Bhagat Singh wrote “Why I am an Atheist” in 1930 when he was incarcerated in the Lahore central jail. This book was published in 1931 in Lala Lajpat Rai’s weekly, “The People.” To be clear, this is not a book but an essay of 24 pages. Later Periyar E.V. Ramasamy asked P. Jeevanandham to translate this essay into Tamil. This Tamil version was published in Periyar’s Tamil weekly, Kudi Arasu, in 1935. Afterwards, the English version of this essay was lost and some people translated this from the Tamil version back into English. It is these versions that we find today both online and offline.
This essay opens with a question whether vanity was the cause of Bhagat Singh’s atheism. Apparently, some people had blamed him of this and he responded to this accusation through this essay. According to him, pride or vainglory did not stand in the way of his belief. He simply denies the existence of the almighty supreme being and vanity is not the reason for it.
Bhagat Singh had been an atheist from when he was an obscure young man. He comes from a family of believers. In fact, he used to recite the Gayatri Mantra in school for hours. However, eventually he came to question his belief and started believing in disbelief. When he joined the revolutionary party and when he came to know his comrades well, he was surprised to find them having no idea of disbelief. In fact, these members were neither here nor there in matters of belief.
Bhagat Singh evolved in the revolutionary thought process through much reading. He first studied mysticism and blind faith and next he replaced them with the cult of realism. He ventured into the mysteries of the world, studied them, and found no direct proofs for them. Instead, what he found was a number of religions that were mutually incompatible with each other. Therefore, the lack of a single universal faith in this world was a proof that there was no God. Otherwise, how could He allow the existence of disparate religious beliefs that do not fit with each other?
It does not seem to occur to Bhagat Singh that God might have let different people worship him in different ways — one way is not superior or inferior to another. The conflicts and incompatibility among religions could be the result of human actions.
Bhagat Singh goes on to assert that a realist must challenge faith with reason. If the faith crumbles, then the realist must shatter the whole edifice down and clear a space for the erection of a new philosophy. However, Bhagat Singh did not endeavor to enlighten us on the new philosophy. What is it? How does it work? Is it as good as the one that is being shattered? We do not know.
Bhagat Singh himself admits to this lacuna in his words and I quote, “Let me admit, I have not been able to study much on this point.” Indeed, he seems to think one bird in the bush is worth two on hand. His theory is one of negation — the nonexistence of a supreme being. On the other hand, he will not let the believers rest easy. He asks the believers pertinent questions. He asks believers: why did God create all these and the purpose behind the creation. Not for Bhagat Singh — but for believers, creation has no purpose and it is up to them to reify creation and meaning and purpose through their actions and thoughts. If they fail in this task, it is hardly God’s fault.
Bhagat Singh claims that in this world created by God not a single soul is perfectly satisfied. He does not delve into the causes of this but explicitly ascribes it to the fault in the God. He reasons this maybe God’s law but a law that makes no sense to him. Further, he theorizes, God does all these for his pleasure such as emperor Nero or Genghis Khan would do. But these cruel people wrought suffering on a limited number of human beings but the almighty God on all humanity. According to Bhagat Singh, this world is a veritable hell. To buttress his claims, he calls out the ills of the world: poverty, suffering, slums, starvation; but, we wonder, why it does not strike Bhagat Singh that, after all, God did not create money. Bhagat Singh opines that the greatest sin in this world is to be poor — “Poverty is a sin. It is a punishment.” Again, the blame for creating money and the role money plays is placed at the door of God.
As per Bhagat Singh, punishment can be of 3 types: retributive, reformative, and deterrent. Out of these, reformative has significant scope but Hinduism gives no scope for reformation — after all, no one remembers one’s past. Hence, one is denied the opportunity to reform. One continues to suffer blindly without knowing the causes or effects. Bhagat Singh does not seem to consider the possibility that remembering all of one’s past will place an unbearable burden on one’s soul, and hence one is given the opportunity to reform with a clean slate and redemption through suffering.
Another question that Bhagat Singh raises is, “Why God does not stop every man from committing sin?” His assertion that God should intervene in the activities of man raises more questions. Will that make man an automaton, merely following the diktats of a superior being instead of thinking and choosing his activities? There are no answers to these in “Why I am an Atheist.” In Bhagat Singh’s opinion, God is someone who serves us as a bulwark against the weaknesses, shortcomings, and limitations of human beings. However, one hanging on coattails of God must face only distress.
This essay portrays a young and revolutionary mind — haunted by questions. Being witness to the insufferable cruelty of the imperialist towards his countrymen makes Bhagat Singh to assert, “God did not create man. It is man that created God.”
A must read to gain an insight into the mind of a truly great son of India.
