument may be just to ask why a child is born blind or lame if not due to his
deeds committed in the previous birth ? This problem has been explained away by
biologists as a more biological phenomenon. According to them the whole burden
rests upon the shoulders of the parents who may be conscious or ignorant of
their own deeds led to mutilation of the child previous to its birth.
Naturally you may ask another question-though
it is quite childish in essence. If no God existed, how did the people
come to believe in him? My answer is clear and brief. As they came to
believe in ghosts, and evil spirits; the only difference is that belief
in God is almost universal and the philosophy well developed. Unlike
certain of the radicals I would not attribute its origin to the ingenuity
of the exploiters who wanted to keep the people under their subjection
by preaching the existence of a supreme being and then claiming
an authority and sanction from him for their
privileged positions. Though I do not differ with them on the essential
point that all faiths, religions, creeds and such other institutions
became in turn the mere supporters of the tyrannical and exploiting
institutions, men and classes. Rebellion against king is always a sin
according to every religion.
As regards
the origin of God my own idea is that having realized the limitations
of man, his weaknesses and shortcoming having been taken into consideration,
God was brought into imaginary existence to encourage man to face boldly
all the trying circumstances, to meet all dangers manfully and to check
and restrain his outbursts in prosperity and affluence. God both with
his private laws and parental generosity was imagined and painted in
greater details. He was to serve as a deterrent factor when his fury
and private laws were discussed so that man may not become a danger
to society. He was to serve as a father, mother, sister and brother, friend and
helpers when his parental qualifications were to be explained. So that
when man be in great distress having been betrayed and deserted by all
friends he may find consolation in the idea that an ever true friend
was still there to help him, to support him and that He was almighty
and could do anything. Really that was useful to the society in the primitive
age. The idea of God is helpful to man in distress.
Society
has to fight out this belief as well as was fought the idol worship
and the narrow conception of religion. Similarly, when man tries to stand
on his own legs, and become a realist he shall have to throw the faith
aside, and to face manfully all the distress, trouble, in which the
circumstances may throw him. That is exactly my state of affairs. It
is not my vanity, my friends. It is my mode of thinking that has made
me an atheist. I don't know whether in my case belief in God and offering
of daily prayers which I consider to be most selfish and degraded act
on the part of man, whether these prayers can prove to be helpful or
they shall make my case worse still. I have read of atheists facing
all troubles quite boldly, so am I trying to stand like a man with an
erect head to the last; even on the gallows.
Let us see how
I carry on : one friend asked me to pray. When informed of my atheism, he said,
"During your last days you will begin to believe". I said, No, dear Sir, it
shall not be. I will think that to be an act of degradation and demoralization
on my part. For selfish motives I am not going to pray. Readers and friends, "Is
this vanity"? If it is, I stand for it.*
October 2003 to early February 2004: 
